MTG Salvation

Quote from ilovesaprolings »

It's not a power level argument, it's a design argument. With partner you just create vague stuff that will be put together to create the goodstuffest goodstuff or something mediocre.

First time hearing this argument, but sure, I'll roll with it. Let's actually look at the partners and see if it holds up.

Akiri - artifact synergy, voltron
Alena - high power synergy, creature synergy
Bruse - combat/attack synergy, voltron
Halana - deathtouch synergy, high power synergy, creature synergy
Ikra Shidiqi - high toughness synergy, evasion synergy, creature synergy
Ishai - counter synergy, voltron, possibly group hug synergy
Kraum - goodstuff
Kydele - draw synergy, big colorless synergy
Ludevic - political? this guy sucks and I refuse to defend him
Ravos - go-wide synergy, dredge/recursion synergy
reyhan - counter synergy
sengir - removal synergy, voltron
sidar konda - weenie synergy, saboteur synergy
silas renn - artifact synergy
tana, the bloodsower - buff synergy especially anthems
prismatic piper - what do you want from me?
thrasios - activated ability synergy, infinite mana sink, land synergy (I built him as 98 lands and it was a blast)
Tymna - evasion synergy, lifegain synergy
vial smasher - delve/cost reduction synergy, big spell synergy

Ok, so I'm counting basically one that doesn't really have any synergy to speak of (unless you count the prismatic piper, which I don't). Of course some are more synergistic than others, but that's also true of non-partner commanders. Not that people always build to their synergies, of course. People are gonna build goodstuff decks, that's not really partners' fault. And of course since they're of the only ways to build 4c, that increases the likelihood people will just play them for the colors. But as we get more, there'll be more opportunity to find partners that synergize in interesting ways with each other.

the fact that there is also a power level problem

[citation needed]

Even with his popularity in cEDH, Thrasios isn't even in the top 10 saltiest legendaries. And I'd bet even that level of salt is almost certainly because of his power with infinite mana, something that's not really relevant to casual EDH. And none of the other partners even make the list. It's hard to find good evidence for power level in casual EDH, but that seems as good of evidence as any, and better than none whatsoever. And in terms of popularity, T&T is down at #98, and basically only because of cEDH based on the top "synergy cards". So no, I don't think there's a power level problem and I'm going to need more than your word on the subject to change my mind.

Quote from ilovesaprolings »

Yes? It shows that they are not interesting unless you are tryharding. Exactly what EDH shouldn't be about.
And having a mechanic that is "fine" because it's ignored 99% of the time is surely not making the game better or more fun.

I think there's a huge misdirect about the competitive viability of these things. Thrasios + Tymna are the cEDH powerhouse, but that's not because they're incredibly scary commanders in a vacuum. It's because cEDH cares way more about low mana curves, infinite mana outlets, and efficient early card advantage - things that casual EDH generally isn't as focused on. If you take a casual EDH list and throw T&T in front of it, they'll be...fine. Not insane, just fine. Thrasios's ability is nowhere near busted on face value, nor is Tymna's.

If I had to sit down across from a casual EDH deck playing T&T vs one playing Golos, I'd rather play T&T all day every day. Golos demands removal, T&T do not. They're only scary when they're piloting a cEDH deck that can leverage their early CA, having an extra card, low mana costs, and infinite mana outlet to full potential. For a casual deck, they're good but not terrifying. Pretty tame TBH, even if they're a bit faster off the block than other, more impactful commanders.

Partners are definitely not a problem, and I don't see them becoming a problem unless wotc does something really stupid - which they could just as easily do with a non-partner commander.

And while people say "partner and partner with are two totally different things!"...meh. I don't really agree. Pir and Toothy are honestly among the most annoying, if not THE most annoying, partners to play against imo. Even if they could partner with someone else, they'd probably still be most irritating with each other. They're basically two commanders that both demand removal or they spiral out of control, and toothy doesn't even have decency to be countered by exiling removal. And they're "fair" so people bring them to casual EDH all the time, unlike T&T cEDH decks. Sure, maybe at some future point when there are 500 partners wotc will screw up and create an infinite combo between two of them, but even then, they'll be annoying in cEDH and everyone else will probably steer clear. And right now the spookiest scariest thing parnter is doing is just sticking two moderately efficient draw engines together that have practically zero synergy. Ooh, so scary. That's nowhere near as worrying as the design space of partner with imo, where they intentionally try to make them synergistic.

Are people playing a lot of wake of destruction in your meta?


otherwise mountain. Your friends presumably meant multicolour decks.

I put this deck together (osieorb's version from page 121) to play at my LGS a few times, and it was quite fun. Figured I'd throw in my one major note.

So the one quibble I wanted to bring up decklist-wise, though, was that I think it's focusing too heavily on utility lands. I had several hands I had to throw back for a lack of red mana, and many games where red mana was the constraining factor. I really don't see field of the dead getting there, virtually every game was won or lost before I got to 7 different lands (though I never drew field).

But if you really want to run it, at a minimum I would definitely run the freebie red lands like hammerheim and shinka, and either way I'd run dwarven mine. I mean, it's not the splashiest, but it does kinda do the thing the deck wants to do, by putting in a body to trigger our stuff, and is fetchable. mine even works with guantlet of might (though not gauntlet of power).

The other ones don't, ofc. But right now it feels like the deck is really killing itself on the mana trying to do both field of the dead AND dual gauntlets, when it should either be doing one or the other (probably the gauntlets imo).

Quote from "Helnas »

A guy at my fnm insta scoops the moment you steal his commander just so you dont get to use it, even for 1 turn

Wow, that guy sounds awful.


I’ll confess I don’t like other people touching my cards as well. But I have the good sense to get over it.


I think the “judo” thing is likely what you’re looking for.

Depends a lot on which sets. Kumena sprang to mind for me, but you’d need merfolk-heavy sets.

1) you can divide that cost by paying 3 on an earlier turn


2) more importantly, it’s still a completely free-to-run card, no matter how crappy. So no it should never be unbanned.


if it replaced a card in hand Instead, then it’d be ok imo.

But thunderfoot baloth also grants trample! Lol.


idk, imo a 3/2 for 3 is a really high price for that effect.

I think blasphemous act is playing to lose, tbh. Sure, there will absolutely be games where it keeps you from losing...for a bit. But does it actually help you win? I think once you're the one wiping the board, you're probably too far behind to win that game most of the time. And games where you need a 2-drop but have a blasphemous act are much more likely to be losses when they could have been wins.

FYI, Kari Zev's monkey will not help trigger Gallia because it enters attacking, so it wasn't declared as an attacker. Bit of a subtle point in the rules. It's still a decent card but it'll only count as 1 attacker for Gallia purposes. Same is true for hanweir garrison. Chandra works because she makes the tokens and then you declare them as attackers.

Cards I would cut:

archetype of aggression has very mediocre stats and trample isn't very important imo. You're looking to go wide-ish, not super tall.

Balefire dragon is a sweet card but 7 is too much for a creature without haste imo.

Borby is too expensive as well.

I know he's a "classic" but I don't like champion of lambholt. He's too prone to getting blown up mid-combat and leaving you in trouble. But we're not making enough tokens to really take advantage of him imo.

Along with cutting the pricier stuff, I'd cut feldon. 3 is a lot to invest in a temporary creature and there's no compelling reason to focus on ETBs with this deck.

As much as I like 1-drops, I think legion loyalist is too low-impact tbh.

If you've got the money for a taiga (and willow satyr lol) you may as well get your fetches. Just replace your basics with them.

Harvest season I wouldn't run personally, but it does have a potentially high payoff at least. Nature's lore I like a lot less here, you've got a 2-drop in the command zone.

I don't like reap the past. It seems essentially equivalent to braingeyser which is not an exciting card. When I'm playing this deck, I usually have a hard time finding the space to cast survival of the fittest, since it doesn't impact the board and I NEED to stay on top. Let alone tapping out for a big clunky sorcery. Plus it's not a reliable way to get anything specific back, and you probably can't cast it right away either.
The more I think about it, the more this might be my least favourite card in your deck at this point.

I concur that gruul charm should be cut. Also I think noxious revival is pretty bad. Your justification sounds like mine back when I thought I needed to play life gain in my 73-card garbage pile of a deck - "What if I'm low on life and I need to gain some?" Sure, there will be times you wish you could get something back you discarded. But you aren't running a combo deck, there's no absolutely crucial cards here. Very few cards worth 2-for-1ing yourself to get back. And even when you do want a card back that badly, you likely won't have revival in hand. It's just too situational, and the situations when you don't need it, it's totally useless. I don't really even like Ewit here, but if you must have some recursion, that's the one thing I'd leave in since at least it's a body that can attack.

If I were keeping 1 removal spell it'd probably be chaos warp. Hits anything, gets around indestructibility/regen/etc, and if you're lucky won't leave them a blocker. Split second is for control decks. Your "split second" is hitting them so hard they can't afford to keep counterspell mana up. You don't want a niche card in an aggro deck, that's just a bad idea.

You can probably just assume anything Singe is suggesting, I disagree with. I don't trust anyone that just uses a reworded description of the text of the card as the sole justification for why you should include it, lol. (heroic intervention is ok though, and nylea is decent - although (old) purphoros is much better for an aggro deck imo)

Overall the deck looks much better, though!

WotC needs new product to sell, and eternal formats don't make for big sales. I think that's also likely why they're tying the precons to the sets, so that you're forced to buy the set to use the mechanics to the fullest.

Not sure I see the connection between companions and Eminence. None of them do anything until they're cast. They might be an attempt to entice commander players, but I think more likely it's just a way to use the fun gimmick of commander in non-commander formats. I think the most defining quality of commander is being casual, so fans of commander aren't likely too keen on getting into a competitive format just because it imitates one mechanic.

Quote from Narvuntien »

you need to be able to build interactive and aggressive decks from mostly uncommons with a few key rares.

The cycling deck is essentially all uncommons and commons. It gets a little better with shocks and a lurrus, but honestly it doesn't make a huge difference.

Yorion is pretty oppressive atm but I've been able to climb to mid platinum with very little effort using cycling. I've got a full set of IKO and I've only ever payed $5 for arena.

Regardless of making standard more affordable, though, I think there does need to be a format that (1) isn't all metagamy and competitive like standard, and (2) isn't as complex as commander. Which is what I think brawl was intended to be, failings aside.

There's no way to make a simple format that uses new cards but doesn't rotate. You have to pick 2 out of 3. Commander uses new cards and doesn't rotate, but isn't simple. Brawl(/standard) is simple and uses new cards, but rotates. I guess the third alternative is block constructed but nobody wants to play that.

we're willing to take steps up to or including changing how the companion mechanic works.

whoa. That would be pretty crazy. Power level errata? I wonder what they have in mind?

Quote from Macabre »

Being that my original post in this thread was a direct opinion for the original posters topic, (which he then replied to agreeing with), and everything after was me replying to your derailing rant, I'd have to disagree. The topics I introduced here were all in response to your earlier spam.

The topic created is about speculating how the committee may handle changing the rules or what new rules may come. This doesn't mean an exclusive conversation regarding the vintage banlist.

We've already shared our opinions, so how's about we don't make this topic more uninviting for actual conversation.

I'm assuming NGW (as well as the other people who responded to you) just didn't notice that what you said was irrelevant. The topic title was about the upcoming bans, which are not going to include any updates to the commander rules - but will include updates for vintage that will potentially have downstream effects on commander. Nothing in the OP, title, or any other posts before yours says anything that would make your post relevant to the topic of this thread. And your post implies that breaking companion functionality in commander would fix this problem, which it does not. You can pretend you're justified if you must.

That said, you're 100% correct that I've also contributed to the derailing of this thread, and I'm just repeating myself anyway. So I'm going to stop.

The topic of this thread is about how the potential additions (most likely Lurrus) to the vintage banlist could have implications for commander, since we use "vintage legal cards" as the starting point for card legality.

How companions work in commander has nothing to do with that topic. Nothing whatsoever. You introduced it when it was irrelevant. You aren't adding to this thread. You're derailing it.

On top of which, you haven't added anything to previous conversations (on the unrelated topic of companions function in commander) except to restate your opinion with no additions or refinement. So yes, it gets fairly frustrating when you do nothing except keep repeating the same thing in increasingly inappropriate threads. If you want to talk about that topic, talk about it in the dedicated thread for that topic, and try to actually say something new instead of the same thing over, and over, and over...along with the half-dozen other people who keep saying the same thing. It's incredibly tedious.

Did you read what I wrote? Are you paying attention?

HOW COMPANION WORKS IN COMMANDER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PROBLEM. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA.

If Lurrus is banned in vintage, then the RC will have to decide whether to let him be banned in commander, or to go out of sync with the vintage banlist. Whether Lurrus can be used as a companion in commander is 100% irrelevant to that discussion. Whether Lutri is banned is also 100% irrelevant to that discussion.

Lutri is one card in 20,000, and not a very interesting one either, since as you point out Naru Meha and dualcaster exist. If you honestly feel that one not-particularly-interesting card getting banned is worth all this effort to whine about, then you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand you, at all. Especially if you're advocating a "banned as a companion" classification, in which case you wouldn't even be shortening the banlist, you'd just be lengthening it. BaaC is a waste of time because it doesn't simplify the banlist, it complicates it, and while some cards - erayo, braids, leovold - might be tolerable in the 99 they're not actually GOOD or FUN for the game. What's the point in making the rules MORE complicated to accommodate cards that are tolerable at best?

This format is not a competitive format. Do most companions probably lower your winrate overall? Probably. Is that a thing that matters when playing a casual format for fun?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Personally I'm psyched to try the companions out in multiple decks, even if it'll probably mostly just be silly. Complaining about how they aren't powerful enough just makes me think you don't understand the first thing about commander.

.....Why would you ban Yorion because of it being unable to work? That doesn't even make sense. It's already de-facto banned as a companion, why would you ban it elsewhere?

The fix for WHAT? THIS PROBLEM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW COMPANIONS WORK IN COMMANDER. How many times do I have to spell it out for you before you stop running to the same irrelevant argument? You're like that guy who will blame it on "the liberals" five times before he realizes that people are just asking what he wants for lunch. SMH...

I am kinda worried that all the obnoxious whining from change-averse crybabies will make the RC consider changing its mind. But I don't see any reason why, even if Lurrus gets banned in vintage, that would change anything about how companions work in commander. They're totally unrelated issues. Lurrus would still need to be considered separately.