Friday, 11 November 2016

Community Update: November 12, 2016.

With the release of Commander's 2016 edition, we got a few very interesting things- including the Partner mechanic.  We had a lot to discuss with this update, some rules to figure out and a bunch of things to decide.

One of the major decisions we came to early on in the format's creation was that we wouldn't support a four or five colour proxy general.  With Partner's official release, we had to decide if and how it would be implemented.

Officially, we will support Partner, but there will be a special rule implemented for Tiny Leaders:  "Partner commanders are only legal if their combined colour identities are less than four total colours".  This ensures the original ideology of the format stays intact, while allowing you to play with this new and interesting set of commanders.

We will have an official rules update for you within the week.  Have fun with Commander 2016!

-Tiny Leaders Rules Committee.

Friday, 30 September 2016

Community Update 9/30/2016

Hello, everyone-

It's been a while since you've really heard from us, and that makes a lot of sense- since it's been a while since we've really had any time to do much aside from school/ work.  A lot has happened in the last year or so- Bram quit Magic, Matt defended his thesis, and I (Steven) wrapped up my second last (but first most hectic) year of University.  All that stuff didn't leave a ton of time for Tiny Leaders- ban list testing fell to the wayside, set updates were sparse -or in the case of Eldritch Moon, missing- and we basically let things stagnate.

Now, I'm sure some of you are convinced we've entirely given up- I'm here to tell you that's entirely not the case, we're busy folks and the testing we've done in the past takes a lot of time: True-Name Nemesis alone took more than 200 games to gather enough data on to make a decision.  This is where we're looking to find some ways to bring in outside help; I'm fine with the amount of time it takes to sift through the data and make a firm decision on things, but there's no way I'm going to be able to enjoy playing Magic if all the time I'm spending on the game is testing repetitive matches for raw data numbers.

I'm not entirely sure yet as to what form this community testing initiative is going to take, but what I can ask you all to do is to submit tournament results and deck lists- along with your feedback.  If there's a card we see popping up in every 1st or 2nd place deck in every event, we'd have something to go on when it comes to what to test sooner rather than later.

If you do want to help us do large quantity testing, I will be working on a spreadsheet guideline for recording matches; for now, follow these guidelines when testing problematic cards:

  • Note who won.
  • Note who was playing what deck.
  • Note whether the problem card was drawn in the opening hand, or at any other point in the game.
  • Note the number of mulligans.
  • Note if the problem card was cast.
  • Note if the game is pre-sideboard or post-sideboard.
  • Play an even amount of pre-sideboard and post-sideboard games, since both are relevant data sets.
  • Have both players play both decks an even amount of times, this will help level any skill differences present.
  • Record your pre-sideboard and post-sideboard deck lists.
  • Try to not test more than one problematic card at a time.
On the topic of problematic cards- our current list (in no particular order) includes:

  • Gaea's Cradle
  • Crucible of Worlds
  • Ezuri, Renegade Leader
  • Isochron Scepter
  • Channel (Possible Unban)
  • Survival of the Fittest (Possible Unban)
  • Imperial Seal (Possible Unban)
If you do find a problem and want to test out a ban or unban in your play group, talk with them- test out unbanning or banning things.  I would rather see you try to make your own fun than leave the format, so do it!

Tiny Leaders Format Changes for Kaladesh

After some discussion, an update to the rules regarding the production of colours of mana outside your commander's colour identity.  You may now produce mana of any colour, regardless of your deck's colour identity (Ex: A Leovold deck's Masterpiece Chromatic Lantern can produce White or Red mana if necessary).

We also decided to remove Sultai, and the Errata on Ana Battlemage, since Wizards of the Coast was so wonderfully helpful in providing us with Leovold, Emissary of Trest.  We did leave Glass, the colourless proxy option, in case anyone still wants to play without a colour identity.

Check out Version 1.3 of the Tiny Leaders Comprehensive rules: Here!

No ban list changes.

Wednesday, 6 April 2016

Tiny Leaders Format Change For Shadows Over Innistrad

With the announcement of (c) as a mana type (represented as a diamond symbol) in Oath of the Gatewatch, we made some changes to the format, but missed one thing- in the rules section, when incriminating the cost of a Commander after casting it, we incorrectly stated it increased by "{2} colourless mana" ({c}{c}), this is not the case; Commander costs increment by {2} generic mana (the traditional {2}).

We hope this was not the source of any confusion.

There are no ban list changes at this time.

Monday, 18 January 2016

Tiny Leaders Format Change For Oath of the Gatewatch

With the announcement of (c) as a mana type (represented as a diamond symbol) in Oath of the Gatewatch, we decided to add another proxy Leader to your arsenal.

As of Oath of the Gatewatch, you will be able to play with:

Glass  (c)(c)(c)
Legendary Creature

The Proxy general "Sultai" has also had its power and toughness changed to 3/3.

There are no ban list changes, as at this point, any changes would be based on guesswork, not statistical model analysis.  We are very sorry for this, and if anyone wishes to test problem cards, let us know and we can provide instructions on how to report data.

Saturday, 3 October 2015

Tiny Leaders Format Changes Battle For Zendikar

For the Battle For Zendikar rules changes, the Tiny Leaders format will be adopting the Vancouver Mulligan rule:

103.4. Each player draws a number of cards equal to his or her starting hand size, which is normally seven. (Some effects can modify a player's starting hand size.) A player who is dissatisfied with his or her initial hand may take a mulligan. First, the starting player declares whether or not he or she will take a mulligan. Then each other player in turn order does the same. Once each player has made a declaration, all players who decided to take mulligans do so at the same time. To take a mulligan, a player shuffles his or her hand back into his or her library, then draws a new hand of one fewer cards than he or she had before. If a player kept his or her hand of cards, those cards become the player's opening hand, and that player may not take any further mulligans. This process is then repeated until no player takes a mulligan. (Note that if a player's hand size reaches zero cards, that player must keep that hand.) Then, beginning with the starting player and proceeding in turn order, any player whose opening hand has fewer cards than his or her starting hand size may scry 1.

The optional Sultai Leader, a generic 2/2 for UBG can be substituted with a legendary version of Ana Battlemage, retaining the name Ana Battlemage, but gaining the Legendary supertype.

There are no ban list changes.

We hope that these changes are well met, and that the Sultai change encourages people to play that colour combination more in the future!

Thank you for your continued support, and look forward to more updates in the future.

Sunday, 12 July 2015

Ban List Update 7/13/2015 - Magic Origins

Update--- July 13th 2015

Banlist changes:

Banned: Grindstone

Unbanned: Painter's Servant

Notes- The inclusion of both of these combo pieces is likely too powerful, Painter's Servant is an interesting card to build with and with a less-powerful version of Grindstone being printed in Sphinx's Tutelage, we found this would be a fun way to shake up the format.

Testing is underway on Gaea's Cradle, Day's Undoing (and Timetwister)- and with finished testing on True-Name Nemesis, preliminary results show there is no need for a ban, as the card's power level is well within the acceptable range (<65% game win rate when cast).  Data on True-Name Nemesis' testing will be available when formatting is complete, but I'm going to be pushing more testing rather than data reformatting.