deckstats.net
You need to be logged in to do this.
The buttons above will open in a new window. Please return to this window after you have logged in. When you have logged in, click the Refresh Session button and then try again.

Author Topic: Relevance of commander tax  (Read 1044 times)

Morganator 2.0

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2627
  • Karma: 2485
  • Decks
Relevance of commander tax
« on: March 04, 2020, 10:35:00 pm »
Has anyone else noticed that there is an increasing number of commanders that just don't care about the commander tax? In the past there have been commanders that are exceptionally good at it (Derevi, Empyrial Tactician) but I'm seeing more as new sets get released.

Commanders like The Locust God can just be recast from hand. Golos, Tireless Pilgrim actually gives more mana to help with re-casting. Uro, Titan of Nature's Wrath has an alternate cost. Emry, Lurker of the Loch has a cost reduction on her; and a good one at that.

Let's hear your thoughts. Does anyone think that this might be a problem?

Judaspriester

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Karma: 498
  • Decks
Re: Relevance of commander tax
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2020, 11:01:55 pm »
I think Derevi is somewhat a problem, but that's a probem with her kit in general, not just the ability to ignore the tax.

For the others.. well, they may be interesting, but I don't think their kits aren't strong enough to produce headache, compared to other commanders with the same color identity.
Especially Emry, she's very nice and has a very potent (but also board dependant) cost reduction, but playing mono in commander usually isn't something you really want to do.
You say Prison Cell, I hear 'Holiday'.

CleanBelwas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 923
  • Karma: 899
  • Decks
Re: Relevance of commander tax
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2020, 11:08:19 pm »
Honestly, I don't see it as a massive issue.

I don't think the advantage it offers is that huge. Even without the extra cost, the loss of tempo is still real.

Not only that, across the entire spectrum of the format and the 900+ legal commanders, people are playing all sorts of things at all sorts of levels. Only a few of them offer any advantage over commander tax, but to me at least, it doesn't seem like a deciding factor when building a deck. I don't think anyone is building a deck to specifically save on commander tax, it's just a nice thing to have if you like the commander anyway.

In my experience at least, taxing someone out of their commander isn't a particularly effective or reliable strategy. It can be reasonably effective at times, but with all the fast mana, infinite combos and mega ramping available in the format, it's not often that it's super relevant.

In addition, most of the recent commanders that can skirt around the tax are ones that come from regular sets where the saving in cost is more relevant. From a design perspective, I'd assume it comes from a place of making them good in their "intended" formats (standard, modern etc.) and the relevance in Commander is smaller so they're happy to let it happen. Obviously, they know how popular commander is so they will always consider it when designing legends, but I'd assume that tax evasion is something they aren't too worried about because of how low impact it is.

WizardSpartan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1502
  • Karma: 829
  • Red_Wyrm's boo
  • Decks
Re: Relevance of commander tax
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2020, 12:03:09 am »
I think a big part of the reason there are more commanders that provide an alternate to the 2*n additional mana is because Wizards is pumping them into standard sets. They're trying to make legendary creatures both good for EDH and constructed formats. Oftentimes, they try to fit legendary creatures into "themes." Uro is 1 of 2 and Locus God was 1 of 2 gods that had similar "recursion" abilities. Golos was probably just an attempt by Wizards to give the EDH community an easy, inexpensive "5 color goodstuff" commander. Emry was weird, but her abilities fit. I don't think its a troublesome trend, and there are always cards like Darksteel Mutation if you really don't like those cards to be easily recastable.

CleanBelwas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 923
  • Karma: 899
  • Decks
Re: Relevance of commander tax
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2020, 08:47:07 am »
Locus God was 1 of 2 gods that had similar "recursion" abilities.

Poor Scorpion God. No one ever remembers Scorpion God.

An Ode to The Scorpion God:

How good you could have been
If only you had green
But your brothers are way better
Worst God in the set-ter

You kicked Rhonas' butt
And opened Kefnet's dome
But that doesn't change the fact
You're not great in the command zone



Edit: I thought of another verse
« Last Edit: March 05, 2020, 08:52:45 am by CleanBelwas »

Aetherium Slinky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Karma: 753
  • Rules Advisor
    • reddit.com/r/jankEDH
  • Decks
Re: Relevance of commander tax
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2020, 08:54:48 am »
I haven't felt the effect. People don't tend to play their commander multiple times over in my experience so the tax doesn't really matter. I don't see evading the tax as a problem as long as it doesn't become the norm. This still seems fine.

Uro doesn't really evade the tax. Uro was always meant to die. Over and over. Ok I get it, Children of Alara and the Spirit Dragons don't have the luxury of escape but their abilities are much more powerful to begin with.
Come brew some jank with us!
https://www.reddit.com/r/jankEDH/

Slyvester12

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
  • Karma: 540
  • Decks
Re: Relevance of commander tax
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2020, 09:23:28 am »
Yo, I want in on making silly poems for disliked cards.
Card draw engine though thou art,
You could not melt the frigid heart
Of him, the player hight Belwas,
Who now laments "Green, what a loss!"

The least of three once styled gods,
Your skillset failed to even odds.
You languish now in long disfavor,
Unplayed by most Commander players.
Elves and infect are the best things in Magic.

CleanBelwas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 923
  • Karma: 899
  • Decks
Re: Relevance of commander tax
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2020, 10:03:47 am »
Your amazing potential cannot be denied
If not for your place in the colour pie
But without green you could not hope to reap
The benefits from the company you keep

Hapatra and Obelisk Spider, alas!
Relationships thwarted by Nicol Bolas
For Grixis is where the Dragon God lies
And your design space must comply

An agent of Bolas cannot be green
And so we lament what could have been
You could have been the king of my pod
My raison d'etre, My Scorpion God

Soren841

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5088
  • Karma: 606
  • Decks
Re: Relevance of commander tax
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2020, 02:05:14 pm »
Imagine building a deck that requires your commander  ::)
Nils is the God I worship

WWolfe

  • Patron
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3687
  • Karma: 1366
  • Banging and (spell) slanging!
  • Decks
Re: Relevance of commander tax
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2020, 02:30:07 pm »
I've had games where I've had to cast my commander four or more times (Skullbriar in multiplayer & Sidisi when it starts going ham) and don't see a problem with these type of effects. Maybe I just see more removal in my meta (or maybe I just play commanders that are kill on sight).

Now if they start printing a ton of these that can skirt around the tax, then maybe there could be a problem but I don't see a handful of them being one now.
This space for rent.

Morganator 2.0

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2627
  • Karma: 2485
  • Decks
Re: Relevance of commander tax
« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2020, 05:15:10 pm »
I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I started this topic because I saw it as a trend and I was wondering what other people think.

I guess to me it just seems like the design space of commanders is changing. The other trend that has been going on for a few years now is the presence of 5-color commanders. That one I'm less enthusiastic about.

robort

  • Patron
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1725
  • Karma: 437
  • Decks
Re: Relevance of commander tax
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2020, 10:51:45 pm »
I think at this moment in time there is nothing to worry about it. However if the trend does indeed to continue and gets more intense where commander tax isn't so viable then I could see it being saturated with such commanders
A legend in my own mind or so what the voices keep telling me

Slyvester12

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
  • Karma: 540
  • Decks
Re: Relevance of commander tax
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2020, 12:01:05 am »
I The other trend that has been going on for a few years now is the presence of 5-color commanders. That one I'm less enthusiastic about.

I'm also not terribly happy with the newer rainbow commanders. Cards like Kenrith seem specifically designed for commander players who don't want to make choices in deckbuilding. I liked Scion of the Ur-Dragon when I started playing because it seemed like a challenge to build a fun deck around him, but Kenrith, Golos, Jodah, etc... all seem specifically designed to make rainbow easier, rather than more interesting or fun.
Elves and infect are the best things in Magic.

Judaspriester

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1523
  • Karma: 498
  • Decks
Re: Relevance of commander tax
« Reply #13 on: March 07, 2020, 01:09:02 am »
The other trend that has been going on for a few years now is the presence of 5-color commanders. That one I'm less enthusiastic about.

I know what you mean. I really like Najeela, but there was a reason, why I've set the "warrior tribe" and "no tutors except land ramp" restriction for me. This way I have to play with the stuff I draw, in stead of just rushing into the endless combos (which are way to easy with her).
Same goes for some of the other new rainbows. They just offer to much on low investment.
You say Prison Cell, I hear 'Holiday'.