Wheel of Misfortune 2R
Sorcery
Each player secretly chooses a number. Then reveal those numbers. Wheel of Misfortune deals damage equal to the greatest chosen number to each player that chose it. Then, each player who didn't choose the smallest number discards their hands, then draws seven cards.
Let's say I propose this: I tell everyone I have this in my hand, then we make an agreement that everyone who doesn't want to Wheel chooses -1 and everyone else chooses 0. Anyone who breaks the agreement upon resolution of the spell forfeits the game. Is there any reason this shouldn't work from a rules perspective? If one were to literally rules lawyer this, my states allowed for legally binding verbal contracts, and Wizards has issued a statement before that the law supersedes the rules of Magic.
(people would take off their pants to block Hurloon Wrangler, pretty funny story)
Wheel of Misfortune 2R
Sorcery
Each player secretly chooses a number. Then reveal those numbers. Wheel of Misfortune deals damage equal to the greatest chosen number to each player that chose it. Then, each player who didn't choose the smallest number discards their hands, then draws seven cards.
Let's say I propose this: I tell everyone I have this in my hand, then we make an agreement that everyone who doesn't want to Wheel chooses -1 and everyone else chooses 0. Anyone who breaks the agreement upon resolution of the spell forfeits the game. Is there any reason this shouldn't work from a rules perspective? If one were to literally rules lawyer this, my states allowed for legally binding verbal contracts, and Wizards has issued a statement before that the law supersedes the rules of Magic.
Correct, you could file this in civil court as a violation of a verbal agreement. After the hundreds of dollars you've spent filing this claim in court, hundreds if not thousands of dollars on lawyers to assist you in this, and your playgroup's knowledge that you are willing to go to litigation over a card game with presumably zero stakes, you have to decide if it was all worth it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Correct, you could file this in civil court as a violation of a verbal agreement. After the hundreds of dollars you've spent filing this claim in court, hundreds if not thousands of dollars on lawyers to assist you in this, and your playgroup's knowledge that you are willing to go to litigation over a card game with presumably zero stakes, you have to decide if it was all worth it.
So basically don't do it if my opponent is Alpha Investments, got it.
I actually would like advice on if the basic concept works rather than the super dumb legal hypothetical. It seems like an obvious oversight to me to make Wheel of Fortune But Better and I'm not the smartest Magic player.
I guess that the question is really how MTV is different from literally any other game in existence, then.
If verbal contracts are binding in your area, you can start a game of Monopoly with your friends with the home rule that anyone who buys Park Place forfeits and equally sue a player who fails to obey that contract.
What you’re describing sounds more like a failure in laws than a failure in MTG.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorcery
Each player secretly chooses a number. Then reveal those numbers. Wheel of Misfortune deals damage equal to the greatest chosen number to each player that chose it. Then, each player who didn't choose the smallest number discards their hands, then draws seven cards.
Let's say I propose this: I tell everyone I have this in my hand, then we make an agreement that everyone who doesn't want to Wheel chooses -1 and everyone else chooses 0. Anyone who breaks the agreement upon resolution of the spell forfeits the game. Is there any reason this shouldn't work from a rules perspective? If one were to literally rules lawyer this, my states allowed for legally binding verbal contracts, and Wizards has issued a statement before that the law supersedes the rules of Magic.
(people would take off their pants to block Hurloon Wrangler, pretty funny story)
And then you'd have to pay a lawyer to explain to a judge what a Magic the Gathering is.
Correct, you could file this in civil court as a violation of a verbal agreement. After the hundreds of dollars you've spent filing this claim in court, hundreds if not thousands of dollars on lawyers to assist you in this, and your playgroup's knowledge that you are willing to go to litigation over a card game with presumably zero stakes, you have to decide if it was all worth it.
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
So basically don't do it if my opponent is Alpha Investments, got it.
I actually would like advice on if the basic concept works rather than the super dumb legal hypothetical. It seems like an obvious oversight to me to make Wheel of Fortune But Better and I'm not the smartest Magic player.
If verbal contracts are binding in your area, you can start a game of Monopoly with your friends with the home rule that anyone who buys Park Place forfeits and equally sue a player who fails to obey that contract.
What you’re describing sounds more like a failure in laws than a failure in MTG.