Alternate play mode for commander
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Dec. 23, 2015, 9:57 p.m. by MadScientist
So my LGS owner convinced me to play some Force of Will with him the other day. After a few games I realized that it is very much like magic, with a couple of really interesting mechanics.
So I thought a couple of these mechanics would go really well in commander.
My playgroup is going to try out a new mode of playing commander to see how it goes. I wanted to post to the community the new play mode and see what everyone thinks about it.
So here goes:
First off you separate your deck into two decks Lands and Spells.
Your commander when in the command zone is inactive. Maybe flip it upside down to signify an inactive commander.
This is where the game gets interesting. Whether your commander is active or inactive, during your main phases you can tap your commander to put a land card in play from the top of your land deck. This gives everyone a land on every turn if they choose.
If your commander is untapped you can choose to cast your commander into active mode. The commander will still suffer from summoning sickness as usual. So you would not be able to cast your commander and also tap it for a land unless it had haste.
Even in active mode your commander can still tap for a land during your main phases on your next turn.
To balance out the commander powers and add a new element to the game, the following new rule will be implemented.
An ACTIVE commander that is tapped, is treated like a plainswalker during the attack step so your opponents can choose to attack your commander instead of you directly. The same as declaring attacks to a planeswalker rules would apply.
The rest of the commander rules remain the same as far as recasting your commander for an additional 2 mana for each time it has been activated/cast.
The only other changes to the game would be if a card says search library for a land card you would search your land deck. The same applies for other search effects.
I think this would bring a whole new level to commander without breaking the format.
Once we have played a few games with this new mode I will post the results.
REGARDING HEXPROOF COMMANDERS: A hexproof commander can still be targeted for attack if it is tapped. This would make sure that the format is not solved by simply selecting Saint traft as a commander. Hexproof would still apply as far as spell targeting goes but attacking a tapped commander would ignore hexproof and shroud.
What do you guys think about playing commander in this mode?
Just to clarify when your commander is in the command zone it would not be able to be targeted for attack but it could be either cast or used to get a land
canterlotguardian says... #3
Super into it. I've played Force of Will for about six months now and I really think this would be good.
December 23, 2015 10:07 p.m.
MadScientist says... #4
Sorry I didn't scroll down far enough before selecting a forum. Thanks for moving it over.
December 23, 2015 10:08 p.m.
MadScientist says... #5
@canterlotguardian glad you agree I think it would be awesome to play commander with these new rules. It just makes so much sense and also adds some stability and speed to commander games.
December 23, 2015 10:09 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #6
I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. I don't like the idea. At all.
First, it removes the skill inherent in designing a proper land base and selecting the cards to support it. Second, it neuters your commander by forcing you to use it as a Walking Atlas for a while. Third, it introduces unnecessary complexity to the game with command zone interactions and active/inactive statuses. Fourth, it makes commanders much, much more vulnerable for no real reason. Fifth, it warps starting hand power and draw effects because lands aren't drawn anymore.
December 23, 2015 10:24 p.m.
MadScientist says... #7
Epochalyptik I see your points but it will bring OP commanders off their pedestals.
The complexity is not that much more other than deciding whether or not you want to cast your commander or use it to get a land.
Yes it will take some of the skill out of designing your land base but you would still be able to ramp etc. Nothing would change there it would just guarantee that everyone at the table has the option of playing a land. You would still need to put the correct number of lands and color spread to ensure that you have the same chances of getting the land you need.
Being able to directly attack a tapped commander really levels the playing field against commanders like saint traft and narset who get really broken really fast unless you are playing heavy counters.
Like I said though this is just something we are going to test out to see how it goes.
December 23, 2015 10:32 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #8
The problem is that it brings OP commanders off their pedestals by making all commanders terrible. It's better to just play a commander for the colors and play dedicated combo control, never having to worry about missing a land drop.
December 23, 2015 10:46 p.m.
Interesting idea and all, but it would allow me to cut my land base in half and add in more nonland cards. Super busted. And what if your commander is Azusa? Tap her to put 3 lands from the top of the land deck into play? Super busted.
This idea removes the need for skillful deckbuilding (as has been covered) and introduces an unnecessary and unwanted power creep by allowing a pseudo-tutor every single turn.
But if you plan to test it out, let me know how it works. Hell, I may even try FoW out.
December 24, 2015 4 a.m.
Too many things just don't work very well (or too well) if you split your deck like this.
Saying you want to make some overpowered commander less powerful overlooks the fact that this would make a whole bunch of cards overpowered.
So, this DOES break the format. Sorry.
December 24, 2015 5:02 a.m. Edited.
Gidgetimer says... #11
On the other extreme from cutting your mana base in half is running Dark Ritual, Simian Spirit Guide, Treasonous Ogre, Manaforge Cinder, Sanguine Bond, Exquisite Blood, Bump in the Night, and 92 Swamps.
December 24, 2015 8:25 a.m.
To balance this out would have to put limits on both decks. Min land count, as a start (would probably have to be as high as 50) as well as straight up ban ramp or land fetching, or have those cards (or any card that nets mana, including rocks) go into the "land deck" renaming it the "mana source deck."
...but, thinking on that, again, I realize this doesn't make things better but kinda worse.
So, no ramp/tutors in that format, I guess?
December 24, 2015 8:38 a.m.
DudelRok that does't help either. There are just too many cards that deal with lands in library or hand that trying to fix the rules to let them work is essential if you want it to work. However, cards like Mind Grind, Trepanation Blade, Goblin Charbelcher etc. are either going to win the game or do nothing.
If you like the idea of having 2 separate libraries, I like how "Legend of the 5 Rings" did it. That game has a ton of issues, but it split creatures and non creatures into 2 equally sized decks. you didn't put creatures into your hand, but rather they were cast from zones that could be attacked and destroyed (one way to win was to destroy all the zones used to cast creatures).
All that aside, changing so much means it really isn't magic anymore.
December 24, 2015 9:08 a.m. Edited.
MadScientist says... #14
Good points from all on some of the ways to break the format. My play group and I are always trying to come up with new ways to make commander fun. After playing FOW this looked on surface like a way to add a new element of fun to the commander format for us.
To really have a go at this there would need to be a new banlist and some limits on deck sizes, minor rules changes.
The more it is being discussed the more work it seems to be to try and make this work.
Might be easier to just grab a couple of FOW decks for a change of game.
thanks for all the feedback.
December 24, 2015 2:03 p.m.
Camel-Senpai says... #15
And below is the reason why this should never happen. You would be able to play multiple lands per turn based on the fact that you can just keep untapping it. And I'm sure there's at least one legendary creature that untaps itself
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?text=+%5B%22untap%20target%22%5D+!%5B%22untap%20Target%20Creature%22%5D+!%5B%22untap%20target%20forest%22%5D+!%5B%22untap%20target%20land%22%5D+!%5B%22untap%20target%20attacking%20creature%22%5D+!%5B%22untap%20target%20nonattacking%20creature%22%5D+!%5B%22Untap%20target%20nonlegendary%20creature%22%5D+!%5B%22Untap%20target%20basic%20land%22%5D+!%5B%22Untap%20target%20griffin%22%5D+!%5B%22Untap%20target%20goat%22%5D+!%5B%22untap%20target%20artifact%20an%20opponent%20controls%22%5D+!%5B%22Untap%20target%20legendary%20permanent%22%5D+!%5B%22Untap%20target%20blue%20creature%22%5D+!%5B%22untap%20target%20tapped%20creature%22%5D+!%5B%22untap%20target%20elf%22%5D+!%5B%22Untap%20target%20artifact%20creature%22%5D
December 25, 2015 4:41 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #16
You broke the formatting. :(
But seriously use the link button to display link text instead of a long URL.
December 25, 2015 7:24 a.m.
Deckologist says... #17
recreating force of will mechanics in magic doesn't seem that all advantageous. Fow is a game setup to fail (which is a shame because it actually was fun to play a quick match in between games) because it's rules system is in constant flux and its overall design leaves it so closed to any kind of wiggle room for future rules. And once again I'm not trying to be mean when I say this, of this is in response to difficult commanders the action should not be to try and change the way the game is played but instead change the way you play/build. Any commander can be dealt with if a deck is properly designed.
December 27, 2015 1:42 a.m.
Force of Will is leagues better than Magic the Gathering. I still love magic but lets face it the mechanics are antiquated.
The rules of Force of Will are settled now. The entirety of the rules is only 30 pages as you can see here . MTG on the other hand has 210 pages as you can see here. Pretty much all the major differences between FoW and MTG are as shown below.
- Force of Will has Rulers (Commanders in the Command Zone with abilities)
- Force of will's Rulers turn into J-Rulers (They come onto the battlefield after flipping over EXACTLY LIKE FLIP WALKERS)
- Your Lands are in a separate deck.
- You start with 5 cards (max hand size is the same)
- There are no non-creature artifacts. Only Enchantments (called Addition:Field as opposed to Addition: Resignator which is the same as an Enchantment - Aura in MTG)
- The phases go like this:
Draw
Recover (Untap)
Main - There is no combat phase, instead attacking and blocking is handled just like the chase (meaning the stack) except declaring blockers or attackers doesn't actually use the chaes (stack) just like in MTG. It sounds wierd but it's much simpler.
- There is an area called the "Chant Stand By" area. Bassically you can play cards face down for
and then play them face up. These cards will have "trigger" in a black box and you can flip them face up when coditions are met to put their abilities ont he stack. In other words you have Morph Enchantments/Creatures in magic terms or Trap cards in yugio terms.
The entire FOW rules compendium is like a no nonsense bullshit free version of MTG's rules. The biggest difference between playing FoW and MTG is that FoW rewards players for using the chase/stack well and for doing so frequently.
Besides, MTG had a LOT more mistakes in it's first few years. Can you say Time Walk? Can you say Ante? Can you say Shahrazad? Hell, MTG continues to make mistakes to this very day and frequently with a rate of about 1-2 cards every 2 years or higher:
- Siege Rhino /Abzan Charm
- Dig Through Time
- Treasure Cruize
- Snapcaster Mage
- Tarmogoyf
Also you say that FoW has design limites? Surely your joking! When MTG designs cards they have to design them to be fair when the opponent is mana screwed. They aren't cutting T1 Elvish Mystic because it's to strong, they are cutting it because the chance of a deck losing to itself is to high.
I cannot believe the amount of unwillingness to try something new. I mean consider this: If Commander / Elder Dragon Highlander did not exist and I pruposed this whole "General/Commander" thing to you I am certain that nearly everyone one on this site would call me crazy and talk about how the decks are inconsistent, how I shouldn't try to change the rules of the game just because I want to play a creature I love, or how it's stupid because when you play with so many cards the chances of mana screw are higher. It just boggles my mind but at this point I should have already come to terms with how skeptical MTG players are.
A long time ago Richard Garfield came up with a crazy idea, a Trading Card Game. Not a CCG but a TCG. Mark Rosewater has continued to push for new and exciting things for years and years. Neither of these individuals are afraid of change. Magic players that have dug in trenches on the other hand, who seem to think that what's printed is "the way it's meant to be" and that WotC can do no wrong seem to be very afraid. Afraid of trying new things, afraid of making mistakes, and afraid of admitting to them.
The reason Commander is so popular is because it changed some of the core rules of the game to support one key idea: You always have access to your favorite creature.
In a similar way changing or adding a few rules to support the key idea of "lets not get mana screwed" WILL be fun for the people who hate mana screw. This idea is not wrong it's just different.
Say it with me: D.I.F.F.E.R.E.N.T
December 28, 2015 12:19 a.m.
Camel-Senpai says... #19
I visit /int/ every day but I have never seen shitposting to the degree that I just saw.
December 28, 2015 12:45 a.m.
Eh sorry I wrote that when I was so steamed. I should have taken a break first and then reread everything then made a post.
Epochalyptik brings up a very good point in that this removes a lot of the skill in making a well designed deck that a near flawless mana base under MTG design rules (lands in deck). I can certainly aprciate that as I tend to design more towards tier 2 competitive: Just good enough to make casuals cry but not combo/control or good enough to participate with Tier 1 players. It's really hard to design a deck that's not combo that can both stop top tier 1 competitive decks and also hold up against whatever homebrews people bring.
Still as far as cards like Mind Funeral go, just make them exile from the land pile. Set the upper limit @ 30-50 and the lower limit at 40, problem solved. Also the fact that Azusa, Lost but Seeking doesn't get her "play extra land" effect unless she is on the field keeps her in check. You play her, have a guaranteed extra 2 lands that turn, then I blow her the hell up. If you just add in the Perishable/Imperishable rules to your commander/J-Ruler it fixes her instantly as well as every other OP land/ramp commander. So instead of having the commander tax once your commander dies it just dies and you can only ever use it face down to call 1 mana stone. If you do it like that you don't even need to worry about adding in the ability to attack it directly since we have tons of instant and sorcery spells to deal with it.
There is no need to ban ramp. When a card references land in a zone other than the battlefield just make it reference towards the land deck. Done.
December 28, 2015 12:51 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #21
Written in response to post #17.
For all of that, you still fail to offer an explanation for why it's worth changing the Commander rules as described (other than the seemingly implicit "for the hell of it"). I guess it all boils down to this: "Give me a reason."
(I don't intend the following as a personal attack on anyone; it's more of a general observation.)
There's a terrible habit around here of proposing ideas without either (1) thinking of the possible negative consequences or (2) having an understanding that would even indicate what consequences there may be. The severity of this folly varies from person to person; some are more realistic than others.
A person with a good idea and a good comprehension of the situation should be able to meet criticism and demonstrate why the idea is worth pursuing given that (1) the criticism is invalid, (2) the criticism is legitimate but not severe, or (3) the criticism is used to refine the idea.
In this case, the modified rules are proposed as a way of introducing new Force of Will-like gameplay to Magic and of managing powerful commanders. To those points: (A) Magic does not need to be further complicated so that it can be like something else that already exists in an isolated and playable state, and (B) this format creates more and worse issues than it purports to solve.
Neither of those counterpoints has been satisfactorily addressed over the course of this thread. It may be that the concept could be refined to make the issues less severe or that the criticisms don't apply to a model that's better articulated. But the responses have not capitalized on any of those opportunities, if they exist.
As an aside, kengiczar, I'm not particularly impressed by some of the arguments you make.
Magic has a very long and complex rulebook because it defined the TCG model. It was the first game of its kind; it has done a great deal of pathfinding both internally (developing based on extant game mechanics) and externally (exploring what can be done in a TCG model). There are bound to be dead ends and mistakes along the way. Ante and the power level of early cards are perfect examples of these phenomena.
Much of the "nonsense" and "bullshit" that FOW presumably cuts from the MTG model is related to MTG's development in this respect. Any game that comes out after MTG and uses its model and experience is obviously likely to be less complicated at first. Comparing the size of the MTG and FOW rulebooks or the simplicity (or lack thereof) of the game mechanics doesn't actually make an important statement, in my opinion.
Further, it should be obvious to anybody who plays Magic well that Magic does, in fact, reward you heartily for using the stack well and frequently.
And given the number of asinine or unworkable ideas that get thrown around in any and every community, not just in the MTG community, people are right to be skeptical of new propositions. If the idea is indefensible or unworkable, let that be shown and let the idea fall to the wayside. If it is workable, let it be worked and improved. But the notion that we should just accept any proposition on the basis that being "different" is sufficient is nonsense. Prove that it's worth our time.
December 28, 2015 1:07 a.m.
The most basic reason as to "why" it would be worth doing this is something that cannot universally satisfy all players.
The reason: Because playing MTG with less of a Mana variance is fun to some players. For players that do not want that, there is no reason to do this.
I can agree that magic does use the stack often and uses it well but overall the number of interactions in a game of FoW are higher than your typical modern game.
I know that a lot of the MTG rulebook applies to corner-case cards and situations from days past but for legacy / vintage players I would assert that the MTG rulebook still has a lot of content. My point was that the MTG rules are very complex and so far everything we've discussed is fairly simple. For players that want to play this format remembering that your lands are set aside in their own deck and that your commander taps (whether face up or face down) to get a land isn't so hard.
So in an effort to be more constructive here are the concerns raised so far:
"First, it removes the skill inherent in designing a proper land base and selecting the cards to support it. Second, it neuters your commander by forcing you to use it as a Walking Atlas for a while. Third, it introduces unnecessary complexity to the game with command zone interactions and active/inactive statuses. Fourth, it makes commanders much, much more vulnerable for no real reason. Fifth, it warps starting hand power and draw effects because lands aren't drawn anymore."
For some players not having to worry about how your lands merge with your deck is a blessing, for others it's a key part of deck design that they will miss. What this means is that this isn't really an issue, it's just a design factor.
In regular Commander your commander does nothing until you cast it. In this version it at least calls your mana. The downside is when you summon/cast it. Then it either blocks/attacks or calls a stone. Commanders with Vigilance lend themselves well to this format. This is not a problem*, just something different.
It's not unnecessary, it's just something you have to keep track of if you want to play this game. It's fairly easy to keep track of though because your commander is upside down (face down) when not summoned.
I'll concede that. I am not a fan of the commanders being attackable ruling. MTG has a lot more removal than force of will. In either game you ignore a threat or deal with it. No need for this rule.
The draw effects will feel very different. They will be warped. However with the exclusion of Ancestral Recall draw effects will not be as powerful, at least Judging by FoW's inclusion of 2 spells that cost
that draw cards. One is Brainstorm for and the other is Divination for . I've played against these decks as both control with 
card advantage and aggro going for a T5 kill and lets just say that when neither player topdecks lands then extra cards don't matter as much until about turn 8+. Most commander decks, with a free land every turn, can kill well before that.
MadScientist is right in saying that "there would need to be a new banlist..." but I don't think the number of banned cards would be so bad.
vault is right in that you get a psuedo tutor every turn. Still this effect has not been researched at this time and may prove to be negligible. I mean you might get a Valakut, but you might get a basic Mountain. Sure you get a land either way but again this is the entire point of a FoW-esque format. Some people will love it, some will hate it.
1empyrean is sort of right in saying that it breaks the format. The thing is when you compare something like Emporer to EDH to Elder Dragon Highlander they are all their own format. They don't go under the umbrella of Commander, they go under the Umbrella of Magic the Gathering.
Goblin Charbelcher would seriously be redonkulous so it's one of the cards that would have to either be banned or for people to just accept that they will have to have removal ready or for it to be modified for this game.
December 28, 2015 1:50 a.m.
Deckologist says... #23
i was always under the assumption that EDH was elder dragon highlander...
also #goplayweeaboomagic
Some players being whom exactly? If a player is getting screwed on mana then all they have to do is fix their land base and add some ramp in there.
Your commander shouldn't need to do anything while in your command zone. Essentially you're saying that by adding a land pile you're giving validity to your general being in the command zone. I believe just being able to have a card that you can cast at any turn is validity enough.
If I remember correctly the command zone is a public zone. I mean sure you could change the rules to fit this but i mean....why keep them face down? They're in the command zone.
Agreed.
With land out of the way I don't see how draw spells would be warped. There are enough cantrip and draw spells in magic that you could draw half your deck given the ability to get a land every turn. And you're drawing into things you need without lands scattered throughout.
Essentially this has happened to some of my shops when someone gets people involved with force of will. because the idea of a commander or resonator is a part of that games game play everyone has the bright idea to try and simulate it in Commander. It never works out and in the end if you want to play FoW then just play FoW.
December 28, 2015 10:45 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #24
In addition to the above, changing your land play such that it's a function of you tapping your commander is a bad idea. It forces you to either underuse your commander because you can't afford to stop playing lands or underdevelop your position because you want to actually use your commander for the reason you included it in the deck at all.
December 28, 2015 10:55 a.m.
MadScientist says... #25
Seems this thread is separated into 2 groups:
those that think "hey" that might be neat lets figure out how what the issues are.
NOPE NOPE NOPE! Why would I ever want to try something new.
Whatever your opinion on the topic, this was just an idea that I put forth to the community.
Yes there are certain cards that become instantly broken but there are also simple rule solutions to a lot of them. Minimum deck sizes for land and spells as an example.
Those of you that are 100% against the idea will not want to consider this want to play MTG exactly like it is.
Considering the versatility of MTG as a game, it lends its self to varying play modes and suggested ideas.
We are talking about a game that has:
Constructed
Draft
Legacy
Vintage
Standard
Block
Commander
EDH
Singleton
Modern
*Tiny Leaders (another proposed format that actually had some legs)
I am sure that when commander was proposed there were lots of players that said NOPE NOPE NOPE! and would not be convinced until Wizards recognized the format.
Anyway, that is my 2cents on the state of the thread.
December 28, 2015 8:58 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #26
I don't find it useful to continually break the commenters into various camps and address them collectively.
Rather, it would be useful to spend time addressing the concerns raised and allows those commenting to continue to weigh in on the idea as it develops.
December 28, 2015 9:01 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #27
Ok first I have a bugbear to address and then I will get to my point. People, please stop listing EDH; Commander; and Elder Dragon Highlander as different formats. EDH stands for Elder Dragon Highlander, and the name was changed for the official supplemental products. WotC didn't want to infringe on copyrights and the name "Highlander" in reference to "there can be only one". EDH is different from Canadian Highlander which is different from Germain Highlander. They are all 100 card singleton but EDH is the only one with a Commander and the other 2 have different ways of regulating deck power level.
Now with that out of the way, no one can tell you how to play your casual games with your friends. The nay sayer camp (I have no issue with splitting commenters into groups) are mostly trying to bring up issues that were not addressed and need to be. The supporters are simply adding band-aids to each issue as it is raised instead of trying to address the underlying difficulties inherent to overlaying mechanics from one game onto another. Some of the supporters are even raising issues that need addressed.
I did not feel it necessary to complement the idea before criticizing it. Such tactics to open communication while effective in diffusing the adversarial dynamic of criticism, also lessen the impact of it. I did try hard to not take an aggressive tone in comment since I was aware I was going to come off adversarial. apparently neutral is too aggressive when not using tactics to open people for criticism.
I don't speak for all of the critics of the idea, but I feel I do fall firmly into the critic category. I knew the band-aid fix to the problem I raised before I even raised it. I spent a good deal of time trying to craft an off the wall perfect 7 to inspire thought on how many ways it could be done. My intent wasn't to get a knee-jerk "put limits on deck size". My intent was to show that magic players are devious and unless you tell us specifically we can't do something we will do it.
Although I find the concept of changing commander interesting I see problems with the proposed changes. As an interested observer fixing the problems isn't up to me. I have never played Force of Will and am not going to learn another game in order to try to overlay the rules onto magic and then spend hundreds of hours playtesting to make someone else's idea come to fruition.
December 28, 2015 10:14 p.m.
MadScientist says... #28
Gidgetimer Thank you for your clarification and I appreciate your tone. There is no offense taken here.
My play group and I are always trying to find new ways to play commander and make it different for ourselves. We already play without commander damage which levels the playing field and little when it comes to some of the more aggressive commanders.
Commander is such and amazing format and after trying out FOW which utilizes a ruler/general in the game with a little more versatility, a light bulb went off thinking that applying a similar concept to commander in MTG could be fun.
Your comment on how devious MTG players are is right on the money as the first thing any good magic player does when looking at a new set or format is how to solve/break it.
The idea of trying to play commander a little differently was meant to keep our constructed commander decks in their current state and simply play the game a little differently. That obviously has some inherent problems, many of which have been brought up in this thread already.
I appreciate all of the feedback on idea (both critic and support), if there was to be a new fun casual format developed I am sure that the tappedout community would be the ones to work all the bugs out of it.
Here is a summary of the major issues that have arisen that would need to be addressed.
cards that mill until you mill a land. The simple fix would be banning these cards as the are basically a one card win combo.
Attacking a tapped/active commander directly, I wanted to clarify that this would only be on commanders that are in active status. So an inactive commander that was tapped for a land would still be considered in the command zone and not a legal target. Only when the commander has been cast and is tapped from an ability or an attack would the commander be open to targeted attack.
Deck size limitations: There would have to be restrictions on the deck sizes both min and max for land and spells decks to avoid the obvious broken combos that would come out.
Fetch cards: The simple solution here would be to have any card that mentions land be limited to searching the land deck. All other fetch cards would be limited to the spells deck.
Anyway, the idea is out there and if anyone really wants to try it out or further develop the concept I would love to hear about the plans.
December 31, 2015 6:32 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #29
The limits on tutors will needlessly lower the power on some. The easier fix would be to just allow cards that search your deck to instead search either and require both to be shuffled. This keeps the function more closely aligned with what it currently is in magic.
Implications of your proposed rule that I feel need addressed include but are not limited to:
Creature tutors could not get Dryad Arbor, artifact tutors could not get Darksteel Citadel, Seat of the Synod, etc.
Land searches (including fetch lands) could not be used to shuffle away unwanted top decks revealed by Brainstorm, Scroll Rack, Oracle of Mul Daya.
Conversely land searches would not mess up wanted top decks from scrying and tutor to top of deck searches.
While I was typing this an additional problem came to my attention that Oracle of Mul Daya could not function under a 2 deck system.
December 31, 2015 10:03 p.m.
PookandPie says... #30
The tutor limit would prevent cards such as Vampiric Tutor, Demonic Tutor, etc. (any, "Search your library" spell) from finding things such as Cabal Coffers or any other land while being Strip Mined. "Find any card" tutors should still be able to tutor any card (otherwise they are made weaker for no reason), but it gives away important strategic information by simply allowing your opponents to know which deck you're searching.
If you search the lands 'library' with Demonic Tutor, that could be a clear sign to your opponents that you're mana screwed, thereby giving them information they would not have in normal Magic: The Gathering, which could easily cause you to be the target of multiple Strip Mine/Wastelands, simply because they would have the most impact being used against you in this situation (also, it could be very easy to see when someone is going for their Gaea's Cradle or Cabal Coffers, which is information you would not normally have). Similarly, should your opponents be destroying lands and you use it to search the spells 'library', then they know you're either stopping whatever is causing lands to go to the graveyard or your hand is full of lands, meaning you are not scared of them (which is information the opponents would not normally have).
One of these instances hurts more than the other, but it is a loss of what typically makes black tutor-alls powerful. It eliminates the guessing game of, "What exactly did he go grab that can stop me?" and replaces it with, "He grabbed nothing to stop me since he checked the land library."
Sometimes, you need to Intuition for three lands. Sometimes, you need to Green Sun's Zenith for Dryad Arbor. Sometimes you need to spend an Arcum Dagsson activation to grab a Darksteel Citadel. Deck size restrictions stop fun combos from functioning with Ad Nauseam, notwithstanding, Ad Nauseam would either be overpowered as a 5 mana draw 30 for 0 life, or it would be reduced to being half-worthless.
Coiling Oracle either draws a card, guaranteed, ramps a land, guaranteed, or it does both depending on which library it can check (making it significantly more powerful than before, since it required topdeck manipulation to always get your desired result). Countryside Crusher either does nothing or gets 30+ counters immediately. Druidic Satchel, Courser of Kruphix, Erratic Explosion, Erratic Mutation, Fathom Trawl, Goblin Machinist, Explorer's Scope, Into the Wilds, Nissa, Sage Animist, Abundance, and more, become either significantly weaker or stronger. Other problem children were mentioned above, like Goblin Charbelcher, Mind Grind, Trepanation Blade, Mind Funeral, etc.. Cards like Selvala and Woodvine Elemental would be guaranteed value, while Treasure Hunt and Scouting Trek do nothing. Hermit Druid and Avenging Druid become guaranteed, giving Hermit Druid decks a leg up as they no longer are required to have a Wasteland weakness.
Honestly, I just don't see why you don't begin the game with an Abundance token on the battlefield. Keep the 1 library setup, but if you need lands, get them until you are satisfied. Using lands is integral with tons of cards in MtG, and segregating the libraries seems unnecessarily messy. What you want to do is guaranteed by Abundance, so why not just start with a token of it in play if it's really that important? Seems like it would break fewer things and be a more elegant solution than "Some tutors work, some don't, some cards work way better than they used to, a fair number don't work at all." Sure, the guy with a dubious starting hand (no colored mana producing cards, but all combo pieces) can keep the hand rather than shipping part of it away, but that still seems like a better solution, to me.
Problem summary:
-Loss of strategy when tutoring in multiplayer games
-The sheer number of cards that don't work, are now guaranteed value, or are significantly weaker is not worth this library split. Abundance does what you want, begin with a token of it in play (or in the Command Zone, if you don't want to ever let it get destroyed).
Take my skepticism with this, however:
January 2, 2016 12:19 a.m.
PookandPie says... #31
Also, meant to mention this in my above post (double post ftl):
Treefolk Harbinger. If he can only search the spells 'library', then you can't tutor a Forest. If he can tutor out of either library, then why would Demonic Tutor be restricted to the spells library? If Demonic Tutor can, then why can't Green Sun's Zenith or Natural Order grab Dryad Arbor? If those can look at either library, then why not Druidic Satchel or Selvala? And, lastly, if it can, then what about Countryside Crusher?
You'd have to be able to explain to a beginner why, or why not, each one of these would, or would not, be able to do something. Also, anything that needs to have Balustrade Spy, Mirko Vosk, Mind Drinker and Undercity Informer on a ban list will only have more issues as more cards are released (too large of a ban list becomes unwieldy if innocuous cards have to constantly be kept in check).
Also, is it just me, or does Warp World become a headache under these rules, as well? Which library do you shuffle your permanents into, and, if you have to shuffle them back into their respective libraries, from which one do you reveal?
Also, the results of Unexpected Results would actually be expected, here. lol. Anyway, I figure it's better to ask questions of, "Why, and if not, why not?" to garner some specifics than it would be to just say, "No, this doesn't work." I'm still a proponent for the Abundance token over the library split, though.
January 2, 2016 12:49 a.m.
MadScientist says... #32
PookandPie These are ALL valid points, cards like coiling oracle and mul and courser of kruphix all get very confusing or broken while dealing with dual libraries.
Your idea of using abundance as a permanent token is great I like that idea. Although I am pretty sure that you could easily break the format with in play from the start.
The more card specific problems that are arising is really proving how difficult it would be to design a new play style for commander.
The dual libraries is definitely more complicated and will not work with the vast collection of cards available to commander.
Altering some functionality of the commander however would make things a little more interesting.
As I mentioned earlier our play group likes to mix it up when playing commander. I think experimenting with small changes to the commander rules for us is going to be far more effective that a change of the magnitude that I started this thread with.
Applying the abundance rule to your commander when in play might interesting.
Thanks for all the feedback on this topic.
Epochalyptik says... #2
This thread was moved to a more appropriate forum (auto-generated comment)
December 23, 2015 10:03 p.m.