OK, so here's an oddball. Divine Intervention is the only card in the game whose only function is to end the game in a draw, for the significant investment of 8 mana and 2 turns passing without it being answered or you dying. This has some implications for tournament play (If you get a win game 1, drawing ever subsequent game gives you a match win, so it provides an out if you would otherwise lose, which would be relevant if it didn't cost 8 mana and normally take 2 turns), but is strange in casual where wins and losses don't have any meaning besides bragging. Most people will have never encountered this card, which is perhaps the best argument as to why it should stay legal. I myself am undecided and leaning to keep it legal, but I figured this could be an interesting discussion, and I can actually provide some real world perspective on the card.
I have identified two criteria for banning that the card meets. First, I believe that it strongly meets the criteria of creating undesirable game states. Second, I think it weakly meets "does not interact well with the format." I'll explain.
First, creating undesirable game states. The big thing that sticks out here is that it includes cards with limited functionality beyond winning the game out of nowhere. Well, that's pretty weird for a card that doesn't actually win the game to violate right? My reasoning here is that if you are including this card in your deck, your intention is to use it to draw the game. That's pretty much all it does. Once you set out with the intention of causing a draw, succeeding in that goal is basically winning, and seeing you end the game that way will feel like losing to most opponents. Yes, technically its a drawn game, but in a casual game what does that even mean? It creates a weird, sudden end to the game that is probably unsatisfying to most players, and plays out much like Coalition Victory, Biorythm, or Worldfire wins. Playing it fair, that is dropping it for 8 and letting a couple rounds pass, might not be so bad, but abusing the counters by removing them with something like Vampire Hexmage, or sticking it behind a pillowfort, that's a different story. Yes, counter manipulation can turn it into a rattlesnake where you can threaten to draw the game if things don't go your way, but holding the table hostage like that is in itself an undesirable game state, because it creates an "either i win or nobody does" dynamic. I'll allow that it might be too difficult to reliably abuse, and certainly not something that could fit in just any deck that can cast it, so this might not be enough justification for a ban.
Secondly, I believe, with admittedly less conviction, that it does not interact well with the nature of the format. I've already touched on this earlier when I talked about how Commander is a casual format, and the weirdness this creates when it comes to draws/ties. Another point though is that Commander is a multiplayer format, and Divine Intervention interacts poorly with this for one big reason, which is that while in 1v1 the card only ever draws the game for both players, in multiplayer it can draw the game only for the players still in it, while anyone who has already lost the game still loses. This derives from the ruling on how it interacts with zone of influence, "In a multiplayer game played with the limited range of influence option, Divine Intervention won’t necessarily end the entire game when its third ability resolves. All players within range of Divine Intervention will leave the game. They’ll neither win nor lose; as far as they’re concerned, the result of the game is a draw. All other players will continue playing." If a player has already lost, they are no longer in the game and thus not effected by anything that happens in the game, while Divine Intervention does not rewrite the outcome of the game, only causes the players it can effect to draw. Of course, this can happen as well if a player or two dies before a third player takes out themselves and everyone else with a giant Earthquake, but such instances are more corner cases while it is more likely to happen with DI, to the point of it probably being somewhat more likely to happen than being able to draw the game while everyone is still in it, do to the tendency of players to be eliminated at a staggered rate rather than all at once.
Lastly, I have actually played this card and managed to draw the game with it at a table of 8 people. I base my assumptions on how that went down, which is why I don't claim those assumptions as fact (its just my own experience). I snuck it in with Academy Rector while Hexmage was in play, and nobody had enchantment removal at instant speed. Its a funny magic memory, but it was definitely groan inducing for everyone else at the time, and my playgroup immediately banned it, with myself in agreement. It really is a trick that you should only pull of once, if at all. It was cheesy, it completely invalidated everything that came before it, it was anti climactic, and the only purpose it served was for me to be able to say I ended the game in a draw. Felt like a win for me, and a loss for everyone else, with an added dose of weirdness. My experience with it leads me to cautiously lean to keeping it legal, along with the fact that it just isn't played, while strongly suggesting that nobody play it unless their group would be OK with a game ending like that. Really, its a lot like Shahrazad in that its kind of neat to say you've done it, but having done it you wouldn't want to do it again.
Any have any thoughts on this? Is it just too irrelevant to consider, but possibly banworthy if it started being played for some reason, or just fine regardless?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
This has some implications for tournament play (If you get a win game 1, drawing ever subsequent game gives you a match win, so it provides an out if you would otherwise lose, which would be relevant if it didn't cost 8 mana and normally take 2 turns)
Only true in a timed match. Matches are first-to-two. Only if you run out of time is 1 win considered a match win.
It creates a weird, sudden end to the game that is probably unsatisfying to most players, and plays out much like Coalition Victory, Biorythm, or Worldfire wins.
If you want to argue for a ban because of a "win the game" effect, shouldn't you be looking at Felidar Sovereign and Test of Endurance first? Both are legal, cheaper to cast, actually win the game, generally end the game faster, and actually get played (especially in Oloro).
PS: I've actually seen someone win with Divine Intervention, by animating it with Opalescence and using it as an 8/8 beatstick.
This has some implications for tournament play (If you get a win game 1, drawing ever subsequent game gives you a match win, so it provides an out if you would otherwise lose, which would be relevant if it didn't cost 8 mana and normally take 2 turns)
Only true in a timed match. Matches are first-to-two. Only if you run out of time is 1 win considered a match win.
It creates a weird, sudden end to the game that is probably unsatisfying to most players, and plays out much like Coalition Victory, Biorythm, or Worldfire wins.
If you want to argue for a ban because of a "win the game" effect, shouldn't you be looking at Felidar Sovereign and Test of Endurance first? Both are legal, cheaper to cast, actually win the game, generally end the game faster, and actually get played (especially in Oloro).
PS: I've actually seen someone win with Divine Intervention, by animating it with Opalescence and using it as an 8/8 beatstick.
I guess that test of endurance would be the better comparison, since sovereignty is at least a decent sized lifelink creature. I guess the reason such cards aren't banned while the ones I mentioned are is that you actually have to maintain the conditions that result in a win for at least a round, and DI would fit that since you have to last 2 rounds. DI doesn't actually rely on anything but itself and you surviving though, which makes it a bit different, and it is also capable of ending the game out of nowhere, but I'm not sure that's enough to warrant a ban. Maybe it's just an example of a card that is inherently problematic in a few areas but not enough to warrant a ban, and of course not played enough to matter much anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Onering, I believe you presented an excellent argument for why Divine Intervention could be banned. I also believe you pointed out the biggest reason why it isn't; Divine Intervention just isn't popular enough.
As you illustrated in your anecdote, Divine Intervention has the potential to cause significant harm. Divine Intervention is also unlikely to not cause harm as there are few ways in which players can play the card that aren't harmful. The only force preventing Divine Intervention from ruining games of Commander is the community's unwillingness to play with the card in the general. Since the card currently isn't seeing much play, the volume of harm it's creating is minimal. Despite the card having the propensity to cause massive harm whenever it is played, if players aren't actually putting the card in their decks, players won't be subjected to its ill effects. If Divine Intervention actually saw widespread play for a prolonged period of time though, I believe it could become banned.
EDIT: Strikethrough. While there are few ways to play Divine Intervention that won't lead to harm unabetted, the end result of someone playing the card is not necessarily always harm (a la someone slaying Felidar Sovereign before it can win). Honestly, I feel like a clown for not noticing that at the time of my post. Still, my point stands. Divine Intervention isn't a popular enough card to warrant any kind of action against.
I'd love to see Divine Intervention do its thing in a game. I'd like to see more draws in EDH in general. I realize most people disagree, and understandably so, but in any case Divine Intervention is obscure and easy to stop.
I'd love to see Divine Intervention do its thing in a game. I'd like to see more draws in EDH in general. I realize most people disagree, and understandably so, but in any case Divine Intervention is obscure and easy to stop.
I think drawing due to something like the O-ring unbreakable loop happening, drawing due to a symmetrical effect borne of desperation ( like decking everyone with prosperity or burning everyone out with earthquake because you'd otherwise lose), and drawing via Divine intervention or intentionally hitting an O-ring loop would all feel a bit different. The first is an accident of the game, the second is a legitimate play to avoid losing when you otherwise cannot win, and the third is actively seeking a draw. It's actively seeking a draw that can feel artificial and obviously is planned, and plays out more like a win because the downside to drawing is meaningless in casual. Win or get a premeditated draw, and you've in both cases accomplished your goal for the game and didn't lose. Obviously I'm cool with that because I did it, but it certainly leaves a bad taste in some people's mouths, sort of like ambiguous movie endings piss a lot of people off (did they ever get off that bus in Italian Job?).
I think it's funny flavor wise, a bunch of God like planeswalkers rain down epic sorcery, monsters, army, and destruction on each other, then God comes down and says chill the **** out and everyone just goes home.
I also think AA hit the nail on the head. Sometimes you need to here other people's opinions to sort your own out, and now I think it shouldn't be banned and is just an example of a weird borderline card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I had completely forgotten about this bad boy but I'm going to have to get one for my "No one wins" Duel Commander deck. This with Solemnity = instant draw of the game. After reading errata, it looks like you have to live until upkeep, I think!
"Divine Intervention’s third ability triggers only if its controller removes the last intervention counter from it. It doesn’t matter how that happens. For example, if you control Divine Intervention and the last intervention counter is removed as a result of a Clockspinning you control, the ability will trigger. On the other hand, if the last intervention counter is removed as a result of a Clockspinning another player controls, the ability won’t trigger (and won’t ever be able to)."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The "Crazy One", playing casual magic and occasionally dipping his toes into regular play since 1994.
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
I had completely forgotten about this bad boy but I'm going to have to get one for my "No one wins" Duel Commander deck. This with Solemnity = instant draw of the game. After reading errata, it looks like you have to live until upkeep, I think!
"Divine Intervention’s third ability triggers only if its controller removes the last intervention counter from it. It doesn’t matter how that happens. For example, if you control Divine Intervention and the last intervention counter is removed as a result of a Clockspinning you control, the ability will trigger. On the other hand, if the last intervention counter is removed as a result of a Clockspinning another player controls, the ability won’t trigger (and won’t ever be able to)."
You seem to be misreading something. In fact, the quote you have explicitly states that you need to remove a counter from it for it to work. If there is no counter to remove, the card will have no effect. Solemnity and Divine Intervention results in a dead card.
OK, so here's an oddball. Divine Intervention is the only card in the game whose only function is to end the game in a draw, for the significant investment of 8 mana and 2 turns passing without it being answered or you dying. This has some implications for tournament play (If you get a win game 1, drawing ever subsequent game gives you a match win, so it provides an out if you would otherwise lose, which would be relevant if it didn't cost 8 mana and normally take 2 turns), but is strange in casual where wins and losses don't have any meaning besides bragging. Most people will have never encountered this card, which is perhaps the best argument as to why it should stay legal. I myself am undecided and leaning to keep it legal, but I figured this could be an interesting discussion, and I can actually provide some real world perspective on the card.
I have identified two criteria for banning that the card meets. First, I believe that it strongly meets the criteria of creating undesirable game states. Second, I think it weakly meets "does not interact well with the format." I'll explain.
First, creating undesirable game states. The big thing that sticks out here is that it includes cards with limited functionality beyond winning the game out of nowhere. Well, that's pretty weird for a card that doesn't actually win the game to violate right? My reasoning here is that if you are including this card in your deck, your intention is to use it to draw the game. That's pretty much all it does. Once you set out with the intention of causing a draw, succeeding in that goal is basically winning, and seeing you end the game that way will feel like losing to most opponents. Yes, technically its a drawn game, but in a casual game what does that even mean? It creates a weird, sudden end to the game that is probably unsatisfying to most players, and plays out much like Coalition Victory, Biorythm, or Worldfire wins. Playing it fair, that is dropping it for 8 and letting a couple rounds pass, might not be so bad, but abusing the counters by removing them with something like Vampire Hexmage, or sticking it behind a pillowfort, that's a different story. Yes, counter manipulation can turn it into a rattlesnake where you can threaten to draw the game if things don't go your way, but holding the table hostage like that is in itself an undesirable game state, because it creates an "either i win or nobody does" dynamic. I'll allow that it might be too difficult to reliably abuse, and certainly not something that could fit in just any deck that can cast it, so this might not be enough justification for a ban.
Secondly, I believe, with admittedly less conviction, that it does not interact well with the nature of the format. I've already touched on this earlier when I talked about how Commander is a casual format, and the weirdness this creates when it comes to draws/ties. Another point though is that Commander is a multiplayer format, and Divine Intervention interacts poorly with this for one big reason, which is that while in 1v1 the card only ever draws the game for both players, in multiplayer it can draw the game only for the players still in it, while anyone who has already lost the game still loses. This derives from the ruling on how it interacts with zone of influence, "In a multiplayer game played with the limited range of influence option, Divine Intervention won’t necessarily end the entire game when its third ability resolves. All players within range of Divine Intervention will leave the game. They’ll neither win nor lose; as far as they’re concerned, the result of the game is a draw. All other players will continue playing." If a player has already lost, they are no longer in the game and thus not effected by anything that happens in the game, while Divine Intervention does not rewrite the outcome of the game, only causes the players it can effect to draw. Of course, this can happen as well if a player or two dies before a third player takes out themselves and everyone else with a giant Earthquake, but such instances are more corner cases while it is more likely to happen with DI, to the point of it probably being somewhat more likely to happen than being able to draw the game while everyone is still in it, do to the tendency of players to be eliminated at a staggered rate rather than all at once.
Lastly, I have actually played this card and managed to draw the game with it at a table of 8 people. I base my assumptions on how that went down, which is why I don't claim those assumptions as fact (its just my own experience). I snuck it in with Academy Rector while Hexmage was in play, and nobody had enchantment removal at instant speed. Its a funny magic memory, but it was definitely groan inducing for everyone else at the time, and my playgroup immediately banned it, with myself in agreement. It really is a trick that you should only pull of once, if at all. It was cheesy, it completely invalidated everything that came before it, it was anti climactic, and the only purpose it served was for me to be able to say I ended the game in a draw. Felt like a win for me, and a loss for everyone else, with an added dose of weirdness. My experience with it leads me to cautiously lean to keeping it legal, along with the fact that it just isn't played, while strongly suggesting that nobody play it unless their group would be OK with a game ending like that. Really, its a lot like Shahrazad in that its kind of neat to say you've done it, but having done it you wouldn't want to do it again.
Any have any thoughts on this? Is it just too irrelevant to consider, but possibly banworthy if it started being played for some reason, or just fine regardless?
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
If you want to argue for a ban because of a "win the game" effect, shouldn't you be looking at Felidar Sovereign and Test of Endurance first? Both are legal, cheaper to cast, actually win the game, generally end the game faster, and actually get played (especially in Oloro).
PS: I've actually seen someone win with Divine Intervention, by animating it with Opalescence and using it as an 8/8 beatstick.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I guess that test of endurance would be the better comparison, since sovereignty is at least a decent sized lifelink creature. I guess the reason such cards aren't banned while the ones I mentioned are is that you actually have to maintain the conditions that result in a win for at least a round, and DI would fit that since you have to last 2 rounds. DI doesn't actually rely on anything but itself and you surviving though, which makes it a bit different, and it is also capable of ending the game out of nowhere, but I'm not sure that's enough to warrant a ban. Maybe it's just an example of a card that is inherently problematic in a few areas but not enough to warrant a ban, and of course not played enough to matter much anyway.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
As you illustrated in your anecdote, Divine Intervention has the potential to cause significant harm.
Divine Intervention is also unlikely to not cause harm as there are few ways in which players can play the card that aren't harmful.The only force preventing Divine Intervention from ruining games of Commander is the community's unwillingness to play with the card in the general. Since the card currently isn't seeing much play, the volume of harm it's creating is minimal. Despite the card having the propensity to cause massive harm whenever it is played, if players aren't actually putting the card in their decks, players won't be subjected to its ill effects. If Divine Intervention actually saw widespread play for a prolonged period of time though, I believe it could become banned.EDIT: Strikethrough. While there are few ways to play Divine Intervention that won't lead to harm unabetted, the end result of someone playing the card is not necessarily always harm (a la someone slaying Felidar Sovereign before it can win). Honestly, I feel like a clown for not noticing that at the time of my post. Still, my point stands. Divine Intervention isn't a popular enough card to warrant any kind of action against.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Academy Rector has far scarier cards to find.
I think drawing due to something like the O-ring unbreakable loop happening, drawing due to a symmetrical effect borne of desperation ( like decking everyone with prosperity or burning everyone out with earthquake because you'd otherwise lose), and drawing via Divine intervention or intentionally hitting an O-ring loop would all feel a bit different. The first is an accident of the game, the second is a legitimate play to avoid losing when you otherwise cannot win, and the third is actively seeking a draw. It's actively seeking a draw that can feel artificial and obviously is planned, and plays out more like a win because the downside to drawing is meaningless in casual. Win or get a premeditated draw, and you've in both cases accomplished your goal for the game and didn't lose. Obviously I'm cool with that because I did it, but it certainly leaves a bad taste in some people's mouths, sort of like ambiguous movie endings piss a lot of people off (did they ever get off that bus in Italian Job?).
I think it's funny flavor wise, a bunch of God like planeswalkers rain down epic sorcery, monsters, army, and destruction on each other, then God comes down and says chill the **** out and everyone just goes home.
I also think AA hit the nail on the head. Sometimes you need to here other people's opinions to sort your own out, and now I think it shouldn't be banned and is just an example of a weird borderline card.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
"Divine Intervention’s third ability triggers only if its controller removes the last intervention counter from it. It doesn’t matter how that happens. For example, if you control Divine Intervention and the last intervention counter is removed as a result of a Clockspinning you control, the ability will trigger. On the other hand, if the last intervention counter is removed as a result of a Clockspinning another player controls, the ability won’t trigger (and won’t ever be able to)."
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)