Shaking things up for the sake of change is generally a bad idea. The format isn't stale or waning in popularity. There should be a very good reason for a rules change.

Let's set aside the difficulty first of providing a solution where there is no problem. What's your end state look like here? Can you describe what deck construction diversity is--especially relative to the format in Magic history that has the most diverse deck construction? Is it that you want to get rid of certain types of decks? Not saying that's necessarily a bad thing; this is just a long way around to trying to do that.

I can't speak for potatomonkey38, however, I feel that there are two issues related to this. The 1st being ubiquitous of cards/sets of cards. The 2nd being the disparity in power-levels among players. I believe that both are solved by the introduction of limited EDH formats (eg. Commander Cubes), which I have strongly advocated for over 10-years now.

I don't have a good answer on how to solve those in a constructed format, and the answer I have are something that the CAG might be able to resolve.

I think having a point-system for cards with a set league points format is the best. Meaning each card has a value based on a myriad of conditions (this is complex and would have to be decided by data, power, etc. and I think it wasn't until recently that we've had sufficient data to introduce this as such), with point allotments gained for certain card/deck criteria (eg. tribal decks, or cards not worth point which count as 0 point cards [think weight watchers for EDH]), etc. The intent is to have decks capped at certain power levels, and have winning points awarded for/by the context of the social agreement. It really would be standardizing a sub-format of Commander (and something that IIRC gets asked for a lot).

Gavin and I have been discussing point values for at least a decade. The issue is its administrative upkeep. With nearly 20,000 Magic cards to consider, there's work to be done. Additionally, when you sit down with someone at a random table (not in a pod you paid for), how are you doing to verify that they're not over the limit?

There's merit to the idea; there's also lots to be solved before it's viable.

Players have trouble remembering a 40 card ban list, they're supposed to remember a point system?

Yes, one of the inherent problems.

That's why I volunteer the CAG to be in charge of this, and not I.


If you're just doing a casual game and someone is going to cheat, that's what they are going to do. No amount of rules can change a person willingly cheating.

I should restate my view that it should be a sub-format for people in leagues or that want point systems to regulate commonality and power, so really before someone joins a league they would insert their decklist into a system to check (I don't expect people to really remember a point system of every card out there for random casual games). If the system is common though, they'd be able to walk to a table and say I have a deck that is under 6k points, and one that is over 9k points and then people can gauge which ones are the best fit for the group.


As we've discussed on this forum many times over the last ten years, none of us have a real solution for this. However, I have hope that maybe this new group would be able to help make this more viable. Out of the entire CAG idea, I hope this is something that they can come up with a metric and system for. They are some of the best and brightest in the Magic community and if anyone can do it, I think they can.

So talking about the points system, if we have a 6k limit for example that would probably be a lot of math and/or spreadsheet work whenever you want to build a deck. Reminds me of when I played Warhammer from 2006-2009. TBH, I didn't think that system was very balanced so probably don't want to base it on that.

What if we assume a decent card is a 1? So for example, Rampant Growth is worth 1 point. Would most green decks run it? Probably but not all. So then Sakura-Tribe Elder might be worth 2 points, as it can be a Rampant Growth but it is easier to reuse and it can chump block for you.

Now cards that people think are garbage (like One with Nothing) could be negative points, say -2. Cards that people don't like for example Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite could be 4 or 5 points. Something that breaks the game could be 10-20, such as Coalition Victory and if they really want to run Black Lotus they can but that is also 20 or so points. Now if most everybody is running 100 point decks (cause that just seems to be symmetrical) you are going to have to run a lot of meh to crappy cards to fit that Biorhythm into your deck, but you can. Now if you do a system where your typical deck is 6,000 points it is easier to make a difference between STE and Wrath of God but it is also easier for people to make mistakes or just not want to go through all that.

Also, if most cards are 1 & 2s then that eliminates a lot of the "Well it should be worth 14 points cause Card X just got printed" type of bookkeeping for the vast majority of the cards. Cause let's face it, yes there are 20k unique cards now, but how many versions of Gray Ogre are there? or The 3/1 for 1W draft chaff?

If I were to do it, I'd probably just make the default cost of a card 0, then make the offenders more expensive and set a low limit.

Points: 10

Dead-Eye Navigator: 6
Tooth and Nail: 6
Craterhoof Behemoth: 5

(you could solve some problems this way)

I like how you made it so T&N and Craterhoof = 11, i.e. not allowed. Avenger of Zendikar would probably also be around 5?

I wasn't trying to sidetrack the thread with a this is 'how' this happens. Perhaps we should shuffle this over to Format Variations and let Sheldon's thread stay focused (although this is a small group and most the regulars are pretty good about it).

I agree with Sheldon about keeping the numbers low, I just wanted to make a joke about someone's power level being over 9,000 (a DragonBall Z thing).

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that there is no problem, but I'm referring to the difficulty new and different cards have of making the cut against the staples of the format. Like I'm sure there are people out there that are tired of seeing capsize, eternal witness, Sol ring, karmic guide, demonic tutor etc... every game.

And to be clear this isn't a play group issue, when I go to pax or starcity events I see so much of the same across decks it bums me out.

I'm not into a point system at all, but is this actually hard? The larger issue to me is that it would probably just be a different format, because point values seem to imply competitive viability and the actual values would have to strike a perceived balance while casual players might use high-pointed cards to minimally (competitively) impressive effect.

But Highlander formats have no problems remembering, and you only need to know while building. Regarding the idea you can't deck check someone, is it different than accidentally playing a banned card and correcting the issue when you see it? Or accidentally playing 2 mana crypts*? Isn't the real problem that you're playing with a cheater, and not that their deck isn't to standard?

*I played 2 mana crypts in my deck for 3 weeks and no one, including me, noticed. Lol.

Well if you're cheating then remembering a point system is probably easy

It would all come down to exactly how the point system is managed, but I stand by my statement. You have to remember that we are the enfranchised players so we take for granted "getting" the format. Outside of the forums, people don't grok change as quickly or as well. For instance, on Thursday I asked two workers at my LGS about the CAG change and both gave me deer in the headlights looks, despite being judged and Commander players.

You said yourself you missed for a few weeks that you had duplicates in a deck (side note: how do you miss double mana crypt? Do you just have mad stacks of them laying around?) The ban list is easy to adjust to once you actually know what's on it. You can either run the card or you can't, with your local group and social norms fine tuning that binary decision. But a points system adds an additional layer to that, no matter how simple the system. You have to remember point values, you have to do math once you build a deck, you have to track point values for any changes (well Craterhoof was a 3 but it just became a 4 so now my deck is illegal until I cut cards). And most of all, you have to push this message out to the ENTIRE world who doesn't live breathe and die on the EDH forums.

So like his idea of a 20+ creature count rule, this is an idea best left for a hypothetical "what if we did this from the beginning" or as an offshoot format.

I played 2 Terramorphic Expanse and zero Evolving Wilds in a deck for about a year without noticing... despite having probably 100 of each not in decks.