A very trolly response. I'll assume you were trying to be funny.
I think MRHblue was being honest. I think he just wanted to point out that what you said earlier wasn't technically correct; Brawl, like Commander, also enforces a strict maximum. Sure, Brawl might have little standing as a respectable format right now, but MRHblue isn't wrong for pointing this out. And the same goes for what he said in the latter half of his quote. I don't think MRHblue is trying to troll you. I think he was just being succinct, and I think it's easy to misconstrue someone's tone when that happens.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
A very trolly response. I'll assume you were trying to be funny.
Nope, just pointing out it is not the only format with an exact number. And even if it was, EDH has a ton of rules that are singular. Its part of the greatness of EDH, unique rules.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
What I would like is for it to be 100 cards in the main + the Commander, instead of 99.
Why? That's very specific
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
A very trolly response. I'll assume you were trying to be funny.
Nope, just pointing out it is not the only format with an exact number. And even if it was, EDH has a ton of rules that are singular. Its part of the greatness of EDH, unique rules.
Brawl is a variant of commander. Tiny Leaders also specified exactly 50 cards. These two formats borrowed the majority of the commander rules (like color identity) and tweaked the number of cards to better fit the variant. Calling me out on the fact that I ignored brawl undercuts the point I was trying to make - that in limited, vintage, modern and just about every format, you can play as many cards as you want over the minimum number. Commander (and its variants) are the only formats that specify an exact number and at a glance I do not see the need for this.
On advantage of making it a minimum of 100 cards is that when I am trying to fit new cards in my deck but do not have an obvious cut, I can play with more cards and eventually cut a card I find is performing the least.
Also, the Change.org suggestion was an obvious joke.
The best reason not to allow this is the decision paralysis that it helps with, and also exacerbates. There are serious issues, very deep lines where obviously ridiculous things do not come into play but things within 10 more, or MAYBE even 20 more come into play. It's not supposed to be competitive constructed and this would introduce a shade of optimization (especially with well-established mana ratio reasons that sometimes decks have played 61 cards in constructed or 41 in limited). The limitation could indeed be considered a core identity. The optimizer's game could go on endlessly, massively increased by the dimension of having ONE card that you DO always have. Think about it. Already can do it, but HAVE one card... this is supposed to be more about having fun. One could also look at this through a lens of 120-minimum with 8 cards in hand, and then look at all of the various advantages of mulliganing through iterations of 5-less tolerance spheres. You can't play Battle of Wits or some of these things is a loss. Playing by the same library size rules helps on the design side as well. This would become a massively warped possibility space... what about mechanics like dredge plus past in flames, howling mine and mesmeric orb, actually quite a lot of ways this could be broken at the conceptual balance level. You've got two more cards, let's say. Hardly a massive hit to mana and overall power level of hand. But then deep factors of tutoring and massive dig could mean you are playing a super-complex Oath into Gaea's Blessing type idea while someone who doesn't have QUITE the same skill threshold ISN'T, wants to master archetypal play rather than crazy combo-control lines, will play the minimum, which WILL probably be right, but then you prove them wrong... this could just be a feel bad. Tutoring toolboxes plus all of this... it should not be about super ridiculous constructed. This would increase sweating bullets for what Commanders could be printed, and also the pure simplicity of a bounded field says that this probably should not change. Only if you LIKE the ideas I call bad here and could get everyone to be VERY upset that it is not so, could that change.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Warning: Um, warning. This is going to be a game state violation. And a taking extra turns and drawing extra cards violation, pretty much, a whole bunch of violations. Look at me, I'm the DCI."
Brawl is a variant of commander. Tiny Leaders also specified exactly 50 cards. These two formats borrowed the majority of the commander rules (like color identity) and tweaked the number of cards to better fit the variant. Calling me out on the fact that I ignored brawl undercuts the point I was trying to make - that in limited, vintage, modern and just about every format, you can play as many cards as you want over the minimum number. Commander (and its variants) are the only formats that specify an exact number and at a glance I do not see the need for this.
That's fine. As you stated , EDH has its own rules that others have adopted. They have worked well, and restriction breeds creativity. 100 exactly makes it simple and elegant, and can be adjusted to partners without need for explanation.
On advantage of making it a minimum of 100 cards is that when I am trying to fit new cards in my deck but do not have an obvious cut, I can play with more cards and eventually cut a card I find is performing the least.
I have never heard of anyone asking for running a few more than normal and being rejected. Just ask, and then run 103 or whatever. I mean have you actually ever counted anyone's cards?
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
What I would like is for it to be 100 cards in the main + the Commander, instead of 99.
Why? That's very specific
I always felt like there's been just one more card I wish I had room for, that I had to end up cutting. Since the main deck doesn't even have the Commander in it, I always wondered if making it 101 would work.
What I would like is for it to be 100 cards in the main + the Commander, instead of 99.
Why? That's very specific
I always felt like there's been just one more card I wish I had room for, that I had to end up cutting. Since the main deck doesn't even have the Commander in it, I always wondered if making it 101 would work.
It would definitely work, it would just slightly lower the consistency of decks (very, very slightly), and mean that you need an extra sleeve or to leave your commander unsleeved if your buying a 100 pack of sleeves.
Actually, I've played against 101 card decks before, when Partner came out because a surprising amount of people didn't understand the 100 card rule. Until partner, the ideas "Your deck must contain 100 cards, with your commander separated out" and "Your deck must contain 99 cards plus your commander" meant the same thing. With partner, that ceased being the case, but some people still went by "99 main deck, commanders on the side" because that's how they grokked the rule. And checking Wizards site, and most inserts, they actually state YOUR DECK
1 commander card (legendary creature)
99 other cards
Only one copy of any card, except basic lands
All cards must be in the color identity of the commander
so its an easy mistake to make if you don't read the inserts that came with the 4 color decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I could really get behind 80 card decks. 100 double sleeved cards are kind of annoying to shuffle. 80 would hit that sweet spot of enough variance but less cumbersome shuffling and enabling some of the fun but more parasitic themes like energy and small tribes.
Personally I would rather have a butt rash than watch someone shuffle a >100 card deck.
For ref I have had a few friends try triple sleeving very expensive decks and it's so lame to watch. They take forever to shuffle and I doubt they get it really randomized. One guy played hyper optimized decks with tons of fetches too it was agony.
I could really get behind 80 card decks. 100 double sleeved cards are kind of annoying to shuffle. 80 would hit that sweet spot of enough variance but less cumbersome shuffling and enabling some of the fun but more parasitic themes like energy and small tribes.
Personally I would rather have a butt rash than watch someone shuffle a >100 card deck.
For ref I have had a few friends try triple sleeving very expensive decks and it's so lame to watch. They take forever to shuffle and I doubt they get it really randomized. One guy played hyper optimized decks with tons of fetches too it was agony.
Well, thanks for leaving your thoughts here. I'm glad to see people still read these things months after I post them since I usually put a lot of work into writing them.
But yeah, I'm with you. Shuffling 100+ card decks is a pain.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Gavin Verhey, the lead designer of Brawl, would disagree with the assessment that it's a Commander variant. As would I.
Really? Why do you say that?
From my perspective, Commander's defining feature is that it's a casual, multiplayer format where players build decks around a character of their choosing. That also describes Brawl. Sure, there are differences, but I think Brawl and Commander are more much alike than they are unlike. Are the parallels between the two not befitting of the word "variant?"
EDIT: I didn't realize Sheldon was actually responding to Dunharrow here, but since I would also consider Brawl a variant of Commander myself, I'm still curious why Sheldon considers otherwise.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
It shares characteristics with Commander. The reason I would say that it's not a variant it wasn't developed that way. I'd consider a variant to come from "we're going to start with X and modify it." Brawl, to the best of my knowledge, was more like "we're going to do Y, and borrow some neat things from Commander." I'll see if I can get Gavin's direct response.
Maybe it is better to call Brawl a hybrid between Commander and Standard?
903.11. Brawl Option
903.11a Brawl is an option for a different style of Commander game. Brawl games use the normal rules for the Commander variant with the following modifications.
903.11b Brawl decks are usually constructed using cards from the Standard format.
903.11c A player designates either a legendary planeswalker or a legendary creature as their commander.
903.11d A player’s deck must contain exactly 60 cards, including its commander.
903.11e In a two-player Brawl game, each player’s starting life total is 25. In a multiplayer Brawl game, each player’s starting life total is 30.
903.11f In any Brawl game, the first time a player takes a mulligan, they draw a new hand of as many cards they as had before. Subsequent hands decrease by one card as normal.
903.11g Brawl games do not use the state-based action described in rule 704.5v, which causes a player to lose the game if they’ve been dealt 21 or more combat damage by a commander.
I understand that Gavin was trying to come up with a casual way to play with Standard cards, and that it didn't start with wanting to make a Commander variant... but the first rule is that this is a Commander Variant.
A very trolly response. I'll assume you were trying to be funny.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
Why? That's very specific
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Then what do we do with partnered commanders? Do those players get to run an extra card from the Command Zone?
Keeping things at 100 total cards has a nice, simple symmetry to it.
Brawl is a variant of commander. Tiny Leaders also specified exactly 50 cards. These two formats borrowed the majority of the commander rules (like color identity) and tweaked the number of cards to better fit the variant. Calling me out on the fact that I ignored brawl undercuts the point I was trying to make - that in limited, vintage, modern and just about every format, you can play as many cards as you want over the minimum number. Commander (and its variants) are the only formats that specify an exact number and at a glance I do not see the need for this.
On advantage of making it a minimum of 100 cards is that when I am trying to fit new cards in my deck but do not have an obvious cut, I can play with more cards and eventually cut a card I find is performing the least.
Also, the Change.org suggestion was an obvious joke.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
The best reason not to allow this is the decision paralysis that it helps with, and also exacerbates. There are serious issues, very deep lines where obviously ridiculous things do not come into play but things within 10 more, or MAYBE even 20 more come into play. It's not supposed to be competitive constructed and this would introduce a shade of optimization (especially with well-established mana ratio reasons that sometimes decks have played 61 cards in constructed or 41 in limited). The limitation could indeed be considered a core identity. The optimizer's game could go on endlessly, massively increased by the dimension of having ONE card that you DO always have. Think about it. Already can do it, but HAVE one card... this is supposed to be more about having fun. One could also look at this through a lens of 120-minimum with 8 cards in hand, and then look at all of the various advantages of mulliganing through iterations of 5-less tolerance spheres. You can't play Battle of Wits or some of these things is a loss. Playing by the same library size rules helps on the design side as well. This would become a massively warped possibility space... what about mechanics like dredge plus past in flames, howling mine and mesmeric orb, actually quite a lot of ways this could be broken at the conceptual balance level. You've got two more cards, let's say. Hardly a massive hit to mana and overall power level of hand. But then deep factors of tutoring and massive dig could mean you are playing a super-complex Oath into Gaea's Blessing type idea while someone who doesn't have QUITE the same skill threshold ISN'T, wants to master archetypal play rather than crazy combo-control lines, will play the minimum, which WILL probably be right, but then you prove them wrong... this could just be a feel bad. Tutoring toolboxes plus all of this... it should not be about super ridiculous constructed. This would increase sweating bullets for what Commanders could be printed, and also the pure simplicity of a bounded field says that this probably should not change. Only if you LIKE the ideas I call bad here and could get everyone to be VERY upset that it is not so, could that change.
I have never heard of anyone asking for running a few more than normal and being rejected. Just ask, and then run 103 or whatever. I mean have you actually ever counted anyone's cards?
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
It would definitely work, it would just slightly lower the consistency of decks (very, very slightly), and mean that you need an extra sleeve or to leave your commander unsleeved if your buying a 100 pack of sleeves.
Actually, I've played against 101 card decks before, when Partner came out because a surprising amount of people didn't understand the 100 card rule. Until partner, the ideas "Your deck must contain 100 cards, with your commander separated out" and "Your deck must contain 99 cards plus your commander" meant the same thing. With partner, that ceased being the case, but some people still went by "99 main deck, commanders on the side" because that's how they grokked the rule. And checking Wizards site, and most inserts, they actually state YOUR DECK
1 commander card (legendary creature)
99 other cards
Only one copy of any card, except basic lands
All cards must be in the color identity of the commander
so its an easy mistake to make if you don't read the inserts that came with the 4 color decks.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Personally I would rather have a butt rash than watch someone shuffle a >100 card deck.
For ref I have had a few friends try triple sleeving very expensive decks and it's so lame to watch. They take forever to shuffle and I doubt they get it really randomized. One guy played hyper optimized decks with tons of fetches too it was agony.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
But yeah, I'm with you. Shuffling 100+ card decks is a pain.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
You could always try starting something new if you can get players to agree to it.
Like a 200 card deck minimum and at least one card of every color. So a format of every deck is 200 cards and 5 colors.
https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Prismatic
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
From my perspective, Commander's defining feature is that it's a casual, multiplayer format where players build decks around a character of their choosing. That also describes Brawl. Sure, there are differences, but I think Brawl and Commander are more much alike than they are unlike. Are the parallels between the two not befitting of the word "variant?"
EDIT: I didn't realize Sheldon was actually responding to Dunharrow here, but since I would also consider Brawl a variant of Commander myself, I'm still curious why Sheldon considers otherwise.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
I have never heard anyone describe Brawl that didn't start with "Its like Commander, but ..."
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
I understand that Gavin was trying to come up with a casual way to play with Standard cards, and that it didn't start with wanting to make a Commander variant... but the first rule is that this is a Commander Variant.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist