Kingdoms and alt. win cons
Asked by Coward_Token 5 years ago
So I'm basing my understanding of the Kingdoms variant on this reddit post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EDH/comments/5izppt/kingdoms_edh_variant/
How do alternate win con cards like Laboratory Maniac and Approach of the Second Sun work here? E.g. if the Knight manages to win that way, do both that player and the King win? What if the Usurper does so before they're the King?
The rule was changed to only apply in limited range of influence games and is currently rule 104.3h, but doesn't apply to this format anymore.
If an effect instructs a player to win the game, as long as there ins't an effect or rule prohibiting that, they do so. If a King, Bandit, or Assassin wins the game it's straight forward, as the game rules don't prohibit that.
Knight is a bit tricky, as they're supposed to win by the king winning, but I don't believe he's explicitly prohibited from winning. Presumably the king would win as well.
The Usurper winning also doesn't appear prohibited, though it's also finicky. And as the king was still in the game there's the question of whether the knight can declare his new allegiance and claim joint victory.
July 20, 2018 12:44 a.m.
FancyTuesday says... Accepted answer #3
Reading the rules of the format I feel this is something that will need to be addressed with special rules either from the person "maintaining" the format or the people playing the game. But here's my take on it:
Alternate win conditions do what many cards in MTG do: what the rules do not. When you your opponent's life total is 0 you've won because the rules say they lost. There's no rule that says "you win when you cast Coalition Victory", the card says that you win and the rules tell you what it means to "win" as a game action. Looking at the rules as presented I don't see anything that stops alternate win conditions from working, though technically speaking I don't think they play nicely with the "teams" Kingdoms sets up.
For the Knight to win the Knight and King must be the only two players alive. If the King "wins" outright and a Bandit is still alive the King wins and the game is over, the Knight's special win condition isn't satisfied. If one Bandit "wins" without causing the king to lose the other doesn't benefit because the game ended with the King still alive.
To avoid this you'd have to craft an additional rule that said something to the effect of "If an effect other than a game rule would cause a player to win the game, that player doesn't win the game" or create a ban list for these type of effects.
Here's the operative rule:
104.1. A game ends immediately when a player wins, when the game is a draw, or when the game is restarted.
Gidgetimer says... #1
There used to be a rule that said "If a player wins the game each of their opponents lose the game" but I can't find it in the current rules. This would mean that if the Assassin used an alternate wincon they would win, if the King used one they (and the Knight?) would win, and if the knight or bandits used one the bandits would win.
The Usurper thing I would say the King and Usurper would do the switching roles thing and everyone else would be eliminated.
Now this is my personal interpretation of the rules as applied to an extremely casual format. This is in no way a definitive answer, but your question has sat here for 5 hours so it's an interpretation until someone disagrees. The best way to find out a definitive answer would be to ask the creators of the format.
July 18, 2018 11:06 p.m.