Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Jul-16 12:55 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Commander Damage
AgePosted: 2016-May-12 8:01 am 

Joined: 2014-May-23 10:08 am
Age: Wyvern
onedayweek wrote:
A person could conclude that, instead of lowering the starting life totals to make aggro viable, this was put in place to MOSTLY deal with extreme lifegain, and adding uniqueness was a pleasant bonus.


I merely pointed out a reasonable conclusion that people could make. I wasn't arguing against the points given.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Commander Damage
AgePosted: 2016-May-12 8:04 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
onedayweek wrote:
If aggro was so unviable in the early days of the format that you had to include a 21 commander damage rule, why not just have players start at 21 life instead of 40?

Hahahah. Starting with 40 life? In the early days, you started with 200 life divided by the number of players :)

So perhaps, it was also a way to help the games end faster if there were fewer players at the table?
onedayweek wrote:
so why have them handle lifegain specifically through this rule when it could be handled by the most important tenant of the format (imo): politics.

Because this "handling" of it is incidental of the rule, not the driving force of the rule.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Commander Damage
AgePosted: 2016-May-12 8:17 am 

Joined: 2014-May-23 10:08 am
Age: Wyvern
Carthain wrote:
Hahahah. Starting with 40 life? In the early days, you started with 200 life divided by the number of players :)


I had COMPLETELY forgotten about this! The commander damage rule makes even more sense in that context.

I'm still not completely convinced that the rule, as written, isn't arbitrary. Yes, it provides some uniqueness to the format, but since the rules were changed that make our commanders always available (zone changes) this seems less important than ever.

Thinking out loud, I think i'm going to talk to my playgroup about changing starting life totals to 30 and Commander Damage to 30 as well. It seems cleaner to me (in a vacuum, i admit) and still leaves that unique aspect to commanders. It's also not another number to remember for new players and doesn't even come into play often (unless someone gains life haha).


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Commander Damage
AgePosted: 2016-May-12 8:22 am 

Joined: 2013-Jun-23 10:18 am
Age: Elder Dragon
onedayweek wrote:
I'm still not completely convinced that the rule, as written, isn't arbitrary. Yes, it provides some uniqueness to the format, but since the rules were changed that make our commanders always available (zone changes) this seems less important than ever.


In a sense, it's certainly arbitrary. But if the effect is a positive one, and stopping infinite life shenanigans is definitely a positive effect, what's the problem with arbitrariness? That's a bit like saying 2 more mana for each time your Commander dies is arbitrary. It's kinda true- it could easily be 1 more or 3 more- but it's not really a criticism.

_________________
Current Commanders: 6/32.

Daretti, Scrap Savant (Red Artefacts).
Prime Speaker Zegana (Simic Voltron).
Rubinia Soulsinger (Bant Polymorphs).
Kess, Dissident Mage (Grixis Treasure).
Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper (Jund Apostles).
Tariel, Reckoner of Souls (Mardu Judo).


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Commander Damage
AgePosted: 2016-May-12 8:25 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
onedayweek wrote:
I'm still not completely convinced that the rule, as written, isn't arbitrary.
Does it matter if it was arbitrary? It's now part of what defines the format, and allows for unique deck building in this format. As Sheldon said - it doesn't really matter much what the original intent was, but more of if it's worthwhile now.

Also... not being able to tuck commanders has no bearing on this rule being worthwhile or not. Nobody but you has mentioned the anti-tuck change. So why do you think that is a factor when nobody else has supplied that as a reason?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Commander Damage
AgePosted: 2016-May-12 10:23 am 

Joined: 2012-Apr-11 7:17 am
Age: Elder Dragon
All the rules not part of Magic are arbitrary. Not really a plus or a minus.

_________________
sir squab wrote:
My... history of buying Magic cards is probably a tapestry of bad financial decisions >_>
niheloim wrote:
No, I think he's right. I'm just all butt-hurt over prophet.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Commander Damage
AgePosted: 2016-May-12 10:52 am 

Joined: 2014-Sep-13 7:28 am
Age: Elder Dragon
onedayweek wrote:
If aggro was so unviable in the early days of the format that you had to include a 21 commander damage rule, why not just have players start at 21 life instead of 40?

Why even play 100 cards at that point? It's a much slower format (i think i'm ok presuming deliberately) than others, and by having 21 life (why not suggest 20 if you are really trying to 'simplify' things...), you don't have that longer cruiser game. Personally, i don't think i can count on my fingers and toes how many games i've taken 21 damage right away from, but stabilized to have a normal-length game i fought back valiantly or even won.

Really you'd just playing an obnoxiously large deck for what ought to be roughly the same speed/turns as a standard deck or a sluggish modern deck.

Anecdotal to be sure, but a fond memory, i recently had a game against Kalemne and i was down to 4 life on turn 5 or 6 with an Anya in play and i still won.

onedayweek wrote:
Thinking out loud, I think i'm going to talk to my playgroup about changing starting life totals to 30 and Commander Damage to 30 as well. It seems cleaner to me (in a vacuum, i admit) and still leaves that unique aspect to commanders. It's also not another number to remember for new players and doesn't even come into play often (unless someone gains life haha).

Why even change it that, then? It makes virtually no difference in any circumstance except life gain. If you don't want new players to have to remember it, isn't it easier to pitch 'no commander damage'? They still have to remember 'commander damage is 30' in life gain situations, and without life gain situations it just shouldn't be relevant it seems.

Not picking on you, just don't understand i guess.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Commander Damage
AgePosted: 2016-May-12 2:23 pm 

Joined: 2014-May-23 10:08 am
Age: Wyvern
Carthain wrote:
Also... not being able to tuck commanders has no bearing on this rule being worthwhile or not. Nobody but you has mentioned the anti-tuck change. So why do you think that is a factor when nobody else has supplied that as a reason?


I believe one of the counter points to this thought exercise was that commander damage provides uniqueness to the format. It's my opinion that the commander provides enough uniqueness in and of itself to not need the rule, especially now that we are mostly guaranteed to have access to our commanders at all times. So, no, no one mentioned it but me, as part of a rebuttal. Opinions often vary, as ours clearly do, but that is what keeps life interesting.

I'm not advocating for the rules I proposed earlier. I was thinking out loud and stated as much. I'm, personally, going to do what the rules committee recommends and test house rules. I believe there are other possibilities out there that can provide a buffer to keep aggro powerful and not end games too quickly without a rule that, arbitrarily or not, introduces complexity.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Commander Damage
AgePosted: 2016-May-13 12:18 am 

Joined: 2011-Sep-30 6:08 am
Age: Elder Dragon
I think if you make starting life 30, aggro becomes much more viable (this is 30 less life to grind through at a "normal" table of 4.) Changes to commander damage, while keeping it in the format, are only going to be more confusing.

_________________
Spectrar Ghost wrote:
Cryocerete (sp?)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Commander Damage
AgePosted: 2016-May-13 12:20 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
onedayweek wrote:
I believe there are other possibilities out there that can provide a buffer to keep aggro powerful and not end games too quickly without a rule that, arbitrarily or not, introduces complexity.

1) Commander damage is quite simple
2) any additional rule increases the complexity of the game/format.

So saying you dislike this one, but are going to find another way that doesn't introduce additional complexity isn't something you're going to manage to do.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Commander Damage
AgePosted: 2016-May-13 3:15 am 

Joined: 2014-May-23 10:08 am
Age: Wyvern
Carthain wrote:
1) Commander damage is quite simple
2) any additional rule increases the complexity of the game/format.

So saying you dislike this one, but are going to find another way that doesn't introduce additional complexity isn't something you're going to manage to do.


Simplicity is subjective. While I find the general idea of commander damage simple and straightforward, the application of the rule usually results in a LOT of extra information to keep track of, which adds complexity to the game state. In a four player game, that's an additional three things to keep track of for each player. I've seen board states, as I'm sure most have, that have involved so many dice that it would be hard for a casual observer to determine if I was playing a card game or a game of dice.

Thinking outside the box, would changing Commander Damage from being a commander/player pairing to being combined across all players be more or less complex? Then each player just keeps track of how much commander damage they've taken and die if they have taken 21 or more from any combination of commanders. This 'possibility' still keeps the concept of commander damage and, maybe for the better, makes it something that all commanders care about, not just voltron.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Commander Damage
AgePosted: 2016-May-13 3:51 am 

Joined: 2011-Aug-18 3:35 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
I would say 75%+ of commanders aren't worth tracking damage on so you really don't need to be keeping track of commander damage on 3 players... Your 1/1 or 2/2 utility dude in a deck with no attack boosts is not going to get there via commander damage... Don't waste your time tracking it. Your 7/7+ generals aren't difficult to track either since they're 2-3 hits and dead. The only actual tracking overhead is on the aggressive 3-5 power generals that might actually get there.

The average board state of a game of EDH is far more complicated to track than how much damage you've taken from a general.

If you don't like the commander damage rule, you're welcome to house rule it out. There's no reason to remove such a core feature from the format as a whole though.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Commander Damage
AgePosted: 2016-May-13 4:45 am 

Joined: 2013-Jun-23 10:18 am
Age: Elder Dragon
onedayweek wrote:
Thinking outside the box, would changing Commander Damage from being a commander/player pairing to being combined across all players be more or less complex? Then each player just keeps track of how much commander damage they've taken and die if they have taken 21 or more from any combination of commanders. This 'possibility' still keeps the concept of commander damage and, maybe for the better, makes it something that all commanders care about, not just voltron.


Less complex, certainly. But worse from a gameplay perspective? Absolutely.

_________________
Current Commanders: 6/32.

Daretti, Scrap Savant (Red Artefacts).
Prime Speaker Zegana (Simic Voltron).
Rubinia Soulsinger (Bant Polymorphs).
Kess, Dissident Mage (Grixis Treasure).
Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper (Jund Apostles).
Tariel, Reckoner of Souls (Mardu Judo).


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Commander Damage
AgePosted: 2016-May-13 5:00 am 

Joined: 2014-May-23 10:08 am
Age: Wyvern
Swmystery wrote:
Less complex, certainly. But worse from a gameplay perspective? Absolutely.


How so? I'm genuinely interested in your reasoning, not just the results of that reasoning. Is it something that could be fixed by raising the commander damage threshold a bit? Perhaps 21 would be too low in that situation.

By the way, I'm NOT advocating for rule changes at this point. I'm more interested, at this time, in creating possible house rules to alleviate the problems I have with the current rules. If they work, great! If not, oh well.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Commander Damage
AgePosted: 2016-May-13 5:39 am 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
onedayweek wrote:
Carthain wrote:
1) Commander damage is quite simple
2) any additional rule increases the complexity of the game/format.

So saying you dislike this one, but are going to find another way that doesn't introduce additional complexity isn't something you're going to manage to do.


Simplicity is subjective. While I find the general idea of commander damage simple and straightforward, the application of the rule usually results in a LOT of extra information to keep track of, which adds complexity to the game state. In a four player game, that's an additional three things to keep track of for each player. I've seen board states, as I'm sure most have, that have involved so many dice that it would be hard for a casual observer to determine if I was playing a card game or a game of dice.

Thinking outside the box, would changing Commander Damage from being a commander/player pairing to being combined across all players be more or less complex? Then each player just keeps track of how much commander damage they've taken and die if they have taken 21 or more from any combination of commanders. This 'possibility' still keeps the concept of commander damage and, maybe for the better, makes it something that all commanders care about, not just voltron.

It is not subjective. Complexity is a measurable thing.

One's ability to handle said complexity, or one's enjoyment of it... thats where the subjectivity comes in.

In practice, commander damage is rarely overly complicated. The number of times where I've had to track damage from multiple commanders is very low, and usually it comes down to tracking the number of attacks rather than tracking the damage, which is a slightly lower cognitive load.

I have thought about combining damage across all commanders. I think it would be interesting to make the smaller commanders more viable for aggro, but I don't think its a net positive, rather just a horizontal change.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: