I was just wondering if anyone here has any interesting house rules, or rules that they had been taught when they were new players that turned out not to be real rules.
My personal example: My friends taught me how to play magic, and they told me that I was only allowed 1 mythic-rare card per deck.
Anyone else?
I was just wondering if anyone here has any interesting house rules, or rules that they had been taught when they were new players that turned out not to be real rules.My personal example: My friends taught me how to play magic, and they told me that
It's not particularly weird, but around here we always mulligan 7 (when it's not an official event), and we'll let someone check the top card of their library to see if they can keep a crappy hand.
It's not particularly weird, but around here we always mulligan 7 (when it's not an official event), and we'll let someone check the top card of their library to see if they can keep a crappy hand. :)
Our houserule is that either me or another player in particular is always attacked first. At least I assume that's a rule, it's what always happens.
LMAO, I think everyone has that house rule :P
I guess our house rule is that, in multi-player at least, first to play still draws card 8, and if you mulligan, you still get to draw 7. We're easy...
That, and in the old school group, Hymn to Tourach was banned. Period.
LMAO, I think everyone has that house rule :PI guess our house rule is that, in multi-player at least, first to play still draws card 8, and if you mulligan, you still get to draw 7. We're easy...That, and in the old school group, Hymn to Tourach
My house rules are that whenever you attack another player you have to make out with him or her. And whenever you do anything else to/with a player (e.g. make 'em discard, or draw, or steal their creature, or counter their spell) you have to sock 'em one good.
Thems the only rules I gots. Oh, and we play naked, with liquor bottles duct-taped to our mitts.
My house rules are that whenever you attack another player you have to make out with him or her. And whenever you do anything else to/with a player (e.g. make 'em discard, or draw, or steal their creature, or counter their spell) you have to sock 'em
It's not particularly weird, but around here we always mulligan 7 (when it's not an official event),
We do this.
and we'll let someone check the top card of their library to see if they can keep a crappy hand.
But not this.
EDIT: trully, most times we use a "for as long as all players are getting mulligans, the mulligans are free". Once one player keeps, the other(s) player(s) starts getting one less card each mulligan. Except for the very first mulligan, this one is always free even if all other players are keeping the first hand.
We do this.But not this.EDIT: trully, most times we use a "for as long as all players are getting mulligans, the mulligans are free". Once one player keeps, the other(s) player(s) starts getting one less card each mulligan. Except for the very first
First mulligan is free, no matter what, second mulligan is free if it's justifiable and shown. 2 lands in an aggro deck is not justifiable, 2 lands in a super expensive deck is justifiable. We know each other decks pretty well. What's the point of playing agaisnt someone with 2 lands and 5 cards with 6 cmc in his opening hand.... or playing agaisnt someone with 3 forest in his starting hand and 4 blue cards that all cost 2 blue to cast. We know the game is already over from the start, the game will not be fun on either side. So free mulligan!
We also often "look at the next X cards on the library" when one side is dominating the other, to cut the slaughter short or to see if there's a possible way out for the losing side in the next 1-2-3-4 turns depending of the situation. If you are at 3 lands and I have 10 tokens and you have nothing and cannot do nothing, but you know you have a wrath of god in your hands, you can check your next 2 cards to see if there's a land that will allow you to cast it before you die, if you dont, it's over and you show those cards for the sake of curiosity, if you do have a land next turn, you decide to play it out.
First mulligan is free, no matter what, second mulligan is free if it's justifiable and shown. 2 lands in an aggro deck is not justifiable, 2 lands in a super expensive deck is justifiable. We know each other decks pretty well. What's the point of pl
My group also runs the 'free mulls to 7' with the first one definitely free and ones after that free if you can show 0/1/6/7 lands in hand. It's no fun playing a game where one player can't do anything and if there's nothing on the line there's no reason to make either player sit through that.
The '1 mythic' thing is slightly odd, but not very. Before my group all got a bit more disposable income those of us with access to better cards tended to tone our decks down. Tier 1 Wolf Run Ramp vs "The best BlueBlack deck I could build out of a fat pack and a deckbuilder's toolkit" isn't exactly a fair fight.
My group also runs the 'free mulls to 7' with the first one definitely free and ones after that free if you can show 0/1/6/7 lands in hand. It's no fun playing a game where one player can't do anything and if there's nothing on the line there's no re
My house rules are that whenever you attack another player you have to make out with him or her. And whenever you do anything else to/with a player (e.g. make 'em discard, or draw, or steal their creature, or counter their spell) you have to sock 'em one good.
Thems the only rules I gots. Oh, and we play naked, with liquor bottles duct-taped to our mitts.
Damn, just when I was about to invite you for a play.
Damn, just when I was about to invite you for a play.
House rule is I play swamp, 2 dark ritual s, then subversion then get to see if i can defened off the other 2-4 other players. So I guess I have been doing archenemy before it was even a format.
The play group, or what use to be the play group, had been playing for a while so probably went by old house rules. You always mull to 7 but only mull on all land or no land hands. Not sure about 1 land or 6 land hands.
The most fun I've had though is playing emperor.
House rule is I play swamp, 2 dark ritual s, then subversion then get to see if i can defened off the other 2-4 other players. So I guess I have been doing archenemy before it wa
My house rules are that whenever you attack another player you have to make out with him or her. And whenever you do anything else to/with a player (e.g. make 'em discard, or draw, or steal their creature, or counter their spell) you have to sock 'em one good.
Thems the only rules I gots. Oh, and we play naked, with liquor bottles duct-taped to our mitts.
My house rules are that whenever you attack another player you have to make out with him or her. And whenever you do anything else to/with a player (e.g. make 'em discard, or draw, or steal their creature, or counter their spell) you have to sock 'em one good.
Thems the only rules I gots. Oh, and we play naked, with liquor bottles duct-taped to our mitts.
Anyway, I'm in the "Archenemy before it was Archenemy" crowd. Usually because of Serra Avatar or, in a token-heavy meta, Congregate . More recently, Luminarch Ascension and other Zendikar quests.
Anyway, I'm in the "Archenemy before it was Archenemy" crowd. Usually because of Serra Avatar or, in a token-heavy meta, Congregate . More recently, Luminarch Ascension
My house rules are that whenever you attack another player you have to make out with him or her.
It's a mistletoe deck. You make out with your opponent until they concede.
My house rules are that whenever you attack another player you have to make out with him or her.It's a mistletoe deck. You make out with your opponent until they concede.
Only real house rule we have is on muligans, first one is always free. Not a whole lot besides that, a certain amount of proxies are allowed for the purpose of testing a deck before buying the pieces or the fact that Etched Champion s are seemingly impossible to find.
Only real house rule we have is on muligans, first one is always free. Not a whole lot besides that, a certain amount of proxies are allowed for the purpose of testing a deck before buying the pieces or the fact that Etched Champion
I had to re-teach the stack and priority to my group... and I was one of the last the start playing. Things like when a creature is tapped for an activated ability, we'd use things to get rid of it and say the effect never goes on the stack... I still have to pull up the rules to argue this on a regular basis
I had to re-teach the stack and priority to my group... and I was one of the last the start playing. Things like when a creature is tapped for an activated ability, we'd use things to get rid of it and say the effect never goes on the stack... I stil
Praetors are banned in multiplayer games (not including EDH). This was down to an opponent abusing Elesh Norn in a "bubble in" game of Multiplayer, where most of our group ended up complaining after being unable to regain a board position with her on the field. (I keep telling them to run more removal. And no, it wasn't me playing Elesh Norn, I was on a different table)
Our house rules are: 1 free mulligan to 7Praetors are banned in multiplayer games (not including EDH). This was down to an opponent abusing Elesh Norn in a "bubble in" game of Multiplayer, where most of our group ended up complaining after being una
The only house rule I think I commonly play with is that if both players want to mulligan they both mulligan to seven, because it generally leads to a more normalized game.
The only house rule I think I commonly play with is that if both players want to mulligan they both mulligan to seven, because it generally leads to a more normalized game.
Full Mulligan up to 7 on hands with 0,1, 6, or 7 lands.
In team games, teammates can pay one life to prevent the loss of one life of a teammate, can be done at any time as long as you would have at least one life remaining after paying.
We've got a couple of house casual rulesFull Mulligan up to 7 on hands with 0,1, 6, or 7 lands.In team games, teammates can pay one life to prevent the loss of one life of a teammate, can be done at any time as long as you would have at least one lif
Full Mulligan up to 7 on hands with 0,1, 6, or 7 lands.
In team games, teammates can pay one life to prevent the loss of one life of a teammate, can be done at any time as long as you would have at least one life remaining after paying.
I know decks that would SOOOOOOOOOOO abuse that second rule, fastest would be the infinite life elf deck at turn 4-5
I know decks that would SOOOOOOOOOOO abuse that second rule, fastest would be the infinite life elf deck at turn 4-5
Full Mulligan up to 7 on hands with 0,1, 6, or 7 lands.
In team games, teammates can pay one life to prevent the loss of one life of a teammate, can be done at any time as long as you would have at least one life remaining after paying.
I know decks that would SOOOOOOOOOOO abuse that second rule, fastest would be the infinite life elf deck at turn 4-5
What we've found is that it's slightly harder to abuse than shared life total is, and for the most part it isn't within our play group.
I know decks that would SOOOOOOOOOOO abuse that second rule, fastest would be the infinite life elf deck at turn 4-5[/quote]What we've found is that it's slightly harder to abuse than shared life total is, and for the most part it isn't within our pl
I don't understand all those free mulligan rules. You're cutting one of the most skill-intensive part of the game. With careful deckbuilding and mulliganing, mana screw should be marginal, and furthermore, you're still not protected against mana clumps of shortage later on. My wife and I have one free mulligan, but mulliganing to oblivion when you don't have 2-5 lands is asking for no mulligans ever. A lot of very interesting games I've played were decided upon whether or not you should mulligan that six-cards hand, and I've won games starting with only four cards in hand.
I don't understand all those free mulligan rules. You're cutting one of the most skill-intensive part of the game. With careful deckbuilding and mulliganing, mana screw should be marginal, and furthermore, you're still not protected against mana clum
I prefer not to take free mulligans in casual. Winning has little importance in casual so I would rather take the opportunity to tune my mulligan decisions than blindly plow through hand after hand to get a decent starting 7.
Cheers
I prefer not to take free mulligans in casual. Winning has little importance in casual so I would rather take the opportunity to tune my mulligan decisions than blindly plow through hand after hand to get a decent starting 7.Cheers
Praetors are banned in multiplayer games (not including EDH). This was down to an opponent abusing Elesh Norn in a "bubble in" game of Multiplayer, where most of our group ended up complaining after being unable to regain a board position with her on the field. (I keep telling them to run more removal. And no, it wasn't me playing Elesh Norn, I was on a different table)
Banned? Really? I find they mean "Hey gaiz! Let's play Archenemy!"
Banned? Really? I find they mean "Hey gaiz! Let's play Archenemy!"
My playgroup plays it fast and loose with mulligans, too. Most of the people have never been to any sanctioned events beyond prereleases, and don't have the level of interest in Magic that would push them into going online and reading forums or articles about deckbuilding theory, etc. The free mulligan rule doesn't get abused, people rarely have to mulligan more than once, if at all. We're mostly at different levels of skill, so it's just easiest to have free mulligan rules, since the lower end people will figure out that they need to adjust if they find themselves mulling often (because no one likes to reshuffle their deck while everyone else is ready and staring at them), and the higher end people just don't usually need to mulligan at all.
Edit: Mulligans are part of the game, but most casual players don't see it quite as such.
My playgroup plays it fast and loose with mulligans, too. Most of the people have never been to any sanctioned events beyond prereleases, and don't have the level of interest in Magic that would push them into going online and reading forums or artic
Praetors are banned in multiplayer games (not including EDH). This was down to an opponent abusing Elesh Norn in a "bubble in" game of Multiplayer, where most of our group ended up complaining after being unable to regain a board position with her on the field. (I keep telling them to run more removal. And no, it wasn't me playing Elesh Norn, I was on a different table)
Banned? Really? I find they mean "Hey gaiz! Let's play Archenemy!"
My playgroup seriously doesn't run enough removal. I keep telling them to run more removal to kill the big things but seriously about half of them would rather play fog. God I hate that card. Thankfully the other half of the playgroup know what they're doing more or less.
Banned? Really? I find they mean "Hey gaiz! Let's play Archenemy!"[/quote]My playgroup seriously doesn't run enough removal. I keep telling them to run more removal to kill the big things but seriously about half of them would rather play fog. God I
I like the "first mulligan is free"-rule for casual, but not really much more than that. Unlimited free mulligans or the 0,1,6,7-land-rule can distort deck building, where players get used to only running, say, 18-20 lands in a deck that should really run at least 23. And this works out for them because they can just mulligan until they get at least a 3-land hand or something, whereas an "honest" deckbuilder will be at a disadvantage under such rules because he'll draw more lands and less business-spells during the actual game.
On the flip-side: If such a player, who has never learned to include a proper mana-base in their decks because of the free mulligans, goes to play in a store, for example to a Friday Night Magic, or to another group or event where people enforce standard muligan rules, he'll be probably get frustated with his weak manabase as he suddenly gets into mana trouble a lot under those standard rules.
Of course getting mana-screwed is not awesome, but if you build your deck properly and in casual use the 'first mulligan is free'-rule then it virtually never happens. Also exciting and satisfying games can come out of such tight situations. Fighting to stay allive until you finally draw land #3 and #4 etc. can feel very rewarding if you pull off to win the game.
I also enjoy the deckbuilding challenge that it brings. If I know, that I can't cheat on my mana-base, because I don't get unlimited mulligans, then I have to put some effort into my landbase. If I play a green deck, I might play Viridian Emissary , because at 2 power for 2 mana, he is effective enough as a creature but also get's me out of land trouble. (I'm happy to not have my opponent attack if he doesn't want me to get another land. Buys me more time.) At the sime time I'll consider putting in manasinkers like Centaur Glade to help me fight manaflooding. Or maybe include a manland like Treetop Village , which is a land and a creature, so I can run 23,24 or even 25 lands but still not feel bad about it because I'm not really running less creatures but still have a more reliable mana-base.
Because of that I think that unlimited free mulligans take away from the value of certain cards and ultimately make deck building less interesting. I find it enjoyable to have to consider another layer of difficulty when creating a new deck.
I like the "first mulligan is free"-rule for casual, but not really much more than that. Unlimited free mulligans or the 0,1,6,7-land-rule can distort deck building, where players get used to only running, say, 18-20 lands in a deck that should reall
Large life totals don't create problems with Serra Avatar , either way it's just a large vanilla, how large it is doesn't matter too much.
Having shared life totals makes Bond of Agony worse actually.
By doing life totals your way you are more turning Hatred from a fair card into an awful card really, since you are never able to use it as a kill condition.
Phyrexian Processor isn't really that bad for the same reasons as Avatar. It's the difference between a 19/19 and a 30/30, and making 30/30s is much riskier anyway.
The cards that shared life totals break are Serra Ascendant and maybeFelidar Sovereign . But those have an easy fix. Just make a rule that says "Cards that care about life totals care about half those life totals rounded down instead."
@Mulliganing discussion I wholeheartedly agree with Dilleux. And lands aren't the only factor that determine whether a hand is capable of winning. I don't really patition for free mulligans myself. I only do them if my opponent wants it that way.
Phyrexian Processor Serra Avatar Channel Hatred Bond of Agony But mostly it was
I'd rather have the best challenge possible. If my opponent's deck is crippled by starting with 4 or 5 cards, that's just not fun. It's more fun to work for your wins.
I'd rather have the best challenge possible. If my opponent's deck is crippled by starting with 4 or 5 cards, that's just not fun. It's more fun to work for your wins. :)
About free mulligan abuse. New players do this all the time. But it's not about intentionally abusing such a house rule and generally being evil. It's more about not realising that this is not how standard magic rules are and slowly steering towards fewer and fewer lands, because mana-wise it has been working out for them. It's hard for an inexperienced player to realise that this is just because of lax mulligan rules. And slowly bad rules of thumb like "One third of your deck should be lands" develop, which a lot of casual scrubs will teach to new players, spreading the disease.
Also, if someone comes up with a new deck, I'm not going to say "Hold it, let me count the lands first! And check if you're not running more than 4 of every card while I'm at it." I'd rather play a few games with him because that's what I'm here for. We'd play under normal mulligan rules (or maybe one free mulligan) and if he constantly gets manascrewed and frustrated, we'll go though the deck and check his land count and average cmc etc.. That way he'll learn through experience that he needs to pay attention to that.
This happened so much, when I met new players in the store. Maybe they came from other casual groups or only had one friend for an opponent up to then. They're weren't lowly cheaters or anything. They just didn't know any better, because they had very lax mulligan rules and didn't feel compelled to build proper manabases.
If your shuffling is really random and your average cmc is really 1.5, then it's very unlikely to get unplayable hands with the 7-7-6-5 mulligan rules. I think your own empirical data and the following reasoning is questionable. Saying that because you're having exceptionally bad luck all the time, everybody else can/should totally use unlimited free mulligans, doesn't really form a valid argument. It's like one of the extremely few unlucky people who get struck by lightning telling others to not go out during a thunderstorm because he knows from personal experience, that it's "very likely" that you will get struck by lightning. It's just not true.
About free mulligan abuse. New players do this all the time. But it's not about intentionally abusing such a house rule and generally being evil. It's more about not realising that this is not how standard magic rules are and slowly steering towards
Our house rule for mulligans goes with the 7,7,6,5, and so-on set up.
We also have a house rule for poison counters in Commander. Since we start out at 40 life, it takes 20 counters to kill, not just 10. Seems too cheap a way to win with just 10.
For Planechase, we do a shared Planes deck, and so our house rule on that, is no one can planeswalk until there's been a full circuit of turns around the table. Doesn't seem fair to planeswalk away from a plane before someone has a chance to make use of it.
Our house rule for mulligans goes with the 7,7,6,5, and so-on set up. We also have a house rule for poison counters in Commander. Since we start out at 40 life, it takes 20 counters to kill, not just 10. Seems too cheap a way to win with just 10.F
About free mulligan abuse. New players do this all the time. But it's not about intentionally abusing such a house rule and generally being evil. It's more about not realising that this is not how standard magic rules are and slowly steering towards fewer and fewer lands, because mana-wise it has been working out for them. It's hard for an inexperienced player to realise that this is just because of lax mulligan rules. And slowly bad rules of thumb like "One third of your deck should be lands" develop, which a lot of casual scrubs will teach to new players, spreading the disease.
Also, if someone comes up with a new deck, I'm not going to say "Hold it, let me count the lands first! And check if you're not running more than 4 of every card while I'm at it." I'd rather play a few games with him because that's what I'm here for. We'd play under normal mulligan rules (or maybe one free mulligan) and if he constantly gets manascrewed and frustrated, we'll go though the deck and check his land count and average cmc etc.. That way he'll learn through experience that he needs to pay attention to that.
This happened so much, when I met new players in the store. Maybe they came from other casual groups or only had one friend for an opponent up to then. They're weren't lowly cheaters or anything. They just didn't know any better, because they had very lax mulligan rules and didn't feel compelled to build proper manabases.
If your shuffling is really random and your average cmc is really 1.5, then it's very unlikely to get unplayable hands with the 7-7-6-5 mulligan rules. I think your own empirical data and the following reasoning is questionable. Saying that because you're having exceptionally bad luck all the time, everybody else can/should totally use unlimited free mulligans, doesn't really form a valid argument. It's like one of the extremely few unlucky people who get struck by lightning telling others to not go out during a thunderstorm because he knows from personal experience, that it's "very likely" that you will get struck by lightning. It's just not true.
Well in my group, we usually play the new deck 2-3 times and then, everyone that played agaisnt it gather around the table (4+ people) and we dissect the deck if there was an obvious problem/weakness, to make it better or to correct mistakes, especially with new players (new players are people that have played less than 5 years in my group)
My own emperical data never said that it happen all the time, it was to point out that it can happen several times even in one of the most unlikely scenario and that I am not the only one that had that situation happen. That deckbuilding and shuffling technique didnt have anything to do with the fact that you could draw several "i need to mulligan" hands even if you draw 7 cards.
For the sake of it, my 3XUrzatron 4Xcloudpost 4Xglimmerpost 4Xvesuva 4Xexpedition map deck lost with 3 mana at turn 6 last night.... instead of the usual 10ish colorless that it should be getting at turn 6
Well in my group, we usually play the new deck 2-3 times and then, everyone that played agaisnt it gather around the table (4+ people) and we dissect the deck if there was an obvious problem/weakness, to make it better or to correct mistakes, especi
My playgroup seriously doesn't run enough removal. I keep telling them to run more removal to kill the big things but seriously about half of them would rather play fog. God I hate that card. Thankfully the other half of the playgroup know what they're doing more or less.
Sh, don't tell them about Isochron Scepter . Before Mirrodin, I didn't know you could break Fog.
Praetors are kind of funny. I rank them, in order from most unfair to most fair.
yeah, Channel is totally broken with shared life totals
Or normal life totals.
We have a variant where you're allowed one card banned in Legacy or restricted in Vintage (but not banned in Vintage), but no more. This keeps a lot of ridic combos under control. You have to keep your life total above mine long enough to get and Channel/Fireball me.
Sh, don't tell them about Isochron Scepter . Before Mirrodin, I didn't know you could break Fog.Praetors are kind of funny. I rank them, in order from most unfair to most fair. Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Ive removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal a
Nothing too interesting here. We mostly play multiplayers, so the one who gets kicked out first gets to determine who can play first in the following game.
Nothing too interesting here.We mostly play multiplayers, so the one who gets kicked out first gets to determine who can play first in the following game.
I've suggested the multiplayer rule that Oblivion Ring and similar effects should trigger when a player controlling them loses the game. It's probably not practical to apply too much logic to it though, 'cause I imagine it could get rules-lawyered into all kinds of unintended consequences.
I've suggested the multiplayer rule that Oblivion Ring and similar effects should trigger when a player controlling them loses the game. It's probably not practical to apply too much logic to it though, 'cause I i
I've suggested the multiplayer rule that Oblivion Ring and similar effects should trigger when a player controlling them loses the game.
What do you mean?
In normal multiplayer, if you O-ring something, then die before the O-ring leaves the battlefield, it never triggers and the removed object stays removed forever.
What do you mean?[/quote]In normal multiplayer, if you O-ring something, then die before the O-ring leaves the battlefield, it never triggers and the removed object stays removed forever.
Another one that I forgot: To decide who has choice of going first, we reveal the bottom cards of our libraries, and the bottom card with the highest CMC wins.
As a competitive player away from my otherwise casual playgroup, it just kills me, but hey.
Another one that I forgot: To decide who has choice of going first, we reveal the bottom cards of our libraries, and the bottom card with the highest CMC wins. As a competitive player away from my otherwise casual playgroup, it just kills me, but hey
My group's reasoning is that the player with a higher CMC card on bottom is being denied apowerful card and should have priority forit, but it doesn't make much sense to me :/
My group's reasoning is that the player with a higher CMC card on bottom is being denied apowerful card and should have priority forit, but it doesn't make much sense to me :/
My group's reasoning is that the player with a higher CMC card on bottom is being denied apowerful card and should have priority forit, but it doesn't make much sense to me :/
Yeah, that doesn't make sense at all. A "powerful" card is only a powerful card if you can get to the mana to cast in from a safe possition. If that reasoning was sound then everyone would just run 6drops.dec. I'd hate to have a 5 Swamp , 2 Grave Titan hand.
Yeah, that doesn't make sense at all. A "powerful" card is only a powerful card if you can get to the mana to cast in from a safe possition. If that reasoning was sound then everyone would just run 6drops.dec. I'd hate to have a 5 Swamp
My group's reasoning is that the player with a higher CMC card on bottom is being denied apowerful card and should have priority forit, but it doesn't make much sense to me :/
Yeah, I remember cutting instead of rolling die when I first started playing, but now I realize how many problems there are with that. Also, I think we went with the lowest CMC winning, so there was a lot of trying again after both players cut a land, and I think it was generally accepted that the winner should make the other player go first because then they wouldn't draw on their first turn...
Thanks for explaining, by the way, Mage. I'm pretty sure my playgroup also plays with that rule, so that permanents that a player owns when they lose are treated as leaving the battlefield.
Suddenly, Ember Shot .Suddenly, Scornful Egotist .Yeah, I remember cutting instead of rolling die when I first started playing, but now I realize how many problems there are with t
Who the hell cuts to see who goes first anymore? I thought that was a relic of the past. The cool way to go is to guess collectors numbers.
So White Weenie always goes last vs. MBC?
We changed the O-ring rules after a guy O-ringed the commander of a player with a seal of cleasing on the table, then conceded in response to the o-ring being targeted. Permanent Commander lockout, becuase the owner had let it get removed, rather than going to the commander zone.
So White Weenie always goes last vs. MBC? We changed the O-ring rules after a guy O-ringed the commander of a player with a seal of cleasing on the table, then conceded in response to the o-ring being targeted. Per
Who the hell cuts to see who goes first anymore? I thought that was a relic of the past. The cool way to go is to guess collectors numbers.
So White Weenie always goes last vs. MBC?
We changed the O-ring rules after a guy O-ringed the commander of a player with a seal of cleasing on the table, then conceded in response to the o-ring being targeted. Permanent Commander lockout, becuase the owner had let it get removed, rather than going to the commander zone.
Most people let their opponent guess even/odd for the collector number of a hidden card (sometimes a card outside the game, sometime from a deck cut). Unless your opponent researches your deck/card collection very carefully, it should be pretty close to 50/50.
So White Weenie always goes last vs. MBC? We changed the O-ring rules after a guy O-ringed the commander of a player with a seal of cleasing on the table, then conceded in response to the o-ring being targeted. Per
However, it is unfairly biased against decks that only contains cards with odd collectors' numbers (or the even cooler, prime collectors' number only decks).
Excuse me, I have a deck to build.
However, it is unfairly biased against decks that only contains cards with odd collectors' numbers (or the even cooler, prime collectors' number only decks).Excuse me, I have a deck to build.
Who the hell cuts to see who goes first anymore? I thought that was a relic of the past. The cool way to go is to guess collectors numbers.
So White Weenie always goes last vs. MBC?
We changed the O-ring rules after a guy O-ringed the commander of a player with a seal of cleasing on the table, then conceded in response to the o-ring being targeted. Permanent Commander lockout, becuase the owner had let it get removed, rather than going to the commander zone.
So White Weenie always goes last vs. MBC? We changed the O-ring rules after a guy O-ringed the commander of a player with a seal of cleasing on the table, then conceded in response to the o-ring being targeted. Per
Who the hell cuts to see who goes first anymore? I thought that was a relic of the past. The cool way to go is to guess collectors numbers.
So White Weenie always goes last vs. MBC?
We changed the O-ring rules after a guy O-ringed the commander of a player with a seal of cleasing on the table, then conceded in response to the o-ring being targeted. Permanent Commander lockout, becuase the owner had let it get removed, rather than going to the commander zone.
Player one chooses a card from their collection or deck. Player two guesses even or odd. If they are right, they make the call. If they are wrong, you do.
So White Weenie always goes last vs. MBC? We changed the O-ring rules after a guy O-ringed the commander of a player with a seal of cleasing on the table, then conceded in response to the o-ring being targeted. Per
Well i've created some odd rules here for my house rules lol. I play against the same people all the time so we know how each other play. So first who goes first. We play best 2/3 so loser picks lol before that its either deck cutting/bottom card/dice/coin /RPS/ or anything else we can think of at the time to make things interesting. Mulligans. Free mulligans as long as all players mulligan then 7765 rules Now the fun part. First Turn Mana Rules. LOL you might be thinking WTF yes not saying this is for every1 but with the way me and my friends play all it really does it get the game going. we dont usually play Goblins smackdown decks so this works out to be fair and fun. there are drawbacks yes its not perfect and some decks are not built to play this style but some decks are built for this style. Other than that we play normal (except i usually go easy on my friends. i hate getting into a fight because they dont like my tactics rofl)
Well i've created some odd rules here for my house rules lol. I play against the same people all the time so we know how each other play. So first who goes first.We play best 2/3 so loser picks lol before that its either deck cutting/bottom card/dic
on first turn yes i. e. If u have 7 lands in hand on opening hand u drop all seven and draw seven then if u have 5 lands after u draw u drop em and draw 5 and so on till ur turn is over then ur opponent does the same if when drawing a card for another reason i.e. a card effect and u draw a land slap it down and draw after all players first turn is over resume play as usual 1 land per turn etc.
on first turn yes i. e. If u have 7 lands in hand on opening hand u drop all seven and draw seven then if u have 5 lands after u draw u drop em and draw 5 and so on till ur turn is over then ur opponent does the same if when drawing a card for anothe
Sounds fun for a few games, especially if as a deckbuilder you weren't preparing for it, but I know I'm the kind of person who tries to break the format, and that is one easily broken format (although I think I could refrain from 59*Mountain , Banefire )...
Sounds fun for a few games, especially if as a deckbuilder you weren't preparing for it, but I know I'm the kind of person who tries to break the format, and that is one easily broken format (although I think I could refrain from 59* Mountain
yeah we dont break it as a rule we may bend it a bit but no breaking its more to see the possibilities of the deck and fast pace fun lol your right though i dont see it being used in a tourney style play rofl it also gives u a nice look into the weakness of your deck mana base aside and even gives i nice look at mana base rofl its a good way to start a deck then move to normal rules to complete the construction or vice versa
yeah we dont break it as a rule we may bend it a bit but no breaking its more to see the possibilities of the deck and fast pace fun lol your right though i dont see it being used in a tourney style play rofl it also gives u a nice look into the weak
on first turn yes i. e. If u have 7 lands in hand on opening hand u drop all seven and draw seven then if u have 5 lands after u draw u drop em and draw 5 and so on till ur turn is over then ur opponent does the same if when drawing a card for another reason i.e. a card effect and u draw a land slap it down and draw after all players first turn is over resume play as usual 1 land per turn etc.
That is insane. I hope you guys have VERY bad decks.
T0 : I drop all my lands, I draw a bunch of cards, I drop fewer lands, I draw a bunch of cards, I deal 20 dmg or infinite damage to each player with a combo.
That is insane. I hope you guys have VERY bad decks. T0 : I drop all my lands, I draw a bunch of cards, I drop fewer lands, I draw a bunch of cards, I deal 20 dmg or infinite damage to each player with a combo.
OMG u guys cant read @mown someone already mentioned that and we said we dont make decks to abuse this ruleset... @ MoiMoi again we are NOT building and playing around this ruleset we build a normal deck for normal ruleset and use these rules for a quick test geez amazing that no one can read these days i mean how many times must i say it 1 more time just to be sure
THIS RULESET IS NOT FOR UBER COMPETITIVE PLAY!!!!!!! WE DO NOT BUILD DECKS TO ABUSE THIS RULESET!!!!!!! IT IS A WAY FOR US TO PLAY FOR FUN AT A QUICKER STARTING PACE!!!! AND DO A QUICK TEST OF THE MECHANICS OF OUR DECKS!!!!!
Thank you hopefully people now can read that ...
OMG u guys cant read @mown someone already mentioned that and we said we dont make decks to abuse this ruleset... @ MoiMoi again we are NOT building and playing around this ruleset we build a normal deck for normal ruleset and use these rules for a q
Reading stuff in brackets is overrated. It was more like "This would be silly". If I were to make a more legitimate complaint, it would be that it's insanely swingy, you can start up to three turns earlier than your opponent just by the luck of the draw. It also removes one of the more interesting parts of the game.
Of course, you're free to houserule however you want. But it sounds like you're putting a lot of the game's result into an RNG.
Reading stuff in brackets is overrated.It was more like "This would be silly". If I were to make a more legitimate complaint, it would be that it's insanely swingy, you can start up to three turns earlier than your opponent just by the luck of the dr
It was more like "This would be silly". If I were to make a more legitimate complaint, it would be that it's insanely swingy, you can start up to three turns earlier than your opponent just by the luck of the draw. It also removes one of the more interesting parts of the game.
Of course, you're free to houserule however you want. But it sounds like you're putting a lot of the game's result into an RNG.
I understand this point that your making but we are not making a full diagnostic from this game play its either A) a fun change of pace game rule B) a starting point for testing a deck to see if certain combos are viable in actual game play and if its not we can change reset then when we like our combos in this play style we switch to normal to fully test the mana base of our decks and check any other weakness we may have its just a steping stone approach to deck testing C) with this game play style we can get more games in and with the type of decks me and my friends play battles become epic in turn 2-3 on both sides so we get some pretty wicked games going
trust me this ruleset isnt a hardcore beatdown ruleset it lax to get to the juicy center of the deck so we can work our ways to the foundation and just to have a little fun quicker thats it as i said in one of my previous post i dont believe this to be a soon to be tourney ruleset lol its just a form of testing we found to be useful and its fun.
I understand this point that your making but we are not making a full diagnostic from this game play its eitherA) a fun change of pace game ruleB) a starting point for testing a deck to see if certain combos are viable in actual game play and if its
lol yes we have cards like this that make this ruleset bend its usefulness in testing and fun i.e. Evolving Wilds , Selesnya Sanctuary etc but we only use that to its full power when playing for fun and not for testing we try to keep that part of the rules less bendy when testing
lol yes we have cards like this that make this ruleset bend its usefulness in testing and fun i.e. Evolving Wilds , Selesnya Sanctuary etcbut we only use that to its full power wh
It does seem rather unbalanced. Even if all your decks are very casual, what that means is, that someone with a 3-land hand will be in worse shape than someone with a 5 land hand. Plus it's runaway-mechanic: The more lands you can drop from your starting hand, the higher the chance you have to draw into more lands until you finally have only nonland cards in your hand. So the difference will be even more pronounced.
If you just want an accelerated start, you could at least limit the ammount of land drops, before the game starts to 2 lands. That way, you can't abuse the system as much and having a 3 land hand isn't automatically inferior to a 5 land hand anymore.
It does seem rather unbalanced. Even if all your decks are very casual, what that means is, that someone with a 3-land hand will be in worse shape than someone with a 5 land hand. Plus it's runaway-mechanic: The more lands you can drop from your star
What I would do is limit the number of land drops to whichever player has the fewest. If everyone's got four lands but one player only has three, then everyone's limited to three land drops on the first turn. It still accelerates the game by skipping the first few turns, but it doesn't randomly favor one player over another.
Maybe I'm overthinking it though.
What I would do is limit the number of land drops to whichever player has the fewest. If everyone's got four lands but one player only has three, then everyone's limited to three land drops on the first turn. It still accelerates the game by skippi
i see your points but thats exactly what im looking for when testing if i only get 3 mana on first turn i can then tell in my first 3 turns i will only have 3 mana to work with 1 can my deck play off of 3 mana 2 can i last 3 turns with only 3 mana 3 can i recover from 3 mana 3 on my second turn (turn 4) how bad off will i be etc plus in fun play not testing a deck just playing for fun if my friend has 9 mana to my 3 mana can i overcome and win its a thrill and depending on the deck i play i can :D hence y i love these rules im not saying they are for every1 and u may wanna run a variant of them sure go for it but its one of my favorite variants :D
i see your points but thats exactly what im looking for when testing if i only get 3 mana on first turn i can then tell in my first 3 turns i will only have 3 mana to work with 1 can my deck play off of 3 mana 2 can i last 3 turns with only 3 mana 3
For the longest time, my deck was pretty weak and was ignored.
Then came a turn when my teammate had board full of creatures. I decided to cast my general so he can draw a bunch of cards.
suddenly they (one player over at the other side and My own teammate, apparently they came together), told me that they house-rule-errataed Edric to be "creatures you control". I was like %^$#@!%$^
Then I explained to them there are way more broken general than a 2/2 that distributes cards for other players.... Never in my life heard of "house-rule-errata". They didn't call it exactly that, but that's what it is.
In a game shop. I am playing EDH. 2v2Edric is my commander.For the longest time, my deck was pretty weak and was ignored.Then came a turn when my teammate had board full of creatures. I decided to cast my general so he can draw a bunch of cards.sudde
We mix EDH with other casual formats. It works as you might expect, except for one. Emperor EDH adds an extra rule that the Emperor's general restricts colors for the entire team. So if the Emperor's using The Mimeoplasm , I can't just use Kresh the Bloodbraided .
We mix EDH with other casual formats. It works as you might expect, except for one. Emperor EDH adds an extra rule that the Emperor's general restricts colors for the entire team. So if the Emperor's using The Mimeoplasm
Sounds fun for a few games, especially if as a deckbuilder you weren't preparing for it, but I know I'm the kind of person who tries to break the format, and that is one easily broken format (although I think I could refrain from 59*Mountain , Banefire )...
I get the idea of this. Can certainly understand it being more fun and exciting. Though the big problem I have with it is that I don't think you can really test out strategy on it. You are at that point so far from a real environment. You are not having to worry about the agro deck having you at 8 life before you cast your first spell, or if your combo is really viable due to making land drops before some other deck has board presence and a way to interrupt your combo. Seems like it is highly scewed toward combo and control.
What about the 4 Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle ?I get the idea of this. Can certainly understand it being more fun and exciting. Though the big problem I have with it is that I don't think you can really test out s
OMG u guys cant read @mown someone already mentioned that and we said we dont make decks to abuse this ruleset... @ MoiMoi again we are NOT building and playing around this ruleset we build a normal deck for normal ruleset and use these rules for a quick test geez amazing that no one can read these days i mean how many times must i say it 1 more time just to be sure
THIS RULESET IS NOT FOR UBER COMPETITIVE PLAY!!!!!!! WE DO NOT BUILD DECKS TO ABUSE THIS RULESET!!!!!!! IT IS A WAY FOR US TO PLAY FOR FUN AT A QUICKER STARTING PACE!!!! AND DO A QUICK TEST OF THE MECHANICS OF OUR DECKS!!!!!
Thank you hopefully people now can read that ...
I never said you built decks to abuse this rule, I said that if those rules applied to my casual games, it would end at turn 1, without changing ANY of our decks to abuse this. Let's take for example my friend's elf deck, at turn 3 he can have unlimited mana, unlimited life and unlimited creatures with unlimited power and toughness (he usually get it at turn 4-5 if we dont keep him in check). With your method, he got it a turn 1 and swing everyone for the kill at turn 2. My other friends end the game with infinite fireball at turn 5. He'd probably just do it at turn 1. You get me now? Dont get your panties in a bunch again, your format is HIGHLY abusable, even without trying to abuse it.
Also like it was pointed out, the people with the most lands in their hands would outright win and there's plenty of other problems with it. Like a deck of mine use cards like brainstorm and halimar depth to rearrange my first few draws to get what I want, they would be useless in your format.
Turn 1 : Show and tell, jin-gitaxias GG?
I never said you built decks to abuse this rule, I said that if those rules applied to my casual games, it would end at turn 1, without changing ANY of our decks to abuse this. Let's take for example my friend's elf deck, at turn 3 he can have unlimi
We have a house-rule where if you don't have a deck to play, somebody passes you a sliver deck. And then you become hated for the rest of the day because slivers for days.
We have a house-rule where if you don't have a deck to play, somebody passes you a sliver deck.And then you become hated for the rest of the day because slivers for days.
alright seems every1 hates my house rules np i understand. but i like em we dont abuse them if abuse gets to rediculous points or decks seem to get gimped from this ruleset we just return to normal rulesets and continue certain decks that me and my friends play are banded from this ruleset because their very nature abuses them. Im not telling every1 to play these rules and im done defending it the thread asked for wierd house rules well i guess mine wins cuz u guess cant seem to find anything good about it thats fine but u guys saying the same thing over and over again about too many ways to abuse it . Yes most average to advanced players with a decent card collection can abuse it but i have the best collection of cards/skills in this game out of me and my friends and i make sure NOT to abuse this ruleset. After all this is CASUAL play so im trying to work my friends and their decks up not beat them down so they quite playing so quit qqing about how u can abuse it and dont use it and move on thank you
alright seems every1 hates my house rules np i understand. but i like em we dont abuse them if abuse gets to rediculous points or decks seem to get gimped from this ruleset we just return to normal rulesets and continue certain decks that me and my f
There was no QQ'ing, it was people expressing their opinion. Go read what QQ means.
it means complaining and crying and thats all i really saw for the most part it can be abused u cant do that properly thats their opinion and thats fine i dont care but i dont need to see the same post about the same thing 4-6 times and to me thats QQing so :P
it means complaining and crying and thats all i really saw for the most part it can be abused u cant do that properly thats their opinion and thats fine i dont care but i dont need to see the same post about the same thing 4-6 times and to me thats Q
My group also runs the 'free mulls to 7' with the first one definitely free and ones after that free if you can show 0/1/6/7 lands in hand. It's no fun playing a game where one player can't do anything and if there's nothing on the line there's no reason to make either player sit through that.
The '1 mythic' thing is slightly odd, but not very. Before my group all got a bit more disposable income those of us with access to better cards tended to tone our decks down. Tier 1 Wolf Run Ramp vs "The best BlueBlack deck I could build out of a fat pack and a deckbuilder's toolkit" isn't exactly a fair fight.
Same rules here for our free mulligan, the 0/1/6/7 land in hand thing's really amazing. We don't have a rule restricting mythics, though. But it's basically because we don't have lots of those anyway. We're mainly casual players who buy boosters and build around stuff, and we're also old school magic players (like most of our cards are from Oddyssey, Onslaught, the orignal Mirrodin era).
Same rules here for our free mulligan, the 0/1/6/7 land in hand thing's really amazing. We don't have a rule restricting mythics, though. But it's basically because we don't have lots of those anyway. We're mainly casual players who buy boosters and
There was no QQ'ing, it was people expressing their opinion. Go read what QQ means.
it means complaining and crying and thats all i really saw for the most part it can be abused u cant do that properly thats their opinion and thats fine i dont care but i dont need to see the same post about the same thing 4-6 times and to me thats QQing so :P
again there was no crying, no qq'ing, there was people saying that it was an HORRIBLE UNBALANCED idea, that we wish you good luck with it, but that we'd never use it, ever.
it means complaining and crying and thats all i really saw for the most part it can be abused u cant do that properly thats their opinion and thats fine i dont care but i dont need to see the same post about the same thing 4-6 times and to me thats Q
I have recently developed an alternative mode of play which separates all land into an second deck with a set of standardized construction boundaries:
I have uploaded a scan from my notebook which illustrates the idea with many examples, but it is essentially a pattern of what one 'part' of your land deck must consist of: 1 of each basic land (5), with additional card choices, which forms one increment of a possibly infinite 'Land Deck'; those additional choices being Basic lands, Common NB lands, Uncommons, and Rares with an exchange rate in order to substitute some for others. A Land Deck part must consist of 1 of each of the 5 basic lands in addition to your special choices.
When you draw a card, you choose to draw from your Library, or from your Land Deck, giving you control of your available lands by eliminating too few/many land draws, but will include possibly unneeded land colors which must be spent on colorless costs.
This mode encourages the inclusion of differently-colored cards when you might have normally been pure-colored, and the ratio of lands-to-nons will not need to me determined when building your Library, which now includes only spells.
I have recently developed an alternative mode of play which separates all land into an second deck with a set of standardized construction boundaries:I have uploaded a scan from my notebook which illustrates the idea with many examples, but it is ess
I have recently developed an alternative mode of play which separates all land into an second deck with a set of standardized construction boundaries:
We've all played that way when we were n00bs. It teaches you bad habits.
I've played a lot of incorrect ways when I was a noob, but never like that. Also, Cream-of-Carnifex (lol), what the hell is going on in that image?
We've all played that way when we were n00bs. It teaches you bad habits.[/quote]I've played a lot of incorrect ways when I was a noob, but never like that. Also, Cream-of-Carnifex (lol), what the hell is going on in that image?
We allow the first mulligan to be free, and any hand drawn that contains 0 or 7 lands. Unless your me. I don't get free mulligans.
Also, we play a game of magic to see who goes first.
We allow the first mulligan to be free, and any hand drawn that contains 0 or 7 lands. Unless your me. I don't get free mulligans.Also, we play a game of magic to see who goes first.
Having a seperate land and spell deck gives an inherent advantage to certain styles of decks like with the Global Fastbond rule someone mentioned earlier. The only time when I play with perfect mana rules like that is when I'm playing mana cost based mental Magic, but both players are using the same deck and essentially playing power Magic, so that's fair.
Having a seperate land and spell deck gives an inherent advantage to certain styles of decks like with the Global Fastbond rule someone mentioned earlier. The only time when I play with perfect mana rules like that
Because individual players in our playgroup have 12 decks or more at any given time (I'm up to 26), we've started breaking games down into categories:
Fun. Typically the showcase for new decks we create so we can determine their power level, or a chance for us to play some of our less-powerful decks.
Hate. Decks make use of some degenerate card or combination of cards. Chances are good that your opponents don't enjoy playing against the deck you are playing, but the same can be said for their decks. These are the most competitive matches we have and are a power struggle from beginning to end due to deck consistency and/or power level. We group Commander matches in this category due to commanders like Merieke Ri Berit , Griselbrand (we don't adhere any banned lists, except for a few choice cards), Olivia Voldaren , and Zur the Enchanter . Star Magic fits in this category too, especially once our 'white' player started putting lots of black/red hate in his deck.
Speed. One-on-one games that generally end within the first four turns.
Combo. The games generally play out like chess matches because the only way to interact with each other is through counterspells.
The motivation for this is that games will be more evenly balanced and prevent blow-outs (which none of us find very entertaining / exciting).
We also allow the use of proxies based on the understanding that the player using them has every intention of purchasing a physical copy of the card.
And Planeswalkers are only allowed in Commander. We tried them in our constructed matchups, but found them to be too swingy if one player dropped one and other people didn't. At least in Commander they are more answerable due to the higher power-level of individual cards in that format. And we generally only possess single copies (maybe two) of any given planeswalker anyway due to their mythic rare status.
Because individual players in our playgroup have 12 decks or more at any given time (I'm up to 26), we've started breaking games down into categories: Fun. Typically the showcase for new decks we create so we can determine their power level, or a c
There was no QQ'ing, it was people expressing their opinion. Go read what QQ means.
it means complaining and crying and thats all i really saw for the most part it can be abused u cant do that properly thats their opinion and thats fine i dont care but i dont need to see the same post about the same thing 4-6 times and to me thats QQing so :P
again there was no crying, no qq'ing, there was people saying that it was an HORRIBLE UNBALANCED idea, that we wish you good luck with it, but that we'd never use it, ever.
that would be fine if the people read the whole post and understand that we understand that this is NOT for competitive play and we know its not balanced and im not saying any1 has to take my house rules into their's. but repeating the same problems with it after it has been addressed is nothing more then whining imo and to me thats qqing u dont like it dont play it if what u find wrong with it has been mentioned and addressed then concure with someone if u want make an oppinion on how u would play it for those that might wanna play an alternate version of or if u find something that hasnt been addressed then fine speak up but the continuous bashing of rules u dont plan on playing with no new info is nothing more than qqing move on and since every1 has my part of this thread is done lets drop it thanks you
it means complaining and crying and thats all i really saw for the most part it can be abused u cant do that properly thats their opinion and thats fine i dont care but i dont need to see the same post about the same thing 4-6 times and to me thats Q
Having a seperate land and spell deck gives an inherent advantage to certain styles of decks like with the Global Fastbond rule someone mentioned earlier. The only time when I play with perfect mana rules like that is when I'm playing mana cost based mental Magic, but both players are using the same deck and essentially playing power Magic, so that's fair.
This reminds me of someone asking me why Fastbond was banned or restricted in any format where a set containing it was legal. (We were specifically speaking of EDH, though.)
But the most important skill in Magic might be balancing your lands. I can offer guidelines, but those guidelines can and should be broken in certain decks. A control deck can use 26-28 lands. RDW can get by with 20. Decks like Valakut need a lot of lands.
This reminds me of someone asking me why Fastbond was banned or restricted in any format where a set containing it was legal. (We were specifically speaking of EDH, though.)My response? Crucible of Worlds
