Asked, answered, and presented in evidence as fact. I'm not going to continue humoring your logical fallacies with these circular arguments, amigo.
It's relevant because one of us has been educated to impart both linguistic knowledge and communication skills to others, and the other is an aerospace engineer whose best argument continues to be a barrage of ad hominems. Suffice it to say, I'm not moved by your critique of my reading skills.
"Please let me know exactly what your problems are with what I have said, as obviously your previous attempts at doing so have failed to communicate a tangible point"
Imagine thinking that your educational background is relevant to why you continually cry about everything.
Don't worry, I'm sure you're itching to call me racist or something,like you do to everything else.
Imagine thinking that ad hominem is relevant here but that a credential fallacy is okay. I'll give you a moment to Google that one up, since it may be above the level required to teach 11 year olds to speak the only language they know.
Public Mod Note
(boombox_smk):
There is no reason to blatantly insult anyone, and this is not acceptable.
The thread is unlocked assuming no further incidents. Keep the discussion on topic and do not engage in anything other than civil discussion about the Lorehold Commander 21 deck.
I think the white cards in the commander precons alone are fairly strong, and make me optimistic regarding white's core identity moving into the near future, but I still don't think they adequately address card advantage, ramp, or raw strength. What else can white be doing to more directly advance a win?
I wonder if White could end up as the color to play around with Commander Damage? They care about combat, they care about "fairness," and they definitely care about building up and protecting creatures, so it feels like it would be in their wheelhouse.
I think the white cards in the commander precons alone are fairly strong, and make me optimistic regarding white's core identity moving into the near future, but I still don't think they adequately address card advantage, ramp, or raw strength. What else can white be doing to more directly advance a win?
Most White cards just get you up to curve or one turn behind. We’re starting to see a lot of cards that give your opponents stuff but then give your more stuff. That should be exclusive to White. Give all 3 opponents 1 basic land, you get 3. Let them draw 2 cards, you draw 6. Etc. It’s in line with White’s color identity and would help White to get ahead, not just be behind less.
I think the white cards in the commander precons alone are fairly strong, and make me optimistic regarding white's core identity moving into the near future, but I still don't think they adequately address card advantage, ramp, or raw strength. What else can white be doing to more directly advance a win?
Most White cards just get you up to curve or one turn behind. We’re starting to see a lot of cards that give your opponents stuff but then give your more stuff. That should be exclusive to White. Give all 3 opponents 1 basic land, you get 3. Let them draw 2 cards, you draw 6. Etc. It’s in line with White’s color identity and would help White to get ahead, not just be behind less.
Yeah, this was something we talked about a lot in my play group, its getting better but isnt quite there yet. Giving resources to opponents can backfire really hard really fast so the gains have to be a little more significant than they are currently
I wonder if White could end up as the color to play around with Commander Damage? They care about combat, they care about "fairness," and they definitely care about building up and protecting creatures, so it feels like it would be in their wheelhouse.
That's an interesting idea, and something I don't actually think wotc has explored at all, despite jumping into a lot of other areas of commander design space. I could see something like a legend, creature, or enchantment that let all your creatures deal commander damage, or all creatures of a certain type. Maybe even something that reduced the required commander damage for opponents.
I wonder if White could end up as the color to play around with Commander Damage? They care about combat, they care about "fairness," and they definitely care about building up and protecting creatures, so it feels like it would be in their wheelhouse.
I have a strong feeling that WotC personally hate the "21 commander damage rule" (and I can perfectly understand the reasons behind it) and that's why it's a thing that in 10 years of commander product was never mentioned in any single card (and probably never will), because they have no interest in supporting it, but since they do not control the rules of the format but the Rules Commitee, they can't officially delete it either. In fact, when WotC did their own commander variant, Brawl, they dislike commander damage so much that it doesn't exist as a rule in that format completely.
Yeah, Kediss, Emberclaw Familiar feels like a real missed opportunity for “commander damage matters” - perhaps a deliberate one. Some altered rules functionality along the lines of “whenever a creature/commander you control deals combat damage to an opponent, it deals that much combat damage to each other opponent” would have sufficed.
Anyone remember how powerful Erhnam Djinn was back in the day? I can’t help but feel that’s a good analogue for where white should be right now. Flavor wise, “yes I’m really strong, but I abide by a certain code of honor to compensate” strikes me as eminently suitable.
While we’re on the topic, I’d like to see them directly address other alternate win conditions, like self-mill:
“Each opponent can only win the game if all other opponents are reduced to 0 life. At the beginning of your end step, each opponent that was dealt more than 20 damage by a single source you control loses the game.”
Yeah, Kediss, Emberclaw Familiar feels like a real missed opportunity for “commander damage matters” - perhaps a deliberate one. Some altered rules functionality along the lines of “whenever a creature/commander you control deals combat damage to an opponent, it deals that much combat damage to each other opponent” would have sufficed.
Anyone remember how powerful Erhnam Djinn was back in the day? I can’t help but feel that’s a good analogue for where white should be right now. Flavor wise, “yes I’m really strong, but I abide by a certain code of honor to compensate” strikes me as eminently suitable.
Actually, Erhnam Djinn specifically makes me wonder if you could build something out of a White deck that wants to be attacked. Like an Reverse-Goad, "Until your next turn, that creature attacks each combat if able and attacks you if able." It'd be a unique playstyle for the format, I think, while fitting in White's color pie by encouraging you to "martyr" yourself to "protect" the others. But it'd definitely be difficult to balance, because the rewards for being attacked would need to be really good, while not completely alleviating the fact that you're being attacked as often as possible. (And also not get tied up in Ghostly Prison effects.)
I have a strong feeling that WotC personally hate the "21 commander damage rule" (and I can perfectly understand the reasons behind it) and that's why it's a thing that in 10 years of commander product was never mentioned in any single card (and probably never will), because they have no interest in supporting it, but since they do not control the rules of the format but the Rules Commitee, they can't officially delete it either. In fact, when WotC did their own commander variant, Brawl, they dislike commander damage so much that it doesn't exist as a rule in that format completely.
As for Commander Damage not being a thing in Brawl, I think that's more because of the 25 life, 60 cards, one on one thing, rather than because they dislike Commander Damage. The difference between 21 damage and 25 damage is very small, and in a stalled board you can run through two sixty card decks much faster than four one-hundred card decks. Commander Damage is just another potential valve for ending the game faster.
That's an interesting idea, and something I don't actually think wotc has explored at all, despite jumping into a lot of other areas of commander design space. I could see something like a legend, creature, or enchantment that let all your creatures deal commander damage, or all creatures of a certain type. Maybe even something that reduced the required commander damage for opponents.
Given White's current love of Equipment, maybe there's something in a White Equipment that says "Equipped creature deals combat damage as though it was your Commander. If the equipped creature is your Commander, it gains double strike." Or something to that effect.
I have a strong feeling that WotC personally hate the "21 commander damage rule" (and I can perfectly understand the reasons behind it) and that's why it's a thing that in 10 years of commander product was never mentioned in any single card (and probably never will), because they have no interest in supporting it, but since they do not control the rules of the format but the Rules Commitee, they can't officially delete it either. In fact, when WotC did their own commander variant, Brawl, they dislike commander damage so much that it doesn't exist as a rule in that format completely.
As for Commander Damage not being a thing in Brawl, I think that's more because of the 25 life, 60 cards, one on one thing, rather than because they dislike Commander Damage. The difference between 21 damage and 25 damage is very small, and in a stalled board you can run through two sixty card decks much faster than four one-hundred card decks. Commander Damage is just another potential valve for ending the game faster.
I thought commander damage was never mentioned because of how tedious tracking it can get sometimes. It's why the consolidated commander damage argument comes up every once in a while.
I thought commander damage was never mentioned because of how tedious tracking it can get sometimes. It's why the consolidated commander damage argument comes up every once in a while.
I won't disagree that Commander Damage can be quite tedious to manage, especially with things like Partner and stealing effects and copies and what not. That might be due, in part at least, to the fact that few decks focus on it as a win condition. When it's something extraneous, something no one is aiming for, it does feel like weird rules baggage that is difficult to track. If a deck is focused on it, however, I think it'd be something easier to track (if for no other reason than someone's win con is literally based on tracking it.)
Eheheh, keeping track of commander is the main reason tuck was removed. God bless that rule.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How i feel about competitive players and casual players in EDH: The competitive are german tourists, the casual are italian tourists, both in a italian beach. The italians asking themselves "why are the germans here?" make a legitimate question, the answer is because the beach is beautiful, no matter the country you came from. The italians wanting to ban the germans are dumb, because if the germans pay for their stay and follow the rules like everyone else, they have the right to be in the beach. Hovewer, if the germans started to ask themselves "why are the italians here?"... they would be dumb as hell.
As for Commander Damage not being a thing in Brawl, I think that's more because of the 25 life, 60 cards, one on one thing, rather than because they dislike Commander Damage. The difference between 21 damage and 25 damage is very small, and in a stalled board you can run through two sixty card decks much faster than four one-hundred card decks. Commander Damage is just another potential valve for ending the game faster.
Actually Brawl is 30 lifes in multiplayer and 25 lifes only 1vs1. But I don't know if commander damage is a thing in MTGO 1vs1 version. Anyway, I personally see commander damage as an obsolete and inelegant rule (exactly 21 damages sounds a totally arbitrary and unintuitive number that only makes sense for the original elder dragons and few others) that only come up once in a while (like was mana burn back in the days), because from a gameplay persepctive doesn't really play that well, especially on multiplayer tracking. EDH is an already complicate enough format, I think they will definitely get rid of that rules baggage one day in a way or another.
I thought commander damage was never mentioned because of how tedious tracking it can get sometimes. It's why the consolidated commander damage argument comes up every once in a while.
I won't disagree that Commander Damage can be quite tedious to manage, especially with things like Partner and stealing effects and copies and what not. That might be due, in part at least, to the fact that few decks focus on it as a win condition. When it's something extraneous, something no one is aiming for, it does feel like weird rules baggage that is difficult to track. If a deck is focused on it, however, I think it'd be something easier to track (if for no other reason than someone's win con is literally based on tracking it.)
Wouldn't Voltron decks utilize Commander damage? In my Commander deck, it is really the main way I can win as I have to buff my commander.
It might be better just to combine Commander damage from partners into a single player rather than track separate commander damage for each partner.
It might be better just to combine Commander damage from partners into a single player rather than track separate commander damage for each partner.
In multiplayer, it would still be a mess to track. Imagine in a 4 player edh each player tracking in paper 3 different sources of commander damages (or even 4 if anybody commander is stealed) that most of the time wont even matter, really isnt worth to do it. Voltron strategies are really a minority and works really only in 1vs1, since in multi, everything is more dispersive. Also, when somebody wanna actually make somehow relevant and successful the commander damages in a multiplayer, it either is one-shotting out from nowhere or just spiteful pick on against the same player, which totally a feel-bad and antisocial experience that just bring misery and grudges on the game. In my playgroup is since 2011 that we ignore that rule, and honestly, never missed again, thats why I can understand perfectly why WotC don't want to ever make a "commander damage matter" a thing in card texts, because is clunky, unelegant, memory issues and don't lead to good gameplay experience in general.
Among other things, if WotC did go with a Commander Damage matters as a theme for a deck or color, it would give them an excuse to make tracking tokens, like with poison. Which could make that general process easier.
It might be better just to combine Commander damage from partners into a single player rather than track separate commander damage for each partner.
In multiplayer, it would still be a mess to track. Imagine in a 4 player edh each player tracking in paper 3 different sources of commander damages (or even 4 if anybody commander is stealed) that most of the time wont even matter, really isnt worth to do it. Voltron strategies are really a minority and works really only in 1vs1, since in multi, everything is more dispersive. Also, when somebody wanna actually make somehow relevant and successful the commander damages in a multiplayer, it either is one-shotting out from nowhere or just spiteful pick on against the same player, which totally a feel-bad and antisocial experience that just bring misery and grudges on the game. In my playgroup is since 2011 that we ignore that rule, and honestly, never missed again, thats why I can understand perfectly why WotC don't want to ever make a "commander damage matter" a thing in card texts, because is clunky, unelegant, memory issues and don't lead to good gameplay experience in general.
notepads work really great for tracking commander damage.
like, even if it were lumped together you just slap down on the pad something like Player 4: akiri/tymna. then just start ticking damage, even if its stolen whenever you're wacked you just tally it right there. no fuss.
i do agree with voltron being very antisocial and causing feels bad moments as well as grudges, but i also think its very necessary to make certain commanders viable at all. to get rid of it just invites the format to be a degenerate combo mess. i mean it already is, but at least sometimes you eat a skythrix to the face. it gives aggro an edge it otherwise wouldn't have, it doesn't necessarily make it viable but it keeps some commanders at least playable.
personally i wouldn't mind seeing them explore commander damage mechanics more. that said they'd also probably break it.
"to get rid of it just invites the format to be a degenerate combo mess. "
-- that's not true at all. Without commander damages there are so many strategies viable : tokens, midrange, superfriends, control, tribals, reanimator etc. It's just voltron to be a very boring and predictable strategy. Also, a voltron deck without his commander (maybe because there is a certain Magistrate that prevent him to be played) is usually useless, all the archetypes I mentioned are versatile enough that can adapat and win even without the general. I can tell you this, because it's more than a decade that I play with my playgroups without the commander damage rule and we still find new strategies and commanders to play with.
...then again, if in a playgroup somebody wins thanks to Thassa+Demonic each time, no player will be fast enough to win through commander damages, because we're in straight cedh territory anyway then lol
Commander damage is a necessary counter for life gain.
Theoretically. Practically, since when gaining tons of lifes is a thing in EDH playgroups? It's since 2011 that I played countless of games in cockatrice against players of all the world in every power level sauce and basically almost never lifelink is a problem, or even a thing. The only excepetion I can think of, are Aetheflux and Krirk decks comboing off with Bolas Citadel or other means, but at that point they will just straight go infinite by storming off and killing all players in the same turn. If you really are worried about life gain decks, just go black and play stuff like Sorin Markov or Tree of Perdition or Magister Sphinx that are much more quicker and efficent to shut down the problem.
I'm really not worried about it, but it's nice to have the option without needing to specifically build around countering it. If I were going to go that far, I might as well just build all decks into Thassa's Oracle, which I find patently unfun.
I wonder if White could end up as the color to play around with Commander Damage? They care about combat, they care about "fairness," and they definitely care about building up and protecting creatures, so it feels like it would be in their wheelhouse.
I have a strong feeling that WotC personally hate the "21 commander damage rule" (and I can perfectly understand the reasons behind it) and that's why it's a thing that in 10 years of commander product was never mentioned in any single card (and probably never will), because they have no interest in supporting it, but since they do not control the rules of the format but the Rules Commitee, they can't officially delete it either. In fact, when WotC did their own commander variant, Brawl, they dislike commander damage so much that it doesn't exist as a rule in that format completely.
In the defense of the "21 and Done" rule, I personally think they do need to make more cards that lean into it, because it's one of the few ways aggro decks can stand a chance in the format. Combos are essentially running the format, and although competitive and casual are different metas, eventually people upgrade their decks and then tend to lean in to stronger strategies... like combos.
Sure, there are other aggro decks outside of winning via commander damage, but are we really going to cut out Voltron just because? It would ruin a lot of commanders. Also, there's been times I've played with a non voltron commander and almost won through commander damage. In the end its another win condition provided with every commander people play.
The 21 commander damage rule is important for the format.
Also, with Brawl, I don't think it's so much as WotC hating Commander Damage as it is having a lower life total in a 1v1 game. What would you set the Cdamage to? 15? 10? It just doesn't work as well.
Also, @Xcric, I don't see how Voltron is any more antisocial than something like infinite combo victory. You literally race to your little combo pieces and then kill everyone on the spot. At least voltron offers combat, making it a fight.
"Please let me know exactly what your problems are with what I have said, as obviously your previous attempts at doing so have failed to communicate a tangible point"
Imagine thinking that your educational background is relevant to why you continually cry about everything.
Don't worry, I'm sure you're itching to call me racist or something,like you do to everything else.
Imagine thinking that ad hominem is relevant here but that a credential fallacy is okay. I'll give you a moment to Google that one up, since it may be above the level required to teach 11 year olds to speak the only language they know.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
I think the white cards in the commander precons alone are fairly strong, and make me optimistic regarding white's core identity moving into the near future, but I still don't think they adequately address card advantage, ramp, or raw strength. What else can white be doing to more directly advance a win?
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Most White cards just get you up to curve or one turn behind. We’re starting to see a lot of cards that give your opponents stuff but then give your more stuff. That should be exclusive to White. Give all 3 opponents 1 basic land, you get 3. Let them draw 2 cards, you draw 6. Etc. It’s in line with White’s color identity and would help White to get ahead, not just be behind less.
Yeah, this was something we talked about a lot in my play group, its getting better but isnt quite there yet. Giving resources to opponents can backfire really hard really fast so the gains have to be a little more significant than they are currently
That's an interesting idea, and something I don't actually think wotc has explored at all, despite jumping into a lot of other areas of commander design space. I could see something like a legend, creature, or enchantment that let all your creatures deal commander damage, or all creatures of a certain type. Maybe even something that reduced the required commander damage for opponents.
I have a strong feeling that WotC personally hate the "21 commander damage rule" (and I can perfectly understand the reasons behind it) and that's why it's a thing that in 10 years of commander product was never mentioned in any single card (and probably never will), because they have no interest in supporting it, but since they do not control the rules of the format but the Rules Commitee, they can't officially delete it either. In fact, when WotC did their own commander variant, Brawl, they dislike commander damage so much that it doesn't exist as a rule in that format completely.
Anyone remember how powerful Erhnam Djinn was back in the day? I can’t help but feel that’s a good analogue for where white should be right now. Flavor wise, “yes I’m really strong, but I abide by a certain code of honor to compensate” strikes me as eminently suitable.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
“Each opponent can only win the game if all other opponents are reduced to 0 life. At the beginning of your end step, each opponent that was dealt more than 20 damage by a single source you control loses the game.”
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Actually, Erhnam Djinn specifically makes me wonder if you could build something out of a White deck that wants to be attacked. Like an Reverse-Goad, "Until your next turn, that creature attacks each combat if able and attacks you if able." It'd be a unique playstyle for the format, I think, while fitting in White's color pie by encouraging you to "martyr" yourself to "protect" the others. But it'd definitely be difficult to balance, because the rewards for being attacked would need to be really good, while not completely alleviating the fact that you're being attacked as often as possible. (And also not get tied up in Ghostly Prison effects.)
As for Commander Damage not being a thing in Brawl, I think that's more because of the 25 life, 60 cards, one on one thing, rather than because they dislike Commander Damage. The difference between 21 damage and 25 damage is very small, and in a stalled board you can run through two sixty card decks much faster than four one-hundred card decks. Commander Damage is just another potential valve for ending the game faster.
Given White's current love of Equipment, maybe there's something in a White Equipment that says "Equipped creature deals combat damage as though it was your Commander. If the equipped creature is your Commander, it gains double strike." Or something to that effect.
I won't disagree that Commander Damage can be quite tedious to manage, especially with things like Partner and stealing effects and copies and what not. That might be due, in part at least, to the fact that few decks focus on it as a win condition. When it's something extraneous, something no one is aiming for, it does feel like weird rules baggage that is difficult to track. If a deck is focused on it, however, I think it'd be something easier to track (if for no other reason than someone's win con is literally based on tracking it.)
Actually Brawl is 30 lifes in multiplayer and 25 lifes only 1vs1. But I don't know if commander damage is a thing in MTGO 1vs1 version. Anyway, I personally see commander damage as an obsolete and inelegant rule (exactly 21 damages sounds a totally arbitrary and unintuitive number that only makes sense for the original elder dragons and few others) that only come up once in a while (like was mana burn back in the days), because from a gameplay persepctive doesn't really play that well, especially on multiplayer tracking. EDH is an already complicate enough format, I think they will definitely get rid of that rules baggage one day in a way or another.
Wouldn't Voltron decks utilize Commander damage? In my Commander deck, it is really the main way I can win as I have to buff my commander.
It might be better just to combine Commander damage from partners into a single player rather than track separate commander damage for each partner.
In multiplayer, it would still be a mess to track. Imagine in a 4 player edh each player tracking in paper 3 different sources of commander damages (or even 4 if anybody commander is stealed) that most of the time wont even matter, really isnt worth to do it. Voltron strategies are really a minority and works really only in 1vs1, since in multi, everything is more dispersive. Also, when somebody wanna actually make somehow relevant and successful the commander damages in a multiplayer, it either is one-shotting out from nowhere or just spiteful pick on against the same player, which totally a feel-bad and antisocial experience that just bring misery and grudges on the game. In my playgroup is since 2011 that we ignore that rule, and honestly, never missed again, thats why I can understand perfectly why WotC don't want to ever make a "commander damage matter" a thing in card texts, because is clunky, unelegant, memory issues and don't lead to good gameplay experience in general.
notepads work really great for tracking commander damage.
like, even if it were lumped together you just slap down on the pad something like Player 4: akiri/tymna. then just start ticking damage, even if its stolen whenever you're wacked you just tally it right there. no fuss.
i do agree with voltron being very antisocial and causing feels bad moments as well as grudges, but i also think its very necessary to make certain commanders viable at all. to get rid of it just invites the format to be a degenerate combo mess. i mean it already is, but at least sometimes you eat a skythrix to the face. it gives aggro an edge it otherwise wouldn't have, it doesn't necessarily make it viable but it keeps some commanders at least playable.
personally i wouldn't mind seeing them explore commander damage mechanics more. that said they'd also probably break it.
-- that's not true at all. Without commander damages there are so many strategies viable : tokens, midrange, superfriends, control, tribals, reanimator etc. It's just voltron to be a very boring and predictable strategy. Also, a voltron deck without his commander (maybe because there is a certain Magistrate that prevent him to be played) is usually useless, all the archetypes I mentioned are versatile enough that can adapat and win even without the general. I can tell you this, because it's more than a decade that I play with my playgroups without the commander damage rule and we still find new strategies and commanders to play with.
...then again, if in a playgroup somebody wins thanks to Thassa+Demonic each time, no player will be fast enough to win through commander damages, because we're in straight cedh territory anyway then lol
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Theoretically. Practically, since when gaining tons of lifes is a thing in EDH playgroups? It's since 2011 that I played countless of games in cockatrice against players of all the world in every power level sauce and basically almost never lifelink is a problem, or even a thing. The only excepetion I can think of, are Aetheflux and Krirk decks comboing off with Bolas Citadel or other means, but at that point they will just straight go infinite by storming off and killing all players in the same turn. If you really are worried about life gain decks, just go black and play stuff like Sorin Markov or Tree of Perdition or Magister Sphinx that are much more quicker and efficent to shut down the problem.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
In the defense of the "21 and Done" rule, I personally think they do need to make more cards that lean into it, because it's one of the few ways aggro decks can stand a chance in the format. Combos are essentially running the format, and although competitive and casual are different metas, eventually people upgrade their decks and then tend to lean in to stronger strategies... like combos.
Sure, there are other aggro decks outside of winning via commander damage, but are we really going to cut out Voltron just because? It would ruin a lot of commanders. Also, there's been times I've played with a non voltron commander and almost won through commander damage. In the end its another win condition provided with every commander people play.
The 21 commander damage rule is important for the format.
Also, with Brawl, I don't think it's so much as WotC hating Commander Damage as it is having a lower life total in a 1v1 game. What would you set the Cdamage to? 15? 10? It just doesn't work as well.
Also, @Xcric, I don't see how Voltron is any more antisocial than something like infinite combo victory. You literally race to your little combo pieces and then kill everyone on the spot. At least voltron offers combat, making it a fight.
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries