Starting with the story of your deck is not blanket permission to do whatever you want - the playgroup still gets to confirm if they want to 'hear' that story, because it might conflict with their own ideal experience, and the whole point is to create a fun and welcoming environment everyone can agree upon.
I get the point and I do think it's a fun idea to add, but I don't know how practical it is as a substitute for a rule 0 talk. For example, when you mentioned Atraxa and introduced the doubling of the poison required in a narrative manner, not everyone might get what you mean, which would lead to having to explain the intended purpose in a mechanic-focused manner anyway. Also, someone could play both Isshin or Wulfgar under the same story because their effects are so similar, but the decks might be entirely different with different power levels as a whole because their colours are so different. I don't think a deck's story can replace the less "lore-friendly" parts of rule 0, but I do think it can work wonderfully as an addition to it for people to get more invested in each game and what story it tells.
I think anything that adds to the ruleset of MTG, is by collegial use of the term a 'rule 0'. In your examples: 0.1 a non-creature legend, 0.2 poison counters up to 20, and I would add non-official partners or custom ban lists as well there. If it is agreed upon and creates an expansion of the rule set, it is a rule 0. That said, nothing wrong about doing it flavourfully, beautifully describing your deck, that is all on the plus side of more communication. Since we are all awkward nerds though, keeping communication clear is also important, especially with those groups of random players. Likewise, I don't like describing decks as just one thing or one number even, prefer to hear you describe your decks speed, consistency to reach critical mass and how flavour focused it is, to get a picture.
This isn't exactly Rule 0 since the commander and the 99 are all legal, but I have a story deck. It's for Kelsien, the Plague. I've proxied the whole thing up with custom arts. It's a John Wick storyline. Kelsien is John, alongside some other XP Counter Legendaries in Mardu colors, who are other assassins from the franchise. Athreos, Shroud-Veiled is Winston, Sram is the Sommelier etc. I've used the art from the Tarot set John Wick 4 released for the cards. It was a fun project!
As interesting as the concept might be, this feels entirely impracticable for sitting down at a random Command Fest pod. When someone shows up and says they want to tell the story about stealing treasures from my deck, that doesn’t give me the information I need to pick a deck of a similar power level. Are you running lots of free spells? Fast mana? Infinite combos? What turn does the deck intend to win on? Are you running an unusually large number of board wipes with a planeswalker commander? Maybe I shouldn’t pull out my token deck. Please, yes, DOntell me your deck's story! It makes the game much more interesting! Just don’t expect that to supplant the basic social conventions of a random commande pod.
“My deck tells the story of a merfolk Oracle of the Goddess Thassa, who consults with a demon - told to you through the tutelage of demons and vampires”
Sounds fun, but I reckon it'd be too indirect for some players, particularly if trust is an issue. Like that Atraxa introduction for example probably won't suffice if you rock up to your LGS to play with strangers, as they'd probably still like you to clarify that you're actually proposing to double the poison threshold and/or what else you mean by that. And at that point you'll be having a Rule 0 discussion anyways.
One way to establish trust is to put everyone at ease and place emphasis on the shared desire to have fun through a communal experience. Opening with a story about your own deck can go a long way to putting the other players into the right frame of mind, but if you need to fall back on a more structured Rule 0 discussion, you still have that option. I'd just prefer to see that be the last resort, rather than the opening framework for the upcoming game.
@@MagicArcanumSomebody saying that first sentence to me would immediately make me trust them less. It literally sounds like politician speak. And if somebody starts throwing a story at me from out of nowhere, especially when I can tell they're using a story to try to convince me of something, my mind is immediately going "what bullshit are they trying to get me to accept". Again manipulating people through stories is another highly used political tactic for getting people to accept things they normally wouldn't. Actually, I guess in this case that's EXACTLY what the point and goal of it is. That must be why it's coming off so "like politics" to me. This idea is literally a political tactic being repurposed for the gaming table.
It's not so much about lore as much as it is explaining the goal of your deck, and thus, the experience you want to have. Sitting down with Urza, Lord High Artificer and saying "my deck's story is to power out artifacts and make a ton of mana to spend on broken stuff" isn't lore, but it does communicate to the table that they're about to be in for a tough fight.
Im currently working on an "Un" deck (Unstable, unglued, etc) and I will probably ask if folks are ok with it under "rule 0." I might try and jazz up my description to show why it might be fun, but i definitely want to be straightforward in my description since a lot of that stuff ca. Be a little wonky.
It is important to be clear with what your deck is capable of, but since the goal of this deck is to do wonky stuff, you might as well start off by embracing that from the very start!
I think both can co-exist and don't serve the same purpose. Using rule 0 to use commanders that can't usually be commanders is just one of the infinite ways of using rule 0. With my group, we often use rule 0 during the game. For example, when someone is mana screwed (and it wasn't their own fault), we usually let them fetch some lands to get back into the game. I personally don't see how rule 0 is "confrontational" and why it would need to be changed.
Commanders are the most visible and most iconic part of the format so I gave a few examples of how you could propose changing yours via your deck's story, but I also showed how you could voluntarily place a restriction on yourself (needing 20 poison to kill someone rather than 10) to help make certain stories more appealing to your playgroup. What you're describing (free lands during the game if needed) sound more like house rules, unless they are explained to the table before the game starts. Rule 0 is more often used when meeting new players so you can quickly all agree on which rules you want to strictly enforce and which ones you personally want to bend (or break) but it's important people know that before the game starts, so they don't count on things like free lands when they're not drawing them naturally. And, in such a case, starting a discussion with "Rule 0" can appear confrontational, or at least competitive (because you're establishing rules for a game) but under "the story of your deck," you get people thinking about the game itself and the experience of playing, rather than rules, which I find has a dramatic impact on player's perception of the whole encounter.
@@MagicArcanumI've never seen any restriction about rule 0 having to be only explained before the game starts. House rules are definitely part of rule 0 to me, even when they are discussed in the middle of a game. And that's the power of the rule 0 to me. And if your group sees rule 0 as something confrontational, I fail to see how disguising it under lore would change the core of the issue. Overall, I like the idea of using lore to justify rule changes, and I already do it quite often. But using that to try to "replace" rule 0 feels counterproductive to me. What if a player in the group doesn't care about lore? They can't use a "non-official" commander anymore? Lore and rules should be seperate entities.
It's not so much about lore as much as it is explaining the goal of your deck, and thus, the experience you want to have. Sitting down with Urza, Lord High Artificer and saying "my deck's story is to power out artifacts and make a ton of mana to spend on broken stuff" isn't lore, but it does communicate to the table that they're about to be in for a tough fight.
@@MagicArcanumThat's basically explaining what your deck does, which is already something a lot of players do. Most players would explain that saying: "this is an urza lord high artificer deck centered on artifacts and big mana combo". This usually happens with power level discussion. And to me, this has nothing to do about rule 0. There is already an established vocabulary around power level discussion and deck descriptions. I think that using a "story" to replace that is just obfuscating the information you want to pass through. If you want to describe your deck with a story like that, it should be done additionally to the "standard" way of describing your deck.
This varies a lot deck to deck for me. I have some Very story-specific decks, but I also have some highly mechanics-driven decks. I’m always the leader of the rule 0 conversation in my metas, and try to cater my deck choices to how people respond. My primary meta uses a “quest” system for rewards, which means winning the game is less important, so I’ll usually try to use decks which are likely to help myself and others to complete the quests laid out that week. The biggest problems are when we have new players who just don’t get it.
I did this back in the day when I was just starting. It was the return to ravnica sets. I built a non commander deck focused on gate cards, random good ravnica cards, and I stuck the 3 eldrazi titans into it. Basically it was themed around ravnica getting attacked by the eldrazi.
My usual rule 0 talk is before I pick a deck, asking what the power level is (precon, updated precon, ect), because that way I can pick the deck that matches the power level to have the most fun group experience
I feel the current Rule 0 is more cooperative and better at communicating than the tell your story alterative. 1) Cooperative: Rule 0 focuses on communicating and asking. Telling the story came across as telling rather than asking. 2) Communicating: With Dack Faden were you describing the commander? the deck (theft based deck)? or backstory? I think it would be clearer to say "I want to use Dack Faden (show card) and I have a theft based deck. Would that be okay?" However I do want to hear the creativity of the players in addition to just being shown it. For those that are creating a narrative, I want to hear that story too. (Just like I want to hear the Hivemind chaos deck talk about what/why they like Hivemind)
Happy belated birthday! I like your idea so long as it's story driven. I do wonder if this video partially came about because of the LGS's ban list that's been circulating again. It's bizzare, but also creates conversation.
As a very new magic player, my first actual commander deck had Optimus Prime as the commander... But as a huge Transformers nerd and vorthos like yourself, I intentionally tried to make it tell a story about what the hell Optimus Prime is doing in a magic deck. The idea is, essentially, that Cybertron was destroyed in the war with New Phyrexia, and after the war the Autobots are recovering on and helping to safeguard Kaladesh, along with a few other newfound allies. It had a heavy vehicles them (obviously), along with artificers and in particular Kaladesh cards, because I thought it was fun. Similarly, I soon after made a Megatron deck which focused on Megatron being a brutal warlord trying to make use of leftover phyrexian technology and oils after the war was over, using a lot of the phyrexian cards and going hard on artifact sacrifice.
I think it depends in that, some players simply will not care about the story direction as they don't think about their decks or playstyle in that way but rather, like a chess player, they're solely interested in having the best cards for their given strategy that may or may not be lore related at all if even from the same Plane of existence. Then there are the players who clearly LOVE theming and creating a deck with a super strong identity. So in short, it's a matter of what players are there to do: are they there to create the most game theoretically devastating strategy to win the game or dominate the battlefield (even in a way that is fair and NOT CEDH levels of power?) OR are they there to create a deck that has an aesthetic appeal or fun appeal above all else? Usually it seems like there are a mixture of such players or even a mixture of ideals/goals among players. I for one, love the idea of giving my deck a story, I can't help but do so just as I do so in any videogames I play. I play with a mix of purposes, in that I also really love creating a strong, cohesive strategy that, under the right circumstances, can win any game against all odds. For example, my favorite deck is an Azorius color identity soldiers and pillowfort deck. It is, in my opinion, both competitive at casual tables AND aesthetically pleasing and strong on the identity of this feeling of overwhelming flying soldiers all working together to bring light and justice. I think ultimately, it helps to just get to know who you're playing with and get to know the regulars some so you know how each other plays and what you like to do AND you'll know what it means when they say "Oh yeah, this deck is FUN" so that you can read their style of communication when they're cheekily describing what their deck does without being too revealing. Otherwise, I think playing against public match strangers is always going to be a toss up and we're bound to have some games that just suck or don't go to plan until we get to know each other better and know what sort of game we all have the most fun with. As far as rules that go beyond the official Rules Committee rules, it definitely sounds fun, but I imagine it would be a hard convincing job for your average LGS because, if I could predict, it would likely end up changing the dynamic of what is and is not expected in decks and more people would start asking to make exceptions for various illegal maneuvers in deck building that, while maybe fun, open up the proverbial Pandora's Box. That one might just be better suited to friend groups even if that friend group does in fact meet at a LGS to play.
I think, for its intended purpose of getting a group of strangers on the same page, the dry, direct nature of the rule 0 conversation is necessary. As fun as the more flowery, metaphorical "my deck's story" is, not everyone is gonna interpret things like power level the same from a brief flowery description over a more direct attempt to directly quantify power level. The real answer is, find a way to turn your randos into a regular play group. If you only get to play at the game store with whoever is there, surely there are a few other regulars, or at least people you end up playing multiple times. All you need after that is a way to communicate when you want to play so you can meet up at the game store. Regular play group is and always will be the ultimate way to experience EDH.
Im personally more of a player who wants to do the cool thing and edge more to playing to win. While i like lore, it might be something i find hard to appreciate mid game. I also think clear communication is very important unless your group knows you're doing a bit. In most cases, you are safer just making a plan request first and a flat explanation of what your deck does. Just from your examples, i did not know what you wanted right away until you elaborated.
So replace rule 0 with rule 0 using fantasy words? Nah dawg I'm good. "We were going to be chill like good friends and let you have fun with your deck, but after that long nerd ass story we decided against it." Or am I rolling up to a random table setting my deck and fedora down and being like hello fellow planeswalkers, allow me to regale you with my tales. On the plane of Innistrad I came across the most mysterious of artif..., oh you would like me to leave now?"
Magic was created by a man known to wear colorful bowties and mismatched socks. If you can't handle a bit of whimsy in your fantasy trading card game, that's fine, but the community would still benefit from you not being a judgmental prick to the other players who do choose to express themselves through the flavor of their favorite cards.
@@MagicArcanumAll I have to say to that is... Your go, your go, your go Lol jk jk, you got me. But still no. Yes it's a fun neat little idea that I'm sure some play groups would enjoy, and if they would like to spice up their rule zero that is fine. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Hey guys what if tonight we played using Planechase cards and the blind eternities variant, I'll teac.... Then someone sticks a finger up to hit me with jeopardy rules and tells me I have to state it in the form of a short story. I am literally going to fight them. (No I'm not going to be a prick or fight someone in real life, I've just added little flourishes to make my story more interesting and get a reaction out of you. OH NO~ maybe I'm a fantasy rule 0 fan after all!)
If anyone would like to do this with decks they bring to a table instead of a more "standard" pre-game conversation, that's fine. It's definitely fun. But I feel like it ignores the fact that most decks simply aren't built to be ludonarrarively coherent. I very much would not want this to be the standard or the expectation, personally. Even as someone who likes the lore, I like it mostly on a separate level from gameplay and find trying to mix the two dissatisfying.
It's not so much about lore as much as it is explaining the goal of your deck, and thus, the experience you want to have. Sitting down with Urza, Lord High Artificer and saying "my deck's story is to power out artifacts and make a ton of mana to spend on broken stuff" isn't lore, but it does communicate to the table that they're about to be in for a tough fight.
I've actually been considering something similar to this, but instead taking a more story telling way of playing the game. Narrating plays similar to how I would see it be done in DnD, like turn one I summon from the forest a llanowar elves, then turn two, with assistance from my elf we proceed to cultivate our a swamp back to its prime, and find a mountain for our travels. Obviously this is in theory I still have yet to try it enough because writing this by itself was hard and wouldn't be able to done by everyone lmao
I love the idea of storytelling as an edh component. Having access to non-stop high quality entertainment on Netflix, etc , seems to have made us individually incapable of telling good stories. We would benefit by improving this situation. Personally, I could try to weave a riveting story that features Gifts Ungiven into the legends, etc., of Kamigawa so that it is understood as a necessity in my shrines deck and everybody becomes excited by it instead of side-eyeing me when I cast it.
I thought this was going an entirely different direction, and I'm extremely relieved it did. That said, I came to a deeper understanding of how I view Rule 0 in my first draft of this rant, so I'll share it anyway. Commander is alot like D&D - open ended, imaginative, obvious power inbalance, rife with social issues (and owned by wotc :P). You NEED to have a layout of expectations between the players and dungeon master. And even then, its not a perfect system, because in any open-ended system involving social interaction, some people will be assholes. A majority of people won't be.
I also feel that some decks have creative expressed thematically but not narratively. Or at least not an in-fiction story. My deck tells the story of witnessing the awe of plenty and past suffering of both sympathy for and despair of shortage. Along with the brothers Riku, I reply with the aspiration of preventing destitution, the hope to observe marvels following marvels, and with some patient marvels of my own. Aka I want to see a game where everyone gets to play and gets to do neat things, so I want to run one of my group hug decks. This one is led by Riku of Twin Reflections and has late game wincons. The vast majority of that story is at the out of character level and the focus on story pushed out describing the other themes of the specific deck.
Happy belated birthday first and foremost, I am glad to hear you got to spend it, forging new lore, with those loved in your life! I like this idea for explaining decks absolutely, and it can even help with immersion and keeping flavor relevant. However, I find that not all rule 0 decks are able to really have that kind of story. I run an Ink-Treader Nephilim Cantrips Rule 0 deck, which relies upon creatures that let me sacrifice spells on the stack to gain a benefit, and the best I can come up with on my own is, “Much like the Nephilim, this deck defies reality, what should target one, targets all, but can you endure and thrive in the chaos, before the spelleaters arrive and make that chaos controlled?” I would love your insight on rule 0 decks leaning more on a mechanic than a flavor, and how can a player find the story of their deck
If we consider your deck and its commander to be a character, then the story comes down to "what does this character want, and what are they willing to do to get it?" "Satsuki, the Living Lore wants to tell as many sagas as possible, even ones from the very edges of the Multiverse, but she prefers to discover her stories and let them flow naturally." (A statement like this could include the sagas from Middle Earth and the Lord of the Rings, if I wanted it to, and I'm saying I don't use tutors or much recursion outside of the commander's own abilities.) "Naban, Dean of Iteration is trying to teach his student wizards how to be the best possible versions of themselves. He asks perfection. Then he asks for it again, even if it means removing everything and starting over." (Mono blue wizards with a high number of 'return something to its owner's hand when this enters the battlefield' triggers that get doubled up by Naban.)
Well, I will use "my deck story" if the new Tamiyo, a creature who becomes planeswalker, be just UG. I want to use all Tamiyo's cards, but the Field Researcher is bant. My hope is that Gavin make her planeswalker side bant from the beginning. If anyone reading this already know who she will be, I will be glad if you tell me.
We don't know for sure but since the Ajani they showed us goes from white to red/white, I suspect the cycle will be similar, which means Tamiyo will probably go from blue to blue/green.
Absolutely agree. I recently built an Edgin deck. (DnD movie) whole deck is focused on bard stuff and gold and stealing yadda yadda. Very fun. However, both Simon and Holga "have" to be in the 99 be cause commander rules. But in reality they should be together to fight. So triple partner. Would be cool
Too many times I've been asked if it was okay for someone to run some custom card they find online as their commander and the answer is always NO! If someone asks, I'd be fine with someone running a planeswalker or legendary artifact. But no one should be making their own commander that has no ruling unless it's is a super basic card that requires none, but at that point I doubt those type of players would bring that card to the table.
I love the marquee in the bottom right that says "it's story time". Another, probably worse, idea is to have infect only cause you to lose the game if your life total drops below the number of poison counters you have. I say it's likely worse because it creates a lot more variability in the game by removing the static/predictable nature of poison counters. 7:55
I don't mind Rule: Zero and love your idea (It is funny you mentioned Elbrus first & have a brother named Keith. I really have a brother named Keith who has built that deck. It is a Mono-Black commander & he only uses creatures that are cultist or look like cultist from Innistrad. Like Skirsdag High Priest)
Ryan explaining Elbrus deck with rule 0: *normal voice* Under rule 0 ... Ryan explaining Elbrus deck with storytelling: *deep and profound, documentary worthy voice* My deck tells the story ...
I think the problem was people treating rule zero as a definitive ban list for their group instead of actually having an adult conversation about a game
I don't tell the story in the playsession, but I built my Animar deck to tell the story of the mana embodiment elementals fighting against the void embodiments: the eldrazi. It's a fight from everything against nothing :D
I don't wish to be rude, but this can seem, too me, like trying to squeeze to much RPG into what was once the side game you played while you waited for everyone else to finish spending their 3e skill points, and be ready to start the campaign. If I was with my preferred play group, this would be neat, though I think even they might say "don't couch it in metaphor; just tell me what exception you want. Telling me why you think it makes sense to give Ixidor Partner, so he can team up with Akroma; HIS creation, doesn't stop me from needing to decide if his mono-Blue deck needs to now somehow be Azorius", but in a game at my LGS, where I have NEVER played with a group that was particularly kind, or not cutthroat, their plans to exploit rules to win won't want to be bothered by me trying to deceptively bard my way through this, even if the end result probably isn't broken. Purely my experience, though. If I could kill a rule, it would be the understanding that, somehow, Lands are sacrosanct, and beyond touch. Maybe a little has been done to stymie Green ramp. Most people have Sol Rings, and Arcane Signets, and I can find whole channels practically devoted to at least once oer episode uttering that Treasures are broken, but there are times I still just feel that Green ramp is too powerful; to efficient. Maybe some of Bluexs mechanics are better when Blue can't really ramp, but I hate that I have to play Simic, or the above cards everyone rags on, since Green, which DOES have other themes, is basically just there to spam mana, and it's Nana I'm not supposed to be allowed to stymie, because "destroying a Land is hindering my ability to sumply play the game." It's a petty thing, but I'm personally a fan of targeted Land Destruction; I'm not looking to just repeat reset the mana bases, or even slip a Winter Orb into each deck, to slow tour untaps, but Green just coughs up so much permanent mana, while the orher cards struggle to balance that, unless they can counter the searcher, or sonething.
the idea of building a lore deck is such a fun one, take the new fallout decks. I built a story about my commander (agent frank horrigan) and his journey to cleanse the land of fallout with an unending army of mutant two headed elks (it's an infinite elks deck)
I'm not particularly swayed regarding a higher poison threshold in EDH; every other witch-maw commander can be a poison deck without the other 3 players losing their collective minds.
So, I thought that I was going to get this super hot take of "here's why Rule Zero needs to go..." Instead, I get a cool story about telling cool stories about decks with... er... cool stories. Ryan, you sly, mustached fox, you never fail to be creative. To quote Avatar: The Last Airbender: "Bumi, you're a mad genius!" I guess your playgroup will be calling it 'Rule Story' from now on. 🤭 Speaking of stories, I think it's time that the MTG community gets a collaboration between Magic Arcanum and... Rhystic Studies. Seriously. This needs to happen. Two great storytellers putting their creative minds together to create something that will no doubt be mind-blowingly entertaining? Yeah, I can get behind that. I hope the MTG community can, too. Let's make it happen.
Honestly, if MTG is going to focus on commander. They NEED to polish and update their banlist. People will be mad at first but then deck builders will always find a way. Yu-gi-oh has 106 cards cards banned currently at the community is doing just fine. How many years are we going to have to wait for the same reprints to come out so everyone can get the same "staples" whenever they exceed 20 bucks.
I do love magic cards as a way of story. I probably too often try and explain the story of some crazy combos. All the same, I think that I get outdone by my group that just go goos combos and strategy, where instead I like the story.
Rule 0 has always been a cop-out that emerged as part of the banned list going away during the conversion from EDH to commander. Friends groups will always be fine adding or ignoring rules. It's called house rules, and it's been a thing forever. Meanwhile Rule 0 has often been used as a bail out by the RC for not making more comprehensive rules to ensure enjoyable play for players shifting between groups or looking for pickup games. You only need to play commander on MTGO for a little while to see how it fails. Once you sit down at a table, most people have already selected a deck due to external limitations or because it's what they want to play that day. You can gate the sort of game that you want to play before they sit down, but even that is incredibly difficult without length explanations.
House rules are a thing but they don't work when you're out of the house. There are a huge number of players that gather in game stores or at the Magic Cons, and they need to meet on common ground. Presently, they use Rule 0 to align expectations, which is serviceable but bland. I'm proposing The Story of a Deck to help get people into an agreeable mood and find overlapping principals upon which they can share their experience. Of course this doesn't work great with Magic Online - that's not what it's for. It's for people who want a fun spirited and casual experience while playing in unfamiliar territory, and based on the popularity of shows like Game Knights, we can tell this speaks to a huge audience of players.
I'd rather not have to explain to everyone what my deck is doing. giving up my decks strategy before I even shuffle my deck does not appeal to me. I'll tell you who my commander is and it is up to YOU the opponent to figure out my strategy. I work for a living, when I got to my LGS, I want to just sit down and play. The only question I ask is "is this an EDH game or a CEDH game?" that's all that needs to be established. You want to play some weird jank, go right ahead. If I want to make lore or a story of my build, I'll go play DnD or play a set cube.
My one rule zero deck is Vampire Wedding. Olivia, Crimson Bride and Edgar, Charmed Groom as partners and using every relevant card from VOW to have a wedding ceremony. I even try to set up my board to look like an overhead shot of a wedding, having the priest up front, bride and groom next to each other and the guest in rows. Flower girl down the middle. Have the ring and everything. If anyone has a problem with them as unofficial partner commanders, then I always offer the original Edgar to be the Commander (whose not in the deck, just remove a land) and to shuffle the bride and groom in. They always allow the unofficial partners. The decks subtheme is blood vials or whatever but that's mostly because VOW did that. All the basic lands are the black and white full arts from VOW. Add ramp, draw and removal and it's a fun time.
I GET it that no one likes to lose, but I've never understood why people say no toxic. It doesn't really have the speed to win like alot of other popular decks, it's not milling you and preventing you from playing your deck, etc.
The difference is that there is no counterplay to it. Against an aggressive deck, you can at least try to offset their strategy by gaining more life than they take away. Against poison, once you take ten, you're dead, no matter how healthy you are otherwise. That can be really frustrating to play against because it feels like your own choices don't really matter.
I think rule zero is okay but the power scale for decks needs to go away cause everyones idea of whats a 1, 7, or 10 and everything in-between are different most of the time. Any time I play i just ask what does the deck do and most people are more than happy to give a few sentences to describe what it does or what its themed around and whether or not the decks have combos or fast mana in it so everyone can pick a deck accordingly.
Just have to give the commander name, what the deck does, and probably any noticeably strong effects or combos. That's usually enough to judge how strong it is without vague numbers.
For me I ask power level in this way: - precon, updated precon, higher, ect - low long they have been playing Because you could have a theoretical high power deck, but if this is your first time playing edh, you have no idea of any combos that might be in it, optimal play patterns, ect
Sorry but this just seems like a setup for miscommunication. "Resist Atraxa for twice as long to prove yourself worthy of her oily embrace..." is not the same thing as saying "Hey, I get why toxic counters as a mechanic can be frowned upon in this format, how about we double the amount needed for victory, that could be balanced, what do you think? I'd really like to play this deck." The first statement is a flowery, unprecise tale. In its context, you are the author, everyone else is a reader. But that isn't the dynamic of a game table. You arent even stating it as a question of "Hey, this is experimental and difficult to say if its balanced, mind if I run it?" You're presenting a tale in a 'not open for discussion, let me tell you what's about to happen' type deal. You are literally telling a story, which is fun and all, but this is not a story, it's still primarily a game that needs to work, and if it does it can then also tell a story if you're into it, which also not everyone is. The second statement is a clear communication about potential issues you see might be coming up. It's exactly what is needed when setting up the actual game to ensure everyone knows whats up and is good to go. I see no benefit of the first over the second. You can still craft that narrative to enhance the flavor and experience, but you can do that in addition to the actual clear discussion on rules and mechanics. No need to throw that out.
The story of your deck is meant to be a starting point for the discussion. Other players at the table can help co-author your story, once they understand what you're looking for, and how you plan to achieve it. In my experience, this collaborative dialogue leads to more fun and engaging discussion, and ultimately better games, rather than a stuffy "here are the normal rules, here are the ones I want to bend or break, now let us perform these functions in a shared space" rule zero method.
@@MagicArcanumokay, what does any of that mean? I am struggling to understand the purpose of this. I swear I'm not trying to be a dick here, and if I'm coming of as one you obviously don't owe me a conversation here. But I'm genuinely struggling to understand what you are trying to achieve here. "Other players can help co-author your story" - It seems more and more like you are talking about a creative writing exercise. a) This has nothing to do with actually playing a game of Magic, which is presumably why the deck actually exists. Unlike the current rule 0 you describe, this replacement is not necessary. You can play Magic without writing a story for your deck. You cannot play Magic (with other people, for a long amount of time) if you keep playing decks that break rules or are just not fun to play against. b) This isn't something that works for every deck, as many decks are a group of mechanically related card with little narrative overlap. This also connects to c) c) This isn't something every player wants to do. Most people I've ever played Magic with couldn't tell you what an Omenpath is, because Lore and Story don't interest them one bit. They play Magic purely for the mechanical intricacy and the just vast options of playstyles available to you, which is the thing that sets magic apart from every other TCG/CCG. The thing is, I actually storytell my decks like you describe all the time. I dig that. But not once has it actually ever been the best (or even decent) way to address potential issues of gameplay. So you still need the rule 0. And most of the time, at least half the table has no interest in my narrative, let alone in crafting there own. This is not something that needs establishing as a norm. Which, from the sound of it, is what you are trying to do. You are talking about replacing a rule. That rule has an objective purpose. Why actual direct communication of potential issues that influence the real experience of the game is "stuffy" to you is something I simply don't understand. Why you would further replace it with a vague "starting point of a discussion" that doesn't necessarily tell me anything is also, frankly, confusing, especially since it will necessarily circle back to the actual current rule 0 stuff you mentioned anyways. How do you actually, concretely, picture this? "Resist Atraxa for twice as long to prove yourself worthy of her oily embrace..." "Okay, how about three times as long instead, maybe the poison isn't quite ripe yet and needs a larger dose?" "Sure, let's do that!" Is that what you're imagining? Because I fail to see how this is inherently superior for a majority of people, compared to: "Hey, I'm playing poison, let's say we double the counters you need to lose?" "Still seems super strong, can we do triple?" "Sure." Especially since my actual answer to that descriptive deck introduction would be "Okay, what are you doing? Are you telling me a story, are you asking me a question? What's happening?
If you don't get it, you don't get it, but I would point out you're subscribed to a channel that is devoted to the stories behind the cards. There are 80,000 other subscribers here, too, and I bet most of them know what an Omenpath is. Even if you play with people at a store who don't know though, that's ok, because the point of opening with a story about your deck isn't to connect it to the existing written lore. Let me put it another way: when I go to see my doctor and they start out with "we're going to take your blood pressure first," my results are usually bad (higher than they should be.) When they start with some small talk and ask how I'm feeling and then casually roll up my sleeve and put the monitor cuff on, the results are much better. Why do you think that is? I believe putting people into the right mood for things can have a dramatic impact on their actions. Having a literal discussion about rule zero works. I am not arguing about that. But to me it is also very clinical and detached from the fantasy setting of all the cards that are about to hit the table. So it's ok if your Urza, Lord High Artificer's story is "I'm going to drop as many artifacts as possible and use that mana to do busted stuff" even if that's not a moment of "lore." It does still communicate to the table that they will be in for a tough fight, and might encourage them to pick an appropriately powerful deck for this particular session. Now, they are in the mindset of "I gotta slay this monster!" rather than "oh you want to play Urza, ok, guess I'll play a hard counter with a lot of artifact destruction" which turns it into a math equation waiting to be solved. But yes, the story is not meant to be the final word. You can open with the Atraxa bit, and if someone asks for clarification or adjustment after that, then that's fine. That's the co-authoring part. You can discuss if 2x or 3x is more appropriate, but by starting with the story, you disarm people, and (in my experience) they become much more likely to accept what you are proposing because you wrapped it in fun rather than in rules.
I've never played with a "rule 0." It's always been "Run what ya brung." And declare when you had the intention to attempt end the game. If that meant someone went off early and combo off so be it. Stop being a wimp, learn from that, shuffle up and play
@@MagicArcanum that's the kind of commander I learned on, and made me a better player. There were No politics, it was play to win, don't go easy, cut throat games.
Its just about honesty. Dont lie and say ur playing casual then drop a turn 3 insta win. I personally dont enforce mulligan rule as mine cuz i want everyone to have a playable hand. I want to beat ur decks not 6 lands and an 8 drop. That doesnt mean however mulligan 5000 times til you hit the nut combo
If you don't have a regular playgroup for commander, don't play commander. Get close with other magic players by playing other formats, then build your own playgroup out of the new friends you've made. Then play commander.
This is good advice. I personally see Commander as "end game content," but with Wizards releasing so many precons each year and really pushing Commander as the "entry level" format now, I think it's still wise to have a plan for interacting with new tablemates.
I think if I'm facing down Brisela, Commander damage is the least of my worries 🤣 That said, I would probably do it under normal partner rules, and just track damage from either angel (or their melded form) separately.
I'm not sure it's players who try to make commander into a competitive format. I think that's WotC and store owners, who see money to be made via events and selling new cards. The popularity of Game Knights and other "experience" driven content tells me that many players (most, even) vastly prefer games where people are doing fun things rather than chasing the win.
I do like the storytelling, but the examples proposed need to include some reference point about power level. How fast (or slow) your deck intends wins the game, is this intended to go against out of the box precons, or heavily optimized strategies, etc. That information can be woven in very thematically, but it is important in getting everyone on the same page. For the Elbrus example, it could be couched as "this is a theme deck that focuses on flavor/lore over killing speed."
Agreed! The story of your deck is just a starting point for the discussion, rather than the more stuffy sounding "rule zero" but making sure everyone is on the same page regarding power levels is still an important part of the pre-game conversation.
Rule 0 is great when it is adding to the game. best example was playing the nephalim before 4 colors were an option. I have never seen it be an issue even when people wanted to play emrakul or griselbrand as commanders. Granted, you shouldn't take your rule 0 deck to a random pod or to a tournament, but everyone likes seeing cool decks. I dont want to listen to people tell me a dramatic story of why they want to play a fun card as their commander, just that they want to play it.
It doesn't have to be a dramatic story; it just sets expectations for the table in a fun way, which feels appropriate for a format that (allegedly) is designed to maximize fun.
meh, I understand the discussion. But if you're gonna show up with you dack feyden and that loosy of a story, I would still ask you: "Is it a planeswalker deck ? do you have winter orb ? Stasis ? Mass land desctruction ? Game soft lock ? Infinite combo ? Tuto ? Fast Mana ?" So at the end of the day, doesn't work.
@@MagicArcanumRight, so I should assume you only play "Gain/exchange control of" cards beside lands? without black recursion that make about 20 to 40 cards ? What happend with the 20 open slots ? I should assume it's harmless do nothing cards or lands ? One second you play Metal coating "to better steal stuff" and the next second you drop an infinite on us because we assumed your story would have mentioned it if Dack fayden had an army of Saheeli Rai. That's sweet immersion and roleplay, but if you answer by a question when asked one you are just deflecting, I'll just ask again the same question. Politics and double-talks start after mulligan.
I'm sorry that your previous experiences have left you feeling like you can't trust other players. It sounds like you have an unhealthy relationship with this game and possibly the people you regularly play with. How much information do you need about someone's deck before you are happy to play against it? Under classic rule zero, would you expect me to mention your hypothetical infinite combo? 2 cards out of 100? Do I need to prepare you for every possible combination of cards my deck is capable of? If I forget to mention one and pull it off (or hell, discover it for the first time) during a game, will you be mad? Refuse to play further? Feel betrayed? Because it sounds like no amount of discussion beforehand will put your mind at ease, and if that's the case, you might want to consider a game like Chess, where there are no surprises that will upset you.
@@MagicArcanum It's no about every being ready for everything. I got unhealthy planeswalker "as commander" PTSDs and game soft lock, that I cannot lie seeing a rule 0 planeswalker commander would instantly make my throat dry and my hair rise. But tuto and fast mana are quite indicative of how fast the deck is. Infinite are another thing, I was advise and I advise new players to come to a gentleman agreement to explicitly said when you drop a combo piece. Metal coating is a well known infinite enabler, but not all players use it for infinites and they usually say "I have nothing to go infinite with" before someone snipe a junky synergy. But too few people go the other way around, like dropping Storm-kiln Artist on the board and expliciting it can instant win with card X in the deck. And shuffling your cards back into your deck out of nowhere because you don't know all the magic cards isn't welcoming. Maybe that story is just a preface to the pre-game discussion that would happen anyway. But it left so much to interpretation I'm gonna ask so many more questions... when you give your Atraxa example I'm trying to understand if you're trying to bring an very high power deck to a low power table with the handicap of being the archenemy and the infection thing, or if you just play simple Atraxa and nerfed poison. Anyway it's just a funny "what if..." for people to bring some flavor to their deck. It's not like "I play that because I find it funny" wasn't enough.
Yes. Just getting across that, though I value pre game talk, in some stores I've played, and some circles, it isn't very welcome. From: store owner talking to everyone and organizing within power level To: completly random and cEDH players and precons play together. When I asked Store owner: you can't prohibit people from playing what they like. Just saying.. Both extreme exist, and for someone who travels a lot, it's difficult to get any sort of pattern
It's time to retire Commander completely and return to just Standard, Modern and Legacy. Every damn set cards are being previewed and I look at them thinking "oh this would go great in my Modern re-animator deck" just to find out it's a Commander card.
What do you mean by "commander card" though? You can still buy singles of pretty much any card from commander pre-cons, and cards being commander-leaning aren't exclusive to the format?
@@PhoenicopterusRCards from the commander precon aren’t playable in Modern or Standard by the rules. Not that this is a good reason to get rid of commander.
Not sure how you wound up with the impression I hate fun when the whole thesis of this video is that the game becomes more fun when you find ways to do the unusual thing, as Sheldon intended?
I think low tier players tend to overestimate their deck power, I cannot tell you how many times I've heard "I think it's about a seven" and then they do nothing for 10 turns. Deadass, it's not pauper, and I'm not gonna be made to feel bad because I have good cards. Be honest with yourself, you play at a 3-4. Remember, it's not a grading scale. 5 is average. I don't give a shit who your commander is as long as you know how to play the game instead of just derping for each round playing a 4 mana 1 tap rock.
Thanks to TCG Home for sponsoring The Question today. Check them out using my link: bit.ly/TCG_Home_Arcanum
My brother and I, along with anyone else willing to face his Balthor deck, have a great Rule Zero. Draw 2 Lay 2 (cards and lands, respectively).
I love this in theory. But magic players can't be trusted.
Starting with the story of your deck is not blanket permission to do whatever you want - the playgroup still gets to confirm if they want to 'hear' that story, because it might conflict with their own ideal experience, and the whole point is to create a fun and welcoming environment everyone can agree upon.
I get the point and I do think it's a fun idea to add, but I don't know how practical it is as a substitute for a rule 0 talk. For example, when you mentioned Atraxa and introduced the doubling of the poison required in a narrative manner, not everyone might get what you mean, which would lead to having to explain the intended purpose in a mechanic-focused manner anyway. Also, someone could play both Isshin or Wulfgar under the same story because their effects are so similar, but the decks might be entirely different with different power levels as a whole because their colours are so different.
I don't think a deck's story can replace the less "lore-friendly" parts of rule 0, but I do think it can work wonderfully as an addition to it for people to get more invested in each game and what story it tells.
I think anything that adds to the ruleset of MTG, is by collegial use of the term a 'rule 0'. In your examples: 0.1 a non-creature legend, 0.2 poison counters up to 20, and I would add non-official partners or custom ban lists as well there. If it is agreed upon and creates an expansion of the rule set, it is a rule 0.
That said, nothing wrong about doing it flavourfully, beautifully describing your deck, that is all on the plus side of more communication. Since we are all awkward nerds though, keeping communication clear is also important, especially with those groups of random players.
Likewise, I don't like describing decks as just one thing or one number even, prefer to hear you describe your decks speed, consistency to reach critical mass and how flavour focused it is, to get a picture.
This isn't exactly Rule 0 since the commander and the 99 are all legal, but I have a story deck. It's for Kelsien, the Plague. I've proxied the whole thing up with custom arts. It's a John Wick storyline. Kelsien is John, alongside some other XP Counter Legendaries in Mardu colors, who are other assassins from the franchise. Athreos, Shroud-Veiled is Winston, Sram is the Sommelier etc. I've used the art from the Tarot set John Wick 4 released for the cards. It was a fun project!
Sounds cool!
As interesting as the concept might be, this feels entirely impracticable for sitting down at a random Command Fest pod.
When someone shows up and says they want to tell the story about stealing treasures from my deck, that doesn’t give me the information I need to pick a deck of a similar power level. Are you running lots of free spells? Fast mana? Infinite combos? What turn does the deck intend to win on? Are you running an unusually large number of board wipes with a planeswalker commander? Maybe I shouldn’t pull out my token deck.
Please, yes, DOntell me your deck's story! It makes the game much more interesting! Just don’t expect that to supplant the basic social conventions of a random commande pod.
“My deck tells the story of a merfolk Oracle of the Goddess Thassa, who consults with a demon - told to you through the tutelage of demons and vampires”
Happy late birthday 🥳🎂
Sounds fun, but I reckon it'd be too indirect for some players, particularly if trust is an issue. Like that Atraxa introduction for example probably won't suffice if you rock up to your LGS to play with strangers, as they'd probably still like you to clarify that you're actually proposing to double the poison threshold and/or what else you mean by that. And at that point you'll be having a Rule 0 discussion anyways.
One way to establish trust is to put everyone at ease and place emphasis on the shared desire to have fun through a communal experience. Opening with a story about your own deck can go a long way to putting the other players into the right frame of mind, but if you need to fall back on a more structured Rule 0 discussion, you still have that option. I'd just prefer to see that be the last resort, rather than the opening framework for the upcoming game.
@@MagicArcanumSomebody saying that first sentence to me would immediately make me trust them less. It literally sounds like politician speak.
And if somebody starts throwing a story at me from out of nowhere, especially when I can tell they're using a story to try to convince me of something, my mind is immediately going "what bullshit are they trying to get me to accept". Again manipulating people through stories is another highly used political tactic for getting people to accept things they normally wouldn't.
Actually, I guess in this case that's EXACTLY what the point and goal of it is. That must be why it's coming off so "like politics" to me. This idea is literally a political tactic being repurposed for the gaming table.
Cool idea. I'm not sure everyone has the storytelling gift that you do, but I would be delighted if someone inteoduced their deck that way
It's not so much about lore as much as it is explaining the goal of your deck, and thus, the experience you want to have. Sitting down with Urza, Lord High Artificer and saying "my deck's story is to power out artifacts and make a ton of mana to spend on broken stuff" isn't lore, but it does communicate to the table that they're about to be in for a tough fight.
This is how I present my decks. I'm glad we're on the same page. I hope it catches on.
Im currently working on an "Un" deck (Unstable, unglued, etc) and I will probably ask if folks are ok with it under "rule 0." I might try and jazz up my description to show why it might be fun, but i definitely want to be straightforward in my description since a lot of that stuff ca. Be a little wonky.
It is important to be clear with what your deck is capable of, but since the goal of this deck is to do wonky stuff, you might as well start off by embracing that from the very start!
I think both can co-exist and don't serve the same purpose. Using rule 0 to use commanders that can't usually be commanders is just one of the infinite ways of using rule 0. With my group, we often use rule 0 during the game. For example, when someone is mana screwed (and it wasn't their own fault), we usually let them fetch some lands to get back into the game. I personally don't see how rule 0 is "confrontational" and why it would need to be changed.
Commanders are the most visible and most iconic part of the format so I gave a few examples of how you could propose changing yours via your deck's story, but I also showed how you could voluntarily place a restriction on yourself (needing 20 poison to kill someone rather than 10) to help make certain stories more appealing to your playgroup.
What you're describing (free lands during the game if needed) sound more like house rules, unless they are explained to the table before the game starts. Rule 0 is more often used when meeting new players so you can quickly all agree on which rules you want to strictly enforce and which ones you personally want to bend (or break) but it's important people know that before the game starts, so they don't count on things like free lands when they're not drawing them naturally.
And, in such a case, starting a discussion with "Rule 0" can appear confrontational, or at least competitive (because you're establishing rules for a game) but under "the story of your deck," you get people thinking about the game itself and the experience of playing, rather than rules, which I find has a dramatic impact on player's perception of the whole encounter.
@@MagicArcanumI've never seen any restriction about rule 0 having to be only explained before the game starts. House rules are definitely part of rule 0 to me, even when they are discussed in the middle of a game. And that's the power of the rule 0 to me.
And if your group sees rule 0 as something confrontational, I fail to see how disguising it under lore would change the core of the issue.
Overall, I like the idea of using lore to justify rule changes, and I already do it quite often. But using that to try to "replace" rule 0 feels counterproductive to me. What if a player in the group doesn't care about lore? They can't use a "non-official" commander anymore? Lore and rules should be seperate entities.
It's not so much about lore as much as it is explaining the goal of your deck, and thus, the experience you want to have. Sitting down with Urza, Lord High Artificer and saying "my deck's story is to power out artifacts and make a ton of mana to spend on broken stuff" isn't lore, but it does communicate to the table that they're about to be in for a tough fight.
@@MagicArcanumThat's basically explaining what your deck does, which is already something a lot of players do. Most players would explain that saying: "this is an urza lord high artificer deck centered on artifacts and big mana combo". This usually happens with power level discussion. And to me, this has nothing to do about rule 0.
There is already an established vocabulary around power level discussion and deck descriptions. I think that using a "story" to replace that is just obfuscating the information you want to pass through. If you want to describe your deck with a story like that, it should be done additionally to the "standard" way of describing your deck.
This varies a lot deck to deck for me. I have some Very story-specific decks, but I also have some highly mechanics-driven decks. I’m always the leader of the rule 0 conversation in my metas, and try to cater my deck choices to how people respond.
My primary meta uses a “quest” system for rewards, which means winning the game is less important, so I’ll usually try to use decks which are likely to help myself and others to complete the quests laid out that week.
The biggest problems are when we have new players who just don’t get it.
I did this back in the day when I was just starting. It was the return to ravnica sets. I built a non commander deck focused on gate cards, random good ravnica cards, and I stuck the 3 eldrazi titans into it. Basically it was themed around ravnica getting attacked by the eldrazi.
Sounds great!
Rule 0 gives me social anxiety. I wish everybody would stop talking about it and just played the game, RAW.
Rule 0 is RAW, because it's a written rule.
My usual rule 0 talk is before I pick a deck, asking what the power level is (precon, updated precon, ect), because that way I can pick the deck that matches the power level to have the most fun group experience
I feel the current Rule 0 is more cooperative and better at communicating than the tell your story alterative.
1) Cooperative: Rule 0 focuses on communicating and asking. Telling the story came across as telling rather than asking.
2) Communicating: With Dack Faden were you describing the commander? the deck (theft based deck)? or backstory? I think it would be clearer to say "I want to use Dack Faden (show card) and I have a theft based deck. Would that be okay?"
However I do want to hear the creativity of the players in addition to just being shown it. For those that are creating a narrative, I want to hear that story too. (Just like I want to hear the Hivemind chaos deck talk about what/why they like Hivemind)
Happy belated birthday!
I like your idea so long as it's story driven. I do wonder if this video partially came about because of the LGS's ban list that's been circulating again. It's bizzare, but also creates conversation.
As a very new magic player, my first actual commander deck had Optimus Prime as the commander... But as a huge Transformers nerd and vorthos like yourself, I intentionally tried to make it tell a story about what the hell Optimus Prime is doing in a magic deck. The idea is, essentially, that Cybertron was destroyed in the war with New Phyrexia, and after the war the Autobots are recovering on and helping to safeguard Kaladesh, along with a few other newfound allies.
It had a heavy vehicles them (obviously), along with artificers and in particular Kaladesh cards, because I thought it was fun.
Similarly, I soon after made a Megatron deck which focused on Megatron being a brutal warlord trying to make use of leftover phyrexian technology and oils after the war was over, using a lot of the phyrexian cards and going hard on artifact sacrifice.
Sounds great!
I think it depends in that, some players simply will not care about the story direction as they don't think about their decks or playstyle in that way but rather, like a chess player, they're solely interested in having the best cards for their given strategy that may or may not be lore related at all if even from the same Plane of existence. Then there are the players who clearly LOVE theming and creating a deck with a super strong identity. So in short, it's a matter of what players are there to do: are they there to create the most game theoretically devastating strategy to win the game or dominate the battlefield (even in a way that is fair and NOT CEDH levels of power?) OR are they there to create a deck that has an aesthetic appeal or fun appeal above all else? Usually it seems like there are a mixture of such players or even a mixture of ideals/goals among players. I for one, love the idea of giving my deck a story, I can't help but do so just as I do so in any videogames I play. I play with a mix of purposes, in that I also really love creating a strong, cohesive strategy that, under the right circumstances, can win any game against all odds. For example, my favorite deck is an Azorius color identity soldiers and pillowfort deck. It is, in my opinion, both competitive at casual tables AND aesthetically pleasing and strong on the identity of this feeling of overwhelming flying soldiers all working together to bring light and justice.
I think ultimately, it helps to just get to know who you're playing with and get to know the regulars some so you know how each other plays and what you like to do AND you'll know what it means when they say "Oh yeah, this deck is FUN" so that you can read their style of communication when they're cheekily describing what their deck does without being too revealing. Otherwise, I think playing against public match strangers is always going to be a toss up and we're bound to have some games that just suck or don't go to plan until we get to know each other better and know what sort of game we all have the most fun with. As far as rules that go beyond the official Rules Committee rules, it definitely sounds fun, but I imagine it would be a hard convincing job for your average LGS because, if I could predict, it would likely end up changing the dynamic of what is and is not expected in decks and more people would start asking to make exceptions for various illegal maneuvers in deck building that, while maybe fun, open up the proverbial Pandora's Box. That one might just be better suited to friend groups even if that friend group does in fact meet at a LGS to play.
I think, for its intended purpose of getting a group of strangers on the same page, the dry, direct nature of the rule 0 conversation is necessary. As fun as the more flowery, metaphorical "my deck's story" is, not everyone is gonna interpret things like power level the same from a brief flowery description over a more direct attempt to directly quantify power level.
The real answer is, find a way to turn your randos into a regular play group. If you only get to play at the game store with whoever is there, surely there are a few other regulars, or at least people you end up playing multiple times. All you need after that is a way to communicate when you want to play so you can meet up at the game store. Regular play group is and always will be the ultimate way to experience EDH.
Im personally more of a player who wants to do the cool thing and edge more to playing to win. While i like lore, it might be something i find hard to appreciate mid game. I also think clear communication is very important unless your group knows you're doing a bit. In most cases, you are safer just making a plan request first and a flat explanation of what your deck does. Just from your examples, i did not know what you wanted right away until you elaborated.
So replace rule 0 with rule 0 using fantasy words? Nah dawg I'm good.
"We were going to be chill like good friends and let you have fun with your deck, but after that long nerd ass story we decided against it."
Or am I rolling up to a random table setting my deck and fedora down and being like hello fellow planeswalkers, allow me to regale you with my tales. On the plane of Innistrad I came across the most mysterious of artif..., oh you would like me to leave now?"
Magic was created by a man known to wear colorful bowties and mismatched socks. If you can't handle a bit of whimsy in your fantasy trading card game, that's fine, but the community would still benefit from you not being a judgmental prick to the other players who do choose to express themselves through the flavor of their favorite cards.
@@MagicArcanumAll I have to say to that is...
Your go, your go, your go
Lol jk jk, you got me. But still no. Yes it's a fun neat little idea that I'm sure some play groups would enjoy, and if they would like to spice up their rule zero that is fine. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Hey guys what if tonight we played using Planechase cards and the blind eternities variant, I'll teac....
Then someone sticks a finger up to hit me with jeopardy rules and tells me I have to state it in the form of a short story. I am literally going to fight them. (No I'm not going to be a prick or fight someone in real life, I've just added little flourishes to make my story more interesting and get a reaction out of you. OH NO~ maybe I'm a fantasy rule 0 fan after all!)
If anyone would like to do this with decks they bring to a table instead of a more "standard" pre-game conversation, that's fine. It's definitely fun. But I feel like it ignores the fact that most decks simply aren't built to be ludonarrarively coherent. I very much would not want this to be the standard or the expectation, personally. Even as someone who likes the lore, I like it mostly on a separate level from gameplay and find trying to mix the two dissatisfying.
It's not so much about lore as much as it is explaining the goal of your deck, and thus, the experience you want to have. Sitting down with Urza, Lord High Artificer and saying "my deck's story is to power out artifacts and make a ton of mana to spend on broken stuff" isn't lore, but it does communicate to the table that they're about to be in for a tough fight.
I've actually been considering something similar to this, but instead taking a more story telling way of playing the game. Narrating plays similar to how I would see it be done in DnD, like turn one I summon from the forest a llanowar elves, then turn two, with assistance from my elf we proceed to cultivate our a swamp back to its prime, and find a mountain for our travels. Obviously this is in theory I still have yet to try it enough because writing this by itself was hard and wouldn't be able to done by everyone lmao
I love the idea of storytelling as an edh component. Having access to non-stop high quality entertainment on Netflix, etc , seems to have made us individually incapable of telling good stories. We would benefit by improving this situation. Personally, I could try to weave a riveting story that features Gifts Ungiven into the legends, etc., of Kamigawa so that it is understood as a necessity in my shrines deck and everybody becomes excited by it instead of side-eyeing me when I cast it.
I thought this was going an entirely different direction, and I'm extremely relieved it did.
That said, I came to a deeper understanding of how I view Rule 0 in my first draft of this rant, so I'll share it anyway.
Commander is alot like D&D - open ended, imaginative, obvious power inbalance, rife with social issues (and owned by wotc :P). You NEED to have a layout of expectations between the players and dungeon master. And even then, its not a perfect system, because in any open-ended system involving social interaction, some people will be assholes. A majority of people won't be.
Properly run commander requires prep-work like playing DnD. You wouldn’t play a pick up RPG with strangers that no prep-work was done for
I also feel that some decks have creative expressed thematically but not narratively. Or at least not an in-fiction story.
My deck tells the story of witnessing the awe of plenty and past suffering of both sympathy for and despair of shortage. Along with the brothers Riku, I reply with the aspiration of preventing destitution, the hope to observe marvels following marvels, and with some patient marvels of my own.
Aka I want to see a game where everyone gets to play and gets to do neat things, so I want to run one of my group hug decks. This one is led by Riku of Twin Reflections and has late game wincons. The vast majority of that story is at the out of character level and the focus on story pushed out describing the other themes of the specific deck.
Happy belated birthday first and foremost, I am glad to hear you got to spend it, forging new lore, with those loved in your life!
I like this idea for explaining decks absolutely, and it can even help with immersion and keeping flavor relevant.
However, I find that not all rule 0 decks are able to really have that kind of story. I run an Ink-Treader Nephilim Cantrips Rule 0 deck, which relies upon creatures that let me sacrifice spells on the stack to gain a benefit, and the best I can come up with on my own is, “Much like the Nephilim, this deck defies reality, what should target one, targets all, but can you endure and thrive in the chaos, before the spelleaters arrive and make that chaos controlled?” I would love your insight on rule 0 decks leaning more on a mechanic than a flavor, and how can a player find the story of their deck
If we consider your deck and its commander to be a character, then the story comes down to "what does this character want, and what are they willing to do to get it?"
"Satsuki, the Living Lore wants to tell as many sagas as possible, even ones from the very edges of the Multiverse, but she prefers to discover her stories and let them flow naturally." (A statement like this could include the sagas from Middle Earth and the Lord of the Rings, if I wanted it to, and I'm saying I don't use tutors or much recursion outside of the commander's own abilities.)
"Naban, Dean of Iteration is trying to teach his student wizards how to be the best possible versions of themselves. He asks perfection. Then he asks for it again, even if it means removing everything and starting over." (Mono blue wizards with a high number of 'return something to its owner's hand when this enters the battlefield' triggers that get doubled up by Naban.)
toggo, I like rocks! You can have some!
Well, I will use "my deck story" if the new Tamiyo, a creature who becomes planeswalker, be just UG. I want to use all Tamiyo's cards, but the Field Researcher is bant.
My hope is that Gavin make her planeswalker side bant from the beginning. If anyone reading this already know who she will be, I will be glad if you tell me.
We don't know for sure but since the Ajani they showed us goes from white to red/white, I suspect the cycle will be similar, which means Tamiyo will probably go from blue to blue/green.
We always just followed the banlists and went with that. No need to house bans which is what rule zero is used for mostly
Absolutely agree. I recently built an Edgin deck. (DnD movie) whole deck is focused on bard stuff and gold and stealing yadda yadda. Very fun. However, both Simon and Holga "have" to be in the 99 be cause commander rules. But in reality they should be together to fight. So triple partner. Would be cool
Too many times I've been asked if it was okay for someone to run some custom card they find online as their commander and the answer is always NO! If someone asks, I'd be fine with someone running a planeswalker or legendary artifact. But no one should be making their own commander that has no ruling unless it's is a super basic card that requires none, but at that point I doubt those type of players would bring that card to the table.
I love the marquee in the bottom right that says "it's story time". Another, probably worse, idea is to have infect only cause you to lose the game if your life total drops below the number of poison counters you have. I say it's likely worse because it creates a lot more variability in the game by removing the static/predictable nature of poison counters. 7:55
I never heard of this rule....
I don't mind Rule: Zero and love your idea (It is funny you mentioned Elbrus first & have a brother named Keith. I really have a brother named Keith who has built that deck. It is a Mono-Black commander & he only uses creatures that are cultist or look like cultist from Innistrad. Like Skirsdag High Priest)
Ryan explaining Elbrus deck with rule 0: *normal voice* Under rule 0 ...
Ryan explaining Elbrus deck with storytelling: *deep and profound, documentary worthy voice* My deck tells the story ...
This is how I always built my decks, with a story. Makes for weaker decks but they are often so much more fun to play.
That's the spirit!
I think the problem was people treating rule zero as a definitive ban list for their group instead of actually having an adult conversation about a game
I don't tell the story in the playsession, but I built my Animar deck to tell the story of the mana embodiment elementals fighting against the void embodiments: the eldrazi. It's a fight from everything against nothing :D
I love it!
I don't wish to be rude, but this can seem, too me, like trying to squeeze to much RPG into what was once the side game you played while you waited for everyone else to finish spending their 3e skill points, and be ready to start the campaign. If I was with my preferred play group, this would be neat, though I think even they might say "don't couch it in metaphor; just tell me what exception you want. Telling me why you think it makes sense to give Ixidor Partner, so he can team up with Akroma; HIS creation, doesn't stop me from needing to decide if his mono-Blue deck needs to now somehow be Azorius", but in a game at my LGS, where I have NEVER played with a group that was particularly kind, or not cutthroat, their plans to exploit rules to win won't want to be bothered by me trying to deceptively bard my way through this, even if the end result probably isn't broken. Purely my experience, though.
If I could kill a rule, it would be the understanding that, somehow, Lands are sacrosanct, and beyond touch. Maybe a little has been done to stymie Green ramp. Most people have Sol Rings, and Arcane Signets, and I can find whole channels practically devoted to at least once oer episode uttering that Treasures are broken, but there are times I still just feel that Green ramp is too powerful; to efficient. Maybe some of Bluexs mechanics are better when Blue can't really ramp, but I hate that I have to play Simic, or the above cards everyone rags on, since Green, which DOES have other themes, is basically just there to spam mana, and it's Nana I'm not supposed to be allowed to stymie, because "destroying a Land is hindering my ability to sumply play the game." It's a petty thing, but I'm personally a fan of targeted Land Destruction; I'm not looking to just repeat reset the mana bases, or even slip a Winter Orb into each deck, to slow tour untaps, but Green just coughs up so much permanent mana, while the orher cards struggle to balance that, unless they can counter the searcher, or sonething.
Happy Birthday, recently, broski!!!!!
So for like my Voja deck is saying “Voja uses the power of friendship to fight off those who may attack the fellow wolves and elves of the land?”
Sounds great!
the idea of building a lore deck is such a fun one, take the new fallout decks. I built a story about my commander (agent frank horrigan) and his journey to cleanse the land of fallout with an unending army of mutant two headed elks (it's an infinite elks deck)
Awesome!
I'm not particularly swayed regarding a higher poison threshold in EDH; every other witch-maw commander can be a poison deck without the other 3 players losing their collective minds.
So, I thought that I was going to get this super hot take of "here's why Rule Zero needs to go..."
Instead, I get a cool story about telling cool stories about decks with... er... cool stories. Ryan, you sly, mustached fox, you never fail to be creative. To quote Avatar: The Last Airbender: "Bumi, you're a mad genius!"
I guess your playgroup will be calling it 'Rule Story' from now on. 🤭
Speaking of stories, I think it's time that the MTG community gets a collaboration between Magic Arcanum and...
Rhystic Studies.
Seriously. This needs to happen. Two great storytellers putting their creative minds together to create something that will no doubt be mind-blowingly entertaining? Yeah, I can get behind that. I hope the MTG community can, too. Let's make it happen.
Ah yes, the brilliance of Ryan Gomez is a mixture of his knowledge and the gleam from his turtle wax-ed head
Honestly, if MTG is going to focus on commander. They NEED to polish and update their banlist. People will be mad at first but then deck builders will always find a way. Yu-gi-oh has 106 cards cards banned currently at the community is doing just fine. How many years are we going to have to wait for the same reprints to come out so everyone can get the same "staples" whenever they exceed 20 bucks.
Happy belated birthday, Ryan.
Thank you!
I do love magic cards as a way of story. I probably too often try and explain the story of some crazy combos. All the same, I think that I get outdone by my group that just go goos combos and strategy, where instead I like the story.
Rule 0 has always been a cop-out that emerged as part of the banned list going away during the conversion from EDH to commander.
Friends groups will always be fine adding or ignoring rules. It's called house rules, and it's been a thing forever.
Meanwhile Rule 0 has often been used as a bail out by the RC for not making more comprehensive rules to ensure enjoyable play for players shifting between groups or looking for pickup games.
You only need to play commander on MTGO for a little while to see how it fails. Once you sit down at a table, most people have already selected a deck due to external limitations or because it's what they want to play that day. You can gate the sort of game that you want to play before they sit down, but even that is incredibly difficult without length explanations.
House rules are a thing but they don't work when you're out of the house. There are a huge number of players that gather in game stores or at the Magic Cons, and they need to meet on common ground. Presently, they use Rule 0 to align expectations, which is serviceable but bland. I'm proposing The Story of a Deck to help get people into an agreeable mood and find overlapping principals upon which they can share their experience.
Of course this doesn't work great with Magic Online - that's not what it's for. It's for people who want a fun spirited and casual experience while playing in unfamiliar territory, and based on the popularity of shows like Game Knights, we can tell this speaks to a huge audience of players.
I'd rather not have to explain to everyone what my deck is doing. giving up my decks strategy before I even shuffle my deck does not appeal to me. I'll tell you who my commander is and it is up to YOU the opponent to figure out my strategy. I work for a living, when I got to my LGS, I want to just sit down and play. The only question I ask is "is this an EDH game or a CEDH game?" that's all that needs to be established. You want to play some weird jank, go right ahead. If I want to make lore or a story of my build, I'll go play DnD or play a set cube.
My one rule zero deck is Vampire Wedding. Olivia, Crimson Bride and Edgar, Charmed Groom as partners and using every relevant card from VOW to have a wedding ceremony. I even try to set up my board to look like an overhead shot of a wedding, having the priest up front, bride and groom next to each other and the guest in rows. Flower girl down the middle. Have the ring and everything. If anyone has a problem with them as unofficial partner commanders, then I always offer the original Edgar to be the Commander (whose not in the deck, just remove a land) and to shuffle the bride and groom in. They always allow the unofficial partners. The decks subtheme is blood vials or whatever but that's mostly because VOW did that. All the basic lands are the black and white full arts from VOW. Add ramp, draw and removal and it's a fun time.
Sounds great!
I GET it that no one likes to lose, but I've never understood why people say no toxic. It doesn't really have the speed to win like alot of other popular decks, it's not milling you and preventing you from playing your deck, etc.
The difference is that there is no counterplay to it. Against an aggressive deck, you can at least try to offset their strategy by gaining more life than they take away. Against poison, once you take ten, you're dead, no matter how healthy you are otherwise. That can be really frustrating to play against because it feels like your own choices don't really matter.
I think rule zero is okay but the power scale for decks needs to go away cause everyones idea of whats a 1, 7, or 10 and everything in-between are different most of the time. Any time I play i just ask what does the deck do and most people are more than happy to give a few sentences to describe what it does or what its themed around and whether or not the decks have combos or fast mana in it so everyone can pick a deck accordingly.
Just have to give the commander name, what the deck does, and probably any noticeably strong effects or combos. That's usually enough to judge how strong it is without vague numbers.
@@PhoenicopterusR Yep, exactly
For me I ask power level in this way:
- precon, updated precon, higher, ect
- low long they have been playing
Because you could have a theoretical high power deck, but if this is your first time playing edh, you have no idea of any combos that might be in it, optimal play patterns, ect
Sorry but this just seems like a setup for miscommunication. "Resist Atraxa for twice as long to prove yourself worthy of her oily embrace..." is not the same thing as saying "Hey, I get why toxic counters as a mechanic can be frowned upon in this format, how about we double the amount needed for victory, that could be balanced, what do you think? I'd really like to play this deck."
The first statement is a flowery, unprecise tale. In its context, you are the author, everyone else is a reader. But that isn't the dynamic of a game table. You arent even stating it as a question of "Hey, this is experimental and difficult to say if its balanced, mind if I run it?" You're presenting a tale in a 'not open for discussion, let me tell you what's about to happen' type deal. You are literally telling a story, which is fun and all, but this is not a story, it's still primarily a game that needs to work, and if it does it can then also tell a story if you're into it, which also not everyone is.
The second statement is a clear communication about potential issues you see might be coming up. It's exactly what is needed when setting up the actual game to ensure everyone knows whats up and is good to go. I see no benefit of the first over the second. You can still craft that narrative to enhance the flavor and experience, but you can do that in addition to the actual clear discussion on rules and mechanics. No need to throw that out.
The story of your deck is meant to be a starting point for the discussion. Other players at the table can help co-author your story, once they understand what you're looking for, and how you plan to achieve it. In my experience, this collaborative dialogue leads to more fun and engaging discussion, and ultimately better games, rather than a stuffy "here are the normal rules, here are the ones I want to bend or break, now let us perform these functions in a shared space" rule zero method.
@@MagicArcanumokay, what does any of that mean? I am struggling to understand the purpose of this. I swear I'm not trying to be a dick here, and if I'm coming of as one you obviously don't owe me a conversation here. But I'm genuinely struggling to understand what you are trying to achieve here.
"Other players can help co-author your story" - It seems more and more like you are talking about a creative writing exercise.
a) This has nothing to do with actually playing a game of Magic, which is presumably why the deck actually exists. Unlike the current rule 0 you describe, this replacement is not necessary. You can play Magic without writing a story for your deck. You cannot play Magic (with other people, for a long amount of time) if you keep playing decks that break rules or are just not fun to play against.
b) This isn't something that works for every deck, as many decks are a group of mechanically related card with little narrative overlap. This also connects to c)
c) This isn't something every player wants to do. Most people I've ever played Magic with couldn't tell you what an Omenpath is, because Lore and Story don't interest them one bit. They play Magic purely for the mechanical intricacy and the just vast options of playstyles available to you, which is the thing that sets magic apart from every other TCG/CCG.
The thing is, I actually storytell my decks like you describe all the time. I dig that. But not once has it actually ever been the best (or even decent) way to address potential issues of gameplay. So you still need the rule 0. And most of the time, at least half the table has no interest in my narrative, let alone in crafting there own. This is not something that needs establishing as a norm. Which, from the sound of it, is what you are trying to do.
You are talking about replacing a rule. That rule has an objective purpose. Why actual direct communication of potential issues that influence the real experience of the game is "stuffy" to you is something I simply don't understand. Why you would further replace it with a vague "starting point of a discussion" that doesn't necessarily tell me anything is also, frankly, confusing, especially since it will necessarily circle back to the actual current rule 0 stuff you mentioned anyways.
How do you actually, concretely, picture this?
"Resist Atraxa for twice as long to prove yourself worthy of her oily embrace..."
"Okay, how about three times as long instead, maybe the poison isn't quite ripe yet and needs a larger dose?"
"Sure, let's do that!"
Is that what you're imagining? Because I fail to see how this is inherently superior for a majority of people, compared to:
"Hey, I'm playing poison, let's say we double the counters you need to lose?"
"Still seems super strong, can we do triple?"
"Sure."
Especially since my actual answer to that descriptive deck introduction would be
"Okay, what are you doing? Are you telling me a story, are you asking me a question? What's happening?
If you don't get it, you don't get it, but I would point out you're subscribed to a channel that is devoted to the stories behind the cards. There are 80,000 other subscribers here, too, and I bet most of them know what an Omenpath is. Even if you play with people at a store who don't know though, that's ok, because the point of opening with a story about your deck isn't to connect it to the existing written lore.
Let me put it another way: when I go to see my doctor and they start out with "we're going to take your blood pressure first," my results are usually bad (higher than they should be.) When they start with some small talk and ask how I'm feeling and then casually roll up my sleeve and put the monitor cuff on, the results are much better. Why do you think that is?
I believe putting people into the right mood for things can have a dramatic impact on their actions. Having a literal discussion about rule zero works. I am not arguing about that. But to me it is also very clinical and detached from the fantasy setting of all the cards that are about to hit the table.
So it's ok if your Urza, Lord High Artificer's story is "I'm going to drop as many artifacts as possible and use that mana to do busted stuff" even if that's not a moment of "lore." It does still communicate to the table that they will be in for a tough fight, and might encourage them to pick an appropriately powerful deck for this particular session. Now, they are in the mindset of "I gotta slay this monster!" rather than "oh you want to play Urza, ok, guess I'll play a hard counter with a lot of artifact destruction" which turns it into a math equation waiting to be solved.
But yes, the story is not meant to be the final word. You can open with the Atraxa bit, and if someone asks for clarification or adjustment after that, then that's fine. That's the co-authoring part. You can discuss if 2x or 3x is more appropriate, but by starting with the story, you disarm people, and (in my experience) they become much more likely to accept what you are proposing because you wrapped it in fun rather than in rules.
@@MagicArcanumhi, med student here: blood pressures should be taken after you’ve been seated for at least 5 minutes
I've never played with a "rule 0." It's always been "Run what ya brung." And declare when you had the intention to attempt end the game. If that meant someone went off early and combo off so be it. Stop being a wimp, learn from that, shuffle up and play
I love it when people bring their "stop being a wimp" attitude to the game's premiere casual format.
@@MagicArcanum that's the kind of commander I learned on, and made me a better player. There were No politics, it was play to win, don't go easy, cut throat games.
this is one of the wolves inside me
Yo happy birthday Ryan!!!!!
Retire Rule Zero. Play by the actual established rules and play to win the game, PERIOD.
Its just about honesty. Dont lie and say ur playing casual then drop a turn 3 insta win.
I personally dont enforce mulligan rule as mine cuz i want everyone to have a playable hand. I want to beat ur decks not 6 lands and an 8 drop. That doesnt mean however mulligan 5000 times til you hit the nut combo
I don’t think this would work. What if I want to make a powerful control deck. And my decks story comes from the mechanics.
If you don't have a regular playgroup for commander, don't play commander. Get close with other magic players by playing other formats, then build your own playgroup out of the new friends you've made. Then play commander.
This is good advice. I personally see Commander as "end game content," but with Wizards releasing so many precons each year and really pushing Commander as the "entry level" format now, I think it's still wise to have a plan for interacting with new tablemates.
Your audio is so low buddy
I think Bruna and Gisela should have partner with
Would make for a fun and flavorful deck so I'd allow it at my table!
@@MagicArcanum but how does commander damage work? bruna deals 5 and Gisela deals 7, what damage for Grisela?
I think if I'm facing down Brisela, Commander damage is the least of my worries 🤣 That said, I would probably do it under normal partner rules, and just track damage from either angel (or their melded form) separately.
Yes. Just make a set in stone set of rules and restrictions for the format and leave it. The ambiguity of the format is so annoying
I am here.
Yet players keep trying to make commander competitve with events and formats. So its not purely a storytelling format
I'm not sure it's players who try to make commander into a competitive format. I think that's WotC and store owners, who see money to be made via events and selling new cards. The popularity of Game Knights and other "experience" driven content tells me that many players (most, even) vastly prefer games where people are doing fun things rather than chasing the win.
I do like the storytelling, but the examples proposed need to include some reference point about power level. How fast (or slow) your deck intends wins the game, is this intended to go against out of the box precons, or heavily optimized strategies, etc. That information can be woven in very thematically, but it is important in getting everyone on the same page. For the Elbrus example, it could be couched as "this is a theme deck that focuses on flavor/lore over killing speed."
Agreed! The story of your deck is just a starting point for the discussion, rather than the more stuffy sounding "rule zero" but making sure everyone is on the same page regarding power levels is still an important part of the pre-game conversation.
Rule 0 is great when it is adding to the game. best example was playing the nephalim before 4 colors were an option. I have never seen it be an issue even when people wanted to play emrakul or griselbrand as commanders. Granted, you shouldn't take your rule 0 deck to a random pod or to a tournament, but everyone likes seeing cool decks. I dont want to listen to people tell me a dramatic story of why they want to play a fun card as their commander, just that they want to play it.
It doesn't have to be a dramatic story; it just sets expectations for the table in a fun way, which feels appropriate for a format that (allegedly) is designed to maximize fun.
meh, I understand the discussion.
But if you're gonna show up with you dack feyden and that loosy of a story, I would still ask you:
"Is it a planeswalker deck ? do you have winter orb ? Stasis ? Mass land desctruction ? Game soft lock ? Infinite combo ? Tuto ? Fast Mana ?"
So at the end of the day, doesn't work.
Well as I said in the story, Dack would be trying to steal YOUR deck's best stuff, so you tell me - does YOUR deck have those things?
@@MagicArcanumRight, so I should assume you only play "Gain/exchange control of" cards beside lands? without black recursion that make about 20 to 40 cards ? What happend with the 20 open slots ? I should assume it's harmless do nothing cards or lands ? One second you play Metal coating "to better steal stuff" and the next second you drop an infinite on us because we assumed your story would have mentioned it if Dack fayden had an army of Saheeli Rai.
That's sweet immersion and roleplay, but if you answer by a question when asked one you are just deflecting, I'll just ask again the same question. Politics and double-talks start after mulligan.
I'm sorry that your previous experiences have left you feeling like you can't trust other players. It sounds like you have an unhealthy relationship with this game and possibly the people you regularly play with.
How much information do you need about someone's deck before you are happy to play against it? Under classic rule zero, would you expect me to mention your hypothetical infinite combo? 2 cards out of 100? Do I need to prepare you for every possible combination of cards my deck is capable of? If I forget to mention one and pull it off (or hell, discover it for the first time) during a game, will you be mad? Refuse to play further? Feel betrayed?
Because it sounds like no amount of discussion beforehand will put your mind at ease, and if that's the case, you might want to consider a game like Chess, where there are no surprises that will upset you.
@@MagicArcanum It's no about every being ready for everything.
I got unhealthy planeswalker "as commander" PTSDs and game soft lock, that I cannot lie seeing a rule 0 planeswalker commander would instantly make my throat dry and my hair rise.
But tuto and fast mana are quite indicative of how fast the deck is.
Infinite are another thing, I was advise and I advise new players to come to a gentleman agreement to explicitly said when you drop a combo piece. Metal coating is a well known infinite enabler, but not all players use it for infinites and they usually say "I have nothing to go infinite with" before someone snipe a junky synergy.
But too few people go the other way around, like dropping Storm-kiln Artist on the board and expliciting it can instant win with card X in the deck.
And shuffling your cards back into your deck out of nowhere because you don't know all the magic cards isn't welcoming.
Maybe that story is just a preface to the pre-game discussion that would happen anyway.
But it left so much to interpretation I'm gonna ask so many more questions... when you give your Atraxa example I'm trying to understand if you're trying to bring an very high power deck to a low power table with the handicap of being the archenemy and the infection thing, or if you just play simple Atraxa and nerfed poison.
Anyway it's just a funny "what if..." for people to bring some flavor to their deck. It's not like "I play that because I find it funny" wasn't enough.
Yeah, but then you get "how strong is your commander?" "I don't know what that means. I just put this deck together". And beats everyone down..
Would the exact same thing not happen under a traditional Rule 0 conversation?
Yes. Just getting across that, though I value pre game talk, in some stores I've played, and some circles, it isn't very welcome.
From: store owner talking to everyone and organizing within power level
To: completly random and cEDH players and precons play together.
When I asked Store owner: you can't prohibit people from playing what they like.
Just saying.. Both extreme exist, and for someone who travels a lot, it's difficult to get any sort of pattern
No, it's not.
It's time to retire Commander completely and return to just Standard, Modern and Legacy.
Every damn set cards are being previewed and I look at them thinking "oh this would go great in my Modern re-animator deck" just to find out it's a Commander card.
What do you mean by "commander card" though? You can still buy singles of pretty much any card from commander pre-cons, and cards being commander-leaning aren't exclusive to the format?
@@PhoenicopterusRCards from the commander precon aren’t playable in Modern or Standard by the rules. Not that this is a good reason to get rid of commander.
No, you hater of fun.
Not sure how you wound up with the impression I hate fun when the whole thesis of this video is that the game becomes more fun when you find ways to do the unusual thing, as Sheldon intended?
I think low tier players tend to overestimate their deck power, I cannot tell you how many times I've heard "I think it's about a seven" and then they do nothing for 10 turns. Deadass, it's not pauper, and I'm not gonna be made to feel bad because I have good cards. Be honest with yourself, you play at a 3-4. Remember, it's not a grading scale. 5 is average. I don't give a shit who your commander is as long as you know how to play the game instead of just derping for each round playing a 4 mana 1 tap rock.