What would you all think if Commander wasn't exclusive to a single General? What if we could use 3 separate Generals for a single Commander Deck?
Alright, that sounds silly, but hear me out: They would all have to share the same colors, in accordance to normal Commander color Identity rules. Only one General would be allowed in any other zone outside of the Command Zone at any given time (To negate combos resulting from having 3 Generals). Each of the 3 Generals would separately track how many times they've been returned to the Command Zone and as such, their additional costs to cast due to this... Or maybe they wouldn't! Maybe anytime any one General returns to the CZ, it affects them all? Other than this, all other Commander rules would apply.
This is also very friendly to Wizard's Precon Decks, as each one always comes with exactly 3 possible General choices per deck.
My biggest reasoning for this is simple; fun and variance. It would mean that you could build a deck around 3 possible candidates, which I just think would be some great fun. I'm not outright saying this should be how traditional Commander works by any means, but it could be an interesting alternative with a lot of room to explore.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this idea? Maybe some suggestions and/or criticisms? I'd love to hear them!
You bring up fun and variance. But having three cards always accessible reduces variance rather than increase it.
You are basically giving people some extra tutoring and while that can be fun from time to time I honestly personally don't see much reason behind it.
Also, why 3 generals in particular? Why not 2, or 4, or 25? I guess what I am trying to convey is that just slapping on two extra already tutored cards is not so much a big change in teh format but rather a somewhat arbitrary houserule.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
3, mostly because It coincides with Wizard's Commander products.
Variance is arguable, I suppose, as I more so had in mind that different generals would be used at different points in the game, affecting things well, differently. It's also not as if my own rules for how Generals would behave in and out of the Command Zone are set in stone. I'm sure anyone could come up with ideas on how to make it more engaging.
And, well, it is arbitrary! Some of the most fun Commander games are played with house rules. The major difference here, is that this particular one has reasonable structure and built in support through Wizard's products. Of course you wouldn't be seeing anything at all like this in the competitive environments, but those very environments have their own sets of rules themselves, so you've got to think about this with casual play in mind (the same way Wizards typically does). You could literally buy any precon Commander deck ever made, and play using this concept, right out of the box.
Other than that, I thought of this concept on a whim and thought it sounded fun. The more I thought about it, the more it sort of just slotted together. Does it not seem reasonable?
I would simply like to ask you to consider it as: What if Wizards actually made this a thing? What implications would it have and how would you personally react and deal with it? Would you hate it or enjoy it? Would you find ways to abuse it? Or would you simply not care?
At the very least, if you couldn't accept this ever being plausible as an official thing, would you ever try it yourself as a house rule?
The word you are looking for is variation rather than variance I think I see some problems with having three commanders to choose between at a whim since that would massively increase the power of them. You can play a big bomby commander that takes over games and at the same time have a lowdrop if you need that etc. etc.
I also feel it woul detract a lot from the limitations that is the core of edh as a format.
Then again, my playgrooup is rather fierce and a lot of already strong decks would be unbelievably broken with access to several commanders, not as big of a problem in grous with lower powered decks I would think.
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Alright well, in terms of keeping this idea as a house rule, what would you do to improve upon it? And again, would you personally use it, even once to try it?
Alright well, in terms of keeping this idea as a house rule, what would you do to improve upon it? And again, would you personally use it, even once to try it?
Well, I don't believe there si too much to improve. It is a different take on the format and all cards sharing commander tax and only getting to have one outside of the czone at once makes sense.
Would still ot personally use it due to the mentioned powerlevelproblems and the fact that t dilutes the essence of the format in my eyes. Having one specific commander makes it a bit of a buildaround around that card. Tacking on a bunch of other cards just seems to convert the commandzone to goodstuff.zone.
You are talking about variation but isn't the same thing accomplished by just playing all three cards in the deck and switch up which one you use as a commander between games?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Alright well, in terms of keeping this idea as a house rule, what would you do to improve upon it? And again, would you personally use it, even once to try it?
Well, I don't believe there si too much to improve. It is a different take on the format and all cards sharing commander tax and only getting to have one outside of the czone at once makes sense.
Would still ot personally use it due to the mentioned powerlevelproblems and the fact that t dilutes the essence of the format in my eyes. Having one specific commander makes it a bit of a buildaround around that card. Tacking on a bunch of other cards just seems to convert the commandzone to goodstuff.zone.
You are talking about variation but isn't the same thing accomplished by just playing all three cards in the deck and switch up which one you use as a commander between games?
If you want to add variance, get the Planechase Expansion for your group. I have every plane ever printed with about 12 of the ones that slow the game down replaced by custom planes. It's a ton of fun and most of my local crews like to play with it.
I concur that I think the end result of the 3 general rule would be less variance - not more.
Oh god no, don't do it. If you do, you must remove the slow planes if you don't want games to take 4-6 hours.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
just to add to what has already been said, I can't see them giving this idea the nod due to the large amount of extra bookkeeping each game would require (command zone tax for each commander, if not shared; commander damage for each, etc.). They tend to avoid such things when possible. I mean, it can get to be a lot sometimes just in a regular 5-person FFA. adding 10 more things to keep track of seems very clunky.
but for a house rule/one-time for-fun experiment, it seems ok. I'd just be wary of the spikes that would min-max and pick the most broken combinations, because that is exactly what this theoretical variant seems to beg for (see Tiny Leaders).
It would probably hurt deck building too. A lot of decks are super specific and the two other generals would either water down the deck with their synergies or not fit well because you excluded those synergies.
If you want multiple generals with the same deck imo just keep them off to the side and switch between games, with maybe a small sideboard.
there are a lot of other variants that ive seen played that SOUND similar:
- on the steed he came on (a second 'general' that has to be in-colour, but has to have the horse-creature type, doesn't have to be legendary)
- the anti-colour team (2 generals that combine to have exactly 4 colours. player wins when the enemy colour is wiped out from the game; can have multiple winners)
- tag-team (2 generals that have the exact colour-combination. can only have one in play at any one time; can pay the mana cost to 'tag' the other general in; tags as a special action)
- familiar (1 general, and 1 creature with a CMC 3 or less with the exact colour combination, doesn't have to be legendary. the death tax only applies to the general, the familiar can only be cast when the general is in play. If the general dies, the familiar dies as well)
there are some others, but those were the ones i explicitly remember kinda well. i think they worked well in my group, 'cuz these guys are pretty chill and aren't hardcore spikes in EDH (we DO play legacy pretty hardcore, but EDH very casually).
This would be my biggest criticism. No other Commander has this kind of ability. Even if you were just building a mono-U or B or W deck, just throw Oloro in the Command zone with two other commanders you actually care about and just reap the rewards of a Commander you literally have no intention of ever using. No other Commander or colors matches that kind of value since you can only have 1 active anyway. Use that with a Mono-B deck using the precon Ob Nixilis and Oloro and Sidisi, Undead Vizier in the Command zone. With that combination you are talking about a difficult/nigh impossible to interact with +5 (give or take) life per turn from the Command zone. While infinite life doesn't mean as much in Commander due to Commander damage, some decks simply aren't able to take advantage of that so that kind of life gain becomes a very real problem. Not to mention that a planeswalker is basically a kind of life gain on its own. And you get all that value from a slot that you could simply build your deck to not even care about. Oh and a tutor whenever you want/need it.
I think the idea is interesting if you consider the idea of running a kind of "upgrade your commander" kind of strategy like going with Anax and Cymede, Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran, and Aurelia, the War Leader. Basically the idea being that you have a commander that is on theme and colors that basically want to do the same thing and over the course of the game as your strategy unfolds you get a progressively more powerful version of the same creature, almost like a Pokemon evolution. I think anything passed that and the abuse becomes too easy.
Honestly, I think for the idea to work you have to do a few things. 1) Ban Oloro lol. 2) Make it so that all Commanders have to share the exact same color identity and 3) make it so that if you have an Esper Commander the deck is also Esper colors so you don't end up with Mono-B Commanders of an Esper deck or Esper Commanders of a Mono-B deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The following link is an invitation to join Pucatrade (card trading service though similar to TCGPLayer). If you follow the link then it awards me with tokens to exchange for actual cards. Thanks! https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/86097
You could potentially get this to work by running it as a 'variant format', but you'd probably want to look in to a list of commanders that are banned for it. Oloro and Derevi come to mind, because both have ways to get around the collective tax.
You need more specifics. It's a great idea, and most with the criticism are doing just that without really elaborating or providing alternatives besides "bad idea, don't do it, it'll never work".
Really, you'd just need to restructure how the CZ works, and implement restrictions. My thoughts would be having 3 commanders, which is a great starting point. Now, the stipulations would be as follows, 1 mono-legend, 1 bi/Tri and one of the remaining combos of Bi/Tri/Quad/Penta. This would avoid the "Oloro/Sen T./Zur" power combo everybody has been tearing your idea down with. Second, you'd only be able to have one in play at any one time. Similar to the legend rule, as soon as a second commander enters play, you'd chose one and sac the other. I'd suggest tweaking the tax to +1 instead of 2, or maybe some unique rule on how they are re-cast.
The reason I like this idea, and also why I think this actually does add variance, is it gives you defense against poor matchups. It also allows you to switch gears pretty much on the fly. Running control with no finisher? There's a commander for that. No 2 games will ever play the same. Ever wanted to see what Alesha, who smiles at death can do with a 5-color deck? You can now!
If your willing to put the work in, you can basically make anything happen. Don't let people, especially those on the Internet, sway you away from an idea. That is what EDH was once upon a time, and look at it now. Just think, this could catch fire and you could head up your own RC and tell your player base to shove it, no apologies!
Just a few more thoughts.
Maybe swell the deck size to 129, an extra 10 cards per commander. Bump life totals to 60, and maybe implementing a 31 by a single commander rule, and a "10 by each rule" for end game.
I just can't believe people are really dismissin this based on power-level concerns, because, like, that already isn't a problem in regular EDH...
What do any of those changes add to the game? Decks are already massive. Life totals are already far too massive for combat to compete. Commander damage is already difficult enough, and requires enough book-keeping, without adding a ten from each rule.
Even if left at 21 from the three generals combined, Commander Damage would simply be an incentive to punch things, something the format desperately needs right now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
What do any of those changes add to the game? Decks are already massive. Life totals are already far too massive for combat to compete. Commander damage is already difficult enough, and requires enough book-keeping, without adding a ten from each rule.
Even if left at 21 from the three generals combined, Commander Damage would simply be an incentive to punch things, something the format desperately needs right now.
Please read through the thread to see if your own questions have been answered before you bother to ask them.
You need more specifics. It's a great idea, and most with the criticism are doing just that without really elaborating or providing alternatives besides "bad idea, don't do it, it'll never work".
Really, you'd just need to restructure how the CZ works, and implement restrictions. My thoughts would be having 3 commanders, which is a great starting point. Now, the stipulations would be as follows, 1 mono-legend, 1 bi/Tri and one of the remaining combos of Bi/Tri/Quad/Penta. This would avoid the "Oloro/Sen T./Zur" power combo everybody has been tearing your idea down with. Second, you'd only be able to have one in play at any one time. Similar to the legend rule, as soon as a second commander enters play, you'd chose one and sac the other. I'd suggest tweaking the tax to +1 instead of 2, or maybe some unique rule on how they are re-cast.
The reason I like this idea, and also why I think this actually does add variance, is it gives you defense against poor matchups. It also allows you to switch gears pretty much on the fly. Running control with no finisher? There's a commander for that. No 2 games will ever play the same. Ever wanted to see what Alesha, who smiles at death can do with a 5-color deck? You can now!
If your willing to put the work in, you can basically make anything happen. Don't let people, especially those on the Internet, sway you away from an idea. That is what EDH was once upon a time, and look at it now. Just think, this could catch fire and you could head up your own RC and tell your player base to shove it, no apologies!
Just a few more thoughts.
Maybe swell the deck size to 129, an extra 10 cards per commander. Bump life totals to 60, and maybe implementing a 31 by a single commander rule, and a "10 by each rule" for end game.
I just can't believe people are really dismissin this based on power-level concerns, because, like, that already isn't a problem in regular EDH...
I've decided to leave the content of this thread where it is, in hopes that it may assist others with ideas for some fun house rules. In addition to that, I'd also enjoy continuing the discussion so as to come up with an enjoyable alternate format for my playgroup. My playgroup has always looked to me for things like this, since I typically take these sorts of roles across several games we play (For example, I'm always DM/GM in all of our D&D and Pathfinder games). None of my friends really care to put forth the effort to design game types, formats, or what have you, so keeping the discussion going should be a great way to come up with some good ideas.
Anyways, my favorite thing about this approach currently, is the whole self integration with Wizard's Commander products thing. I'd really like to keep it within that sort of realm, simply for accessibility reasons. Other than that, I've not put much more thought passed what I've stated, and what you've suggested, and though I will continue to construct more ideas for it when I have more free time, I'd love to hear what you, and anyone else interested in discussing, would be able to come up with to make this concept more engaging, balanced, and just all around more fun.
What do any of those changes add to the game? Decks are already massive. Life totals are already far too massive for combat to compete. Commander damage is already difficult enough, and requires enough book-keeping, without adding a ten from each rule.
Even if left at 21 from the three generals combined, Commander Damage would simply be an incentive to punch things, something the format desperately needs right now.
Please read through the thread to see if your own questions have been answered before you bother to ask them.
Considering the questions were only asked in the prior post, I have to wonder if you even bothered to read my questions before you replied mate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
EDH RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
You then went on to explain normal Commander problems, and made a few observations about my idea.
So my answer to the only question you asked (which was essentially what HugSeal asked) was "Fun and Variance" though HugSeal pointed out that "Variation" was more accurate, and that it would potentially unbalance the game as 3 generals would be too easily abused. In the end, I agreed with HugSeal, and the discussion then switched into more of a" Help me improve this idea" sort of thread.
So... Are you trolling or did you forget what the question you asked was?
It had already been determined that your idea was crap. So rather than beating a dead horse, I was aiming at the concept of even bigger decks and even more absurd life pillows brought up in the post before mine.
So, you trolling, or did you not even read that post? You know, the one where they suggested a bigger deck, more life, and some modifications to the commander damage rules? The one to which all those "observations about your idea" are directly responding to even though you never mentioned deck sizes or commander damage?
Public Mod Note
(Airithne):
Infraction for flaming.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
I think that leans them towards being one shot combo enablers more than anything else.
What I'd like would be something like 1 Commander and then a French Vanilla creature in the Command Zone that can be cast over and over. The easy creature access helps to encourage aggressive creature based strategies, and having constant repeatable access to a beater helps mitigate the card advantage of some colours over others.
Of course like everything such a setup can be broken I'm sure, but that would be a pretty cool starting point to expanding on the Commander concept imo
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
Alright, that sounds silly, but hear me out: They would all have to share the same colors, in accordance to normal Commander color Identity rules. Only one General would be allowed in any other zone outside of the Command Zone at any given time (To negate combos resulting from having 3 Generals). Each of the 3 Generals would separately track how many times they've been returned to the Command Zone and as such, their additional costs to cast due to this... Or maybe they wouldn't! Maybe anytime any one General returns to the CZ, it affects them all? Other than this, all other Commander rules would apply.
This is also very friendly to Wizard's Precon Decks, as each one always comes with exactly 3 possible General choices per deck.
My biggest reasoning for this is simple; fun and variance. It would mean that you could build a deck around 3 possible candidates, which I just think would be some great fun. I'm not outright saying this should be how traditional Commander works by any means, but it could be an interesting alternative with a lot of room to explore.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this idea? Maybe some suggestions and/or criticisms? I'd love to hear them!
You bring up fun and variance. But having three cards always accessible reduces variance rather than increase it.
You are basically giving people some extra tutoring and while that can be fun from time to time I honestly personally don't see much reason behind it.
Also, why 3 generals in particular? Why not 2, or 4, or 25? I guess what I am trying to convey is that just slapping on two extra already tutored cards is not so much a big change in teh format but rather a somewhat arbitrary houserule.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Variance is arguable, I suppose, as I more so had in mind that different generals would be used at different points in the game, affecting things well, differently. It's also not as if my own rules for how Generals would behave in and out of the Command Zone are set in stone. I'm sure anyone could come up with ideas on how to make it more engaging.
And, well, it is arbitrary! Some of the most fun Commander games are played with house rules. The major difference here, is that this particular one has reasonable structure and built in support through Wizard's products. Of course you wouldn't be seeing anything at all like this in the competitive environments, but those very environments have their own sets of rules themselves, so you've got to think about this with casual play in mind (the same way Wizards typically does). You could literally buy any precon Commander deck ever made, and play using this concept, right out of the box.
Other than that, I thought of this concept on a whim and thought it sounded fun. The more I thought about it, the more it sort of just slotted together. Does it not seem reasonable?
I would simply like to ask you to consider it as: What if Wizards actually made this a thing? What implications would it have and how would you personally react and deal with it? Would you hate it or enjoy it? Would you find ways to abuse it? Or would you simply not care?
At the very least, if you couldn't accept this ever being plausible as an official thing, would you ever try it yourself as a house rule?
No. People will abuse this and it will be brutal.
EDH Decks:
WUBOloro, Combo ControlWUB
UBOona Reanimator ComboUB
BRGProssh, Eater of the Blue MageBRG
UBRGrixis StormUBR
Rebuilding Jenara (stealyourstuff.dec)
Pauper Deck:
UBInspired SirenUB
I also feel it woul detract a lot from the limitations that is the core of edh as a format.
Then again, my playgrooup is rather fierce and a lot of already strong decks would be unbelievably broken with access to several commanders, not as big of a problem in grous with lower powered decks I would think.
I would not enjoy the triple commanders if wizards implemented it, it is just to much power to put in the command zone. Imagine playing something like Oloro, Ageless Ascetic, Zur the Enchanter and Sharuum The Hegemon/Merieke Ri Berit.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Well, I don't believe there si too much to improve. It is a different take on the format and all cards sharing commander tax and only getting to have one outside of the czone at once makes sense.
Would still ot personally use it due to the mentioned powerlevelproblems and the fact that t dilutes the essence of the format in my eyes. Having one specific commander makes it a bit of a buildaround around that card. Tacking on a bunch of other cards just seems to convert the commandzone to goodstuff.zone.
You are talking about variation but isn't the same thing accomplished by just playing all three cards in the deck and switch up which one you use as a commander between games?
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Agreed, I'll probably be taking down this thread.
I concur that I think the end result of the 3 general rule would be less variance - not more.
RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck
RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
Arena Standard
UUUU Tempo, since before it was cool
Various Wx decks running Fountain of Renewal and Day of Glory
Anything I can cram Chaos Wand in to
but for a house rule/one-time for-fun experiment, it seems ok. I'd just be wary of the spikes that would min-max and pick the most broken combinations, because that is exactly what this theoretical variant seems to beg for (see Tiny Leaders).
It would probably hurt deck building too. A lot of decks are super specific and the two other generals would either water down the deck with their synergies or not fit well because you excluded those synergies.
If you want multiple generals with the same deck imo just keep them off to the side and switch between games, with maybe a small sideboard.
- on the steed he came on (a second 'general' that has to be in-colour, but has to have the horse-creature type, doesn't have to be legendary)
- the anti-colour team (2 generals that combine to have exactly 4 colours. player wins when the enemy colour is wiped out from the game; can have multiple winners)
- tag-team (2 generals that have the exact colour-combination. can only have one in play at any one time; can pay the mana cost to 'tag' the other general in; tags as a special action)
- familiar (1 general, and 1 creature with a CMC 3 or less with the exact colour combination, doesn't have to be legendary. the death tax only applies to the general, the familiar can only be cast when the general is in play. If the general dies, the familiar dies as well)
there are some others, but those were the ones i explicitly remember kinda well. i think they worked well in my group, 'cuz these guys are pretty chill and aren't hardcore spikes in EDH (we DO play legacy pretty hardcore, but EDH very casually).
.....Dwarven Pony is way OP.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
This would be my biggest criticism. No other Commander has this kind of ability. Even if you were just building a mono-U or B or W deck, just throw Oloro in the Command zone with two other commanders you actually care about and just reap the rewards of a Commander you literally have no intention of ever using. No other Commander or colors matches that kind of value since you can only have 1 active anyway. Use that with a Mono-B deck using the precon Ob Nixilis and Oloro and Sidisi, Undead Vizier in the Command zone. With that combination you are talking about a difficult/nigh impossible to interact with +5 (give or take) life per turn from the Command zone. While infinite life doesn't mean as much in Commander due to Commander damage, some decks simply aren't able to take advantage of that so that kind of life gain becomes a very real problem. Not to mention that a planeswalker is basically a kind of life gain on its own. And you get all that value from a slot that you could simply build your deck to not even care about. Oh and a tutor whenever you want/need it.
I think the idea is interesting if you consider the idea of running a kind of "upgrade your commander" kind of strategy like going with Anax and Cymede, Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran, and Aurelia, the War Leader. Basically the idea being that you have a commander that is on theme and colors that basically want to do the same thing and over the course of the game as your strategy unfolds you get a progressively more powerful version of the same creature, almost like a Pokemon evolution. I think anything passed that and the abuse becomes too easy.
Honestly, I think for the idea to work you have to do a few things. 1) Ban Oloro lol. 2) Make it so that all Commanders have to share the exact same color identity and 3) make it so that if you have an Esper Commander the deck is also Esper colors so you don't end up with Mono-B Commanders of an Esper deck or Esper Commanders of a Mono-B deck.
https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/86097
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
Really, you'd just need to restructure how the CZ works, and implement restrictions. My thoughts would be having 3 commanders, which is a great starting point. Now, the stipulations would be as follows, 1 mono-legend, 1 bi/Tri and one of the remaining combos of Bi/Tri/Quad/Penta. This would avoid the "Oloro/Sen T./Zur" power combo everybody has been tearing your idea down with. Second, you'd only be able to have one in play at any one time. Similar to the legend rule, as soon as a second commander enters play, you'd chose one and sac the other. I'd suggest tweaking the tax to +1 instead of 2, or maybe some unique rule on how they are re-cast.
The reason I like this idea, and also why I think this actually does add variance, is it gives you defense against poor matchups. It also allows you to switch gears pretty much on the fly. Running control with no finisher? There's a commander for that. No 2 games will ever play the same. Ever wanted to see what Alesha, who smiles at death can do with a 5-color deck? You can now!
If your willing to put the work in, you can basically make anything happen. Don't let people, especially those on the Internet, sway you away from an idea. That is what EDH was once upon a time, and look at it now. Just think, this could catch fire and you could head up your own RC and tell your player base to shove it, no apologies!
Just a few more thoughts.
Maybe swell the deck size to 129, an extra 10 cards per commander. Bump life totals to 60, and maybe implementing a 31 by a single commander rule, and a "10 by each rule" for end game.
I just can't believe people are really dismissin this based on power-level concerns, because, like, that already isn't a problem in regular EDH...
Even if left at 21 from the three generals combined, Commander Damage would simply be an incentive to punch things, something the format desperately needs right now.
RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck
RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
Arena Standard
UUUU Tempo, since before it was cool
Various Wx decks running Fountain of Renewal and Day of Glory
Anything I can cram Chaos Wand in to
Please read through the thread to see if your own questions have been answered before you bother to ask them.
I've decided to leave the content of this thread where it is, in hopes that it may assist others with ideas for some fun house rules. In addition to that, I'd also enjoy continuing the discussion so as to come up with an enjoyable alternate format for my playgroup. My playgroup has always looked to me for things like this, since I typically take these sorts of roles across several games we play (For example, I'm always DM/GM in all of our D&D and Pathfinder games). None of my friends really care to put forth the effort to design game types, formats, or what have you, so keeping the discussion going should be a great way to come up with some good ideas.
Anyways, my favorite thing about this approach currently, is the whole self integration with Wizard's Commander products thing. I'd really like to keep it within that sort of realm, simply for accessibility reasons. Other than that, I've not put much more thought passed what I've stated, and what you've suggested, and though I will continue to construct more ideas for it when I have more free time, I'd love to hear what you, and anyone else interested in discussing, would be able to come up with to make this concept more engaging, balanced, and just all around more fun.
Considering the questions were only asked in the prior post, I have to wonder if you even bothered to read my questions before you replied mate.
RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck
RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
Arena Standard
UUUU Tempo, since before it was cool
Various Wx decks running Fountain of Renewal and Day of Glory
Anything I can cram Chaos Wand in to
RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck
RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
Arena Standard
UUUU Tempo, since before it was cool
Various Wx decks running Fountain of Renewal and Day of Glory
Anything I can cram Chaos Wand in to
You then went on to explain normal Commander problems, and made a few observations about my idea.
So my answer to the only question you asked (which was essentially what HugSeal asked) was "Fun and Variance" though HugSeal pointed out that "Variation" was more accurate, and that it would potentially unbalance the game as 3 generals would be too easily abused. In the end, I agreed with HugSeal, and the discussion then switched into more of a" Help me improve this idea" sort of thread.
So... Are you trolling or did you forget what the question you asked was?
So, you trolling, or did you not even read that post? You know, the one where they suggested a bigger deck, more life, and some modifications to the commander damage rules? The one to which all those "observations about your idea" are directly responding to even though you never mentioned deck sizes or commander damage?
RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck
RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
Arena Standard
UUUU Tempo, since before it was cool
Various Wx decks running Fountain of Renewal and Day of Glory
Anything I can cram Chaos Wand in to
What I'd like would be something like 1 Commander and then a French Vanilla creature in the Command Zone that can be cast over and over. The easy creature access helps to encourage aggressive creature based strategies, and having constant repeatable access to a beater helps mitigate the card advantage of some colours over others.
Of course like everything such a setup can be broken I'm sure, but that would be a pretty cool starting point to expanding on the Commander concept imo
RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck
RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
Arena Standard
UUUU Tempo, since before it was cool
Various Wx decks running Fountain of Renewal and Day of Glory
Anything I can cram Chaos Wand in to