Commander League

Commander (EDH) forum

Posted on March 17, 2014, 2:42 p.m. by death61

I play in a League and im looking for help. Points are...-5: Eliminate a player prior to the end of the 5th turn

-3: Destroying half of a players lands

-3: Take more than 2 turns in a row

-3: Take more than 3 extra turns in a game.

-2: Take a turn more than 5 minutes

-2: Search your library more than 5 times in a game

-2: Play cards that dont allow other players to play the game.

-2: Not Casting your Commander

-2: Scooping before the end (Rage Quit)

-1: Destroy only one color of land (so dont destroy Armageddon)

-1: Being a D!(K (Vote)

+1: Just playing

+1: Kill more than 10 Creatures (Multiple times)

+1: Save another player from lethal damage (Multiple)

+1: 3 equipments same creature same time

+1: Survive until time runs out

+1: Control 10 tokens creatures

+1: Cast your Commander

+1: First Blood. First to damage a player

+1: Kill/Exile opponents planeswalker

+1: Kill/Exile opponents Commander

+1: First player to be eliminated

+1: First person to successfully cast one Inst/Sor/Crea/Art/Ench/Planes

+1: First to Copy a permanent of an opponent

+1: Eliminate all players (including you)

+1: Destroy Sol-Ring

+1: Control 5 non-token creatures sharing a color (Flush)

+1: Control 5 creatures with consecutive power (Strait)

+1: Control 5 non-token creatures that share creature type

+1: Kill the player who eliminated the last player

+2: Tuck an opponents Commander into the library (multiple)

+2: Destroy a Senseis Divining Top of another player (multiple)

+2: Eliminate a player with 1 life, by doing 1 damage.

+2: Eliminate a player via commander damage

+2: Control 5 non-creature artifacts

+2: Control 5 Enchantments

+2: Control 5 Legendary permanents

+2: Eliminate another player

+2: First to have 10 or less cards in library

+2: Control 30 non-token permanents

+2: By not playing more than 2 lands in a turn

+2: Control a creature whos P or T is 100+

+3: By not searching your library

+3: Survive lethal damage 3 times in a game.

+3: Eliminate a player with their own spell/permanent

+5: Cast your commander when his total converted mana cost is 21+

I run Bant (WGU) because I like the new bant commander Derevi, Empyrial Tactician. I run all the Gods from Theros Block because Legendary, Enchantment, Creature and their weapons. Terminus can net you a lot of pts.I run about 10-15 Creature10-15 Artifact (mana rock and basic items)10-15 Enchantments (Buff and support)10-15 Legendary (Most are gods)7-10 Wrath

I need help looking for ways to tuck, flash, and instant kill. One of my big problems are Sigarda and other commanders that are or become hexproof. Purphoros, God of the Forgew/ tokens has also made its way into the league. Most of the League moves slow because of the point system. Tutors are mostly only land and not many people even run them because of the extra points for not tutoring. Any Help would be grateful. Thanks

ChiefBell says... #2

That is a stupidly complicated rules system.

Hexproof is no problem in white. Wrath of God , Supreme Verdict , Day of Judgment ,

March 17, 2014 4:06 p.m.

erabel says... #3

I agree that this is overly complicated. Also not cool, for some of the minus points.

Does playing one counterspell to stop an infinite combo count as "not letting people play the game"?

What if someone gets land screwed, has an 8-cost commander like Damia, and gets eliminated; should they lose points for not casting their commander?

Should a mono-green ramp deck lose points for looking for as many lands as possible, thereby breaking the "five searches" rule?

What if a group hug player plays a Prosperity for X is 10 or something, then drops Tempting Wurm ; if that turn doesn't last at least 5 minutes, then something is going wrong there?

March 17, 2014 4:15 p.m.

themindbullet says... #4

Tuck - Condemn , Bant Charm , Unexpectedly Absent .

This is my Derevi deck if you want to check it out:

Derevi Voltron

March 17, 2014 5:44 p.m.

death61 says... #5

Chief bellcomplicated yes.

ErabelCounter - no

The commander only if you can

Land fetch is 4 or less or start losing

The 5 min rule is only if you take more then 5 min most of your turns. We have pods of 4-5 players that run for 2hrs. The 5 min rule is really called the Carlos rule because he can take a long time. He has taken a 10+ min turn. We timed it.

Joe - takes

March 21, 2014 3:16 p.m.

In the league I've played in before you get minus lots of points for turn 1 Sol Ring .

There's also a cards of the day list, awesome cards that if you play give you additional points, examples Gisela, Blade of Goldnight or Avatar of Woe

March 21, 2014 3:21 p.m.

death61 says... #7

Anagon - we had the turn 1 sol ring but removed it. As for the bonus pts we do a random +1 on about 3 of the rules. We also have a unwritten rule Iona is like - a lot.

March 21, 2014 3:35 p.m.

MSariel go play with your flabby man tits in another corner.

March 21, 2014 5:12 p.m.

Devonin says... #11

That league looks like it has nothing whatsoever to do with actually playing Magic, and instead playing "Lets fill out this checklist"

So I guess the league as a whole loses 3 points?

March 21, 2014 8:40 p.m.

Devonin says... #12

Oh it's only a two point loss for the league, carry on then.

March 21, 2014 8:40 p.m.

This commander league sounds miserable. You aren't allowed to do anything fun!

March 22, 2014 3:19 a.m.

guessling says... #14

I think this commander league sounds awesome! It seems more like there would be a list of things not to play and a pile of staples to include.

I think it favors blue and white while slightly hating on black (tutors for combos) and green (ramp). It does penalize the pillowfort / stasis style azorious kind of blue and white - but that's not the strongest blue and white has for EDH while tutors and ramp are the strongest parts of green and black.

You might want to consider something red. I say that because there are tons of things like Savage Beating in red that allow you to take a player out from out of nowhere (not to mention the extra power that X spells have after ramping for a while).

On the other hand, RWU has a lot less to choose from in terms of commanders than bant!

March 22, 2014 6:56 a.m.

Devonin says... #15

Issues with this system:

1/ 3 rules which are subjective and thus impossible to ensure you are following.

2/ Losing points for not casting your commander, and giving points to people for tucking your commander to where you can't cast it.

3/ Deliberate hate of Sensei's Divining Top and Sol Ring when you could just ban them, especially since using them anyway probably puts you afoul of some other rules.

4/ Way too many +point options for playing very creature heavy, as opposed to any other playstyle. I can't "just play" if I MUST play a certain way.

5/ Anything at all actually efficient or effective is ruled against (No ramping, no Tutoring, no searching at all, points for getting rid of people's sol ring and dive top)

6/ Points for lasting until time ends, points for having 10 or less cards in your library, and then point loss for having turns go long, taking extra turns, or searching your library more than a couple times. This combination of points for contradictory things just shows how poorly thought out and balanced the scoring system is.

This was a system put together by someone who is passably good at Magic at best, and who has a VERY specific idea about what EDH is for (Decks that don't interact with ANYBODY AT ALL outside the combat step, which just play out a bunch of creatures, buffing enchants, and equipment, and then does all their "just playing the game" in combat by turning mans sideways) and actively wants to ruin anybody who doesn't like to play that way.

EDH isn't a format solely and only for one particular breed of Timmy.

March 22, 2014 9:49 a.m.

ChiefBell says... #16

All of the above. The league seems to needlessly punish some players. I would HATE it because i don't play creatures very much and never cast my commander. The rules just aren't.....fair

March 22, 2014 9:52 a.m.

Devonin says... #17

They are extremely fair for the definition of fair that the TO is using. They've decided which decks are "fun" and "what Commander should be" and rather than rely on the social contract and game politics to enforce it, got lazy and wrote up a rules system to do it for them.

It's to get away from people like this that Duel Commander was created.

March 22, 2014 9:59 a.m.

ChiefBell says... #18

Fair means 'treating people equally' so this isn't technically fair. I understand that this adheres to the OPs definition of fair, but not the dictionary definition.

I like playing normal commander competitively for a few reasons. The first one being that combo is a lot more viable, the second one being that the meta is a lot more varied and the third one being that duel commander bans all of my favourite cards. My playgroup is happy to play group commander at a highly competitive level, so it's all fine.

I don't dislike duel commander - I just dont play it because it's not friendly towards how I want to play

March 22, 2014 10:11 a.m.

Devonin says... #19

Fair doesn't mean "Treating people equally"

In the sense of a "fair" game it would be "one in which each player has an equal chance to win" but you don't give them an equal chance to win by treating them equally.

It wouldn't be -fair- to treat LeBron James and I equally in a free-throw contest if the goal was to give us each a 50% chance to win starting out.

March 22, 2014 10:15 a.m.

JWiley129 says... #20

I agree with Devonin in that the rules are fairly punishing. Plus, rules can't be subjective, because then you open yourself up to "he said, she said" situations. And I would not like to play under these rules because one of my decks would thrive, but another deck would not. Just let people play how they want to play, there's no need to put up so many barriers to play a game.

March 22, 2014 10:18 a.m.

Devonin says... #21

@JWiley129 in fact, "just playing the game" and "not stopping others from playing the game" are rules right in there!

March 22, 2014 10:20 a.m.

ChiefBell says... #22

You're now arguing with the Oxford English dictionary.....

"1. Treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination:the group has achieved fair and equal representation for all its membersa fairer distribution of wealth"

Fair is when everyone has equal representation and there's no discrimination. Fair isn't when everyone has equal chance to win, because sometimes in order to do that you need to discriminate against a player - by imposing sanctions. Doing that is the definition of "unfair".

By your definition then it should be viable for someone running a casual EDH deck to beat a T3 win hermit druid deck. That's never going to happen unless you place heavy restrictions on the hermit druid player. Placing restrictions is discriminations. Discrimination is unfair. Therefore fair isn't about winning or losing, it's about representation and playing. Of course winning and losing isn't about fair because some decks will ALWAYS beat other decks. If magic was fair it would punish or discriminate against better decks.

Anything that evens the odds doesn't adhere to the definition of fair because its probably practising either favouritism or discrimination. In your example with the great LeBron, whilst it's not fair for him it is entirely reasonable!


Sorry to type a small essay about the misuse of the English language.

March 22, 2014 10:24 a.m.

JWiley129 says... #23

Devonin - I understand the spirit of the point system in place, but I'd rather people play the decks they want to play than force them to play a deck they don't like. For example, I dislike prison decks. However I know that there are people out there who like those kinds of builds. But setting up a rule/point system to punish someone for playing how they want to play is just rude.

March 22, 2014 10:25 a.m.

ChiefBell says... #24

Although we obviously all agree that the league is unfair because in whatever way it is discriminating against certain types of player.

As Devonin and JWiley129 have so rightly pointed out. It doesn't let some decks have an equal chance to participate as compared to others.

March 22, 2014 10:27 a.m.

guessling says... #25

The point system doesn't force anyone to do or not do anything. It just gives people an incentive to avoid certain predictable and obvious strategies in EDH that always win:

  • ramp, ramp, ramp, combo win
  • tutor, tutor, combo win by turn 4
  • "Hey guys, let's take out Timmy first"
  • Hold back and just watch everyone else go after each other (possibly with some encouragement) and sneak in a win at the end (i.e. the worst thing you could possibly do in a match is actually attack someone who is open or who is a threat)
March 22, 2014 10:30 a.m.

Devonin says... #26

@ChiefBell

The question is whether the players are being treated fairly of whether the game is fair. In the sense that a die which is equal and not weighted or a coin which is not weighted are considered to be a "fair" die or "fair" coin (as all outcomes are equally likely) Thus you can refer to a system of rules as trying to create a "fair" game (where all winners are equally likely)

Discrimination just means to recognize a distinction or difference. This is not always bad or always unfair. It just depends what your goals are. If your goal as a Tournament Organizer is to ensure that the most players have the most fun, you should absolutely discriminate and consider running one event for serious players and one for new or very casual players. For the same reason that there are professional and minor leagues in sports, and you wash your whites separate from your darks, there are plenty of perfectly reasonable reasons to discriminate between things.

And by my definition of "fair" (which I applied to the person who made this rules system) yes, a casual EDH deck should have an even chance against Hermit Druid Combo, because that's what this guy (foolishly) is striving towards with all of his point awarding and demeriting.

I don't -agree- with his choices, but for the definition of "fair" he is applying, that's what he's going for.

March 22, 2014 10:43 a.m.

Devonin says... #27

@r3v13w The race to the bottom doesn't make anything fun or interesting to anybody. Forcing the best thing to be undoable just makes a new best thing. Ban that, and there's a new best thing. Soon, you just can't play at all, because anything but everybody using identical decks stacked in the identical order gives somebody an advantage.

March 22, 2014 10:48 a.m.

JWiley129 says... #28

r3v13w - If the goal of the point system is to breed creativity, then it doesn't. To me the best deck under these points is a U/W/x voltron deck with Oblation and other shuffle effects. And being able to identify that such a deck is best doesn't mean that there is any creativity at all. The regular rules DO breed creativity since there are many different archetypes that are "best."

March 22, 2014 10:56 a.m.

ChiefBell says... #29

Maybe for his, but not for most sports.

This points list is essentially like saying, one team can score no more than 2 points for a basket (so they can't get the max 3), whilst the other team can. Both teams are then not on a level field in terms of opportunity, and suddenly the game is unfair. The problem is that it is removing some aspect of skill. Scoring three points for a basket is deserving because it's hard to do. Winning with a stax deck is hard because you automatically become a target for everyone elses hatred.

Sometimes strategies that look flawless are actually fairly difficult. We can leave aside hermit druid because it's almost uncounterable, except for Rest in Peace and the single chance you get to counter the combo... well two actually, but apart from that the deck is degenerately good. But take for example my Teneb deck. If my Karmic Guide or Sun Titan etc die, then it's GG for me and I pack my bags. All it takes is a Doom Blade . It's really not that ridiculous. It very much fits into the realms of "tutor, tutor, tutor, win". But in now way is it "unfair" (for a skilled player anyway!), because anyone spotting a Karmic Guide being cast with a Reveillark in the graveyard is like 'lol no - counter'.

March 22, 2014 10:56 a.m.

ChiefBell says... #30

The banlist is a better method because it doesn't crush all creativity, just certain degenerate combos. death61 - The league would be better off just banning tutor cards with 1cmc, and various other stax type effects (like Lethal Vapors ) etc.

March 22, 2014 10:59 a.m.

Devonin says... #31

@ChiefBell If the goal is "Both teams have an equal -chance- to win" then you play with handicaps. And plenty of sports do that (Golf comes to mind primarily) You're focusing on whether the playing field is "equal" in the sense of "identical" where the superior person/team is just going to dominate most of the time as being "fair"

What is -supposed- to happen, is one person chooses to play a deck whose level of competitiveness is far ahead of the rest of the table, beats them handily, and then in the next game, are playing 3 or 4 against 1 as penalty for over-doing it, and gets smashed to paste. Then next week, they either bring a more casual deck, or the group brings more competitive decks, and eventually it stabilizes in a level of competition that everybody is comfortable with.

The flaw in the point system is that it doesn't do what they want (Encourage 'fair' in the sense of more balanced and equal play) and instead just teaches people to game the scoring system (as in our OP, who clearly built their whole deck around this point system)

March 22, 2014 11:09 a.m.

guessling says... #32

When people combo out, it is easy to scoop up and start another game and no one had to get "taken out" along the way. I can see the appeal there.

However, when trying to rank a pod of players, that creates a problem with ranking all the losers. This method of scoring encourages players to attack and interact with each other over sitting back and building up combo pieces. It's just easier to score and rank the players that way.

I see what you mean about a "new best thing" but the new best thing might not create the same kinds of issues.

This scoring method also puts a little bit of a damper on collusion. Ganging up on someone right away to form an allegiance and solidarity actually helps that person. It probably will benefit most people more to go after them than to become an ally to them. The point system gives players a political justification for attacking that doesn't make them look like the jerk that is ruining everyone's fun at the table and needs to go next.

This scoring method also bucks the unwritten expectation that some EDH players have about an undeclared truce for the first X turns while everyone freely mana-fixes without any worries or need to be able to defend themselves.

I can see why it might not be popular, but I can also see how it would be fun.

March 22, 2014 11:41 a.m.

Schuesseled says... #33

Fair in a competitive environment would imply a equal starting and finishing position, same rules and restrictions placed on everyone.

i.e. 100 cards, certain cards are banned, start with 40 life... etc.

Chances of winning is irrelevant.

March 22, 2014 2:44 p.m.

death61 says... #34

Devonin- yes.We have a Richard Head rule and Dont be that guy. Most people like the league because the game will go for 1-2 hours with 4 people playing. The rules were done so tutor and ramp are in check. The idea was so someone does not got Dark Ritual + Bloodchief Ascension + tutor for Mindcrack. Or Bitterblossom + Containation. We have a lot of new player that to get them started they pickup a Commander box set and then add from the Common/Uncommon bin. So people cry that cards cost $3.

The basic idea is "it commander" Cast your commander once.Ramp for 2 lands a turn and tutor 5 or less times. Let everyone play for more then 30min or 5 turn. If you want to turn 3 win save that deck for a tournament.

March 26, 2014 10:05 a.m.

Devonin says... #35

As long as this league has no entry fee, and prize support, if any, goes equally to everybody, go for it.

If people are paying to take part and there are prizes for winning, deliberately ruining the ability of people to play effective or efficient decks just utterly misses the point.

March 26, 2014 10:25 a.m.

This discussion has been closed