100 Card Limit

[cryogen]

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.

We never adhered to the "40 spell 20 land" rule when my friends and I started playing.

[pokken]

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.

We never adhered to the "40 spell 20 land" rule when my friends and I started playing.

When I first started we always built 80 card decks because that was the "max" at the time, at least as far as we knew. But we learned 60 was best eventually and everyone was on 60 card decks forever after that. We usually played 24 lands with little wiggle room.

All our decks had a lot to do with commander decks in the early kitchen table days; we all had artifact/enchantment removal if possible but usually just 1 or 2 disenchants or whatever.

4-5 years ago I started playing kitchen table with the lunchtime magic players at my job and decks were always 60 cards. Not sure why just what people built. Again kinda like commander decks with every deck trying to have some broad answers so they didn't just lose to Ghostly Prison or whatever.

[papa_funk]

I'm curious how people who are worried about Companion and the 100-card rule feel about Relentless Rats and the singleton rule. If you feel differently there, why?

[Airi]

I'm curious how people who are worried about Companion and the 100-card rule feel about Relentless Rats and the singleton rule. If you feel differently there, why?

I can't say I'm a particularly huge fan of that interaction either, but at least those type of cards also break the card limit in every format, such as Standard and Modern. With Companion, you're giving something up to get that extra slot, in the form of sideboard space. Granted, Companion is wreaking havoc in those formats due to the restrictions, but ironically they do have to give up one of a set number of slots for that card as opposed to us.

[pokken]

I'm curious how people who are worried about Companion and the 100-card rule feel about Relentless Rats and the singleton rule. If you feel differently there, why?

I detest rats and apostles. Avoid whenever I can. The decks are always about tutoring for thrumming stone and trying to go off...it's pretty much the exact consistency issue I hate about companions.

On the rare occasion it's not about having removal for thrumming stone it's like playing against pack rat in limited.

Basically they start threatening to kill someone with a swarm of 6/6 fear rats on turn 4 or 5 every game and you pretty much have to have a sweeper. It's like a deck full of 3 mana 6/6s. Booooooring.

Apostles is similar except instead they tutor for vilis or razaketh. Wheee?

Never once had a good game with one of them.

[cryogen]

I'm curious how people who are worried about Companion and the 100-card rule feel about Relentless Rats and the singleton rule. If you feel differently there, why?

Well we talked about this already, but for me the issue isn't so much that a specific card or mechanic let's you bypass a rule of Commander, it's the rule that is being broken. It is specifically referencing a "zone" that is inaccessible and for which every other group of cards that reference the same "zone" fail to function. That this group of cards have additional restrictions which allowed you to change the rule to accommodate them doesn't change this glaring lack of consistency for me.

I get your thought process behind this decision, I don't fault you for it, and like you asked me before I would be completely fine with the cards if they resided in the command zone (because then being a 101st card would be a direct comparison to Rats/Petitioners). And ultimately, this rule change bothers me less than changing Rule 4, getting rid of tuck, or getting rid of BaaC. But that doesn't mean I like your decision.