How so? They removed a page for House Rules. It is always asked by others before starting if certain things like Silver border of Gold Border cards can be used. I assume their intention is to present One Rule Set, and then tell people they may alter as they see fit during friendly environments.
I have a Gaea's Cradle, Gold Border. I don't use it without asking others if I may do so before start because compared as a #20 to a $200 card, it is basically a proxy at that point, and if i wanted to use proxies all the time I wouldn't even bother buying./trading for cards.
I've yet to see any policing, aside form occasional bans, and lack of for broken things that are unfun. Picking one guy who uses an annoying deck is unfun, forcing him to find a new group to play with is cold shoulderingly not casual friendly magic. Everyone plays differently, and everyone gets something out of it that is different. Ultra highly focused competitive types, to 'my friends brought me here cause they know I like Turtles".
The best part for me is imagining what the battlefield looks like with the various creatures and artifacts in play and the stary that tells. If I were an illustrator I would draw what I see. I'm not here to win all the time, but I do plan to win in my own way. It is a game, and when a game can be won, I like to at least give myself a chance to do so.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wanted -Zombie Foils and older expensive Zombie stuff. High Priority- Beta Z Master/ Int. Collector's Edition.
With the whole stance of "These are the rules we've laid out for the format. If you don't agree with any of them, you are free to modify them with your playgroup." All this does is enforce incompatibility with different playgroups.
Suppose you have Playgroup A, a relatively low-power, more casual-oriented group, that's fed up with Dead-Eye Navigator, so they decide to ban it. Then you have Playgroup B, a highly tuned playgroup that feel Primeval Titan is not the most powerful thing that can be done at 6 mana, so they unban it. Then there's Playgroup C, that views the text on MTGCommander.com as immutable holy scripture (yes, I am being hyperbolic here intentionally). What happens, then, if a member of Playgroup A meets a player from Playgroup B and Playgroup C, and they decide to play a "friendly" game with their decks, and none of them have informed the others about their playgroups' house rules? Let's not even get started on playgroups that allow off-color Hybrids trying to play outside their normal playgroup. What about those who don't agree with the Tuck rule?
If I wanted to host a seriosu compettion for EDH multiplayer, not that 100card singleton vintage 1on1 crap, where are the rules for deciding a winner, is it always last man standing, what about going to time? The Rules Committee fails here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wanted -Zombie Foils and older expensive Zombie stuff. High Priority- Beta Z Master/ Int. Collector's Edition.
If I wanted to host a seriosu compettion for EDH multiplayer, not that 100card singleton vintage 1on1 crap, where are the rules for deciding a winner, is it always last man standing, what about going to time? The Rules Committee fails here.
I think it is because the concept of a "serious competition" for EDH is not exactly what the RC has in mind.
Prophet of Kruphix is only a problem if your playgroup doesn't run removal, has zero threat assessment skills and builds their decks to play without interacting with problems from other decks as if they're playing solitaire. In my play group he is almost always killed within one or two turns of entering the battlefield or everyone guns for that player. ... Just this last weekend he got killed 4 or 5 times in a row after being played and the Prophet of Kruphix player scooped. Unless the players are just flat out ignorant, the bad politics of playing him result in the perceived "problem" fixing itself.
Was beat to the punch... but still.... the similarity is shocking...
Funny how so many of us had the exact same thought.
I'd just like to add- Prophet of Kruphix also cost 5 and *wasn't* a General,
so I'd wager Leovold is on very thin ice.
I wouldn't be surprised if they only left him in to help sell CNS2 a bit longer.
I'm not sure. Unlike Prophet, Leovold can be your general, but is that a good thing? If he's your general then the removal/counter argument has a bit more weight because people are going to know in advanced that you're going to try and play him, vs surprise prophet.
I think "Surprise Prophet" is a bit of a misnomer. If you were in UG and you ran a non-zero number of other Instants/Creatures, you pretty much ran Prophet unless you didn't own one.
I'm not sure. Unlike Prophet, Leovold can be your general, but is that a good thing? If he's your general then the removal/counter argument has a bit more weight because people are going to know in advanced that you're going to try and play him, vs surprise prophet.
I think "Surprise Prophet" is a bit of a misnomer. If you were in UG and you ran a non-zero number of other Instants/Creatures, you pretty much ran Prophet unless you didn't own one.
My point was you (probably) didn't know if a player had a Prophet in their hand, you definitely know they have Leowold available.
With the whole stance of "These are the rules we've laid out for the format. If you don't agree with any of them, you are free to modify them with your playgroup." All this does is enforce incompatibility with different playgroups.
Suppose you have Playgroup A, a relatively low-power, more casual-oriented group, that's fed up with Dead-Eye Navigator, so they decide to ban it. Then you have Playgroup B, a highly tuned playgroup that feel Primeval Titan is not the most powerful thing that can be done at 6 mana, so they unban it. Then there's Playgroup C, that views the text on MTGCommander.com as immutable holy scripture (yes, I am being hyperbolic here intentionally). What happens, then, if a member of Playgroup A meets a player from Playgroup B and Playgroup C, and they decide to play a "friendly" game with their decks, and none of them have informed the others about their playgroups' house rules? Let's not even get started on playgroups that allow off-color Hybrids trying to play outside their normal playgroup. What about those who don't agree with the Tuck rule?
Let's just go with the obvious: You build different decks.
As of November there will be officially 32 different color combinations in Magic for Generals. There is a wide variety of deck types and accessible game modes to play within that variance to build more than one Commander deck. This is why I always tell people, always. Build 2 decks for each format you play with any regularity, it avoids power level and metagame shift issues.
You have no idea how many times I've seen the power play discrepencies as well as players on this very forum after a ban be very angry that their one and only deck got banned or hated out. This is the gift of foresight and compromise. There are also times with flexibility, such as "oh you're playing a banned card" and people just say "we'll house rule that card as uh Counterspell tonight." It's not a big deal.
The bigger deal is whenever the attitude of the single player is at the forefront. I remember during Amulet Bloom one person was hardcore against, was a younger person with little money and saw their deck devalued over night. Perfectly legitimate, only liked playing Amulet Bloom for whatever reason which limited flexibility to play other decks such as Ad Nauseum and other similar combo decks from winnings.
But let's also be honest. The entry level for this format is really low. Next to pauper low, and mostly the first "real format" new players enter or at least try rather quickly. I mostly advise younger players to go into this format if they like battlecruiser Magic to start with and then branch off to Modern as Standard cards are reprinted in good order to build specific decks.
This sort of thing is educating young players about their options and long term affordability and the social problems they can face and to understand that there are different types of players. This is an imperative to us the people who indoctrinate new players. Inclusiveness yes, but also being realistic about challenges and affordability.
Which is why no matter the person. No matter the entire thing. People generally start with casual then move into Standard and/or Elder Dragon Highlander followed by Modern and Cube as the collection grows. There's a transition stage going from Standard to Modern, depending on income and temperament for formats if playing competitive. Most Cube players typically have at least 3-4 years playing and active collecting under their belt.
If I wanted to host a seriosu compettion for EDH multiplayer, not that 100card singleton vintage 1on1 crap, where are the rules for deciding a winner, is it always last man standing, what about going to time? The Rules Committee fails here.
This is where people who are wanton game designers can design new subroutines for the game. While I respect your opinion, I disagree with it immensely. There are enough primers on Commander to write wholesale books on the subject.
What the RC want is basically "Here's the source code, it's all Open Source have fun :)" it's up to us to "program" that open source program into what we need and want. Tiny Leaders, 1v1 and French Commander born out of something that started at a kitchen table is fairly good.
For competitive, my group on occassion usde a point system. Defeat a player get a point. Then go from there. There are several available via Google for ideas. This is about leadership as a player, it is up to ourselves to provide that leadership. If you crowdsourced a project to create a "viable rules set" for "competitive Commander" there are players that will contribute easily their opinion and experiences.
The fancy term here are thought leader. And believe me, people do not like to start things they will certainly follow and then if there is success criticize you while also looking at you as being a genius.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
With the whole stance of "These are the rules we've laid out for the format. If you don't agree with any of them, you are free to modify them with your playgroup." All this does is enforce incompatibility with different playgroups.
Suppose you have Playgroup A, a relatively low-power, more casual-oriented group, that's fed up with Dead-Eye Navigator, so they decide to ban it. Then you have Playgroup B, a highly tuned playgroup that feel Primeval Titan is not the most powerful thing that can be done at 6 mana, so they unban it. Then there's Playgroup C, that views the text on MTGCommander.com as immutable holy scripture (yes, I am being hyperbolic here intentionally). What happens, then, if a member of Playgroup A meets a player from Playgroup B and Playgroup C, and they decide to play a "friendly" game with their decks, and none of them have informed the others about their playgroups' house rules? Let's not even get started on playgroups that allow off-color Hybrids trying to play outside their normal playgroup. What about those who don't agree with the Tuck rule?
This sounds like purely a communication issue. The whole issue lies in "none of them informed the others about their playgroups" rather than the house rules themselves. Even if the RC banned Navigator, unbanned Primetime tomorrow, there's still going to be a Group D who reversed those bans/unban and the miscommunication will still come into play. The RC can't enforce a "No House Rules allowed" ruling either... (which makes it pointless to introduce since there's no way to enforce it, if there was we'll all be playing only Limited/Standard because WotC got there first).
Yes, it's the reason why most playgroups (or at least most of those who play at LGS as opposed to the literal kitchen table) opt to not make house rules because following the base rules provides the easiest expectations and easiest capabilities to blend in new players. It does mitigate the purpose of the optional house-rule somewhat, but it's not like the RC could solve the communication problem that is the root in the first place.
If I wanted to host a seriosu compettion for EDH multiplayer, not that 100card singleton vintage 1on1 crap, where are the rules for deciding a winner, is it always last man standing, what about going to time? The Rules Committee fails here.
Honestly, none of that matters if the first problem of "multiplayer free-for-all competitive" (I'm taking the assumption you wanted free-for-all, not 2HG-style multiplayer) isn't solved - collusion/perceived bias/kingmaking in multiplayer. There's a reason why there weren't any Conspiracy Limited Grand Prix (and Modern Masters tells us that being a supplementary product is not the reason).
Let's just go with the obvious: You build different decks.
Really? It must be nice being in an affluent playgroup that can afford to maintain multiple Commander decks at a time. Most of the people in my area, myself included, generally only have one deck that they work and tweak on because it fits their playstyle the best, and because they can't really afford to maintain a second deck due to other formats/responsibilities/etc.
Let's just go with the obvious: You build different decks.
Really? It must be nice being in an affluent playgroup that can afford to maintain multiple Commander decks at a time. Most of the people in my area, myself included, generally only have one deck that they work and tweak on because it fits their playstyle the best, and because they can't really afford to maintain a second deck due to other formats/responsibilities/etc.
My playgroup includes a 14-year-old girl, who manages, through birthday gifts, babysitting money, and judicious trading, to maintain five EDH decks of varying power levels...
Let's just go with the obvious: You build different decks.
Really? It must be nice being in an affluent playgroup that can afford to maintain multiple Commander decks at a time. Most of the people in my area, myself included, generally only have one deck that they work and tweak on because it fits their playstyle the best, and because they can't really afford to maintain a second deck due to other formats/responsibilities/etc.
we recently did a budget night and some of the decks that were churned out were innovative enough to stand up to the powered decks. most of them were fun enough to play with and against that people decided to keep them together and tweak them.
sometimes the problem isn't budget, sometimes its color combinations and deck building style, sometimes its necessary to change things up enough to keep the table guessing
my feldon deck for instance is pretty budget outside of top and sneak attack. it holds its own fairly well because its not what people are use to playing against.
Let's just go with the obvious: You build different decks.
Really? It must be nice being in an affluent playgroup that can afford to maintain multiple Commander decks at a time. Most of the people in my area, myself included, generally only have one deck that they work and tweak on because it fits their playstyle the best, and because they can't really afford to maintain a second deck due to other formats/responsibilities/etc.
No. You can maintain a high level focus on one deck that you heavily invest into and followed by a weaker deck that you do not invest as much money and time into. Through lower prioritization economically the deck therefore has a lower power level and thus able to compete in lower power level groups. That is if we inversely follow that power level is equal to cash value, which I'm not going to dispute because it is often true.
The opposite is also equally true, you can take Plunder the Graves out of the box and do quite well with it. There are several websites ranging from this one to reddit that go on to say how to modify a deck out of the box for little money.
I'm not being facetious here or trying to be disrespectful, but budget is a real thing in Magic. Being informed about your choices and options is a healthy part of building decks and being a good Magic player. This isn't the mid 1990's whenever we're waiting for magazines to give us tournament results on the best decks. Today, we can search for like minded individuals here with a particular general thread with a few minutes of real research to get some deck lists and net deck. Then play test with limited time and build over time.
This stuff isn't hard when we walk outside of the mentality that power level is price. It is the intrinsic value of the card in play that matters more so than dollar value. There are several decks, that yes, will cost money to build like a colorless EDH deck since no precons exist. The age of the precon has made the entry level for this specific format invariably the lowest of any outside of pauper to be competitive.
Commander is the only affordable Eternal that is very difficult to argue about money. This is due to the open source nature of the format. It's just that open. I've had my best decks beaten by budget decks. There's no shame there, and I am certain every Commander player has had that happen to them or will in time.
I would encourage you to look at actually building a second Commander deck with constraints for time and money. Then experiment with that deck. There are certain colors, as others have said in this thread, that do not lend themselves easily to budget. That would most certainly be five color and colorless. There is a Child of Alara budget thread even for five color, so even then there is room for divergence. Divesting yourself of this mentality on money equals power will save a bit of time on heartache, and open up replay value for you on some of your card investments.
Everyone that those extra cards, give them a home.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
My playgroup includes a 14-year-old girl, who manages, through birthday gifts, babysitting money, and judicious trading, to maintain five EDH decks of varying power levels...
And does she have expenses such as rent, utilities, food, car payments, student loans, insurance, spousal support, child support...
My playgroup includes a 14-year-old girl, who manages, through birthday gifts, babysitting money, and judicious trading, to maintain five EDH decks of varying power levels...
And does she have expenses such as rent, utilities, food, car payments, student loans, insurance, spousal support, child support...
Sounds like a bunch of poor choices made by an adult being compared to responsible choices made by a 14 year old.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGSalvation; Where the whining is a time honored tradition, and enjoying the game is trolling.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have a Gaea's Cradle, Gold Border. I don't use it without asking others if I may do so before start because compared as a #20 to a $200 card, it is basically a proxy at that point, and if i wanted to use proxies all the time I wouldn't even bother buying./trading for cards.
I've yet to see any policing, aside form occasional bans, and lack of for broken things that are unfun. Picking one guy who uses an annoying deck is unfun, forcing him to find a new group to play with is cold shoulderingly not casual friendly magic. Everyone plays differently, and everyone gets something out of it that is different. Ultra highly focused competitive types, to 'my friends brought me here cause they know I like Turtles".
The best part for me is imagining what the battlefield looks like with the various creatures and artifacts in play and the stary that tells. If I were an illustrator I would draw what I see. I'm not here to win all the time, but I do plan to win in my own way. It is a game, and when a game can be won, I like to at least give myself a chance to do so.
Selling some cards I don't want.
Generally less than tcg mid.
Suppose you have Playgroup A, a relatively low-power, more casual-oriented group, that's fed up with Dead-Eye Navigator, so they decide to ban it. Then you have Playgroup B, a highly tuned playgroup that feel Primeval Titan is not the most powerful thing that can be done at 6 mana, so they unban it. Then there's Playgroup C, that views the text on MTGCommander.com as immutable holy scripture (yes, I am being hyperbolic here intentionally). What happens, then, if a member of Playgroup A meets a player from Playgroup B and Playgroup C, and they decide to play a "friendly" game with their decks, and none of them have informed the others about their playgroups' house rules? Let's not even get started on playgroups that allow off-color Hybrids trying to play outside their normal playgroup. What about those who don't agree with the Tuck rule?
My Custom Cards
My Twitch - Languishing in neglect under the vain hope of starting again
My Livestream Archive
Selling some cards I don't want.
Generally less than tcg mid.
I think it is because the concept of a "serious competition" for EDH is not exactly what the RC has in mind.
I think "Surprise Prophet" is a bit of a misnomer. If you were in UG and you ran a non-zero number of other Instants/Creatures, you pretty much ran Prophet unless you didn't own one.
My Custom Cards
My Twitch - Languishing in neglect under the vain hope of starting again
My Livestream Archive
Fair enough. I can agree with that.
My Custom Cards
My Twitch - Languishing in neglect under the vain hope of starting again
My Livestream Archive
Let's just go with the obvious: You build different decks.
As of November there will be officially 32 different color combinations in Magic for Generals. There is a wide variety of deck types and accessible game modes to play within that variance to build more than one Commander deck. This is why I always tell people, always. Build 2 decks for each format you play with any regularity, it avoids power level and metagame shift issues.
You have no idea how many times I've seen the power play discrepencies as well as players on this very forum after a ban be very angry that their one and only deck got banned or hated out. This is the gift of foresight and compromise. There are also times with flexibility, such as "oh you're playing a banned card" and people just say "we'll house rule that card as uh Counterspell tonight." It's not a big deal.
The bigger deal is whenever the attitude of the single player is at the forefront. I remember during Amulet Bloom one person was hardcore against, was a younger person with little money and saw their deck devalued over night. Perfectly legitimate, only liked playing Amulet Bloom for whatever reason which limited flexibility to play other decks such as Ad Nauseum and other similar combo decks from winnings.
But let's also be honest. The entry level for this format is really low. Next to pauper low, and mostly the first "real format" new players enter or at least try rather quickly. I mostly advise younger players to go into this format if they like battlecruiser Magic to start with and then branch off to Modern as Standard cards are reprinted in good order to build specific decks.
This sort of thing is educating young players about their options and long term affordability and the social problems they can face and to understand that there are different types of players. This is an imperative to us the people who indoctrinate new players. Inclusiveness yes, but also being realistic about challenges and affordability.
Which is why no matter the person. No matter the entire thing. People generally start with casual then move into Standard and/or Elder Dragon Highlander followed by Modern and Cube as the collection grows. There's a transition stage going from Standard to Modern, depending on income and temperament for formats if playing competitive. Most Cube players typically have at least 3-4 years playing and active collecting under their belt.
You need to educate your players around you.
This is where people who are wanton game designers can design new subroutines for the game. While I respect your opinion, I disagree with it immensely. There are enough primers on Commander to write wholesale books on the subject.
What the RC want is basically "Here's the source code, it's all Open Source have fun :)" it's up to us to "program" that open source program into what we need and want. Tiny Leaders, 1v1 and French Commander born out of something that started at a kitchen table is fairly good.
For competitive, my group on occassion usde a point system. Defeat a player get a point. Then go from there. There are several available via Google for ideas. This is about leadership as a player, it is up to ourselves to provide that leadership. If you crowdsourced a project to create a "viable rules set" for "competitive Commander" there are players that will contribute easily their opinion and experiences.
The fancy term here are thought leader. And believe me, people do not like to start things they will certainly follow and then if there is success criticize you while also looking at you as being a genius.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
This sounds like purely a communication issue. The whole issue lies in "none of them informed the others about their playgroups" rather than the house rules themselves. Even if the RC banned Navigator, unbanned Primetime tomorrow, there's still going to be a Group D who reversed those bans/unban and the miscommunication will still come into play. The RC can't enforce a "No House Rules allowed" ruling either... (which makes it pointless to introduce since there's no way to enforce it, if there was we'll all be playing only Limited/Standard because WotC got there first).
Yes, it's the reason why most playgroups (or at least most of those who play at LGS as opposed to the literal kitchen table) opt to not make house rules because following the base rules provides the easiest expectations and easiest capabilities to blend in new players. It does mitigate the purpose of the optional house-rule somewhat, but it's not like the RC could solve the communication problem that is the root in the first place.
Honestly, none of that matters if the first problem of "multiplayer free-for-all competitive" (I'm taking the assumption you wanted free-for-all, not 2HG-style multiplayer) isn't solved - collusion/perceived bias/kingmaking in multiplayer. There's a reason why there weren't any Conspiracy Limited Grand Prix (and Modern Masters tells us that being a supplementary product is not the reason).
Really? It must be nice being in an affluent playgroup that can afford to maintain multiple Commander decks at a time. Most of the people in my area, myself included, generally only have one deck that they work and tweak on because it fits their playstyle the best, and because they can't really afford to maintain a second deck due to other formats/responsibilities/etc.
My Custom Cards
My Twitch - Languishing in neglect under the vain hope of starting again
My Livestream Archive
My playgroup includes a 14-year-old girl, who manages, through birthday gifts, babysitting money, and judicious trading, to maintain five EDH decks of varying power levels...
we recently did a budget night and some of the decks that were churned out were innovative enough to stand up to the powered decks. most of them were fun enough to play with and against that people decided to keep them together and tweak them.
sometimes the problem isn't budget, sometimes its color combinations and deck building style, sometimes its necessary to change things up enough to keep the table guessing
my feldon deck for instance is pretty budget outside of top and sneak attack. it holds its own fairly well because its not what people are use to playing against.
No. You can maintain a high level focus on one deck that you heavily invest into and followed by a weaker deck that you do not invest as much money and time into. Through lower prioritization economically the deck therefore has a lower power level and thus able to compete in lower power level groups. That is if we inversely follow that power level is equal to cash value, which I'm not going to dispute because it is often true.
The opposite is also equally true, you can take Plunder the Graves out of the box and do quite well with it. There are several websites ranging from this one to reddit that go on to say how to modify a deck out of the box for little money.
https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/budget-commander-20-plunder-the-graves-upgrade
I'm not being facetious here or trying to be disrespectful, but budget is a real thing in Magic. Being informed about your choices and options is a healthy part of building decks and being a good Magic player. This isn't the mid 1990's whenever we're waiting for magazines to give us tournament results on the best decks. Today, we can search for like minded individuals here with a particular general thread with a few minutes of real research to get some deck lists and net deck. Then play test with limited time and build over time.
This stuff isn't hard when we walk outside of the mentality that power level is price. It is the intrinsic value of the card in play that matters more so than dollar value. There are several decks, that yes, will cost money to build like a colorless EDH deck since no precons exist. The age of the precon has made the entry level for this specific format invariably the lowest of any outside of pauper to be competitive.
Commander is the only affordable Eternal that is very difficult to argue about money. This is due to the open source nature of the format. It's just that open. I've had my best decks beaten by budget decks. There's no shame there, and I am certain every Commander player has had that happen to them or will in time.
I would encourage you to look at actually building a second Commander deck with constraints for time and money. Then experiment with that deck. There are certain colors, as others have said in this thread, that do not lend themselves easily to budget. That would most certainly be five color and colorless. There is a Child of Alara budget thread even for five color, so even then there is room for divergence. Divesting yourself of this mentality on money equals power will save a bit of time on heartache, and open up replay value for you on some of your card investments.
Everyone that those extra cards, give them a home.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
And does she have expenses such as rent, utilities, food, car payments, student loans, insurance, spousal support, child support...
Sounds like a bunch of poor choices made by an adult being compared to responsible choices made by a 14 year old.