Opinions on potential changes to Commander?

[CleanBelwas]

So I listened to a podcast MaRo released recently where he discussed his views on some areas of Commander that have been in recent discussions when it comes to potential changes to be made to the format.

He said he's be looking at it from the perspective of a games designer rather than a player, and was very open about the facts that a) he has zero influence or control over any of the decisions, b) that he doesn't play a lot of commander personally and c) that these were his initial gut reactions to the issues mentioned and that his mind could easily be changed if there was supporting data that suggested his thoughts and assumptions had little foundation.

I actually found it surprisingly open and neutral. If you want to take a listen yourselves, it can be found here:

https://media.wizards.com/2020/podcasts/magic/drivetowork711_h2hcommanderpart1_AbwUd243.mp3

I'll outline the topics below, along with a brief summary of his standpoint on the issue:

1. Hybrid Mana - should a hybrid card be allowed in a deck that only has one colour in it's commanders identity? For example, should Kitchen Finks be allowed in Teshar?

MaRo: Yes. The colour identity rule was made before hybrid mana existed. Hybrid mana was designed to be "either/or" not "and". Commander is the only format where these cards function differently, and he stated that he doesn't think a card should ever function differently depending on what format it is being played in. He said that hybrid cards bend the colour pie, but don't break it (with one exception, which I'm yet to figure out myself) and there are already cards that are legal in the format that could be argued flout these rules (cards that make tokens that are different colours for example).

Me: I've been converted by this argument to be honest. Originally I was against it, but I see his point and I'm now for it.


2. No max deck size.

MaRo: No change. 100 cards has a wonderful round symmetry that the format benefits from.

Me: No change, but mostly because I'd be tempted to build battle of wits and I don't want to have to shuffle that monstrosity. Really I don't care either way.

3. Ban Sol Ring?

MaRo: No. He stated that he thinks that one of the fundamental reasons MTG has been successful is that it can be played quickly. He thinks it's one of commanders biggest downfalls that games can sometimes drag on for hours, and fast mana, especially things like Sol Ring that are readily available to almost anyone, helps negate this somewhat.

Me: No. I get MaRo's point, but mostly I'd never want to deny anyone the satisfaction that comes from a turn 1 Swamp, Sol Ring, Mind Stone, Skullclamp.

4. Non-creature Legends as commander?

MaRo: No. Part of Commander's brilliance is it's flavour, and a sword or a statue or a hill can't lead an army.

Me: Nuetral. I like the idea of dumb jank being able to be your commander, but I can see why people would be against it.

5. No Commander Damage

MaRo: Remove commander damage. He was very clear here that he only made this choice based off his gut without access to data, but he thinks that commander logging and remembering commander damage isn't worth the "cognitive load" that is required of it.

Me: I was almost convinced by his argument, but I like commander damage. I think it keeps lifegain bullshit in check. I think basically any other infinite combo is enough that they probably win (infinite mana, infinite tokens, infinite turns) but infinite life becomes a race for who can draw the fewest cards. That is a battle anyone can win, but no one wants to sit there and actually play that game. Plus Voltron is fun. To me, Commander damage is kind of "fair" infect.

6. 4th player advantage - Giving the player going last some kind of assistance so that they aren't left behind

MaRo: He said the stats he'd seen said that going last only provided a very small disadvantage (about 1-2%), so if there were to be a change, it would have to be an elegant enough solution that it was fair, and an easy enough rule to interpret and understand, otherwise the change wouldn't be worth it.

Me: Hard to disagree with his logic in my opinion.

7. Double infect to 20

MaRo: Initially yes, but eventually no. He said his initial reaction was "double life total, so double infect makes sense", but that having discussed it with people who played more commander and were more familiar with metas, they said that it's one of the few aggressive strats that is even remotely viable in commander, and the support is still kind of shit.

Me: No one in my meta has ever played infect, so I don't know how annoying it is to get one shot from it. The previous arguments seem reasonable, but I have no strong feelings either way.

8. Return of the Tuck Rule

MaRo: Don't bring it back. One of the fundamental points of commander is being able to repeatedly play your commander. The tax aims to make this fair, but being able to get rid of them "permanently" flouts one of the fundamental points of the format.

Me: Agree again. Tuck the tuck rule.


So that's a brief summary of what was discussed, as well as my own two cents.

I know there are a lot of Commander players here on deckstats that play all across the spectrum from jank to cEDH, and many of us like to talk about these kinds of things.

I'd love to hear what you guys think about these points. I'm sure many of you have insights I've missed and I like having my mind changed.

[WizardSpartan]

MaRo knows what he's talking about imo. I definitely agree with all his points. Voltron is a big strat in Mardu and getting rid of that would be ridiculous. I agree, it's very necessary to deal with lifegain decks. They're already strong from starting at 40, not 20 life. Basically, all his points I absolutely agree with. Unfortunately, he didn't address the Flash philosophy issue. Would have been nice if somebody outside the community provided their opinion.

[CleanBelwas]

Yea I agree. He seems to be pretty fair about it. Acknowledging the flaws as well as praising where it's due. Some guys at WotC seem a bit like classic yuppie yes men, fearful to even say a bad word, but here at least, MaRo seemed very fair to me.

I should mention this is only part one of a two parter. The flash discussion may come in part two.

[ApothecaryGeist]

Mostly agree with all of these


1.  Hybrid mana - I'll circle back to this one.


2.  No max hand size - Agree 100% that Commander should be EXACTLY 100 cards.  Allowing more cards could easily lead to decks too large to shuffle.  Also facing decks with 110-120 cards each, makes mill a much less viable strategy.


3. Ban Sol Ring - Disagree 100%.  Big mana is one of the hallmarks of the format.  I've never even heard anyone seriously say that Sol Ring should be banned because of power levels.  I've only heard people say that it should be banned because they're tired of seeing it; they want more variety in their Commander games.  Not a reason to ban a card.


4.  Allow non-creatures as commander - I pretty much think it should always be creatures.  Planeswalkers are powerful cards.  They give you a free spell every turn.  Being able to recur them out of your command zone is too powerful.  It would certainly lead to a bunch of planeswalkers on the ban list.


5.  No Commander damage - Commander damage is the check on life gain decks.  Big mana is a thing.  This can turn in to big life.  Commander damage keeps a victory route open.  It doesn't come up often.  But when it does, it is usually the only route of defeating that player.  Plus, eliminating commander damage would all but eliminate voltron strategies.


6.  Fourth Player Bonus - I am all for trying to mitigate the last player disadvantage.  But, as previously stated, the last player disadvantage isn't really all that big.  In fact, most games I play, by around turn 4 or so no one really remembers who went first.  The fourth-player bonus would have to be something big enough to be worth the rule, but small enough so that the third player doesn't wish they actually played last.  I haven't seen any ideas that actually fit in that tiny space.


7.  Infect to 20 - I do not think 20 is the correct number.  However, I also do not think 10 is the right number.  Mainly because of Blightsteel Colossus.  It hits for 13 infect.  And it recurs itself.  I think 15 should be the correct number for Commander.  (Or ban Blightsteel Colossus and then reevaluate 10 poison.)


8.  Reinstate the Tuck rule - I think this is an issue where I will always advocate for the status quo.  When we had the tuck rule, I didn't want it to go away as a viable strategy against problem commanders.  Now that it's gone, I do not see the value in bringing it back.  There were a lot of feel bad moments when a deck would get shut down for having its commander get Chaos Warp'ed.


And circling back to #1.  Hybrid Mana - I used to be 100% for hybrid cards.  Because there was a time when you absolutely could not cast it for off-color mana.  Decks, by rule, could not produce mana outside their color identity.  If you did, it became colorless.  Then along came the colorless mana symbol.  We had to get rid of that rule, so that you couldn't easily generate colorless mana.  Now every deck can produce mana of any color.  With Darksteel Ingot, Exotic Orchard, Fellwar Stone, etc this is very easy to do.  I was in favor of allowing off-color hybrids when it would have been impossible to cast using off-color mana.  Now I am not.  There are hybrid mana cards, split cards, double-faced cards, and cards with off color activations.  All of these need to be treated equally in the deck construction rules.   If I can put hybrid cards in my deck, why can't I put split cards in my deck?  Why can't I put off-color activations in my deck?  As an exampe: I've got an Animar deck (URG).  I put the split card Beck // Call in the deck.  The call half has white in its mana cost.  If I've got a Darksteel Ingot, what is to stop me from casting the Call half?  Alesha, Who Smiles at Death is red with a hybrid white/black activation.  Why can't I put her in the Animar deck?  And then what is to stop me from activating the abilities?  Any rule permitting hybrid cards would have to address these other off-color cards (and most likely prohibit them.)  I am currently against hybrid mana.  But if someone could come up with clean simple rule, I could be persuaded otherwise.

[CleanBelwas]

Damn ApothecaryGeist, you've got me coming back around on hybrid mana. You've put forward a very compelling argument.

I think the counter argument would be that you don't actually need off colour mana because you always have the choice. With split cards and activated abilities, you have to be able to produce exactly that colour. With hybrid mana, you're using mana you're producing anyway. Kitchen Finks in Teshar is just being paid with white mana.

However, by the same argument, you could include split cards by saying you can only cast the half with your commanders identity, and then it just gets messy and needlessly complicated.

MaRo made some excellent points from a design perspective, but you've highlighted some potential implications that are presented by it from the perspective of those playing and building the decks. He was also very supportive of rules being simple, and this would certainly make it complicated.

[Slyvester12]

I think infect should stay at 10. You can make all the arguments you want about whether infect is fun or not, but you can't really argue it's power: infect is weak. Not as a mechanic, since Grafted Exoskeleton, Tainted Strike, and Triumph of the Hordes can all be game winners, but as an archetype. Blightsteel Colossus is one of the very few cards with infect printed on them that are actually scary. I'd argue that, for creatures, the only others are Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon and Putrefax.

There just isn't a lot of support for infect. Almost every card you run in an infect deck either doesn't affect your opponents' poison total or was printed in either New Phyrexia or War of the Spark. Even the huge bump in proliferate from WAR isn't great because proliferate is slow and infect wants to win fast.

Infect is really good at killing one player, sometimes two, but very rarely has the staying power to win a game. Raising the counter target would just eliminate infect as a playable deck (not to mention hurt Scion of the Ur-Dragon, but that's a different discussion). 10 counters is an achievable goal, but any higher is just too many hoops to jump through.

Also, Blighsteel is an 11/11, not a 13/x. That's important because people often have 2 toughness worth of blocks and it dies to removal. You don't even worry about the incidental damage because it's counters, not life. Sure, Blightsteel is indestructible, but black removes things with -1/-1 counters, blue counters/bounces things, and white exiles. The only colors that consistently have problems removing Blighsteel are green and red, and green regularly has threats big enough to just block. Not to mention greens's ability to run and tutor for Melira, Sylvok Outcast if infect is big in your meta. Basically, Blighsteel usually gets handled before it can smack someone and the only color that helps with that is red (haste and Chandra's Ignition effects), but red has the least infect support, especially for commanders.

Anyway, this huge rant was to say: infect may make people very salty, and you should talk to your playgroup before running it just like MLD or stax, but it's really not good enough to merit nerfing or banning for.

[WizardSpartan]

Damn ApothecaryGeist, you've got me coming back around on hybrid mana. You've put forward a very compelling argument.

I second that lol. The whole hybrid mana debate is very difficult, as there are only 3 options when making mana outside of your commander's colors:

• It turns into colorless. This is very bad because, like multiple people have said, it takes the downsides of cards like Warping Wail and Eldrazi Displacer and (mostly) neutralizes them.
• It stays that color. As ApothecaryGeist said, that + hybrid mana changes results in some situations that shouldn't exist.
• It goes away entirely. *Sen Triplets starts crying* We just can't do that.

Beck // Call, though, isn't composed of hybrid mana. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't its color identity UWG? If so, it still couldn't be cast in Animar even with hybrid mana changes.

One idea I have is: When building a deck, you can "pick" one half of the hybrid cost when determining the card's color identity and whether or not it could be included in a certain deck.

For example, the situation you listed, ApothecaryGeist. I have an Animar, Soul of Elements commander deck and want to include Alesha, Who Smiles at Death. Alesha's color identity is red and your choice of black or white. Unfortunately, neither R/B or R/W fit into Animar, so it couldn't be included.

This philosophy still holds true for split cards like Carnival // Carnage. While Carnival could be run in mono red or mono black decks, Carnage has a color identity of R/B and could only be run in decks with a minimum color identity of R/B.

And finally, it holds true for cards like Footlight Fiend. Because it can cost R or B it can be included in mono red or mono black decks.

Tell me if anybody doesn't get what I'm saying, whether or not you agree, or if there are instances where my idea doesn't work.
Thanks!

[ApothecaryGeist]

Beck // Call, though, isn't composed of hybrid mana. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't its color identity UWG? If so, it still couldn't be cast in Animar even with hybrid mana changes.




In world where hybrid mana is allowable ... I can put Figure of Destiny in my Animar deck; I am allowed to ignore all those white mana symbols.  So why can't I put Beck // Call in it?  The Beck half can be cast with UG.  And then I ignore the white mana symbol on the Call half.  Can I put Azorius Guildmage in my deck?  Ignoring all those white mana symbols?  And for another example ... can I put Daybreak Ranger in my mono-green deck?  (the transformed side has a red activation).

[WizardSpartan]

Beck // Call, though, isn't composed of hybrid Can I put Azorius Guildmage in my deck?  Ignoring all those white mana symbols? 

Well the way I'm thinking about it is when determining the color identity of a card, you can pick one of the 2 colors. With Beck // Call, it's color identity is 3 colors. Nothing changes that. Currently, its color identity is those 3 colors. Changing how hybrid mana works doesn't change cards like that. Azorius Guildmage has abilities that require specifically white and blue mana, respectively. While I can pick which one of the 2 colors I want for its mana cost, that will not ultimately change its color identity because of its activated abilites. Does that make sense?

[Red_Wyrm]

Okay. I wanna jump in.

1) Hybrid mana. I agree that it should be allowed for the purpose that it was intended to be Either/Or, not and. The card borders for something like unmake are white and black because it can be white or black or both. Something like, Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim, is white AND black hence the gold. We can see the cards intended to be used as AND combinations are gold, not individual WUBRG colors.

With this said, I think there should not be a deck building restriction in the color identity. If I want to run counterspell in my Krenko deck, let me. Let's use Mr. GolgariFTW's third idea.

It goes away entirely.

Why are you crying over Sen Triplets? Your name is GolgariFTW, not EsperFTW.

This stops me from running counterspell in Krenko, although I could, but it would be a dud. I guess I could run Gitaxian Probe feasibly with, but phrexian mana is another thing altogether that needs to be addressed all on it's own. My stance, very briefly, it was a mistake and shouldn't have ever made it past R&D. This also allows you to run a split card and run just half. This allows you to run Archangel Avacyn in a mono white deck.

Now to address my first commander specifically, Sen Triplets's problem could be solved with Celestial Dawn and/or Mycosynth Lattice. Just like Phage the Untouchable is forced to run Torpor Orb, you'd be forced to run Celestial Dawn and/or Mycosynth Lattice, which you kind of are already, but you can run Chromatic Lantern, along with other similar effects too as of now.

2) Wait, are our decks supposed to be EXACTLY 100 cards? I thought it was minimum 100, like every other format is minimum 60 (yeah 40 too, but no one cares about limited). I assumed we all did 100 because it was the most optimized version of a deck. Less cards means better chance to draw the cards you need in the moment. Wouldn't hurt me one way or the other. Less restrictions though I think is good. Let someone build a Battle of Wits deck. Wait no, that someone would be me. Don't let me do that. I cant afford a 250 card deck.

3) Well Paradox Engine got banned. Maybe Sol Ring is next? Seriously though, it's fine. It doesn't propel one person far enough ahead that they are untouchable. Maybe a Sol Ring into an Arcane Signet turn 1 and then Gilded Lotus turn 2 and 9 mana turn 3, but how often is that a problem? That is a pretty amazing start.

4) I misinterpreted this at first. I took it as non legendary creatures as commanders, which I disagree with, except for maybe the Nephilim. Non creature legends could be interesting. I'd like to make a Genju of the Realms deck, but I can't. I think this should be done on a playgroup basis. Just flavor wise, it doesn't make sense to have an enchantment leading an army, being a commander. I guess I should propose a real argument other than flavor for why it shouldn't be changed.

We have several years of commander products designed specifically around specifically creatures being in the command zone. I will disregard the plansewalkers that can be commanders here because they were designed taking into account the balance of things and are thus fine. By that same logic, if an enchantment was designed and had the line of text "could be your commander" I would be fine with it. So to go back and allow all these new things into the command zone could cause major problem. Putting Bolas's Citadel in the command zone? The past x years (sorry I don't know how many) of specifically commander designed cards were not intended to have Bolas's Citadel in the command zone. Being essentially guaranteed that card on turn 6 is crazy.

5) Okay commander damage. I don't like the argument, "It keeps life gain decks in check." Allow me to explain why. If I am killing you with commander damage, I am most likely going to do it with a dedicated voltron deck. So I would be killing you that way regardless. If I am not running a voltron deck, then my commander is probably not meant for bashing face, and as such, isn't going to be able to deal 21 damage to a single player. Sorry, I am not killing a life gain deck with my 2 power Ayli or my 1 power Urza. If a 2/3 can get through for 11 rounds, and the life gain deck couldn't win with 100000 life before then, the deck needs to be reworked.

Now my problems with commander damage. It raises so many questions. Most of you know the answers to these, but many do not. What happens when someone steals my commander, can they do commander damage to me with it? If they copy it can they? What if I have partner commanders? Is it 21 damage total from ALL commanders? What was my commander damage dice at? No not for Mizzix, for Yawgmoth. Why am I keeping track of commander damage from them? It's pointless. Wait whose responsibility is it to keep track of commander damage? Okay you guys get the point.

I guess at this point it is fine though. Just keep it how it is because voltron is already weak enough, but a legitimate strategy, and chewing through 120 life is a lot harder than 63. It is something that I don't think should've ever existed, but it does, and it is easier to keep it than to do away with it.

6) I would love to incorporate the monarchy into the game maybe via this way. Player 4 starts as the monarch. Maybe change the wording of monarch to say may draw a card on the end step so that you dont draw (8 cards in hand), play a land (7), draw ( and discard down to hand size. I think this might cause more problems though than what it's worth. Aggro decks obviously. Also since you're last, you're last to get creatures on the board, if you and everyone else is on curve, so someone can take the monarch with their llanowar elves.

7) I am going to pull an ApothecaryGeist and come back to this one.

Eight) (Sorry the number 8 and a ) make this face so I had to spell out No. Cards like Nevermore, Imprisoned in the Moon and Blantant Thievery are already bad enough. People like playing their commanders. The deck is designed (most of the time) around it. On top of that, imagine the feel bads of Chaos Warp into Bribery on your commander.

Okay infect at 20. The first time I played commander, I sat down, they briefly explained the rules. 40 life, your commander can be cast from the command zone. It is for all intents and purposes (to twelve year old me) in your hand. The commander casts 2 colorless more for each time it has been cast from the command zone. 21 commander damage kills you. That is the run down I got. My first question was, "Is commander damage only combat damage?" and my second was, "So is it 20 poison counters to kill someone via infect?" Two, I think, fair questions to ask given the run down that I had been given and questions we all had at one point. I remember then thinking that Infect is so much more powerful because it is still 10, not 20. Before then, I don't think I had ever been killed by infect, so why I was concerned, I am not sure.

Well, here is why I changed my mind that it isn't as powerful as I thought. Maybe it'll change yours.

1)Crypt Cobra. It says, "If a player has 10 or more poison counters, he or she loses the game." Since when do we go back and change the actual rules text, not reminder text, on a card simply because of the format we are playing in? The fundamental way a card works does not depend on the format.

2) You still need to do 30 damage to win the game. Your opponents (most likely) won't be able to help you. You generally need to do 120 damage to win, 40 to each opponent, but those opponents will also be contributing to that damage by attacking each other. No one else is going to be distributing poison counters.

3) Show me a decent infect commander. Atraxa, Praetor's Voice. Skithiryx, The Blight Dragon. Okay fair. That's it really. Still need 9 turns to kill everyone, 3 attacks each. Kind of slow. And you better bet he is eating removal. People are overly afraid of infect. I'd be worried maybe at 7 infect counters. Don't get me wrong, I love Skirhiryx, and it is a powerful deck, but not so powerful it needs a nerf. At 20 poison counters, you mine as well be running Uril to get that 21 damage instead of 20.

4) Show me a decent infect card. Again, Skittles. Also Blightsteel Colossus and Triump of the Hordes. That is three cards. And in an infect deck, those three cards aren't going to be played. The only one you'd be running in a dedicated infect deck is my boy Skittles. See point three above.

Blightsteel Colossus- Usually a two card win con with something like Chandra's Ignition.  No different from Exquisite Blood and Sanguine Bond. Infect isn't the problem in this instance.

Triumph of the Hordes- Essentially is a third Overrun effect, the other two being Overrun and Craterhoof Behemoth. The problem in this scenario isn't infect, it is the overwhelming board state you let your opponent build up.

[Slyvester12]

I would say Ezuri, Claw of Progress and Xenagos, God of Revels are probably the best infect commanders I've seen. Ezuri pumps something like Blighted Agent for a win and Xenagos goes for Putrefax or a bunch of Titanic Growth effects on a Glistener Elf into Chandra's Ignition. Either way, you can't run Skittles, which is their biggest downside.

[Red_Wyrm]

Yeah I have seen infect decks for both Xenegos and Ezuri, but it is one of the weaker directions you can take either of those commanders which is why I ignored them. The idea is that it is so powerful that 10 poison counters is too little, and if you can build the deck more powerfully by excluding infect, then clearly infect isn't overpowered. And yeah lack of black totally hurts both of them.

[Spinsane]

Since most everything I could have said already has been, I’ll limit my comment to the Hybrid Mana discussion.

I don’t think it should be allowed, mostly for the same reasons ApothecaryGeist presented. Why allow hybrid mana but not hybrid cards? Or cards with off-identity abilities?

For example, what happens when a Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth is in play and a player wants to use black mana to pay for hybrid mana on one of its cards even though black is not in their colour identity; would this be allowed? (let’s assume the only land they have left untapped normally only produces colourless mana)

Either way, why? Why allow it, if the card is considered to not be black because of the commander’s colour identoty, or why disallow it if the hybrid card was allowed anyway?

By that same logic, if we’re going to allow hybrid mana symbols, why forbid lands, rocks and dorks that can produce multiple colours of mana; shouldn’t they be allowed as long as they can produce at least one kind that falls within the commander’s identity? (For example allow Opulent Palace in Dimir, Golgari and Simic, not just Sultai).

And how would Bloom Tender handle hybrid mana? Would the presence of a Deathrite Shaman allow a green deck’s Bloom Tender to suddenly produce black mana too?

[Aetherium Slinky]

I also have an opinion on hybrid mana. I feel like hybrid mana is a bonus that you get if you hit both the colours. Many hybrid mana cards are quite powerful on their own so it only makes sense that you need both colours in your identity for it to be an option for you. Some effects are also outside of the main colours and that would not make sense. An Animar deck should not have direct access to reanimation but Alesha has some degree of reanimation so that would break the colour pie in ways not intended for commander.

Same goes for things like Deus of Calamity that would enable land destruction for mono green. What?

I also feel like hybrid mana is as much an enabling factor as it is a limiting factor. The full Spirit Avatar cycle is five hybrid mana to cast which should be difficult in rainbow decks and maybe in tricolour decks to an extent. If we remove the restriction of colour we should also somehow address the limitation of hybrid mana. This limitation is already in place for cards that let you cast for a colour or two colourless. Example: Flame Javelin. So how would that work out? Each hybrid mana in off-colours would be a {colour}/{2} mana symbol, essentially?

I just don't get it. Hybrid mana is an advantage and a limitation for the cards in the colours of a deck. We already have cards that let you replace a coloured mana symbol with life or colourless and it would feel very unfair to break the mechanic and essentially substitute it with another mechanic that is close to an already existing one.

TL;DR: Phyrexian mana was a mistake.

[WWolfe]

This allows you to run Archangel Avacyn in a mono white deck.

I may come back and reply more to your post later (there's some I disagree with) however this is wrong. From the Wizards site...

Archangel Avacyn has a white casting cost, but can transform into Avacyn, the Purifier who has a red color identity. Archangel Avacyn's color identity is white and red.

edit to add link- https://magic.wizards.com/en/content/commander-format