100 Card Limit

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Contact:

Post by cryogen » 4 years ago

What are your thoughts on the "exactly 100 cards" rule? Beyond just allowing Battle of Wits, it would give you the flexibility to not have to sweat that 101st card you need to cut. There is also the argument that it would make the rules more in line with other formats where you have a set minimum but no maximum (except for shuffling logistics).
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

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

Post by Carthain » 4 years ago

I like it.

Changing it would make it more in line with other formats, but I kind of like that it's a bit "quirky" and different in this way.

Plus, when I have 4-5 cards that I end up having to cut, then I've got 4-5 cards on deck for replacements for anything that made the cut but in practical use don't end up as interesting/fun as I expected them to be.

And thinking about it - I'm not sure I'd want to be in a game where someone takes _even longer_ to shuffle his/her deck. Some people aren't particularly fast at it to begin with, and 100 cards is pretty large to handle for most people as it is.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6278
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

I really don't care, and I do like that it prevents people from technically being breaking the rules if they add an extra card or two (which I have seen done).

For myself the main time I would use it is to be able to add a card for testing without pulling something for a deck that is very tuned. I have wanted to do that a couple times.

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 3 years ago

Giving this a bump because it keeps coming up in the companion discussion, and I'd kind of like to isolate it.

To me, the 100 card limit is like banning wood elemental. It doesn't actually do anything, but I guess it doesn't hurt anything?

The new blink dude does give actual incentive to play more than 100 cards, but that's a recent development. I'll confess I really don't want to see people playing him from the companion zone, so I'm suddenly a lot less interested in removing the 100 card max. He seems trivial to build around and very very powerful.

This article was interesting: https://www.channelfireball.com/all-str ... -bad-idea/

I think the only ones that could reasonably apply to commander would be battle of wits and the toolbox concept. But I think toolbox is quite unlikely since there are such insane high rolls in the format like sol ring that you REALLY want in your opening hand, which disincentivize you from building a big deck.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
Yatsufusa
Posts: 166
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Yatsufusa » 3 years ago

I'm seeing the companion rules as a "loose screw" in one of the pillars giving the format its identity.

The rule change provides the "oh, you can have more than 100 total if a card could fetch itself from outside the game" loosening, the same way I saw "you can spend mana as though it were any color/type" as the loose screw of the defunct rule-4 (can't produce off-color mana, but can spend as though it is).

Sure, the current batch (outside Lutri) has restrictive conditions from their end to combat it as well, and you can't get more than one companion, but outside that "casting itself from outside" is potential design space. We could have spells with "You can draw/cast this from outside the game for X mana if you cast 3 creature spells this turn" incoming. Come that time, do we tighten the screw back into the pillar, do we just restructure the pillar to "100 minimum" instead, or do we loosen it some more, becoming 100 + (any number of cards that can get themselves from outside the game)?

Honestly, I don't really care either way, 100-only or 100-minimum, it's the the "loose screw" that annoys me more than anything.
Image

User avatar
folding_music
glitter pen on my mana crypt
Posts: 2236
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: they / them

Post by folding_music » 3 years ago

I think the precise one hundred card limit is one of the psychic competitive pressures on the format to become a haven for optimised play with a concrete list of staples for each archetype. Every time you get an unfair card in the mail you remove a slightly less unfair card from the deck, right? Any card that'd go in the hundred-and-first slot of your deck is obsolete, right? and every time you convince a player they should only be playing the most efficient stuff, you can remove a less efficient player from the format, right?

User avatar
darrenhabib
Posts: 1812
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by darrenhabib » 3 years ago

On the one hand, it would mean that I could play all the cards that I thought were interesting for my decks.
I also really want to play Yorion, Sky Nomad as my companion for my Aminatou deck!

On the other hand, my primers would be out-of-control as the lists blow-out to 300 card decks, and nobody could be bothered reading that much :P lol.

So I do think with a lot of new players coming into commander, giving them a limit actually helps them to make decks that are better. I think a lot of new players would pick up bad habits of card inclusions as they just can't decide and their decks end up being really inconsistent.
I'm not saying this should be an official reason that a 100 card limit should be kept, but it is a consequence that people might not have thought about.

Sharpened
Posts: 193
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Sharpened » 3 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
3 years ago
To me, the 100 card limit is like banning wood elemental. It doesn't actually do anything, but I guess it doesn't hurt anything?
What percentage of your time interacting with Commander is spent actually playing games? Between deckbuilding, general theorycrafting, forum discussions, other conversations, etc. I'm betting it's well less than half.

Changing the 100 card limit has a minor change on the in-game time. It is a massive change on all the other time.

Deckbuilding becomes vastly different without the hard limit. Conversations change in less interesting ways.

That limit seems minor, but it is a real major support in the way people interact with the format.

There are times I would like to be able to play more than 100 cards.
Theorycrafting a Battle of Wits deck would be fun (although playing it less so).

But the gains of removing the limit would be greatly outweighed by the loss, even if that loss is hard to perceive.

I can appreciate that the companions seem to make things messy, although I don't think they disrupt the fundamental benefit of the hard limit on deck size.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6278
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

Sharpened wrote:
3 years ago
Changing the 100 card limit has a minor change on the in-game time. It is a massive change on all the other time.

Deckbuilding becomes vastly different without the hard limit. Conversations change in less interesting ways.
Really? Have you seen a lot of 72 card modern decks lately? People hotly debate over whether it's sometimes right to play 61 cards :P

My expectation is for the casual deckbuilder this would be a huge benefit since you could slap one or two extra cards in there and then see which you want to cut later. I certainly wouldn't mind having 101 cards every now and then so I can test a new card before I pull another.

There are so few cards that care about volume of cards. Your questions would be:

1) am I an azorius deck and can I make yorion good enough to be worth it?

2) do I want to get punched in the face for playing battle of wits?

3) Do I want to run a couple extra cards before I trim them?

It's so unequivocally correct to play the minimum number of cards you can that I don't think it would be that big of a deal. Except that Yorion is kinda busted and I'd probably force a 120 card blink deck myself :P

freelunch
Posts: 44
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by freelunch » 3 years ago

I think the deck size is part of the definition of the format. Once you change that definition, you're not talking about the same format anymore. You may still call it the same name, but the flower itself has changed.

Maybe players can rule-0 a 101 card deck and it might just be for a playtest or it might be the greatest game of magic that has ever been played (but this is just a tribute). That's cool if all parties consent, but if I'm sitting down to play EDH, then that's the format I want to play. I do not want to play "EDH, but..."

The same goes to the argument that this change would bring EDH in line with other formats- You've stopped playing EDH once you try to make it like other formats. I want no part of it, because I want to play EDH.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6278
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

freelunch wrote:
3 years ago
I think the deck size is part of the definition of the format. Once you change that definition, you're not talking about the same format anymore. You may still call it the same name, but the flower itself has changed.

Maybe players can rule-0 a 101 card deck and it might just be for a playtest or it might be the greatest game of magic that has ever been played (but this is just a tribute). That's cool if all parties consent, but if I'm sitting down to play EDH, then that's the format I want to play. I do not want to play "EDH, but..."

The same goes to the argument that this change would bring EDH in line with other formats- You've stopped playing EDH once you try to make it like other formats. I want no part of it, because I want to play EDH.
I don't see what's sacred about 100 cards personally. I do feel like "using the cards that are in your deck" is a sacred pillar of EDH, but I don't see what a 100 card deck has to do with anything.

The number of cards is maybe #6 or so on the list of things that make commander commander to me, and not really that important to me.

1. the command zone / commander creature
2. multiplayer
3. singleton
4. color identity
5. aesthetic priority
6. card count? maybe?

Can you explain what exactly it is about 100 cards that you think is sacred? If it were 100 + 1 in the command zone vs. 100 inclusive of commanders, would you even notice in gameplay?

(I ask this because the first year or so I played I didn't know your commander counted and played 101 card decks).

freelunch
Posts: 44
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by freelunch » 3 years ago

I already explained what is sacred about the 100 card deck size: That is the definition of the format.

Once you're playing with more or less than 100 cards, you're not playing the same format. By all means, if you want to play Battle of Wits Highlander where every single rule is the same as Commander but the deck size is different do it. Popularize THAT format if you want, but it isn't EDH/Commander.

It is the definition of the format - 100 card decks, singleton (except basic lands), access to a commander that (hopefully) synergises with your deck- that brought me to the format and keeps me interested. These very specific restrictions are what make the format for me. Once you do away with those restrictions, the format is no longer the same and it is no longer interesting to me.

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 1963
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 124
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 3 years ago

@pokken
I am sort of ambivalent towards the change, but I do think 100 cards does define Commander in a way. To start with, taking your list, I would re-order it thusly for me:

1) Commander Creature/Card
2) Color Identity
3) Multiplayer
4) Singleton
5) 100 Cards

Not sure what you mean by Aesthetic priority unless you effectively mean the ability to creatively express yourself through deckbuilding (or something like that) in which case I would probable put it above Singleton above.

So, in either case I think I am on the same page as you with 100 cards being towards the bottom of the list of "what makes Commander, Commander". But, importantly, it is on the list. I don't think there is a great argument for keeping it the Min and Max though. No other format does that (maybe Canadian Highlander?; Brawl does but only follows Commander in this regard).

So, while I don't want to see it go as I feel it does offer a bit to the identity, I don't think taking it away alters the identity of EDH in any significant fashion. We still have the rest of the more important qualities that define the format.

I also do like the comment made above (by you I think; if not, apologies to whoever made it) about being able to go with 101 or 102 cards to test things out. The deck will be slightly less consistent but it allows for more brewing where I can try out 2-4 cards at a time rather thane needing to cut things first. Since EDH is more about brewing than tournament success, this would be the biggest thing for me if they took away the max.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6278
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

Yeah I mean creatively expressing yourself. I think it's really arguable but I think most people would put all those things above 100 cards.

freelunch
Posts: 44
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by freelunch » 3 years ago

I guess, while we're doing lists of what makes Commander "Commander" for me it is thusly:

1) Highlander/Singleton nature (variance FTW!)
2) Other deckbuilding restrictions for the format. (Brewing Commander decks might be more fun for me than actually playing them.)
3) The encouragement to express yourself through deck building. (I don't think other formats restrict self expression, but playing tournaments actively discourages self-expression in favor of playing the best deck. Commander and the RC actively encourage self expression, though.)
4) Its the format my friends play, and my LGS has a really large crowd of Commander players.

For me, the 100 card deck size is as sacred as the existence of the Commander rule and, to an extent, color identity (I don't entirely buy the arguments against changing the way hybrid mana interacts with color identity, but that's a different discussion). You need all three of those things (on top of the singleton aspect) for Commander to be what it is. The format is /mostly/ played as a multiplayer format, but I still play enough 1v1 games that that isn't a huge draw for me.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6278
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

freelunch wrote:
3 years ago
For me, the 100 card deck size is as sacred as the existence of the Commander rule and
But why? Is it just a feeling? That's fine if it is, just was curious about where exactly that comes from.

edit: maybe it's the deckbuilding constraint and fun building decks?? Not sure if I am reading that right.

freelunch
Posts: 44
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by freelunch » 3 years ago

Because that is how the format is defined. How many more times will I have to say that before it sticks? I've included the answer now in 3/4 of my comments in this thread.

Lets put it this way: pokken is an MtgNexus user who spells their name a certain way. How do you feel about adding an extra "n" in there? Will others be okay with calling you pokkenn? That's not your name though, you might not even answer to it.

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

Post by Mookie » 3 years ago

Prior to the existence of the companion cards, I would have felt pretty ambivalent re: the 100 card requirement. Removing the strict requirement is pretty negligible, since I imagine the number of decks going over the limit would be fairly small. Simultaneously, Battle of Wits isn't a card that concerns me from a power level perspective. On the other hand, I would also say that running 2-3 extra cards for testing purposes is also something that can be covered by rule 0 - I can't imagine a playgroup that would complain.

After the printing of Yorion, Sky Nomad, I'm now strongly against altering the limit - I believe that the requirement of running 20 extra cards over the base of 100 to be fairly negligible in comparison to the advantage granted by getting a companion. Of course, we could just ban Yorion, but then we return to the prior state of it not really mattering.

As for identity... to me, the 100 card singleton format is a big flashing sign that says 'high variance welcome here'. Adding extra cards doesn't negate that.

UnNamed1
Posts: 146
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by UnNamed1 » 3 years ago

freelunch wrote:
3 years ago
Because that is how the format is defined. How many more times will I have to say that before it sticks? I've included the answer now in 3/4 of my comments in this thread.
The format according to rule 3 is EXACTLY 100 cards. No more, no less. The RC broke that when they allowed Companion, for their own explained reasons.

Also rule 0 is supposed to be the defining rule of EDH, so if someone wants to run 103 cards because they are playtesting and need experience to decide what cuts to make, what is the problem with that? Also, people play with silver bordered cards, and those can allow you to bring in a whole other deck, making you deck 200 cards. Is that against the definition of the format? The cards aren't specifically banned (that i know of) so theoretically I can make my deck as large as possible.

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 1963
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 124
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 3 years ago

freelunch wrote:
3 years ago
Because that is how the format is defined. How many more times will I have to say that before it sticks? I've included the answer now in 3/4 of my comments in this thread.
While I don't really disagree with your mindset of not wanting this changed. I just find the reason....unsatisfying I guess. Not the greatest way to put it.

Mostly because there has been a number of things that have "defined" the format only to have changed. Life totals changing from "# of players/200", to color identity rules changing so Memnarch and Bosh no longer disallowing themselves from being commanders, to removing the rule preventing the generation of off color mana, to allowing all Legendary creatures to be commanders instead of just Elder Dragons.

It is tough to accept an argument against something changing when the reason hasn't stopped other significant changes to the format. Again, I am not saying your feelings against it aren't justified. And perhaps your feelings on the other changes that did occur rub you the wrong way as well, which would be understandable.

But being a "defining" part of the format does not mean it is unchangeable as history has shown us.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6278
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

freelunch wrote:
3 years ago
Because that is how the format is defined. How many more times will I have to say that before it sticks? I've included the answer now in 3/4 of my comments in this thread.

Lets put it this way: pokken is an MtgNexus user who spells their name a certain way. How do you feel about adding an extra "n" in there? Will others be okay with calling you pokkenn? That's not your name though, you might not even answer to it.
The issue is that it's circular and self-referential; if your like for it depends on it being the rule, you must therefore like it if it changes.

Think of it like say, preferring the old flavor of coke; if you like coke because it's coke there's no reason for you to dislike a flavor change. You like it because of the flavor, then it makes sense to dislike a new formula. :)

I think there is an underlying aesthetic you like about exactly 100 cards and to that I have no objection (disagreement perhaps; I think it's probable changing it would help more than it hurts, but I can't argue with your feelings).

User avatar
darrenhabib
Posts: 1812
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by darrenhabib » 3 years ago

I don't think the 100 card size defines commander that much at all. Its the commander, command zone and singleton that really define the format in my opinion.

You know when you've Gilded Drake a friends card and accidentally shuffled it into your deck, and then next week you discover it in there and so you been playing a 101 cards.
I don't think to myself, ooh I haven't been playing commander at all!!!

User avatar
Yatsufusa
Posts: 166
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Yatsufusa » 3 years ago

Gonna be fun ranking the "pillars" of the format's identity for myself.

5) 100-card total. As I said I don't particularly care if this is gone, it's a pillar, but I daresay at this point of the game's popularity I can say we can retain our identity strongly without this min-max cap. I see neither casual nor competitive being heavily affected by this as long as 100-minimum isn't removed. It's the hypocrisy of allowing 101 for a subset of cards now that brings its standing into question.

4) Multiplayer. Here is where I draw the line of pillars that cannot be removed. Yes, there's a sizable of people who play 1v1 EDH out there using the overall EDH rules/banlists, but fundamentally I would consider any card that either threatens or manipulates multiplayer to its advantage to have that factor taken into consideration. It was half the reason I fought for three years to get Iona banned (because combined with Color Identity, it enabled what I deemed "inverse archenemy", or crudely put "social isolation by cruelty", which fundamentally goes against the nature of multiplayer as a curb to massive card pool / combo pool from always firing off).

3) Commander/Command Zone. Awkwardly this lies third for me and not higher because the Command Zone is a recognized zone also used for Emblems and now with Companions existing as a "knock-off one-cast commander with different restrictions barring Lutri". I'm aware Color Identity stems from the choice of Commanders, but from a sheer blunt "Choose a Legendary Creature and put him in Emblem zone" POV, it is just another cog in the machine. Core enough to a pillar, but I don't actually consider it the main identity anymore.

2) Singleton. Let's just put it this way, let's just say as a restriction rather than a featured addition like Commanders, singleton is more of a pillar of identity because very few other formats/new designs would bother "stealing" it. I'm not sure how it would eventually turn out (disclaimer I have no benefit of hindsight), but consensus is very few would be using Lutri as a Companion in any other format (and it's banned here for obvious reasons), which screams volumes that even the attractive addition of "knock-off Commander" isn't good enough for other formats to consider going singleton.

1) Color Identity. Like singleton it is a restriction, one that no other main format as bothered "stealing", and one that no companion has set as its condition. If anything I wish there was a cycle of Companions with the conditions of the deck only having colorless cards and cards of their colors (not identity), so that it'll look awkward if we allowed hybrid cards since they would disable the companions since those checked for color, not identity. This being #1 was the other half why I fought a long battle for Iona and is concurrently the reason why I'm adamantly on the status quo side when it comes to the hybrid argument. It was also the reason I also fought for either reinforcement or abolishment of the defunct rule-4, because a loophole existed in the form of "spending mana as though as it of any color" bypassing it making it "hypocritical" and unbalanced, although I "won" that fight due to utterly different reasons (colorless mana being an actual cost).
Image

Sharpened
Posts: 193
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Sharpened » 3 years ago

darrenhabib wrote:
3 years ago
I don't think the 100 card size defines commander that much at all. Its the commander, command zone and singleton that really define the format in my opinion.

You know when you've Gilded Drake a friends card and accidentally shuffled it into your deck, and then next week you discover it in there and so you been playing a 101 cards.
I don't think to myself, ooh I haven't been playing commander at all!!!
But would 60 card commander feel like commander? I don't think so. (It would be similar, sure, but still noticeably different).

The "it was defined as 100 so it must be 100 argument" feels like bunk. It could be redefined as 80 or 120 or something else and still serve the same purpose. I don't know that changing it (in either direction) would be an improvement, but theoretically, its something that could be done.

I think @pokken 's argument that:
It's so unequivocally correct to play the minimum number of cards you can that I don't think it would be that big of a deal.
just doesn't hold the same weight in this casual ,multiplayer format. Obviously cEDH would be pretty unaffected (Yorion, notwithstanding). The cEDH-adjacent players on this board, like darrenhabib, pokken and a bunch of others would also clearly stick to the minimum. But I think the majority of EDH players don't fit into that category, and you'd be more likely to encounter 100+ card decks than exactly 100 card decks among a random sampling of EDH players. Reasonable people can and will disagree, but without a hard limit on deck sizes, I'd expect deck growth to be a pretty common thing. The bigger question, is would that matter?

I think a hard limit matters, I think the forced tradeoffs and pressures of limited space benefit the format. I don't think removing that would cause everything to collapse or anything, but I think it would be a change for the worse. And I don't think exceptions like someone playing several games with a 105 card deck before deciding what 5 cards to cut change that, I think those are the exceptions that demonstrate the value of the rule. Any one game is not reliant on the deck size requirement to be rigid. But the format as a whole is more than the sum of individual games, and the explicit limit matters, especially in the settings of EDH where the pressures to stick to the minimum are simply not enough to hold to an implicit limit like in competitive constructed formats.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6278
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

All I can tell you is I played a lot of kitchen table casual over the years and I didnt see a lot of >60 card decks.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Rules and Philosophy”