Proposed:
|2! Rule amendment |! Date Proposed |! Proposed by |75%



Agreed:


This message was last edited by the GM at 13:40, Thu 17 Sept 2015.

I thought Serra Ascendant was agreed to be 60, same with Rune-Tail. Pretty much any life total is doubled.

In reply to red2wedge (msg # 2):

I couldn't remember and typed too quickly...  The whole reason I put the rules as Proposed was so we have a chance to discuss it and agree again :)

In this case, I agree with you... 40 is of course the start life total for EDH, so having the new target thresholds for those two cards at 40 IS stupid. 60 IS more sensible - doubling the increase.

I'll amend.

Makes sense to me as well. And while not all of those cards are in my BW Commander deck, some of them are, so this ruling does impact it.

Although I think I disagree with the Magister Sphinx being included. At a point in which it can reasonably be cast (without hardcore acceleration), 10 is a reasonable life total and it is not as game breaking as Serra Avatar and Rune-Tail (which can get out on turn 1 and 3 respectively).

That would make a Sorin -3 into a Sorin's Vengeance not a 1 hit kill anymore. :(

http://magiccards.info/m12/en/109.html
http://magiccards.info/m12/en/111.html

While that one hit kill may look nice, remember that Commander is a multiplayer game. And after spending all those resources on taking out one person, others might be a little intimidated... and immediately turn on you to kill you.

It falls under my general rule of 'Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should'.

Well yeah, but now you have 10 more life to tank it with. :p

I vote no.  Partly because I would prefer to play by tournament rules and dislike hosue rules in general.  partly because the poison counter thing is already in play in an ongoing game and changing the rules on someone AFTER the game has started is clearly unfair.

Assuming that votes count, of course.

Presumably it would have to be agreed on ahead of time, and wouldn't change the match that's already in play.

You want to play by tournament rules and not house rules?


...Odd. Commander is a format almost completely made of house rules. In fact, it existed before WotC embraced it and started making cards sets for it, but it is entirely house rules.

I can't speak to it's origins.  I do remember "highlander" decks, but the commander mechanic is new to me, and I ahv eno diea who came up with it.  According to Wizards it originated as a fan thing somewhere in Alaska.  I ahve beenr eferign to the official rules - such as they are - on the wizards site.

I tend to rely on this site for the 'official' rules for EDH/Commander. http://mtgcommander.net/rules.php

Of note is that it encourages house ruling. Especially on the Banlist.

OK - this discussion has rambled a little - so let me try to bring it back to point...

Let's have votes to Alter or NOT Alter the following cards/rules.


If anyone has any desire to add cards into the mix, please speak up and I'll add them:


This message was last edited by the GM at 21:29, Tue 18 Aug 2015.

My question is, will these House Rules be considered the default for playing EDH, and thus require special agreements ahead of time to forgo, or will they be optional requiring us to agree to use them ahead of time?

I'd be okay with either, myself. But I see a better point for them being agreed upon beforehand. Because asking each time would get annoying.

Any comments on this before we start some new EDH games?  Getting a few votes for or against each of the proposed changes might be nice...  plus any other cards that people thing ought to have exceptions...

I feel like since life gain or damage spells remain the same, perhaps the proposed amendment can read something like "spells based on becoming a certain life plus 20", rather than by proportionality.

Actually it kind of takes the legs out from under my whole deck strategy. I like to get as much life as possible then throw it at creatures like shadowcloak vampires. =-(