Post
by Yatsufusa » 3 years ago
To some extent, the Commander is like a multiplier to the 99, something like the foil price multiplier on cards.
We can't really quantify the quality of cards (naming staples only goes so far), but vaguely put it when it comes to the generally good cards like Chulane, the multiplier can create an even larger gap. A completely new player with a scarce collection could maybe have a (randomly assigned) base quality value of 30 in the 99, of which Chulane amplifies to 90, while someone with a stocked collection might have a base 100 value, but the synergy with Chulane is that good (due to having more, and hence better cards to choose from) the multiplier becomes 4 instead, resulting in a 400 deck.
Of course, this doesn't cover the linear commanders either, their multipliers are abysmal in general lists, but in the lists catered to them, it's the Commander multiplier that skyrockets. Some commanders cover both, having a decent general multiplier with an obnoxious uptick on some specific lists (although a distinction that specific lists must contain a sizable portion of niche/thematic cards, a goodstuff list of staples isn't specific even if it can be technically one-of-a-kind in a vacuum).
Funnily now I've describe it as such, I can see why WotC pushes the format the way they do, those commanders with base high-multipliers make it more attractive to new players who see it as a way to jack up their 30-rating beginner 99s to 90s so they could mingle with the more experienced players, but as I pointed out, the scaling applies to the experienced players as well and they soon learn they're no longer vying with 250-rated decks, but 400 decks because Chulane brought those numbers up. Not saying what WotC did was right (in fact more of leaning the opposite), but I could see the base (short-sighted) rationale behind the tactic.
To sum it up, the more boisterous collection you have, the more niche strategies (and commanders) you could afford to "play", because you could afford to balance around the final rating of your deck. WotC tried to give the newer players a notch-up by putting great multiplier Commanders so even their decks feel powerful, but in the process the older players got skyrocketed to beyond reach. Then it boils down back to the one thing all MTG players clamor for: what WotC should be doing is more meaningful reprints so any player can build a boisterous collection to build more niche Commanders instead.
The Commander is consistent, but the 99 is the variety. A strong/flexible 99 (and by extension a collection that enables those 99s) is what makes a niche strategy/commander enjoyable but still powerful, which arguably equates to fun (of tinkering in the format). A strong commander, bluntly put, is just "strong" and creates a disparity between decks helmed by the same Commander but dramatically different 99 in power.
EDH itself was built as a format because (partially at least I believe) folks were tinkering with how to use their (boisterous) collection of old cards. I wouldn't say problem commanders are a problem because of solely of the card (for most of them, Griselbanned is a problem in another way), but because some newer folks don't have a choice but to build around them, since both older cards and by extension the (older) niche commanders are out-of-reach/budget.
I play Ryusei (sorta Kamigawa-themed), Freyalise (creature card-less gimmick), Yorion (walker blink), Grimgrin (zombies), Horde of Notions (lands), Alesha (aggro-aristocrat), Karador (reanimation) and Animar (battlecruiser), While I admit every deck more or less has an infinite outlet because my meta sorta demands to have at least one, they all have a gimmicky-side to them I try to pull off first in games and the reason I could balance both is because I have the collection to at least baseline around it (although to be fair I decided on my themes early on, so my trades and deals in the game pretty much surround it over the years, but when I started out I still had enough to form a passable skeleton, even if it was notably weaker).
Just commander-wise, of all my 8, arguably the only one that stands out as the typical "problem commander" is Animar (no one's talking me out of being able to cast Eldrazi Titans for 0, I couldn't even talk myself out of it, I started in the format because of it...), but the point stands, I could "afford" to play the "weaker" commanders (granted they aren't "weak", but I'm talking relative to the classic "problem commanders" of today) because I could at the very least skeletonize the structure of their decks with my collection without losing that much power in the 99.
Even then I did shift commanders in my early days, Teneb to Karador, Thraximundar to Grimgrin, Narset split to Alesha and Isperia (which became Yorion), because my collection/99s were better balanced with the later choices than the former ones (and making the later ones "better" from my POV as well). I don't necessarily take make Commander changes simply because they're better, balance is part of that - for example I'm quite confident Golos is functionally better than Horde of Notions, but I feel Horde is still managing reasonably as it is, so to today I still haven't made the leap. Isperia was actually underperforming to the weaker side, so Yorion was brought in. I briefly tried Kethis over Karador since I had a Legendary subtheme and it was actually okay either way, but not remarkable and when Mutate was revealed I decided there's more fun to be had back to Karador instead.
