Complete Infiltration

[Fistandantilus]

REVISED TEXT:

Complete Infiltration

Enchantment
At the end of your turn, if you control 10 or more permanents that you do not own, you win the game.

***

ORIGINAL TEXT:

Complete Infiltration

Enchantment
At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control 10 or more permanents that your opponents own, you win the game.

***

Comments:

I thought it would be fun to create a win condition that was based on card "ownership."  Card ownership is a factor that is sometimes considered on cards.

This could be a good combo with Reins of Power, and could give Blue a good way to encourage opponents not to overextend.

I suppose that it could be a combo with Shared Fate also.

Actually, I think that this card is more in the spirit of what Blue is about (controlling opponent's stuff) than the current Blue "you win" card, Battle of Wits--which nobody really takes too seriously.

[Anusien]

"At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control 10 or more permanents that you do not own, you win the game."

I really like this.  Do you think it needs to be 4UU?  What about 2UU or 3UU?  After all, the difficulty isn't casting it, but accomplishing it.

[Fistandantilus]

"At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control 10 or more permanents that you do not own, you win the game."

I really like this.  Do you think it needs to be 4UU?  What about 2UU or 3UU?  After all, the difficulty isn't casting it, but accomplishing it.

I think you're right.  I think that this can be costed as low as .  Controlling 10 of your opponent's permanents will in most cases be a difficult feat.  If anyone disagrees, please let me know.

As far as the "that you do not own" language goes... could there be a problem with players saying that they just borrowed a card from a friend, and therefore do not "own" it?  Probably not.  The rules could dictate that you are deemed to "own" any card that was at any time in your library or sideboard.

[Venven]

No rules problems with ownership, no. I like this card, although it does reward what some player's consider to be a very annoying strategy. Finally a reason to Donate a Varchild's War-Riders... I wonder how that even works.

[Anusien]

As far as the "that you do not own" language goes... could there be a problem with players saying that they just borrowed a card from a friend, and therefore do not "own" it?  Probably not.  The rules could dictate that you are deemed to "own" any card that was at any time in your library or sideboard.

Ownership already has specific connotations in Magic.  The game doesn't care which cards you borrow.

[parallax]

Would "if you own 10 or more permanents you don't control" be more interesting? That's what I first thought when I saw "infiltration".

[Ephraim]

Would "if you own 10 or more permanents you don't control" be more interesting? That's what I first thought when I saw "infiltration".

This makes sense, but I think that it creates a much more severe limitation on the kinds of decks that you could build with this card.  The way it is, you're limited to a small subset of mostly blue and black cards, but I think that there are enough of them that several different builds could evolve.  Your proposed wording calls for a much smaller pool of cards.  (Okay, the fact that I can think of five right off the top of my head kind of defeats my argument, but I can think of many more options for the current wording.  The five that I thought of, by the way are:  Varchild's War Riders, Forbidden Orchard, Donate, Sleeper Agent, and Yavimaya Dryad.)

[Mr. Nightmare]

Would "if you own 10 or more permanents you don't control" be more interesting? That's what I first thought when I saw "infiltration".

This makes sense, but I think that it creates a much more severe limitation on the kinds of decks that you could build with this card.  The way it is, you're limited to a small subset of mostly blue and black cards, but I think that there are enough of them that several different builds could evolve.  Your proposed wording calls for a much smaller pool of cards.  (Okay, the fact that I can think of five right off the top of my head kind of defeats my argument, but I can think of many more options for the current wording.  The five that I thought of, by the way are:  Varchild's War Riders, Forbidden Orchard, Donate, Sleeper Agent, and Yavimaya Dryad.)

Sky Swallower FTW?  Also, Avarice Totem, Phyrexian Infiltraitor, and the host of cards like Political Trickery.  Herald of Leshrac is pretty savage with the current wording.

[Harlequin]

The hunted guys too.

[Fistandantilus]

Would "if you own 10 or more permanents you don't control" be more interesting? That's what I first thought when I saw "infiltration".

That would be much easier to achieve.  Too easy, IMHO.  Also, Blue is more about gaining control of others' permanents than giving control of its permanents to others (I know, Donate, but still).

Maybe we should come up with a better word than "infiltration."  Maybe "defection"?  Like "Massive Defection"?

[jro]

How would you wind up controlling such permanents?

1) By taking control of them with Control Magic type spells.  If you've taken control of 10 or more of your opponent's permanents, you've probably won the game anyway.  If you built the "steal your stuff" deck, you'd wind up cutting this card.

2) By your opponent giving them to you with Forbidden Orchard, Hunted creatures, etc.  That would make this an extremely limited sideboard card.

So I guess what I'm saying is I don't think this effect is really printable, because it just doesn't matter.  The spell might as well cost 0 and have split second; it's the embodiment of "win more".  I could see printing it so players could learn about "win more", but it seems like there's plenty of that naturally such that you don't need special cards to prompt it.

[Anusien]

I think it's a fun, build around me sort of rare.  By the way, with the Mass Control Magic and effects like Peer Pressure, this becomes much easier to do in multiplayer.

My only concern is how many "Win the game" effects do we want to print?

[Ephraim]

My only concern is how many "Win the game" effects do we want to print?

I think the answer is obviously 42.

[Fistandantilus]

How would you wind up controlling such permanents?

1) By taking control of them with Control Magic type spells.  If you've taken control of 10 or more of your opponent's permanents, you've probably won the game anyway.  If you built the "steal your stuff" deck, you'd wind up cutting this card.

. . .

So I guess what I'm saying is I don't think this effect is really printable, because it just doesn't matter.  The spell might as well cost 0 and have split second; it's the embodiment of "win more".  I could see printing it so players could learn about "win more", but it seems like there's plenty of that naturally such that you don't need special cards to prompt it.

But imagine this:

You have Complete Infiltration in play.  On your opponent's turn, he plays four spells and Empty the Warrens, putting 10 1/1 goblin creature tokens into play.  He ends his turn, expecting to wallop you on his next turn.  At the beginning of your upkeep,  you play Reins of Power, taking control of all 10 of your opponent's goblin tokens.  You win.

Or imagine this:

You play Complete Infiltration.  Then you play Shared Fate.  You draw and play lands and other permanents from your opponent's library until you have 10 of your opponent's permanents in play.  You win.

There are more ways to gain control of large numbers of your opponent's permanents than you imagine, I think--and in some of these ways, you would not necessarily have won the game anyway.

Also, as some posters have recognized, there are some cards that merely exchange control of your permanents with those of your opponent.  These cards are usually cheaper than the outright "gain control of your opponent's permanent" cards.  I could possibly see a deck with these "exchange" cards that could make good use of Complete Infiltration.

Hm.  Maybe I'll make such a deck and play it as though Complete Infiltration cost 0 and had split second, as you suggest.  I'll see how it does.  If it does well, you won't object to leaving it with 0 cost and split second, will you?

[Fistandantilus]

My only concern is how many "Win the game" effects do we want to print?

Just this last one, and then we can stop. 

Seriously, though, some of the other (I dare say most) existing "win the game" cards are kind of gay (no offense to the homosexuals out there) and pretty much unplayable.  Test of Endurance is OK.  Chance Encounter is a joke.  Epic Struggle truly is "win more."  I've never even seen someone try to win with Mortal Combat (maybe some dredge deck could do it).  As for Battle of Wits, I don't think that someone can really make a good deck with that many cards in it.

When they printed "The Cheese Stands Alone" as "Barren Glory," I was intrigued.  I like alternative win conditions.  They shake things up and allow players to be more creative.  Sometimes, either getting your opponent to 0 life or decking him becomes rather mundane.

[Venven]

My only concern is how many "Win the game" effects do we want to print?

Seriously, though, some of the other (I dare say most) existing "win the game" cards are kind of gay (no offense to the homosexuals out there) and pretty much unplayable.

You're on a forum, take the 10 seconds to come up with a less offensive derogatory adjective. It also forces you to realize what it is you're trying to say.

You only get 1, maybe 2 "Win the game" effects in a block, excepting Odyssey block, because they are always rare and only appeal to a subset of Johnny's. The conditions are usually bordering on the absurd, so they remain out of competitive play. That's an important characteristic, because it clearly shows that these cards are designed purely for Johnny, and made so that Spike doesn't use them.

My big complaint with this card is that it doesn't force creative deck design like Barren Glory or Battle of Wits  does. You either load up on Annex and Confiscate effects or Donate a Varchild's War-Riders, which is to say that you're limited to a very particular range of cards in the environment.

(p.s. Reins of Power doesn't work with the current triggered ability wording order.)

[Fistandantilus]

I'll think about that.

Verbal warning for violation of Rule 4, Lack of Content (spam).  -DA

[Demonic Attorney]

Let's all make an effort to accommodate one another's sensitivities.

[Titanium Dragon]

Just an FYI, but while most alternative win condition cards have sucked, Battle of Wits is actually good and has done well at numerous tournaments. Its just never an archetypical deck due to logistical issues.

I think this card is fine, other than its wording. Should trigger at the beginning of the upkeep, not the end.

[Fistandantilus]

I think this card is fine, other than its wording. Should trigger at the beginning of the upkeep, not the end.

I changed it to trigger at the end of the upkeep so that it would work better with Reins of Power.

[Anusien]

All the alternate win conditions and just about everything trigger at beginning of upkeep.  I don't think you should change it.

In fact, I don't think it works to trigger on the end of upkeep.  The only thing that is similar is at End of Turn triggers, and those trigger at the beginning of the end of turn step.

[Fistandantilus]

All the alternate win conditions and just about everything trigger at beginning of upkeep.  I don't think you should change it.

In fact, I don't think it works to trigger on the end of upkeep.  The only thing that is similar is at End of Turn triggers, and those trigger at the beginning of the end of turn step.

I want it to work with Reins of Power and other cards that gain control of your opponent's permanents only until the end of turn.

I'll change it to trigger at the end of the turn instead.  It doesn't matter to me that the other alternative win conditions trigger at the beginning of the upkeep.  I have no pressing need to be ultra-consistent with those cards. 

Plus, making it trigger at the end of the turn will make it more powerful (can win on the same turn that you play it), which is good, since jro thinks that it is underpowered and "win more."

[Jacob Orlove]

End of turn is fine, but if you want an "end of upkeep" trigger, the correct way to do that is have it trigger at the beginning of the draw step.

[Venven]

The problem is with the 'intervening "if" clause' rule. I think it would work if you added something else to the trigger, but I'm not 100% sure on this, didn't spend much time looking for precedents.

So, to clarify, at the beginning of your upkeep the game checks for triggered abilities, then it checks each of their 'if' clauses, in this case "if you control ten or more permanents you do not own", and if that returns true, then the ability triggers. It checks again on resolution, but that's not such a problem. If you changed that initial 'if' clause to anything (hopefully related, can be something abstract like "tap each creature you control", whatever), you can tack on the "Then, if you control ten or more permanents you do not own, you win the game."

Pretty clumsy, but you could play around with that false 'if' clause to see if anything interesting falls out. The EOT trigger seems like the more natural decision though.

[Anusien]

"At the beginning of your upkeep, win the game if you control 10 or more permanents you do not own."

Rather unwieldy since it's one of two or three triggers that check on resolution but not on triggering.