Ultimate Commander

[illakunsaa]

Here is my "new" format idea. I've been playing 1v1 with my friend and some multiplayer games on xmage.

Ultimate commander is basically the same as normal commander with fewer deck construction restrictions

1. No max deck size.
I've always thought restricting max size deck is just a does nothing rule. I just don't get why it exists.

2. You can play any card regardless of color identity.
I know a lot people find this a bit controversial but I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The biggest advantage is that it puts every deck at the same starting power level and allows weaker decks with lesser colors to upgrade their power level.

3. Wishes work like "normal".
I think there are a lot of cool cards like Karn, the Great Creator and Fae of Wishes // Granted that don't really work in commander. I don't even care if somebody brings a bucket full mtg cards as their wish board.

4. No banlist.
I think playgroups should themselves decide what is ok and what is not. The idea of a banlist just seems antithesis of commander. I would like to see a philosophy document or something that explains what is the affect of different cards in commander. That way people don't have to create an enjoyable meta with trial and error.

5. 30 life starting life total
Honestly guys 40 is just too much.

What do you guys think?

[onering]

Here is my "new" format idea. I've been playing 1v1 with my friend and some multiplayer games on xmage.

Ultimate commander is basically the same as normal commander with fewer deck construction restrictions

1. No max deck size.
I've always thought restricting max size deck is just a does nothing rule. I just don't get why it exists.

2. You can play any card regardless of color identity.
I know a lot people find this a bit controversial but I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The biggest advantage is that it puts every deck at the same starting power level and allows weaker decks with lesser colors to upgrade their power level.

3. Wishes work like "normal".
I think there are a lot of cool cards like Karn, the Great Creator and Fae of Wishes // Granted that don't really work in commander. I don't even care if somebody brings a bucket full mtg cards as their wish board.

4. No banlist.
I think playgroups should themselves decide what is ok and what is not. The idea of a banlist just seems antithesis of commander. I would like to see a philosophy document or something that explains what is the affect of different cards in commander. That way people don't have to create an enjoyable meta with trial and error.

5. 30 life starting life total
Honestly guys 40 is just too much.

What do you guys think?

It looks terrible.

1. The only good change.

2. Nice, take away one of the defining aspects of the format and turn it into nothing but 5 color. This is the surest way to homogenize the format further than it already is, and would be a death knell for diversity within the 99.

3. There's reasonable disagreement on this one, so I'll just point you to the anti wish arguments from the wish thread rather than explain why I don't like this, with the caveat that, like I expressed in the wish thread, something like Dirk's 3 wishes suggestion could work.

4. The worst suggestion on here. The banlist has proven effective at dealing with cards that have been toxic to the format. There's ample room to disagree with what is on it, but getting rid of it entirely is a laughably bad idea. This is format killing territory. And so I'm actually adding to the discussion, the banlist not only removes particularly problematic cards that the player base has proven unable to police themselves using rule 0 or basic restraint, it also is effective at serving as a guideline for what sort of effects lead to bad games, and signals pretty clearly what a casual focused format means. Seeing something like Worldfire or Coalition Victory banned sends a better signal that those sort of out of nowhere, cheeseball plays are frowned upon and ruin most players' fun than trying to explain it in a philosophy document. The banlist works very differently than it does in tournament formats, and defines casual not on power level or balance but on the extant to which the cards detract from the format being a friendly, social, varied experience.

5. I disagree but this is at least a reasonable suggestion. I think that 40 is just fine and lowering it to 30 isn't actually going to fix any problems, while it will hurt battlecruiser and the slower, more silly kinds of decks that only exist in commander.

Is this new format you're proposing supposed to be 1v1? Plenty of people have tried 1v1 formats, and it would probably work better if its just 1v1, though I think 1v1 is always doomed to either be heavily luck reliant (when its decks built for multiplayer facing off) or degenerate into a broken optimization driven solved meta (which is what always happens with 1v1 formats).

[Treamayne]

Here is my "new" format idea. I've been playing 1v1 with my friend and some multiplayer games on xmage.

Ultimate commander is basically the same as normal commander with fewer deck construction restrictions

1. No max deck size.
I've always thought restricting max size deck is just a does nothing rule. I just don't get why it exists.

I believe that EDH grew out of an older Variant Format called 100card Highlander. It was just what the name implies - 100 cards (no more, no less) and for any card, except basic land, "there can be only one." (Wish the movies had realized that...). That said, I concur that I would rather see 100 as a minimum, but not a maximum. Competitive players will probably stick to a General + 99, but the casuals could run 105 if we wanted...

2. You can play any card regardless of color identity.
I know a lot people find this a bit controversial but I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The biggest advantage is that it puts every deck at the same starting power level and allows weaker decks with lesser colors to upgrade their power level.

Not interested in an EDH variant where this is a thing. I could see making exceptions for Hybrid/Phyrexian/Devoid. Even allowing a split card if one side matches (but you can only cast that side); but making every deck a color free-for-all just can;t lead to any good outcomes except in very small groups - and even then, any sort of arms race in the playgroup will break this "feature."

3. Wishes work like "normal".
I think there are a lot of cool cards like Karn, the Great Creator and Fae of Wishes // Granted that don't really work in commander. I don't even care if somebody brings a bucket full mtg cards as their wish board.

Talked to death. Again, fine in a playgroup that can already "Rule 0" this. Not a great idea in the mainstream. Personally, I would like wishes able to pull from exile - if that's an alternative you would consider it at least makes those cards you mentioned playable.

4. No banlist.
I think playgroups should themselves decide what is ok and what is not. The idea of a banlist just seems antithesis of commander. I would like to see a philosophy document or something that explains what is the affect of different cards in commander. That way people don't have to create an enjoyable meta with trial and error.

See number 2. I wish the banlist was a bit more restrictive. It really is required for pick-up style games outside of established playgroups.

5. 30 life starting life total
Honestly guys 40 is just too much.

I think 30 is what's used in the 1:1 EDH variants, so if your proposed format is 1:1, this is probably fine.

What do you guys think?

As written, I wouldn't be interested in this variant; but it could serve as starting point for testing ideas.

[illakunsaa]

2. Nice, take away one of the defining aspects of the format and turn it into nothing but 5 color. This is the surest way to homogenize the format further than it already is, and would be a death knell for diversity within the 99.

Every time color restrictions very loosened the format got strictly better. Originally you could only play the five elder dragons but now you can play multiple color identities. If it was not for this change the format would have been dead long time ago. Next time they changed color generation rules and it fixed weird rules interactions.

If a meta wants to play nothing but five color piles then why it should be stopped? You can already play nothing but 5 color piles but some people still choose not to.

[onering]

The color restrictions were never loosened. The original 5 elder dragon rule wasn't a color restriction, and it was basically only around during the formats "beta" years when it was a goofy variant enjoyed by a playgroup and some of their friends. The only other time the color identity rule was changed it wasn't a "loosening" of it, but a change from checking just the colors to also checking Mana symbols. This allowed certain commanders to actually be played as commanders and have access to more colors, but it also tightened restrictions in other ways (you can run red cards in Bosh but can't run Bosh in nonred decks). It's why Devoid cards aren't treated like colorless cards in deck construction.

And beyond that, saying "these smaller changes have been good in the past, so this much larger change will be good" is a terrible argument. Those changes were made to address specific problems, and made in such a way that they would be the smallest change necessary to address the problem and keep the spirit of the original restrictions. Changing from Elder Dragons to all legends was necessary because elder dragons were obviously too restrictive for the format to be viable. The change to color identity from just color solved a discreet problem with certain legends not being useable as commanders. The benefits in both cases far outweighed the costs. The benefits of taking away the rule entirely would be minimal, limited to being able to use off color cards that synergize with commanders in cool ways, while the cost would be immense. While you can already go for highly tuned 5 color decks, you HAVE to run a 5 color commander. That means that the desire to run a cool commander that isn't 5 color is, on its own, enough to keep the format from degenerating into 5 color best cards.dek. Take away color restrictions, and why not just run all the best cards no matter the commander? The format becomes a solved best list, with maybe ten to twenty slots open for cards that combo or strongly synergize with whatever your commander happens to be (and twenty would basically be for certain commanders that strongly push in their own direction, like Gitrog or tribals). It would take the biggest current threat to the format, death of diversity, and kick it into high gear. Especially for a 1v1 format, which is far more easily solved than a multiplayer format.

[DirkGently]

1) Sure. Though the existence of Yorion, Sky Nomad does make going 120 cards a potentially viable (even powerful) option.

2) I kinda like this idea as a variant simply because it enables a lot of mono-color commanders to significantly up their game. It is a bit stupid that 5c commanders are so strong regardless of what their abilities are. That said, I can definitely see the argument that we'd end up with significantly more homogenization, and even more emphasis placed on fixing. I don't know that there's a good way to resolve this one really. I wish there was more tradeoff with having more colors than there is, but idk that letting everyone be 5c is the best solution. I think my favorite solution is that the only lands people can run are basics and guildgates.

3) I prefer my 3-wishes variant simply to avoid minmaxing issues, and obnoxious corner case cards like flashfires.

4) Intellectually I kinda agree, but then I look at the banlist and I'm like...nah, I don't really ever want to play against most of those tbh. LGSs can't really police rule 0 in the way closed groups can, and even within closed groups there can be disagreements.

5) Yes.

The color restrictions were never loosened. The original 5 elder dragon rule wasn't a color restriction, and it was basically only around during the formats "beta" years when it was a goofy variant enjoyed by a playgroup and some of their friends. The only other time the color identity rule was changed it wasn't a "loosening" of it, but a change from checking just the colors to also checking Mana symbols. This allowed certain commanders to actually be played as commanders and have access to more colors, but it also tightened restrictions in other ways (you can run red cards in Bosh but can't run Bosh in nonred decks). It's why Devoid cards aren't treated like colorless cards in deck construction.

If I remember correctly, that's not quite accurate. Bosh could never be played in non-red decks (at least since I started playing in 2009 or so). The original rule was that the CI of the cards in your deck had to fit within the actual color of your commander. Since bosh is colorless, but his CI is red, he was illegal in his own deck. The rule was asymmetric, considering the CI of the cards but the color of the commander.

Personally I almost think we should revert to that rule so we can soft ban a bunch of the more nonsense commanders buh bye golos. buh bye kenrith.

[onering]

Yeah, I agree with that. Sucks to lose the new squirrel, but I'll sacrifice a thousand squirrels to get rid of Golos.

[pokken]

2. You can play any card regardless of color identity.
I know a lot people find this a bit controversial but I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The biggest advantage is that it puts every deck at the same starting power level and allows weaker decks with lesser colors to upgrade their power level.

I still think this one would add a lot more variety to the format than it takes away; the top end of the format even becomes quite a bit more interesting because you aren't stuck playing the fairly small pool of 4-5c commanders.

You add a metric ton more interesting commanders to the format since by far the most common thing that happens is that mono colored generals get played as 3-color generals. And mono colored decks are *ahem* generally pretty boring (in my opinion).

The biggest problem with it - rather than homogenization - is that actual mono colored decks become basically unplayable trash. But they almost are already unless they're absolute one trick ponies.

[WizardMN]

Of the 5 potential changes, I would be on board with the idea of removing the upper limit of cards in a deck and changing how Wishes work. Though, I would lean towards just providing errata to the original Wishes to work how they used to where they could also grab cards from exile. And I don't think I would mind if that is just how all wishes worked. Even Wizards went with that for Karn. But that isn't really a rule for a format and instead is just something that would have to be done by Wizards.

But removing color identity is the worst idea of the bunch. I personally enjoy commander because of the limitations it provides. I have mulled over decks trying to figure out where the card draw should come from or how to handle wraths or spot removal. Red has Chaos Warp but not really much else to deal with Enchantments so it is interesting to me to find creative ways to solve those types of problems. Or, in some cases, uncreative ways if the answer just boils down to "kill that person".

People %$#% about Cyclonic Rift now (which I still think is an overstated problem) but imagine the complaining when literally every deck runs it? And there is a pretty hard line in the sand you have to take to decide not to run it considering it requires a single blue mana so the cost of running it is pretty minimal.

Path and Swords being in every deck, Sakura-Tribe Elder and Cultivate are easily splashed (and basically become godsends to ensure the right colors are hit for the rest of the deck). I don't mind these cards being staples in green decks. I don't mind Rift being a staple in blue decks. But seeing these every game in every deck is likely where that format ends up and I think that is a huge issue and the game becomes boring. There are 20,000+ cards in Magic, but we only have about 65 slots in each deck so the space for unique cards dwindles exceptionally fast when every deck wants every color's staples.

[pokken]

People %$#% about Cyclonic Rift now (which I still think is an overstated problem) but imagine the complaining when literally every deck runs it? And there is a pretty hard line in the sand you have to take to decide not to run it considering it requires a single blue mana so the cost of running it is pretty minimal.

We hashed this out in another series of threads a while back but I think we've long since passed he point where any deck design isn't better served as 3c-5c anyway. You almost can't name a deck that doesn't have a strictly better version with a 3c+ commander that has either green or blue or both.

If people don't convert all their decks to Golos, Tireless Pilgrim I don't see why they would add blue to every deck. I do think the odds that they add *either blue or green* to most decks is pretty high but I'm not entirely sure that is a problem.

Manabases are expensive and difficult to craft beyond 3 colors. So while we'd see a lot more of some of the staples, we'd also see a lot more different commanders.

Again, I'm not saying I'm 100% on board with it, but I do think it's a far more intriguing idea than people give it credit for.

Esper or Bant Ephara is a helluva lot more interesting than Chulane or Tymna/Thrasios.

(I do think that being able to add a single color probably is a much less likely to become homogenized model though just as a note. Something like making Prismatic Piper partner with any legend for example).

[DirkGently]

I think the thing holding people back from building every deck into Golos or whatever is that there's some particular commander they want to build around. Whereas there's a lot less motivation to not include a powerful staple when the payoff is...a more stable manabase? I mean, Krenko probably wouldn't go into blue for cyc rift, but I think it would be likely to get played a whole hell of a lot more.

I agree that it's an interesting idea, but while I like the idea of better balancing multicolor, I think it's probably likely to do more harm than good.

[pokken]

I think the thing holding people back from building every deck into Golos or whatever is that there's some particular commander they want to build around. Whereas there's a lot less motivation to not include a powerful staple when the payoff is...a more stable manabase? I mean, Krenko probably wouldn't go into blue for cyc rift, but I think it would be likely to get played a whole hell of a lot more.

I agree that it's an interesting idea, but while I like the idea of better balancing multicolor, I think it's probably likely to do more harm than good.

Interestingly I think that there's a lot of that yes, but there's probably a *lot* more "I'm not really sure how to even build a 4c deck" type of complexity overwhelming. Most people are simply not able to construct a 3c manabase without copying it off the internet, and constructing a 4c+ deck is fairly difficult even aside from the manabase.

Most of the middling-skill players I see run through a cavalcade of 1 and 2 color decks because they struggle to conceptualize what's involved in more complex decks.

There's also probably quite a bit of people who don't do the math an realize that Golos is an almost strictly better blink commander than anyone else - it's not super obvious when you look at him, since he doesn't double ETBs like Yarok, the Desecrated. And it's not like Yarok is a better play experience it's just that average players follow signposts.

The partners as options also add just a massive ton of complexity; do you think your average player realizes that Tymna the Weaver and Thrasios, Triton Hero is a better option for basically every mana dork deck than, well, anything else? Probably not.

---

I think it's definitely possible that it would make stuff worse, but when I see this idea float around there's a lot of one-sided analysis so I'll usually weigh in a little. Color identity is a bit of an idol in the format where everyone assumes it creates lots of diversity but we rarely look at the negative effects because it's just taken as automatic.

[DirkGently]

I do agree that CI is a bit of a sacred cow in the community. I'm definitely not against reconsidering it, but I personally find enjoyment from the restriction of mono-color. And it's not like there haven't been very nasty mono-color decks, like Urza or Selvala or Arcum or Yisan. Ofc staying mono-color is still an option without CI, but psychologically I like having a good reason for my self-limitation. The format making it mandatory is a pretty good reason, lol. There are a few commanders that I really wish could add another color, but in a lot of ways I prefer the restrictions of mono-color. Without checking, I think a fairly high percentage of my builds are mono-color.

The average commander player can't build a great manabase, though I think that's mostly budget. At the super optimized end, sure, it gets tricky trying to decide between which types of duals and in which colors and how many hits do fetches need etc etc, but for a 75% or less meta, it's not rocket science. Just get a bunch of whatever decent dual/tri lands you can afford and stick 'em in there and you'll probably be fine. I don't think average players are sweating it that much. Most precons are 3c and the only people I hear complaining about the manabases in them are people who already know how to make a decent manabase. I think most people just shrug and deal with the mediocrity.

People definitely tend to fixate on the highly directed commanders, but that's kind of my point. People don't build Golos as a blink commander as often because he doesn't have neon lights directing you towards building an ETB deck around him the way Yarok does. The enticement of having a huge synergy piece in the CZ is what pushes them into those more restrictive colors imo. Without that incentive I think almost all decks would end up being 3+ colors. Which has its plusses, but I do think you'd end up in a lot more similar games. I like having variety in terms of #-of-colors when I sit down to a game.

[pokken]

The average commander player can't build a great manabase, though I think that's mostly budget.

Perhaps, although 'mid-budget on-color fetch only' manabases are where I see the most problems. Lots of taplands, poor balance of colors (e.g. even color distribution despite the deck being 75% green, causing false starts where they can't cast their ramp spells).

I don't think average players are sweating it that much. Most precons are 3c and the only people I hear complaining about the manabases in them are people who already know how to make a decent manabase. I think most people just shrug and deal with the mediocrity.

I don't hear people complaining about the manabases in aggregate (e.g. "this manabase is bad") but I do hear "Oh damn I only have one red source" all the time. If you look at manabases even in this forum even they're often pretty sketchy and IRL it's 100x worse

I like having variety in terms of #-of-colors when I sit down to a game.

I do too honestly. I just wonder if that winds up being self-serving in a way heh Like, I enjoy being able to basically know what cards are in someone's deck or have a really good idea what they are by looking at the commander, and have my meta / card knowledge be rewarded. I like having a good idea if my stuff will be countered and knowing what removal spells to expect / play around, etc.

You do get different games though I guess?

Like I said I think you're probably right on the balance. So I'm not trying to contradict you so much as casually say stuff.

[onering]

I think the thing holding people back from building every deck into Golos or whatever is that there's some particular commander they want to build around. Whereas there's a lot less motivation to not include a powerful staple when the payoff is...a more stable manabase? I mean, Krenko probably wouldn't go into blue for cyc rift, but I think it would be likely to get played a whole hell of a lot more.

I agree that it's an interesting idea, but while I like the idea of better balancing multicolor, I think it's probably likely to do more harm than good.

Interestingly I think that there's a lot of that yes, but there's probably a *lot* more "I'm not really sure how to even build a 4c deck" type of complexity overwhelming. Most people are simply not able to construct a 3c manabase without copying it off the internet, and constructing a 4c+ deck is fairly difficult even aside from the manabase.

Most of the middling-skill players I see run through a cavalcade of 1 and 2 color decks because they struggle to conceptualize what's involved in more complex decks.

There's also probably quite a bit of people who don't do the math an realize that Golos is an almost strictly better blink commander than anyone else - it's not super obvious when you look at him, since he doesn't double ETBs like Yarok, the Desecrated. And it's not like Yarok is a better play experience it's just that average players follow signposts.

The partners as options also add just a massive ton of complexity; do you think your average player realizes that Tymna the Weaver and Thrasios, Triton Hero is a better option for basically every mana dork deck than, well, anything else? Probably not.

---

I think it's definitely possible that it would make stuff worse, but when I see this idea float around there's a lot of one-sided analysis so I'll usually weigh in a little. Color identity is a bit of an idol in the format where everyone assumes it creates lots of diversity but we rarely look at the negative effects because it's just taken as automatic.

And you lose a lot of that complexity when you can just jam the best generally good cards in all five colors into ANY deck. People use EDHrec and other resources. Within a week of no CI, there will be a consensus of the 30-40 must run cards for every deck. With the exception of the most linear commanders, most decks will really just be deciding between 10-20 cards. There's already a degree of this happening now, but at least now those auto includes change based on the color identity of the commander. With this change, it would be the same 30-40 cards in every deck, period.

[pokken]

With this change, it would be the same 30-40 cards in every deck, period.

I'm not convinced of that. We have basically no evidence that people would 5c deck everything. The partners and Golos aren't all *that* common in casual, maybe 1 in 10 games has a 4c or 5c deck for me at most these days. I was seeing Golos almost every game there for a while but it seems to have faded.

(edit: I'll add that, ironically, either way it goes for golos proliferation it kinda proves my point -- if Golos is the dominant common commander then we're already at the 5c apocalypse, and if he's not that popular then it suggests people would not 5c everything )

It's possible it would be exaggerated online where there's less of a social contract, but in paper I doubt it.

I think it's a real tossup what would be most common:
1. people playing everything as a 3-color deck
2. people adding blue or green to all their mono colored decks (and I don't know that this is necessarily bad; people basically add brown to every mono colored deck already and it's not ruining the format)

With 5c goodstuff being a distant 7th or so in terms of impact.

[WizardMN]

With this change, it would be the same 30-40 cards in every deck, period.

(edit: I'll add that, ironically, either way it goes for golos proliferation it kinda proves my point -- if Golos is the dominant common commander then we're already at the 5c apocalypse, and if he's not that popular then it suggests people would not 5c everything )

I think this suggests that there are two different arguments trying to be made here. If I am understanding your side correctly, you are saying that because Golos is not ever-present already, it is a good indication that people aren't just going all out on 5c because they aren't doing it with current options.

Assuming I have that right, I disagree. The argument I am trying to make is that people like playing Kangee, or Windgrace, or Valki, or whatever as their commander. They deal with the limitations as it exist today because they have to. So, to open this up where color identity doesn't matter it allows those players to continue playing those generals *while also* playing any card they want. I would lean towards people not wanting to play Golos or Sisay simply because it is boring or they don't fit their playstyle or even because they represent a threat that they don't want to deal with. The thought on my side is that allowing Rift to be played in Valki means that, well, Rift is going to be played in Valki. That is, people still get to play their commanders they want to play and don't have to think at all about weaknesses or limitations of the colors. Which means that it isn't so much about people playing 5 color; it is more about people getting access to the best cards every color has while also getting unfettered access to whatever general they want to have access to. I can see the benefits of this but I think in general this is a detriment.

I don't think pointing to Golos's current share proves (or, to be fair, disproves) anything about what people would do to expand into 5 color because people may just not want to play Golos. But there is a pretty significant difference between "I don't want to play 5 color because I don't like the 5 color options" and "I refuse to play 5 color at all". If Valki could play with cards from any color, it seems more likely to me that players are just going to do that because adhering to the color identity of your commander when you don't have to seems like a disadvantage for any 1 or 2 color deck. I think that, mana base aside (and even that might not be a large enough deterrent), it might be true of every deck that not playing at least one card from every color is a mistake because every color has its power houses.

[pokken]

I think this suggests that there are two different arguments trying to be made here. If I am understanding your side correctly, you are saying that because Golos is not ever-present already, it is a good indication that people aren't just going all out on 5c because they aren't doing it with current options.

I'd say that Golos is a bit of a shorthand here for "overpowered 4c+ general" which is, for most archetypes, a much stronger option (and sometimes 3c powerhouses like Korvold and Yarok and Chulane)

Because almost every deck already has a better option out there with more colors, I think that suggests that the reason people are playing lower powered generals is as much about restraint as it is about preferring to make sacrifices to enjoy specific mechanics.

For me I know it's a mix of both that keeps me on Ephara, God of the Polis over Chulane, Teller of Tales or Tymna the Weaver -- the resilience is nice, so that's 50% maybe, but I also like the lower power level. It's probable that if Ephara could be UWG I would play mana dorks, but I'd probably not go full on ham playing all the green goodstuff out there. I sure as heck do not start splashing black for Vampiric Tutor and whatever just because.

(And the other prong of the point is that if everyone did start switching to 4c+ nonsense, it would make even less sense to continue restricting by CI since you'd have a massive pile of obsolete legends. )

The thought on my side is that allowing Rift to be played in Valki means that, well, Rift is going to be played in Valki. That is, people still get to play their commanders they want to play and don't have to think at all about weaknesses or limitations of the colors. Which means that it isn't so much about people playing 5 color; it is more about people getting access to the best cards every color has while also getting unfettered access to whatever general they want to have access to. I can see the benefits of this but I think in general this is a detriment.

I don't think pointing to Golos's current share proves (or, to be fair, disproves) anything about what people would do to expand into 5 color because people may just not want to play Golos

Yeah, I don't think that is automatic at all. I think in addition to grixis valki you'll get a Jund valki, and a smattering of mardu valki, all of which are fairly different and interesting. And you still have a massive number of cards that reward playing fewer colors which are now made far more interesting (things like Magus of the Moon, Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle and Cabal Coffers just as quickie examples).

I get that there's a sacrifice people make to play the more mechanically unique generals (things like say, Valki, God of Lies // Tibalt, Cosmic Impostor or Cosima, God of the Voyage // The Omenkeel) but something else to think about is that those decks are often extremely homogenized because of the color identity.

Cosima, God of the Voyage // The Omenkeel is a particularly great example that has like 11 decks and can't really use most of its cool features because it's mono-blue. Guaranteed you never see that commander in a few years, and that's where most 1 and 2 color commanders that are super interesting go: the dust bin of history.

[DirkGently]

I get that there's a sacrifice people make to play the more mechanically unique generals (things like say, Valki, God of Lies // Tibalt, Cosmic Impostor or Cosima, God of the Voyage // The Omenkeel) but something else to think about is that those decks are often extremely homogenized because of the color identity.

I find those examples kinda funny tbh - Cosima in particular is, at a minimum, kinda split in half between people building for the front and the back side.

And neither commander really provides a super strong direction to go in. I'd say something like Sliver Overlord is a lot more homogenized despite being 5c. One of the things scaring me off General Ferrous Rokiric is that I'm pretty sure every deck is going to be practically card-for-card identical lol.

Cosima, God of the Voyage // The Omenkeel is a particularly great example that has like 11 decks and can't really use most of its cool features because it's mono-blue.

which cool features exactly? I guess if I was building her without CI I would have probably gone into UW or esper for board wipes, but it seems like a stretch to call those "features" of the card.

Guaranteed you never see that commander in a few years, and that's where most 1 and 2 color commanders that are super interesting go: the dust bin of history.

That's probably true, but I don't think it would be much less true without CI. There's only so many decks being built, and Cosima isn't splashy enough for most people. WotC kinda has to keep making things shinier to keep people buying, so by design older stuff will get less interesting to most players over time.

[BeneTleilax]

I'm in the odd position of strongly believing in the importance of color limitation while also wanting hybrid to be playable in either color. Far fewer breaks are enabled by "or" identities for hybrid than exist already in every color, and fewer breaks will be created by future hybrid cards than by monocolored, normal-mana-pip cards. Ending color identity entirely would be a homogenization nightmare, however. I consider the two cases to be decided primarily by different principles.

[illakunsaa]

I think it's great to see that at least I'm not alone in the fact that opening up the color identity could create a lot of interesting things.

I kinda feel edh already has a lot of homogenization and I think color identity is partially responsible for it. The idea that if you allow all colors then people are just gonna play all the staples also happens with restricted CI. The staples just have different names. Chaos Warp/Anguished Unmaking, Rampant Growth/Wayfarer's Bauble, Feed the Swarm/Disenchant etc. CI just forces you to use whatever you got while removing CI would give you the option choose.

I think lowering lifetotal would help monocolor decks. If you play an aggro deck you would get to punish a greedy multicolor deck if they stumble in mana (also green ramp player who do nothing but ramp first few turns). Fetching and shocking now costs 10% of your life total.

[onering]

I think it's great to see that at least I'm not alone in the fact that opening up the color identity could create a lot of interesting things.

I kinda feel edh already has a lot of homogenization and I think color identity is partially responsible for it. The idea that if you allow all colors then people are just gonna play all the staples also happens with restricted CI. The staples just have different names. Chaos Warp/Anguished Unmaking, Rampant Growth/Wayfarer's Bauble, Feed the Swarm/Disenchant etc. CI just forces you to use whatever you got while removing CI would give you the option choose.

I feel like you are so close to getting it. You understand that there are staples, and you understand that different color combos have different staples based on what is available to them. Yet somehow you lose the plot and think that CI is causing this, and that removing CI would somehow reduce this trend toward homogenization. It seem pretty obvious, based on the observable reality of over a decade of the format, that giving people the "option to choose" between differently colored staples would only cause whichever the strongest one is to remain a staple, as it would be chosen everywhere. That's a bit of a simplification, for various reasons there'd be a top 3 for most effects, but whereas we now see this for each color where the effects are available, without CI we'd see just a top 3 over all the colors for most effects. Why the hell would anyone run black removal spells over path and swords. The amount of removal spells that are viable in the format would immediately collapse. You can keep saying "well, not everyone would do that", but its an argument that is countered by simply looking at the format as it exists now and realizing that oh, yeah, a lot of people WILL do that, more than enough for it to redefine the format and increase homogenization exponentially.

I think lowering lifetotal would help monocolor decks. If you play an aggro deck you would get to punish a greedy multicolor deck if they stumble in mana (also green ramp player who do nothing but ramp first few turns). Fetching and shocking now costs 10% of your life total.

Fetch into shock being marginally more painful at 30 life vs 40 life isn't going to do anything to make mono color more valuable. Yeah, saying its now 10% of your life total sounds like a lot, but its just an illusion, easily dispelled by the fact that currently it takes out 7.5% of your life total. Its a marginal increase on an amount that players currently shrug off. Its not going to be enough to make people think "oh wow, I should cut colors so my mana base is less painful." It pales significantly in comparison to the raw power added by having access to all the colors. In a 1v1 format, its going to matter a lot more, but fetch into shock ALREADY matters a lot more in 40 life 1v1, because faster decks only have to face down one person. Likewise, 30 life absolutely makes aggro viable in a 1v1 format for the same reasons, but doesn't do a whole lot in multiplayer. Sure, it makes it more viable than at 40 life, but any aggro deck that wants a chance at actually winning, rather than just knocking out a couple of players, is still going to need to have interaction and enough ways to restock (either through recursion or draw) to be able to close out 3 other players. Aggro in a multiplayer format isn't going to be an all in strategy. because all in strategies revolve around winning before you can be answered, and that's just not viable when there are 3x as many people trying to answer you, and reaching your goal (everyone else's life total is 0) is at least 3x as hard (actually, at 30 life its 4.5x as hard compared to other 1v1 formats, and while at 40 its 6x as hard). And none of this really speaks to mono color, but to aggro as an archetype. Mono color decks can be control, combo, reanimator, stax, midrange, etc. They'd be effected the same as multicolor decks by the life total change. Shocks and fetches being slightly more painful, relatively, is just too marginal to matter than much outside of cEDH. Its not that difficult to build even a 5 color deck green heavy on the mana base to reduce reliance on shocks and use green ramp and signets to fix mana and still have a really consistent deck. Remember, your opening every deck up to be able to use every signet, and part of the reason 5 color and 4 color has become so big is that the absurd amount of cheap, efficient ramp that doubles as elite mana fixing makes it easy. That's not going to change by removing CI or lowering the life total, or even doing both, its just going to mean that now people won't have to sacrifice that power to run 3 color or fewer color commanders, so the ones that are good enough to make that sacrifice for now get 99s that look more like 5 color 99s. There would perhaps be an increase in commander diversity, but at the cost of diversity in the 99, and the latter would be more significant than the former. I wonder if there aren't some 1-3 color commanders that would immediately become consensus best if given access to all 5 colors.

[UnfulfilledDesires]

Perhaps I'm stuck in my ways, but I dislike the idea of lowering starting life to 30 & of removing the format's color-identity restriction. Those changes would make EDH too different from what I know & love. Having to stick to your commander's colors adds flavor & allows unusual cards like Withering Boon to shine.

As much as I'd enjoy adding green (& perhaps white) to my Oona, Queen of the Fae deck, let's not go there.

I'd be more comfortable with letting groups sort out banned cards themselves. I'd enjoy seeing a Mox Ruby from an Eron the Relentless deck, for example. However, this would make cEDH even more outrageous & I'm not sure enough causal players would use the shift responsibly.

I'm all for Wishes, especially under the three-wish model.

[illakunsaa]

@onering You are simply wrong. If you look at edhrecs most played cards it is very clear that people choose not to play nothing but powerful cards. If what you are saying was true then edhrec would look a lot more like cedh.

If you think lowering the life total won't matter then I see zero reasons to keep it at 40.

[Legend]

"CI" doesn't just stand for "Color Identity", it stands for "Commander's Identity". Having a Commander in the command zone is the defining mechanical element of the format. And having that card matter by expressing itself through color identity is the defining aspect of deck building for the format. If you take it away, it doesn't become Ultimate Commander, it simply stops being Commander altogether. If the RC did away with color identity, I'd find another format or game to play. And I doubt I'd be alone.