First of all, thanks to all who responded after my response post - it is great to see people actually discussing things, and asking questions! I attempted to answer everything you asked as thoroughly as I can. Rather than answer each as a quote, and individually, I will instead try and answer the most commonly asked questions as a general statement.
My reasoning for choosing all three of the required numbers for a player to lose a game (life total, commander damage, poison) where based on these three things:
- In general, cards in Pauper are worse than cards in regular Commander. This causes games in Pauper Commander to go on longer than games in regular Commander; through testing this has proven to be true. I simply chose a lower life total to go by so that games go on longer than regular constructed formats, as they do in regular Commander, but do not go on excessively long.
- Commander damage was chosen to be ((a player's starting life total / 2) + 1), as it is in Commander.
- Even though the amount of poison required for a player to lose the game has not been addressed in Commander, I feel as though if you are going to make all non-poison decks take longer to kill a player, the same should apply to poison decks. As it is in most constructed formats, the amount of poison required for a player to lose the game is (a player's starting life total / 2).
My goal is/was to get a separate sub-forum for Pauper Commander so that people would know that it really is a thing. If it is never made, I am content as long as people are active in the forum pages anyways. I just want it to be a lively format.
One of the first problems I saw when looking at people's Pauper Commander decklists where that they were not consistent. Some people played cards that were commons online only; others did not. Some people chose to use any legendary creature as their commander, or other rules about what commanders were legal; others did not. Some people had regular starting life totals, commander damage etc.; others did not. It just felt really strange to me that we were all attempting to talk about the same format, but in essence we were not. By having a set of rules, it makes it much easier to discuss decks and strategies.
This is the big topic.
The reason I chose the three commanders in specific was mainly off of theorycrafting, as my play group simply is not competitive enough to test every commander. I just have problems with commanders that are so much better than any other card in the format, that you can just build a deck with strictly support of that card. It takes a lot away from it being a Pauper format.
However, for now, until we can agree on commanders after more discussion, I will leave the commander ban list empty.
There wouldn't be anything wrong with changing the format to be based of of EDH instead of Commander, and just adding Pauper rules. It wouldn't really change much, as most of the rules are slightly edited copy/paste segments. The way I have it allows it to mesh really well together however. I feel like all of the rules posted are necessary, and reduce confusion. If one were to say 'Pauper EDH is a variant of EDH, which incorporates Pauper rules', there is way too much room for interpretation.
For all card's rarities, Oracle text, or gatherer.wizards.com information will be the final say. It is my hope that I, or another, can compile a list of all cards that are legal offline that are not legal online in Pauper.
Contrary to popular belief, outside of Fusion Elemental and Transguild Courier, there are other cards that are legal in Pauper Commander at the 5 color level; there are a total of 6 cards at the 5 color level:
In regards to commander discussion, I do not believe that Fusion Elemental is a ban worthy commander on any level. He can hit really hard, but he is also extremely aggressively costed. In regards to Bloodbraid Elf, I believe the logic in the comment that you must stay below 4 converted mana cost is a little flawed. For mono color commanders, having to stay in one color is not always a drawback.
For what it's worth, I am fine with using Gatherer as the ultimate authority regarding rarity. I am still confused why Wizards handled it like they did, but Gatherer is a good standard.
Transguild Courier does not actually have a five-color color identity; rather, it is colorless in that regard. None of the mana symbols appear anywhere on the card, and those mana symbols are what determine color identity according to mtgcommander.net. Sadly, this probably makes Courier unusable as a commander.
Thanks for not preemptively banning any commanders, btw. Careful management of the banlist is crucial.
Can we talk a little more about the 16 general damage rule? The original 21 general damage thing did was not created by a "(starting life total) / 2 + 1" rule, but rather a "3 swings from an Elder Dragon Legend" rule. Why did you choose this formula?
Regarding the poison count: is it really necessary to up the count to 15? 10 poison in regular EDH has been fine, and as we move to the pauper format, many of the best poison cards aren't even legal (Skithirix, the Blight Dragon, Grafted Exoskeleton, Triumph of the Hordes, Blightsteel Colossus). 60-card Pauper infect is a deck, but that is due to a critical mass of cheap infect dudes and pump spells like Invigorate. Is it worth considering 10 poison instead of 15?
Thanks again. I hope you find this inquiry useful.
Nitpicking -- you can't run Garruk Relentless in either decks because pauper disallow mythic rarities... but yes, I get what you mean
@d0su
I would like to point out that it is really in how colour identity was defined in the Comprehensive Rules: -
Quote from Comprehensive Rules »
The colour identity of a card is the colour or colours of any mana symbols in the card's mana cost or rules text, plus any colours defined by its characteristic defining abilities or colour indicator.
Edited for brevity and highlighted relevant parts.
I do agree that the adjustments on required poison and general damage seems a little arbitrary, clarifications notwithstanding
@Cakins
Consider posting those reasonings in the OP as it would probably be easier than asking readers to refer to post #33 for the reasonings.
Transguild Courier does not actually have a five-color color identity; rather, it is colorless in that regard. None of the mana symbols appear anywhere on the card, and those mana symbols are what determine color identity according to mtgcommander.net. Sadly, this probably makes Courier unusable as a commander.
Thankfully, no, that is not all there is to it. I do apologize, as I should have been more thorough in my rules - I will change it after this.
903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card's mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).
The reason this is not evident on gatherer.wizards.com is that there is no indication of color identity on the site.
Can we talk a little more about the 16 general damage rule? The original 21 general damage thing did was not created by a "(starting life total) / 2 + 1" rule, but rather a "3 swings from an Elder Dragon Legend" rule. Why did you choose this formula?
Regarding the poison count: is it really necessary to up the count to 15? 10 poison in regular EDH has been fine, and as we move to the pauper format, many of the best poison cards aren't even legal (Skithirix, the Blight Dragon, Grafted Exoskeleton, Triumph of the Hordes, Blightsteel Colossus). 60-card Pauper infect is a deck, but that is due to a critical mass of cheap infect dudes and pump spells like Invigorate. Is it worth considering 10 poison instead of 15?
The numbers I chose where chosen to be able to scale down with the life totals. None of the numbers are correct per say, and are open to change.
Needless to say, I am also in favor of keeping the poison count at 10 because I do not think there is sufficient reason to change it. However, if results prove otherwise, I am open to change. I guess the same goes for general damage, as well.
I would like to see the general follow the legendary rule, if only to keep that EDH uniqueness feel. My hunch is that much like normal EDH, an equilibrium of sorts will emerge with each color combination having a preferred uncommon general.
I would like to see the general follow the legendary rule, if only to keep that EDH uniqueness feel. My hunch is that much like normal EDH, an equilibrium of sorts will emerge with each color combination having a preferred uncommon general.
As I honestly don't have much time at the moment to respond to everyone, I found this really interesting, as I had not really thought about it. This would only matter for clone effects and when two people have the same commander however. What do others think? Should this be a rule?
As I honestly don't have much time at the moment to respond to everyone, I found this really interesting, as I had not really thought about it. This would only matter for clone effects and when two people have the same commander however. What do others think? Should this be a rule?
The issue I could see is that in EDH it's clean, because they're legendary to begin with. So in Pauper, do we treat them as legendary, and legend rule if I'm including it in my 99? Or do we need a clause "if you clone a general..."? Flavor-wise, I thinks it's something worth discussing.
The issue I could see is that in EDH it's clean, because they're legendary to begin with. So in Pauper, do we treat them as legendary, and legend rule if I'm including it in my 99? Or do we need a clause "if you clone a general..."? Flavor-wise, I thinks it's something worth discussing.
I don't really see a problem with somebody cloning my Izzet Guildmage. I guess that if you're really into flavor, you could have your playgroup treat them as legendary. But I don't think the standard rules should say that uncommon commanders are legendary.
As for the idea of choosing legendary commanders:
If this is UNCOMMON legendary commanders, they are SOOO boring.
I'm also opposed to normal legendary commanders, as uncommons allow for more diversity in the deck pool.
How would you guys rule on something that has a printing in common on a MTGO master's edition? I came across this with Telekinesis where it was printed as common in the MTGO master's and so normally I would go ahead an use it but.... that is a digital only non distribution sort of deal.... ehhh it got sketchy for me at the least lol.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
Treating nonlegendary uncommon cards as legendary because they are commanders seems a little weird to me. I get the flavor aspect of matching EDH, but I don't think it's worth rewriting the rules about card supertypes. I can't find a single common card that makes a copy of a creature, so I don't see the issue coming up unless someone is running Clone as their commander, or if two players are running the same commander (which I don't have a problem with).
Treating nonlegendary uncommon cards as legendary because they are commanders seems a little weird to me. I get the flavor aspect of matching EDH, but I don't think it's worth rewriting the rules about card supertypes. I can't find a single common card that makes a copy of a creature, so I don't see the issue coming up unless someone is running Clone as their commander, or if two players are running the same commander (which I don't have a problem with).
Oh man, I never realized Clone was originally uncommon. That would make a sweet general.
How would you guys rule on something that has a printing in common on a MTGO master's edition? I came across this with Telekinesis where it was printed as common in the MTGO master's and so normally I would go ahead an use it but.... that is a digital only non distribution sort of deal.... ehhh it got sketchy for me at the least lol.
Telekinesis, and cards like it, are not legal in Pauper Commander, under this set of rules that is. We sacrifice cards such as those, and gain cards such as Sinkhole and the like in order to make this an offline format.
The first two were banned because of power level, and the other two because I think they misunderstood how evoke doesn't get around the 2 tax. I saw some mentioning of banning Invisible Stalker too.
that was me. the huge difference is that it was for a tournament (and a select number of uncommons were allowed in addition to the general). being that it for a tourney, we didnt want to see tog-on-tog (best deck in the format by far) or bbe's (gets unfair very fast) and invisible stalkers (so hard to deal with at common) all day. we wanted variation, and those 3 seemed like they would be huge offenders being that they were the first 3 picks all of us wanted to use as generals/thought should be banned as generals.
regardless of tax effects evoke, shriekmaw and nevermaker are borderline degenerate in a 1v1 scenario. nevermaker + bounce is pretty brutal. and shriekmaw spamming on non black decks can get out of hand. they are defiantly less offensive once you rule out any additional uncommons allowed in the deck though.
that was me. the huge difference is that it was for a tournament (and a select number of uncommons were allowed in addition to the general). being that it for a tourney, we didnt want to see tog-on-tog (best deck in the format by far) or bbe's (gets unfair very fast) and invisible stalkers (so hard to deal with at common) all day. we wanted variation, and those 3 seemed like they would be huge offenders being that they were the first 3 picks all of us wanted to use as generals/thought should be banned as generals.
regardless of tax effects evoke, shriekmaw and nevermaker are borderline degenerate in a 1v1 scenario. nevermaker + bounce is pretty brutal. and shriekmaw spamming on non black decks can get out of hand. they are defiantly less offensive once you rule out any additional uncommons allowed in the deck though.
To be fair, when you play Psychatog as a control commander, he himself really isn't the best part of the deck - it is simply the fact that you are playing an excellent control deck. I do understand why he would be banned though.
I was wondering the same thing. Is there any harm or confusion caused by allowing all cards that have been printed as commons on paper and online? It seems like it would ease the crossover between paper and digital formats (if that's a concern) and make for fewer "yes, but..." explanations for why something is or isn't legal.
As far as cards that aren't commons online and therefore aren't explicitly banned in Pauper, the only ones I see as being potentially problematic are Hymn to Tourach and Sinkhole. Their strength goes down significantly in multiplayer though (which gets back to how we balance the rules for 1v1 or multiplayer).
Do we ever want the ban on Cranial Plating and Frantic Search that online Pauper has? Those are much harder to take advantage of in 100 card singleton.
My playgroup is getting together to play Pauper EDH tomorrow and here are the rules we're using:
The commander can any uncommon creature. No commanders are explicitly banned, but none of us picked Psychatog or Bloodbraid Elf because we didn't want to risk killing the fun of the new format right away.
The 99 main deck cards are all commons. No ban list, but no one is running Hymns or Sinkholes because we want to have fun.
Rarity is determined by looking at Gatherer and seeing the card at whatever rarity you are looking for. If it was ever a common or uncommon, in paper or online, then you can count it as such.
No sideboards. We tried this with normal EDH, but it felt strange to do when we are all just playing friends, so we stopped doing it.
Matches are 1-vs-1, run as a casual round robin tournament where everyone plays everyone best 2 out of 3 (or however much they want). We play normal EDH for multiplayer, and we felt commons-only would be better for head to head matches.
Players start at 30 life. Commanders kill you at 18 damage (we may raise or lower this if games are too fast or short). Poison kills you at 10 like normal (but no one is running inject yet).
We may expand to allowing some number of uncommons (which I would call Peasant Commander) but only after exploring the Pauper format first. We may also allow any common creature as a commander, but we are sticking to uncommons for now.
Do we ever want the ban on Cranial Plating and Frantic Search that online Pauper has? Those are much harder to take advantage of in 100 card singleton.
I don't think those bans are necessary. Cranial Plating and Frantic Search are banned because Affinity and Storm are just too strong in 60-card Pauper; I highly doubt that will be the case in 100-card singleton. In fact, I have been trying to brew some kind of Storm list and haven't yet discovered something even playable, much less problematic.
And do let us know how your playgroup's first expedition into Pauper turns out! You actually bring up a good point: will this banlist attempt to regulate multiplayer and 1v1 play, competitive play or casual, some combination thereof, or what?
EDIT: Holy crap, I just realized that with 16 general damage, my main man Fusion Elemental is even more beastly than ever. Rock on!
We tried the 30/16/15 life total you suggested here, but found out very quickly that pauper decks have no trouble dealing 40/21 damage. We had only one infect card in the 400 at table, so my opinion on that is nonexistant.
We had Sigil Captain, Fire-field Ogre (grixis control), Azorius Herald (voltron style), and Patrol Signaler (combo-agro). After 4 games (granted not a definitive study), that lowering the life totals is unneeded. What our decks were doing at that table would have been good enough for regular edh.
We're going to actively try the generals that people are saying are "too good" and see if they really are. Jace's Phantasm, BBE, Shriekmaw, and Invisible Stalker are going to be built soon.
IMO, the most ridiculous card in the format is Ghostly Flicker. We were under "Mnemonic Wall + Flicker + XXX" soft lock in multiple games. There are outs, but if you don't have a crypt/relic, it's just going to keep coming back and kicking your butt.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blogging isn't writing; it's graffiti with punctuation. Trade Thread
IMO, the most ridiculous card in the format is Ghostly Flicker. We were under "Mnemonic Wall + Flicker + XXX" soft lock in multiple games. There are outs, but if you don't have a crypt/relic, it's just going to keep coming back and kicking your butt.
I am quickly finding out that this is one of the best things you can be doing. Still, I wonder if it is actually better than Capsize? I think Capsize might be the strongest card in the format.
I also like the idea of allowing anything that's been released as a common, which would include MTGO. The way I see it, if you're already going to Gatherer to determine the rarity, there's no confusion.
To OP, how about starting a thread for ban list discussions. That way this thread doesn't get get sidetracked with two topics.
Can someone show me a BBE list that would be so crushing even in 1v1? Her cascade and haste certainly make her hard to deal with, but that's the point. Is it the potential to hit land destruction/denial spells?
Here's a list of common LD (some better, some worse) that she can cascade into:
You could toss Active Volcano into that list if you really want.
I suppose you could load a deck up with every red and green LD spell and keep crushing a single opponent, but that's possible even without running BBE. One-for-one LD is generally bad in multiplayer, so I'm less worried about it there. I can see it working out pretty well in 1v1, but the deck needs some way to either ramp into a turn 2-3 BBE, or play her on turn 4 where she is more fair. Even then, the deck is going to be running other more mundane spells she can hit.
I'm going to come up with the most degenerate lists I can for each of the potentially banned commanders and see how it goes.
More responses, including a large change to the discussion.
The reasoning behind only allowing offline Magic cards to be used in the current rule set is that it is under the same formatting regular Pauper is - only cards that are common online are legal. It simply made sense to do it the same way offline. This is not an online format, and as such, we do not have online-only cards such as Gleemax offline; this logic is incorporated into the current rule set.
All ban list discussion is now moved to a separate thread:
This includes both the regular ban list, and the commander ban list. This thread is now to be used for the sole purpose of discussing rules changes. This link will be able to be referenced in the first post of this thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My reasoning for choosing all three of the required numbers for a player to lose a game (life total, commander damage, poison) where based on these three things:
- In general, cards in Pauper are worse than cards in regular Commander. This causes games in Pauper Commander to go on longer than games in regular Commander; through testing this has proven to be true. I simply chose a lower life total to go by so that games go on longer than regular constructed formats, as they do in regular Commander, but do not go on excessively long.
- Commander damage was chosen to be ((a player's starting life total / 2) + 1), as it is in Commander.
- Even though the amount of poison required for a player to lose the game has not been addressed in Commander, I feel as though if you are going to make all non-poison decks take longer to kill a player, the same should apply to poison decks. As it is in most constructed formats, the amount of poison required for a player to lose the game is (a player's starting life total / 2).
My goal is/was to get a separate sub-forum for Pauper Commander so that people would know that it really is a thing. If it is never made, I am content as long as people are active in the forum pages anyways. I just want it to be a lively format.
One of the first problems I saw when looking at people's Pauper Commander decklists where that they were not consistent. Some people played cards that were commons online only; others did not. Some people chose to use any legendary creature as their commander, or other rules about what commanders were legal; others did not. Some people had regular starting life totals, commander damage etc.; others did not. It just felt really strange to me that we were all attempting to talk about the same format, but in essence we were not. By having a set of rules, it makes it much easier to discuss decks and strategies.
This is the big topic.
The reason I chose the three commanders in specific was mainly off of theorycrafting, as my play group simply is not competitive enough to test every commander. I just have problems with commanders that are so much better than any other card in the format, that you can just build a deck with strictly support of that card. It takes a lot away from it being a Pauper format.
However, for now, until we can agree on commanders after more discussion, I will leave the commander ban list empty.
There wouldn't be anything wrong with changing the format to be based of of EDH instead of Commander, and just adding Pauper rules. It wouldn't really change much, as most of the rules are slightly edited copy/paste segments. The way I have it allows it to mesh really well together however. I feel like all of the rules posted are necessary, and reduce confusion. If one were to say 'Pauper EDH is a variant of EDH, which incorporates Pauper rules', there is way too much room for interpretation.
For all card's rarities, Oracle text, or gatherer.wizards.com information will be the final say. It is my hope that I, or another, can compile a list of all cards that are legal offline that are not legal online in Pauper.
Contrary to popular belief, outside of Fusion Elemental and Transguild Courier, there are other cards that are legal in Pauper Commander at the 5 color level; there are a total of 6 cards at the 5 color level:
Fusion Elemental
Transguild Courier
Dragonsoul Knight
Fleshformer
Paragon of the Amesha
Composite Golem
In regards to commander discussion, I do not believe that Fusion Elemental is a ban worthy commander on any level. He can hit really hard, but he is also extremely aggressively costed. In regards to Bloodbraid Elf, I believe the logic in the comment that you must stay below 4 converted mana cost is a little flawed. For mono color commanders, having to stay in one color is not always a drawback.
That's already been compiled over on PDCmagic.com. It may not be completely up to date but it's a very good starting point.
For what it's worth, I am fine with using Gatherer as the ultimate authority regarding rarity. I am still confused why Wizards handled it like they did, but Gatherer is a good standard.
Transguild Courier does not actually have a five-color color identity; rather, it is colorless in that regard. None of the mana symbols appear anywhere on the card, and those mana symbols are what determine color identity according to mtgcommander.net. Sadly, this probably makes Courier unusable as a commander.
Thanks for not preemptively banning any commanders, btw. Careful management of the banlist is crucial.
Can we talk a little more about the 16 general damage rule? The original 21 general damage thing did was not created by a "(starting life total) / 2 + 1" rule, but rather a "3 swings from an Elder Dragon Legend" rule. Why did you choose this formula?
Regarding the poison count: is it really necessary to up the count to 15? 10 poison in regular EDH has been fine, and as we move to the pauper format, many of the best poison cards aren't even legal (Skithirix, the Blight Dragon, Grafted Exoskeleton, Triumph of the Hordes, Blightsteel Colossus). 60-card Pauper infect is a deck, but that is due to a critical mass of cheap infect dudes and pump spells like Invigorate. Is it worth considering 10 poison instead of 15?
Thanks again. I hope you find this inquiry useful.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Look at Garruk Relentless. You can run him in a Elves of Deep Shadows deck, but not a Llanowar Elves one.
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyNitpicking -- you can't run Garruk Relentless in either decks because pauper disallow mythic rarities... but yes, I get what you mean
@d0su
I would like to point out that it is really in how colour identity was defined in the Comprehensive Rules: -
Edited for brevity and highlighted relevant parts.
I do agree that the adjustments on required poison and general damage seems a little arbitrary, clarifications notwithstanding
@Cakins
Consider posting those reasonings in the OP as it would probably be easier than asking readers to refer to post #33 for the reasonings.
Thankfully, no, that is not all there is to it. I do apologize, as I should have been more thorough in my rules - I will change it after this.
The reason this is not evident on gatherer.wizards.com is that there is no indication of color identity on the site.
The numbers I chose where chosen to be able to scale down with the life totals. None of the numbers are correct per say, and are open to change.
Needless to say, I am also in favor of keeping the poison count at 10 because I do not think there is sufficient reason to change it. However, if results prove otherwise, I am open to change. I guess the same goes for general damage, as well.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
As I honestly don't have much time at the moment to respond to everyone, I found this really interesting, as I had not really thought about it. This would only matter for clone effects and when two people have the same commander however. What do others think? Should this be a rule?
The issue I could see is that in EDH it's clean, because they're legendary to begin with. So in Pauper, do we treat them as legendary, and legend rule if I'm including it in my 99? Or do we need a clause "if you clone a general..."? Flavor-wise, I thinks it's something worth discussing.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I don't really see a problem with somebody cloning my Izzet Guildmage. I guess that if you're really into flavor, you could have your playgroup treat them as legendary. But I don't think the standard rules should say that uncommon commanders are legendary.
As for the idea of choosing legendary commanders:
If this is UNCOMMON legendary commanders, they are SOOO boring.
I'm also opposed to normal legendary commanders, as uncommons allow for more diversity in the deck pool.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Oh man, I never realized Clone was originally uncommon. That would make a sweet general.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Telekinesis, and cards like it, are not legal in Pauper Commander, under this set of rules that is. We sacrifice cards such as those, and gain cards such as Sinkhole and the like in order to make this an offline format.
that was me. the huge difference is that it was for a tournament (and a select number of uncommons were allowed in addition to the general). being that it for a tourney, we didnt want to see tog-on-tog (best deck in the format by far) or bbe's (gets unfair very fast) and invisible stalkers (so hard to deal with at common) all day. we wanted variation, and those 3 seemed like they would be huge offenders being that they were the first 3 picks all of us wanted to use as generals/thought should be banned as generals.
regardless of tax effects evoke, shriekmaw and nevermaker are borderline degenerate in a 1v1 scenario. nevermaker + bounce is pretty brutal. and shriekmaw spamming on non black decks can get out of hand. they are defiantly less offensive once you rule out any additional uncommons allowed in the deck though.
To be fair, when you play Psychatog as a control commander, he himself really isn't the best part of the deck - it is simply the fact that you are playing an excellent control deck. I do understand why he would be banned though.
As far as cards that aren't commons online and therefore aren't explicitly banned in Pauper, the only ones I see as being potentially problematic are Hymn to Tourach and Sinkhole. Their strength goes down significantly in multiplayer though (which gets back to how we balance the rules for 1v1 or multiplayer).
Do we ever want the ban on Cranial Plating and Frantic Search that online Pauper has? Those are much harder to take advantage of in 100 card singleton.
The commander can any uncommon creature. No commanders are explicitly banned, but none of us picked Psychatog or Bloodbraid Elf because we didn't want to risk killing the fun of the new format right away.
The 99 main deck cards are all commons. No ban list, but no one is running Hymns or Sinkholes because we want to have fun.
Rarity is determined by looking at Gatherer and seeing the card at whatever rarity you are looking for. If it was ever a common or uncommon, in paper or online, then you can count it as such.
No sideboards. We tried this with normal EDH, but it felt strange to do when we are all just playing friends, so we stopped doing it.
Matches are 1-vs-1, run as a casual round robin tournament where everyone plays everyone best 2 out of 3 (or however much they want). We play normal EDH for multiplayer, and we felt commons-only would be better for head to head matches.
Players start at 30 life. Commanders kill you at 18 damage (we may raise or lower this if games are too fast or short). Poison kills you at 10 like normal (but no one is running inject yet).
We may expand to allowing some number of uncommons (which I would call Peasant Commander) but only after exploring the Pauper format first. We may also allow any common creature as a commander, but we are sticking to uncommons for now.
I don't think those bans are necessary. Cranial Plating and Frantic Search are banned because Affinity and Storm are just too strong in 60-card Pauper; I highly doubt that will be the case in 100-card singleton. In fact, I have been trying to brew some kind of Storm list and haven't yet discovered something even playable, much less problematic.
And do let us know how your playgroup's first expedition into Pauper turns out! You actually bring up a good point: will this banlist attempt to regulate multiplayer and 1v1 play, competitive play or casual, some combination thereof, or what?
EDIT: Holy crap, I just realized that with 16 general damage, my main man Fusion Elemental is even more beastly than ever. Rock on!
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
We had Sigil Captain, Fire-field Ogre (grixis control), Azorius Herald (voltron style), and Patrol Signaler (combo-agro). After 4 games (granted not a definitive study), that lowering the life totals is unneeded. What our decks were doing at that table would have been good enough for regular edh.
We're going to actively try the generals that people are saying are "too good" and see if they really are. Jace's Phantasm, BBE, Shriekmaw, and Invisible Stalker are going to be built soon.
IMO, the most ridiculous card in the format is Ghostly Flicker. We were under "Mnemonic Wall + Flicker + XXX" soft lock in multiple games. There are outs, but if you don't have a crypt/relic, it's just going to keep coming back and kicking your butt.
Trade Thread
I am quickly finding out that this is one of the best things you can be doing. Still, I wonder if it is actually better than Capsize? I think Capsize might be the strongest card in the format.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
To OP, how about starting a thread for ban list discussions. That way this thread doesn't get get sidetracked with two topics.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Here's a list of common LD (some better, some worse) that she can cascade into:
You could toss Active Volcano into that list if you really want.
I suppose you could load a deck up with every red and green LD spell and keep crushing a single opponent, but that's possible even without running BBE. One-for-one LD is generally bad in multiplayer, so I'm less worried about it there. I can see it working out pretty well in 1v1, but the deck needs some way to either ramp into a turn 2-3 BBE, or play her on turn 4 where she is more fair. Even then, the deck is going to be running other more mundane spells she can hit.
I'm going to come up with the most degenerate lists I can for each of the potentially banned commanders and see how it goes.
The reasoning behind only allowing offline Magic cards to be used in the current rule set is that it is under the same formatting regular Pauper is - only cards that are common online are legal. It simply made sense to do it the same way offline. This is not an online format, and as such, we do not have online-only cards such as Gleemax offline; this logic is incorporated into the current rule set.
All ban list discussion is now moved to a separate thread:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=441729
This includes both the regular ban list, and the commander ban list. This thread is now to be used for the sole purpose of discussing rules changes. This link will be able to be referenced in the first post of this thread.