Win conditions and fairness

[Mikefrompluto]

I know Coffee Vampire made a {battle of wits} deck that was pretty sweet. I played against it in the Cockatrice league the forum tried to do months back.

[Wackaman9001]

Main problem with battle of wits is finding it in 250+ card deck. You have to run 4x tutors as well as card draw, and if you like seeing a card more than once a round I absolutely has to be a 4-of

[Stoneco1d869]

 {Felidar Sovereign} is the only card I hate for EDH in that it takes no real thought/setup to pull off.

I don't mind Iona too much. I feel that the decks that are made to cheat her out(Kaalia), you should see coming and deal with them early. And if in multiplayer they draw extra hate anyway so I don't mind.

If you run mono then you should be faster than your opponents anyway. I mean you don't have to plan and workout a mana base and as long as you are hitting your mana drops you have nothing to complain about. A multi colored deck has much more reduced chances to hit the colors they need to cast some of their multi colored spells. So if someone is able to drop a bomb on your single color deck, than you can't complain.

Basically I think if the win condition takes some prep and thought, then I'm all for it!

[xStrayKnightx]

 {Felidar Sovereign} is a stupid card.  {Kaalia of the Vast} is great, and I DO have  {Iona, Shield of Emeria} in my primary deck. But I swap her out with something else if I'm up against a mono deck.

[MuggyWuggy]

{Felidar Sovereign} is the only card I hate for EDH in that it takes no real thought/setup to pull off.

Do you consider the rules on that card exactly?

I've heard folks who prefer to agree that the life gain needed for a win would be double, so instead you need to get to 80 life rather than 40(since it is default)

[Stoneco1d869]

{Felidar Sovereign} is the only card I hate for EDH in that it takes no real thought/setup to pull off.

Do you consider the rules on that card exactly?

I've heard folks who prefer to agree that the life gain needed for a win would be double, so instead you need to get to 80 life rather than 40(since it is default)

That's not a bad idea. I just wish they would adjust EDH rules accordingly. My playgroup just goes by the rules:/

We do adjust infect though unless it's coming from a commander.

[smokin terry]

{Felidar Sovereign} is the only card I hate for EDH in that it takes no real thought/setup to pull off.

Do you consider the rules on that card exactly?

I've heard folks who prefer to agree that the life gain needed for a win would be double, so instead you need to get to 80 life rather than 40(since it is default)

That's not a bad idea. I just wish they would adjust EDH rules accordingly. My playgroup just goes by the rules:/

We do adjust infect though unless it's coming from a commander.

So lightning bolt does 6 damage?

Same rule would need to be applied to every card making no difference. The lightning bolt was everyone in my group arguement to  {Serra Ascendant}.

[Birdbrain]

So I bought a two player booster thing and pulled a  {Battle of Wits}

Have any of you ever played this silly card? I always thought a 100 card deck was already excessive, but 200??? And did Wizards just decide to troll a newbie pack by giving a rare like that??

get {research/development} and do an infinite mana combo with {izzet guildmage} in a casual game

[Stoneco1d869]

Do you consider the rules on that card exactly?

I've heard folks who prefer to agree that the life gain needed for a win would be double, so instead you need to get to 80 life rather than 40(since it is default)
[/quote]

That's not a bad idea. I just wish they would adjust EDH rules accordingly. My playgroup just goes by the rules:/

We do adjust infect though unless it's coming from a commander.
[/quote]
So lightning bolt does 6 damage?

Same rule would need to be applied to every card making no difference. The lightning bolt was everyone in my group arguement to  {Serra Ascendant}.
[/quote]

{Serra Ascendant} doesn't bother me too much because you don't win the next turn. It also does not prevent you from playing cards either. But I respect your point about lightning bolt.

[MuggyWuggy]

I mean, I think if you're the guy with  {Felidar Sovereign} and you state that you have one in your deck and you'd like his life win count to be 80 instead of 40; I don't think your opponents would mind.

You warn them that you can auto win, but you're not going to be cheap with a win card due to the life starting double. Instead since your original goal was 40 life when you only had 20, you double the win condition factor.

Doubling the effect of every spell would be pointless yes, but I just dont feel like giving everyone an honest chance is bad thing. It's a backup win plan with a legal card in your deck, but changing it to a goal rather than making it an instawin is better IMO for the whole group. Yes you could argue that you don't have to put that in your deck, but people want to win and have alt strategies for winning.

Now if you just CoP'd yourself and  {Iona, Shield of Emeria} is on the floor and you're just gaining life slowly; I'm sure people will just push you out of your LGS and rip your cards

[Piotr]

Doubling to 80 doesn't make sense, life start + 20 = 60 does.

[xStrayKnightx]

In an EDH game, 60 life is too easy to reach with the right cards. 80 life doubles what you start with, so it evens out. I personally would push it to 100, but that's also cause it can still be real easy to get to 80 life.

[Double-O-Scotch]

Woah, Woah, Woah! I tune in on page 4 and we're already at 100 life?! Pages 1-3 should be wicked! lol

[Keyeto]

I honestly don't think that {Felidar Sovereign} is as ridiculous as people make it out to be in EDH. Is its effect a bit abides by the life difference? Sure. But downright unfair? I don't really think so. By this logic, which was already touched on a bit, we'd need to double the life requirement for {Serra Ascendant} for sure, which is in a similar category. It doesn't win you the game, but a 6/6 for 1 is a more than unfair price for the other player. Some people think tutors are way too powerful in EDH, should we double their mana cost for fairness? I think not. If people want to play with "unfair" cards, it's their choice, and their playgroup doesn't have to duel them if its that bad. I used to have {Bond of Agony} in my deck. Nothing made a turn 1 {Akoum Refuge} more frowned upon. I took it out though, since it was a bit obnoxious. The Sovereign can't be played until turn 6, if they draw it that soon, out of their 99 card deck, and doesn't have any sort of resilience. It can be killed, exiled, bounced, or whatever you need to get rid of it. It gives you at least one turn to deal with it, and if by then nobody has dealt any damage to its controlling player, they win. It's pretty easily avoided. In a life gain deck, I can understand it being unfair, but it isn't that hard to put a few extra removal/counter/whatever spells in your deck to be prepared. EDH is all about the playgroup, after all. If you want to get rid of unfair cards, I'd vote for {Zur the Enchanter} over the Sovereign any day 😏

/rant

[Double-O-Scotch]

No way,{Necropotence} and {helm of obedience} are at the top of my hit list. I bitterly despise them both and vote ban and my vote counts for 2. Cause you agree with me.