MTG - Homebrew Game: King of the Hill

[Nighthawk_986]

So I had this random thought the other day of a new type of game with Magic: The Gathering. Looking to get some feedback to see if was a viable game type or not.

King of the Hill:

Play Style: Multi-Player

Extras: 1 Archenemy Deck

Rules:

- The game starts off as a normal multi-player game, but the first player who deals damage to another player becomes "King of the Hill".

- When a player becomes "King", they are granted use of the Archenemy deck.

- A player who's "King" stays king until he is defeated. The player who then landed the killing blow becomes "King".

- Whenever a player, no matter if he was "King" or another player, is defeated, they restart as if it was a new game. If they so choose, they may use a different deck than previously used.

- When a player "respawns", they have 1 full round (which ends at the beginning of their next turn) of "invulnerability". During this period, they can't lose life, except by abilities that they control.

- The winner is the first player who obtains 3 points. Points are gained when a player defeats another player while they have "King" status. Only 1 point is gained per player that was defeated. Defeating another player while you are not the king will NOT grant you any points. (Note: Should a group like a longer game, then they may increase the number of points for the win-condition to as much as they would like.)

- Should a player lose enough life to become defeated through sources that they control, the king does NOT gain a point.

Banned Card List:

- Gut Shot


That's about all that I've come up with so far. Please feel free to comment, whether it's good or bad. Thank you in advance.

[The Glyphstone]

What is an Archenemy deck? If a player gains it, does it replace their current deck/play area, or do they control both? Does it 'play itself' if no one deals damage in the first few terms, just building up mana so it's not helplessly behind once it enters play?

What is the victory condition? It ends after a time limit, but without a clarification for how the winner is determined.

[Avaris]

Archenemy Scheme Deck (https://www.wizards.com/magic/tcg/productarticle.aspx?x=mtg/tcg/archenemy/productinfo): an expansion from a couple of years back

Sounds interesting. My concern would be with the 'first blood': what does that mean? First damage? Gives quite an advantage to aggro decks or this with cheap burn... Turn 1 Shock an opponant, become archenemy and quickly gain advantage of the schemes for a bit, which could well result in being massively ahead rather quickly.

[Reinboom]

I wouldn't recommend a time limit to something akin to this. This seems very casual and time limits tend to not be conducive to decent casual play. Stalling decks can and will appear and that tends to just make the game unfun for all involved.


What is an Archenemy deck? If a player gains it, does it replace their current deck/play area, or do they control both? Does it 'play itself' if no one deals damage in the first few terms, just building up mana so it's not helplessly behind once it enters play?

What is the victory condition? It ends after a time limit, but without a clarification for how the winner is determined.
Archenemy is a WotC variant of Magic. There are specific archenemy cards which are a separate oversized deck that the top one per turn gets to be played for free by the Archenemy.
By default, it's a 3v1 format where the 1 has the archenemy deck.

[Brother Oni]

I would agree with SweetRein on the removal of the time limit.

Maybe have something similar to the old Jyhad system where every player eliminated by the King directly gives that player X Victory points, first person to Y victory points win?

That way, while non-Kings are free to eliminate each other, it doesn't gain them Victory Points, while potentially making it easier for the current King to score VPs?

[Nighthawk_986]

I would agree with SweetRein on the removal of the time limit.

Maybe have something similar to the old Jyhad system where every player eliminated by the King directly gives that player X Victory points, first person to Y victory points win?

That way, while non-Kings are free to eliminate each other, it doesn't gain them Victory Points, while potentially making it easier for the current King to score VPs?

That's a very good point. I was very iffy on the whole time limit in the first place. As such, I've revised the rules to change the win condition to a point system. I think 5 points would be enough to make the game just the right amount of time. Not too long and not too short. If you guys feel differently, let me know.

As for what Avaris said, I reworded the "first blood" rule to be more easily understood. I understand the the concern for aggro decks gaining an immediate advantage. However, from my experience running against them, if one can defend against their initial assualt, then they will quickly peter out and that player running it will start top decking. Also, in a multi-player game, aggro decks are very vulnerable as it relies on them to constantly be on the offensive. Thus, forcing them to leave themselves open against the posibility against multiple assaults. Low cost direct damage may also seem a bit unfair, but it is still only one of many ways to deal damage quickly.

That's it for now guys. Let me know what you think of the changes.

[Brother Oni]

I assume it's 1VP when the King eliminates a player?

Do you have any mechanic in place for players eliminating themselves in order to avoid giving the King VPs? Players eliminating each other to avoid the King getting points is acceptable play in my opinion though.

On that note, suppose a King is on 4VPs, can he eliminate himself for that last point?

[Lea Plath]

Seems like this would take forever and a day to play. Maybe reduce life totals a little. Makes aggro viable and means people will have to be offensive and defensive in deck building.

[Nighthawk_986]

I assume it's 1VP when the King eliminates a player?

Short answer: Yes.


Do you have any mechanic in place for players eliminating themselves in order to avoid giving the King VPs? Players eliminating each other to avoid the King getting points is acceptable play in my opinion though.

An interesting thought that I didn't consider. I, personally, would also find it acceptable. A player would often be asking the other non-kings to "Kill me!". In any case, the OP has been edited to include that a player that kills themselves doesn't grant any points to the current king.


On that note, suppose a King is on 4VPs, can he eliminate himself for that last point?

Again, short answer: No. It seems to be a cheap way to win. Imo anyways.


Seems like this would take forever and a day to play. Maybe reduce life totals a little. Makes aggro viable and means people will have to be offensive and defensive in deck building.

A good point to bring up. Especially after Oni showed me that loophole the players can exploit. As such, instead of lowering lifepoint totals, I've decided to just decrease the base amount of points needed for the win condition. Also, I'm not ignoring aggro decks with this decision, but I'm not going to change major aspects for just a single type of deck.

[Brother Oni]

One final question, what's the range of 'global' effects in your variant? Is it the entire board, or just the players to your immediate left and right?

[Nighthawk_986]

One final question, what's the range of 'global' effects in your variant? Is it the entire board, or just the players to your immediate left and right?

What exactly do you mean by "global" effects? If you mean cards like Wrath of God, then it would effect all players. That's how I've always played it.

[Brother Oni]

What exactly do you mean by "global" effects? If you mean cards like Wrath of God, then it would effect all players. That's how I've always played it.

Basically anything that says 'all' in its targeting, like Wrath of God, Pestilence, Tranquility, etc.
Some variants of multiplayer have global effects limited to just the immediate players left and right of the the effect's owner (Emperor rules for example).

[Bucky]

I think the variant is broken. Consider:
A game starts. Players A and B mulligan to 6 and 5, players C and D do not.

Player A's turn is first. He pauses during his upkeep and asks if anyone wants to play anything. There's a moment of mexican stand-off, and they proceed to his main phase. He deploys a mountain and casts Goblin Guide. He swings at Player D, no blockers. Before combat damage, Player C fires off a Gut Shot at Player B. There's a flurry of Gut Shots and Mental Missteps, after which Player B ends up as King.

Player B's reign of terror is mercifully short. He kept the 5 because of Gut Shot, and has no distruption left outside of the scheme deck. On about turn 5, Player D deploys a loop combo, kills him, and then wipes the rest of the table (although Player A kills himself with his own Gut Shot).

There's a 10-minute break while everyone else rifles through their collection for 1-mana cards that can stop the loop combo (bringing out a total of 12 Gut Shots and 8 Mental Missteps). They step back in, mulligan a bunch, and manage to cheat death for a bit with Pithing Needles.

Meanwhile, Player D is 5 turns ahead and throwing Schemes at them. His plan B is in full swing, and he's attacking with 4-power creatures into empty boards and depleted hands. The other players never manage to recover and all die at once.

tldr: ban Gut Shot.

[Chen]

There's no benefit to survival in this game except when you're the king or about to be killed by the king. Thus you'd want to have plenty of cards in your deck that you can kill yourself as a fast effect with. Things like Necropotence and Yawgmoth's Bargain become even MORE powerful. Reckless Assault becomes extremely powerful too, as do the creatures that can pump with either life or phyrexian mana. There's be a weird dynamic of trying to get people as low on life as possible until you're king. And at the same time you'd be wanting to kill yourself whenever you were low on life.

Something like whoever last damaged a player gains a point when that player dies could work. Make it so the king gets 2-3 points when killing someone and then increase the total number of points needed to win. You don't want to incentivize killing yourself. And with the current setup being able to come back in game with a full hand of cards, full life and a turn of invulnerability is a HUGE incentive to kill yourself.

[Nighthawk_986]

I think the variant is broken. Consider:
A game starts. Players A and B mulligan to 6 and 5, players C and D do not.

Player A's turn is first. He pauses during his upkeep and asks if anyone wants to play anything. There's a moment of mexican stand-off, and they proceed to his main phase. He deploys a mountain and casts Goblin Guide. He swings at Player D, no blockers. Before combat damage, Player C fires off a Gut Shot at Player B. There's a flurry of Gut Shots and Mental Missteps, after which Player B ends up as King.

Player B's reign of terror is mercifully short. He kept the 5 because of Gut Shot, and has no distruption left outside of the scheme deck. On about turn 5, Player D deploys a loop combo, kills him, and then wipes the rest of the table (although Player A kills himself with his own Gut Shot).

There's a 10-minute break while everyone else rifles through their collection for 1-mana cards that can stop the loop combo (bringing out a total of 12 Gut Shots and 8 Mental Missteps). They step back in, mulligan a bunch, and manage to cheat death for a bit with Pithing Needles.

Meanwhile, Player D is 5 turns ahead and throwing Schemes at them. His plan B is in full swing, and he's attacking with 4-power creatures into empty boards and depleted hands. The other players never manage to recover and all die at once.

tldr: ban Gut Shot.

To be honest, that's a lot of "if's" for one game. However, your point of creating a ban list for this variant is not moot. So, I will bring up the question of "Which cards do you guys feel may be too powerful in this variant?". I will say that each card will need to be 2nded by another person in order for me to consider added it to the ban list. To start with, I, myself, am going to 2nd the nomination for Gut Shot. I will add each banned card to the OP.

Lastly, I do need to add that I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding about the rule of changing decks midgame. I'll try to clarify this. When switching to a different deck, the deck MUST be premade. There is no changing cards in any one deck if a deck is being switched to another. Additionally, as a new rule, if someone has a side board for their current deck, they may instead switch with those cards instead. One last thing that I think that I should about this. When a player is defeated, the game pauses at the end of the current player's turn until the defeated player is ready to resume.

[Nighthawk_986]

There's no benefit to survival in this game except when you're the king or about to be killed by the king. Thus you'd want to have plenty of cards in your deck that you can kill yourself as a fast effect with. Things like Necropotence and Yawgmoth's Bargain become even MORE powerful. Reckless Assault becomes extremely powerful too, as do the creatures that can pump with either life or phyrexian mana. There's be a weird dynamic of trying to get people as low on life as possible until you're king. And at the same time you'd be wanting to kill yourself whenever you were low on life.

Something like whoever last damaged a player gains a point when that player dies could work. Make it so the king gets 2-3 points when killing someone and then increase the total number of points needed to win. You don't want to incentivize killing yourself. And with the current setup being able to come back in game with a full hand of cards, full life and a turn of invulnerability is a HUGE incentive to kill yourself.

Hmmm... a valid point. As it stands, it is a bit broken when one considers it. For now, it will stay as is until I can figure out a better system.

Here's what I'm currently thinking for the new point system:

Win Condition: 10 points

-Killing the King: +1 point

-Killing another player as King: +3 points

-Killing another player while not King: +1 point

-Killing yourself: -1 point

-Staying alive for 10 rounds: +1

-Staying alive for 20 rounds: +1

-Staying alive for 30 rounds: +1

How does this look so far? If anyone sees any problems with this, you know what to do.

Just a heads up here. I'm going to leave this thread alone here for a few days so you guys can comment without me interferring. Later for now.

[Bucky]

Win Condition: 10 points

-Killing the King: +1 point

-Killing another player as King: +3 points



So the combo player only needs to become King and clear the table once to win?


So, I will bring up the question of "Which cards do you guys feel may be too powerful in this variant?"

Just for completeness sake, these cards from the Commander banned list should also be banned here:
*Power 9: the original Mox cycle, Black Lotus, Ancestral Recall, Time Walk, Timetwister. These make it too easy to do degenerate things during the 1-turn invincibility period, except Time Walk which is broken as Archenemy.
*Channel: Has the same issue as the Power 9, but also sets off and abuses the free life refill when you die.
*Fastbond: Channel lite.
*Time Vault: Fast infinite turns combo is probably too good, even though after killing everyone once you need to take a turn off for their invincibility shield to go away.
*Limited Resources: Unfun card that locks out respawning players.

And Soul Spike is an expensive Gut Shot stand-in for the quick King grab.

[Nighthawk_986]

Hmmm... It would appear that this thread is starting to die off. So, I'm only going to ask one last time before I start finalizing any changes. Does anyone have any other suggestions/comments pertaining to the latest proposal to the point system and also the addition/2nding to cards on the "banned" list?