MTGNexus

I'm sure this isn't the first time people brought up such idea. I'm thinking maybe -5 starting life for every player beyond two, i.e., three players would each have 35 life, four players would each have 30 life, with 20 life being the minimum after that. Hell, I honestly wouldn't mind -10 starting life either.

The main argument being: A game of EDH extends exponentially as the number of players goes up. A four-player game can last longer than double the time of two players because, instead of one opponent you have to defeat three opponents WHILE all three would be countering/removing your threats at the same time. Having less starting life in multiplayer would ensure the game ends at healthier pace, players can take more frequent breaks, catch up on messages/calls, switch decks to start another game before the night starts to drag.

I'm gonna say no. I play this format for many reasons, but long games where cool stuff happens is one of them. Long games only bother me when players take forever to do anything or are stymied by decision paralysis.

From a casual perspective, the rules should not change. From a competitive one, ohhhhh god please change it. This game is regulated on a casual axis though but if you were looking at it from a competitive setting the life total should probably be somewhere between 20 and 30.

Unfortunately the competitive vs casual debait has been one going for some time. I think there is room to make bans due to both which the RC seems to dislike doing but I would have a harder time shifting the life total because that affects both so much.

Nothing should change about the rules to cater to cEDH. The most that should be done is banning problem cards in cEDH that are either already problems in casual or which see no play in casual, Flash being that latter.

Casual doesn't need lower life totals, especially not at 4 players or below. Sure, if you regularly do 8 person or more pods, then I can see the utility because that puts aggressive decks at a severe disadvantage, but I wouldn't drop to 30 until 8 players.

I think there are two reasons to potentially lower life totals. 1) to make games shorter and 2) to skew the game towards aggro strategies and away from combo/control strategies.

I think the former, while it could have been argued in previous years, is not an issue in current day. WotC prints a ton of cards that enable wins to happen relatively quickly despite 120 enemy life, and the culture has become increasingly permissive of combo strategies and others that close games quickly.

The latter I have argued for in the past as well, though I do think WotC has to some extent "solved" this issue by printing so many cards that scale rapidly from "enough to close out a 20 life game" into "enough to close out a commander game" even without combo. They seem to be on a bit of a tear with 2RR commanders that deal a ton of face damage - it's not that much harder to win a commander game with Imodane, the Pyrohammer or Ojer Axonil, Deepest Might than it is a 20 life game, for example.

So idk, at this point I'm inclined to shrug and say it's probably fine.

onering wrote: ↑

6 months ago

Nothing should change about the rules to cater to cEDH. The most that should be done is banning problem cards in cEDH that are either already problems in casual or which see no play in casual, Flash being that latter.

Imo the banlist should explicitly avoid catering to cEDH even when it would not impact normal commander. You have deliberately chosen to build competitively in an environment designed against that purpose. I'm assuming that the brokenness of the format is part of the "fun". If you want an environment curated for competitive deckbuilding that exists in every other format.

onering wrote: ↑

6 months ago

Nothing should change about the rules to cater to cEDH. The most that should be done is banning problem cards in cEDH that are either already problems in casual or which see no play in casual, Flash being that latter.

Flash was one of the best cards in my death trigger deck, and I'm still salty that I had to lose it to a cEDH mea culpa.

DirkGently wrote: ↑

6 months ago

Imo the banlist should explicitly avoid catering to cEDH even when it would not impact normal commander. You have deliberately chosen to build competitively in an environment designed against that purpose. I'm assuming that the brokenness of the format is part of the "fun". If you want an environment curated for competitive deckbuilding that exists in every other format.

Amen. I've always believed that cEDH needs its own banlist and oversight entity. Despite so many attestations that "cEDH is EDH," it rings hollow when their goals are diametrically opposed.

But as to this thread's intended topic, do people really mind long games as long as things are happening? I love some back and forth, big plays, dramatic answers, etc. I just want players to respect the time investment we're making and get a move on.

About the only thing more broken in this format than the starting life total is existence of the command zone removing both would make it much more fair but less fun. I could see CEDH making the life total 20 if they cared about balance. Also I think the idea that "Having less starting life in multiplayer would ensure the game ends at healthier pace" doesn't actually ensure anything and I think its just as likely one guy dies and you get a just as long 3 player game . Plus its not like people would go nice a can play savana lion now it would be cool so I play puraphos now.

RxPhantom wrote: ↑

6 months ago

I just want players to respect the time investment we're making and get a move on.

This is when environment house rules come into play. Such as:

• If you "check" your device during your turn; discard card
  • If you do it during combat, discard your hand
  • "Check" is non-game related tasks.
• Each second greater than 60 seconds spent when searching a library deals one damage to that player
  • Shuffle time not included
• etc.

@Treamayne i prefer the universal house rules where, if you do those things, everyone rags on you until you hurry up.

I try to take quick turns. Turn length should be proportional to the complexity of the board state, but I still try to be as concise and focused as possible. I don't want to sit there while you either do nothing or a meander through a solitaire session.

If things are happening, I'm fine. If nothing is happening, I'm annoyed.

To me, game quality matters more than game quantity. It doesn't matter to me whether I play one two-hour game or four 30-minute games, as long as the gameplay is interesting. I would accept an argument in favor of decreasing life totals if it made for better gameplay, but I won't accept an argument in favor of speed for the sake of speed.

...that said, my usual EDH nights are limited more by my ability to maintain focus than any specific time constraints. If you're trying to squeeze games into a lunch break or you have other things limiting your time, then discuss things with your playgroup (or just play faster decks).

Moxnix wrote: ↑

6 months ago

About the only thing more broken in this format than the starting life total is existence of the command zone removing both would make it much more fair but less fun. I could see CEDH making the life total 20 if they cared about balance. Also I think the idea that "Having less starting life in multiplayer would ensure the game ends at healthier pace" doesn't actually ensure anything and I think its just as likely one guy dies and you get a just as long 3 player game . Plus its not like people would go nice a can play savana lion now it would be cool so I play puraphos now.

RxPhantom wrote: ↑

6 months ago

I've always believed that cEDH needs its own banlist and oversight entity. Despite so many attestations that "cEDH is EDH," it rings hollow when their goals are diametrically opposed.

That's an awful lot of words to say "Canadian Highlander rocks".

DirkGently wrote: ↑

6 months ago

@Treamayne i prefer the universal house rules where, if you do those things, everyone rags on you until you hurry up.

Toxic. Let's not ostracize players because this is a complex game with quadratic decision trees across 50k unique cards that requires thought, just because you wanna go out and smoke or whatever. C'mon man, it's a game. Chillax.

3drinks wrote: ↑

6 months ago

Toxic. Let's not ostracize players because this is a complex game with quadratic decision trees across 50k unique cards that requires thought, just because you wanna go out and smoke or whatever. C'mon man, it's a game. Chillax.

Either you're using the least charitable possible version of what I said, or you're crazy. I'm not saying anyone should jump down a new players throat when he takes 61 seconds to resolve a demonic tutor, but I think we've all seen people take 20 minute non-deterministic combo turns, or go into the tank for minutes on end like it's the critical play of the pro tour, and at times like those I think a "bro, hurry it up." is well warranted.

Also maybe you were exaggerating intentionally but there are barely half that many cards.

As regards the ribbing people for dragging the game to a crawl, one of my personal greatest pet peeves in EDH games is when players completely tune out if it's not their turn and only bother to become aware of/catch up with the board and game state when their turn comes around. Especially if the same player is complaining about things taking too long or the game running slow - bruh, you're queuing up three turns worth of game actions to process once every round instead of paying attention to what's going on as it happens and actually knowing what you might want to do with your turn. If you're going to "Huh? What happened?" every time the turn passes to you, I'm not hearing anything you have to say about the pace of the match.

I think the life total is fine as is. Players who win "the olde fashioned way" probably like the status quo. Players who don't like the status quo bypass life totals anyway. Would lower life totals pull players from the latter camp? I'm not sure. I do know that lower life totals would be a huge buff to those single card win conditions that aren't infinite but scale quickly like Craterhoof. Not sure what the threat floor is for Craterhoof, the earliest you can reasonably expect to close a game with one, but making it sooner wouldn't brighten any days on these forums, to say the least.

Treamayne wrote: ↑

6 months ago

RxPhantom wrote: ↑

6 months ago

I just want players to respect the time investment we're making and get a move on.

This is when environment house rules come into play. Such as:

• If you "check" your device during your turn; discard card
  • If you do it during combat, discard your hand
  • "Check" is non-game related tasks.
• Each second greater than 60 seconds spent when searching a library deals one damage to that player
  • Shuffle time not included
• etc.

What if a player uses that to his advantage to discard a card they wanted to? Can they cast it for its madness cost?

NZB2323 wrote: ↑

6 months ago

What if a player uses that to his advantage to discard a card they wanted to? Can they cast it for its madness cost?

That would be up to the group/store. It was a tongue-in-cheek improv list made as an example of holding non-game actions that impact the game accountible with in-game reprecussions. I would imagine it would need to be "exile from hand" to prevent munchkinism.

After thinking about it some more, I'd be amenable to lowering life totals in pods that exceed four players. I rarely play in such a pod for obvious reasons, but I'd rather do that than leave the odd player out.