Ah. So all the EDH-variants, right?
Not really? I don't know. Canlander is my favorite singleton constructed format.
Ah. So all the EDH-variants, right?
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.
Not really? I don't know. Canlander is my favorite singleton constructed format.
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!
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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).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.