Better than YawgWill

[dandan]

The whole Yawgmoth thread got me thinking, as usual a rather bumpy ride

Yawgmoth, super-powerful being with abilities than should win you the game ----> must have high cost but danger of reanimation -------> how powerful can abilities be before no amount of casting cost can balance them --------> once you cross a certain threshold (no pun intended), win merely becomes win more, 20 damage or 40 damage might be relevant but usually the effect is the same----------->Is YawgWill on all graveyards cool or more broken than should be considered or not actually that big a deal as win=win anyway-----------> cut the middle man and playing with yourself and just say you win

So here it is

Yawgmoth's Crush your enemies and hear the lamentations of their women

Sorcery
As an additional cost to play ~this~ remove your hand, graveyard, library and all permanents you control from the game: You win this game
Some contracts are better not read

Is the game ready for a real 'I win' card?

[asmoranomardicodais]

Wasn't there a thread about this awhile back where most people agreed that I win should not be on a card for any price? Even forgetting that thread, I think 9 mana, monocolored, is a little bit cheap for something like this. I mean, why play anything that costs more than nine mana ever? Why even try to damamge the opponent? Why not just rush to nine mana, and hope your not playing against blue?

[The Atog Lord]

I think that Dragonstorm is Wizard's version of this card.

[parallax]

I think that Dragonstorm is Wizard's version of this card.

You mean Tooth and Nail?

Nine mana is pretty much the benchmark for "Win the game.". However, current nine mana win cards require you to populate your deck with other cards which are generally bad to draw. "You win the game." just isn't as interesting or cool as pulling four dragons out of your deck (or one goblin and one knight) and doming your opponent for twenty (or infinity).

[The Atog Lord]

It is very rare for Wizards to have a "win the game" card. More in flavor for this would be something like "target player loses 20 life." I'm thinking of Goblin Bomb, or to a lesser degree Plague Wind. It would be more interesting, and also more able to be countered, if the card indirectly won you the game, rather than having the very text of the card ending the game.

[Pave]

The phrase 'win the game' doesn't seem over the top to me in the light of Platinum Angel and Door to Nothingness.  (Whether those cards should ever have been printed is another matter.  The same goes for Mindslaver.)

[Nazdakka]

Wasn't there a thread about this awhile back where most people agreed that I win should not be on a card for any price? Even forgetting that thread, I think 9 mana, monocolored, is a little bit cheap for something like this. I mean, why play anything that costs more than nine mana ever? Why even try to damamge the opponent? Why not just rush to nine mana, and hope your not playing against blue?

There was, and this card has all the same issues.

Sins of the Past lets this be cast from the grave for 6, and this card effectively nukes any further design space in that area. I think this is basically unprintable at any cost - compare it to Coalition Victory, which is a basically fair Johnny card for 1 less which requires a lot more effort and a 5 colour manabse. I realise that this is much more vulnerable to countermagic than CV, but I still don't think the possibilty of a counter is enough to make this reasonable. Think about how this will play in non-blue control mirrors. You'll go from an interesting game, full of clever tactics, to "Oh right. You win the game. That was fun, I guess". It's not hard to get lots and lots of mana in that sort of matchup, and so this will get played at almost any cost.

I really think that the design space of cards which literally say 'You win the game' is a box which which we really don't want to open. Sure, some cards like Dragonstorm and Tooth and Nail are pretty close, but there are circumstances where those cards don't win the game, and that makes them somehow a lot less annoying. This will just feel dumb.

[Anusien]

9 mana is not at all unreasonable, and this can be made uncounterable with a ridiculous number of effects.  I'd much rather something at this cost that says "All players lose the game" and then have it be a combo with Platz, or a way to draw a losing game.

[jro]

It seems like Wizards allows "You win the game" cards as long as their are specific, difficult conditions on using the card.  Coalition Victory and the various upkeep trigger enchantments are the best example of this, but I think their generally permissive attitude towards three-card infinite combos also shows this.  I think the problem with this card is that the only condition really necessary for it to win you the game is to get it on the stack.  If this were given a more specific condition to allow it to be cast, ex. "As an additional cost, sac five swamps, five black creatures, and pay 5 life", I'd think it would be closer to acceptable.

I also like Anusien's suggestion, but maybe as a separate card.  I was thinking it could act like a kingmaker card in multiplayer.  Something like:
Yawgmoth's Spite
BBB
As an additional cost to play, do something onerous.
You and target player each lose the game.

[The Atog Lord]

I'd play that "we both lose" card. Win game one, board in four of them, and just draw the match. Seems great. Honestly, a card like that shouldn't be printed because it would have a terrible impact on tournament magic.

[dandan]

Sins of the Past lets this be cast from the grave for 6, and this card effectively nukes any further design space in that area. I think this is basically unprintable at any cost - compare it to Coalition Victory, which is a basically fair Johnny card for 1 less which requires a lot more effort and a 5 colour manabse. I realise that this is much more vulnerable to countermagic than CV, but I still don't think the possibilty of a counter is enough to make this reasonable. Think about how this will play in non-blue control mirrors. You'll go from an interesting game, full of clever tactics, to "Oh right. You win the game. That was fun, I guess". It's not hard to get lots and lots of mana in that sort of matchup, and so this will get played at almost any cost.

I really think that the design space of cards which literally say 'You win the game' is a box which which we really don't want to open. Sure, some cards like Dragonstorm and Tooth and Nail are pretty close, but there are circumstances where those cards don't win the game, and that makes them somehow a lot less annoying. This will just feel dumb.

To be fair, populating your deck with Sins of the Past, some copies of this card and having a discard/library searching outlet doesn't sound that dangerous to me. I don't even think it is unreasonable to say that in a control mirror that the first one to 9 mana wins. There are several non-counterspell effects that counter this, although I think it is fair comment (as well as a good additional balancing factor) to make it 'target player loses' rather than you win (at least it balances it in Type 4!!). To me there are a number of effects that are already pretty much 'I win' as well as quite a few 'you lose' ones too. Is saying it straight too much of a step?

(Note that making an opponent lose means that stuff like True Believer and a number of other White effects also effectively counter this card, as well as Blue's arsenal of real counters)

[chrissss]

Dream Halls would make it a lot better though. not sure if this card would be tolerated.

[dandan]

Yes, point taken, although if you can use Dream Halls you are probably playing Vintage and have just cast a high cc Enchantment and seen it resolve, which is akin to saying you win anyway.

I think I agree with the consensus here (thank you for points well made rather than just negatively attacking the idea of a straight 'I win' card), an 'I win' card is open to the various 'cheaty' ways of getting it on the stack and limits the design space of such cards as well as being rather short on imagination and lacking in flavour (the idea of two duelling Wizards slugging it out then one turns round and says 'I win' was a good way of saying that). You have convinced me that 'I win' cards are not a good idea.

Looking at the implied second question, if 'I win' is not to be allowed, how close can a powerful spell go to winning the game?

Can 20 damage be dealt?
Can 20 life be lost?
Can I remove your library from the game?
Can I remove your permanents from the game?

Those are all usually game-winning effects. The first is already possible, the second and third are possible (via storm), the fourth has been approached but I don't think has been printed to date. What is the upper limit on card power?

[Anusien]

I'd play that "we both lose" card. Win game one, board in four of them, and just draw the match. Seems great. Honestly, a card like that shouldn't be printed because it would have a terrible impact on tournament magic.

Actually, if both players would lose the game at the same time, it doesn't get recorded as a double loss; it just draws the game.  So in other words, it's as effective as Shandalar for stalling, but significantly splashier.

[The Atog Lord]

Anusien,

I know. But I can add the card to my deck and cast it if it doesn't look like I'll win. As for Shandalar, I don't know if it actually lets you stall, but I know I lost plenty of time to that awesome game.

DanDan,

What if you had the card remove the opponent's library in addition to your own? That would be close to "winning the game" but would also be a symmetric effect, two things that don't tend to be found together very often.

[chrissss]

Wrath of Yawgmoth

I have been thinking, and WoY can just be countered easily, and with cards like angels graze, there is a lot to do against this. this card cant be backup up with FoWs, or mana drains, so its play and die, or win. Tendrils of agony is still much better by far.

I am more worried about limited though, this card would be a lot lot better than in constructed.

[parallax]

Wrath of Yawgmoth

I have been thinking, and WoY can just be countered easily, and with cards like angels graze, there is a lot to do against this. this card cant be backup up with FoWs, or mana drains, so its play and die, or win. Tendrils of agony is still much better by far.

I am more worried about limited though, this card would be a lot lot better than in constructed.

I don't think we should worry about rare's effect on limited that much. I'd rather open a Jitte.

The important thing is to give the card an interesting effect. Removing all libraries from the game is kind of interesting: It still leads to a win most of the time, but is highly vulnerable to Compulsive Research and a host of other cards.

[bomholmm]

How about something with a drawback thats REALLY hard to work around.

Yawgmoths tease
some apropriate mana cost prefferably 4+ mana

Sorcery

Split second
You win the game

When you play this spell you lose the game.



Its an "I win" card that can't be responded to and has a storm like trigger that makes you lose the game.  I guess it would combo with Djinn Illuminatus, Mirrari, Platinum Angel and Mischievous Quanar but those all cost enough that I don't see a big problem.  Whether it actually adds anything to the game or is a hindrance like donate is the other question.

This would actually combo too well with angels grace, oops.

[ELD]

I'd play that "we both lose" card. Win game one, board in four of them, and just draw the match. Seems great. Honestly, a card like that shouldn't be printed because it would have a terrible impact on tournament magic.

Agreed.  Even playing it 4x game one give you the ability to draw unfavorable games.  Angels Grace thrown into the mix makes it a two card combo FTW. 

[technogeek5000]

maybe it should almost win you the game with a huge drawback.

WoY
4xB
Target opponent loses 15 life, then you lose the game.

This way you have to combo for it to not kill you, plus it wont entirely kill an opponent making it less broken.

[Norm4eva]

The main problem with this card is that it cannot foster player interaction once it resolves.  You either answer it on the stack, or you lose.  Now, some cards appear to execute the same way, but really that's just the deck it's in supplying it with gas; YawgWin looks pretty dumb if you splash for it in CounterRebels.  Even goofy ones like Dovescape have to acknowledge the state of the game up until that point; who casts Dovescape when they're staring down a Spiritmonger?  The only gamestate this cares about is you having 9 mana; it obviates everything else.
Basically, whoever made the Tooth and Nail comparison is right on the money; this card lets you play T&N without all those annoying 11 mana beatsticks gumming up the draw step - or for that matter, the attack phase.

[orgcandman]

If you want to make something better than yawgwill but similar, try this on for size:

Yawgmoth's Supreme Humor
4RB
Sorcery
Until end of turn, if a card would be removed from the game, put it in its owner's graveyard.
All players remove their hands from the game face up.
Starting with you, and proceeding to your left, each player chooses a card outside the game that is face up and plays that card without paying its converted mana cost.

Just a stab anyway.

[Liam-K]

that card reads "all players discard their hands"

[orgcandman]

Well, obviously I meant to make it read:

Yawgmoth's Supreme Humor
4RB
Sorcery
All players remove their hands from the game face up.
Players may play cards removed from the game with Yawgmoth's Supreme Horror as though they were in hand.

[Anusien]

That's the worst Uba Mask I've ever seen.

[Evenpence]

That's the worst Uba Mask I've ever seen.

This was truly hilarious.

It should be titled Yawgmoth's Supreme Uba Mask in honor of this hilarious post.

[dandan]

I think this thread has run its course.

We seem to agree that a straight Win card is a bad idea as:
1. It can usually be 'cheated' into play/the stack
2. It is unimaginative
3. It ruins player interaction

As was mentioned, it is possible but only if it has the mother of all drawbacks and even then the win should be caused not ordered
(Think 'Remove your library from the game: Target player removes his or her library from the game. Play this only in that players Main Phase')