Rule Change Ideas - SCG article

User avatar
Taleran
Posts: 55
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Taleran » 4 years ago

http://www.starcitygames.com/articles/3 ... Ideas.html

I am honestly surprised by some of the things written in this and want to applaud it, this is an example of a article that actually makes me feel really good moving forward and card on the table it is the first one of this style of them that I can say that about.


EDIT: One thing about the Monarch one is how much it could discourage playing cards that give the Monarch or Monarch cards, but that also may be a small thing.

Tags:

User avatar
HoffOccultist
Posts: 44
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: MI, USA
Contact:

Post by HoffOccultist » 4 years ago

Neat article, has some interesting ideas I've seen tossed around before.

The issue with the Monarch one in my mind is not so much changing the value of the cards with Monarch on them, but instead giving a potential even larger advantage to whomever goes first. If that first player has a mana dork, chances are high that they'll be able to draw an extra card, maybe 2 or 3, before anyone else starts to get off the ground. I think it's a neat idea, though. I'm just not convinced it'd end up making games better overall.

I also think unified commander damage is a great idea. I think it's probably fine just keeping it at 21, too. Opens a lot more lines of play and concepts to tinker with--and just the bookkeeping aspect of only tracking 1 number is nice.
Survivor of EDH 32 Challenge.

MRHblue
Posts: 102
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by MRHblue » 4 years ago

I think the Monarch existing from T1 would encourage those, not discourage. Getting it away from someone is almost as important as getting it.

I love Scry X on T1 based on how far away you are from the first player.

User avatar
Dunharrow
Posts: 1821
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Montreal

Post by Dunharrow » 4 years ago

Scry X is interesting. I would love that rule.
The New World fell not to a sword but to a meme

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6276
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

I could get behind monarch. It changes the texture of the game for sure in the sense of attacking early being really rewarded.

At the very least that is one I am interested in trying.

I don't mind the scry for going last stuff conceptually, seems not unreasonable.

User avatar
benjameenbear
Posts: 1111
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by benjameenbear » 4 years ago

[mention]Sheldon[/mention] An extremely well-written and highly respectful article that you've posted. I think the general feedback you'll get from it will be super positive, since the tone was respectful and thoughtful. Almost like you have a Master's in Literature or something lol.

I'm think I can respect the 30 life change and/or the Monarch token being present at the beginning of the game. Both of these things reward Aggro decks and Tempo decks, two archetypes that are seriously atrophied in this format. While I will cringe should these things occur (because my newly created Yawgmoth deck spends life SO fast) I think that these two changes will promote a lot of growth in the format and restrict certain archetypes from being too heavily represented.

Particularly from a cEDH perspective, the Monarch token always being present and sent to the person who drew first blood is a genius idea. That concept alone might give birth to a legit Aggro/Burn style of deck in the cEDH format since the 30 life and Monarch token will help replenish the cards that the Aggro player needs to spend.

And Monarch is an underused mechanic as is that was totally designed for Commander, so I'm a fan.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6276
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

Re: the fetch rule:

Lands have a color identity equal to the colors produced by all the basic land types referred to in their rules text.

(Neatly gets off-color Urborg as well)

That break anything?

User avatar
Candlemane
Posts: 123
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Candlemane » 4 years ago

In order from the article:

Unified Commander Damage
--My playgroup at a friends house that I've been going to for years has had a house rule of unified commander damage, even since before EDH was called Commander. It is especially empowering to tron or tron-style strategies, and leaves a possible victory open for another opponent if the command-damage-using player happens to get defeated. Most commanders don't hit for enough to make the single life total an issue.
--We've had no problem at all doing this at the 21 life total, because generally, it's all still eggs-in-basket weakness tron has always had, and we've never even discussed bringing that total up or down. I think raising the total would be to high of a bar for a single creature to live through 3+ other players and take too long. EDIT: If it changes at all, bring it down to 20. That would let people include 5/x powered commanders, whereas 7, 6, 3, etc would all run the same amount of turns in a vacuum to deal that much damage. Nothing else changes until 10 power, where it two shots people.

Staring with Monarch
--I'm against this idea. While I love Monarch as a mechanic, once someone hits someone, they can tie it up for a whole game, giving a hard-to-interact with advantage. Aggro can't defend to keep it or get it back necessarily, Tron might do it, combo doesn't care, and mid range might fight for it. In my experience in my playgroups, it's not something people fight over, AT ALL. Usually if anyone is interested, it's the guy that can keep it and not have it taken away.

30 Life
--Undecided. My knee-jerk reaction was that I'm against it, but I think I need to consider it more. My reaction came from that last 10 life really saving my butt, and I hate playing combo.

Fetch-Lands
--I'm unclear on how the Riverboa does the same thing as the Fetchland. The Italicized text counts now? Other than that, I don't see the problem. All that said, I'm indifferent. As the game progresses, more ramping and color issues will be solved in commander because of the card pool it uses, so its whatever to me.

Mitigating Going Last
--I've never had a terrible problem with it, and I regularly play 6 player games often going last. I also can't think of a good solution besides keeping the pod numbers down at 4 when able, which seems to be a sweet spot to me.

Allowing Specific Un-Cards
--I generally agree this is a bad idea. However, there are cards that can be tweaked for normal game play, ala The Cheese Stands AloneBarren Glory. Specifically, I'd love a black-border Super-Duper Death Ray.
Last edited by Candlemane 4 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
Paper EDH

Tameshi, Reality Architect
Sapling of Colfenor
Feather the Redeemed
Lynde, Cheerful Tormentor
Thalia and Gitrog
Xryis, the Writhing Storm

MRHblue
Posts: 102
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by MRHblue » 4 years ago

Candlemane wrote:
4 years ago
--I'm unclear on how the Riverboa does the same thing as the Fetchland. The Italicized text counts now?
Its difficult to cut out cards that search for an island without cutting out cards that have ISLANDwalk.
pokken wrote:
4 years ago
Lands have a color identity equal to the colored mana symbols on them plus the colors produced by all the basic land types referred to in their rules text.
Slight edit idea
Last edited by MRHblue 4 years ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Candlemane
Posts: 123
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Candlemane » 4 years ago

MRHblue wrote:
4 years ago
Candlemane wrote:
4 years ago
--I'm unclear on how the Riverboa does the same thing as the Fetchland. The Italicized text counts now?
Its difficult to cut out cards that search for an island without cutting out cards that have ISLANDwalk.
Words are very specific in Magic, so Island and Islandwalk (being one word) aren't together affected. I get what he meant, but I don't think it's a problem.
Paper EDH

Tameshi, Reality Architect
Sapling of Colfenor
Feather the Redeemed
Lynde, Cheerful Tormentor
Thalia and Gitrog
Xryis, the Writhing Storm

MRHblue
Posts: 102
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by MRHblue » 4 years ago

They are if you say you cannot have cards that reference a land type outside your color identity. I think Pokken has a good start, but it has to be specific to lands

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6276
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

We don't want farseek banned in non-5c decks so we have to limit it to lands. Yep.

But I would personally 100% support this rule. Playing tons of off-color fetches is annoying from a time perspective and I hate that I need to do it in some decks. And lots of stupid busted decks don't really work that well without it (anything wanting to crucible fetch like crazy in particular).

User avatar
Mookie
Posts: 3460
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 47
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: the æthereal plane

Post by Mookie » 4 years ago

Cool to see the article. Sheldon's points all look pretty reasonable and well thought out. Addressing my personal view on the various points...

-unified commander damage: none of my decks are currently built around commander damage, so my generals don't do much attacking. This would definitely promote me to be more aggressive with their generals, which I think is a good thing. At 30 points, it would be a hit to dedicated voltron strategies, but given that they would be getting more assistance, things may balance out. My main concern would be the additional bookkeeping, and whether it would blur the line too much between commander damage and normal damage.

-starting with monarch: I like the monarch mechanic, and do agree that aggressive strategies could use a bit of a boost, but I think I'm against this overall. It heavily benefits the first player, which is already an issue (as seen by a later point). My experience with the monarch is that it usually ends up possessed by one player, and everyone else gives up on acquiring it. It's possible that people would build their decks to have more evasion if acquiring the monarch were more important though.
...I did have a game the other day where two players traded off the monarch so they could keep my board clear with a Custodi Lich, which was also sort of frustrating.

-30 life: I'm against changing the starting life total, mostly because it would speed up the format - I enjoy long, durdley games, and can't really get that sort of gameplay in any other format.

-off-color fetches: I have no strong opinion one way or the other. My primary concern in either direction is monetary - playing more fetches is pretty close to pay-to-win territory, which I'm not a fan of.

-mitigating going last: I made a thread about this yesterday. I would definitely be in favor of something to help players later in the turn order.

-allowing certain un-cards: I actually run a few un-cards in one of my decks, and I keep debating taking them out. Specifically, I'm running X, Phoebe, Head of S.N.E.A.K., Baron von Count, and Grusilda, Monster Masher in my villain tribal deck. I think that BvC and Grusilda are a lot of fun, but whenever I play X or Phoebe, the rest of the table collectively groans. I would say that while there are some cards that make for more fun games, there are many more that cause issues, and sorting things out on an official level sounds like more trouble than it is worth.
...on the other hand, one of the best games I ever participated in was against The Grand Calcutron and Ol' Buzzbark, so YMMV.

User avatar
Toshi
ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
Posts: 636
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Freiburg, Germany
Contact:

Post by Toshi » 4 years ago

Thanks to give us some insight about new rule approaches, [mention]Sheldon[/mention]!
Some of these ideas - especially lowering life totals - are great!
HoffOccultist wrote:
4 years ago
I also think unified commander damage is a great idea.
I think it's an abysmal idea, with all due respect.

1.) From what i can tell, it more or less kills Voltron strategies.
For most Voltron decks an additional 9 damage to edge through means another 2 swings that have to connect. Said decks are already fringe and at a disadvantage. There's no reason anyone would help swinging for lethal commander damage if they'd realize there's a straight forward Voltron deck aiming to. So an additional 2 turns to kill per player means another 6 combat steps for an archetype that's easily disrupted.

2.) Once commander damage becomes the (last remaining) win con games could stall out completely.
The easiest example would be two Voltron decks as the last heads up. Given there'll be spot removal, board wipes and Mazes a few more extra swings per player to win could mean the game is dragged to a halt.
Same for "infinite"/arbitrary large life. Compared to mill, infect and infinites, other ways to bypass life, commander damage is already pretty "cute". Requiring more damage would make it close to unbeatable.

I know i didn't offer any solution to what i'd consider a big mistake, but please give the idea another thought instead of sacrificing a flavorful and already under-represented archetype for what might be "the greater good".

Carthain
Posts: 5
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Carthain » 4 years ago

pokken wrote:
4 years ago
We don't want farseek banned in non-5c decks so we have to limit it to lands. Yep.
So then you end up with a deck where farseek is legal to use, but Bant Panorama is not. I think it would feel weird even with the limitation to lands.

That said -- if you don't like that a Wooded Foothills can be used in a G/W deck, then wouldn't you also dislike farseek in the same deck?

ConstantMists
Posts: 54
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Charlotte, NC

Post by ConstantMists » 4 years ago

My opinions on the article points ( I will say it was well written, but all of Sheldon's articles are):

1. I would be ok with unified commander damage if it were a higher total than the 21 we use now. I thing 30 might be acceptable.
2. I really don't like this idea. Folks in my playgroup use cards to introduce the monarch, and to a lesser extent the City's Blessing) and I have no issues with that, but those conditions should happen organically when the appropriate card hits the table. I also believe that it gives an advantage to whomever can get off to a fast start, which is sometimes an issue without extra card draw.
3. I will never be in favor of lowering the starting life totals. I like my games to last a while.
4. I would be ok with coming up with a rule limiting off color fetch lands, and this is coming from a player that owns over 40 of them. However if you do that, do you not also have to restrict the Panoramas and the old Mirage fetches as well? There are a lot of cards in print and constructing such a rule would require a lot of care.
5. I have no real opinion either about mitigating going further back in the turn order. For instance I play quite a few decks with Land Tax in them and that tends to take care of the issue. In every game someone goes first. Magic is one of the games where that can be an advantage. Some issues are problems to be solved by deckbuilding, not by creating more rules.
6. I am against allowing silver-bordered cards. They tend to go off in directions I'd rather not play. Having to maintain a separate banned list or an allowed list is also more work that the RC shouldn't have to deal with.
Current Commander decks: Zurgo Helmsmasher - Borborgymos Enraged - Elenda, the Dusk Rose - Doran, the Seige Tower - Sliver Overlord - Yarok, the Desecrated - Scion of the Ur-Dragon - Hazoret the Fervent - Purphoros, God of the Forge - Gisela, Blade of Goldnight - Marath, Will of the Wild - Ramos, Dragon Engine - Ruhan of the Fomori - Narset, Enlightened Master - Kokusho, the Evening Star - Mizzix of the Izmagnus - Dragonsoul Knight (Pauper) - Kalemne, Disciple of Iroas (Precon)

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6276
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

Carthain wrote:
4 years ago
pokken wrote:
4 years ago
We don't want farseek banned in non-5c decks so we have to limit it to lands. Yep.
So then you end up with a deck where farseek is legal to use, but Bant Panorama is not. I think it would feel weird even with the limitation to lands.

That said -- if you don't like that a Wooded Foothills can be used in a G/W deck, then wouldn't you also dislike farseek in the same deck?
Not really. I think off-color panoramas is a pretty reasonable price to pay for cutting down on the 9 fetch manabase.

User avatar
RxPhantom
Fully Vaxxed, Baby!
Posts: 1513
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Southern Maryland

Post by RxPhantom » 4 years ago

I'm all for introducing variants of Commander, like this Monarch version, that don't require me to alter my deck's construction. I am against, however, any of these proposed changes to the format as a whole.
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 2/18/22 (Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty)

Carthain
Posts: 5
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Carthain » 4 years ago

pokken wrote:
4 years ago
Carthain wrote:
4 years ago
pokken wrote:
4 years ago
We don't want farseek banned in non-5c decks so we have to limit it to lands. Yep.
So then you end up with a deck where farseek is legal to use, but Bant Panorama is not. I think it would feel weird even with the limitation to lands.

That said -- if you don't like that a Wooded Foothills can be used in a G/W deck, then wouldn't you also dislike farseek in the same deck?
Not really. I think off-color panoramas is a pretty reasonable price to pay for cutting down on the 9 fetch manabase.
I feel you misunderstood me a bit :) If you're trying to get rid of off-coloured fetches .. then yeah, off-colour panoramas should go. But if you're the type that is bothered by off-coloured panoramas, why wouldn't you also be bothered by farseek in a non 5c deck? It's the same kind of thing -- using a card of your own to fetch another card, but references a card that is out side of your colour identity.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6276
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

Carthain wrote:
4 years ago
I feel you misunderstood me a bit :) If you're trying to get rid of off-coloured fetches .. then yeah, off-colour panoramas should go. But if you're the type that is bothered by off-coloured panoramas, why wouldn't you also be bothered by farseek in a non 5c deck? It's the same kind of thing -- using a card of your own to fetch another card, but references a card that is out side of your colour identity.
Dunno it just doesn't bother me. I think it's also far more likely to have unintended consequences to expand it to non-lands.

Say there was a cycle of creatures that said "If your opponent controls a <enemy typed land," for example? It'd get got. Far less likely we get a land cycle that cares about what specific land types your opponents control. But

User avatar
tarotplz
Posts: 69
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by tarotplz » 4 years ago

I think banning off color fetches would have unintended consequences.

There is no downside to having more colors available to you in commander (aside from buget concerns), but by limiting fetches only to on color ones, we essentially nerf the 1,2 and 3 color decks, while the already stronger 4 and 5 color decks still get to play more fetches and are therefore made even stronger by comparison.

Dragonlover
Posts: 546
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Dragonlover » 4 years ago

I played with unified Commander damage for years, it's fine. Caveat: reasonably casual playgroup, not a lot of combo play going on. One thing it does do is give people who may have been having a slightly naff game an in, as suddenly even if their Commander is a 2/2 they can be relevant to taking out whoever's in front.

The other reason I prefer it is that if I'm in a four player game with players B, C and D, and player B has dealt me 39 normal damage, player C only has to deal me 1 normal damage to kill me not 40.

Dragonlover
All my decks are here

User avatar
Myllior
Posts: 229
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Myllior » 4 years ago

I really enjoyed the article; thank you [mention]Sheldon[/mention] for a really well-written and thought-provoking piece. I'll give some quick thoughts on each item but I'm in a bit of a rush, so I hope it all makes sense.

Unified Commander Damage: I think this could have merit, but if it were incorporated I believe it should be with no change to the current threshold of 21. I don't think there's any need to make things more difficult for voltron decks under any circumstances, yet any increase to the threshold would effect this, especially when non-voltron decks are unlikely to contribute meaningful numbers and there are some commanders that are simply incapable of contributing to commander damage numbers (i.e. planeswalkers).

Start with Monarch: I really like this idea as it encourages and rewards chip damage, which often seems to be ignored for no rational reason. The change itself would probably require no changes in how decks are built, which makes it an easy target for testing by Rule 0.

Off-Color Fetches: My playgroup don't run fetches, so I can't speak from experience here. I think there's no significant upside to this change though, other than from a flavour perspective, so it may be best to leave it as it is for now.

30 Life: I would be really interested to see what effect this would have, as it seems the most significant effect discussed in the article. I feel that increasing the importance of life as a resource would be a net positive to the format, although I would need to take longer to explore why I think that is. One comment I would make is that I believe the commander damage threshold should be linked to beginning life totals as Threshold = Floor(Starting Life/2) + 1, otherwise commander damage runs the risk of becoming obsolete. Needless to say, I believe any reduction in the commander damage threshold would be mutually exclusive with the idea of unified commander damage.

Mitigating Going Last: You're correct that Scry X would likely tip the scales a bit too much in the other direction (assuming I've read this correctly; apologies if I've misread). I think it's on the right track though; the solution may be an scaling version of the effect of Halimar Depths or the first half Ponder, where you re-arrange the top X cards of your library. This way, you're still drawing the same cards as if you were going first, but you may be able to order them better to get more efficiency out of your first few turns.

Allowing Certain Un-Cards: Never played with them myself, but am aware that they were legal for a while fairly recently and then were re-banned, so I agree that they're best left alone.
Kefnet Voltron | Ayli Reanistocrats | Derevi Pod | Kodama//Ishai Blink | Jetmir Hatebears | Kess Storm | Smasher//Sakashima Control

User avatar
Hermes_
Posts: 1760
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Hermes_ » 4 years ago

Allowing Certain Un-Cards: We already do this as a group, we've discussed it and used Rule 0 and as long as it's not the more obnoxious ones,no one has an issue. One of the guys in the group has a baron Von count deck in fact. For awhile I ran Giant Fan as a way to interact with PWs when War came out.
The Secret of Commander (EDH)
Sheldon-"The secret of this format is in not breaking it. "

DrSeaMonster
Posts: 144
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: they / them
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by DrSeaMonster » 4 years ago

I'm highly in favor of including Monarch.

My aggro decks will gleefully take the extra cards while my combo and control decks will gleefully watch everybody else fight over the extra cards.
Abzan aligned, Timmy/Johnny with a Vorthos activated ability.

Commander decks: Karador. Riku. Savra. Vorosh. Teysa Karlov. Kaalia, Zenith Seeker.
Balthor the Defiled. Radha, Heir to Keld. Nath. Saheeli, the Gifted. Zurgo Helmsmasher.
Samut, Voice of Dissent. Grimgrin. Ertai, the Corrupted. Nicol Bolas, the Ravager. Elsha.
Glissa, the Traitor. Chainer, Nightmare Adept. Obosh. Nethroi. Konrad. Kros. Karametra.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Commander”