Thought Exercise: Changing the Commander Tax

User avatar
Dragoon
Posts: 417
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Dragoon » 2 years ago

Sinis wrote:
2 years ago
The commander tax could be a "discard 1 card" after the first cast, and it doesn't increment.
The problem with that is that green is also good at drawing cards, and that would nerf white even more.
pokken wrote:
2 years ago
Making tax apply to derevi and yuriko would be pretty easy (if an ability on your commander would cause it to leave the zone...) I'd consider halving the tax for that.
I think that is probably the best course of action for those two, but I suppose it must be really difficult to implement rules-wise or else it would have already been done IMO. I don't know if there's currently a way to word a replacement effect that prevents a card from changing zones.

EDIT: Sorry for necro'ing, I've been thinking about the commander tax lately and stumbled across this thread.

User avatar
Maluko
Posts: 137
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Maluko » 2 years ago

I really like the idea of allowing commanders to be cast only once per turn to prevent abuse. I remember back when the RC instated the "dies trigger" for commanders that they wasted a good opportunity to resolve this issue. My idea would benefit all parties, and was something like this.

At the beginning of your turn, if a commander card you own is not on the battlefield or in the command zone, you may search your library, hand, graveyard or exile for that card and put it in the command zone. If you searched your library this way, shuffle it.

You would still keep the tax, and dies/exile triggers would continue to occur. You would also prevent players from permanently losing access to their commander if their shenanigans were interfered with (although I understand this is debatable if it would be good for the format or not). Finally, it would prevent shenanigans with combo commanders such as Maelstrom Wanderer and Dargo, the Shipwrecker. What's not to love? ;)

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6281
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 2 years ago

Allowing a free shuffle from a tucked commander is problematic for a lot of reasons unfortunately but interesting thought

User avatar
Sinis
Posts: 2034
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Sinis » 2 years ago

Dragoon wrote:
2 years ago
The problem with that is that green is also good at drawing cards, and that would nerf white even more.
I don't disagree, but, I think right now green is much farther ahead than other colours in mitigating the commander tax. I think this criticism would come up for just about any proposed commander tax variant

This is less a problem with discarding a card as a commander tax, and more a problem with green having almost everything in the colour pie and white having almost none of it.

User avatar
Dragoon
Posts: 417
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Dragoon » 2 years ago

pokken wrote:
2 years ago
Allowing a free shuffle from a tucked commander is problematic for a lot of reasons unfortunately but interesting thought
How so? I'm curious. Is it related to some cEDH lines of play or just 'regular' commander? I don't think the frequency of additional shuffling due to tucked commanders would be high enough to warrant such worries. :thinking:
Sinis wrote:
2 years ago
I don't disagree, but, I think right now green is much farther ahead than other colours in mitigating the commander tax. I think this criticism would come up for just about any proposed commander tax variant

This is less a problem with discarding a card as a commander tax, and more a problem with green having almost everything in the colour pie and white having almost none of it.
It's true that it is mostly correlated to green being strong (although black could also benefit from the discard synergies, so it would be better to exile the card). I think what matters most for such a change is the end result though. If white is even weaker than before, while green barely felt it, is it still a positive change?

User avatar
Sinis
Posts: 2034
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Sinis » 2 years ago

Dragoon wrote:
2 years ago
If white is even weaker than before, while green barely felt it, is it still a positive change?
This will be the case for almost any variant though, excepting very narrow and specific ones.

Speaking strictly within the confines of the thought exercise, the only one where it remains less-bad for white is no change, command tax of 1 (instead of 2), or command tax abolishment.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6281
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 2 years ago

Dragoon wrote:
2 years ago
How so? I'm curious. Is it related to some cEDH lines of play or just 'regular' commander? I don't think the frequency of additional shuffling due to tucked commanders would be high enough to warrant such worries
Shuffling to change the order of the top of your deck is not a CEDH thing it's basically everyone who plays Brainstorm and Sylvan Library effects :)

Giving people free shuffles for having their commander in their library would likely become problematic, as people brainstorm and deposit their commander then shuffle and search for it or similar. I'm not going to say that's like extremely common but it's possible enough that I would be really cautious about it.

Having your commander double trigger Syr Konrad, the Grim is already problematic with the new rules :P



I think a time delay on casting commanders from the zone (e.g. you can only do it once a turn, or you can't do it if the number of game turns completed is less than the commander tax, or whatever) would be the optimal solution that's simple and prevents a lot of problems.

Thankfully Golos, Tireless Pilgrim got banned so the most problematic instance of people spamming their commanders is gone :P hooray.

Now do Thrasios, Triton Hero!

User avatar
Dragoon
Posts: 417
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Dragoon » 2 years ago

pokken wrote:
2 years ago
Shuffling to change the order of the top of your deck is not a CEDH thing it's basically everyone who plays Brainstorm and Sylvan Library effects :)

Giving people free shuffles for having their commander in their library would likely become problematic, as people brainstorm and deposit their commander then shuffle and search for it or similar. I'm not going to say that's like extremely common but it's possible enough that I would be really cautious about it.

Having your commander double trigger Syr Konrad, the Grim is already problematic with the new rules :P
Sure, but I don't think this is really going to be a problem. You'd need to have your commander in your hand, then drop it with brainstorm and increase the commander tax just to shuffle. I think decks that want shuffle effects that badly are already running enough of them and that would only act as a rare panic button, nobody is screaming at Path to Exile for being a 1 CMC instant speed rampant growth in some cases. :P

On the other hand, I can see another problem with that play pattern: how do you prove your commander isn't in your hand but in your library? I know people tend to sleeve their commander in a different sleeve but that is not an official rule ...

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6281
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 2 years ago

Dragoon wrote:
2 years ago
Sure, but I don't think this is really going to be a problem. You'd need to have your commander in your hand, then drop it with brainstorm and increase the commander tax just to shuffle
Dragoon wrote:
2 years ago
how do you prove your commander isn't in your hand but in your library? I know people tend to sleeve their commander in a different sleeve but that is not an official rule ...
Well, the official rule is that commanderness is a property of the card itself so if it's on the top of your library and you manifest it, people now must know that it's your commander. So personally I find just keeping it in a different sleeve to be practical and fair. Sure, on the rare occasion it's shuffled in you have to do blind cuts but it's better than trying to have hidden-nonhidden information =P

Whatever you choose to do there we should not be in the habit of creating goofy artifacts that impact gameplay. The idea that someone might benefit from a shuffle when finding their commander really bugs me. I doubt they would ever do that.

User avatar
Jemolk
Compulsive Jank Builder
Posts: 418
Joined: 2 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Jemolk » 2 years ago

pokken wrote:
2 years ago
Well, the official rule is that commanderness is a property of the card itself so if it's on the top of your library and you manifest it, people now must know that it's your commander. So personally I find just keeping it in a different sleeve to be practical and fair. Sure, on the rare occasion it's shuffled in you have to do blind cuts but it's better than trying to have hidden-nonhidden information =P

Whatever you choose to do there we should not be in the habit of creating goofy artifacts that impact gameplay. The idea that someone might benefit from a shuffle when finding their commander really bugs me. I doubt they would ever do that.
You know, I might actually have a solution on precisely this basis -- make the official rule to have your commander in a different sleeve, and then look through your library at the card backs only to find the commander. That way, you haven't seen what any of the cards in your library are other than the commander, you can prove your commander is in the library, and most notable of all, because of the first point, no shuffle is necessary.
39 Commander decks and counting. I'm sure this is fine, and not at all a problem.

User avatar
ISBPathfinder
Bebopin
Posts: 2154
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: SD, USA

Post by ISBPathfinder » 2 years ago

What if there was a life tax also on recasting commanders? Many have stated how 40 life starting feels a little high. What if there was also a life cost in casting them that increased with repeat castings? It would help spiral a game towards the end as the game went on.
[EDH] Vadrok List (Suicide Chads) | Evelyn List (Vamp Mill) | Sanwell List | Danitha List | Indominus List | Ratadrabik List

User avatar
Dunharrow
Posts: 1821
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Montreal

Post by Dunharrow » 2 years ago

ISBPathfinder wrote:
2 years ago
What if there was a life tax also on recasting commanders? Many have stated how 40 life starting feels a little high. What if there was also a life cost in casting them that increased with repeat castings? It would help spiral a game towards the end as the game went on.
Interesting idea.
I think limiting commanders to one cast from the command zone per turn would be a great first step, but having a life payment as part of the tax would definitely favour aggro. It punishes blue and red as the two colors that can't gain life.

I would be in favour of testing it out!
The New World fell not to a sword but to a meme

Sharpened
Posts: 193
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Sharpened » 2 years ago

Dunharrow wrote:
2 years ago
Interesting idea.
I think limiting commanders to one cast from the command zone per turn would be a great first step
I have no idea why this is needed. I have literally never seen a commander cast more than once a turn. What commanders is this happening with? Is this really a problem that needs solving?

I'm not saying that the Commander tax couldn't be improved, I'm just confused as to what the issue here is.

User avatar
ISBPathfinder
Bebopin
Posts: 2154
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: SD, USA

Post by ISBPathfinder » 2 years ago

Sharpened wrote:
2 years ago
Dunharrow wrote:
2 years ago
Interesting idea.
I think limiting commanders to one cast from the command zone per turn would be a great first step
I have no idea why this is needed. I have literally never seen a commander cast more than once a turn. What commanders is this happening with? Is this really a problem that needs solving?

I'm not saying that the Commander tax couldn't be improved, I'm just confused as to what the issue here is.
Well, there are some absolute must answer big concerning commanders out there and some of them also have a basis in ramp which makes it hard to just answer them infinitely. Adding a life tax would add a cost other than just ramp for some of the more outrageous commanders in situations where archenemy is declared based on commander choice. It likely wouldn't matter too much for most commanders but it would add some additional pressure for the commanders that ramp / draw into their commanders repeatedly.

I am not saying its the optimal fix or way it should go but it adds some pressure on those commanders. We are brainstorming ways we could make it harder to recast commanders into oblivion and this solution puts a tax on it beyond just accumulating more mana.
[EDH] Vadrok List (Suicide Chads) | Evelyn List (Vamp Mill) | Sanwell List | Danitha List | Indominus List | Ratadrabik List

Sharpened
Posts: 193
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Sharpened » 2 years ago

I don't disagree. Ramp to the moon just strikes me as too good a strategy in magic as a whole right now, and it's even better in Commander with the commander always available. I totally get why people question why the current commander tax might be insufficient.

I just have never seen a commander cast twice in the same turn. I've seen it killed and that cast on the next turn. But limiting it to be only cast once a turn is making a rule that might never come up, right? I mean, sure, you could do stupid Food Chain stuff, but that hardly seems like a reason to change the rules, especially since no one in their right mind would find that casual.

Are there really cases where it's common to see a commander cast multiple times in the same turn?

User avatar
Dunharrow
Posts: 1821
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Montreal

Post by Dunharrow » 2 years ago

Sharpened wrote:
2 years ago
I don't disagree. Ramp to the moon just strikes me as too good a strategy in magic as a whole right now, and it's even better in Commander with the commander always available. I totally get why people question why the current commander tax might be insufficient.

I just have never seen a commander cast twice in the same turn. I've seen it killed and that cast on the next turn. But limiting it to be only cast once a turn is making a rule that might never come up, right? I mean, sure, you could do stupid Food Chain stuff, but that hardly seems like a reason to change the rules, especially since no one in their right mind would find that casual.

Are there really cases where it's common to see a commander cast multiple times in the same turn?
I have cast Maelstrom Wanderer upwards of 4-5 times in a turn
Karador, Ghost Chieftain with the cost reduction can be cast multiple times to enable you to cast more than one creature from the graveyard
Food chain is the biggest oppressor though
Ashnod's Altar can fuel a lot of repeat casting

It happens, and when it does it is totally overwhelming.

Even just Kokusho, the Evening Star, Cabal Coffers and a sac outlet can be silly.
The New World fell not to a sword but to a meme

User avatar
BeneTleilax
Posts: 1330
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BeneTleilax » 2 years ago

Sharpened wrote:
2 years ago
Are there really cases where it's common to see a commander cast multiple times in the same turn?
Extus, Oriq Overlord // Awaken the Blood Avatar can certainly be spammed, but it hasn't really been a problem, and Mardu can use the help.

User avatar
ISBPathfinder
Bebopin
Posts: 2154
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: SD, USA

Post by ISBPathfinder » 2 years ago

I used to cast Squee the Immortal a bunch of times in a turn but generally only once from the command zone per game. I doubt that limiting them in the casts per turn makes any sense for most commander selections and the added rules complexity likely doesn't have much point in most cases.
[EDH] Vadrok List (Suicide Chads) | Evelyn List (Vamp Mill) | Sanwell List | Danitha List | Indominus List | Ratadrabik List

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6281
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 2 years ago

The primary aim of once-per-turn rider is to make it so you can meaningfully interact with commanders who are part of an infinite combo with infinite mana (or similar). At least from my perspective.

Thrasios and Golos were the two worst offenders previously but there are a lot of them.

Golos was the one who was the most problematic as a recast really without infinite mana. But Maelstrom Wanderer kinda rough too :)

Infinite combos are good enough in commander without needing to make it easy mode for people who use their commander as a combo piece.

edit:

I will add that a subtle additional benefit comes from making it so you can't cast your commander for a turn after it leaves the battlefield, which is that it prevents stuff like "wrath the board, recast my commander." Which is also kinda cool thing to limit.

Sharpened
Posts: 193
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Sharpened » 2 years ago

Personally, I have next to zero concern about the command tax in cases of infinite mana combos. If someone is generating infinite mana and can recycle their commander a bunch of times, winning any other way would be trivial. Besides, nothing about that is casual. It's very much a situation covered by the 'If people want to break the format... It's clearly broken". I hardly see the benefit to changing the rules for those cases.

Now, I could still see changing the rule in a way that deals with that, but more as collateral damage then anything else.

Look, the problem is less people doing broken stuff with their commander, and more the fact that removing the commander is useless as it immediately comes back. The Rules Committee clearly does not want you to be able to completely and permanently banish Commanders, or else tuck effects would still work. So really, the goal of the command tax rule should be to make removing the commander give you a temporary reprieve from dealing with it in play, and obviously a meaningful challenge to the persons who's commander was removed.

The best I've seen is basically setting the rule so once your commander is killed, you have to go a turn without it. Something like if your commander is returned to the command zone, it is done so face down (can't be cast) and at the end of your turn it is turned face up. Basically, the commander being killed forces the player to go a full turn cycle without the commander in play. Sure, it deals with the stupid infinite turbo-recasting the commander several times a turn, but thats hardly the goal (mainly because that goal isn't worth caring about). Forcing a full turn cycle without the commander seems like both a meaningful speed bump, and not a complete shutdown like tuck effects used to be.

Of course, commanders with flash and ways to give your commander flash become significantly more powerful, but I don't know that there's a perfect solution to that. It also makes the commander prison cards (Darksteel Mutation , Imprisoned in the Moon , Oubliette , Song of the Dryads and the like) weaker as well.

User avatar
Dunharrow
Posts: 1821
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Montreal

Post by Dunharrow » 2 years ago

Sharpened wrote:
2 years ago
Personally, I have next to zero concern about the command tax in cases of infinite mana combos. If someone is generating infinite mana and can recycle their commander a bunch of times, winning any other way would be trivial. Besides, nothing about that is casual. It's very much a situation covered by the 'If people want to break the format... It's clearly broken". I hardly see the benefit to changing the rules for those cases.
Food chain is a major reason to do this. Maybe an argument to ban FC more than anything, but it is one of those cards that combos with the general. I wouldn't call it cEDH... casual tables can have infinite combos too!

There are many commanders that go infinite with a card in their 99. Being able to delay the win by one turn is powerful.

I don't know think such a rule change is needed as it does seem narrow, but it is interesting as it makes combo worse, which I believe to be a net positive for casual tables. I would be in favour.
The New World fell not to a sword but to a meme

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6281
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 2 years ago

I view it as something of a middle ground between bringing back tuck (which is problematic because of the lack of card availability) and what we have now personally.

Another situation where I recall being really annoyed at a general being recast was with Lightning Greaves and Brago, King Eternal. Someone had 10 mana and just cast brago, went to equip, we killed him, and he did it again.

That scenario doesn't happen *that* often but it should be never. :P

(especially as they start breaking into the design space of cheating your commander out, with cards like Yuriko, the Tiger's Shadow and Command Beacon -- we should have a reprieve from a commander if we kill it!)

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 2 years ago

I mean, pumping 10 mana into Brago to get him to stick the first time is fair. Their spending 10 mana, and the table allowed lightning greaves to stick around a Brago player's board, and enough on the board to make Brago connecting immediately matter. And Brago still needs an open player to hit. And, unless their board is overwhelming enough that Brago connecting once is basically a win, they need to be able to answer wraths or removal for the lightning greaves. To me, that's just playing conservatively early on paying off later.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6281
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 2 years ago

onering wrote:
2 years ago
I mean, pumping 10 mana into Brago to get him to stick the first time is fair. Their spending 10 mana, and the table allowed lightning greaves to stick around a Brago player's board, and enough on the board to make Brago connecting immediately matter. And Brago still needs an open player to hit. And, unless their board is overwhelming enough that Brago connecting once is basically a win, they need to be able to answer wraths or removal for the lightning greaves. To me, that's just playing conservatively early on paying off later.
Once Brago had pants on it was game over (he had reality acid and a gilded lotus, and just streamrolled being able to kill something every turn and show countermagic after his first big turn).

But I disagree completely; your commander shouldn't be available like that. If it dies people should get a reprieve.

Removal on commanders is just so damn bad in this format, and it shouldn't be. We should make it slightly better until it's reasonably useful :)

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 2 years ago

pokken wrote:
2 years ago
onering wrote:
2 years ago
I mean, pumping 10 mana into Brago to get him to stick the first time is fair. Their spending 10 mana, and the table allowed lightning greaves to stick around a Brago player's board, and enough on the board to make Brago connecting immediately matter. And Brago still needs an open player to hit. And, unless their board is overwhelming enough that Brago connecting once is basically a win, they need to be able to answer wraths or removal for the lightning greaves. To me, that's just playing conservatively early on paying off later.
Once Brago had pants on it was game over (he had reality acid and a gilded lotus, and just streamrolled being able to kill something every turn and show countermagic after his first big turn).

But I disagree completely; your commander shouldn't be available like that. If it dies people should get a reprieve.

Removal on commanders is just so damn bad in this format, and it shouldn't be. We should make it slightly better until it's reasonably useful :)
I think that's one area where WotC can actually design for commander and have it actually be a benefit: removal with a rider that if it targets a commander, it cannot be recast that turn.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Rules and Philosophy”