Let's Make Players Salty! | Gluntch, the Bestower | Commander Legends Baldur's Gate Spoiler | MTG

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 112

  • @Player_not_found
    @Player_not_found 2 ปีที่แล้ว +84

    Wedding Ring doesn't work with Gluntch the way you explained, since you get extra draws only when your opponent draws during their own t urn, not when they draw during yours. Same goes for lifegain, but that's not relevant here...

    • @TheSullivan23
      @TheSullivan23 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      but you and your opponent have a copy of wedding ring. So it does take in effect with choosing a player to draw a card on you end step with Gluntch.

    • @Player_not_found
      @Player_not_found 2 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      @@TheSullivan23 That's not how Wedding Ring works. During your own turn, your own Wedding Ring will never trigger, it only triggers when your opponent draws during their own turn. During your turn, only your opponents' Wedding Rings will trigger, and only when you draw a card, not when anyone else does.

    • @Player_not_found
      @Player_not_found 2 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      @@TheSullivan23 Again, of course you do, but your ring NEVER triggers during your turn no matter how many times your opponents draw during it, because it says "Whenever [...] draws a card *during their turn*, you draw a card." If they draw during YOUR turn, they didn't draw during their turn, so you don't get to draw too.

  • @Foofoothegoon
    @Foofoothegoon 2 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    I think Yasharn, Implacable Earth fits pretty great in this deck too, just make sure you crack any Treasures you've assembled to cast it. Suddenly those Treasures mean diddly squat to hand out any more.

  • @chickungfu5647
    @chickungfu5647 2 ปีที่แล้ว +51

    This commander looks fun, I just wish all the good pairings for it weren't so expensive.

  • @63fahrenheit
    @63fahrenheit 2 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    You could also give the counters to a player with no creatures to cancel that effect and only benefit 1 opponent

  • @zacharyjoy8724
    @zacharyjoy8724 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    You may not care for Group Hug, but that’s how I want to try this guy. It’ll be my *only* deck with that strategy, and I prefer building different fun decks over competitive ones. Plus, I’m a terrible politician.

  • @Cocytus127
    @Cocytus127 2 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Viridian Revel is a card a lot of people sleep on. With how prominent treasure is in EDH, I would almost consider it an auto include in any green EDH deck.

  • @pbhill8350
    @pbhill8350 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    This seems to me a good candidate for 2 headed commander, giving your partner and yourself the best options

  • @slysloth3986
    @slysloth3986 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Really like the look of this card would love to make it a group hug deck of some sort

  • @rayg3116
    @rayg3116 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    How is it that, every time I start to dig for a new commander, you already have a sick decklist that costs twenty bucks. You make my bougie service industry friends SO mad. Care to update this one?
    This dude is way gnarlier than Kwain and the Hippo.

  • @fajenthygia5760
    @fajenthygia5760 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I run a 2/X tribal deck, with stuff like Retribution of the Meek and Meekstone. Anything that can boost my opponent's creatures into the danger zone is a godsend.

  • @armoredbear9668
    @armoredbear9668 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The true "Offer you can't refuse"...

  • @georgeresso6835
    @georgeresso6835 ปีที่แล้ว

    dont forget..u can choose a player without creatures for the +1/+1 counters(edge cases?)

  • @dreddbolt
    @dreddbolt 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Gluntch (the Bestower) would enjoy the vow and impetus auras I think.

  • @Jimmy-z2g
    @Jimmy-z2g 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Gluntch would make a great group hug deck for EDH archenemy

  • @ahlakazam11
    @ahlakazam11 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Seems funny to me that some people really think you could choose yourself 3 times... Event if you don't think about the wording, being able to choose yourself three times would be Okko level busted...

    • @StormTheOnigiri
      @StormTheOnigiri 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      i mean you can, and it is.

  • @Themetaldad
    @Themetaldad 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I love this i wanna build this i feel you can pull alot of swing with this theres so much value here not to mention if you play a plus 1 theme seems kinda busted

  • @fenixiliusstrife1253
    @fenixiliusstrife1253 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    How would this work in vintage/legacy/cedh, does the last ability just never happen? If all players must be different players than you can never choose a third player, meaning the third ability would be null and void.
    I think WoTC may not have thought this card out very well.

    • @markbrierley6367
      @markbrierley6367 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Because of the periods and the absence of targeting you resolve as much of the ability as you can.

  • @shinykitsunelive
    @shinykitsunelive 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I literally have a Gahiji deck, I saw the card and was like "this is perfect, i need one"

  • @johnquiett1085
    @johnquiett1085 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    New commander for the Vorinclex from Kaldheim set. Give out half as many +1/+1 counters but get double for yourself.

  • @obnoxiousdog6496
    @obnoxiousdog6496 2 ปีที่แล้ว +28

    Couldn’t you just choose yourself everytime since it says choose a player, and not “choose a different player each time”

    • @hodgmanderp4613
      @hodgmanderp4613 2 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      No. Then it would say something like, "At the beginning of your end step, target creature gets two +1/1 counters, target player draws a card, and target player creates two treasure tokens. You may choose different targets for each."
      You have to take in the fact that this is from a Commander Legends set. It's obvious that it's meant to target different players in a game of commander.

    • @firkinfright5168
      @firkinfright5168 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Was thinking the same thing. I can't see the restriction for yourself being "second", "third" as well as "a".

    • @obnoxiousdog6496
      @obnoxiousdog6496 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@hodgmanderp4613 yes that’s how it was intended but, the text doesn’t restrict you from picking yourself all three times, I’m not saying it’s how it’s intended, but is possible since it’s not stated otherwise, but again that’s how’s I read it

    • @chaddurns2329
      @chaddurns2329 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      A second player implies another player.

    • @flameofmage1099
      @flameofmage1099 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      On the gatherer and other sources it specifies you need to choose a different player each time

  • @nickatwork
    @nickatwork 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I wish Wedding Ring worked that way, but you literally read the card out loud and it contradicted how Gluntch works

  • @igorlemes1123
    @igorlemes1123 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Ok, will be adding this to my Kros deck

  • @KSE828
    @KSE828 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    A couple of points:
    1. That card at the beginning is Majestic Genesis, not Majestic Creation.
    1. I wouldn’t call $3 expensive for Viridian Revel.

    • @3rdBreakfast
      @3rdBreakfast ปีที่แล้ว +1

      The channel is called The Commander's "Quarters"

  • @crazypatchy1
    @crazypatchy1 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Can you choose the same player for all or some of these? Is it ruled that player 1, 2 and 3 have to be different players?

    • @i20918
      @i20918 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yes, there is no: "choose a diffrent player each time clausule".

  • @logangant7732
    @logangant7732 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I NEED IT IN MY JARED DECK

  • @MycobraII
    @MycobraII 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    The wording of the card doesn't say 'opponent' or 'different player' so technically couldn't you choose yourself for each trigger?

  • @erikwilliams1562
    @erikwilliams1562 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    what possible win cons do you have for this deck?

    • @zacharyjoy8724
      @zacharyjoy8724 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      My question exactly. One I saw on EDHREC was Felidar Sovereign, but that’s dedicated to life gain. So…I dunno.

  • @bryanwoolbertmusic
    @bryanwoolbertmusic 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Why is this not in blue?

  • @xampleloginname
    @xampleloginname 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I like this guy.

  • @dminard1
    @dminard1 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    First, second and third players imply that these are not the same person. It's just stating "an other player who you haven't chosen yet" with fewer words

  • @jacksona9260
    @jacksona9260 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    all the hard work o get us the spoliers XD

  • @saint6777
    @saint6777 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    I wonder if you can choose yourself for all of them because the text dosent say a different player

    • @facelessgames94
      @facelessgames94 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      The first player cannot be the second player, and both can also not be the third player. Different titles/status, different players

    • @facelessgames94
      @facelessgames94 2 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@longdangley logic doesn't always need rulings.

  • @douglassmith8069
    @douglassmith8069 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    This doesn't say choose a different player or choose another player so can't you just choose yourself each time

    • @TheFootballstar5588
      @TheFootballstar5588 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      You cant be the second and third player, that would imply you are multiple players

  • @AngelusNielson
    @AngelusNielson 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    I believe it's pronounced to rhyme with flumph, as that's what Grunch is.

  • @danielfrazier5586
    @danielfrazier5586 2 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Card doesn't contain the word "another" or "different" so what prevents you from choosing the same player multiple times.

    • @davidruff4826
      @davidruff4826 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I was thinking the same thing. Are we missing something, like a change to the cards text stating it has to be a different player?

    • @Nokus416
      @Nokus416 2 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      I think the words "second" and "third" here are the imperative words implying that they have to be different players

    • @apjapki
      @apjapki 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@Nokus416 Exactly right.

    • @danielfrazier5586
      @danielfrazier5586 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Nokus416 those words allow you to choose a second player, or you can choose the same player for a second time.

    • @Doofindork
      @Doofindork 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Because otherwise you'd pick yourself all three times. You assign three different people, 1, 2, and 3, and those players get one of the things you assigned them to.

  • @hawkeye1131
    @hawkeye1131 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Choose yourself three times?

  • @MarcosAntonio-fl5ox
    @MarcosAntonio-fl5ox 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Auto include in Kros, defense contractor decks, counters for a goaded creature, draw or ramp for you 0/

  • @st.patrickstar3701
    @st.patrickstar3701 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    There’s no text that says different player or player who hasn’t been chosen yet, so can’t you just choose yourself for all three players. So first player is me, second is also me, and thirdly me.

    • @LuciferVonCarstein
      @LuciferVonCarstein 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      No. The very use of first, second, and third clearly indicates separate players. This is basic English.

    • @st.patrickstar3701
      @st.patrickstar3701 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@LuciferVonCarstein nope. It’s not clear. First second and third only imply order. Nothing in the text that says the same player can’t be chosen each time.

    • @murphyspell7125
      @murphyspell7125 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@st.patrickstar3701 no, you just didn't pay enough attention in Jr. High English classes...maybe even elementary school.

    • @st.patrickstar3701
      @st.patrickstar3701 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@murphyspell7125 how so? What part was incorrect?

  • @thelasercow8670
    @thelasercow8670 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Don't over use your sodium chloride mitch, stuff isn't everywhere.

  • @seniorwatashi
    @seniorwatashi 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Can you choose the same player for all of the mods?

  • @cokebottlepopper23
    @cokebottlepopper23 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Meek stone is 2 or greater now

  • @fishyfish201
    @fishyfish201 ปีที่แล้ว

    I like playing Gluntch with strangers as an aggro deck for maximum confuddlement.

  • @therealkermit4199
    @therealkermit4199 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Love this

  • @yungo1rst
    @yungo1rst 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    This should have been a horror creature type as flumphs are lawful good aberrations in the game.

  • @cuckoophendula8211
    @cuckoophendula8211 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Wait a second, is it customary to assume that commander matches are 4 player games unless otherwise specified? I always picture it as multiplayer with whoever is available(?) :p

    • @williamfolkesson944
      @williamfolkesson944 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      From my experiance most playgroups usually gather in groups of four. As such this is also how people are grouped in tournaments etc. Of course you can have however many people you want in your pod but it's wise to assume that most games are 4 players

    • @markbrierley6367
      @markbrierley6367 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      CQ always assumes 4. They're very wrong to do so without qualifying.

    • @cuckoophendula8211
      @cuckoophendula8211 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@williamfolkesson944 Ah thanks for the info. I guess this is coming from someone who tends to play more "kitchen table" Magic rather than LGS and tournament Magic.

    • @phantom_dragon
      @phantom_dragon 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      It’s “supposed to be” but I play with 6 other people

  • @travismcdonald2713
    @travismcdonald2713 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    It says player so me only me no one else.

  • @andrewsnowdon5271
    @andrewsnowdon5271 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Am I the only person here that has one of those groups that you would never get political favor for selecting people for the modes? The way it always goes in our group, if you have a mandatory trigger of group hug, nobody is giving up one thing for that because you still have to activate it regardless, and the only real game changer is the treasures mode which can just be given to the controller anyway.

    • @SirGrimLockSmithVIII
      @SirGrimLockSmithVIII ปีที่แล้ว

      I think the idea is that there's always one player who potentially won't get anything from Gluntch's trigger if you target yourself. So there's at least a little bargaining power if you decide to withhold Gluntch's gifts from a particular player even if doing so makes you a kingmaker or something.

  • @murphyspell7125
    @murphyspell7125 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    People, please remember your elementary school education and know that if there are 4 competitors, one of them can't win first, second, and third place...
    Conversely, you can't be the first, second, and third player chosen.

  • @danhan121
    @danhan121 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Nice they have finally created a card for my Willy Wonka JIF. Good day sir

  • @tylergamble6901
    @tylergamble6901 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Can you make a full deck tech for your political idea? Maybe a break the bank episode?

  • @autobotjazz1972
    @autobotjazz1972 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    interesting card. i would need to do a bit of research to best divine how to use this to benefit me most and my opponents least. That said definitely fodder for political uses in commander.

  • @miru021
    @miru021 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    It's a jellyfish and it's not at least blue ... WHY?

  • @kanvaros4451
    @kanvaros4451 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Can you choose the same player ? If so this would get out of control FAST

  • @bobbymichealson798
    @bobbymichealson798 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Do you have a political control deck tech?

  • @markbrierley6367
    @markbrierley6367 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    I'm pretty sure you have to copy the same modes chosen with the Strionic Resonator copy.
    Wedding Ring does not combo with Glunch.
    Glunch is not a 0/0.
    I would prefer if you didn't assume 4 players at a pod or at least qualified that choice at least the first time it's stated in a video.
    Interesting take. In my playgroup the player running your style of deck would be hated out very quickly.

  • @arpeykeys
    @arpeykeys 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Guys. You cannot say you yourself are the second or third player when there are at least 2 other players. I don't see how its easy to misinterpret that.

    • @bigchungus2536
      @bigchungus2536 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      You're definitely wrong. You can be the 2nd or third player as long as there are at least 3 players.

    • @arpeykeys
      @arpeykeys 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@bigchungus2536 apply that logic to any other English sentence. You can't be first and second place. You can't be the first person to arrive and the second person to arrive. The fact they distinctly say first, second, third means you must choose different players

    • @bigchungus2536
      @bigchungus2536 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@arpeykeys oh yeah it's gotta be different players for each choice. Your comment made it sound like you thought you could only be the "first" player (the counters choice). So nevermind.

    • @arpeykeys
      @arpeykeys 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@bigchungus2536 oh, yea. I said "2nd or third" when I should've used and. Mb

  • @TheDougWay
    @TheDougWay 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Again leaving out Generous Patron. Who wouldn't want to put 2 counters on an opponents creature and either draw a total of 3 cards or draw 2 cards and get 2 treasure tokens? It's just too much value to not use in this deck.

    • @prishdian
      @prishdian 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      I dont think it works with gluntch. Because it said the chosen player is the one that put +1 counters on a creature they control. You only choose the player

  • @louis729
    @louis729 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Help other players,it don’t have any wincon 🤦🏻‍♂️

    • @zacharyjoy8724
      @zacharyjoy8724 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yeah, you have to find one elsewhere. Annoying, but doable, right?

  • @ZenodudeMC
    @ZenodudeMC 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    You couldnt you just put everything on yourself?

  • @blazingglory2462
    @blazingglory2462 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    First

  • @Rs2005markus
    @Rs2005markus 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Generous Patron?

  • @akilleronly
    @akilleronly ปีที่แล้ว

    That how o play nice then men

  • @RKlovecraft
    @RKlovecraft 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    They should have added Blue to its color, most jellyfish are in blue if not all

    • @zacharyjoy8724
      @zacharyjoy8724 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      But did Bant really need the help?