Meager Champion (a more casual form of commander)
The Kitchen Table forum
Posted on March 19, 2017, 5:43 p.m. by Emeraldragon17
I had the idea to make a format like heirloom with a somewhat restrictive banlist and commander-like play.
The Restriction
You play with a 80 card deck, singleton (thinking about allowing two of's), and your champion can be any one creature, you start at 30 life.However, each card in your deck (along with your champion) must have been at one time $2.00 US or lower following the timelines on MtgGoldfish.
Also, any deck is allowed to have one color splash. such as playing a monoblack deck with Desecration Demon as the champion, splashing red for Rakdos Cackler or some other red cards.
This restriction almost makes its own banlist and still allows you to play with some pretty powerful cards. E.G. rampaging baloths
I may update with a firm banlist aside from the price restriction, but I'll be going with all cards currently on: legacy, modern, vintage, and commander official banlists as also being banned for Meager Champion.
Also, you may play with any un-set cards that are not dexerity based. all dexterity based cards will be banned, along with ante cards. Cards such as Yet Another Aether Vortex can be played, or maybe Rocket-Powered Turbo Slug.
I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on the format idea and if they plan on making decks.
P.S. This format is meant to be a fun casual format like how commander is meant to be, try to keep from getting spiky.
P.S.S. By one off color splash, I mean, you are allowed to play any number of off color cards, of one color.
People keep making these weird-ass format ideas without fully appreciating that simplicity is key. Formats simply can't take off unless the can be explained in one sentence. I get that your heart's in the right place or you're doing this out of some academic desire, but this idea is silly.
March 19, 2017 6:11 p.m.
Emeraldragon17 says... #4
I know it still allows for broken cards, but those most likely will also be put under the ban list once i weed through most of the cards. The reasoning for under 2 is because it allows for more powerful cards to drop into the format, and unless they're banned, they meld with the format as the card prices fluctuate. If the restriction was currently 3, most people would have to remake their decks for the current restriction which would be more of a pain then building once and setting it in sleeves.
March 19, 2017 6:34 p.m.
Emeraldragon17 says... #5
Also, Thopter Foundry, Sword of the Meek combo would be highly inconsistent due to the only widely known tutor available in the format (to my knowledge) being Diabolic Tutor. Even if there were a majorly degenerate two card combo, i doubt it would be easy to retrieve unless it ends up in your starting hand.
March 19, 2017 9:20 p.m.
Several problems:
- Card prices should never be a guide for formats. It leads deckbuilding to being extremely cluncky and not engaging.
- MTGO Goldfish tracks prices only from 2011 onwards. I tried looking up Ancestral Recall for example, as I know it was a cheap card at launch in alpha, but found nothing. Tarmogoyf used to be a bulk rare for the first few months of its life. However, cards like Splinter Twin were below the mark for parts of their life. So, all cards for Eternal formats are not accurately represented and the meta is naturally skewed towards Modern-era cards.
- Going with a ban list of all formats as a start is bad. Vintage has no banlist, and I sincerely doubt Ponder from Modern needs to be banned. Look for alternatives.
- What the reason for 1 off-color splash in an 80 card singleton deck? Seems way too meager (pun intended) to be relevant at all.
- Same for un-cards. Are there any that are actually good enough to see play? And how would rules work for them, when they are designed to not work with regular magic rules?
March 20, 2017 5:55 a.m.
Emeraldragon17 says... #7
@Boza This was only a rough draft for the overall creation of the format, as it is i'd say it was a 0.1 alpha.
Having the goldfish tracker only tag prices from 2011 is good, due to things like Goyf being bulk rares but shooting up, power cards are a detriment to a format like this. Also, this format could be one that works like Frontier or modern, only allowing cards that have dipped price within the timeline provided.
I understand that just following the trend of bans for every format (since they all have different metas) is bad, but this is just a placeholder for when I actually have time to sit down and comb through sets to find detrimental cards. I haven't even had the time to play through a test game yet!
The point is for it to allow additional creativity, say you're playing a temur energy deck, but want to play voltaic Brawler as your champion. It allows you to play offcolor cards that can boost your strategy and the consistency of your deck as a whole. The splash allows multiple cards, not just one (I see how that wording could confuse you now, my bad).
I'm aware that the Un-sets are bad, and i also doubt they would see any play, but the point of this format is for it to be FUN! That's the whole point of magic is to have fun playing! I for one have played far too many competitive commander games, and the meta in my LGS is too competitive for my liking, as i feel many others are, and I felt like trying to make a more casual commander variant. Not all of the un cards do work with the normal rules, but there can be some exceptions, so they can be played, even if they're bad.
March 20, 2017 7:52 a.m.
The other problem with that is that old cards are being excluded, just because they are old. Diamond Valley or Island of Wak-Wak are not very powerful cards, but they are excluded from the format's premise, since they are old. Card price does not equal power in all cases.
That is 50 cards from the onset, which is a lot. Banning everything that could be considered powerful is not the correct way to go. You are pre-banning cards without even a test game?
So its the general's colors + 1 extra? I don't really see the reason for imposing restrictions that are that loose, but hey, why not...
There is a difference between working and fun. Un-cards do not work with magic sets, nor are they particularly powerful. Why would the ones that are playable, but bad, even be played?
I think this needs a lot more time on the stove before it is ready to be served. You have not thought of too many things, some of those that you have thought about are not clear, while others that are included are baffling.
P.S. None of this is meant to be rude/mean, only blunt. I am sorry in advance, but without criticism this ain't going nowhere.
March 20, 2017 8:12 a.m.
Good formats are not ones that are fun necessarily, but with a wide top-tier that allows for multiple powerful decks at once; formats that are not solved easily and have room for all archetypes at the every tier.
Good examples:
- Pauper (has pretty much anything short of boardwipes and proper fixing and very flat meta of several top-tier decks of all archetypes), Legacy (1 clear topdeck but lots of room for innovation right below it, I cannot remember a time where a single deck took two consecutive tourneys), EDH (though aggro is not really an archetype there)
Bad examples:
- Modern (requires a 30 card banlist before it resembles anything playable), current Standard (various midrange flavors)
Tl;Dr - play more Pauper. You'll like it.
March 20, 2017 8:29 a.m.
Emeraldragon17 says... #10
Again, I understand the case that they are excluded, but you are talking about cards that are on the reserved list, and as such will be increasingly hard to procure. Price doesn't equal power, but price also doesn't factor in potential power. If you have any better potential ideas, I'd like to hear them, as this is the best i could come up with.
It seems like a lot yeah, but this is only a recommended banlist, by no means is it a necessary list to follow if trying a game. I don't own most of the banlist cards, so I'm just following off what I know, and what I've seen the cards can do.
Yes, one extra color. It seems like an arbitrary choice, but I think it could work.
Yeah, most of them are jokes that barely work with the formatting of magic, however I think that some might find a use. Possibly they could just be a fringe for the format that don't have much use, but they are an option.
I agree, this was mostly an idea I came up with friday and I decided to develop a bit. any criticism is welcome as I think this has potential, if even slightly.
March 20, 2017 8:46 a.m.
Ok, lets start this over - and I suggest you do too. You need to convince people that a new format is necessary for Magic.
State loudly and proudly what the goal of this format is and why it should exist alongside others. What does it have that others do not?Benefits/advantages/anything else you can think of.
A new casual fun format is not really a reason - you can just impose house rules on EDH or, you know, just play casual, sans a format. Additionally, regulating a format so that it is meant to be fun does not mean it will be.
March 20, 2017 11:04 a.m.
Emeraldragon17 says... #12
Well I suppose I should've put this somewhere else other than Kitchen Table, the most casual place to post here. I understand your points and respect them, in that regard, thanks for the criticism. I might leave this idea to boil and come back to lit later when i have more time.
March 20, 2017 2:01 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #13
I think something is possible, but I would try to stick to one change at first. Which is the most important change for this format: nonlegendary commanders, budget deck building, starting at 30 life, 80-card decks, color splashing, or unset cards allowed?
I would assume it's the budget deck building, so if that's true, here's what I think could be a better solution:
A deck is only legal if the total cost is 100 dollars or less (or whatever value you want) when it's built, not including shipping. If any cards are changed, the new total must still be less than that cost.
I think this is simple enough for it to be feasible to maintain. Got a deck? You need a receipt for what the deck would cost, at any one point in time.
Hence I would call this "Receipt Commander".
March 20, 2017 2:53 p.m.
Emeraldragon17 says... #14
@MagicalHacker Understandable, I may attempt to build up, but I believe that the $2 and under limit is more achievable. Having to print out or maintain a list of prices I think seems like a unnecessary amount of work for playing a format. If there were a easier to maintain price restriction, I think said restriction would work best. The easier to maintain, the more accessible the format.
March 20, 2017 6 p.m.
Emeraldragon17 says... #15
Also, I'm dropping the Un-set idea. In hindsight i guess it was a bit silly.
March 20, 2017 6:04 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #16
If I build a deck online, its easier for me to find out if the cost is under a certain amount than it is to check each card to see if it's ever been below a certain amount throughout its history.
March 20, 2017 6:08 p.m.
Emeraldragon17 says... #17
True, but you would have to repeatedly check your cards to see when they are under the playable price. Whereas if you check once and see that it was under the price at a single point, that's all the research you would need to do in order to have a lasting playable deck. Possibly it's just a point of preference, but if I had to repeatedly check to see if my deck was playable it seems like too much of a hassle.
March 21, 2017 5:36 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #18
Hmm, I see your point. Is there any way to know how many cards that currently bans from the format?
March 22, 2017 5:49 a.m.
Emeraldragon17 says... #19
The most direct way would be to make a spreadsheet with a list of if the current and previous prices are under the limit. The problem being that the sheet would need to be updated once every few months as to if any of the cards dropped into the limit. Then the ban list would be applicable to any of the printings of cards on the list. This would obviously take a lot of work to upkeep however, so i'll work on an idea for a more flexible restriction.
Pieguy396 says... #2
"at one time $2 USD or less" still allows for some pretty broken cards. Sword of the Meek, Golgari Grave-Troll, etc. Maybe change it to "currently $3 USD or less", kinda like Penny Dreadful?
March 19, 2017 5:55 p.m.