It's an MTG thing.

The homebrew forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Dominicius
Knight
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:28 pm

It's an MTG thing.

Post by Dominicius »

To keep a long story short I've gotten into EDH. I am pretty good at it with a decent understanding of how games play out. Which means that I also realize that the format has plenty of problems so I decided to make my own variant on the ruleset.

But honestly that is not really the reason why I came up with these rules. I have made the effort to address some of the issues certainly but mostly I want to make non-utility creatures viable again and make aggro and lightning fast burn legitimate options in a multiplayer environment.

With that out out of the way, I would love some feedback. Especially if any of you are familiar with MTG at all.
Conquest EDH

Welcome to Conquest EDH! The goal of this variant is to encourage players to be aggressive and to make the red zone a much more important part of the game. Unlike normal EDH, when a player is defeated he or she becomes the ally of the player that defeated them. This coupled with with lower lifetotals and slower starts for non-creature decks should provide adequate window to make burn and aggressive strategies worthwhile in spite of the multiplayer environment.

On a special note, conceding is discouraged in this format. The game is meant to end with the same amount of players that started playing. Thus it is best played with a group of friends who are familiar with each other.


Now, onto the rules:

1. Players start at 25 life. Commander damage does not exist.

2. Players may now use any planeswalker as their general.

3. All non-creature artifacts with converted manacosts of two or less enter the battlefield tapped.

4. All mulligans follow the partial rule but your first mulligan is not free, even though it is multiplayer. You get to Scry 1 if you start below seven cards as per the new mulligan rule.

5. Players are now permitted to have cards in their decks that do not match their general's color identity. However, restrictions on mana still apply.

6. You are not allowed to have a permanent with converted mana cost higher than twice the number of turns that you have taken during the game. If such a permanent would enter the battlefield it is exiled instead. Once you reach your fifth turn this rule no longer applies.
Note: This does not apply to Leylines since they never "enter the battlefield", you start the game with them.

7. Players that lose the game become allies of the player that defeated them rather than being forced to stop playing. On the lead players next turn the two players play in a fashion similar to Two-Headed Giant, using the current lifetotal of the lead player as their combined total. Teams can have any number of players but only one lead player.

Each player has four defeat conditions: being brought to 0 life, 0 cards in library, 10 poison or being forced to lose the game (ex. Door to Nothingness). When you actually lose the game you become the ally of the opponent who controlled the effect that triggered one of the above conditions and only the first opponent to do so. If you lose the game without having been defeated by an opponent you become the ally of the opponent who last dealt damage to you. If no such opponent exist then you become the ally of a random opponent.

A player that loses the game may shuffle any number of cards in their grave and exile back into their deck. They also lose any emblems they might have gained during the game. If a player loses on his own turn then his turn instantly ends.

8. All cards banned in Vintage are also banned here. In addition, the following cards are banned as well:

* Marks new additions to the banlist.

Ad Nauseam *
Ancestral Recall
Balance
Biorhythm
Derevi, Empyrial Tactician *
Black Lotus
Braids, Cabal Minion
Channel
Crucible of Worlds *
Erayo, Soratami Ascendant
Fastbond
Painters Savant
Griselbrand
Gifts Ungiven
Hermit Druid *
Humility *
Karakas
Library of Alexandria
Limited Resources
Mana Drain *
Mishra's Workshop *
Mox Sapphire, Ruby, Pearl, Emerald and Jet
Oloro, Ageless Ascetic *
Recurring Nightmare
Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary
Tangle Wire *
The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale *
Time Vault
Time Walk
Tinker
Tolarian Academy
Trade Secrets
Upheaval

Permitted as Generals:
All the Guildpackt Nephilim
Last edited by Dominicius on Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

I really don't get rules 3, 4, and 6.

If all you want is to get people to attack, I'd go with something like this:
At the end of each of your combat phases, if you attacked with at least one creature this combat phase, scry X, then draw a card, where X is the number of creatures that attacked this combat phase.
If you want to reward people for eliminating other players quickly, have the defeated players come back as though it were their turn 1 -- defeating a player early gives them extra turns to redevelop their board.
Last edited by RadiantPhoenix on Sun Oct 25, 2015 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dominicius
Knight
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:28 pm

Post by Dominicius »

There are a few reasons for this.

Rule 3 is in place because EDH is a format that is addicted to fast mana. Artifact mana is especially explosive and I wanted to tone things down without actually having to resort to banning cards (sol ring, mana crypt, etc.). The fact that it helps balance things like top is just a neat side benefit.

As for the mulligan change, basically EDH already has a very generous mulligan system. With the newest scry rule it takes an already busted system and makes it even worse. It makes decks far too consisted for it to be healthy.

Rule six is there to prevent turn 2 reanimate victories. EDH is in a weird place where threats can hit the table at a speed close to Legacy but the disruption to answer those threats is less than consistent. Early hand disruption effects don't exist, swords and path are already taxed beyond measure and force of will is a 1-of in a 100 card singleton.
Last edited by Dominicius on Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

If you're concerned about Reanimate getting aggressive early, just ban "Reanimate, Show and Tell, and other cheap cards that put expensive things into play without paying for them."

A turn-5 Autochthon Wurm off token-makers, or a turn-4 Bringer off a single mana dork or Rampant Growth, or turn-3 Karador off some early mill is a completely reasonable play and not a problem for the game at all.
Dominicius
Knight
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:28 pm

Post by Dominicius »

That is a valid point, I will think on it. Still I would rather have a solution other than banning.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

I think it's kind of futile to try to make multi-player free-for-all Magic be about anything other than combos. Aside from the fact that when you throw open the doors to vintage cards that there are an absolutely stupid number of mana accelerators, card drawing, and tutor effects - there's the simple fact that winning a beat-down race with an opponent takes out one opponent. But if you go infinite and achieve your combo win condition you defeat all opponents.

Even giving a substantial advantage to beating down an opponent isn't going to change this calculus. If combo decks are even in the same county as the power level of a beat down deck they are the only thing worth playing. If it takes you an extra turn or two to put together whatever your table-wide win condition is vs. the time a rush deck can beat down a single opponent, the table victory is going to one of the players who brought a combo every single time.

If you want beat down to be vaguely effective, you need to change the dynamic. If you split the table into two teams, then beat down decks are viable. But fundamentally, Red Deck Wins only barely has enough juice to take out one enemy. If they are being asked to take down the life total of more than one player before they can declare themselves victorious, the game is over before it begins.

-Username17
Dominicius
Knight
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:28 pm

Post by Dominicius »

You are not wrong.

Even if I were to drop life-totals all the way to 20, it would not make aggro decks viable since you would still need to deal 60 points of damage to win the game. And if you opponents are just building up their boards then, well... one of them is going to crush you.

That is not to say that I did not try to make aggro decks for multiplayer. I piloted a few and I have a fairly good understanding of the dynamics. Basically what you want to do is that you always want to beat down the player who is in the lead. Since you are actually playing a game where lifetotals matter, you have only enough time and resource to take one opponent quickly and the other two you will need to grind out. So the player that you do end up killing first needs to be the one that poses the greatest threat.

Taking this into account, I figured that if the aggro deck is dedicating time and resources to take out the most dangerous player at the table, then why not make that player his ally? After all if you kill the combo deck a turn before they are able to combo, then you end up winning the game by proxy once they untap. You take their strength and make it yours, the perfect crime.

Now, this is unlikely to account for the raw speed of some combo decks. But I am hopeful for more creature based disruption to be printed in the future. What I want to see most however is a multiplayer playable hand disruption effect.
Last edited by Dominicius on Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Red_Rob
Prince
Posts: 2594
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:07 pm

Post by Red_Rob »

FrankTrollman wrote:I think it's kind of futile to try to make multi-player free-for-all Magic be about anything other than combos.
The whole point of the "one of each card" limit is to prevent players from being able to assemble combos with any kind of reliability or speed. EDH is supposed to be naturally resistant to the dominance of combo in slow multiplayer formats.

In our group we have redesigned EDH along similar lines to the OP. The rules we altered were the following:

- Removed Commander damage - life totals are 30 in 2-player and 40 in multiplayer
- If a Commander would leave play for any reason their owner can choose to place them in the command zone with a death counter
- Commanders can only ever have a single death counter
- Any effect which searches a library instead reveals cards from the top of the library until a card that matches the search condition appears, this is then put into the players hand. So, "search your deck for a goblin" reveals cards until you hit a goblin. "Search your deck for any card" reveals the top card, then as this is any card it goes into your hand. Revealed cards are shuffled into the library.
- There are no lands in decks - instead any card can be exiled from your hand to put a basic land that matches any of it's colours into play. Colourless cards can instead be exiled to put into play a copy of any basic land you already have in play.

We've found the one-of-a-card rule along with the limitation on deck searching disrupt combo decks enough to give aggro decks time to get rolling. Having the Commander be harder to deal with encourages decks to be built round the commander more, which helps make decks more individual.
Simplified Tome Armor.

Tome item system and expanded Wish Economy rules.

Try our fantasy card game Clash of Nations! Available via Print on Demand.

“Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities” - Voltaire
User avatar
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage
Posts: 14782
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Kaelik »

The best way I have seen multiplayer magic done is non overlapping teams.

So if you have five people, A, B, C, D, and E, then A wins when C and D are killed, B wins when D and E are killed, ect.

That might make a red deck win plausible, since you in a five player game you only need to take out two people, and combined with everyone else in that game that might work out.

Still not sure why you would want to play a Red Deck in a multiplayer game, since for me half the point is to be able to play decks that aren't as good in single player for a variety of reasons.
DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Dominicius
Knight
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:28 pm

Post by Dominicius »

Huh, I actually really like that. Problem is it can break down into kingmaking in some circumstances.

Also, Rob not to knock you down or anything but the only thing similar with your rules and mine is that the lifetotals are lower. Otherwise your ruleset does nothing I want done.

Another issue to be aware of that under normal EDH rules, aggro is not only bad but also unhealthy for the format. I mentioned before that if you are playing an aggro deck you only have enough time and resources to kill one player quickly. So if you are playing with a bunch of friends, one of them loses the game early and then is either forced to watch as his buddies have fun or walk off to play mobile games by himself. And that is pretty fucking unacceptable for a social game.
Last edited by Dominicius on Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Red_Rob
Prince
Posts: 2594
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:07 pm

Post by Red_Rob »

Dominicius wrote:Also, Rob not to knock you down or anything but the only thing similar with your rules and mine is that the lifetotals are lower. Otherwise your ruleset does nothing I want done.
Really? Maybe I misunderstood. Nerfing tutors is a direct hit to the power of combo and control decks, as these are the archetypes that use tutoring to find the answers they need. Increasing the durability of Commanders encourages using them offensively. Removing lands means every late-game card is live, which tends to hit control decks hardest as they don't have enough answers for everything the aggro player is throwing out. I thought our methods were different, but the end result was pretty similar.
Dominicius wrote:Another issue to be aware of that under normal EDH rules, aggro is not only bad but also unhealthy for the format. I mentioned before that if you are playing an aggro deck you only have enough time and resources to kill one player quickly. So if you are playing with a bunch of friends, one of them loses the game early and then is either forced to watch as his buddies have fun or walk off to play mobile games by himself. And that is pretty fucking unacceptable for a social game.
Remember that creatures are a reusable resource. Whilst pure speed-aggro throwing away card advantage for short-term gain isn't really viable, a mid-range deck that ramps up to throwing around lethal creature damage can often kill several players in a row once they have a healthy enough board presence.
Simplified Tome Armor.

Tome item system and expanded Wish Economy rules.

Try our fantasy card game Clash of Nations! Available via Print on Demand.

“Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities” - Voltaire
Dominicius
Knight
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:28 pm

Post by Dominicius »

Certainly but aggro is also not a very subtle strategy. If you have lethal damage on board it is usually pretty hard to hide, which means that your opponents will know to target you and will start digging for cards that hurt you the most. Besides, as games go longer, turns tend to become more impact so even losing one turn can lead to a turnaround.

As for your rules themselves, it is best explained when we go over them individually. For instance, nerfing tutors might seem like a good thing but it is also a double edged sword. While having players search up combo pieces for a turn 2-3 win is a bad thing, having people searching their library for an interactive card like Tormod's Crypt or topdeck Terminus is an extremely good thing. When you cut tutors out of the equation it drives people to fill their decks with cards that have similar effects to each other. So for instance you could play Demonic Tutor and Fleshbag Marauder in your deck but if you take out the tutor, then the player might be forced into playing Fleshbag and Merciless Executioner.

Also, when you limit commander tax and tack out the tuck effect you are buffing generals that already dominate the meta. The tuck rule for removed fairly recently and all it ended up doing was make Maelstrom Wanderer and Naraset even more degenerate then they already are. It used to be that you actually cared to hold back from playing your general if a player has three open mana. A Terminus on Naraset or Prossh could potentially be game over for those deck, forcing those decks to play strategically and look for opportunities. Now that we don't have that, control decks as a archetype have vanished almost entirely since they can't actually ever give a permanent answer to a general. And control decks were never a problem to begin with. Now it is either some form of soft/hard Stax which answers generals by preventing opponents from casting any spells at all or combo which just straight up goes for the win.
User avatar
RadiantPhoenix
Prince
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Trudging up the Hill

Post by RadiantPhoenix »

Image
"Prossh, Skyraider of Kher"
Last edited by RadiantPhoenix on Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Red_Rob
Prince
Posts: 2594
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:07 pm

Post by Red_Rob »

Dominicius wrote:Also, when you limit commander tax and tack out the tuck effect you are buffing generals that already dominate the meta. The tuck rule for removed fairly recently and all it ended up doing was make Maelstrom Wanderer and Naraset even more degenerate then they already are. It used to be that you actually cared to hold back from playing your general if a player has three open mana. A Terminus on Naraset or Prossh could potentially be game over for those deck, forcing those decks to play strategically and look for opportunities. Now that we don't have that, control decks as a archetype have vanished almost entirely since they can't actually ever give a permanent answer to a general. And control decks were never a problem to begin with. Now it is either some form of soft/hard Stax which answers generals by preventing opponents from casting any spells at all or combo which just straight up goes for the win.
So... the end result of rules that reward aggro is that you buff decks relying on swinging in for the win? And that you cut out control from the meta? Now I'm really confused. I thought that was what you wanted? Your original post said you wanted to make aggro viable, now you are saying that aggro generals "already dominate the meta".

We liked Commander but we didn't like the fact that building around your Commander (the whole point of the format) was so risky. We also didn't like the way tutors could make every game seem similar in a format that deliberately increases the randomness of card draw. We implemented some rules to curb these effects and we've found the result is that aggro is easier and more fun to play.

Now, our group isn't super-competitive and there is a pretty strong social code that stops people playing things that are "unfun" or non-interactive. Maybe that has shaped the resulting format more than any rules changes. I was simply trying to offer some alternative ways to get the feel you were looking for without (IMHO) clunky rules that count "twice the number of turns you have taken" or force players to suddenly work to help a player that has just made them lose a MP game.
Simplified Tome Armor.

Tome item system and expanded Wish Economy rules.

Try our fantasy card game Clash of Nations! Available via Print on Demand.

“Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities, Can Make You Commit Atrocities” - Voltaire
Dominicius
Knight
Posts: 491
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:28 pm

Post by Dominicius »

Naraset and MW are not aggro generals. Neither is Prossh. They are value generals and combo enablers. MW is only aggro in the sense that he can commander damage a player after three hits but that just an extra benefit of that guy.

A true aggro general is something like Xenagos - God of Revels, Kaalia, Mayael or Gahiji, Honored One.

Besides, control decks were never a problem. They are actually pretty healthy for the format since they can slow down a game and prevent wins that come out of nowhere since they have the most amount of interactive cards.

And that is also another goal that I want to encourage, interactivity. Nobody has fun when people just settle on playing solitaire and built their deck in such a way as to stop others from interacting with them. A good example can be given with two cards. Council's Judgment and Time Warp.

Council's Judgment is an awesome card, not simply because it is strong but because includes the other players at the table, it gives them a say, potentially as to what gets targeted. Each time I cast that card, the whole table starts paying attention, people start talking, arguing, making plans. The game feel animated but at the same time it also manages to be a greatly beneficial effect to the one who is playing it. This is why I think that the card is wonderfully designed.

Compare this to Time Warp, which simply shuts out the other players from having a turn. It is a staple card in many a blue decks and it is also incredibly unfun when it resolves. I've actually seen people ban this card at their table and I understand why they would do that.
Last edited by Dominicius on Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply