General CBS

[Egg]

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the "when it's good, it's really good" statement. The biggest issue I have with EDH is that when it's bad, it's miserable.

I second this. I used to have a regular playgroup in wich I'd play grouphug. Because we were missing one player, we played with a random guy which we didn't mind at first, but got really annoying later. I borrowed my friend's Mimeoplasm deck, and had him dead on turn 5 with commander damage, but I ddin't go for it because I didn't want to be rude, knock him out before he got a chance to do his cool thing. This turned out to be a mistake. What I din't think of was that if I knocked him out, he could have just found himself another game. Anyway, what happened later in the game that he manipulated both of my friends to go after me and leave him alone(he was playing control), while he himself was bricking on land. I thend again had an opportunity to knock someone out of the game(or kill their whole board, I can't remember), but again I didn't. However, I did make a deal with my friend that if I spared them and their board, they would stop swinging at me with thir flyers for one turn. I made him promise, which sounds kind of childish, but I really wanted to be sure. What happened next turn, he swung at me with his flyers nonetheless,bringing me down to 4, and then luckily topdecked meteor blast to finish me off. But the sad thing is,he didn't even win that game. He eventually got backstabbed by the control player, who had been manipulating him all game! When I talked to the control player after the game to ask him if he understood why I spared him on turn 5, he hust said "No, I don't. If it was you, I wouyld have just went for you."(Which I suppose is actually fair.) This whole game has kind of tilted me oof Commander for a while, as even when I play Grouphug with no win-conditions the table always punishes me for having a propaganda out.

Sorry about that rant, i guess I just had to get it out. To finish on a more positive note, I very much agree with Trainmaster. Canadian Highlander is dope. Let me just share with you one spicy story form the 2018 canadian Highlander championship hosted by LoadingReadyRun.
One of the players, Nick, is playing an artifact combo deck with Paradox Engine and Tolarian Academy called Paradox Academy against Adam, the other player who is on Mono-White Death and Taxes. Anyway, Nick goes off with inifite mana, and draws his whole deck with Staff of Domintation. From this point he has a number of wyas he can kill Adam. But then Adam has a response. In response to Nick drawing the last card of his deck he plays a Dismember which he drew off one of the Wheel-Effects, and dismember his own Thought-Knot Seer to make Nick deck! Luckily Nick, with his entire deck in his hand has the Pact of Negation to counter the Dismember, but wow! POWERFUL MAGIC, as the folks over at North 100 would say. You will probaly never find this sequene of plays anywhere else, and this is why CanLander is so awesome, and the folks over at Yellow Jacket are so passionate about this.

 

[Velrun]

Not really? I don't know. Canlander is my favorite singleton constructed format.

Ah yeah I forgot about that format.

Canadian Highlander is a tweak from Highlander just like EDH is a tweak from Highlander.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

However, I did make a deal with my friend that if I spared them and their board, they would stop swinging at me with thir flyers for one turn. I made him promise, which sounds kind of childish, but I really wanted to be sure. What happened next turn, he swung at me with his flyers nonetheless,bringing me down to 4, and then luckily topdecked meteor blast to finish me off.

That is just premium asshole behaviour. If you make a promise, you keep it, even if it turns out the promise was disadvantageous for you. That's the price you play for playing politics, sometimes it blows up in your face. I would probably go after him every game after that, just to drive the point home. Like... I PROMISE I WILL KEEP KILLING YOU UNTIL YOU PROMISE TO KEEP YOUR PROMISES!

 

[psly4mne]

That is just premium asshole behaviour. If you make a promise, you keep it, even if it turns out the promise was disadvantageous for you. That's the price you play for playing politics, sometimes it blows up in your face. I would probably go after him every game after that, just to drive the point home. Like... I PROMISE I WILL KEEP KILLING YOU UNTIL YOU PROMISE TO KEEP YOUR PROMISES!

I strongly disagree. When you're playing a game, you are expected to make the play that maximizes your odds of winning that game. If you deviate from that in an implicit exchange for future good will in other games, you're not really playing the game anymore. As a corollary, if you relied on your opponent keeping a promise to his own detriment, without a strong enough way to sweeten the deal later, you deserve to be betrayed.

Using out-of-game (including future game) threats or promises to gain an advantage within a game is premium asshole behavior.

 

[dbs]

I strongly disagree. When you're playing a game, you are expected to make the play that maximizes your odds of winning that game. If you deviate from that in an implicit exchange for future good will in other games, you're not really playing the game anymore. As a corollary, if you relied on your opponent keeping a promise to his own detriment, without a strong enough way to sweeten the deal later, you deserve to be betrayed.

Using out-of-game (including future game) threats or promises to gain an advantage within a game is premium asshole behavior.

Man, I'm so glad I grew out of thinking this way early in life.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Well, agree to disagree then. I very strongly dislike players who choose to renege on a mutual agreement like that. Deal's a deal. You may view my suggested behavior as a threat/promise to gain an in-game advantage, but a) this is not about gaining an in-game advantage, and b) if people don't get to feel the consequences of their shitty behavior they will continue to behave in a shitty manner.

That said, the method I described would not be the first thing I would resort to, though it would certainly be my first impulse after being stabbed in the back like that. The first thing I would actually do once I recovered from my initial disgust would be to talk to the player and make it clear that I think that it's very not cool to break mutual agreements like that and that that's not the kind of game I want to play. If they disagree, I would probably simply stop making deals with them, and warn other players that try to to do so that they do not always keep to their end of the bargain. If the whole playgroup plays like that, jeez, I would probably have to find another group, because I really don't like the backstabbing style of play.

Also, not only do I hate people going back on deals, I also disagree with your whole premise that "When you're playing a game, you are expected to make the play that maximizes your odds of winning that game." I mean, if I'm playing a 1v1 match in a tournament setting? Absolutely! If I'm playing commander with a group of friends? Definitely not! Ive made suboptimal plays because they were the most hilarious play more then once, and I've definitely declined to kill opponents who've started the game mana starved due to a shitty draw instead of maximizing my odds by kicking that player out of the game. I'm playing commander because I want to have a fun night, and yes, winning is fun, but it's not my main drive.

 

[sigh]

If you take the social factor completely out of the act of playing games and say they are only played to win, you are sorely missing the point. Same goes for almost any interaction involving two or more people. A classic example with a game is letting a child win even though you might have a monstrous advantage were you to 'play to Win'. This serves a variety of purposes ranging from confidence building to working on language skills and physical fitness to improving rapport with the child. The same stuff applies between adults (and between children). Social equity isn't just given freely, it's built, partially via 'sub-optimal' exchanges. A good example would be bringing in bagels for the office. This is clearly economically disadvantageous from a purely monetary perspective, but you have built rapport with the entire office, which combines with other socially beneficial actions by you and others to make the office a (more) positive and functional environment. This generally is a positive feedback loop for everyone (not zero-sum).

 

[psly4mne]

Sure, that makes seems if you're playing EDH with your boss who you're trying to butter up, or with small children or newbies.

Aside from name-calling, if you try to articulate why the player should keep their promise when you don't have an enforcement mechanism, it is just going to come down to "because I will enforce out-of-game repercussions". If you're willing to do that to get the outcome you want in the game, then you're not really playing the game anymore. It's fine if someone wants to do something other than the optimal play because it's more fun. But if you demonize someone for not caving to your meta-game threats, you are wrong.

If you wanted to play EDH as something other than a game with an objective of winning and you didn't communicate that effectively beforehand, then that's on you.

 

[CaptnIrony]

I have to state I don't super agree with both sides. I read during my magic formative years that politics in multiplayer is just that. People can lie, backstab and whatnot to their heart's content. Doing so is not without repercussions. No one teams up with the person who backstabbed someone last week, or twice in the last month. I decided then that I would hold my "promises" (if you can hold something in a game to that high a standard). And this has worked out well for me. One day one dude turned on his ally the turn before finishing off the big bad, and the big bad who was almost dead teamed up with the victim, and they together took down the traitor. I don't see anything wrong with this. But I also don't see anything wrong with "I'm not making an alliance with you, you have a tendency to backstab." or even "This guy breaks alliances, don't team up with him!" To each their own fun though.


Also, I have no idea where to post this, but I'm thinking of doing that thing that many try and often give up on -> a desert cube. I don't want to post a new thread for it, as these six sentences are very non-commital. However, since I've benefited immensely from reading the little work others have done (I've found like less than 10 similar cubes) I feel like I owe it to report my findings, even if I don't go through with it. I should be doing a lot more schoolwork than I do, but if I don't post anything about this in the next month, I will accept all the shame of someone who takes but does not share until I make a thread with my "findings". This does seem to be quite interesting, I have very high hopes for it. Many have tried it, and it seems they were all just _almost_ where I'd want for such an environment, and hopefully I can nudge it.

Fun Useless fact, this has been the soundtrack to this idea, it brings me so far back and helps the concentration:

I'm sure I'm at over 20 listens in the past week.

EDIT: Oh, and uhh, I might need ideas for archetypes... WU and GW is giving me a hard time, BR , UB and RW have like 4 6/10 ideas, but no one great one. I should just ditch the ally colors :/ Do note that unlike other Desert Cubes, I'm not planning on having colour imbalance, but I am planning on having a lot of colorless cards, meaning the archetypes should be possible as one main colour with a possible light splash, or not require cards that are too narrow.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Sure, that makes seems if you're playing EDH with your boss who you're trying to butter up, or with small children or newbies.

Aside from name-calling, if you try to articulate why the player should keep their promise when you don't have an enforcement mechanism, it is just going to come down to "because I will enforce out-of-game repercussions". If you're willing to do that to get the outcome you want in the game, then you're not really playing the game anymore. It's fine if someone wants to do something other than the optimal play because it's more fun. But if you demonize someone for not caving to your meta-game threats, you are wrong.

If you wanted to play EDH as something other than a game with an objective of winning and you didn't communicate that effectively beforehand, then that's on you.

You advocate betrayal as a normal and logical part of the game and you expect me to hold no grudges if another player doesn't keep to their end of the bargain? It seems we approach this game from very, very different points of view, and judging by your strong choice of words and mine, I don't think they're reconcilable. Like I said before, agree to disagree.

 

[ravnic]

EDHBS?

 

[ravnic]

To maybe change the topic, does anyone here use any kind of Mulligan house rules to minimize the amount of non-games occuring? I wondered if this approach would actually lead to more fun for everyone:

You draw 7 cards
You chose X cards from your hand and shuffle them back
You draw X cards
The game begins

I feel like this involves more strategic decision making and is less punishing on bad luck.

 

[CaptnIrony]

To maybe change the topic, does anyone here use any kind of Mulligan house rules to minimize the amount of non-games occuring? I wondered if this approach would actually lead to more fun for everyone:

You draw 7 cards
You chose X cards from your hand and shuffle them back
You draw X cards
The game begins

I feel like this involves more strategic decision making and is less punishing on bad luck.

I am no expert, but here's how I'd so it -> look at posts on reddit or anywhere about changing mulligans. Find the one that people says favours control the most. That's what you want. People seem to think mulligans that enable "Combo piece A and Combo Piece B" are bad but the one where you get "Awesome spells and Basic lands" are good. The issue with mulligans is that some decks function on X lands and don't need more. So they'll greed. Less punishing mulligans make greedier decks. Imagine a mulligan rule that makes a deck be able to get 3 lands, 4 spells in a deck with 14 lands.

However, I really like the Hearthstone one. If I were to make my own, it would probably be like the old Paris mulligan to reduce shuffling (at most twice is optimal). I also don't like that the more you mulligan, the worse your odds are. Going from 7 to 6 increase your chances to mulligan, as your requirements for "what is good enough to keep" don't tell to drop as fast as the odds of getting something decent (I think, for most people). I'd want something where each consecutive mulligan is less punishing.

Maybe something like 7 -> get rid of 6, keep 1, draw 5, (6 cards with a scry 1 at the end) -> Get rid of 5, keep 1, draw 5 (6 cards with no scry at the end) -> Get rid of 5, keep 1, draw 4 (5 cards with scry 1 at the end) -> so on... Then shuffle everything not in your opening hand in your library.

The obvious problems:
- "He scry'd." , "I mulled to 6, I get to scry.", "He mulled twice though, he shouldn't scry.", "No, I only mulled once. What proof do you have?"
- Being able to keep 1 card (rather than a variable number) is for simplicity's sake and also to make things even more smooth. However, also encouraged greedy behaviour. And again, can enable cheating (lots of cards on the table, trying to keep more). I'd actually prefer keeping two, but that feels like it enables even more cheating.

I don't have a real answer.

Obviously, a lot here is my opinion. I am slightly feverish, sorry for being weird.

 

[psly4mne]

Conventional wisdom is that partial mulligans break the game, and I'm inclined to believe that applies even more so in cube. That would wildly throw off the value of combos and push good starts too hard. My inclination would be to go back to our schoolyard days and allow free all-land and no-land mulligans. That's never been possible in normal magic because it would break formats that could support no-land fast mana, but that's not a problem for unpowered cubes*. It's simple, and accomplishes the goal in a direct way. I might try it this weekend and report back.

*My cube actually does allow for decks that could run no lands and win turn 1 with a perfect draw, but the probability of it being drafted and recognized is very low, and anyway I could handle it on the fly.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I'm curious how the WoW tcg rules would work out in MtG. Obviously they would have to be slightly tweaked, but the idea is that you can play any card in your deck as a land card. You can still run actual land cards, like duals, for example, and those will play as normal. I'm thinking a rule that says you can exile a card from your hand to play a basic land matching one of the exiled card's colors from outside the game. Maybe lower the starting hand size to compensate for the increased density of spells in player's decks. Basically, give everyone a Sovereign's Realm, but without the crazy fixing potential.

 

[Heymaker]

To maybe change the topic, does anyone here use any kind of Mulligan house rules to minimize the amount of non-games occuring? I wondered if this approach would actually lead to more fun for everyone:

You draw 7 cards
You chose X cards from your hand and shuffle them back
You draw X cards
The game begins

I feel like this involves more strategic decision making and is less punishing on bad luck.

What I find so intriguing about this is the decision points in card selection that we are afforded with cube and Magic as a game.
1. We curate the particular cards that exist in our cube's card pool.
2. The drafters curates their draft picks from the available cards in their packs.
3. The drafters curate their deck from the available draft picks.
5. The players sequence their spells based feedback of board state and opponent strategy.

I intentionally left #4 missing from that list because I feel it's important to highlight the mulligan process as a form of curating a hand with which to play a game of Magic. I feel the current process of mulligan-ing IS in line with the design of the cards most people play with, the decks they can build, and the potential board states that evolve. That is, the design of cards takes into some account the fact that the mulligan rules are the way that they are (and/or vice versa). Once we change a decision vector (around available card pool, draft mechanics, deckbuilding restrictions, handsculpting, gameplay rules, etc.), the assumptions around why we should or should not change our other approaches and decisions, also change. If you are okay with games of Magic playing out different or cultivating certain kinds decks within your format, you should not dismiss the option of changing handsculpting mechanics to similarly achieve your cube's vision -- the primary adversary we face in this kind of pursuit being: is the end experience worth trading for the friction induced by exploring unfamiliar territory for your player base, fighting against established player instinct formed from repeating the games already established processes?

Now, I have given an alternative mulligan rule a go in about 50 solo games using drafted decks from my low-power cube. The particular mulligan rule I tried was a "draw 10, shuffle 3 back" approach. What I found is that games seem to turn out more consistent and often feel somewhat repetitive as both decks do more of what they want to be doing. Handsculpting allows the aggressor to lean more heavily on their deck's strengths and forces the opponent to sculpt their hand as best as possible in response; although, there is a lot of interesting nuance in masking your strategy and taking advantage of your opponents assumptions. Naturally, some mind games evolve that are very interesting to ponder. Games still evolve naturally and diversely, and there's still just enough mana/color screw to throw your fists up at the gods. I originally adopted this type of rule for my solo games to reduce the amount of mulligans and subsequent shuffling, while also getting an idea of where decks need work, even when starting with the cards the deck wants to see. Ultimately, it dramatically reduced the non-games and felt like both decks were firing on all cylinders far more often -- interesting back-and-forth style games were more common.
I may see what my playgroup thinks, or even just give them the option should their opponent want to try it as well. I can't speak to what this might do in higher power-level formats/cubes, but seems to play just fine here. Note: 0/1/2 lander hands are still a potential problem, so there's still need to account for that.

 

[TrainmasterGT]

He did it again! Long Live Lord Felix!

• ＼ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ／

 

[Brad]

Didn't feel that this deserves a new thread cus it's the start of an idea and I just want a little input.

So my playgroup is usually 4-6 players, but occasionally more. I have a cube already (I intend to post it here someday as its own thread) but it's way too confusing for some of my newer players to deal with that much text and complexity. The other cube was also designed with grid draft in mind, so it's good for any number of players, 2-12.

Anyways, I need something more beginner friendly and was thinking of making a custom retail draft simulator. So I'd do something like 4 copies each of 60-80 commons, 2x 80-100 uncommons, and 1x 100-150 rares/mythics. The high number of commons would keep text down as well as making the players super familiar with the most encountered cards. It's basically why retail drafting is pretty tolerable to a novice. I'd also eliminate bomb rares and just have the rares be really solid picks. That's where retail drafting fails, but they have to sell the packs by putting some OP stuff in there, so it's fine.

Reflecting on "it's hard to sell low power to people," I'm thinking I'd either rebuild/"update" a Ravnica-like format or Shards of Alara, but probably support no enemy-colored cards for clarity's sake. By update, i mean I would be using cards from outside those blocks, but staying true to the themes of the guilds or shards. The veterans of my playgroup were fairly active during these times, so it's a nice throwback for them, it's something to reference to someone experienced at MtG who is being introduced to my format, and the beginners won't really care. It also gives me a meaningful direction for my design.

So, my question to you guys is if there are any themes you'd go after if you had the opportunity to load up on commons in particular? Just as a mana base, I think a Rav-like format, because of the 10 guilds, I'd go for 4x Terramorphic/Evolving Wilds/Ash Barrens as a key part of the common fixing to keep it super flexible. In the Shards-like format, I'd probably play 5 sets of Gates and have green's fixing hinge around Gate synergies, because I like quite a few of those cards. Beyond that, I'm fairly open to any ideas to chew on. My concern with the 10 guild format is that a 4 person draft is a bit sloppy with more options available.

I could also go with the mixed color pie setup like Onder, but I kind of like the idea of updating an old format.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Pick up some straightforward mechanics that have a nice bit of interaction between them within each color, and seed them per color pair. That gives you ten mechanics, which should be plenty for newer players.

 

[Rasmus Källqvist]

My tip would also be to, when you have an idea for a theme, put together a 40 card deck with that theme! And then, grab a friend and another 40-card deck and actually play test that deck. I've had ideas for decks and themes that just didn't work, and have found great ideas for draft themes from just playing with some cards. It's a good way to find out what's fun and what's intuitive in actual play.

 

[ravnic]

Do you go for the 1-3-11 pack distribution? If you do, your numbers are a little off. I'd go with 100 commons x4, 80 uncommons x2 Abd 50 rares x1. This gives it more of the actually retail limited feeling.

 

[Brad]

Pick up some straightforward mechanics that have a nice bit of interaction between them within each color, and seed them per color pair. That gives you ten mechanics, which should be plenty for newer players.

Interesting that you, of all people, suggest 10 guilds. What's the reason that you go with the 5guild/5tri setup? Seems like that might be a tighter package for when my group is smaller.

My tip would also be to, when you have an idea for a theme, put together a 40 card deck with that theme! And then, grab a friend and another 40-card deck and actually play test that deck. I've had ideas for decks and themes that just didn't work, and have found great ideas for draft themes from just playing with some cards. It's a good way to find out what's fun and what's intuitive in actual play.

This makes a lot of sense and I'll definitely have to try it when I have an outlandish idea.

Do you go for the 1-3-11 pack distribution? If you do, your numbers are a little off. I'd go with 100 commons x4, 80 uncommons x2 Abd 50 rares x1. This gives it more of the actually retail limited feeling.

Yes, I'd do a 1/3/11. I was thinking a higher number of rares leads to a lot more variance in the slot. I like how retail is structured on its commons but the rares can add some spice. Maybe my number is way too high if you think 50 is right.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Interesting that you, of all people, suggest 10 guilds. What's the reason that you go with the 5guild/5tri setup? Seems like that might be a tighter package for when my group is smaller.

I wanted to build a format where tri-color cards were not only a viable option, but also a natural way to draft. As Jason so eloquently puts it here, supporting all ten tri-color combinations is asking for those cards to be picked last, simply because players won't be in the right colors. By reducing the available two-color combinations in my cube to five, and supporting only the corresponding shards/wedges, I ensure that it's much more likely that players end up in the right colors to support tri-color cards they see floating around. The likelihood of this happening is further increased by running more gold cards and a full 10% worth of mana fixing lands (including borderposts).

Now, if you are not aiming to support tri-color cards, there might still be another reason to stick to five colors. I think it depends on how "gold" you want your environment to be. If you are planning on running a lot of gold cards, running all ten pairs is probably still a mistake, because you will end up with people getting "free" strong gold cards, simply because they're the only drafter in that guild. In other words, if you run all 10 guilds, you reduce the amount of "fighting" between drafters, and thus reduce the amount of tension during the draft (because you can reliably bank on certain cards wheeling).

Now, if you are planning on using gold cards (mostly) as signposts for an archetype, and plan on running only a select few two-color gold cards, I think running all ten guilds is perfectly feasible. You'll end up with only a few cards that will wheel to one drafter, but those will be the signpost cards that they are drafting around, so that's actually a good thing! Since most of the cube will consist of monocolored cards, players will be "fighting" plenty over those cards. As long as you make sure you don't secretly stuff your monocolored sections with cards that really only go in one of the signpost archetypes that is.

 

[Brad]

Alright, thanks. Kind of what I figured. As always, there's a million decisions to be made lol.

 

[Velrun]

It amazes me, Ondezeeboot, how you can explain the same theory over and over again and do it flawless each time. Actually you get better and better for each time you get the question about your 5 Guilds + 5 Shards/Khans section Thumbs up!