So I've been thinking, one of the issues with Group Hug or Phelddagrif decks is that in the end there is still only 1 winner. What if we could construct a deck where everyone truly wins?
What do you think would be the best engine to get infinite colored mana of any kind? What do you think would be the best way to cheat Enter the Infinite in early to start this combo? Anything else that could be improved?
Technically you-win-the-game cards in multiplayer becomes each-opponent-loses-the-game cards (rule 800.7), so there's no rules different the outlined scenario and just casting Prosperity for 100 or jamming Divine Intervention: the game ends in a draw. However, I can see the aesthetic difference.
I've thought about making a deck that focused on mandatory loops like Ajani's Chosen plus Enchanted Evening to force a draw, but that would probably annoy people rather more than what you're proposing.
So I've been thinking, one of the issues with Group Hug or Phelddagrif decks is that in the end there is still only 1 winner. What if we could construct a deck where everyone truly wins?
What do you think would be the best engine to get infinite colored mana of any kind? What do you think would be the best way to cheat Enter the Infinite in early to start this combo? Anything else that could be improved?
That combo doesn't work. Laboratory Maniac has a replacement effet that replaces a draw with winning the game. A card such as prosperity doesn't make all the players draw cards at the same time, it makes all players draw cards during the resolution of Prosperity but each player completes all of their draws one at a time starting with teh active player.
So in this case the active player would draw cards until the library is empty and then instead of drawing the next card would win the game.
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
That combo doesn't work. Laboratory Maniac has a replacement effet that replaces a draw with winning the game. A card such as prosperity doesn't make all the players draw cards at the same time, it makes all players draw cards during the resolution of Prosperity but each player completes all of their draws one at a time starting with teh active player.
So in this case the active player would draw cards until the library is empty and then instead of drawing the next card would win the game.
Are you sure this is true? If this is the case and since player order goes with turn order starting with active player, could I cast Prosperity for X = enough on the turn right after mine through some mechanism like Vedalken Orrery to mill the whole table, but I would win because I am last to draw?
Or is winning or losing the game a state-based action that would not happen until Prosperity is finished resolving?
That combo doesn't work. Laboratory Maniac has a replacement effet that replaces a draw with winning the game. A card such as prosperity doesn't make all the players draw cards at the same time, it makes all players draw cards during the resolution of Prosperity but each player completes all of their draws one at a time starting with teh active player.
So in this case the active player would draw cards until the library is empty and then instead of drawing the next card would win the game.
Are you sure this is true? If this is the case and since player order goes with turn order starting with active player, could I cast Prosperity for X = enough on the turn right after mine through some mechanism like Vedalken Orrery to mill the whole table, but I would win because I am last to draw?
Or is winning or losing the game a state-based action that would not happen until Prosperity is finished resolving?
Yes I'm sure.
120.2a If an effect instructs more than one player to draw cards, the active player performs all of his or her draws first, then each other player in turn order does the same.
If you cast prosperity like in your example everyone would lose the game which would result in a draw since losing to drawing from an empty library is a state-based action:
104.3c If a player is required to draw more cards than are left in his or her library, he or she draws the remaining cards, and then loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)
104.4a If all the players remaining in a game lose simultaneously, the game is a draw.
Laboratory maniac however creates a replacement effect that makes you win the game instead of drawing a card.
104.1. A game ends immediately when a player wins, when the game is a draw, or when the game is restarted.
In multiplayer games making everyone win doesn't work since winning a multiplayer game literally means that everyone else loses:
104.3h In a multiplayer game, an effect that states that a player wins the game instead causes all of that player’s opponents to lose the game. (This may not cause the game to end if the limited range of influence option is being used; see rule 801.)
and:
104.3f If a player would both win and lose the game simultaneously, he or she loses the game.
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Losing the game due to drawing too many cards is a state-based action (per 104.3c which you just quoted), meaning it won't happen until after Prosperity is done resolving. Laboratory Maniac replaces that SBA with winning the game. In multiplayer "you win the game" is translated to "each opponent loses the game" (104.3h which you quoted). With everyone controlling a Laboratory Maniac and a sufficiently-large Prosperity, all of the Maniacs each try to make each player except their controller lose, causing a draw (per 104.4a which you quoted).
Losing the game due to drawing too many cards is a state-based action (per 104.3c which you just quoted), meaning it won't happen until after Prosperity is done resolving. Laboratory Maniac replaces that SBA with winning the game. In multiplayer "you win the game" is translated to "each opponent loses the game" (104.3h which you quoted). With everyone controlling a Laboratory Maniac and a sufficiently-large Prosperity, all of the Maniacs each try to make each player except their controller lose, causing a draw (per 104.4a which you quoted).
But laboratory maniac does not replace losing the game due to drawing to many cards, it replaces the actual draw (well, fail to draw) meaning the losing the game part doesn't come into effect at all since you never try to draw a card from an empty library.
Compare it to something like Lich's Mirror that actually replaces the losing the game.
This is further evidenced by the card-specific rules of labman:
If for some reason you can't win the game (because your opponent controls Platinum Angel, for example), you won't lose for having tried to draw a card from a library with no cards in it, because the draw was still replaced.
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
You could design a deck to simply make the game last indefinitely - Arbiter of Knollridge, Time Spiral and friends, etc. - but then people really would hate you.
Divine Intervention and mandatory loops end the game in a draw without causing any player to lose according to the rules.
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
I think if you pulled it off though, even the rules sticklers would probably have to tip their hats at ya for that. It sounds suitably epic that I think in that way, everyone wins.
One thought though, you COULD also try copying lich's mirror and give a copy to everyone else as well, so it becomes impossible for them to lose. the mirror's lose-replacement effect shuffles everything that player owns, but they don't own the copy that you make that you donated to them... while making sure that you have a number of x=94 prosperitys on the stack or something..?
I think if you pulled it off though, even the rules sticklers would probably have to tip their hats at ya for that. It sounds suitably epic that I think in that way, everyone wins.
One thought though, you COULD also try copying lich's mirror and give a copy to everyone else as well, so it becomes impossible for them to lose. the mirror's lose-replacement effect shuffles everything that player owns, but they don't own the copy that you make that you donated to them... while making sure that you have a number of x=94 prosperitys on the stack or something..?
Take it a step further. Use Zedruu to donate a token Lich's Mirror to everyone, then donate a Labratory maniac to everyone, then exile everything that isn't those, then kill everyone at the same time. Now, they all lose, have losing replaced by shuffling up and drawing, but without enough cards in their deck lab man makes them win, which, since it's multiplayer, causes everyone to lose, which sets off their mirrors, which causes them all to shuffle up and draw, but without enough stuff lab man says "wait," and makes everyone win, except that...
Take it a step further. Use Zedruu to donate a token Lich's Mirror to everyone, then donate a Labratory maniac to everyone, then exile everything that isn't those, then kill everyone at the same time. Now, they all lose, have losing replaced by shuffling up and drawing, but without enough cards in their deck lab man makes them win, which, since it's multiplayer, causes everyone to lose, which sets off their mirrors, which causes them all to shuffle up and draw, but without enough stuff lab man says "wait," and makes everyone win, except that...
What prevents the Zedruu player from losing in this scenario? It looks like the Zedruu player would lose, and then the game would end in a draw for the rest of the players.
Pretty much. If you can somehow force an opponent to make token copies of their tokens through some sort of donating required token making pieces + MindSlaver, then steal the pieces, then you could stay 'alive' as well.
Yes, the loop ends with everyone in a draw.
My biggest gripe is in the fact that you can't have multiple winners in a multiplayer game, simply because rules.
Since Caged Sun is now a Forest, you can tap it for green mana. Since an ability of a land you control added green mana to your mana pool, Caged Sun triggers and adds green mana to your mana pool. Since an ability of a land you control added green mana to your mana pool, Caged sun triggers and adds green mana to your mana pool...
Since Caged Sun is now a Forest, you can tap it for green mana. Since an ability of a land you control added green mana to your mana pool, Caged Sun triggers and adds green mana to your mana pool. Since an ability of a land you control added green mana to your mana pool, Caged sun triggers and adds green mana to your mana pool...
Well, folks probably won't hate you for this one because it's so silly, complicated, and challenging to accomplish.
Wouldn't mirrorweave on a Biovisionaryat least 4 creatures on everyone's side satisfy your "everyone wins"? Thing? Seems easier than lab maniac donate clones. Also it is The group hug hippo colors, where u can spam the ability to give tokens.
Wouldn't mirrorweave on a Biovisionaryat least 4 creatures on everyone's side satisfy your "everyone wins"? Thing?
Nope. A whole bunch of triggered abilities would go on the stack at the start of the end step and the one the resolved first would cause all of its controller's opponents to lose the game. Typically this would mean the player last in turn order from the active player would win.
I know this is reviving a dead thread, but with the new silver-bordered card Princess Twilight Sparkle, isn't that a "everyone wins" situation? Or do the rules fundamentally disallow what the card states to happen?
Since at the time of posting, it's not in mtgsalvation's database, here is a link to the card
And the effect in question is:
"WUBRG: If you control Applejac, Fluttershy, Pinkie Pie, Rainbow Dash, and Rarity, everypony wins the game."
Btw, the condition for activation can be satisfied with "_____"
The relevant rules for a 'draw', 104.4a, and 104.4c, seem to be not quite applicable. "everypony wins" doesn't mean everyone loses. And for 104.4c, it doesn't use terminology that directly say the game is a draw.
I'm thinking of a Jeskai Deck with Zedruu the Greathearted as the Commander
1. Get an infinite mana engine (of any color) going.
2. Cast Enter the Infinite
3. Cast Zedruu the Greathearted
4. Cast Laboratory Maniac
5. Cast Cackling Counterpart on Laboratory Maniac and copy the spell sufficiently enough times with Reiterate
6. Use Zedruu the Greathearted to Donate 1 Laboratory Maniac Token to each opponent
7. Cast Sufficiently High X Prosperity
8. PROFIT! EVERYONE WINS!
What do you think would be the best engine to get infinite colored mana of any kind? What do you think would be the best way to cheat Enter the Infinite in early to start this combo? Anything else that could be improved?
Reiterate plus Turnabout is an easy way to get infinite mana.
I've thought about making a deck that focused on mandatory loops like Ajani's Chosen plus Enchanted Evening to force a draw, but that would probably annoy people rather more than what you're proposing.
Let her Academy Rector die to get Divine Intervention into play and then sac Vampire Hexmage to it.
Empty graveyards and then discard Worldgorger Dragon to try the Animate Dead loop.
Big Earthquakes and other everyone takes lots of damage spells. Often with a Coalhauler Swine in play.
When she successfully makes the game a draw she excitedly group hugs us all and declares everyone wins.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
That combo doesn't work. Laboratory Maniac has a replacement effet that replaces a draw with winning the game. A card such as prosperity doesn't make all the players draw cards at the same time, it makes all players draw cards during the resolution of Prosperity but each player completes all of their draws one at a time starting with teh active player.
So in this case the active player would draw cards until the library is empty and then instead of drawing the next card would win the game.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Or is winning or losing the game a state-based action that would not happen until Prosperity is finished resolving?
Yes I'm sure.
120.2a If an effect instructs more than one player to draw cards, the active player performs all of his or her draws first, then each other player in turn order does the same.
If you cast prosperity like in your example everyone would lose the game which would result in a draw since losing to drawing from an empty library is a state-based action:
104.3c If a player is required to draw more cards than are left in his or her library, he or she draws the remaining cards, and then loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)
104.4a If all the players remaining in a game lose simultaneously, the game is a draw.
Laboratory maniac however creates a replacement effect that makes you win the game instead of drawing a card.
104.1. A game ends immediately when a player wins, when the game is a draw, or when the game is restarted.
In multiplayer games making everyone win doesn't work since winning a multiplayer game literally means that everyone else loses:
104.3h In a multiplayer game, an effect that states that a player wins the game instead causes all of that player’s opponents to lose the game. (This may not cause the game to end if the limited range of influence option is being used; see rule 801.)
and:
104.3f If a player would both win and lose the game simultaneously, he or she loses the game.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
But laboratory maniac does not replace losing the game due to drawing to many cards, it replaces the actual draw (well, fail to draw) meaning the losing the game part doesn't come into effect at all since you never try to draw a card from an empty library.
Compare it to something like Lich's Mirror that actually replaces the losing the game.
This is further evidenced by the card-specific rules of labman:
If for some reason you can't win the game (because your opponent controls Platinum Angel, for example), you won't lose for having tried to draw a card from a library with no cards in it, because the draw was still replaced.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
You could design a deck to simply make the game last indefinitely - Arbiter of Knollridge, Time Spiral and friends, etc. - but then people really would hate you.
Divine Intervention and mandatory loops end the game in a draw without causing any player to lose according to the rules.
Some say the universe ends in fire, others say ice, but the correct answer is Cats: Enchanted Evening plus Ajani's Chosen.
Or mabye it's Saprolings: Sporemound plus Life and Limb.
Or perhaps you go beyond the whole winning and losing thing: Angel's Grace plus Transcendence.
I suppose what's called for is a Drawmaster deck which excels at card combos for the greatest chance to make everyone draw.
An existing card is pretty strong words for a piece of artwork that really isn't made to adhere to rules. Rocket-Powered Turbo Slug is a card but Super haste is not a thing ni the "real" game. Neither is incorporating a third player http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Splendid_Genesis
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
One thought though, you COULD also try copying lich's mirror and give a copy to everyone else as well, so it becomes impossible for them to lose. the mirror's lose-replacement effect shuffles everything that player owns, but they don't own the copy that you make that you donated to them... while making sure that you have a number of x=94 prosperitys on the stack or something..?
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
Take it a step further. Use Zedruu to donate a token Lich's Mirror to everyone, then donate a Labratory maniac to everyone, then exile everything that isn't those, then kill everyone at the same time. Now, they all lose, have losing replaced by shuffling up and drawing, but without enough cards in their deck lab man makes them win, which, since it's multiplayer, causes everyone to lose, which sets off their mirrors, which causes them all to shuffle up and draw, but without enough stuff lab man says "wait," and makes everyone win, except that...
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
What prevents the Zedruu player from losing in this scenario? It looks like the Zedruu player would lose, and then the game would end in a draw for the rest of the players.
Yes, the loop ends with everyone in a draw.
My biggest gripe is in the fact that you can't have multiple winners in a multiplayer game, simply because rules.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
Divine Intervention and Celestial Convergence are perhaps the most honest ways to draw the game. (Hint: Vampire Hexmage.)
How could multiplayer rules allow for multiple winners? If everybody wins, how is that meaningfully different from a draw?
Since Caged Sun is now a Forest, you can tap it for green mana. Since an ability of a land you control added green mana to your mana pool, Caged Sun triggers and adds green mana to your mana pool. Since an ability of a land you control added green mana to your mana pool, Caged sun triggers and adds green mana to your mana pool...
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Well, folks probably won't hate you for this one because it's so silly, complicated, and challenging to accomplish.
Phelddagrif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY8h2vp5Xis
Nope. A whole bunch of triggered abilities would go on the stack at the start of the end step and the one the resolved first would cause all of its controller's opponents to lose the game. Typically this would mean the player last in turn order from the active player would win.
Since at the time of posting, it's not in mtgsalvation's database, here is a link to the card
And the effect in question is:
"WUBRG: If you control Applejac, Fluttershy, Pinkie Pie, Rainbow Dash, and Rarity, everypony wins the game."
Btw, the condition for activation can be satisfied with "_____"
The relevant rules for a 'draw', 104.4a, and 104.4c, seem to be not quite applicable. "everypony wins" doesn't mean everyone loses. And for 104.4c, it doesn't use terminology that directly say the game is a draw.
so in that case, everyone wins.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
Therefore, use Mishra's Toy Workshop and MLP toys.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
That is... actually amazing. I am definitely going to add that to the deck.