Kaalia can be a pain in the butt just because running cheap answers for flying is not something many green decks ACTUALLY run in their decks.
I once died on turn 5 to Kaalia while playing mono green. It felt rather unjustified but whatever... The sad part is that I could have killed him the next turn if I had gotten another one. He even started the fight after I had been attacking someone else.... annoying.
did he ramp out the kalia that game? just curious
mono green thrun seems unstoppable btw
edit: also curious as to whether you had him down to 10 or less life haha
It doesn't help that Mass LD is frowned on as acceptable play which is one of aggro best tools for closing out games. There are select commanders like Edric which are not impacted by 40 life but there are far more that are mostly unplayable due to the high life totals.
The fact that the control and combo players have more time before they would die is a strict advantage to their style of play. I am not saying that aggro is unplayable but there is a distinct advantage to combo and control due to the high starting life total.
Exactly this. Are you interested in setting up a thread where we can vote on which we think is better for the format and discuss?
or possibly turning this thread into a poll?
I'd like to hear more discussion from players who have had extensive time playing both ways
I play in a couple different playgroups. One at the kitchen table and one is a weekly commander league. I don't feel like my meta is stagnant at all. I run two heave creature/aggro/ramp decks and the higher life total doesn't bother me and or hinder me from winning.
If the life total went to 30 I know it will hurt the format for me because it will make games quicker and you'll see less of the really fun/cool expensive cmc cards/strategies that you can afford to play with the hight life/time to build up.
Also is a set of 100 card singletons you don't get the same consistence that you do from the other formats in terms of your opening hand being "playable" so sometimes you need that life buffer to get your footing and I like that part of EDH. I played Modern and I left because if your opening hand isn't really good you basically lose [unless your draws are great]. EDH gives you that time to play with a not perfect hand in a agro build or control build
Why is it a negative thing that I've been playing the same way for 5 years? Magic has been a 60 card 20 life format from the beginning and thats going strong. So making it sound negative that a format has had the same "rules" for the past 5 years is not a good argument.
I still get the feeling that you haven't tried out 30 life. And playing the same way for five years is a sign that your having fun still. nothing wrong with that.
My argument is only that 30 life games will make the meta more interactive and therefore healthier and arguably more fun for any playgroup that is seriously willing to give it a chance for more than a few games.
Also have you ever played with partial paris mulligans? THE best thing ever for edh
There are other ways you could speed up the game if that is the intent. You could start the game with Mana Flare and/or Howling Mine emblems in effect. That would speed up the game more than decreasing life totals, and I think more people would agree to play that variant at least some of the time.
so you wouldnt try a starting life total of 30 because you feel that there are other more say "planechase" style ways to speed the game up?
starting the game with mana flare would make edh even more battlecruizer-esque, which is cool, but would change the game in completely different ways than a lower starting life total.
if you want to play black or red aggro how do you deal with pillowforty enchantment decks?
the answer is you dont. you have to meta by adding other colors that can deal with enchantments.
lowering the life total would let black and red interact better with enchantments in the only way they can--killing the enchanter
Edit: @muffinman
do you find that your meta is stagnant at all?
how do you know that 30 starting life would hurt the format you love so much when you've been playing the same way for 5 years?
in my experience it makes games even more exciting and even increases the importance of being politically savvy.
it makes hate more dangerous and the games where you get hated out shorter so that you can retry next game to play it smarter. i feel that there are tons of pros and cons but few would care to find out for themselves which is really better.
just trying to get more people to experience the pros and cons for themselves.
you can theory craft all day and still never know what the real deal is like.
One of the best pros to 30 life is that it forces decks to be more interactive, which is just the sort of force that makes a meta more dynamic. Do you also find this to be true @ISB? it sounds like you've tested out 30 life a good bit am i right?
@crash
Why then is it that 1v1 decks still play voltron? its because a constantly available wincon that you only have to deal 21 combat damage with is still awesome.
And more importantly why do you feel is it ok for 1v1 to be 30 life and not multiplayer?
Same. Damage never bugged my group. Rare situations where I take 47 via Overrun from Garruk on turn 5 with a bunch of dudes in play. That never really happens unless I was totally ignoring my opponents board and tutor selection.
I run so many pain cards, less life would make me plays more thought out. I like paying life to cards apparently with approximately ~16 or so pain cards. U/B/x has a lot of cards that transfer Life for cards which is always warming.
It would be great if they officially changed the life totals to 30. Real decks don't need 40 life to win, they only need certain cards, turns, and 3/4 combat steps for Voltron decks. 40 life is too easy to win against bad players, they need to lower the life totals to make more of a challenge against unknown metas.
cool. good to know im not the only one who thinks this.
Edit: i also thought that the three different life totals would add a layer to deckbuilding which is the favorite part of many commander players about commander in addition to adding a cool incentive for playing monocolor. the die hard necropotents could play mono black and still sacrifice all the lifes.
Eh, for my group at least, it's more like "so high it doesn't matter what people attack you with", low 30s, low 20s, or corpse'd. If someone ends up at like single digit life it is pretty impressive.
and @bone_doc
its these arguments that im most familiar with personally.
the thing is that for guys who are chipping away at life totals, the life totals really DO matter a great deal.
what i dont understand is the unwillingness by people who hold this argument to even try a lower starting life total when they profess that life total doesn't even matter.
House rules are fine in the house where they are accepted, but community discussion will always be anti-house-rule because if the house rules were simpler than the existing rules, they would have already been universally adopted (in my opinion). Most house rules are a complication to the existing rules designed to punish particular play styles which the 'house' does not like. If your group has fun like that it's cool, but this community is full of passionate people who usually like the rules the way they are and hate change (recall if you will all the 'sky is falling' discussion around the change of the Legend rule, the printing of Homeward Path and the more recent printing of Bane of Progress).
Regarding differing life totals at the start of the game? I would say experiment with Vanguard, which mixes things up, or other variations of the game where you as the aggro deck don't need to kill all your opponents (Emperor or Star Magic are both cool variations on free for all). Aggro is always going to be weaker in multiplayer games and setting colour based life totals isn't going to change that. Especially if all your opponents decide to run mono-blue pillowfort/combo/control decks
When I play 1v1 with my mates we already use 30 life. The problem here is that you want 30 life because it benefits you. It disadvantages the rest of the playgroup who want to play pillowfort. It's unlikely they will go for the idea that only benefits you. You have to sell why it is better for everyone in your group, for them to even consider it.
this is true but i think id have a leg up against mono blue with a dual or tri colored aggro de k rather than against a blue white deck even.
Edit: what I see my proposed rule as doing is pushing controlly/rampy/pillowforty decks toward the single color while aggro can give up life for more colors, versatility, card pool, and arguably power (ISB).
i think its an interesting dynamic
edit: my argument to the playgroup and community is that it will give more variety to the format and thus more replay-ability.
I kill plenty of people with mono colored decks. Honestly, people overestimate how much they need more than one color. I am for lowering starting life totals but you are wrong if you think I need a crutch because I run mono colored decks.
seems i've hit a chord here.
so you'd consider playing 30 starting life total then?
edit: additional arguments for 30 starting life.
it makes cards like serra ascendent, sorin markov and the etb sphinx less offensive
Nope. See, this life rule seems designed to punish people who like more colors, which is *absurd*. It doesn't fix any problems with the format and just randomly weakens an entire category of generals for no other reason beyond "we could".
If you want to change game rules, fine, whatever works for your playgroup. Have good reasons though.
I see your point. my real intent was to convince everyone to play starting with 30 life with the argument that 10 less life would go a long way toward changing the meta to be less pillowforty/ramp only type decks. bc if im the only guy attempting to play an aggressive deck in a playgroup of 7 other pillowforter durdlers then i camt very well play aggressively at all really.
sorry for the runon
and thanks for the reply but i think other people could really get on board with this. why not change something. even IF you think it does work? after all is t that how edh first came to be. a playgroup tweaking rules to make the funnest possible format. why not try something that would possibly make it more fun
also theres no way besides ruination you can argue that mono color is not severely crippled compared to multicolor
This line of thought came from me wanting to convince someone to try a different starting life total like 30.
I then thought, what about a new rule that would give a chance for people to prove that a buffer of 10 life doesn't matter or doesn't change games and metas significantly for the better (or worse).
40 starting life for mono color commanders
35 starting life for 2 colored commanders
30 starting life for 3+ colored commanders
Give the buff to the decks that arguably need it the most ---> mono color
Would you play under these rules? yes or no. why not?
Edit: alternatively
35 starting life for mono color
30 starting life for 2+ colored decks.
The meta you're playing in is clearly much higher power-level than my, or 99% of the rest of EDH players metas if that's okay/normal for it. If you're playing super strong decks like that, then sure Rift might be unnecessary. If you mean to play EDH competitively though we'd need a MUCH larger banlist to avoid it becoming a stale format full of Hermit Druid and Azami. (I know there's metas like that, but I would hazard to guess that most are lower power level.)
When I started playing I had much more powerful decks that didn't hesitate to combo out turn 3 and 4. Then I decided that ruining the fun for everyone else and having a win that involved little-to-no interaction with the board isn't why I want to play. I enjoy having games that I'm not guaranteed to win and need to be strategic about.
My Ghave, Guru of Spores deck runs a whooping 0 infinite combos and is still very powerful. It's also much more fun to play.
I find dropping Mik + Trike to be much less fun in comparison.
My problem with Rift is that it makes blue even more necessary in a meta that already favors it. Having no good defense aside from blue makes me feel like it's not a card that is good for the meta of EDH.
Play whatever power level makes you happy, but the official banlist isn't up to snuff if you're trying to play competitive.
a good defense against blue is cutting the fat out of your mana curve.
The more costly your spells are, the more advantage blue gets out of countering your spells or bouncing your permanents.
If all you have to affect the board and other players is 6 mana spells, blue can capsize you all day no prob
did he ramp out the kalia that game? just curious
mono green thrun seems unstoppable btw
edit: also curious as to whether you had him down to 10 or less life haha
Exactly this. Are you interested in setting up a thread where we can vote on which we think is better for the format and discuss?
or possibly turning this thread into a poll?
I'd like to hear more discussion from players who have had extensive time playing both ways
I still get the feeling that you haven't tried out 30 life. And playing the same way for five years is a sign that your having fun still. nothing wrong with that.
My argument is only that 30 life games will make the meta more interactive and therefore healthier and arguably more fun for any playgroup that is seriously willing to give it a chance for more than a few games.
Also have you ever played with partial paris mulligans? THE best thing ever for edh
so you wouldnt try a starting life total of 30 because you feel that there are other more say "planechase" style ways to speed the game up?
starting the game with mana flare would make edh even more battlecruizer-esque, which is cool, but would change the game in completely different ways than a lower starting life total.
if you want to play black or red aggro how do you deal with pillowforty enchantment decks?
the answer is you dont. you have to meta by adding other colors that can deal with enchantments.
lowering the life total would let black and red interact better with enchantments in the only way they can--killing the enchanter
Edit: @muffinman
do you find that your meta is stagnant at all?
how do you know that 30 starting life would hurt the format you love so much when you've been playing the same way for 5 years?
in my experience it makes games even more exciting and even increases the importance of being politically savvy.
it makes hate more dangerous and the games where you get hated out shorter so that you can retry next game to play it smarter. i feel that there are tons of pros and cons but few would care to find out for themselves which is really better.
just trying to get more people to experience the pros and cons for themselves.
you can theory craft all day and still never know what the real deal is like.
One of the best pros to 30 life is that it forces decks to be more interactive, which is just the sort of force that makes a meta more dynamic. Do you also find this to be true @ISB? it sounds like you've tested out 30 life a good bit am i right?
@crash
Why then is it that 1v1 decks still play voltron? its because a constantly available wincon that you only have to deal 21 combat damage with is still awesome.
And more importantly why do you feel is it ok for 1v1 to be 30 life and not multiplayer?
cool. good to know im not the only one who thinks this.
Edit: i also thought that the three different life totals would add a layer to deckbuilding which is the favorite part of many commander players about commander in addition to adding a cool incentive for playing monocolor. the die hard necropotents could play mono black and still sacrifice all the lifes.
and @bone_doc
its these arguments that im most familiar with personally.
the thing is that for guys who are chipping away at life totals, the life totals really DO matter a great deal.
what i dont understand is the unwillingness by people who hold this argument to even try a lower starting life total when they profess that life total doesn't even matter.
this is true but i think id have a leg up against mono blue with a dual or tri colored aggro de k rather than against a blue white deck even.
Edit: what I see my proposed rule as doing is pushing controlly/rampy/pillowforty decks toward the single color while aggro can give up life for more colors, versatility, card pool, and arguably power (ISB).
i think its an interesting dynamic
edit: my argument to the playgroup and community is that it will give more variety to the format and thus more replay-ability.
seems i've hit a chord here.
so you'd consider playing 30 starting life total then?
edit: additional arguments for 30 starting life.
it makes cards like serra ascendent, sorin markov and the etb sphinx less offensive
lol thanks for the warning.
so answer the question IIT
would you play this rule?
why not?
I see your point. my real intent was to convince everyone to play starting with 30 life with the argument that 10 less life would go a long way toward changing the meta to be less pillowforty/ramp only type decks. bc if im the only guy attempting to play an aggressive deck in a playgroup of 7 other pillowforter durdlers then i camt very well play aggressively at all really.
sorry for the runon
and thanks for the reply but i think other people could really get on board with this. why not change something. even IF you think it does work? after all is t that how edh first came to be. a playgroup tweaking rules to make the funnest possible format. why not try something that would possibly make it more fun
also theres no way besides ruination you can argue that mono color is not severely crippled compared to multicolor
I then thought, what about a new rule that would give a chance for people to prove that a buffer of 10 life doesn't matter or doesn't change games and metas significantly for the better (or worse).
40 starting life for mono color commanders
35 starting life for 2 colored commanders
30 starting life for 3+ colored commanders
Give the buff to the decks that arguably need it the most ---> mono color
Would you play under these rules? yes or no. why not?
Edit: alternatively
35 starting life for mono color
30 starting life for 2+ colored decks.
a good defense against blue is cutting the fat out of your mana curve.
The more costly your spells are, the more advantage blue gets out of countering your spells or bouncing your permanents.
If all you have to affect the board and other players is 6 mana spells, blue can capsize you all day no prob