FORMAT FIX: Phyrexian Burn, or the 20 round rule
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on June 12, 2017, 3:27 a.m. by OriginalBlue
This is a suggestion to speed up the EDH format, mainly for multiplayer games!
I am fairly new to the EDH format and have played only a couple of games. I won half of them.
The first time I played Magic: the Gathering was in 1994. I played casually within the same group of friends until 2002. I also racked up some DCI points, but nothing more than an average player would. I never won much, because either my play was too slow, or my decks were too big, easily going over 60, because I liked a card or combo.
Always playing reactive, trying to control and steer, to win with a killer combo - as we all aspire to do...
This cost me some tournament points for finishing a round without having finished the game. It also seems to annoy friends.
Some friends suggested to use chess clocks to apply a time limit per player. This can easily be done for 1-on-1 games, but although it's fairly easy to make a relay timer, it is unfair to use in a multiplayer game because of the time needed to react and the nature of the EDH game.
That is why I've come up with the Phyrexian Burn concept.
The name is based on the Phyrexian Arena which, if you don't gain any life or win from your opponent, causes you to lose the game after 20 turns in a normal game.
In Phyrexian Burn, or EDH(PB) each player gets an allotted (=10) turns to play, regardless of time.
[edit]: Winterblast, you are right about the issue of focusing on the final play.
I actually based my first calculations on a 1-on-1 standard tournament round, and extrapolated that to an EDH format. This gave me a limit of roughly 20 turns. What I forgot in my calculations was the 'best-of-three' limit. Which would mean, in all fairness, that 10 turns per player would be better for a 4-player (or more) EDH game.
The last player - the one whose turn it is before the first player takes his second turn - keeps track of the number of turns played.
This is to make sure each player gets the same number of turns. If a judge or other game official is appointed, that person is responsible for keeping track of the turns.
After turns, each player that did not lose and still has 40 or more life, wins the game. This can mean that players are tied for the win.
Also, after turns, if no player has 40 or more life, the player with the highest life total wins. This negates poison counters, Platinum Angel and similar effects or cards at this point.
This is to give each player a fair chance to survive. As long as you're not eliminated, you can be a winner.
This forces players to come into action before turn , to make sure they don't end up in a tie.
Although this seems long, it also forces a certain deck strategy. It's fine to wait -2 turns to get the right combo started, but after that, you still need to get rid of the opposition.
This allows players to try out a combo, or bring their champions on the battlefield before trying to end the game. Fast decks may have an advantage, but this is where skill becomes more important.
Extra turns can create an extreme advantage for one player, but the turns limit remains! This means that players with extra turns can lose by not eliminating their opponents quickly!
Example: A turn 5 Lighthouse Chronologist with a Vesuvan Shapeshifter, and a Clever Impersonator combo, as in EDH: A Win Guaranteed Or Mere Distractions?.
Players who skip their turns, actually forfeit that turn.
This means that Magosi, the Waterveil can cause you to skip turn 20, without being allowed that extra turn.
When playing EDH with a turn limit, you have to consider the fact that you'll play with a small number of cards in your deck.
You will see about 16%-25% of your deck, which roughly means 10 land cards and up to 15 others. To win against multiple players, you'll need to be able to create combos with that limitation. Scry and search might become a necessity!
The Commander is likely to play a bigger role in your midgame strategy, to make sure that you don't end up tied. Commander damage won't win you the game if you don't eliminate your opponent with it!
You can eliminate an opponent by dealing more than 21 points of Commander damage. Realistically, this means attacking the same opponent five times or more. To eliminate multiple opponents, you'll need your other cards, or other opponents, to do the work.
Players (or judges/organizers, etc.) decide together on the maximum amount of turns per player before play begins.
The is a mere recommended average. Skill level, budget, experience and speed can all be factors. The maximum should be 20.
Of course, players can still decide to use a time limit, taking into consideration that each player knows all the rules by heart and plays by those rules.
It is difficult to track time though: if one player reacts to another one, or a triggered effect needs to be resolved, keeping time becomes a burden. A collective time limit would be advisable here, but not to force slow players to give up or be bullied!
I hope Phyrexian Burn will find some traction and fine tuning and perhaps become a standard rule or variant.
Please keep the discussion on topic.
Winterblast says... #3
I strongly believe that 20 turns are far too long. A game going as long as 20 turns (which means in a game of 4 actually 80 turns are taken by players in total!) takes a really long time, especially because everyone will try to make the best possible decisions and thus calculate everything over and over again before acting...it does in fact encourage everyone, even experienced players to take long, because there's a turn limit, not a time limit. I can see this is going to give the group exhausting and boring matches.
Personally I would limit the turns to 10 or set a time limit instead. In practice I think it's just best to tell players who take long for no reason (not someone who plays storm and actually DOES something that affords more time) to hurry up repeatedly. From my experience I can tell this works best...games usually end within 10 turns and the only problem are people who think 5 minutes about which of two spells they cast.
June 12, 2017 5:24 a.m.
I would make my meta play better decks rather than playing another format that no one is going to support (people hardly play duel Commander in my playgroup and still mix up banlists and co) We mostly have early wins nonetheless.
June 12, 2017 5:35 a.m.
OriginalBlue says... #5
I made some changes to the number of turns.
The maximum should still be 20, but with a recommended 10 turns, most players can work on a single combo. Relying on 25% of your deck for a single combo is pretty 'lazy' and, indeed, can lead to boring games.
June 12, 2017 9:29 a.m.
Winterblast says... #6
OriginalBlue the point is that a game that drags itself over more than 10 turns (remember that's 10 turns per player) is most likely already a boring one, unless there's really something spectacular going on with lots of action and countering attempts of winning. And after 10 turns of back and forth, even involving spectacular moves, someone is going to run out of threats or solutions...or life.
But imagine a game in which after ten turns there had been so little action that it's still unclear who could possibly win. How bad is that? Urging players to play faster games would at least prevent the utter randomness that some people bring into the format, when for example a late game Tooth and Nail can actually decide a match because no one is even able to react. On the other hand I had a game last week in which one of my opponents had already emptied his whole library with Hermit Druid and then he kept himself alive for like 3 or 4 more turns by shuffling back combo pieces from graveyard and exile into the library, he almost managed to go for a kill again...it took like half an hour to end this game, because there was a lot going on each turn with 3 people involved, but it was still well below turn 10 when it ended.
It seems what you are missing in your playgroup is consistency. The ability to actually execute a plan, a certain strategy, without depending on random draws from the 99. You probably have situations in which there's a standoff with creatures and everyone just draws from the top and hopes to find something to break that situation. Instead of setting time or turn limits, try to focus on actually winning faster.
June 12, 2017 10:39 a.m.
Winterblast says... #7
Another issue you have with your rule change: it encourages "not losing" by lifegain, instead of actually trying to win. If THAT doesn't ensure boring matches I don't know what...
June 12, 2017 1:05 p.m.
I can't support this idea. I have noticed that if people want to play they typically prefer fast games, which is fairly standard. How often is Turn 10 even seen?
On the flip side, if people want longer games then they typically play fun Commanders instead of their Competitive decks.
Either way this doesn't seem to help anything. Either the games are fast or people want a long game.
June 12, 2017 11:25 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #9
This seems pointless complicated, just impose a time limit of an hour where upon the player with the highest life total wins or whatever.
You just need a watch.
June 13, 2017 2:34 a.m.
OriginalBlue says... #10
Considering the pros and cons, and going over this with people in my playgroup, I think Azire is right.
Mixing up 'fun decks' with more competitive ones can lead to issues I have experienced. As I have stated, my experience in competitions is limited. Also, the focus of this game has to be FUN for everyone, or at least for me if others cannot enjoy it.
Using a clock also needs an honest win condition. Having the most lives can be fairly easy for someone playing with Island Sanctuary + Oloro, Ageless Ascetic . Possibly a most passive approach to the format, but quite funny...
June 13, 2017 10:57 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #11
If the games you play really do take so long to finish that either 20+ "rounds" pass or the tournament's round clock runs out, then the format isn't the problem. The decks and the gameplay are the problem. It is very possible to build a "fun" deck that can actually win a game within a decent amount of time, and also to play it in a non-cutthroat way that still takes advantage of whatever opportunities you have to move the game along and pull ahead of your opponents.
But it's important to consider how everyone actually wants to play the game. If this is something that regularly happens in your playgroup but everyone is okay with it, then I don't see why there would be a need for any change at all. However, if it's starting to really bother some members of the group, then everyone needs to take a step back and think about whether their deck choices and play choices are accidentally sabotaging their ability to have fun.
June 14, 2017 1:44 p.m.
OriginalBlue says... #12
After some talks and considerations, we found a mismatch in decks and goals. Some players (including me) were just sitting back and relaxing to rethink strategies when it was their turn, whilst others were trying to go wild with an aggro-combo deck.
June 14, 2017 1:57 p.m.
Winterblast says... #13
Rhadamanthus I just came home from a really long game and I have to say it's not the case that it ONLY happens with weak decks. It can also take long when three competitive decks lick each other down and everyone is struggling to find a way to win eventually. We had stuff like humility, cursed totem, multiple recursion and removal engines and other tricky stuff involved and at a certain point we were all like "how the fuck can I win this without enabling someone else's win first?"
That's an interesting way of playing long though, with equally strong decks and a constant back and forth even when everyone's win options were completely blocked.
MollyMab says... #2
So...this format would encourage degenerate combos, pushing out slower win cons, such as Mill, aggro, or anything that isn't "I try to assemble my combo on turn 4". Tutors take place over draw. Emrakul the Promised End eats up 1 of a players turns.
June 12, 2017 4:49 a.m.