My new format is called Extreme Elder Dragon Highlander, or EEDH.
Here are the rules
-Just like EDH except... you have TWO GENERALS. (WAHT A TWEEST!)
-If your two generals share a color you can run two copies of cards that they share colors with. Example. Say you're running Uril, the Miststalker with Rafiq of the Many. You are allowed to run 1 copy of blue cards, 1 copy of red cards, 2 copies of green cards, 2 copies of white cards.
-All bans from EDH transfer over to EEDH.
Now. There will have to be some restrictions concerning mono-color and penta color. Because it's a little broken to have one-color doulbeton. Needless to say, mono-color is very strong in EEDH. It's a little broken also to be able to run two of everything except artifacts with mana symbols, so i have one two solutions.
-Ban the doubleton rule for mono and penta color decks
-Prohibit the use of two mono-color generals and two penta-color generals.
Now, for now I am the only person who decides what cards will and will not be banned from EEDH. So I'd try to get on my good side. (LOL JK). But here's a list of cards i'm considering banning from EEDH.
-Phage, the Untouchable
-Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre
-Kozilek, Butcher of Truth
-Gilded Drake
If you have any ban ideas please submit them in this thread.
Finally, EEDH is supposed to be a casual format. Please PLEASE PLEASE for the love of GOD, do not run the most broken thing you can possibly think of.
Good luck playing EEDH.
Maybe you'll see my Scion of the Ur-Dragon/Karrthus, Tyrant of Jund EEDH.
Also. 20 poison counters are required for infect in EEDH.
First opinion is that the name's not good at all. Also, something on why Elder Dragon Highlander is called what it is, and why Commander still makes sense:
EDH was created around the original legendary creatures in Legends, namely the tricolored Elder Dragons themselves, hence the Elder Dragons themselves. Thus, the name "Elder Dragon Highlander" was very descriptive; you had an Elder Dragon in control, and there could only be one of any card in your deck. Commander is a sensible name because your deck has a Commander, someone overseeing all the action.
Your name of "Extreme Elder Dragon Highlander" is bad because "Extreme" in no way describes how your version is different from "Elder Dragon Highlander". Of course, keep in mind that EDH itself is really a legacy name, since it's no longer really about the Elder Dragons themselves. A name like "Double Commander" or even "Double EDH" (even though you're using an abbreviation for the second, it makes sense in context) would be better.
Another problem I see; care to explain why 4 particular cards that are not banned in any other format would be banned from Double Commander? Especially considering 2 of those are colorless, and can therefore only be run at 1 per deck, regardless of who your generals are?
Oh, another thing you forgot to consider; banning double-mono doesn't do anything at all. Anyone running a two generals of any one color can actually make their deck double-mono on the inside, maybe with a few things that give other colors they got; there's a ton of lands that provide more than one color. So if "double-mono" is broken, then guess what? Your entire format is broken.
I have some changes to make to the format.
-First of all, instead of the 100-card EDH format. In EEDH your deck contains 150 cards. 148 plus your two generals.
-Also, regarding the name "EEDH". My original name for my format was "Joint Operation". However, a friend of mine suggested the name "Extreme EDH." I liked it.
-Next, even if you get what we call the "doubleton advantage". You are only allowed to run one copy of a legendary. (I.E. If your generals are both red, you may not have two copies of "Urabrask the Hidden".
-I am not banning dual mono-color or even restricting it. Nor am I banning or restricting dual penta.
That's all for now. I'll let you know if I think of something else.
Quote from: DavidChaos on July 26, 2011, 11:07:41 AM
Another problem I see; care to explain why 4 particular cards that are not banned in any other format would be banned from Double Commander? Especially considering 2 of those are colorless, and can therefore only be run at 1 per deck, regardless of who your generals are?
Regarding this, you bring up a fair point. However, do not call my format Double Commander. I appreciate your right to suggest it, but you, sir, must appreciate that is MY format. Thus you do not have the right to rename it.
Well, sir, regarding me referring to your format as "Double Commander", that was because of my statement earlier in the same post suggesting that very same name as an alternative. Second of all, the "this is my format" argument is kind of not going to make people want to play; the fact is, even if it is "your format", that doesn't mean anything unless other people want to play it, and telling them "this is my format" when someone makes a suggestion for something as simple as a better name is kind of silly.
Oh, and I just realized; this is in entirely the wrong forum.
Quote from: DavidChaos on July 26, 2011, 03:24:38 PM
Well, sir, regarding me referring to your format as "Double Commander", that was because of my statement earlier in the same post suggesting that very same name as an alternative. Second of all, the "this is my format" argument is kind of not going to make people want to play; the fact is, even if it is "your format", that doesn't mean anything unless other people want to play it, and telling them "this is my format" when someone makes a suggestion for something as simple as a better name is kind of silly.
Oh, and I just realized; this is in entirely the wrong forum.
All I was doing was reasonably asking you to not call a format that I created by a name other than the one I selected. I wasn't mad that you suggested it. I was mad that you assumed I would take your suggestion.
I am happy to announce that I have made the first for EEDH decks in this order
1: Penta/Jund (Generals: Scion of the Ur-Dragon and Karrthus, Tyrant of Jund)
2: Green-Black/Green-White (Generals: Rhys the Exiled and Rhys the Redeemed)
3: Black-Green/Black (Generals: Glissa, the Traitor and Geth, Lord of the Vault)
4: Red-White/White (Generals: Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer and Kemba, Kha Regent)
The first deck is a Dragon deck.
The second deck is an Elf deck.
The third deck is a Phyrexian deck.
The fourth deck is a Mirran deck.
For now, this page will kinda be the site of EEDH. So be sure to post your deck ideas here! 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
EEDH, Because two heads are better than one.
Quote from: Dr. Zaj on July 26, 2011, 03:41:58 PM
All I was doing was reasonably asking you to not call a format that I created by a name other than the one I selected. I wasn't mad that you suggested it. I was mad that you assumed I would take your suggestion.
Nothing wrong with fan nicknames, my friend. Nothing wrong with fan nicknames...
As for deck ideas, I know I could do something based on my current EDH deck, but it would requite a Green-White legendary, preferably a Spirit (the concept is a GWB Karador EDH, with a lot of Kamigawa. there are a ton of green-white creatures, but not too many vital Black ones to run doubleton.
Hmmm. Spirit deck's an interesting idea. White is definitely good for spirits. Green's a definite must. Spirits are expensive, so you need ramp. I'd do a Iname, Life Aspect/Iname, Death Aspect EEDH, or a Karador, Ghost Chieftain/Iname as One EEDH.
As great as Iname as One is, it doesn't work as a general, since you have to cast it from the hand or exile it to get the effect. Myojins would work in its place, however, and mana accel is easy enough with Loam Dweller and Kodama's Reach, especially if Life's Web is the Myojin used, since they're both green.
Disregard the ban-considering list, please. None of those cards will be banned. I realized that I actually have to see some EEDH games before cards start getting banned.
Mildly creative, but Zaj is far too possessive for this to actually be interesting as-is.
The thing about "EDH" is that it was a format embraced by the people, run by the people: not by a person. Your "jokes" about sucking up to you and your sole right to define the name, ban list, and constantly changing restriction of rules is not going to lead to a community embraced alternative format.
You're welcome to enjoy "your" format all you'd like and there may be some friends and select few that find it interesting, but so long as you're more concerned about "your" format than it being "their" (the players') format, you're bound to fail to achieve more than a minor interest.
I have actually thought about that. I am probably going to add some people to some sort of an "EEDH Committee", so I don't come across as "I HAVE ALL THE POWER! SUCK IT!"
I have decided to create an EEDH committee. It will work kinda like the Supreme Court. There will be nine "judges" who will vote on whether or not to create new rules or to ban cards. I already have a few spots filled, but if you want to be a judge on the EEDH committee, act fast.
Spots filled
-Myself
-Memoriam
-Zook
-
-
-
-
-
-
I would like to help out.
Quote from: Dr. Zaj on July 27, 2011, 02:14:05 PM
I have actually thought about that. I am probably going to add some people to some sort of an "EEDH Committee", so I don't come across as "I HAVE ALL THE POWER! SUCK IT!"
Good call.
I would agree with a previous poster in that using the "H" in EEDH may be a bit disingenuous as to your cause, as highlander has a very clearly defined meaning (all cards are restricted). Perhaps "EED" would still work for you? Just something to think on.
Seems like it could be a fun format, there's certainly potential.
I've got no problem helping out; but, again, I feel like the name should actually reflect the way the format works; Elder Dragon is fine, since it kind of grandfathers in the concept of a general, but "Extreme" doesn't tell me that there are 2 generals. That's just my opinion on the matter.
My friend suggested a new name for the format.
Twin-Headed Dragon or THD.
Now. I would like to mark some people down that are important to the history of EEDH/THD.
-Myself, Cadget, and Memoriam: The First people to ever play a game of EEDH/THD.
-Myself: The First person to ever win a game of EEDH/THD. (It's only fitting.)
-Memoriam: The first player to ever make a dual-mono color EEDH/THD deck. (Anonown, the Rune Sage/Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief)
-Memoriam: The first player to make an EEDH without using doubleton. (Ob Nixilis, the Fallen/Azusa, Lost but Seeking)
-Melcor: The first player to use a general from commander in an EEDH/THD deck.(Zedruu the Greathearted/Sen Triplets)
-Kitsune: He didn't have a first, but he did defend my format from some people who were badmouthing it.
-Cadget: The first person to ever defeat the creator of EEDH/THD.
To all of these people, I deeply thank you. I may have created EEDH/THD, but I couldn't have made it as awesome as it is without your help. Pat yourselves on the back.
I really think we do need to change the name because people often come into a game of "EEDH" thinking that it's a typo and that I mean "EDH" when I really don't. Then they expect to play EDH.
THD kind of gives a "Two-headed giant" vibe, but it's probably the best name for the format.
As of today, EEDH is now THD for Two-Headed Dragon
Quote from: Dr. Zaj on July 31, 2011, 09:17:11 PM
As of today, EEDH is now THD for Two-Headed Dragon
It's your decision, but I think the format would sound better as "Twin-Headed Dragon" as to limit confusion, since "Two-headed Dragon" is extremely similar to "Two-headed giant".
I agree with the confusion with Two-Headed Giant on the name, but honestly? It's less of a problem than I feel EEDH is, so I say we go with that.
When you abbreviate it as THD people think you mean Two-headed giant, so I'm open to ideas.
What do you guys think of DHD (Dual-Headed Dragon)?
What if people get it confused with DVD?
This might sound dumb but why not call it Double Decker Dragon or D3? Since it's two generals, it's almost like combining 2 decks.
The current name is Two-Front War or TFW.
i'd like this if it weren't for the rediculous rule you made about 20 poison win condition
It is designed to discourage people from playing infect.
This may seem like a stupid question, but why the discouragement against Infect? Is there something about the mechanic that's more broken in your format than in other formats? Or do you just not particularly like Infect? If that's the case, then it seems to be more a biased. Unless there's a deck that's abusing the poison counters more than usual, there's no need to change the rules, since you're still using the same number of players. I will admit that the only reason I can see for 20 poison counters being required for victory is just "I hate poison counters".
I'd like to remind you that even 2-Headed Giant only increases the number of poison counters to 15, and that's a format with 2 players. There doesn't seem to be any legit reason for hating on poison that way.
Quote from: Dr. Zaj on June 03, 2012, 04:04:31 PM
It is designed to discourage people from playing infect.
Poison isn't broken in commander at 10 poison counters. There is only one commander you can have with infect, and he limits you to playing only black cards, of which there are only 24 other infect creatures that could be put into the deck, some of which are sub par. With 2 commanders, that may not be the case though, but I think it would be better to add the rule later if needed.
To add to Trevor's very good point, not only is there only one commander with infect, it's the only commander that can support infect; no legendary has proliferate, and none has poisonous. Even if both of your commanders use black, that's still only 47 creatures (since your deck construction still only allows one legendary); With a total of 67 creatures with Infect in the whole game, even a second commander that was pentacolor would only give you a pool of 90 creatures; granted, you can fill with proliferate creatures, but that's not a whole lot to work with.