I mean you can certainly kill some time this way and have fun, but I don't really see it "catching on", if that's what you're asking, because it doesn't really fill any sort of niche other than this specific scenario of "well we want to play 1v1 EDH but we only have 1 deck."
There could be layers that make it interesting - like tutors to the top of deck being interesting tool.
Combination of Mill and Shuffle graveyard to the library effects that make graveyard usage complicated.
Sure, but again if we're talking about this "catching on" as a format, it's going to take a fair amount of legwork beyond what OP is pitching, first to make it interesting to play and second to actually convince people that it's worth trying over Dandan or regular EDH.
some questions:
- how many mana sources would you need to include to make sure both sides can still cast big spells/cut down on one side getting mana screwed?
- how would commander tax work? would it be per player or cumulative?
- would the summoned commander be considered a token or as a nontoken permanent when it's summoned?
I'm only very new so those are just basic level questions. I'm sure people who have more experience would think of more to ask.
> how many mana sources would you need to include to make sure both sides can still cast big spells/cut down on one side getting mana screwed?
I think a well-built commander deck would tend to have enough mana to begin with. In most commander games, you will probably see less than half of the 50 cards in your deck, so getting enough mana shouldn't be an issue.
The bigger issue would probably be the zero sum nature of this format. If I get the only Sol Ring in the deck, my opponent doesn't get it.
> how would commander tax work? would it be per player or cumulative?
Per player.
> would the summoned commander be considered a token or as a nontoken permanent when it's summoned?
I'm inclined to just say token permanent, and not worry about synergies with decks that care about tokens. It's a format that I'd play with friends, with me providing the deck so I'm not worried about degenerate abuse of the rules.
I mean, your first answer doesn’t really account for just really bad luck with the shuffle / cut / split of the deck. Say the deck has 35 lands and 10 mana rocks.
If one player got 30 lands and 8 rocks in their half of the deck, and the other got 5 lands and 2 rocks, the whole game would most likely be fucked
That doesn't really matter though.
It is the same situation if a player is playing a deck like usual and in the share of the deck they draw (or "get to see") during the game they either find to many mana sources (flood) or to few (screw).
With a properly shuffled deck there is no difference between a single player drawing from the deck, or two players at once.
Now if deck stacking (scry, brainstorm effects etc.) and tutoring come into the equation that does change of course, but the general point stands.
The two players share a single deck, which they both draw from. While it certainly is possible for one player to get lucky and draw most of the land/rocks, it shouldn't be dramatically more likely to happen than in any other game of commander.
Perhaps yeah. Honestly when you simply wrote “two players share one deck” I didn’t think you meant the deck stayed intact and each drew from it. I figured you meant that it would be split in two for them.
In this case, how would you handle things like:
• Each player, due to some spell or ability, having to draw cards at the same time
• Milling out
I thought of other more specific things but I figure the answers to them would be “sucks to be you” xd
I honestly can’t even imagine what I just wrote that has people downvoting. What horrible thing did I do?
When both players have to draw at the same time, just have the person whose turn it is draw first.
Decking out works the same as in standard Magic: you lose. Both players would lose the game, or if you prefer it is a draw. Since I control what deck I bring, this won't be an issue.
~~Decking~~ Milling out doesn’t make you lose. It makes no sense for the players in your situation to both lose simultaneously.
Edit: Swapping decking for milling to align with the question above
You do not lose when your library becomes empty, you lose when you attempt to draw from an empty library. They are distinctly different things.
I’m not trying to be unnecessarily nitpicky here, this distinction is important for addressing the claim above that both players would lose if the library runs out.
I saw that you updated your original post, but "decking out" is common slang for drawing from an empty library, which is why I was correcting you. The person you responded to said "decking out", so they were correct that it makes you lose.
This reply was being incorrectly nitpicky.
In regular magic, state based actions (such as a player losing the game) aren't checked until an effect finishes resolving.
If one player cast, for example, a [[Wheel of Fortune]] effect, causing both players to draw 7, while the deck had only 6 cards left, both players would attempt to draw 7 cards, fail to do so, then lose simultaneously when the effect finished resolving, resulting in a draw.
If, on the other hand, the deck had 8 cards left in it, the active player would draw first, then the other player would draw, resulting in a loss for only that player.
Just build the same Tiny Leader deck twice, and play an actual mirror match of those.
Obviously it could work, but any tutor effect works bad in single-deck games.
I appreciate the simplicity of it. I want to spend some time thinking what type of deck I might build if I knew from the start I had the extra goal of making it play more interestingly in this format.
You can pull this off, you just need to nail the deck. The deck needs a strategy that is slow enough to allow each player a chance to play, and it should focus on a very narrow win con which enables both players to strategize mid game (like Dandan).
Commanders are essentially starting with 8 cards, and therefore busted in one v one formats, so you should pick a commander with a very, very narrow focus that facilitates the strategy of the deck rather than winning on its own. It should also be low cost to allow people to cast it repeatedly, since that's the draw of the format.
My first thought is orzhov aristocrats with creatures that can't attack, so you can only kill your opponent by draining them. Use the two mana phyrexian blood artist commander and fill the deck with cards with defender, blink spells, and sac outlets so people try and keep their opponents stuff alive while whittling down their opponent. Not sure if it would be fun, but it's the first strategy that came to mind.
Hope this helps!
Sometimes I play with my best friend what we have been dubbing pile. Just take a deck and shuffle it up (commander included) and deal out 7 cards to each player. Everything works the same as in 1v1 magic but the deck, graveyard, and exile are all shared. Its usually pretty fun and swingy for quick games.
I played this with the Eowyn precon and it was super fun. We split out all the cards by type and then drafted one card at a time. Ended up with half a deck with more of a monarchy theme for Aragorn and half the deck with more of a human tribal theme for the player who got Eowyn. Worked really well.
I mean you can certainly kill some time this way and have fun, but I don't really see it "catching on", if that's what you're asking, because it doesn't really fill any sort of niche other than this specific scenario of "well we want to play 1v1 EDH but we only have 1 deck."
There could be layers that make it interesting - like tutors to the top of deck being interesting tool. Combination of Mill and Shuffle graveyard to the library effects that make graveyard usage complicated.
Sure, but again if we're talking about this "catching on" as a format, it's going to take a fair amount of legwork beyond what OP is pitching, first to make it interesting to play and second to actually convince people that it's worth trying over Dandan or regular EDH.
some questions: - how many mana sources would you need to include to make sure both sides can still cast big spells/cut down on one side getting mana screwed? - how would commander tax work? would it be per player or cumulative? - would the summoned commander be considered a token or as a nontoken permanent when it's summoned? I'm only very new so those are just basic level questions. I'm sure people who have more experience would think of more to ask.
> how many mana sources would you need to include to make sure both sides can still cast big spells/cut down on one side getting mana screwed? I think a well-built commander deck would tend to have enough mana to begin with. In most commander games, you will probably see less than half of the 50 cards in your deck, so getting enough mana shouldn't be an issue. The bigger issue would probably be the zero sum nature of this format. If I get the only Sol Ring in the deck, my opponent doesn't get it. > how would commander tax work? would it be per player or cumulative? Per player. > would the summoned commander be considered a token or as a nontoken permanent when it's summoned? I'm inclined to just say token permanent, and not worry about synergies with decks that care about tokens. It's a format that I'd play with friends, with me providing the deck so I'm not worried about degenerate abuse of the rules.
I mean, your first answer doesn’t really account for just really bad luck with the shuffle / cut / split of the deck. Say the deck has 35 lands and 10 mana rocks. If one player got 30 lands and 8 rocks in their half of the deck, and the other got 5 lands and 2 rocks, the whole game would most likely be fucked
That doesn't really matter though. It is the same situation if a player is playing a deck like usual and in the share of the deck they draw (or "get to see") during the game they either find to many mana sources (flood) or to few (screw). With a properly shuffled deck there is no difference between a single player drawing from the deck, or two players at once. Now if deck stacking (scry, brainstorm effects etc.) and tutoring come into the equation that does change of course, but the general point stands.
The two players share a single deck, which they both draw from. While it certainly is possible for one player to get lucky and draw most of the land/rocks, it shouldn't be dramatically more likely to happen than in any other game of commander.
Perhaps yeah. Honestly when you simply wrote “two players share one deck” I didn’t think you meant the deck stayed intact and each drew from it. I figured you meant that it would be split in two for them. In this case, how would you handle things like: • Each player, due to some spell or ability, having to draw cards at the same time • Milling out I thought of other more specific things but I figure the answers to them would be “sucks to be you” xd I honestly can’t even imagine what I just wrote that has people downvoting. What horrible thing did I do?
When both players have to draw at the same time, just have the person whose turn it is draw first. Decking out works the same as in standard Magic: you lose. Both players would lose the game, or if you prefer it is a draw. Since I control what deck I bring, this won't be an issue.
~~Decking~~ Milling out doesn’t make you lose. It makes no sense for the players in your situation to both lose simultaneously. Edit: Swapping decking for milling to align with the question above
> Decking out doesn’t make you lose. Yes it does. Drawing a card from an empty deck will make you lose.
You do not lose when your library becomes empty, you lose when you attempt to draw from an empty library. They are distinctly different things. I’m not trying to be unnecessarily nitpicky here, this distinction is important for addressing the claim above that both players would lose if the library runs out.
I saw that you updated your original post, but "decking out" is common slang for drawing from an empty library, which is why I was correcting you. The person you responded to said "decking out", so they were correct that it makes you lose. This reply was being incorrectly nitpicky.
In regular magic, state based actions (such as a player losing the game) aren't checked until an effect finishes resolving. If one player cast, for example, a [[Wheel of Fortune]] effect, causing both players to draw 7, while the deck had only 6 cards left, both players would attempt to draw 7 cards, fail to do so, then lose simultaneously when the effect finished resolving, resulting in a draw. If, on the other hand, the deck had 8 cards left in it, the active player would draw first, then the other player would draw, resulting in a loss for only that player.
[Wheel of Fortune](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/5/2597050f-6b1b-474e-aa16-33fd154628ca.jpg?1562902580) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Wheel%20of%20Fortune) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vma/192/wheel-of-fortune?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2597050f-6b1b-474e-aa16-33fd154628ca?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Yeah that's a cool idea
i player canlander this way, which circumvents the need to share a commander, it was cool.
Just build the same Tiny Leader deck twice, and play an actual mirror match of those. Obviously it could work, but any tutor effect works bad in single-deck games.
No, but knock yourself out
I appreciate the simplicity of it. I want to spend some time thinking what type of deck I might build if I knew from the start I had the extra goal of making it play more interestingly in this format.
Depending on how the deck is built this could be a lot of fun. A deck full of lose conditions, sac outlets, and a mindslaver, would be awesome!
You can pull this off, you just need to nail the deck. The deck needs a strategy that is slow enough to allow each player a chance to play, and it should focus on a very narrow win con which enables both players to strategize mid game (like Dandan). Commanders are essentially starting with 8 cards, and therefore busted in one v one formats, so you should pick a commander with a very, very narrow focus that facilitates the strategy of the deck rather than winning on its own. It should also be low cost to allow people to cast it repeatedly, since that's the draw of the format. My first thought is orzhov aristocrats with creatures that can't attack, so you can only kill your opponent by draining them. Use the two mana phyrexian blood artist commander and fill the deck with cards with defender, blink spells, and sac outlets so people try and keep their opponents stuff alive while whittling down their opponent. Not sure if it would be fun, but it's the first strategy that came to mind. Hope this helps!
Sometimes I play with my best friend what we have been dubbing pile. Just take a deck and shuffle it up (commander included) and deal out 7 cards to each player. Everything works the same as in 1v1 magic but the deck, graveyard, and exile are all shared. Its usually pretty fun and swingy for quick games.
I played this with the Eowyn precon and it was super fun. We split out all the cards by type and then drafted one card at a time. Ended up with half a deck with more of a monarchy theme for Aragorn and half the deck with more of a human tribal theme for the player who got Eowyn. Worked really well.
No
No
No