I rather enjoy pauper and would like to see it succeed. So I'm going to try to create a bunch of the same "tools" threads that exist for standard EDH.
I am inspired to create this thread because of the travesty that is this. If you want a format to be successful, you should try to make it as easy to adapt to as possible. As a result, you want as FEW rules changes as possible. Therefore, I give you the rules of Pauper EDH:
Pauper EDH Comprehensive Rules List:
All the same rules as normal EDH / Commander gameplay still apply. (This includes but is not limited to commander color identity, life totals, general damage, etc...)
Commander / General must be either an Uncommon or Common. It does not need to be legendary
All other cards must have been printed as a common somewhere at least once
The problem is that there are so many different versions of rules. For example, you point out that generals can be uncommon or common. I've seen people saw only uncommon, only common legends, any legends... Our group is probably going to start uncommon general, rest commons, regular edh rules. But I suspect we will be open to rules changes after a few games (concerning life totals/general damage). I'd rather not have to alter them, but we'll see.
I prefer the idea of uncommon creatures as general simply because that changes the building. Doing uncommon legends makes the general expensive vanilla beatsticks that determine color and nothing else, doing any legend makes your general potentially take over your deck (why do anything else). I haven't seen many say common or uncommon, so that is something that would be nice to have cleared up if we had an official ruleset. Cavern harpy would be a rather insane general imo, but I can't use it because it's common (well, I'll talk to our group later). Marsh croc and strix are fine probably, but the reusability/insanely hard to kill factor of harpy is great.
The problem is that there are so many different versions of rules. For example, you point out that generals can be uncommon or common. I've seen people saw only uncommon, only common legends, any legends... Our group is probably going to start uncommon general, rest commons, regular edh rules. But I suspect we will be open to rules changes after a few games (concerning life totals/general damage). I'd rather not have to alter them, but we'll see.
I prefer the idea of uncommon creatures as general simply because that changes the building. Doing uncommon legends makes the general expensive vanilla beatsticks that determine color and nothing else, doing any legend makes your general potentially take over your deck (why do anything else). I haven't seen many say common or uncommon, so that is something that would be nice to have cleared up if we had an official ruleset. Cavern harpy would be a rather insane general imo, but I can't use it because it's common (well, I'll talk to our group later). Marsh croc and strix are fine probably, but the reusability/insanely hard to kill factor of harpy is great.
Thus my attempt to try to consolidate them
The Pauper EDH General Debate:
My philosophy is that we should restrict the design space as little as possible. The idea behind pauper is that we are using powered down cards that are dirt cheap.
Rares - using a general like Edric or Niv-Mizzet destroys the whole point. The whole game becomes about Edric + little dudes or Niv-Mizzet + his infinite combos. Allowing them greatly restricts the design space because a few decks that are largely unaffected become so drastically more powerful by comparison. Also, it restricts the design space enormously. Finally, by having non-rare generals only, it completely changes what cards are good and how you do your game. Creating an immense new design space
Allowing Common Generals - There is no good argument for restricting it to uncommons only and all it serves to do is again restrict the design space.
legendary uncommons - look at the list, they're all terrible and it DRASTICALLY reduces the design space
Life Changes (Poison, General Damage, starting Life etc)
We're (overwhelmingly) trying to get people to move from traditional EDH to pauper. This will be much easier to have happen if there's not an entire new set of rules they have to follow. The French ban list v. the Sheldon list has enormously cut the EDH community in two. And in doing that it makes people not want to play one or the other. We should strive to keep as many of the rules the same as possible for that reason.
I will concede that this philosophy has some issues, aggro has a harder time getting to 40 damage when the creatures are all smaller. However, there's also a lot fewer wraths, allowing aggro to be more free to overextend and actually get the 40 damage. It's all give and take, and in my playgroup we have all the different strategies present.
Banning cards.
Same as above, we want to make as few changes as possible and nothing has really come up that is SOOO Much better than everything else that it deserves to even be looked at (maybe except for capsize / rhystic study), but it's not worth it for just two cards. ESPECIALLY because of the lack of tutors that exist. The games are far more random and you won't see the same effects nearly as often.
At uncommon there's invisible stalker too. Green is better (if not just cuz of rancor) for that idea, but it exists at common and uncommon. It dies to all the wipes that exist basically. There aren't many, but the ones there are should be run. And if someone makes a ridiculous deck based around them, houseban it or plan accordingly (if it takes a lot of planning it might be good to ban it, heh).
All the same rules as normal EDH / Commander gameplay still apply. (This includes but is not limited to commander color identity, life totals, general damage, etc...)
Commander / General must be either an Uncommon or Common. It does not need to be legendary
All other cards must have been printed as a common somewhere at least once
You could probably shorten this further by saying "Pauper EDH is a variant of EDH that has 2 rule changes..." as the first point isn't really a rule. The 2nd and 3rd points seem to be exactly what the consensus was in the other thread you mention, so :thumbsup:. I would, however, try to explicitly express the social nature of the format, as that's always been the pivotal concept in any type of EDH. Also, some thought should be given to the phrase "non-rare" as opposed to "common or uncommon".
EDIT: For anyone interested, here's a list of all the timeshifted cards that might be playable should the term "non-rare" be used instead of "common or uncommon"
Allowing Common Generals - There is no good argument for restricting it to uncommons only and all it serves to do is again restrict the design space.
If the option is restricted to Uncommon generals only, it can still follow the flavor of having an "elite" in command. As you know, one of the greatest parts of normal EDH is having the clearly defined leader who out-ranks those under his/her command (the rest of the 99).
I am of the opinion that Common generals should not be allowed, to stay in line with the original flavor of EDH as much as possible. I do not feel they should have to be legendary Uncommons, rather any Uncommon creature.
I wouldn't care if it were uncommomns only, because that keeps stuff like Silhana Ledgewalker and Priest of Titania out, although admittedly, I do want to try both of those decks.
Ludiegu, I'd say that rare generals should not be allowed, no matter the cost. Saffi Eriksdotter is a really cheap card and it's still pretty stupid, although much less so in Pauper.
Well, like I said invisible stalker still exists. So does wirewood channeler, and if channelers is your general you get to play priest in the deck as well. Obviously the 2 cmc is a lot, but it seems good still. I've noticed there are a ton of good elves available to pauper. I'm not sure there is anyway to really end the game with them though. They don't get much draw or overrun.
What about Legendary Commander that are worth max 1 tix (or similar price range)?
I believe price concern should not be a factor for the official rules. Granted that one main attraction to the Pauper EDH / Pauper Commander (PDH) format is its inexpensive nature in comparison to the original format, it does not have any weight in determination of which card should be allowed as the commander.
I believe price concern should not be a factor for the official rules. Granted that one main attraction to the Pauper EDH / Pauper Commander (PDH) format is its inexpensive nature in comparison to the original format, it does not have any weight in determination of which card should be allowed as the commander.
This. Also, besides the inexpensive nature (My IRL edric deck costs like $1500.) of the format, you also get to play a whole different type of game. The strategies are vastly different with the lack of combo strategies / wraths (though both still exist). Also, the effects are far weaker in general (you can't entwine tooth and nail or genesis wave for 10...)
If the option is restricted to Uncommon generals only, it can still follow the flavor of having an "elite" in command. As you know, one of the greatest parts of normal EDH is having the clearly defined leader who out-ranks those under his/her command (the rest of the 99).
I am of the opinion that Common generals should not be allowed, to stay in line with the original flavor of EDH as much as possible. I do not feel they should have to be legendary Uncommons, rather any Uncommon creature.
I agree with your flavor argument on its face of why it might be a good idea to not have common generals. However, I just run into problems with telling people they can't use priest of titania (which fti isn't actually nearly as strong as timberwatch elf in the elf brew - I've built both). It doesn't make it more / less powerful to have a common general and it just instead prevents people from playing the deck they want to. Between balancing the two factors I thought that having people play the game was more important (since it was a real effort to get people to switch over to pauper anyway) than the slightly greater amount of flavor.
Oh also, You need to say 'common or uncommon' and not just 'non-rare because of stuff like timeshifted cards (which fits the latter but not the former requirements).
Seems fine to me. I actually also prefer an uncommon only general, but one that doesnt have to be legendary.
I think i just like the flavor behind one uncommon dude leading an army of commons.
If you change anything else, allow hybrids to be played in a monocolored deck. That rule always pisses me off.
I've posted rule changes here that would allow for your suggested hybrid change, but I think that such a change should be determined on a per-playgroup basis, just as it is with regular EDH.
As for the idea of restricting commanders to uncommons, I feel that a large percentage of those who might subscribe to pauper EDH (as explained above) are the same people who wouldn't mind common generals; their title as 'general' should provide enough flavor to be consistent with that of regular EDH. We've already stepped down from the legendary requirement - rarity doesn't seem nearly as big of deal. The reason legends are so 'elite' is that they are unique. Most of them have names; their higher rarity isn't a factor. Regular EDH doesn't require a rare commander, correct? In addition, pauper has always been about restricting higher rarities, not lower rarities. Regardless of the final decision here, each playgroup can decide for themselves.
I do kind've like the flavor of having the higher rarity general, but at the same time, does it really matter? Crypt rats can be a general in either case, and rats don't seem like the best leaders. My group still hasn't decided which way to go but I feel like the general is more mechanical here. Not that there aren't odd things at legendary- there are just lots more weird non general-like things even at uncommon (dragonsoul knight is a prime example of the opposite though...he's awesome).
Also, Channel Fireball has an article in which someone draws up a Korozda Guildmage pauper edh deck. He posts 1v1 rules (less life) and kinda tosses in multiplayer as a possibility as an after thought. He also mentions that it has to be uncommon creatures, and that that rule is unbending. He said that he wanted to make a cavern harpy deck (funnily enough, the common I was most interested in) but couldn't because of said rule. Then again, he wasn't sure if someone from cfb made up the format or not. Deck seems decent, slightly tilted toward 1v1, but probably played in anything. No sprout swarm or disturbed burial, which seems wrong, but hey.
Do you guys play against infinite combos? There are a few out there, though I've heard they get worse in pauper because answers are abundant. I don't use them in regular edh- just curious.
Also, how do you feel about kavu predator? My list of synergies:
Reverent silence/huntersfeast/cutter in multiplayer = turn three general damaging someone out per turn (and if you have ranger's guile, using a free X life gain plus protection seems good). We are making decks for other people, so I don't have to worry about feeling mean... but I'm concerned about whether or not that would work. Obviously there would have to be lots of other good stuff cards to fill in the deck (not many playable life gain spells), but even so getting him removed after pumping seems pretty bad. And I don't want him killing me turn 3, lol. The entire idea seems like it would play a bit like a combo deck, heh. Also problematic is the mono-color... I wish there was a way to limit gatherer search to multicolor by color-identity.
Regular EDH doesn't require a rare commander, correct?
It is correct that in regular EDH a rare/mythic rare commander is not a requirement, but in a similar capacity it is a requirement that the commander be a legend. I realize it takes a bit of a stretch to make the connection from "legend" to "uncommon", but the vision i see is that there is something that the commander has over the rest of the deck. Then again, in regular EDH legends can also appear in the 99 alongside the general. Anyway, it makes sense to me and perhaps you see that connection as well.
It is correct that in regular EDH a rare/mythic rare commander is not a requirement, but in a similar capacity it is a requirement that the commander be a legend. I realize it takes a bit of a stretch to make the connection from "legend" to "uncommon", but the vision i see is that there is something that the commander has over the rest of the deck. Then again, in regular EDH legends can also appear in the 99 alongside the general. Anyway, it makes sense to me and perhaps you see that connection as well.
I believe I do see the connection, but I'm unsure whether it's solid enough to include in any official rules. Magic rarities, to me, are simply for limited environments - they're what determines how likely a card will appear. Outside of that type of format, using rarity to support flavor seems shaky at best. Pauper has always been about playing magic cheaply, often with cards that wouldn't be used otherwise. Rather than flavor, the main aspect of pauper is card restriction. Most cards (99) may only be common because that's the lowest rarity. Uncommons are allowed as commanders to provide more diversity in the format. They're simply more interesting, more powerful, and often more fun to play with. If a common is all of these things, why shouldn't it be treated as such? For what reason is a card's availability being used to restrict it? I'd love to hear more from the other side, as I don't think I'm grasping the entire concept. Is it less shaky than I'm thinking?
I wish there was a way to limit gatherer search to multicolor by color-identity.
Because color identity is based on the mana symbols that appear on the card, and filters exist for such symbols, you can filter by color identity. As skuller mentions, you can do this by removing whatever's not within the color identity. For example, the following query would return all cards legal in a pauper Korozda Guildmage deck:
Rules Text: NOT: {R} {W} {U}
Colors: NOT: Red White Blue
Rarity: OR: Common
If you only want colored cards, simple add "Colorless" to the Colors part.
EDIT: Here's a list of all the available multicolored common/uncommon 'generals' for the format, organized by color identity.
Maybe I'm misunderstand. What I wanted was the ability to search for all generals that allow more than one color. I can search for gold, or I can search for a bunch of or mana symbols in rules text or something weird, but I'm not sure you can get a good combination (mana symbols not of the color of the creature its on as well). Also, I couldn't get the gatherer filter to work right for me. I was trying to sort by only green white red gold cards, but apparently 'not blue' 'not black' 'only multicolor' does not work that way. It sure seems like it should, but it still comes up with multicolor cards with blue in the cmc. It also looks like trying to do green white or red + multicolor means you cannot also select exlude other colors. And if you do red or green or white, not blue not black, only multicolor, you come up with stuff like aether mutation still. Gatherer just seems a bit...off. And the 'playable with only these colors' is never checkable for me.
Maybe I'm doing it wrong... it just seems like it should work this way.
It's not a big deal though. I just wanted to get rid of some of the jank (some mono color generals are fine and interesting, it just seems fairly limiting to do mono in pauper).
edit- it looks like adding the 'require multicolor only' is doing something stupid. I tried your filter for korozda and it worked fine as far as the first few pages looked. I added in the must be multicolor (to see if it really worked, since gold cards were the ones being off color), and woop there's ach hans run and other off color cards.
You call my post a 'travesty', and follow such an accusation with this abomination.
You call this post 'Rules', when this is rather something you would tell your friends 10 seconds before a game starts to inform them of the format's existence.
You dare to even utter the word 'Official' in reference to your post, when you can't do your readers the simple kindness of using correct grammar and punctuation, along with the lack of any type of sentence structure.
Do you seriously believe that there wont be problems with lack of definition in your format? A Rules list will have information to solve problems should they arise. You don't read the comprehensive rules to find out how to play Magic, just like you wouldn't read my post to find out how to play Pauper Commander. You state that the things in my post are rules changes, but most of the time they are not: they are stated versions of unofficial rules. There is no substance here. If you want to inform friends about a format, then by all means do so. But that is NOT my goal, and for what reason should you insult my work, and then claim yours is better? They aren't even the same things. I hope you can understand that you should not be calling your post "Rules', but rather 'A Short and Sweet Description of Pauper Commander'.
I will leave you with this: You state that 'All the same rules as normal EDH / Commander gameplay still apply.' This may be the most incredibly vague sentence I have ever heard stated as a rule. Why did you not explain deck construction for this? If both the rules of EDH and Commander are both in effect, which of the following cards can be played in this format?
You could also throw in figurative ME5 cards with no paper printings into that mix. Maybe I do need to go further and explain the flaws of your plan, but I hope I don't. Do what you believe WoTC would do and try to get this turned into a format, not whatever this is.
You call my post a 'travesty', and follow such an accusation with this abomination.
You call this post 'Rules', when this is rather something you would tell your friends 10 seconds before a game starts to inform them of the format's existence.
You dare to even utter the word 'Official' in reference to your post, when you can't do your readers the simple kindness of using correct grammar and punctuation, along with the lack of any type of sentence structure.
Do you seriously believe that there wont be problems with lack of definition in your format? A Rules list will have information to solve problems should they arise. You don't read the comprehensive rules to find out how to play Magic, just like you wouldn't read my post to find out how to play Pauper Commander. You state that the things in my post are rules changes, but most of the time they are not: they are stated versions of unofficial rules. There is no substance here. If you want to inform friends about a format, then by all means do so. But that is NOT my goal, and for what reason should you insult my work, and then claim yours is better? They aren't even the same things. I hope you can understand that you should not be calling your post "Rules', but rather 'A Short and Sweet Description of Pauper Commander'.
I will leave you with this: You state that 'All the same rules as normal EDH / Commander gameplay still apply.' This may be the most incredibly vague sentence I have ever heard stated as a rule. Why did you not explain deck construction for this? If both the rules of EDH and Commander are both in effect, which of the following cards can be played in this format?
You could also throw in figurative ME5 cards with no paper printings into that mix. Maybe I do need to go further and explain the flaws of your plan, but I hope I don't. Do what you believe WoTC would do and try to get this turned into a format, not whatever this is.
To be honest, i agree with prosis. I see no reason adding all the additional rules. As house-rules, sure. But not 'official' rules.
Coming into this thread to make this post is no better than him calling your post a travesty.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 1 Judge-
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane for the awesome Sig.
Currently there are four sets of rules for Pauper Commander, the two threads here calling themselves “Unofficial Official”, the rules from http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/raging-levine-paupin-and-lockin/ and of course d0su’s rules from http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=303509 . Talk about a confusing format! Here’s the thing though people will argue flavor, bicker over rules, etc… But there is really one thing that’s indisputable about why d0su’s rules are better, at the end of the day when I can’t find anybody to play by whatever “unofficial official” Pauper rules, my deck using d0su’s rules is still legal in regular Commander. So I’ll never lack for a game.
That doesn’t mean I don’t find the concept of an uncommon commander interesting, or that I’m not trying to get people to try it out… I definitely am. I’ve just been convincing people to play by d0su’s rules for 16 months with a fair amount of success. And after discovering that the greatest selling point of d0su’s rules is that it’s a cheap way to get into regular Commander as well… I’m finding the uncommon general a rather tough sell at best. *shrugs*
Currently there are four sets of rules for Pauper Commander, the two threads here calling themselves “Unofficial Official”, the rules from http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/raging-levine-paupin-and-lockin/ and of course d0su’s rules from http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=303509 . Talk about a confusing format! Here’s the thing though people will argue flavor, bicker over rules, etc… But there is really one thing that’s indisputable about why d0su’s rules are better, at the end of the day when I can’t find anybody to play by whatever “unofficial official” Pauper rules, my deck using d0su’s rules is still legal in regular Commander. So I’ll never lack for a game.
That doesn’t mean I don’t find the concept of an uncommon commander interesting, or that I’m not trying to get people to try it out… I definitely am. I’ve just been convincing people to play by d0su’s rules for 16 months with a fair amount of success. And after discovering that the greatest selling point of d0su’s rules is that it’s a cheap way to get into regular Commander as well… I’m finding the uncommon general a rather tough sell at best. *shrugs*
I can assume the main reason you would want any legendary creature to be able to be a commander is to play online. The goal for my ideology is to make the decks not able to completely be made around the commander. It also doesn't really make any sense to me to have to have it legal in regular commander too. In a way it is like the difference between multiplayer and 1v1 commander, and how there are unoffical changes between them.
Actually no you really can't assume that since my statement holds true for online and offline play. Though incidentally I also I don't play Commander Online at all. It's entirely a format to play while I hang out with people. The any legend thing just means I can join any game of Commander people are playing. Otherwise I have to get special permission from them, and people aren't always into that especially if they aren't your normal playgroup. d0su's rules simply dodge that extra bit of bureaucratic red tape. I can adopt them, play them, enjoy them and if other people do or don’t follow suit it won’t stop me from being able to play matches.
You also say that your “ideology is to make the decks not able to completely be made around the commander” which currently your rules don’t even address. Case in point, I’m currently building Mistmeadow Witch for this format, this general is not illegal by your rules, and the deck is obviously built 90% around it (as I’m pretty certain everybody’s Mistmeadow Witch deck would be). On top of that it’s an awkward ideology to embrace because it severely limits your version of the format for no good reason, half the point of Commander is that your deck synergizes with your Commander.
You also state, “It also doesn't really make any sense to me to have to have it legal in regular commander too.” The counter to that is that having it not legal in regular Commander doesn’t really make sense either. No real argument has been presented for either side except that games are more readily available if your deck is legal in regular Commander (as mentioned earlier), which pretty much tips the balance in favor of regular Commander legality.
My friends and I tried this over the weekend and I can say from experience that it's a TON of fun! I'd like to weigh in on some of these rules discussions from the real (albeit circumstantial) data we gathered rather than a theoretical point of view.
1. Rare commanders are definitely out. One of the most fun things about this format is that a lot of the support cards are still very powerful (brainstorm, rancor, etc) but the dumb common fatties like the Eldrazi are truly a thing to be feared. If there were rares in the mix, all of the common creatures would just look silly.
2. We found no need to alter the life totals. Games did go a little long, as spot removal is still fairly strong but the creatures are relatively nerfed, but at no point did we wish they were shorter. Also, as with all magic, those last 10 life went quick. Once someone established a dominant position the games wrapped up soon. That said, I'll keep an eye on this as we test further. We may discover that counters, card draw, and spot removal are so strong in this format compared to big creatures that a lower life total is necessary to give aggro / voltron a shot.
3. We all played with uncommon generals and I like that version. There are already so many more uncommons than there are Legends that I don't really see why you'd need commons as commanders. Also, uncommons are generally a little more complicated, and in the environment of the game they sort of take on this "legendary" status. It was more of an emotional response than anything else, but it felt really good to all have one uncommon leading 99 commons in battle.
My group is pretty hooked. I've been doing things like looking up every common red card with the word "damage" on it. It's really changing the way I've been thinking about a lot of cards. I'd be curious to hear other people's experiences (not theories or ideas, but experiences).
I am inspired to create this thread because of the travesty that is this. If you want a format to be successful, you should try to make it as easy to adapt to as possible. As a result, you want as FEW rules changes as possible. Therefore, I give you the rules of Pauper EDH:
Pauper EDH Comprehensive Rules List:
That's it!
Edric | Skithiryx | Merieke | Talrand
--------------------------
Well except for pauper EDH
Garruk's Packleader | Inkfathom Witch | Gelectrode | Sigil Captain | Glider Barin | Sludge Strider | Paragon of the Ameshsa
I prefer the idea of uncommon creatures as general simply because that changes the building. Doing uncommon legends makes the general expensive vanilla beatsticks that determine color and nothing else, doing any legend makes your general potentially take over your deck (why do anything else). I haven't seen many say common or uncommon, so that is something that would be nice to have cleared up if we had an official ruleset. Cavern harpy would be a rather insane general imo, but I can't use it because it's common (well, I'll talk to our group later). Marsh croc and strix are fine probably, but the reusability/insanely hard to kill factor of harpy is great.
Thus my attempt to try to consolidate them
The Pauper EDH General Debate:
My philosophy is that we should restrict the design space as little as possible. The idea behind pauper is that we are using powered down cards that are dirt cheap.
Life Changes (Poison, General Damage, starting Life etc)
We're (overwhelmingly) trying to get people to move from traditional EDH to pauper. This will be much easier to have happen if there's not an entire new set of rules they have to follow. The French ban list v. the Sheldon list has enormously cut the EDH community in two. And in doing that it makes people not want to play one or the other. We should strive to keep as many of the rules the same as possible for that reason.
I will concede that this philosophy has some issues, aggro has a harder time getting to 40 damage when the creatures are all smaller. However, there's also a lot fewer wraths, allowing aggro to be more free to overextend and actually get the 40 damage. It's all give and take, and in my playgroup we have all the different strategies present.
Banning cards.
Same as above, we want to make as few changes as possible and nothing has really come up that is SOOO Much better than everything else that it deserves to even be looked at (maybe except for capsize / rhystic study), but it's not worth it for just two cards. ESPECIALLY because of the lack of tutors that exist. The games are far more random and you won't see the same effects nearly as often.
Edric | Skithiryx | Merieke | Talrand
--------------------------
Well except for pauper EDH
Garruk's Packleader | Inkfathom Witch | Gelectrode | Sigil Captain | Glider Barin | Sludge Strider | Paragon of the Ameshsa
You could probably shorten this further by saying "Pauper EDH is a variant of EDH that has 2 rule changes..." as the first point isn't really a rule. The 2nd and 3rd points seem to be exactly what the consensus was in the other thread you mention, so :thumbsup:. I would, however, try to explicitly express the social nature of the format, as that's always been the pivotal concept in any type of EDH. Also, some thought should be given to the phrase "non-rare" as opposed to "common or uncommon".
EDIT: For anyone interested, here's a list of all the timeshifted cards that might be playable should the term "non-rare" be used instead of "common or uncommon"
If the option is restricted to Uncommon generals only, it can still follow the flavor of having an "elite" in command. As you know, one of the greatest parts of normal EDH is having the clearly defined leader who out-ranks those under his/her command (the rest of the 99).
I am of the opinion that Common generals should not be allowed, to stay in line with the original flavor of EDH as much as possible. I do not feel they should have to be legendary Uncommons, rather any Uncommon creature.
Ludiegu, I'd say that rare generals should not be allowed, no matter the cost. Saffi Eriksdotter is a really cheap card and it's still pretty stupid, although much less so in Pauper.
I believe price concern should not be a factor for the official rules. Granted that one main attraction to the Pauper EDH / Pauper Commander (PDH) format is its inexpensive nature in comparison to the original format, it does not have any weight in determination of which card should be allowed as the commander.
This. Also, besides the inexpensive nature (My IRL edric deck costs like $1500.) of the format, you also get to play a whole different type of game. The strategies are vastly different with the lack of combo strategies / wraths (though both still exist). Also, the effects are far weaker in general (you can't entwine tooth and nail or genesis wave for 10...)
I agree with your flavor argument on its face of why it might be a good idea to not have common generals. However, I just run into problems with telling people they can't use priest of titania (which fti isn't actually nearly as strong as timberwatch elf in the elf brew - I've built both). It doesn't make it more / less powerful to have a common general and it just instead prevents people from playing the deck they want to. Between balancing the two factors I thought that having people play the game was more important (since it was a real effort to get people to switch over to pauper anyway) than the slightly greater amount of flavor.
Oh also, You need to say 'common or uncommon' and not just 'non-rare because of stuff like timeshifted cards (which fits the latter but not the former requirements).
.
Edric | Skithiryx | Merieke | Talrand
--------------------------
Well except for pauper EDH
Garruk's Packleader | Inkfathom Witch | Gelectrode | Sigil Captain | Glider Barin | Sludge Strider | Paragon of the Ameshsa
I think i just like the flavor behind one uncommon dude leading an army of commons.
If you change anything else, allow hybrids to be played in a monocolored deck. That rule always pisses me off.
Good luck with the format, seems like it would be fun.
I've posted rule changes here that would allow for your suggested hybrid change, but I think that such a change should be determined on a per-playgroup basis, just as it is with regular EDH.
As for the idea of restricting commanders to uncommons, I feel that a large percentage of those who might subscribe to pauper EDH (as explained above) are the same people who wouldn't mind common generals; their title as 'general' should provide enough flavor to be consistent with that of regular EDH. We've already stepped down from the legendary requirement - rarity doesn't seem nearly as big of deal. The reason legends are so 'elite' is that they are unique. Most of them have names; their higher rarity isn't a factor. Regular EDH doesn't require a rare commander, correct? In addition, pauper has always been about restricting higher rarities, not lower rarities. Regardless of the final decision here, each playgroup can decide for themselves.
Also, Channel Fireball has an article in which someone draws up a Korozda Guildmage pauper edh deck. He posts 1v1 rules (less life) and kinda tosses in multiplayer as a possibility as an after thought. He also mentions that it has to be uncommon creatures, and that that rule is unbending. He said that he wanted to make a cavern harpy deck (funnily enough, the common I was most interested in) but couldn't because of said rule. Then again, he wasn't sure if someone from cfb made up the format or not. Deck seems decent, slightly tilted toward 1v1, but probably played in anything. No sprout swarm or disturbed burial, which seems wrong, but hey.
Do you guys play against infinite combos? There are a few out there, though I've heard they get worse in pauper because answers are abundant. I don't use them in regular edh- just curious.
Also, how do you feel about kavu predator? My list of synergies:
Reverent silence/huntersfeast/cutter in multiplayer = turn three general damaging someone out per turn (and if you have ranger's guile, using a free X life gain plus protection seems good). We are making decks for other people, so I don't have to worry about feeling mean... but I'm concerned about whether or not that would work. Obviously there would have to be lots of other good stuff cards to fill in the deck (not many playable life gain spells), but even so getting him removed after pumping seems pretty bad. And I don't want him killing me turn 3, lol. The entire idea seems like it would play a bit like a combo deck, heh. Also problematic is the mono-color... I wish there was a way to limit gatherer search to multicolor by color-identity.
It is correct that in regular EDH a rare/mythic rare commander is not a requirement, but in a similar capacity it is a requirement that the commander be a legend. I realize it takes a bit of a stretch to make the connection from "legend" to "uncommon", but the vision i see is that there is something that the commander has over the rest of the deck. Then again, in regular EDH legends can also appear in the 99 alongside the general. Anyway, it makes sense to me and perhaps you see that connection as well.
CFB PDH Article
You can, just include "NOT Red" or "NOT Blue" in the filter for each color you do not want to see instead of "IS Green" or whatever.
I believe I do see the connection, but I'm unsure whether it's solid enough to include in any official rules. Magic rarities, to me, are simply for limited environments - they're what determines how likely a card will appear. Outside of that type of format, using rarity to support flavor seems shaky at best. Pauper has always been about playing magic cheaply, often with cards that wouldn't be used otherwise. Rather than flavor, the main aspect of pauper is card restriction. Most cards (99) may only be common because that's the lowest rarity. Uncommons are allowed as commanders to provide more diversity in the format. They're simply more interesting, more powerful, and often more fun to play with. If a common is all of these things, why shouldn't it be treated as such? For what reason is a card's availability being used to restrict it? I'd love to hear more from the other side, as I don't think I'm grasping the entire concept. Is it less shaky than I'm thinking?
Because color identity is based on the mana symbols that appear on the card, and filters exist for such symbols, you can filter by color identity. As skuller mentions, you can do this by removing whatever's not within the color identity. For example, the following query would return all cards legal in a pauper Korozda Guildmage deck:
Rules Text: NOT: {R} {W} {U}
Colors: NOT: Red White Blue
Rarity: OR: Common
If you only want colored cards, simple add "Colorless" to the Colors part.
EDIT: Here's a list of all the available multicolored common/uncommon 'generals' for the format, organized by color identity.
Maybe I'm doing it wrong... it just seems like it should work this way.
It's not a big deal though. I just wanted to get rid of some of the jank (some mono color generals are fine and interesting, it just seems fairly limiting to do mono in pauper).
edit- it looks like adding the 'require multicolor only' is doing something stupid. I tried your filter for korozda and it worked fine as far as the first few pages looked. I added in the must be multicolor (to see if it really worked, since gold cards were the ones being off color), and woop there's ach hans run and other off color cards.
You call this post 'Rules', when this is rather something you would tell your friends 10 seconds before a game starts to inform them of the format's existence.
You dare to even utter the word 'Official' in reference to your post, when you can't do your readers the simple kindness of using correct grammar and punctuation, along with the lack of any type of sentence structure.
Do you seriously believe that there wont be problems with lack of definition in your format? A Rules list will have information to solve problems should they arise. You don't read the comprehensive rules to find out how to play Magic, just like you wouldn't read my post to find out how to play Pauper Commander. You state that the things in my post are rules changes, but most of the time they are not: they are stated versions of unofficial rules. There is no substance here. If you want to inform friends about a format, then by all means do so. But that is NOT my goal, and for what reason should you insult my work, and then claim yours is better? They aren't even the same things. I hope you can understand that you should not be calling your post "Rules', but rather 'A Short and Sweet Description of Pauper Commander'.
I will leave you with this: You state that 'All the same rules as normal EDH / Commander gameplay still apply.' This may be the most incredibly vague sentence I have ever heard stated as a rule. Why did you not explain deck construction for this? If both the rules of EDH and Commander are both in effect, which of the following cards can be played in this format?
High Tide
Death Spark
Earthbind
You could also throw in figurative ME5 cards with no paper printings into that mix. Maybe I do need to go further and explain the flaws of your plan, but I hope I don't. Do what you believe WoTC would do and try to get this turned into a format, not whatever this is.
To be honest, i agree with prosis. I see no reason adding all the additional rules. As house-rules, sure. But not 'official' rules.
Coming into this thread to make this post is no better than him calling your post a travesty.
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane for the awesome Sig.
Currently Playing- EDH
GGGOmnath, Locus of the LifestreamGGG
BBBShirei, Lord of PoniesBBB
UWRasputin Dreamweaver, Russia's Greatest Love MachineUW
UBWZur, Killer of FunUBW
UGWTreva, Princess of CanterlotUGW
RWTajic, Master of the Reverse BladeRW
RRRZirilan, How to Train Your DragonRRR
PDH Decks
Gelectrode
Ascended Lawmage
Blaze Commando
That doesn’t mean I don’t find the concept of an uncommon commander interesting, or that I’m not trying to get people to try it out… I definitely am. I’ve just been convincing people to play by d0su’s rules for 16 months with a fair amount of success. And after discovering that the greatest selling point of d0su’s rules is that it’s a cheap way to get into regular Commander as well… I’m finding the uncommon general a rather tough sell at best. *shrugs*
I can assume the main reason you would want any legendary creature to be able to be a commander is to play online. The goal for my ideology is to make the decks not able to completely be made around the commander. It also doesn't really make any sense to me to have to have it legal in regular commander too. In a way it is like the difference between multiplayer and 1v1 commander, and how there are unoffical changes between them.
You also say that your “ideology is to make the decks not able to completely be made around the commander” which currently your rules don’t even address. Case in point, I’m currently building Mistmeadow Witch for this format, this general is not illegal by your rules, and the deck is obviously built 90% around it (as I’m pretty certain everybody’s Mistmeadow Witch deck would be). On top of that it’s an awkward ideology to embrace because it severely limits your version of the format for no good reason, half the point of Commander is that your deck synergizes with your Commander.
You also state, “It also doesn't really make any sense to me to have to have it legal in regular commander too.” The counter to that is that having it not legal in regular Commander doesn’t really make sense either. No real argument has been presented for either side except that games are more readily available if your deck is legal in regular Commander (as mentioned earlier), which pretty much tips the balance in favor of regular Commander legality.
1. Rare commanders are definitely out. One of the most fun things about this format is that a lot of the support cards are still very powerful (brainstorm, rancor, etc) but the dumb common fatties like the Eldrazi are truly a thing to be feared. If there were rares in the mix, all of the common creatures would just look silly.
2. We found no need to alter the life totals. Games did go a little long, as spot removal is still fairly strong but the creatures are relatively nerfed, but at no point did we wish they were shorter. Also, as with all magic, those last 10 life went quick. Once someone established a dominant position the games wrapped up soon. That said, I'll keep an eye on this as we test further. We may discover that counters, card draw, and spot removal are so strong in this format compared to big creatures that a lower life total is necessary to give aggro / voltron a shot.
3. We all played with uncommon generals and I like that version. There are already so many more uncommons than there are Legends that I don't really see why you'd need commons as commanders. Also, uncommons are generally a little more complicated, and in the environment of the game they sort of take on this "legendary" status. It was more of an emotional response than anything else, but it felt really good to all have one uncommon leading 99 commons in battle.
My group is pretty hooked. I've been doing things like looking up every common red card with the word "damage" on it. It's really changing the way I've been thinking about a lot of cards. I'd be curious to hear other people's experiences (not theories or ideas, but experiences).
Uncommon cards in the 99 isn't allowed? Say if I wanted a Fatestitcher in the 99. He wouldn't be allowed to being an uncommon?
That's correct. The 99 may only be common cards.