I've done a lot of research, looked a lot of places and heard nearly every complaint there is. The fact remains that Commander as a format isn't appealing to nearly as many people as has been expected. One could chalk that up to a vocal minority, as is mostly the case with anything in today's world. But it is not difficult to realize that Commander, while eminently awesome, could use some adjustments. The official commander group says "make house rules", players say "make your own format" and others say "commander is healthy". The fact remains that the commander banned list and rules are based upon a casual format called EDH. In an effort to change some of the problems plaguing the format (unless you think it works as people insist it always does.) I'm here to break new ground on a new format tentatively titled "Commander: Revised Edition".
UPDATE: Wizard's has officially sanctioned Commander for FNM. They also have an interesting caveat called "Create a Format". I can think of none better then printing up this list right here and seeing if anyone at FNM is interested in playing Commander: Revised Edition.
Step 1. Fix the color identity rules.1. A card's colour identity is its colour plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text. A card's colour identity is established before the game begins, and cannot be changed by game effects. The Commander's colour identity restricts what cards may appear in the deck.
2. A deck may not generate mana outside its colours. If an effect would generate mana of an illegal colour, it generates colourless mana instead.
Why do you need the first rule with the second one in the game? You want to stop people from playing cards with other colored mana symbols on them—but they won't be able to produce the color to use them anyway. A deck SHOULD be allowed to play Hybrid cards because they are not gold cards. Decks SHOULD be allowed to play {Obelisk of Alara} for only the abilities they can pay for, because it's a card who's other abilities they cannot utilize. If you want to use {Ancient Grudge} in your mono-red deck, by all means, but you won't be able to pay its flashback cost.
Step 2. Ban cards unhealthy for the format, not for the casual "fun" of game.Fun is extremely subjective concept. What may be fun for some players may not be for others. Thus is life, and so it goes with Magic. The very idea of a casual format is counter-intuitive to begin with. You simply cannot ban enough cards to keep the game still "fun". Players come in all shapes and sizes (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b"), all looking to experience different things from their games. Magic has always had a kitchen table for this reason. There was never a reason to write "make house rules" for a casual format, because it is implicit. Any banned list for a format should include cards that unhealthy for the format, degenerative, or just down right break the format. You can then sit with your friends and decide what isn't "fun" with your house rules. Imagine that Wizards banned {Acidic Slime} when it was standard legal because it wasn't "fun" to have lands blown up. {Worldfire} is one of those cards for Commander. You can say what you want "just counter it", but it is a symmetrical spell that essentially defeats the purpose of playing the game. There are ways to cheat it out early, ways to make it uncounterable and ways freeze the entire table until it finally comes out. The format should not become Vintage/Legacy where Force of Will is required for every single deck, to keep degenerative cards honest. {Trade Secrets} is not that card. Just because players conspire together to draw a bunch of cards defeats the purpose of a
casual "fun" game, not the format. The only thing a rules committee can actually be in control of is banning format breaking cards, not dictating the amount of "fun" people can have.
Step 3. The Nephilim are now playable Commanders. {Yore-Tiller Nephilim}
{Glint-Eye Nephilim}
{Dune-Brood Nephilim}
{Ink-Treader Nephilim}
{Witch-Maw Nephilim}
Step 4. Lower the life total to 30.This may be the more controversial rules change I will be introduction here, it's also one I believe in very much. For those play Standard or other formats know that 20 life games are rarely that quick. That is just in a 1v1 environment. Now you double the life total and add 2 other players, it lengthens games, significantly. The original reason for having 40 life was to presumably allow for MANY turns of players ramping up for an explosive finish. The format as it stands now does none of those things (unless its strictly casual). Lets look at some other positives:
•Cards that care about how much life you have ({Serra Ascendant}) function better as a result (if you've taken any damage whatsoever before it is dropped).
•It lowers the inevitability some decks require to combo to a finish. If it takes at least 5 rounds away from someone hoping to Entwine {Tooth and Nail}
•Red, which deals a lot with glass cannon decks and direct damage can make otherwise less useful cards like {Searing Spear}into somewhat of a weapon. It now deals 1/10th of your total life damage to someone. Also global spells like {Earthquake} with the right amount of damage can be downright devastating.
•Forces combo/control decks to interact earlier in the opening rounds, because aggressive creature strategies are viable.
•Makes shocklands, fetchlands, pay life spells, {Dark Confidant}, {Phyrexian Arena} and other "use life as a resource" cards slightly more damaging as it now represents a larger amount of damage dealt.
•Lessens the amount of game times thus making a poor hand into more of a fighting chance.
Step 5. Change the Mulligan rules.The Partial Paris mulligan is a colossal failure. It makes games completely degenerate. It makes mulliganing the correct decision 95% of the time, and it vastly favors combo decks by allowing them to dig for pieces without card disadvantage. An overwhelming amount of combo players prefer the Partial Paris for that exact reason. It also encourages poor deck building and less then optimal curves. A way to fix this is by either employing the standard Paris mulligan (7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1.) or playtesting an alternative:
British MulliganBecause Commander games are long and usually not played in multi-game matches, the format uses a custom mulligan rule that allows some flexibility and reduces shuffling. This is also known as the two-shuffle mulligan.
- 1. In turn order, each player may take one free mulligan by shuffling his or her hand into his or her deck and drawing a new hand of seven cards.
- 2. Continuing in turn order, each player who did so may then take any number of "exile" mulligans, setting aside his or her hand face-down and drawing a new hand with one fewer card each time.
- 3. Once all players have kept opening hands, players shuffle all set aside cards into their decks.
TENTATIVE BANNED LIST
{Ancestral Recall}
{Balance}
{Black Lotus}
{Channel}
{Emrakul, the Aeons Torn}
{Fastbond}
{Gifts Ungiven}
{Grindstone} *Banned 7/15/14*
{Hermit Druid}
{Karakas}
{Library of Alexandria}
{Limited Resources}
{Metalworker}
{Mox Emerald}
{Mox Jet}
{Mox Pearl}
{Mox Ruby}
{Mox Sapphire}
{Oath of Druids}
{Painter's Servant} *Unbanned 7/15/14*
{Panoptic Mirror}
{Protean Hulk}
{Shahrazad}
{Sundering Titan}
{Sway of the Stars}
{Time Vault}
{Time Walk}
{Tinker}
{Tolarian Academy}
{Upheaval}
{Vampiric Tutor}
{Worldfire}
{Yawgmoth's Bargain}
Cannot be used as a commander
{Griselbrand}
{Braids, Cabal Minion}
{Erayo, Soratami Ascendant}
{Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary}
Dexterity/Ante Cards
{Amulet of Quoz}
{Bronze Tablet}
{Chaos Orb}
{Contract from Below}
{Darkpact}
{Demonic Attorney}
{Falling Star}
{Jeweled Bird}
{Rebirth}
{Tempest Efreet}
{Timmerian Fiends}
I would add that I'm up for debate about just about all of these ban choices. Some things like {Karakas} I would have considered unbanning, except it kind of breaks the format (as Commanders represent Legendary creatures) and with the new color-identity rules I'm proposing, it would essentially make it an auto-include in most decks.
The Commander format as it stands right now is also unsanctioned. That presents a few immediate problems:
How many truly broken decks do we not know about?
Because professional players and homebrewers alike have not been incentivized to break the format for monetary gain, some of the truest format breaking decks may not have revealed themselves. It is quite possible every broken combination has been thought up, but it is also likely a Draw-Go deck is somewhere under the surface. I would never underestimate the power levels of some decks that top teams could devise, and they currently have no reason to devote their full attention to breaking this format.
We do not have access to deck lists.
Which causes groups like us, and the official Commander RC, to be banning cards in a vacuum. Magic Online can be used to pull data from, but I am unaware of any such way to do so. Having access to experimental data can give us all the chances we need to know what we're dealing with. If we see certain cards routinely being played, it could be more then possible it represents those degenerative cards we're looking to stop.
Update: Top 8: Commander (http://www.mtgtop8.com/format?f=EDH) and MTGDecks.net (http://www.mtgdecks.net/formats/view/Commander) sort of elevates slightly one of the long standing issues. It is based around 1v1, but does give a look at some of the formats most used cards.
Prize support.
There is little to no incentive to play currently unless you are one of those casual players the format was designed for. No Pro Points, no DCI rankings, no player rewards. If anything, this new format is being designed to help push sanctioning. The current Commander RC insists on it being casual fun, it will not be sanctioned as long as the "social contract" is in place and harmless cards are banned, while degenerative ones are not. Again, this isn't to make the format competitive, it is to make it not casual. Designing a format catered to casual players is picking sides. Having a format any type of player can do any type of thing in is the goal.
Wizards/Independent groups lack cohesive resources
There is no overarching umbrella site that can make these things possible. But I believe there is a lot of money in it for someone who can put it all together. A Commander 2.0 website with deck lists, articles, cards for sale, and collected data from tournaments/MTGO (like MTGO-stats.com is for MTGO Standard) that puts certain archetype cards into a "package" based upon its frequency of appearance. Even an app that ties all of these things together. Magic has a multi-million dollar secondary market, and if someone had the resources to tie it all together into a cohesive package to help push a new format for sanctioning - they could be rich because of it.
The only issue I see here would be the life total thing. This is because the decks that are specifically made to deal the twenty one commander damage get a nerf because they just need a few more creatures to do the same thing. Also, EDH is supposed to be slower than other formats. The forty life is there so people can play the more expensive CMC cards in their decks. Everything else looks great
Quote from: Munchlax on July 14, 2014, 12:40:14 AM
The only issue I see here would be the life total thing. This is because the decks that are specifically made to deal the twenty one commander damage get a nerf because they just need a few more creatures to do the same thing. Also, EDH is supposed to be slower than other formats. The forty life is there so people can play the more expensive CMC cards in their decks. Everything else looks great
Agreed. There are definitely a lot of cards that need to be banned. I think that any card that says "take an extra turn" should be banned EXCEPT {temporal mastery}, because the exile clause keeps it fair.
Quote from: Munchlax on July 14, 2014, 12:40:14 AM
The only issue I see here would be the life total thing. This is because the decks that are specifically made to deal the twenty one commander damage get a nerf because they just need a few more creatures to do the same thing. Also, EDH is supposed to be slower than other formats. The forty life is there so people can play the more expensive CMC cards in their decks. Everything else looks great
I don't think it speeds the format up that much, in fact it might not even change. Playing EDH as my main format, I routinely see players give up 8-10 life to shocks, fetches, anything they can trade life for. Those things in particular hit harder with less life. I believe the benefits outweigh the cons. It creates situations where hyper aggressive strategies can be punishing, or be punished by going all-in.
I know the idea is to have more turns so we can see the big CMC creatures and spells, but the format actually functions better with lower life, and might not even notice a difference. We really don't loss too many turns by lowering the life, because most players are too eager to give away the added life advantage to speed the games up.
Also, I haven't articulated it properly, but I think Commander damage is among the most stupid ideas in the history of gaming. It sets up a seperate, confusing set of memory issues. You could end up in a scenario where you're tracking up to 4 different life totals. It is rules baggage that I'm sure we can come up with a better solution to.
Interesting proposals to consider. Maybe play test this on a online tournament client to better evaluate the impact of certain cards and combos for banning/unbanning.
Quote from: Dudecore on July 14, 2014, 01:03:43 AM
Quote from: Munchlax on July 14, 2014, 12:40:14 AM
The only issue I see here would be the life total thing. This is because the decks that are specifically made to deal the twenty one commander damage get a nerf because they just need a few more creatures to do the same thing. Also, EDH is supposed to be slower than other formats. The forty life is there so people can play the more expensive CMC cards in their decks. Everything else looks great
I don't think it speeds the format up that much, in fact it might not even change. Playing EDH as my main format, I routinely see players give up 8-10 life to shocks, fetches, anything they can trade life for. Those things in particular hit harder with less life. I believe the benefits outweigh the cons. It creates situations where hyper aggressive strategies can be punishing, or be punished by going all-in.
I know the idea is to have more turns so we can see the big CMC creatures and spells, but the format actually functions better with lower life, and might not even notice a difference. We really don't loss too many turns by lowering the life, because most players are too eager to give away the added life advantage to speed the games up.
Also, I haven't articulated it properly, but I think Commander damage is among the most stupid ideas in the history of gaming. It sets up a seperate, confusing set of memory issues. You could end up in a scenario where you're tracking up to 4 different life totals. It is rules baggage that I'm sure we can come up with a better solution to.
I'm actually a huge fan of commander damage. It's keeps life gain decks from being unbeatable (in multi extort is almost impossible to beat).
That being said I was thinking of some sort of life cap. With maybe Commanders lower maximum life?
What if you put a life cap? It would eliminate the memory issues of commander damage while also eliminating the issues of dumb infinite life combos. You could actually make a rule saying all infinite combos top off at 100 or so, because you can't actually go infinite anyways (you still have to name a number).
But its hilarious when you can let their creatures by and take 123,638 points of damage & live
Quote from: Muggywuggy on July 14, 2014, 02:16:11 PM
But its hilarious when you can let their creatures by and take 123,638 points of damage & live
True....and making infinite mana, then stealing the entire board with {Memnarch} is just too fun.
I like the ideas, here, and I think it's worth at least testing. As someone that has been playing much more proactive, aggressive decks, a lower starting life would be amazing. However, after brief discussion with my own group, we feel that maybe 30 is too low. Sure, it punishes more 'greedy' decks that push the idea of life as a resource, but being able to push it beyond reasonable levels is part of the format's character. As it stands, any sort of aggro deck needs a combo element to be able to keep up with reduce three opponents from 40 to 0. 90 is a much lower target number than 120, and 60 is much lower than that. Testing will need to be done to find the right spot. We should find a good number where aggressive decks aren't overly punishing, but control and combo don't HAVE to play Oloro to survive long enough to do their thing.
As for your proposed ban list, I noticed that Painter's Servant} is still on there. While it insta-wins when combined with two different cards ({Iona}, {Grindstone}), I don't feel like it should be banned at all. The card, by itself, has a really cool ability and sweet applications outside its combos, whereas {Grindstone} is only ever played in the combo. Iona? No one likes playing against an Iona anyway. Sure, it's a huge, 9-drop Angel will an incredibly huge effect, but there are so many ways to cheat it in early to shut people out, even without painter. I propose trying unbanning Painter and Banning Iona and/or Grindstone. You'll see Iona on her own, but Stone won't see play outside the combo. Painter has a really cool effect that can do cool things, if only it were given the chance.
Also, I noticed {Vampiric Tutor} is up there. Can I hear your reasoning?
{Iona, Shield of Emeria} should be banned. I hate that card with a burning passion. Anything that makes it impossible for somebody to win should be banned. I'd rather be combo'd to death then somebody pays 9 mana and I'm locked down. And don't say you should have an answer for that. Two of my Commander decks are mono coloured and the other two would be hard pressed to find removal with ~50% of the deck being unplayable. Nevermind that it's on a 7/7 frame. I think it goes against the spirit of Commander in so many ways.
Quote from: Remillo on July 15, 2014, 12:17:19 PM
I like the ideas, here, and I think it's worth at least testing. As someone that has been playing much more proactive, aggressive decks, a lower starting life would be amazing. However, after brief discussion with my own group, we feel that maybe 30 is too low. Sure, it punishes more 'greedy' decks that push the idea of life as a resource, but being able to push it beyond reasonable levels is part of the format's character. As it stands, any sort of aggro deck needs a combo element to be able to keep up with reduce three opponents from 40 to 0. 90 is a much lower target number than 120, and 60 is much lower than that. Testing will need to be done to find the right spot. We should find a good number where aggressive decks aren't overly punishing, but control and combo don't HAVE to play Oloro to survive long enough to do their thing.
As for your proposed ban list, I noticed that Painter's Servant} is still on there. While it insta-wins when combined with two different cards ({Iona}, {Grindstone}), I don't feel like it should be banned at all. The card, by itself, has a really cool ability and sweet applications outside its combos, whereas {Grindstone} is only ever played in the combo. Iona? No one likes playing against an Iona anyway. Sure, it's a huge, 9-drop Angel will an incredibly huge effect, but there are so many ways to cheat it in early to shut people out, even without painter. I propose trying unbanning Painter and Banning Iona and/or Grindstone. You'll see Iona on her own, but Stone won't see play outside the combo. Painter has a really cool effect that can do cool things, if only it were given the chance.
Also, I noticed {Vampiric Tutor} is up there. Can I hear your reasoning?
30 life does some other things that I like, and my playgroup and I have been doing it for some time. All these proposed rules changes are from our play tests. It is not drastically different IMO, combo decks do have to interact more in early games. Some strategies suffer (mill) and others get better (midrange aggro, weenies). All and all, it makes deck building DIFFERENT, not exactly better or worse. I noticed when we first voted to adopt my proposed rule changes that games went quicker because the first 5 or so turns that are usually spent throwing down shocklands and building up mana were condensed. In other words, the "strategy" of hiding behind a wall of health is made more immediate. I would really like some more participation in playtesting.
{Painter's Servant} is because of the 2 card combo with {Grindstone} and being colorless, any deck has access to it cheaply. It was based off the 1v1 banned list. 1v1 is a much different game, understandable, but it's also competitive. If they banned it for degenerative game play we would be wise to observe it. Other cards they've banned for 1v1 issues, I've ignored those. Also, the Vintage banned list is somewhat intact.
{Vampiric Tutor} is mostly to do with the cost, speed and the fact you do not have to reveal the card. It can basically dial-a-combo. {Demonic Tutor} is slower, while it may still break the game in half. I'm not attached to any of the preliminary bannings, they're a jumping off point for a conversation.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on July 14, 2014, 02:07:19 PM
What if you put a life cap? It would eliminate the memory issues of commander damage while also eliminating the issues of dumb infinite life combos. You could actually make a rule saying all infinite combos top off at 100 or so, because you can't actually go infinite anyways (you still have to name a number).
I don't hate this idea. I don't enjoy capping things players enjoy doing. Writing an Actuarial table for each and every commander that hits you is something players do not enjoy doing. It would be the only format where there is a life cap, brave new territory. I wish there were a way to tackle the problem in a more cleaver way that didn't require hard capping. If we're going to cap life, why not mana or cards? I'm trying to justify why life would be the cap.
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on July 15, 2014, 01:31:39 PM
{Iona, Shield of Emeria} should be banned. I hate that card with a burning passion. Anything that makes it impossible for somebody to win should be banned. I'd rather be combo'd to death then somebody pays 9 mana and I'm locked down. And don't say you should have an answer for that. Two of my Commander decks are mono coloured and the other two would be hard pressed to find removal with ~50% of the deck being unplayable. Nevermind that it's on a 7/7 frame. I think it goes against the spirit of Commander in so many ways.
I don't know if it goes against the spirit of commander quite that much. There are other players at the table, and there are still ways to interact with Iona. It is a board line card when it comes to playing casually. We're not trying to balance a casual game. It is unfun, it very powerful, it is oppressive, it is not unbeatable. I think there are plenty of worse cards, like {Armageddon}, but I play it in my deck and don't win regularly.
Quote from: Dudecore on July 15, 2014, 06:43:37 PM
{Painter's Servant} is because of the 2 card combo with {Grindstone} and being colorless, any deck has access to it cheaply. It was based off the 1v1 banned list. 1v1 is a much different game, understandable, but it's also competitive. If they banned it for degenerative game play we would be wise to observe it. Other cards they've banned for 1v1 issues, I've ignored those. Also, the Vintage banned list is somewhat intact.
I'd like to note here that the French Duel ban list has banned Grindstone from the combo, not Painter. Grindstone is literally only played in the combo, but Painter has a ton of really cool synergies and interactions that it can produce, if given the chance. It allows {Sol'kanar} to gain life off of any spell cast; It's {Darkest Hour} #2 for {Teysa, Orzhov Scion}; It allows any card to cast anything off of {Dream Halls}, or any card to pitch to {Force of Will} (or get destroyed by {Pyroblast} or {Jaya Ballard}). Ban the card that's only played in the combo, not the one that can do really cool stuff otherwise.
Well said. That makes sense. Lets do it.
I like that it turns {Jaya Ballard} first ability into inefficient {Vindicate} on a stick. It kind of breaks {Anarchy} and {Wash Out}, but those cards are terrible, so if you wanted to run them for great risk (like someone killing your {Painter's Servant}) you should be allowed.
{Llawan, Cephalid Empress} is pretty oppressive. But it would return PS and you would.have to recast it. Also it only locks out creatures, so it seems hardly worth it to run that lockout unless you're mono blue.
Quote from: Dudecore on July 15, 2014, 06:58:34 PM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on July 15, 2014, 01:31:39 PM
{Iona, Shield of Emeria} should be banned. I hate that card with a burning passion. Anything that makes it impossible for somebody to win should be banned. I'd rather be combo'd to death then somebody pays 9 mana and I'm locked down. And don't say you should have an answer for that. Two of my Commander decks are mono coloured and the other two would be hard pressed to find removal with ~50% of the deck being unplayable. Nevermind that it's on a 7/7 frame. I think it goes against the spirit of Commander in so many ways.
I don't know if it goes against the spirit of commander quite that much. There are other players at the table, and there are still ways to interact with Iona. It is a board line card when it comes to playing casually. We're not trying to balance a casual game. It is unfun, it very powerful, it is oppressive, it is not unbeatable. I think there are plenty of worse cards, like {Armageddon}, but I play it in my deck and don't win regularly.
To me the spirit of Commander is that everybody has a chance of winning. If somebody just has to play a card to screw you over that doesn't really give you a chance of winning. There are worse cards, I just hate that white's flavour is so often dodging and locking down instead of a righteous charge to the face. Just my opinion.
Upon reflection, the unwieldy commander damage should stay, and it should still be 21 (even with the life total lowered). Capping life gain isn't really an option in my opinion. Players can interact with commanders, it promotes better deck building, and promotes finishing games. Life gain combos do not win games, and the only viable counter strategy is infinite damage combos.
We still have not fixed the memory issue. Perhaps a cumulative commander damage? I don't know. Keeping track of each source of damage is arduous
Quote from: Dudecore on July 15, 2014, 09:36:03 PM
Upon reflection, the unwieldy commander damage should stay, and it should still be 21 (even with the life total lowered). Capping life gain isn't really an option in my opinion. Players can interact with commanders, it promotes better deck building, and promotes finishing games. Life gain combos do not win games, and the only viable counter strategy is infinite damage combos.
We still have not fixed the memory issue. Perhaps a cumulative commander damage? I don't know. Keeping track of each source of damage is arduous
We just use different colors of Spindowns. I use a Dwhatever and a D10 for my own life, and Spindowns for each of my opponents (hoping to coordinate die color to card color). It's really not hard to keep track of, especially when only maybe a third of the decks that exist even attack with their generals.
Maybe instead of keeping track of each commander, you only track life total and the amount of damage that you have taken from all commanders. So as an example, Uril hits you for 10 and Eight-and-a-Half-Tails hits you for 5, you have taken 15 commander damage. It would have to be raised to 30 or 40, but it shouldnt be a problem because there are few commanders that try to kill through commander damage, mostly just Rafiq, Uril, Eight, and Zur.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on July 15, 2014, 10:06:44 PM
Maybe instead of keeping track of each commander, you only track life total and the amount of damage that you have taken from all commanders. So as an example, Uril hits you for 10 and Eight-and-a-Half-Tails hits you for 5, you have taken 15 commander damage. It would have to be raised to 30 or 40, but it shouldnt be a problem because there are few commanders that try to kill through commander damage, mostly just Rafiq, Uril, Eight, and Zur.
Animar does sometimes
It's ok, the Animar guy will die first so it doesn't matter ;)
dont forget {Prossh, Skyraider of Kher} decks uae commander damage to win
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on July 15, 2014, 10:06:44 PM
Maybe instead of keeping track of each commander, you only track life total and the amount of damage that you have taken from all commanders. So as an example, Uril hits you for 10 and Eight-and-a-Half-Tails hits you for 5, you have taken 15 commander damage. It would have to be raised to 30 or 40, but it shouldnt be a problem because there are few commanders that try to kill through commander damage, mostly just Rafiq, Uril, Eight, and Zur.
I really don't like that. It gives you a major disadvantage playing commander damage if nobody else is. Commander damage is fine how it is just learn how to track your damage and don't bother tracking if it's not going to end up killing you.
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on July 16, 2014, 11:11:52 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on July 15, 2014, 10:06:44 PM
Maybe instead of keeping track of each commander, you only track life total and the amount of damage that you have taken from all commanders. So as an example, Uril hits you for 10 and Eight-and-a-Half-Tails hits you for 5, you have taken 15 commander damage. It would have to be raised to 30 or 40, but it shouldnt be a problem because there are few commanders that try to kill through commander damage, mostly just Rafiq, Uril, Eight, and Zur.
I really don't like that. It gives you a major disadvantage playing commander damage if nobody else is. Commander damage is fine how it is just learn how to track your damage and don't bother tracking if it's not going to end up killing you.
Its really not that big of a disadvantage. Most decks don't have much lifegain and take at least 5 damage over the early turns trying to fix mana and what-not so even if they don't take the full 30 commander damage, they will 95% of the time die anyways.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on July 17, 2014, 01:32:57 AM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on July 16, 2014, 11:11:52 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on July 15, 2014, 10:06:44 PM
Maybe instead of keeping track of each commander, you only track life total and the amount of damage that you have taken from all commanders. So as an example, Uril hits you for 10 and Eight-and-a-Half-Tails hits you for 5, you have taken 15 commander damage. It would have to be raised to 30 or 40, but it shouldnt be a problem because there are few commanders that try to kill through commander damage, mostly just Rafiq, Uril, Eight, and Zur.
I really don't like that. It gives you a major disadvantage playing commander damage if nobody else is. Commander damage is fine how it is just learn how to track your damage and don't bother tracking if it's not going to end up killing you.
Its really not that big of a disadvantage. Most decks don't have much lifegain and take at least 5 damage over the early turns trying to fix mana and what-not so even if they don't take the full 30 commander damage, they will 95% of the time die anyways.
My {Aurelia, the Warleader} deck is turn 7 kill. If commander damage goes up to 30 it'll be a lot harder. Commander damage is fine as is.
Cumulative commander damage is what is on offer. I can't say that I don't hate the idea. Besides, shouldn't all strategies be sufficiently difficult? I don't see anyone suggesting we lower the amount of cards a mill deck has to deal with. We're talking a combined 30 commander damage from ANY and ALL commanders is enough to kill. So you could get an ally to deal a couple of points if you want.
It solves the memory issue, instead of having to keep track of every commander and the damage dealt, but it also makes Voltron decks have to deal slightly more damage. It sounds like a win to me. But I Am Interested In some compelling arguments.
Ok so is this new list of rules for multiplayer EDH?
Yep. Multiplayer EDH with the "casual" elements removed. Basically competitive multiplayer EDH
Quote from: Dudecore on July 17, 2014, 09:38:50 PM
Cumulative commander damage is what is on offer. I can't say that I don't hate the idea. Besides, shouldn't all strategies be sufficiently difficult? I don't see anyone suggesting we lower the amount of cards a mill deck has to deal with. We're talking a combined 30 commander damage from ANY and ALL commanders is enough to kill. So you could get an ally to deal a couple of points if you want.
It solves the memory issue, instead of having to keep track of every commander and the damage dealt, but it also makes Voltron decks have to deal slightly more damage. It sounds like a win to me. But I Am Interested In some compelling arguments.
If tracking damage is a memory issue you might not want to sign up for magic. It's really not hard to track a couple extra numbers with some pen and paper. There's no reason to nerf a whole deck type just cause it's hard to remember things.
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on July 18, 2014, 08:45:16 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on July 17, 2014, 09:38:50 PM
Cumulative commander damage is what is on offer. I can't say that I don't hate the idea. Besides, shouldn't all strategies be sufficiently difficult? I don't see anyone suggesting we lower the amount of cards a mill deck has to deal with. We're talking a combined 30 commander damage from ANY and ALL commanders is enough to kill. So you could get an ally to deal a couple of points if you want.
It solves the memory issue, instead of having to keep track of every commander and the damage dealt, but it also makes Voltron decks have to deal slightly more damage. It sounds like a win to me. But I Am Interested In some compelling arguments.
If tracking damage is a memory issue you might not want to sign up for magic. It's really not hard to track a couple extra numbers with some pen and paper. There's no reason to nerf a whole deck type just cause it's hard to remember things.
You really arent nerfing the deck type, but if lowering it to 25 helps, it can be done. Your comment is idiotic because most people really cant remember 16 numbers (just a 4 player pod, could get larger) while keeping track of the complex board state generated by multiplayer games. Not everyone uses pen and paper. In fact the majority of players use spindowns and keeping track of 21 on a spindown just doesnt work. So if you really wanted to keep track of a commander game you would need 32 spindowns, assuming no one gains life and goes above 40. A total combat damage rule would reduce that number to only tracking 8 numbers.
I agree with this^
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on July 18, 2014, 08:45:16 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on July 17, 2014, 09:38:50 PM
Cumulative commander damage is what is on offer. I can't say that I don't hate the idea. Besides, shouldn't all strategies be sufficiently difficult? I don't see anyone suggesting we lower the amount of cards a mill deck has to deal with. We're talking a combined 30 commander damage from ANY and ALL commanders is enough to kill. So you could get an ally to deal a couple of points if you want.
It solves the memory issue, instead of having to keep track of every commander and the damage dealt, but it also makes Voltron decks have to deal slightly more damage. It sounds like a win to me. But I Am Interested In some compelling arguments.
If tracking damage is a memory issue you might not want to sign up for magic. It's really not hard to track a couple extra numbers with some pen and paper. There's no reason to nerf a whole deck type just cause it's hard to remember things.
It's not a matter of not being able to do it, it's having to do it. It's a silly idea anyway, in and of itself. It is a non-sequitur. To be like "oh yeah, and if you take 21 damage from this one dude, you lose". It isn't poison counters, if you steal someones commander you have to keep track of that commander dealing 21 points of damage to someone (because it's considered separate, believe me. it has happened). The rule is there to negate life gain strategies (which is fine) and promote a new archetype unique to the format (also fine). It is implemented poorly due to the nature of how that damage is calculated and tallied.
I wouldn't call it a nerf exactly, because if the purpose of the rule is to negate infinite life gain strategies, then it should be able to do that at 30, right? The rule still ends games and keeps infinite life decks out of lengthy wars of attrition. Unless you think the point of the rule is to bypass everyone's life total, I don't agree. We are proposing to lower the life total. They have a 10 life head start, and all things considered - should be able to kill the players at the table without having to rely on commander damage. It can still function as intended having to deal
9 more life then it does now (in conjunction with all other players, or by yourself).
A positive is that every players commander becomes a threat.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on July 18, 2014, 10:04:04 PM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on July 18, 2014, 08:45:16 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on July 17, 2014, 09:38:50 PM
Cumulative commander damage is what is on offer. I can't say that I don't hate the idea. Besides, shouldn't all strategies be sufficiently difficult? I don't see anyone suggesting we lower the amount of cards a mill deck has to deal with. We're talking a combined 30 commander damage from ANY and ALL commanders is enough to kill. So you could get an ally to deal a couple of points if you want.
It solves the memory issue, instead of having to keep track of every commander and the damage dealt, but it also makes Voltron decks have to deal slightly more damage. It sounds like a win to me. But I Am Interested In some compelling arguments.
If tracking damage is a memory issue you might not want to sign up for magic. It's really not hard to track a couple extra numbers with some pen and paper. There's no reason to nerf a whole deck type just cause it's hard to remember things.
You really arent nerfing the deck type, but if lowering it to 25 helps, it can be done. Your comment is idiotic because most people really cant remember 16 numbers (just a 4 player pod, could get larger) while keeping track of the complex board state generated by multiplayer games. Not everyone uses pen and paper. In fact the majority of players use spindowns and keeping track of 21 on a spindown just doesnt work. So if you really wanted to keep track of a commander game you would need 32 spindowns, assuming no one gains life and goes above 40. A total combat damage rule would reduce that number to only tracking 8 numbers.
One person doesn't have to keep track of those numbers - it's really not difficult for you to keep track of who you've commander damaged. And keeping track if 21 on a spin down is trivial - use it as a spin up instead. Once you pass 20 it's over.
Heck, against most life gain decks, keeping track of their actual life is less relevant than their commander damage. "What are you at? 645? I thought it was 732.. Oh, my bad."
You also only keep track of commander damage for commanders that will kill you, like Uril. For things like maybe Roon or Oloro who probably won't be killing you you don't need to keep track.
Quote from: griffin131 on July 18, 2014, 10:45:16 PM
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on July 18, 2014, 10:04:04 PM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on July 18, 2014, 08:45:16 PM
Quote from: Dudecore on July 17, 2014, 09:38:50 PM
Cumulative commander damage is what is on offer. I can't say that I don't hate the idea. Besides, shouldn't all strategies be sufficiently difficult? I don't see anyone suggesting we lower the amount of cards a mill deck has to deal with. We're talking a combined 30 commander damage from ANY and ALL commanders is enough to kill. So you could get an ally to deal a couple of points if you want.
It solves the memory issue, instead of having to keep track of every commander and the damage dealt, but it also makes Voltron decks have to deal slightly more damage. It sounds like a win to me. But I Am Interested In some compelling arguments.
If tracking damage is a memory issue you might not want to sign up for magic. It's really not hard to track a couple extra numbers with some pen and paper. There's no reason to nerf a whole deck type just cause it's hard to remember things.
You really arent nerfing the deck type, but if lowering it to 25 helps, it can be done. Your comment is idiotic because most people really cant remember 16 numbers (just a 4 player pod, could get larger) while keeping track of the complex board state generated by multiplayer games. Not everyone uses pen and paper. In fact the majority of players use spindowns and keeping track of 21 on a spindown just doesnt work. So if you really wanted to keep track of a commander game you would need 32 spindowns, assuming no one gains life and goes above 40. A total combat damage rule would reduce that number to only tracking 8 numbers.
One person doesn't have to keep track of those numbers - it's really not difficult for you to keep track of who you've commander damaged. And keeping track if 21 on a spin down is trivial - use it as a spin up instead. Once you pass 20 it's over.
Heck, against most life gain decks, keeping track of their actual life is less relevant than their commander damage. "What are you at? 645? I thought it was 732.. Oh, my bad."
The cumulative commander damage accomplishes what you said about life gain decks not actually caring about their life total. Imagine this scenario: Player A gains 1 billion life Player B, C and D do not play Voltron commanders. The likelihood of them killing Player A with commander damage is extremely unlikely.
Cumulative Commander damage gives players B, C and D a modicum of hope. Is the difficulty in the amount of damage on offer?
Incoming WALL-OF-TEXT
Here's how I feel about commander damage: I feel like it works fine the way it is, even if it could be improved upon. Being able to stop 'infinite' lifegain from winning by default is a fairly reasonable thing, so General Damage exists. 21 just feels like the correct number for a few reasons - It's just more than half of your starting life total. If that big of a chunk is taken out by a single card over the course of the game, it feels right that you should lose. It adds the 'three-shot kill' requirement for most voltron commanders. 7 power (Maelstrom Wanderer, Ruhan of the Fomori as well as Thraximundar and Rafiq to an extent) gives these commanders an ability to kill a player in three quick shots, which can be crucial to closing out a game before an answer can be found. That's what makes the Voltron strategy so powerful. Increasing the magic number that they have to get to reduces their effectiveness. When you're the only one playing any sort of Voltron or Aggressive plan with your commander, you're basically stuck at having to do a huge chunk of damage, by yourself, to eliminate one player. But it also means that at a table of Voltron players, you could easily go from 0 to the 30 general damage in a single turn cycle just by being picked on. Now, if the starting life total was also reduced, we could argue that 30 is the correct number, since it means that, without lifegain, it would have killed you on its own. But I suppose it warrants testing.
As for keeping track of it, it's really not hard. In our group, at least, everyone tracks their own life totals using dice that are publicly visible. If a player needs to keep track of commander damage, we get out a Spin-down that we start at 1 and tick up. If we run out of space on the die, they lose. There are usually only ever one or two commanders at the table that will enter the red-zone with enough frequency that it might kill you. Not everyone has to track stats for every single player, guys. It's perfectly fine to ask the table "What're your life totals?"
Quote from: Remillo on July 19, 2014, 01:59:32 AMAs for keeping track of it, it's really not hard. In our group, at least, everyone tracks their own life totals using dice that are publicly visible. If a player needs to keep track of commander damage, we get out a Spin-down that we start at 1 and tick up. If we run out of space on the die, they lose. There are usually only ever one or two commanders at the table that will enter the red-zone with enough frequency that it might kill you. Not everyone has to track stats for every single player, guys. It's perfectly fine to ask the table "What're your life totals?"
But not all playgroups are the same, especially because there are groups that are more competitive. In addition, you may want to track opponent's life totals because not all players are honest. Many a times I have seen people "gain life" or "forget about that last attack".
If they "forget" enough, then maybe don't play with them anymore, or at least take it upon yourself to keep track. how many decks do u carry with you when you go play with ur friends, if it's any more than 1 I done see how it would be so difficult to carry a pen and paper. If u say that u forget, I'll ask you this, when you leave your house, do u check and make sure you have your phone/keys/wallet/ect...? It becomes a habbit, so much so that you may not even notice that u do it. All I'm saying is that it's not very difficult, spin downs are $1 each and you'll need 3 generally, 4 maybe if your commander gets stolen enough. As for life total, this app has a great life counter for up to 10 people, even if ur lazy, it easily tracks 2.
Quote from: Agrus Kos, Enforcer of Truth on July 19, 2014, 02:30:41 AMBut not all playgroups are the same, especially because there are groups that are more competitive. In addition, you may want to track opponent's life totals because not all players are honest. Many a times I have seen people "gain life" or "forget about that last attack".
You should probably play with different people, then. Unless you're just playing pick-up games at a store, you really only want to be playing with people you know and trust and just enjoy being around. It's part of being a social format. All the guys I play with regularly at my store are, for lack of a better phrase, people I'd enjoy having a beer with. Maybe I'm just in a special place and am a bit naive when it comes to other people being enjoyable.
If I am not mistaken, these rules are intended to make Commander a more competitive and sanction-able format. (Post 2 or 3 on the first page). These aren't rules to play at the kitchen table with, these are rules for random pods at FNM where people aren't as familiar. In my normal playgroup, that's not a problem.
Then why are we having this discussion in the first place honestly? If you were to go to a tournament, don't they supply notepads and such for life counting?
I like what Remillo is saying. Agrus is dead on with his assessment. This is to make Commander a competitive, sanctionable event. Keeping your own life totals with your friends is one thing, doing it against strangers is another.
Anyone who has played competitively knows that memory issues are a problem. Heck, even triggers are a problem. How many stories have you heard of {Dark Confidant} triggers being forgotten? Not even on purpose. The game states can get pretty complex.
All I'm asking is that we consider changing it. Or at least test it out with your friends. It's worth looking into. Change is always hard. We all know the way things are, we've been playing like it forever. I've pleaded my case about the benefits of cumulative commander damage, and on paper I think it is a solution to a bigger problem.
It's good to see you back, Dudecore! Your intellectual brand of discourse has definitely been missing.
Quote from: Spikepit on July 19, 2014, 08:52:40 AM
It's good to see you back, Dudecore! Your intellectual brand of discourse has definitely been missing.
Thank you. The first part of my global domination scheme has finished, this is phase 2. Spreading and improving upon Commander 2.0 with my iMtG brethren is my current focus.
We've made some good progress so far. Unbanned {Painter's Servant}, and hopefully have folks playtesting 30 life and 30 cumulative commander damage.
If anything is to be taken from this experience, it is that the Partial Paris mulligan is the worst thing ever, and should be exchanged with the British Mulligan. I goldfish all of my decks using it, I have had my playgroup using it for over a year, I have gotten random people to adopt it.
Would you mind explaining a Paris and partial Paris mulligan for me...err...my friend...he uh...doesn't understand what they are...
Quote from: Anoobass on July 20, 2014, 12:47:58 AM
Would you mind explaining a Paris and partial Paris mulligan for me...err...my friend...he uh...doesn't understand what they are...
Partial Paris (http://youtu.be/O0S0bDoMdr8)
Pros: One shuffle. Reduces mana screw.
Cons: Combo decks get pieces without card disadvantage. Makes mulliganing the correct strategy all the time. The most widely ignored rule in the whole format. Honestly, it's not surprising you've never heard of it, practically no one has, even less play with it.
Paris Mulligan is what regular magic uses. Draw 7 cards, if you don't like them then shuffle your deck and draw 6 new cards. The Paris mulligan is not useable in Commander due to deck size. The British Mulligan is sufficient.
Playtesting this next week. I 100% agree with these suggestions- especially the nephilim and colour identity changes. Good on you for writing this all out. I will update everyone soon on how these changes work out.
Alright then, I will agree on the mulligan part. Thank you for explaining :)
Didn't know this existed
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/commander-edh/204274-statistical-breakdown-of-the-commander-metagame
Didn't realize {Fastbond} was not banned. How would anyone feel about taking {Balance} off the list?
Quote from: Dudecore on September 08, 2014, 11:22:55 PM
Didn't realize {Fastbond} was not banned. How would anyone feel about taking {Balance} off the list?
I think {Balance} is an awesome card, but there's just so many broken ways to abuse it.
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on September 09, 2014, 12:18:40 AM
Quote from: Dudecore on September 08, 2014, 11:22:55 PM
Didn't realize {Fastbond} was not banned. How would anyone feel about taking {Balance} off the list?
I think {Balance} is an awesome card, but there's just so many broken ways to abuse it.
Maybe in single player, it's a lot harder to pull off in a singleton deck with 4 other players. There are more broken things too, like {Cataclysm}.
Quote from: Dudecore on September 09, 2014, 01:31:16 PM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on September 09, 2014, 12:18:40 AM
Quote from: Dudecore on September 08, 2014, 11:22:55 PM
Didn't realize {Fastbond} was not banned. How would anyone feel about taking {Balance} off the list?
I think {Balance} is an awesome card, but there's just so many broken ways to abuse it.
Maybe in single player, it's a lot harder to pull off in a singleton deck with 4 other players. There are more broken things too, like {Cataclysm}.
Good point. I'd be fine with unbanning balance.
Wizard's has officially sanctioned Commander for FNM. They also have an interesting caveat called "Create a Format". I can think of none better then printing up this list right here and seeing if anyone at FNM is interested in playing Commander: Revised Edition.
:)
What's the deal with off-colour dual lands or hybrid cards? Can I have a {Gruul Turf} or {Deathrite Shaman} in my Kaalia deck?
Quote from: xStrayKnightx on November 19, 2014, 07:56:49 AM
What's the deal with off-colour dual lands or hybrid cards? Can I have a {Gruul Turf} or {Deathrite Shaman} in my Kaalia deck?
Yep. Hybrid is allowed and you can have {Gruul Turf} but half of it would produce colorless mana.
unban {yawgmoth's bargain}/ ban {necropotence}? they are almost the same card, except necro is much cheaper at 3 mana and forces you to discard to exile.
Quote from: Dudecore on November 19, 2014, 08:14:50 AM
Quote from: xStrayKnightx on November 19, 2014, 07:56:49 AM
What's the deal with off-colour dual lands or hybrid cards? Can I have a {Gruul Turf} or {Deathrite Shaman} in my Kaalia deck?
Yep. Hybrid is allowed and you can have {Gruul Turf} but half of it would produce colorless mana.
Thank ye kindly, Sir Dudecore.
Quote from: particle on November 19, 2014, 09:20:59 AM
unban {yawgmoth's bargain}/ ban {necropotence}? they are almost the same card, except necro is much cheaper at 3 mana and forces you to discard to exile.
Yawg gives you the card right away. It's as broken, if not more then {Griselbrand}. {Necropotence} has you wait till your endstep, where unless it's an instant, you can't do anythinG
Hey what about the {Derevi, Imperial Tactitian} or {Uril, The Miststalker}. Both are pretty broken as commanders.
Quote from: the_intelligentleman on November 19, 2014, 05:52:01 PM
Hey what about the {Derevi, Imperial Tactitian} or {Uril, The Miststalker}. Both are pretty broken as commanders.
Not until we can be absolutely certain they are broken. Individual commanders are a sore spot for me, because they can all technically be broken. Uril has been nerfed by {Arcane Lighthouse}, and if it were up to me I would ban every card Wizards has designed for the format. But it's not up to me, we need to discuss this as a group.
Quote from: the_intelligentleman on November 19, 2014, 05:52:01 PM
Hey what about the {Derevi, Imperial Tactitian} or {Uril, The Miststalker}. Both are pretty broken as commanders.
First thing. Uril isn't broken. Like, at all. He's good. So's krenko. So's oloro. So's Edric. The list goes on and on. But he's fragile as balls, and gets his butt kicked with the right answers. Derevi you can make a case for much more readily. But derevi also has serious problems with wipes. If a deck is excessively resilient then yeah, ban it. But if a deck is over-reliant on certain things, it's not that good.
Quote from: Dudecore on November 19, 2014, 06:06:58 PM
Quote from: the_intelligentleman on November 19, 2014, 05:52:01 PM
Hey what about the {Derevi, Imperial Tactitian} or {Uril, The Miststalker}. Both are pretty broken as commanders.
Not until we can be absolutely certain they are broken. Individual commanders are a sore spot for me, because they can all technically be broken. Uril has been nerfed by {Arcane Lighthouse}, and if it were up to me I would ban every card Wizards has designed for the format. But it's not up to me, we need to discuss this as a group.
Well what about anders such as {Nekusar, The Mindrazer}? He's a fair card, and promotes interesting decks that was created by wizards.
Quote from: the_intelligentleman on November 19, 2014, 05:52:01 PM
Hey what about the {Derevi, Imperial Tactitian} or {Uril, The Miststalker}. Both are pretty broken as commanders.
Just because you don't like hexproof, doesn't mean Uril is broken.
My gripe with Wizards designing cards is that they design the most obvious, build-around-me cards that are all upside. I don't believe a powerful creatures drawback should be its converted mana cost. Cards like {Kaalia of the Vast}, while I'm sure there are creative versions, amounts to jamming Angels, Dragons and Demons with insane EtB effects into a deck that cheats them out early.
They also have the annoying habit of skewing the power level too far in one direction by basically printing format all-stars and homogeneous card choices. In addition to violating the color pie several times in a very short period of time. They've been making Commander products for 3 years and have each year violated the limits of what a color can do.
Not a fan. I wish they'd leave the format alone and allow players to find their own cards. Commander has some of the most experienced players in the world playing it, we're capable of building cool decks without needing {Animar, Soul of Elements}
Commanders should naturally synergize with the cards in the deck of be apart of some flavor.
My favorite decks are built with flavor and fun, rather than spiky dominance.
👆👆👆👆👆👆👆
I'm not sure if this has been brought up or not but I don't agree with the infect rule on commander being only 10. If the life is double then I believe infect should as well be doubled.. But that's just my opinion.
My friends and I always bump Infect damage to 20, but I've heard that it's 15 "officially".
Quote from: xStrayKnightx on November 21, 2014, 05:49:54 AM
My friends and I always bump Infect damage to 20, but I've heard that it's 15 "officially".
On MTGO I was playing commander and lost due to 10 damage infect to someone and at the time i thought it was 15 or 20 but I was wrong lol
It's 10. We would want to bump that to 15.