Battle of Wits


Format Legality
Tiny Leaders Legal
Noble Legal
Leviathan Legal
Magic Duels Legal
Canadian Highlander Legal
Vintage Legal
Modern Legal
Penny Dreadful Legal
Custom Legal
Vanguard Legal
Legacy Legal
Archenemy Legal
Planechase Legal
1v1 Commander Legal
Duel Commander Legal
Oathbreaker Legal
Unformat Legal
Casual Legal
Commander / EDH Legal

Printings View all

Set Rarity
Magic 2013 (M13) Rare
Ninth Edition (9ED) Rare
Ninth Edition Foreign Black Border (9EDFBB) Rare
Odyssey (ODY) Rare

Combos Browse all

Battle of Wits


At the beginning of your upkeep, if you have 200 or more cards in your library, you win the game.

Battle of Wits Discussion

BMHKain on Perfectly (im)Balanced, As All Things ...

1 month ago

@GhostChieftain: LET'S BUMP IT UP 200 NOTCHES; Battle of Wits STYLE.

  1. Teferi, Timebender , Chopped. What is the fate of Nexus of Fate here? Is it worth replacing; or is the idea of Ral Zarek 's Ultimate actually worth a Gamble?

  2. Two new Mu Yanling 's have been confirmed awhile back: Mu Yanling, Sky Dancer , & Mu Yanling, Celestial Wind . For Mu #1: if she makes it in, is she worth the re-add of Prismatic Omen for Infinite Draw? or is Mu Yanling, Celestial Wind decent enough? I, mean, one of the Elspeth's Ultimates gives your Creatures Flying as an Emblem; something Archetype of Imagination should be able to remove, though it's for another time.

  3. Golos, Tireless Pilgrim & Crucible of Worlds won't leave this deck any time soon. But in your thoughts, which Walker, in any combination of the following should be kept?

1: Wrenn and Six : Recurring Lands to your Hand is great, one damage is okay, but giving your Nonpermanents (Instants & Sorceries) Retrace? AWESOME!

2: Xenagos, the Reveler : Lots of Tokens? No problem! You'll be netting a lot of ramp in the form of & Mana of any combination! a 2/2 Satyr w/ Haste is good too! Oh, & it's not like you'll need to use that Ultimate of his; it's completely optional!

3: Kiora, the Crashing Wave : Why did I cut her? She stops damage heading to & coming from any target. Does both Card advantage & Mana Ramp at one time; & the thought of a 9/9 every turn is just fearsome. Which would you give the Approval of, & Rejection of these three?

  1. Heh. I just threw that in there as an alt. Solution in case the current Manabase might need minor improvement. Guess not... Ah well...

  2. I ended up simply adding Mirari's Wake as a result of this. But I'd still like some thought on Night of Souls' Betrayal . Is it worth adding? I already have a list of Combos of Potential Consideration in my head as we speak; & one of the combos might include this...

I just wanted to bring these questions back up. Once I got them answered, then I'll leave the rest of the damn job to me; after all, The Mono- deck I'm planning has a Philosophy for WHY needs more Artifice (They're just fine w/ Enchantments though.), Flying Creatures ( Birds of Paradise much?), basically every point against WotC about & its conventional traits. I'll begin after I finish off my Morophon, the Boundless Human Tribal. Or, maybe my Exile Matters Deck... Who knows... Hyro… dorodorodoro…

(Okay, that part made no sense.)

dbpunk on What if we had a ...

3 months ago

Even worse: A horrible blue deck consisting of Storm Crow s and a ton of copies of Search the City , along with a lot of Battle of Wits so that it adds up to two thousand cards. Essentially, 1/5 islands, 1/5 Storm Crows, 1/5 Battle of Wits, 1/5 Search the City, and 1/5 Random Removal Spells just to make it the worst blue deck ever.

dbpunk on What if we had a ...

3 months ago

This would probably be the worst idea yet but I also can't help but think how funny it would be for a deck with just 200 islands and 200 copies of Battle of Wits .

Kjartan on Muldrotha, Queen of the Dead

4 months ago

I'm glad you feel that way.

Really quickly, cutting the deck down to exactly 60 cards, is almost always the right decision. It makes your deck more consistant, and as long as you have cards that are better than others, (which is practically always the case,) consitancy beats whatever benefit you find in having more cards. (There is only two decks I can think of, that wants more than 60 cards, and it's Battle of Wits , and temur Scapeshift )

Then there is land-count. Finding the correct amount of lands is very, very difficult. It depends on both your curve, avarage cmc, deck size, amount of library manipulation, and other mana generators. _(And to top it all off, adding or removing lands from your deck, is going to effect your curve, and avarage cmc, making it even more difficult.

I can't give some magical equation to solve that problem, but I can give you some rules of thumb that will sometimes apply and sometimes don't:

As long as your deck is more than 30 percent lands, and you have 4 or fewer nonland mana producers, you can count them as more lands lands.

As long as your deck is more than 30 lands, every 1 mana draw-spell, or scry 2+ effect counts as half a land. ( Serum Visions is like a land if your deck is blue enough to support it.)

You can use a hypergoemetric calculator, to figure out the chances for having X amount of lands in any stage of the game. Using that you can find out whether you like those odds or not.

For a deck that plays 6-drops, and has a relatively high curve to boot, you probably want at least 24 lands (or cards that you can count as lands) in a 60 deck.

Caerwyn on Random Favorite Cards

6 months ago

Amusingly, one of mine is Phyrexian Hulk as well, though a different edition than the one you linked. The flavour extol the 7th Edition printing has always amused me.

Some other favourites are Battle of Wits and Karona, False God - I have always been a sucker for difficult to build around cards.

Then there are the older style of sliver. That entire tribe would make my nostalgic list - everyone I knew who was playing during Scourge had a sliver deck, leading to some very interesting games with out-of-control lording.

Kjartan on story of my life

6 months ago

You've got a pretty good understanding on how deck building works, but you should really get the deck cut down to 60 cards. There is realy no reason to play more cards than what you need to unless you're running some super weird strategy, (Like a Temur Scapeshift deck or a Battle of Wits deck.)

20 Lands is probably a couple too few if you wish to run 6-drops. (Even if you cut the deck-sizedown to 60.)

On a sidenote, I don't see the point of having Evolving Wilds in a mono black deck, with no cards asking for lands in the graveyard, and no cards that allows you to know the top card of your deck. I guess you could use it just to filter out your deck from lands late-game, but I don't think that's beneficial enough to have tap lands for. (And since I already think you're lacking in land-count, I'll even find that small upside to be counterproductive.)

Caerwyn on New to MTG and could ...

7 months ago

I will try to revisit this when I have a bit more time. If you could make lists for the decks on this site, that would be helpful. This site has some nifty tools, such as sorting options and quick data on mana costs, that make deck help pretty easy.

If you are playing with no banlist, there are a couple inexpensive cards that are considered broken even in the oppressive Vintage. There is a reason no deck is allowed to run four copies of Sol Ring. In Blue, cards like Brainstorm would be strong inclusions.

You should generally not run 75 cards ever - beyond Battle of Wits there is never a reason to run over 60 cards. More cards decreases your chances of getting the cards you need.

ThatGuy_OhWhatsHisName on Jodah, Battler of Wits

8 months ago

I really appreciate the effort to build a joke deck for Battle of Wits. I actually have a deck that can win using Battle of Wits and is completely commander legal but requires 3 or more people. I currently don't have a copy of the card so I don't currently run it. I am thinking of getting it and putting it in my side board. My deck is:

Load more

No data for this card yet.