House Rules to keep EDH Fun and "Fair" ?
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Oct. 28, 2015, 2:05 p.m. by TRYtoStopMe
In my play group, we have some guys who have huge collections and can put together crazy (some would say unfair) decks. We also have some guys who have small collections who don't have a lot of time and money to invest. I find my self in the middle. I try not to put easily tutorable combos or infinite combos in my decks because I feel it detracts from some of the "fun" for others.
Here are some of my ideas about "Fun and Fair Play" House rules:
- No infinite combos
- No extra turns (have some guys with inifite turn combos which is blahh)
- Limit on tutoring (maybe 1 tutor per deck? not sure on this one)
Do you guys have any house rules or Gentleman's Agreements that help keep the game fun for everyone?
JohnnyBaggins says... #3
That's so dependent on how spikey the group is. Some say Sol Ring is unfair in a Singleton Format. Some say, Cyclonic Rift is unfair in a format where you have 3 opponents. Some say, Sorin Markov and Magister Sphinx's effect is too powerful in a format where you have 40 life. It's anyone's guess which cards or combination of cards are unfair or not - some commanders simply are Combo Commanders - are these unfair from within? Some playgroups despise cards like Static Orb and Winter Orb are unfun cards and house-ban them.
Other things I heard of is Weakling which means that you can't attack the player with the lowest life//boardstate while all 4 players are still around.
October 28, 2015 2:26 p.m.
NecroPony, Or you could make rules, which are accepted by all the players in the group. No need to be salty, mad or elite.
October 28, 2015 2:35 p.m.
JoshRigone says... #5
One of my local playgroups uses a custom points sheet, where a player is awarded a certain number of points for completing tasks. Some examples off the top of my head are points for eliminating a player, points if you have each basic land in your deck on field with your commander, points for saving another player from death, etc. However, there are also point deductions and the most common ones that they use are minus points for utilizing an infinite combo during the game (points per usage) and minus points for casting certain cards during the game. This means that a cut-throat player is allowed to play whatever combos or cards they want, but there is a reasonable chance that at the end of the game they will end up with a negative point total for playing an unfun deck. I have seen some competitive decks still win from under these conditions, but it happens much less often.
October 28, 2015 2:39 p.m.
ifired I'm not being salty, that's just how my playgroup regulates itself.
October 28, 2015 3:09 p.m.
Mandalorian says... #7
No land destruction
No infinite combos
No Annhiliater
You can do a 400$ limit or set some kind of money limit for a deck
October 28, 2015 3:12 p.m.
insertcleverid says... #8
I played with one group that had a great draw variant. It made the games start much more quickly and gave weaker decks a better chance of stabilizing against an unfair deck. You draw 10 cards, and may place up to 5 cards on the bottom of your deck. If you do, draw to replace. Each player's hand size is 10 until they end a turn with 7 or less cards in hand. From that point on, their hand limit size is 7.
October 28, 2015 3:30 p.m.
JoshRigone says... #9
That's an interesting idea insertcleverid, but I think that it may actually allow unfair decks to run away with the game faster. For instance, a competitive Animar, Soul of Elements Combo deck would absolutely love to start the game by digging through the top 15 cards of their deck and playing with a 10 card hand limit for the first couple of turns. Though, against non-combo decks I think this could certainly give weaker decks a chance.
October 28, 2015 3:36 p.m.
And if I was the cut throat player I'd just laugh. It's obvious that the last man standing did the best and won the game. Creating a point system that punishes the decks YOU don't like only makes you look salty and butthurt because you lost. I'd probably just put together an even more cutthroat deck that eliminated everyone even faster. It'd be like golf, the lower my score the better I did.
Instead of trying to punish people in your group for playing a deck that wins more consistently than you do. It would make more sense for you to make adjustments to your deck to combat the things that are a problem for it. You should be building your deck based on your own local meta, not trying to force them to play a certain way so you don't have to make any adjustments. Getting mad at the guy you know is going to combo if you sit there and let him is like getting made at the control guy for not playing creatures and making your removal irrelevant. I don't wanna hear how combo isn't fun to play against either. It's definitely fun and a great feeling when your actively preventing the combo player from going off. Typically, I find that the ones who hate playing against combo players the most are the people who aren't doing anything to prevent them from going off. In other words, they're mad that they can't do anything to stop them from comboing off even though it's their own fault for building a deck that doesn't have answers to the things they see the most often in their group.
More often than not the question to ask yourself is.... "is combo really that degenerative, or am I not doing enough to prevent it?". Cause almost always the answer will be that your not doing enough to stop them and essentially are sitting there waiting for the inevitable to happen because of it.
October 28, 2015 3:38 p.m.
as JoshRigone suggested: here's a list of points you can use to create alternative pseudo-wincons. You can print them out, cut them up, sleeve em up, and have yourself a variant from the norm!
also from a person who plays a competitive animar deck, i would not suggest putting extra cards in my hand ;)
October 28, 2015 4 p.m.
My friend and I play with no banlist whatsoever. It went in his favor for a long time until I revved up my deck.
October 28, 2015 4:03 p.m.
TRYtoStopMe, I really like the 75% deck philosophy, from Jason Alt over at gatheringmagic.com
greyninja, thanks for sharing! I remember hearing about the EDHLeague cards on a recent Command Zone podcast, but never got around to looking them up.
October 28, 2015 4:21 p.m.
My group just says no chaos decks and don't be a jerk.
October 28, 2015 4:22 p.m.
Limiting tutors is the rule my group follows. A lack of tutors really makes games more spontaneous and exciting.
October 28, 2015 4:25 p.m.
I do think it is important to keep playgroups happy. Personally, I try to do this by regulating my own decks. Most of the players I currently play with regularly have smaller collections and/or are not as experienced as I am. To this end, I try to limit the power of my decks to closer to the level of theirs (this doesn't mean I don't win most games, I just avoid controversial cards such as Consecrated Sphinx and Deadeye Navigator. I have even been thinking about taking Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur and Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger out of my current Sidisi build, since I often feel bad playing them as they just deprive my opponents of resources they are often already lacking in.
My point is, I don't generally have fun outright stomping my friends again and again. To this end, I often find myself purposefully not playing cards I know would essentially lock my opponents out of the game. However, I also make sure to help them improve their decks at every stage. Recently, one of my friends has greatly improved two of his decks, which has in turn made me make some improvements and/or have to play a little harder to win.
Every playgroup is different. I would suggest trying different tactics (self-governing, house rules, points systems) to find what works best for your playgroup. Most of all, have fun!
October 28, 2015 4:37 p.m.
Also, my group tries to stick with flavor. For example, I don't run Vorinclex in my Nissa landfall deck.
October 28, 2015 4:41 p.m.
JohnyBoy1178 says... #18
I don't fully agree with your suggestions. When I play with my friends, they have some infinite combos, extra turns, and tutors. that is what's fun about magic, finding those combos and using them. It isn't unfair unless they cheat, so the solution? Build a deck or put in a combo that counter that combo, if that makes sense. My friend has an infinite mill combo with altar the brood. He "killed" his opponent with it, but next time they dueled, he had put in a card/combo that let him use it to his advantage. The combo was altar the brood, alaren (Spellcheck), and a flash creature. But the other guy used my friend's alaren to flash down his own creature, and ultimately won with his combo. I do know how it feels though. It can sometimes be a little "unfun". And if you are playing casual, it's easier to play with because it's, well, casual. I don't think some small rules are bad, and I think it might be fun with those rules, but only if the other players agree.
October 28, 2015 4:53 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #19
House rules and point systems do not create a fair environment. They often attempt to create an equal environment, but whether they even succeed at doing that in a productive manner is subject to question.
It's fair that players who invest more have more. That's the basic premise of any TCG.
It's fair that those players who build better decks and play smarter Magic put up better results.
What you're proposing is basically a "ban everything I don't like" approach to "fun" (which is subjective) and "fair" (which is not subjective).
If your playgroup consists of people who expect different things from a game, then you need to all be honest about that and either agree on a compromise or form/join more appropriate playgroups. A few players enforcing new house rules on a few other players is neither fair nor healthy for the playgroup.
The idea of managing fun, besides being dystopic and oxymoronic, is idiotic. If you somehow assume the role of the fun police, and if your laws are based on what only some of the players want, then what you're doing is dictating whose kind of fun everyone is allowed to have and ignoring other opinions and possibilities. This is why healthy playgroups police themselves based on mutual agreement rather than on one person assuming the role of Handicapper General and mandating equality.
October 28, 2015 5:14 p.m.
TRYtoStopMe says... #20
@Epochalyptik I do not mind competitive decks, as I said I am in the middle of the play group. I have some decks that are "Tryhard" and others that avoid unnecessary combos or two card win cons.
When one person wins a few times in a row with the "tryhard" decks, then some people get upset sometimes because they feel like they don't even have a chance of winning.
for example: Last night I was playing with two other friends. one got out Mistmeadow Witch and he already had out another creature that gave his creatures hexproof/shroud/untargetable. This made his board ridiculous. He could blink he stuff away from boardwipes. Then he put out Eternal Witness which he could blink, then to put the icing on the cake, Gaddock Teeg...
Situations like that are just frustrating sometimes. It doesn't bother me really, but when we play several games in a row that get like that, it can be very annoying.
If people don't have fun, then they don't want to play. So, the whole purpose of this post is to help cut down on the overpowered cards a bit or moderate some of the decks that make you feel like there is nothing you can do as to not frustrate and annoy people.
I do like the 75% concept and I have heard of the point system as well. Interesting indeed.
October 28, 2015 5:41 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #21
This is a matter of the players in your playgroup being mature enough to understand what is and isn't reasonable for the playgroup. If a player is consistently and legitimately playing outside of the level of the playgroup, and if the rest of the playgroup is not refusing to make reasonable adjustments to their decks to react to that player, then discuss with him or her the kinds of games the playgroup expects. If he or she only plays those decks or refuses to cooperate with the playgroup, then exclude him or her from your games.
That is a much more effective solution than trying to house ban certain archetypes or utilities just because so-and-so doesn't like them.
October 28, 2015 5:48 p.m.
I may not be the best person to chime in here due to my messed up meta (no one wants to play multi player due to time constraints but refuse to build dual/French) if you made those 3 rules that would literally kill each and every one of my 11 EDH decks and I would not be able to play, however I've tryed (and failed) to get people to use 20 poison counters not 10 (if you have twice the starting life you should be able to withstand 2x the poisoning right?) and the infinite combo/turn thing I've tryed (and again failed) to get a 20 times cap on combo and roll a D20 to see how many turns you can take (if you can't win after taking 20 turns in a row you need to go rebuild your deck lol) that's my 2 cents worth
October 28, 2015 6:22 p.m.
Typically in my group we just try to not be dicks. Nothing is house-banned or anything, but if you're focusing someone out of the game early on the rest of us will turn on you because it isn't fun for anyone to sit and watch a game for an hour. Similarly, when Rafiq starts playing multiple swords they start getting blown up. The whole table tries to keep the game in check, making for more tense games than total blowouts. On top of that, most of us are light on infinite combos or won't just use them to win outright. For example, in my competitive Nath deck I use Sadistic Hypnotist but the sorcery speed keeps the ability in check because it's easy to disrupt. In my old Vish Kal deck, when I could give infinite -x/-x I would only kill threats but still let people develop board states. When I have Diaochan with Thornbite Staff, I don't blow anything up until someone starts getting too aggressive.
I think self-mediation is the best strategy. Don't set rules, just say look man, I don't have fun when you take 30 turns in a row. Could you scale it back? If not, try a new compromise, or just leave. If these people are worth playing with they'll want to accommodate everyone to a reasonable degree.
October 28, 2015 6:23 p.m.
poteatertot says... #24
i personally think that house rules and point systems and whatever other things you come up with to limit the game takes away one key point. it influences zero change in a deck to combat certain opponents. if you play against someone with a fun police deck and they beat you a hundred times, you better on that hundred and first time win because you deck has changed to combat him. it also takes away the point that when you play against a deck and lose yes it hurts but it also influences you to beef up your deck and find out new skills and tricks to annihilate you opponent the next time. when you lose to someone you want to beat them. the playgroup i used to play in had one rule no banned cards. i played and lost almost every game for three months finally i asked for help. two weeks after that i went to winning. all in all just play edh with no rules and skill goes up which also increases enjoyment of the game
October 28, 2015 6:37 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #25
Simple rules i would do:
If you win, you get X points, where X is the number of opponents at the beginning of the game.
If you concede, you lose 1 point.
At the end of each 3+ players game, each player gives 1 point to any of their opponents.
October 28, 2015 7:09 p.m. Edited.
@Kozelek... about your point on poison counters. That would make sense if poison counters were associated with your life total, but they're not. Everyone immediately makes that assumption since 10 is half of 20. However, you don't need 10 poison counters because your opponent starts at 20 life. You need 10 poison counters because that's the amount stated in the rules. It'd be like doubling the power and toughness of all your creatures because you start at 40 life so they should do more damage. Or, making direct damage spells (like Lightning Bolt) do double their damage because you start at more life and their power level is usually based off your opponent starting with 20. Sure what your suggesting sounds logical, but in reality it's unreasonable. You wouldn't change every aspect of the game and every game rule to reflect the fact that your starting a 40 life, so there is no real reason to change the poison rule except simply because you don't like poison counters.
October 28, 2015 7:25 p.m.
abenz419 well the same rules state you start the game with 20 life......so if EDH states you start off with 40 life it can also state you need 20 poison to loose.....simple really, and I actually LOVE poison it's just skittles is a cunt
October 28, 2015 8:53 p.m.
ThisIsBullshit says... #28
Lmao that last sentence
I personally hate housebanning things - if a card beats your deck that quickly, either you need to change your deck to combat it (run Duplicant if Iona screws you up), you need to find a way to get around it, or you just need to suck it up.
I don't really like the point system, because if you go up against a Spikey player they're not going to care about points, they're going to care about whether they won or not.
I dislike house rules too (I actually hate everything lol) mostly because I like to play Magic without having extra constraints - I'm the high roller of my group and a dollar limit on decks would make me rather sad.
You can try allowing proxies if the little guys are getting picked on that much, or you can try asking the spikey dudes to play different decks. Whenever I play the newer guys I tend to warn them ahead of time that I'm playing a tuned deck and if they want me to use an extra deck of their own I will.
Not sure if that made any sense or if it helped, but that's my two cents.
October 28, 2015 10:49 p.m.
My previous group, and current one don't use MLD, that's really it.
October 28, 2015 11:13 p.m.
And putting a $400 cap on decks means no using ABUR duals (my Underground Sea=$250 and Volcanic Island=$240 so just right there I'd be over budget by $90 on just 2 lands and that's without Badlands. Now as far as points I've heard of a way that would work (kinda) you get X points to build your deck and some cards have higher point value some cards are free (basic lands and vanilla) some cost 1 point like Sol Ring some take 2 points like say Grim Monolith and some cost 3 points like Mana Crypt, now I'm not sure if those cards are worth those points as I didn't pay much attention at the time I'm just trying to get the point across, and no I don't remember where I saw it or how many points you get to use, and I think you get some kind of bonus for having points left over (maybe the number of points you have left was directly added to your life total or more likely 1/2 so 10 point left you start at 45 life or some shit like that)
October 29, 2015 1:15 a.m.
Like I said, it doesn't make sense to double poison counters just because you start at 40 life unless your gonna do that with every aspect of the game. Poison counters are not connected or associated with your starting life total in any way, so the fact your starting at 40 life is irrelevant. As soon as you realize that the two aren't connected the easier this'll be to understand. Suggesting you change the poison rule because you start at 40 life is just like saying the P/T of all creatures should be doubled because you start at 40. Why would you change one rule to reflect you start at 40 life but not change everything else for the same reason?
October 29, 2015 3:39 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #32
I don't understand why you would take the time to write an excuse rather than propose a better example for your solution.
It's also worth noting that there are at most three playable infect cards in Commander: Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon, Corrupted Conscience, and Grafted Exoskeleton. Maybe Triumph of the Hordes, but that's pushing it. Toxin Sliver is a thing but doesn't have infect.
If these things are prevalent in your meta and you aren't doing anything to stop them, that's just you being bad at metagaming. None of these cards are particularly difficult to answer except maybe Triumph of the Hordes, which few people play and fewer people complain about.
As for the "double poison counters because double life" and the "not doubled poison counters because not doubled anything else," I don't find either argument particularly salient. The decision to increase poison counter limits must be based on what is healthy for the format. And given that so few effective poison or infect cards exist, and that they tend not to be unanswerable, it's not really an issue if the poison limit remains at 10.
October 29, 2015 7:24 a.m.
Wellll Scion of the Ur-Dragon can EASILY one-hit with Skittles and Moltensteel Dragon. Moving it up to 15 or 20 counters at least means they have to invest a lot more life. That's one of the biggest infect risks IMO. And it's really not an uncommon play.
October 29, 2015 7:40 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #34
Yes, but you expect it. It's answerable in most cases. There are other card interactions that qualify as one-hits, but that doesn't mean we need to manage all of those cases when determining general rules for the format.
But either way, any decision to keep or change the poison limit ought to be based on what impact it has on the format, and a convincing argument that infect or poison is oppressive would suit that requirement.
October 29, 2015 7:48 a.m.
My scion deck can (if I put skittles back in it) can do that T1, )my friends skittles deck can drop AND attack for lethal infect T2 and if it he ain't done it by T4 somethings wrong) so how do you propose to deal with a T2 10/4 skittles flying at your face every game?
October 29, 2015 7:53 a.m.
Obviously kill spells exist, the issue is that reliably having THAT big off a threat on board is just crazy. Turn 2 you've likely only seen 9 cards- how many targeting killspells do you run? 3-5? You'll need to run like 10 to reliably have one on turn 2.
Even then, just because something is answerable doesn't mean it's not dumb.
October 29, 2015 8:17 a.m.
So ThisIsBullshit I MUST run 
and/or 
in order to stand a chance of lasting to T5? Ok so I have to run Kalia the vast and nothing else will do the trick? That ain't opressive at all. That's some fucktarded thinking there
October 29, 2015 8:37 a.m.
Or blue. Counterspells exist. And green can kill your artifact ramp.
October 29, 2015 8:44 a.m. Edited.
Epochalyptik says... #40
Because the example cards are the only ones mentioned they must be the only ones that can do the job, right?
I hope the irony of the phrase "fucktarded thinking" is not lost on you.
October 29, 2015 8:50 a.m.
ThisIsBullshit says... #41
Are you trying to tell me that you don't run 3 out of five colors? Pretty sure you just mentioned having ABUR duals with black and red soooo
Also, there are more kill spells than just those three.
October 29, 2015 9 a.m.
demonicgrizzly says... #42
i personally believe in the idea that you should tune your deck and sideboard to your local meta and situation. if i'm playing against my buddies, you can bet my sideboards and my maindecks will be a little different than if i'm going to my local game store to compete in tournaments. you just have to get to know your local meta and prepare for it. find out what your oppositions weakness is. or even better yet, find out what your own decks weaknesses are as well and prepare for both. it will make you a better player in the long run
their are ways to make any situation better by preparing for it and playing smarter magic. no need for house rules. magic is a game that takes time to learn and the way you get better is by playing people that are better than you.
October 29, 2015 9:03 a.m.
Kozelek, explain to me how turn 1 you can cast scion for 
, search and pitch Skithiryx for 
, haste for , then search and pitch moltensteel for another ?
October 29, 2015 9:05 a.m.
Well then you go look at my decks on here and tell me what deck will be able to stand a chance vs skittles (sure maybe my scion deck but then it comes down to who wins the roll to go first)
October 29, 2015 9:08 a.m.
ThisIsBullshit says... #45
Well it sounds to me like you need to make your decks better
October 29, 2015 9:12 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #46
Instead of posting these vague non-answers and contrarian misinterpretations, why not try contributing to the discussion. You make it very difficult for us to take you seriously.
October 29, 2015 9:16 a.m.
Ok as I've taken skittles out of the deck I'll just tell you how I do it without him. Ok 1st-3rd turn kill cons (1vs1 only) "God draw" first turn kill: Taiga, Lotus Petal, Mana Crypt, tap for play Mana Vault tap for 
use for Lightning Greaves leaving in my pool tap Taiga for tap sac Lotus Petal for play Dark Ritual use to cast Channel the Suns play scion and equip the Lightning Greaves use that colorless I have floating to activate him getting Moltensteel Dragon and and channel 34 life to pump him up 17 to a 21/4 and swing for lethal commander damage! Second turn kill is much easier: first turn Taiga, Lotus Petal, tap the Taiga play out Mana Vault tap sac Lotus Petal for tap Mana Vault for play Channel the Suns at scion (or Mana Crypt+Sol Ring instead of petal and vault) second turn play any other land tap both lands to activate scion for moltensteel channel 34 life swing for lethal (or if I got crypt+ring I'd use one of them to activate and then hopefully my second land will produce as well and I can use those mana to pump him 2 and only channel 30 life). And turn 3 is easy: first turn land Sol Ring, second turn land that produces tap all for cast Channel the Suns and scion, third turn activate get moltensteel pump swing for leathal commander damage. Yes I'm aware that all 3 use Channel the Suns but with my other mana ramp I can accomplish the same effects for T2 and T3 kills it just takes more finagling and more typing to get it all out there
October 29, 2015 9:16 a.m.
Well ThisIsBullshit it sound to me like your just an asshole
October 29, 2015 9:18 a.m.
Godhands are not going to consistently going to happen. What is wrong with you?
October 29, 2015 9:19 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #50
"Let me use a statistically improbable optimal case to refute your argument about format-level rules."
CuteSnail says... #2
Yeah. If someone does something you don't agree with, kill them for it. This mentality lets the group govern itself. You can't say no infinite combos while trying to be "fair". If you don't like combos, either find a new play group or deal with it, by removing the combo deck in battle.
October 28, 2015 2:12 p.m.