Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Oct-19 7:03 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: MadModEDH rules - Madison Modifications to EDH
AgePosted: 2007-Dec-31 2:52 pm 

Joined: 2007-Oct-14 9:28 am
Age: Wyvern
EDH is a fun and electrifying format, and I can easily see it replacing 5-color as THE casual format. There are two rules which I believe severely inhibit EDH's potential for growth. Those rules are the general in an opponent's deck, and the "declaring" of a general in the play group.

To be more explicit, the first rule is the rule that says "If someone in the game has Card_ABC as his general, you may not have Card_ABC in your deck."

The second rule is that "If someone is already playing Card_ABC as his general, you may not play Card_ABC as your general."

The first rule makes it annoying to build a deck, only to find that one (or even two or three!) of your cards have to be removed or replaced before the game begins.
The second game makes it difficult to take your EDH deck to another city, or even another play group, where you don't know who has "called" your favorite legend.

I propose abolishing those two rules, and replacing them with the following rule:
Your general gains the super type “Super Legendâ€

_________________
Dan Bock
DanABock@gmail.com


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2007-Dec-31 4:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2007-May-20 9:03 am
Age: Dragon
Location: Oakland, CA
I share your concerns, especially as it makes the format less accessible to newer players who can't readily bust out a back-up deck, and it's tough to keep track of who has what generals in larger playgroups.

Our group adopted a similar rule as what you proposed, and though it doesn't come up often, I think it's worked well:

"While in play, generals have the supertype "general" instead of the supertype "legendary". If a legendary permanent and a general have the same name and are both in play, the legendary permanent is put into its owner's graveyard as a state-based effect, but the general remains in play."

A difference between our rule and your proposed rule is that, implicitly, if two of the same general are in play simultaneously, they both remain in play. I like this in that it doesn't randomly punish people for having duplicative generals.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Jan-01 5:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-May-21 9:45 am
Age: Drake
The second rule hardly applies at all since most people don't reserve their generals with a few exceptions. I know I have a bunch of EDH decks and I don't reserve every single one. I think the one reserved for me in TSB league is one that I hardly ever play (or even still have constructed!). There's even reserved generals for people who I don't think even play in our group (or even live here anymore!).

I think the rules do not have the authority to mandate who can play what and when on any large enough scale to matter outside of (maybe) Pro Tour leagues or Worlds or something like that where generals are predetermined ahead of time (and usually between a close-knot group of acquiantences, ie. judges) and usually just for one instance. I know I'd hate to travel all that way just to be told I cannot play something popular like Sol'Kanar or Zur. And with that said, not everyone may even know a general has been reserved.

Tell me why it's important to keep track of who's playing what at all for any considerable length of time. If a player new to EDH sits down across from me and announces they would like to play the same general I was going to play, fine. I will just grab a new deck. How would it look if I started spewing how on some obscure third-party website with the word "Official" in its name that I reserved that general and they can't play it? They would just not want to play and it would defeat the whole point. Not very sportsman like, either. The mature thing to do is play a different deck. It is easy enough in EDH to make a good quantity of decks with cheaper cards that are still competitive.

You can easily look through this site and find all of the times there's been a GP, local league starting up, or some other event where people coordinate and reserve their generals beforehand. Once a playgroup gets started, though, it appears the rule is usually abandoned. And what if someone announces they're playing your general before you do?

EDH is a casual format. And for casual play that rule doesn't serve much purpose.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MadModEDH rules - Madison Modifications to EDH
AgePosted: 2008-Jan-01 7:07 pm 

Joined: 2006-Jul-14 12:02 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Wherever I may roam
DanBock wrote:
To be more explicit, the first rule is the rule that says "If someone in the game has Card_ABC as his general, you may not have Card_ABC in your deck."

I think this is the single weakest rule in EDH, but still, I don't think I've yet sat down at a game where someone's said "oh, wait a mo...I need to remove your general from my deck". And I strongly suspect this change would make very slight difference as a result.

Quote:
The second rule is that "If someone is already playing Card_ABC as his general, you may not play Card_ABC as your general."


I think there are good flavour reasons to have this rule in place, but I'm really not a fan of any kind of reserved list.

[quote]I propose abolishing those two rules, and replacing them with the following rule:
Your general gains the super type “Super Legendâ€


Last edited by Nomad on 2008-Jan-05 2:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Jan-01 11:10 pm 

Joined: 2007-Oct-14 9:28 am
Age: Wyvern
matthew wrote:
Tell me why it's important to keep track of who's playing what at all for any considerable length of time. If a player new to EDH sits down across from me and announces they would like to play the same general I was going to play, fine. I will just grab a new deck. How would it look if I started spewing how on some obscure third-party website with the word "Official" in its name that I reserved that general and they can't play it? They would just not want to play and it would defeat the whole point. Not very sportsman like, either. The mature thing to do is play a different deck. It is easy enough in EDH to make a good quantity of decks with cheaper cards that are still competitive.


Based on the responses, it seems there's some confusion about what I'm proposing. I'm NOT proposing that people should be able to reserve generals. Quite the opposite. So I can't tell you "why it's important to keep track of who's playing what," because with my rule, its not.

Nomad wrote:
The real rules change that you're making is that Clone no longer kills Generals. Which I'm just fine with. Flavour wise, the general should be your embodiment on the field, and someone else trying to make a copy shouldn't be a problem. We have some further limiting rules on stealing Generals too.


Agreed, a clone of a general should NOT survive, whereas the general should. Is there a way to work that into the rules? Judges?

Dan Bock
DanABock@gmail.com
AIM: DanABock

_________________
Dan Bock
DanABock@gmail.com


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Jan-05 2:40 am 

Joined: 2006-Jul-14 12:02 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Wherever I may roam
DanBock wrote:
Nomad wrote:
The real rules change that you're making is that Clone no longer kills Generals. Which I'm just fine with. Flavour wise, the general should be your embodiment on the field, and someone else trying to make a copy shouldn't be a problem. We have some further (undocumented, and slightly experimental) limiting rules on stealing Generals too.


Agreed, a clone of a general should NOT survive, whereas the general should. Is there a way to work that into the rules? Judges?

We had a go:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/princetonmagic/EDH.html
Our rules 1.4, 2.2 and 2.4 differ from those here, the latter refers to Generals as "General" supertype, removing the need for protection from Karakas too, although we've still left that in (3.3).


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Jan-05 8:32 am 

Joined: 2007-Jun-04 6:34 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Gainsville, FL
Nomad wrote:
Our rules 1.4, 2.2 and 2.4 differ from those here, the latter refers to Generals as "General" supertype, removing the need for protection from Karakas too, although we've still left that in (3.3).


Yeah, but we ended up not liking how your own Eiganjo or Minamo or Okina stopped working on your own General because we removed the "Legendary" supertype, so I think we just ended up switching it back again to just having special rules for Karakas and for the case when two legendary cards, one a general, and one not, are in play at the same time. I think Hero's Demise should hit generals and that the alternate rules we play shouldn't let Kiki-Jiki and Cytoshape target/choose your general.

_________________
Growing Darkness, taking Dawn; I was me, but now he is gone - Metallica, "Fade to Black"


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Jan-05 12:13 pm 

Joined: 2007-Oct-14 9:28 am
Age: Wyvern
Nomad wrote:
Our rules 1.4, 2.2 and 2.4 differ from those here, the latter refers to Generals as "General" supertype, removing the need for protection from Karakas too, although we've still left that in (3.3).


I've quoted the exact rules below to help you read this, as flipping back and forth is not fun.

Nomad wrote:
1.4. With the optional exception of basic lands, no two cards in the deck may have the same English name. Some people with more extensive collections opt to limit basic lands to singletons, too; so as not to punish them, we ban cards that excessively hose non-basics (Blood Moon, Back to Basics Price of Progress, Primal Order, Global Ruin, Magus of the Moon).

I think banning those additional 6 cards is an excellent balance to the "Basic lands are restricted" rule, but I don't think the "Basic lands are restricted rule" is friendly enough to new players to be universally accepted.

Nomad wrote:
2.2. At the beginning of the game, all generals are removed from the game. While your general is removed from the game, you may put it into play anytime you could play a sorcery by paying its mana cost plus two colorless mana for each cost counter it has (usually one for each previous time it has been played). Putting the general into play does not use the stack and is not considered a spell.

So with your rule, are the generals not counterable? I'm not sure if that adds a significant amount to the game, seeing as how you can just replay the general after it gets countered...

Also, in your games, do people reveal their legends beforehand? With the Madison rules, we are bringing Legends to the table face-down, until the first time you cast him. It adds one more fun element to the game, since it no longer matters if two people in one play group have the same General.

Nomad wrote:
2.4. While in play, generals have the supertype "general" instead of the supertype "Legend". If a legendary permanent and a general have the same name and are both in play, the legendary permanent is put into its owner's graveyard as a state-based effect, but the general remains in play.


I agree with Phil that banning Karakas makes a lot more sense, as aside from Karakas, there tend to be a lot more "beneficial" for Legendary cards than "harmful to EDH" cards.

_________________
Dan Bock
DanABock@gmail.com


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Jan-05 5:13 pm 

Joined: 2007-Jun-04 6:34 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Gainsville, FL
DanBock wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Our rules 1.4, 2.2 and 2.4 differ from those here, the latter refers to Generals as "General" supertype, removing the need for protection from Karakas too, although we've still left that in (3.3).


I've quoted the exact rules below to help you read this, as flipping back and forth is not fun.

Nomad wrote:
1.4. With the optional exception of basic lands, no two cards in the deck may have the same English name. Some people with more extensive collections opt to limit basic lands to singletons, too; so as not to punish them, we ban cards that excessively hose non-basics (Blood Moon, Back to Basics Price of Progress, Primal Order, Global Ruin, Magus of the Moon).

I think banning those additional 6 cards is an excellent balance to the "Basic lands are restricted" rule, but I don't think the "Basic lands are restricted rule" is friendly enough to new players to be universally accepted.

Nomad wrote:
2.2. At the beginning of the game, all generals are removed from the game. While your general is removed from the game, you may put it into play anytime you could play a sorcery by paying its mana cost plus two colorless mana for each cost counter it has (usually one for each previous time it has been played). Putting the general into play does not use the stack and is not considered a spell.

So with your rule, are the generals not counterable? I'm not sure if that adds a significant amount to the game, seeing as how you can just replay the general after it gets countered...

Also, in your games, do people reveal their legends beforehand? With the Madison rules, we are bringing Legends to the table face-down, until the first time you cast him. It adds one more fun element to the game, since it no longer matters if two people in one play group have the same General.

Nomad wrote:
2.4. While in play, generals have the supertype "general" instead of the supertype "Legend". If a legendary permanent and a general have the same name and are both in play, the legendary permanent is put into its owner's graveyard as a state-based effect, but the general remains in play.


I agree with Phil that banning Karakas makes a lot more sense, as aside from Karakas, there tend to be a lot more "beneficial" for Legendary cards than "harmful to EDH" cards.



Oh, I'm in Simon's (nomad)'s playgroup, by the way - we live a few minutes from one another - at least until I move in a month. So those rules we're talking about are the ones we both play by, more or less.

yeah, we play you can't counterspell legends, dunno why. they also aren't spells, so they don't trigger Standstill, Momir Vig, Kaervek, etc. Weird, I admit. This rule has the least fundamental reason to exist, I admit. But boy, in duels that makes counterspells a lot more appealing. If I play that way, I modify my decks.

We play generals face up - RFG cards are always face up unless otherwise noted by an ability, and here we just like to know who's playing what to start scheming early if we're playing multiplayer. Wee! But you can have a legendary creature in your deck that is someone else's general.

Karakas isn't banned in our playgroup - it hits legendary creatures, just not generals.

_________________
Growing Darkness, taking Dawn; I was me, but now he is gone - Metallica, "Fade to Black"


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Jan-05 5:51 pm 

Joined: 2007-Oct-14 9:28 am
Age: Wyvern
Philatio wrote:
We play generals face up - RFG cards are always face up unless otherwise noted by an ability, and here we just like to know who's playing what to start scheming early if we're playing multiplayer. Wee! But you can have a legendary creature in your deck that is someone else's general.


When you said "can" there, did you mean "can't" ?

The official rules say you can't, with my modifications you can.

I like the idea that I can build, tweak, modify and perfect my deck, and when I go on vacation to Florida, and find an EDH group there, or if I go watch the Pro Tour, and play with the EDH folk there, I don't have to worry about replacing the Reya or the Nicol Bolas in my deck with a basic land because one of them has either of them as his general.

_________________
Dan Bock
DanABock@gmail.com


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Jan-05 7:08 pm 

Joined: 2007-Jun-04 6:34 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Gainsville, FL
DanBock wrote:
Philatio wrote:
We play generals face up - RFG cards are always face up unless otherwise noted by an ability, and here we just like to know who's playing what to start scheming early if we're playing multiplayer. Wee! But you can have a legendary creature in your deck that is someone else's general.


When you said "can" there, did you mean "can't" ?

The official rules say you can't, with my modifications you can.

I like the idea that I can build, tweak, modify and perfect my deck, and when I go on vacation to Florida, and find an EDH group there, or if I go watch the Pro Tour, and play with the EDH folk there, I don't have to worry about replacing the Reya or the Nicol Bolas in my deck with a basic land because one of them has either of them as his general.


I meant CAN - referring here to the rules of our local Princeton playgroup that Simon and I play in. Going through your deck and searching for that one legend and taking it out is such an annoyance, so we don't do it.

We let people have duplicate generals in our group, too, but not at the same game at the same time - that's too complicated rules-wise and out of flavor besides.

But for example, I think three people here built a Teneb deck. Popular guy. It seems unfriendly to say, "sorry, now you can't build one, even though you have the cards." That's another reason we place generals face up - so we don't end up in a game with duplicates.

_________________
Growing Darkness, taking Dawn; I was me, but now he is gone - Metallica, "Fade to Black"


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Jan-06 12:12 pm 

Joined: 2007-Oct-14 9:28 am
Age: Wyvern
Philatio wrote:
I meant CAN - referring here to the rules of our local Princeton playgroup that Simon and I play in. Going through your deck and searching for that one legend and taking it out is such an annoyance, so we don't do it.

We let people have duplicate generals in our group, too, but not at the same game at the same time - that's too complicated rules-wise and out of flavor besides.

But for example, I think three people here built a Teneb deck. Popular guy. It seems unfriendly to say, "sorry, now you can't build one, even though you have the cards." That's another reason we place generals face up - so we don't end up in a game with duplicates.


I think everyone allows more than one person to have the same general within a "group". The group set distinction is completely irrelevant, its the game set distinction that is important.

The popularity of Teneb in your group helps to prove my case. By allowing people within the same GAME to play the same general, and by having each person bring his general to the table face down, it adds one more element to the deck building process, introduces a meta game, and provides an actual balancing mechanic to "punish" people for playing "popular" generals.

Is that one guy's Sliver Overlord deck a problem in your group? Its a pity he "reserved" it and is smashing everyone. I know of a five casting cost spell that kills Sliver Overlord every time. Its name is "Sliver Overlord". (This trick works for Teneb too.)

I think this rule will help universalize this format. While that thought might be scary to some, its something that you should at least consider. It is an amazing format. As soon as I've explained it to people who have never heard of it, they instantly start thinking of creative deck ideas. EVERYONE has a favorite legend. The people who don't have a favorite legend have a top five list. Starting with him in your opening hand is a casual player's dream. Being told you can't play a card in your deck, or even worse your general, is a casual player's nightmare.

_________________
Dan Bock
DanABock@gmail.com


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Jan-07 7:36 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-May-23 3:11 pm
Age: Drake
I think it's worth pointing out that EDH on MTGO currently has it set up so that the legend rule just doesn't apply to any generals. So if I have Sol'Kanar in play as my general and someone else plays a Sol'Kanar, then theirs will die and mine will live. If we both choose Sol'Kanar as our generals, then they can both be in play at the same time without any adverse effects. You can think of it as a personal Mirror Gallery. The reason for this is that (obviously) you can't go modifying your MTGO deck after the game has started and you see who the generals are.

There are two objections that I have to applying this (or a similar rule) to paper EDH. The first is for reasons of flavour. How can we possibly have two Sol'Kanars running around at the same time? He's legendary. It just doesn't fit.

The second reason is that, honestly, if I'm in the situation where I sit down to find that someone else is running Crosis, the Purger as a general and I have one in my deck, I would much rather have a chance to pull it out and replace it with something else, instead of playing it knowing that it's almost certainly going to be 187'd immediately. I would rather have the chance to replace this card that just got much much worse, and I don't think that changing this rule to not allow that is going to make casual players feel better about the game.

I can see how some people might not like the way that generals are reserved, especially in the case of something like Intet, the Dreamer where there very literally is no other legend of those colours. If you want to keep debating that, then go ahead. I don't see the official rules on the other matters changing anytime soon, though.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Jan-07 9:41 am 

Joined: 2007-Oct-14 9:28 am
Age: Wyvern
RobRoy wrote:
I think it's worth pointing out that EDH on MTGO currently has it set up so that the legend rule just doesn't apply to any generals. So if I have Sol'Kanar in play as my general and someone else plays a Sol'Kanar, then theirs will die and mine will live. If we both choose Sol'Kanar as our generals, then they can both be in play at the same time without any adverse effects. You can think of it as a personal Mirror Gallery. The reason for this is that (obviously) you can't go modifying your MTGO deck after the game has started and you see who the generals are.

There are two objections that I have to applying this (or a similar rule) to paper EDH. The first is for reasons of flavor. How can we possibly have two Sol'Kanars running around at the same time? He's legendary. It just doesn't fit.


So would you argue that Mirror Gallery goes against the flavor of EDH? But I don't think you'd argue that it should be banned because of flavor...

MTGO plays it that way, I'm proposing we play it that way, with the slight change that generals of the same name do kill each other, same as the regular legends. This goes along with the flavor that was originally created with the legends, and then later modified.

RobRoy wrote:
The second reason is that, honestly, if I'm in the situation where I sit down to find that someone else is running Crosis, the Purger as a general and I have one in my deck, I would much rather have a chance to pull it out and replace it with something else, instead of playing it knowing that it's almost certainly going to be 187'd immediately. I would rather have the chance to replace this card that just got much much worse, and I don't think that changing this rule to not allow that is going to make casual players feel better about the game.


Think of it more as a way to mitigate the popular legends that everyone plays. I was under the impression that this format was about encouraging creativity and diversity. Changing this rule to allow more casual players to play whatever they want regardless of who's general is out there will make them feel better about the game.

Its one thing to have a group of 6 or 12 guys, and bring one more person into the group and explain the rules to him, and why he can't play one, two or three of his cards. That's relatively easy. Its another thing to have 2 or 3 people playing, and trying to recruit 6 to 12 people to play, and then telling them that it will take a couple of sessions until we all figure out who's playing what. Especially if that play group consists of people who's collections are 95% three years old or newer.

RobRoy wrote:
I can see how some people might not like the way that generals are reserved, especially in the case of something like Intet, the Dreamer where there very literally is no other legend of those colors. If you want to keep debating that, then go ahead. I don't see the official rules on the other matters changing anytime soon, though.


I'm willing to continue debating it, but if the committee (or each of the individual committee members,) is unwilling to consider it, I'm not sure what the point is. Sorry to end this post on such a sardonic post, but I feel like you're not even considering this idea.

_________________
Dan Bock
DanABock@gmail.com


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject:
AgePosted: 2008-Jan-07 10:34 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-May-23 3:11 pm
Age: Drake
DanBock wrote:
So would you argue that Mirror Gallery goes against the flavor of EDH? But I don't think you'd argue that it should be banned because of flavor...

MTGO plays it that way, I'm proposing we play it that way, with the slight change that generals of the same name do kill each other, same as the regular legends. This goes along with the flavor that was originally created with the legends, and then later modified.


Mirror Gallery is in flavour for itself. If you play it, it is creating an exception to the normal rules. You've invested a card and have that return. That's fine.

DanBock wrote:
Think of it more as a way to mitigate the popular legends that everyone plays. I was under the impression that this format was about encouraging creativity and diversity. Changing this rule to allow more casual players to play whatever they want regardless of who's general is out there will make them feel better about the game.

Its one thing to have a group of 6 or 12 guys, and bring one more person into the group and explain the rules to him, and why he can't play one, two or three of his cards. That's relatively easy. Its another thing to have 2 or 3 people playing, and trying to recruit 6 to 12 people to play, and then telling them that it will take a couple of sessions until we all figure out who's playing what. Especially if that play group consists of people who's collections are 95% three years old or newer.


We've said several times that we don't mind house rules. If your group works better when you implement the Super Legend rule, then go ahead and do it. My point was that I don't really see this as an improvement normally.

My case: "No, you can't play that Crosis, the Purger. How about you replace it with card X?"

Your case: "Yes, you can play that Crosis, the Purger. However, I have a Crosis as my general, so it's better than yours. If you ever manage to draw and play yours, I'll just play mine and yours will die."

The official rules are also the ones that the PT- and GP-level games are played at, so we're going to be thinking more about the effect on games with an experienced playgroup than with one just trying to start up.

DanBock wrote:
I'm willing to continue debating it, but if the committee (or each of the individual committee members,) is unwilling to consider it, I'm not sure what the point is. Sorry to end this post on such a sardonic post, but I feel like you're not even considering this idea.


I did consider it. Due to MTGO, I've thought about changes like this already recently. After having considered it, I decided that I didn't think it was an improvement. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was just brushing you off, but unless you can come up with a more significant argument for why this is a distinct improvement, my opinion remains the same.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: