Platinum Mirror

[GoblinGame]

Platinum Mirror
6
Artifact
If you would win the game, instead you lose the game. If an opponent would lose the game, instead you lose the game.

I was looking at what is known about Unhinged so far online. So I was thinking about some whacky cards and I thought this was an interesting idea. Although I think with the current wording it contradicts itself and the playing area bursts into flame if someone would win or lose the game.  Im not sure how to word it to get around that problem, or if there is a way. It might be something like "If you would win the game not due to Platinum Mirror...." And "If an opponent would lose the game not due to Platinum Mirror...." Not sure though. Any ideas?

Thanks,
GoblinGame

Current Wording
Platinum Mirror
6
Artifact
If you would win the game not due to Platinum Mirror, instead you lose the game. If an opponent would win the game not due to Platinum Mirror instead you win the game. Players do not lose life from mana burn.

[Ephraim]

I don't like this card. Basically, it encourages you to rush to six mana, drop the Mirror, and then mana burn as fast as you can. That's the entire reason why Mindslaver has the "no mana burn" clause - during testing they discovered that mana burn was just way too efficient a way to kill oneself.

[Jacob Orlove]

Platinum Mirror
6
Artifact
If you would win the game, instead you lose the game. If an opponent would lose the game, instead you lose the game.

This card basically turns any situation in which the game would end (except divine intervention) into you losing. Aren't there better cards to Donate?

[GoblinGame]

This card basically turns any situation in which the game would end (except divine intervention) into you losing. Aren't there better cards to Donate?

You're right, the wording I ment to use was "If you would win the game, instead you lose the game. If an opponent would win the game, instead you win the game." So basically you are trying to kill yourself. Perhaps there should be a mana burn clause in it as well. But part of the thing to balance that is that you just spend 6 mana and are passing the turn so your opponent gets the change to burn first.

[Laurie Cheers]

Don't you mean

If an opponent would win the game, instead you win the game.
If an opponent would lose the game, instead you lose the game.

[Upinthe]

Wait a minute, can't I just concede and cause you to lose when this is out?!


I don't like this either. This combos really well with many cards on the restricted list, and thats not a good thing. (Channel/Platinum Mirror instant kill, Demonic Consultation, Necropotence, Yawgmoth's Bargain, etc...

Finally the "not due to Platinum Mirror" thing  doesn't make sense. If I cast March of Machines and attack and kill you with it, is that "due" to the mirror or not?

[GoblinGame]

If an opponent would win the game, instead you win the game.
If an opponent would lose the game, instead you lose the game.

Basically yes. But I think the "not due to platinum mirror" has to be there, otherwise if someone would win then the other person would win instead. And then that person would win, so it would have to switch again.

Wait a minute, can't I just concede and cause you to lose when this is out?!

Im not positive but I do not believe so. I think concession will not affect anything in play. Otherwise you would not be able to scoop if you had Platinum Angel out. I could be wrong in that logic though.

Finally the "not due to Platinum Mirror" thing doesn't make sense. If I cast March of Machines and attack and kill you with it, is that "due" to the mirror or not?

Literally yes, how I invisioned it functioning no. I was trying to come up with a way to stop it from going into an infanite contradiction of itself whenever someone won or lost. I can't think of the wording I would need in order to do that.

I figured needing the 6 mana plus the restricted cards would be enough to keep the rougness in check, I could however be wrong, now that I think about it a bit more. Perhaps a higher cost? Or maybe this card is just to messed up to ever see fake print. I will try to brainstorm ways to make it less broken, other than just upping the cost. Although I don't know that there are any.

[Laurie Cheers]

Exploiting the "non repeating" behaviour of replacement effects:

"If a player would win or lose the game, all his or her opponents do so instead."

[Ephraim]

I don't think that wording works either, Laurie. "If a player would win the game, all his or her opponents win instead." How exactly do multiple players win? Does that mean that one can drop this, do something that would normally win you the game and as a result cause all of the other players to draw? Now, I doubt you'd drop this when you're about to win anyhow, but I think the implications for multiplayer are silly. Any card that makes drawing more likely than winning or losing every time it hits the table probably needs to be reconsidered.

At any rate, I think this card really should not be pursued. Platinum Angel was a little unusual, but it didn't actively encourage players to kill themselves. This card does and I think that can't be good for the game of Magic.

[GerryMander]

This + final fortune + ending your turn = woohoo!