Belzenlok, Soul Swindler2BB
Legendary Demon
Flying, lifelink
If you would win the game, you may pay 20 life instead. If you do, you win the game. Otherwise, you lose the game. "The victory may belong to you, Liliana Vess, but you belong to me."
6/6
My attempt at a top-down Demon who trades his power for your soul. He will win the fight for you, but the price is your soul.
Interesting, but potentially very unintuitive since it does not also prevent opponents from losing the game like Abyssal Persecutor.
If an opponent concedes while you have 20 life or less, you will still win. That makes sense and is fine.
However, an effect which reads "you win the game" like Approach of the Second Sun instead causes all opponents to lose the game when playing multiplayer. Those opponents leave the game as a result of losing (Comprehensive Rules 104.5), which immediately causes you to win the game regardless of card effects (C.R. 104.2a). Thus, you win without ever paying the 20 life.
More specifically the ability is pointless and useless as written since it has a 'may' clause in it. Meaning that its optional and you can just choose not to use it. But making it mandatory would make it just as useless because no ones going to bother putting a card in thier deck that makes them potentially lose the game for winning. And the flavor makes no sense either. Said demon should be offering its services at a price, not getting its services for free then not being able to rend said price from you.
Also theres a pattern now and Belzenlok has to be a 5/5 or a 9/9. Kothophed is a 6/6. Griselbrand is a 7/7. And Razaketh is an 8/8.
Belzenlok the Tormenter (No casting cost)
{B} Legendary Creature - Demon (M)
Flying, menace
If you would lose the game, instead reveal this card from your hand and put it onto the battlefield.
When Belzenlok enters enters the battlefield, your life total becomes 0.
Your life total can't change.
You can't lose the game and your opponents can't win the game.
9/9
Now this act like a demon. Keeps you from losing but makes you need him around to stay alive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOut of the ground,I rise to grace...W BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
However, an effect which reads "you win the game" like Approach of the Second Sun instead causes all opponents to lose the game when playing multiplayer. Those opponents leave the game as a result of losing (Comprehensive Rules 104.5), which immediately causes you to win the game regardless of card effects (C.R. 104.2a). Thus, you win without ever paying the 20 life.
Why does Approach cause opponents to lose the game in multiplayer? I can't find anything that says "you win the game" cards function differently in multiplayer and the only thing I could find implies they don't function that way.
104.2. There are several ways to win the game.
104.2b An effect may state that a player wins the game.
Also this demon doesn't care if you have exactly 20 life, he will take his payment and win you the game before statebased actions are performed. Also as long as you aren't using actual "win the game" cards this guys wording at best causes draws, because you will win as a result of your opponent losing, which makes this guys care but the opponent has already lost you losing won't change that so its wording may not even be functional.
But making it mandatory would make it just as useless because no ones going to bother putting a card in thier deck that makes them potentially lose the game for winning.
Abyssal Persecutor was played while it was in standard. This is more or less the same thing.
More specifically the ability is pointless and useless as written since it has a 'may' clause in it. Meaning that its optional and you can just choose not to use it.
That's not correct at all. The "instead" marks this as a replacement ability - rather than winning the game you have a choice of paying 20 life or losing the game instead. Winning without paying 20 life is not an option.
However, an effect which reads "you win the game" like Approach of the Second Sun instead causes all opponents to lose the game when playing multiplayer. Those opponents leave the game as a result of losing (Comprehensive Rules 104.5), which immediately causes you to win the game regardless of card effects (C.R. 104.2a). Thus, you win without ever paying the 20 life.
Why does Approach cause opponents to lose the game in multiplayer? I can't find anything that says "you win the game" cards function differently in multiplayer and the only thing I could find implies they don't function that way.
104.2. There are several ways to win the game.
104.2b An effect may state that a player wins the game.
Also this demon doesn't care if you have exactly 20 life, he will take his payment and win you the game before statebased actions are performed. Also as long as you aren't using actual "win the game" cards this guys wording at best causes draws, because you will win as a result of your opponent losing, which makes this guys care but the opponent has already lost you losing won't change that so its wording may not even be functional.
To be clear, it used to work this way but outside of the Limited Range of Influence Option, it no longer does. In normal multiplayer Magic, if something says you wind the game, then you just win the game.
The rule for the Limited Range of Influence option:
104.3h. In a multiplayer game using the limited range of influence option (see rule 801), an effect that states that a player wins the game instead causes all of that player's opponents within the player's range of influence to lose the game. This may not cause the game to end.
Also, regarding your last comment, you can't pay life you don't have. So, if you don't have at least 20 life, you can't pay it.
To clarify, I got this wording from cards like Mox Diamond. It's phrased as an optional action, so you don't technically have to take that action. If you don't, however, it replaces the original effect. I believe this works as intended in the rules.
Also, regarding your last comment, you can't pay life you don't have. So, if you don't have at least 20 life, you can't pay it.
Which is why I specified EXACTLY 20 life.
That's interesting about the limited range, but it's a narrow problem. And the problem of the normal way in which you winning the game being all opponents have lost is the major concern.
Also, regarding your last comment, you can't pay life you don't have. So, if you don't have at least 20 life, you can't pay it.
Which is why I specified EXACTLY 20 life.
That's interesting about the limited range, but it's a narrow problem. And the problem of the normal way in which you winning the game being all opponents have lost is the major concern.
I must have misunderstood the point you were trying to make. Yes, being at exactly 20 life still lets you win in this case.
I am not sure if you read the rest of my post, but if you win in a multiplayer game (or 1v1 for that matter), you just win. There is no problem. Your opponents don't lose so nothing that cares about them losing doesn't interact with this situation.
Also, regarding your last comment, you can't pay life you don't have. So, if you don't have at least 20 life, you can't pay it.
Which is why I specified EXACTLY 20 life.
That's interesting about the limited range, but it's a narrow problem. And the problem of the normal way in which you winning the game being all opponents have lost is the major concern.
I must have misunderstood the point you were trying to make. Yes, being at exactly 20 life still lets you win in this case.
I am not sure if you read the rest of my post, but if you win in a multiplayer game (or 1v1 for that matter), you just win. There is no problem. Your opponents don't lose so nothing that cares about them losing doesn't interact with this situation.
The second part wasn't talking about what you said, it was talking about the original ability. It looks for you winning the game. The typical method one wins the game through is by making your opponents lose. So the ability doesn't function because it is making you lose the game after your opponents have already lost, at best resulting in a tie.
"If you would win the game or your final opponent would lose the game..."
That way it would check to see if you would win via your opponents losing, avoiding a tie.
Why bother with the "final" part? Why not just "If you would win the game or an opponent would lose the game you may pay 20 life instead. If you do, you win the game. If you don't, you lose the game."?
User's wording would actually result in something much more broken than that, Watchwolf: if you can make one opponent lose and have 20 life to pay, you just win. Regardless of any remaining opponents.
yeah, that's not what I'm aiming for. in a multiplayer, this guy would stall the game until it's gone, because nobody would want to kill anyone else. that, of course, is assuming that you have 20 or more life to pay when a player ends up dying, but that doesn't change the fact that it's really not the kind of situation I want this card to create.
yeah, that's not what I'm aiming for. in a multiplayer, this guy would stall the game until it's gone, because nobody would want to kill anyone else. that, of course, is assuming that you have 20 or more life to pay when a player ends up dying, but that doesn't change the fact that it's really not the kind of situation I want this card to create.
Your wording or mine, it wouldn't lead to a stall in multiplayer, it would lead to you being the focus because unless another player already has a game ending/controlling board position, this guy is too big a threat(early at least, after that much dumber things can be done).
If you want to keep it the other way I think it needs to be "last" not "final".
Your wording or mine, it wouldn't lead to a stall in multiplayer, it would lead to you being the focus because unless another player already has a game ending/controlling board position, this guy is too big a threat(early at least, after that much dumber things can be done).
If you want to keep it the other way I think it needs to be "last" not "final".
Your wording or mine, it wouldn't lead to a stall in multiplayer, it would lead to you being the focus because unless another player already has a game ending/controlling board position, this guy is too big a threat(early at least, after that much dumber things can be done).
If you want to keep it the other way I think it needs to be "last" not "final".
Out of curiosity, why "last" instead of "final?"
Last is the current term used on cards to refer to such an occurrence, while final isn't used at all. See any card with Suspend, Riftwing Cloudskate
"If you would win the game or one or more of your opponents would lose the game, you may pay life equal to your starting life total. If you do, you win the game. Otherwise, you lose the game"
This template gives some interesting options. First, "starting life total" makes it less broken in Commander. Second, "if ... one or more opponents would lose the game" helps prevent multiple triggers in situations where multiple players would "lose" at the same time, but not from a "you win the game effect"
The penalty also becomes an alternate win condition and a harsher drawback at the same time: since it trigger on one or more player's losing, the trigger will happen if one player dies, and if you pay you win the game. However, it also make it harder to predict when you would have to pay the life so an opponent who can snipe another player at the wrong time can take you out as well if you cannot pay. That might even make a 20 life payment reasonable for commander, but its still questionable.
"If you would win the game or one or more of your opponents would lose the game, you may pay life equal to your starting life total. If you do, you win the game. Otherwise, you lose the game"
This template gives some interesting options. First, "starting life total" makes it less broken in Commander. Second, "if ... one or more opponents would lose the game" helps prevent multiple triggers in situations where multiple players would "lose" at the same time, but not from a "you win the game effect"
The penalty also becomes an alternate win condition and a harsher drawback at the same time: since it trigger on one or more player's losing, the trigger will happen if one player dies, and if you pay you win the game. However, it also make it harder to predict when you would have to pay the life so an opponent who can snipe another player at the wrong time can take you out as well if you cannot pay. That might even make a 20 life payment reasonable for commander, but its still questionable.
Having to pay multiple times for opponents dying simultaneously was never a problem because the first payment would win the game thus removing the requirement for other payments. Its already been covered that this isn't meant to be an alternate win condition in multiplayer. So any wording that makes it one is unacceptable. The pay your starting lifetotal is a worthwhile consideration, but it depends on whether this was purposefully meant to be stronger in formats with higher starting lifetotals.
Given that he has Lifelink, I would think that the number should be higher than 20. I would also give him Indestructible and make him untargetable by your own effects. This guy is far too easy for his owner to remove for his stats. I think
4BB
9/9
Flying, Lifelink, Indestructible
Belzenlok cannot be targeted by your spells and abilities.
If you would win the game, you may pay 20 life instead. If you do, you win the game. Otherwise, you lose the game.
"The victory may belong to you, Liliana Vess, but you belong to me."
It can't be simply "If you would win the game..." because the normal way you win is a game state check after all of your opponents have lost, unless you want his ability to function as a draw rather than a loss. Then there is the problem of multiplayer, so his ability can't simply look for players losing because that let's you win by killing one player.
It can't be simply "If you would win the game..." because the normal way you win is a game state check after all of your opponents have lost, unless you want his ability to function as a draw rather than a loss. Then there is the problem of multiplayer, so his ability can't simply look for players losing because that let's you win by killing one player.
I'm starting to get de ja vu...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Legendary Demon
Flying, lifelink
If you would win the game, you may pay 20 life instead. If you do, you win the game. Otherwise, you lose the game.
"The victory may belong to you, Liliana Vess, but you belong to me."
6/6
My attempt at a top-down Demon who trades his power for your soul. He will win the fight for you, but the price is your soul.
If an opponent concedes while you have 20 life or less, you will still win. That makes sense and is fine.
However, an effect which reads "you win the game" like Approach of the Second Sun instead causes all opponents to lose the game when playing multiplayer. Those opponents leave the game as a result of losing (Comprehensive Rules 104.5), which immediately causes you to win the game regardless of card effects (C.R. 104.2a). Thus, you win without ever paying the 20 life.
- Rabid Wombat
Also theres a pattern now and Belzenlok has to be a 5/5 or a 9/9. Kothophed is a 6/6. Griselbrand is a 7/7. And Razaketh is an 8/8.
Belzenlok the Tormenter (No casting cost)
{B} Legendary Creature - Demon (M)
Flying, menace
If you would lose the game, instead reveal this card from your hand and put it onto the battlefield.
When Belzenlok enters enters the battlefield, your life total becomes 0.
Your life total can't change.
You can't lose the game and your opponents can't win the game.
9/9
Now this act like a demon. Keeps you from losing but makes you need him around to stay alive.
BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
Also this demon doesn't care if you have exactly 20 life, he will take his payment and win you the game before statebased actions are performed. Also as long as you aren't using actual "win the game" cards this guys wording at best causes draws, because you will win as a result of your opponent losing, which makes this guys care but the opponent has already lost you losing won't change that so its wording may not even be functional.
Abyssal Persecutor was played while it was in standard. This is more or less the same thing.
That's not correct at all. The "instead" marks this as a replacement ability - rather than winning the game you have a choice of paying 20 life or losing the game instead. Winning without paying 20 life is not an option.
Your version is obnoxiously overpowered.
- Rabid Wombat
The rule for the Limited Range of Influence option:
Also, regarding your last comment, you can't pay life you don't have. So, if you don't have at least 20 life, you can't pay it.
That's interesting about the limited range, but it's a narrow problem. And the problem of the normal way in which you winning the game being all opponents have lost is the major concern.
I am not sure if you read the rest of my post, but if you win in a multiplayer game (or 1v1 for that matter), you just win. There is no problem. Your opponents don't lose so nothing that cares about them losing doesn't interact with this situation.
"If you would win the game or your final opponent would lose the game..."
That way it would check to see if you would win via your opponents losing, avoiding a tie.
Most Used (of many dozens) EDH Decks:
Brago, King Eternal - Stax
Grenzo, Dungeon Warden - Aggro Combo
Wort, the Raidmother - Spellslinger Swarm Control
Animar, Soul of Elements - Tempo Combo
Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder - Spellslinger
Exodia the Forbidden One:
Oona, Queen of the Fae - Combowins.dec
If you want to keep it the other way I think it needs to be "last" not "final".
This template gives some interesting options. First, "starting life total" makes it less broken in Commander. Second, "if ... one or more opponents would lose the game" helps prevent multiple triggers in situations where multiple players would "lose" at the same time, but not from a "you win the game effect"
The penalty also becomes an alternate win condition and a harsher drawback at the same time: since it trigger on one or more player's losing, the trigger will happen if one player dies, and if you pay you win the game. However, it also make it harder to predict when you would have to pay the life so an opponent who can snipe another player at the wrong time can take you out as well if you cannot pay. That might even make a 20 life payment reasonable for commander, but its still questionable.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
4BB
9/9
Flying, Lifelink, Indestructible
Belzenlok cannot be targeted by your spells and abilities.
If you would win the game, you may pay 20 life instead. If you do, you win the game. Otherwise, you lose the game.
"The victory may belong to you, Liliana Vess, but you belong to me."
is much more fair.