If you could make one change in Commander...

[pokken]

I will eat a beseech the queen and stream it if it ever does anything problematic in an off color deck. That argument was always super boggling to me.

Philosophical problems w color identity whatever but 6 Mana restricted tutor isn't breaking anything.

[Wallycaine]

The one change I'd make is eliminating Commander damage. I don't find that it adds much to the game, and creates anticlimatic moments where someone would be in good shape to race, if they didn't have to devote everything to ensuring the commander doesn't hit a 3rd or 4th time. Plus it's an additional tracking burden, and extra weird rule to explain.

To address the "death" of Voltron strategies that would cause, I feel it's a bit overstated. While Voltron decks would certainly suffer a loss of power level, the basic gameplay would still be available, you'd just have to actually kill the other players fully, instead of relying on hitting the magic 21. On the flip side, because the opponent's life total would matter, rather than just "how much damage has my commander dealt", it opens up room for using cards that contribute outside the combat step, such as Mage Slayer to voltron strategies.

Overall, I think it would be a good change for the format, but unfortunately one that's hard to get momentum for.

[cryogen]

Mtenda Lion is still a multi colored card. Beseech the Queen is now a colorless card. And is still confusing because I can run it in a deck that can't run blue cards but it still gets countered with Red Elemental Blast.

There are a few edge-case cards like Mtenda Lion and Quenchable Fire that should be considered mono-colored, but I can't really figure out a good way of adding exceptions for them without further complicating the rules, so I think we'll just have to tolerate them slipping through the cracks.

Beseech the Queen and the other monocolored hybrid cards being made colorless is a feature, not a bug. Those cards were designed to be playable in any deck, and so they should be. The only one that has a chance of being broken is Beseech, and if it is, it can be banned.

As for your third point, you're thinking about it all wrong; you aren't playing a deck that "can't run blue cards," you're playing a deck that can run cards with a green color identity. During deck construction, you looked at Spitting Image's hybrid blue/green mana sybmols and decided to treat them as green. In-game, it's a blue/green card with a green color identity (not that the color identity of a card matters once the game has started).

Well yeah, I do look "you can only play cards in your color identity of ABC" and "you can't play XYZ because they're outside your color identity" as being the same thing.

But regardless, this should probably be moved to the hybrid thread st this point.

[pokken]

The one change I'd make is eliminating Commander damage. I don't find that it adds much to the game, and creates anticlimatic moments where someone would be in good shape to race, if they didn't have to devote everything to ensuring the commander doesn't hit a 3rd or 4th time. Plus it's an additional tracking burden, and extra weird rule to explain.

To address the "death" of Voltron strategies that would cause, I feel it's a bit overstated. While Voltron decks would certainly suffer a loss of power level, the basic gameplay would still be available, you'd just have to actually kill the other players fully, instead of relying on hitting the magic 21. On the flip side, because the opponent's life total would matter, rather than just "how much damage has my commander dealt", it opens up room for using cards that contribute outside the combat step, such as Mage Slayer to voltron strategies.

Overall, I think it would be a good change for the format, but unfortunately one that's hard to get momentum for.

I am kinda coming around on this one - there're things i love about the voltron strategy but it does get awfully tedious. I always wind up the guy keeping track of it for everyone because I've got the board thing.

[Wallycaine]

The one change I'd make is eliminating Commander damage. I don't find that it adds much to the game, and creates anticlimatic moments where someone would be in good shape to race, if they didn't have to devote everything to ensuring the commander doesn't hit a 3rd or 4th time. Plus it's an additional tracking burden, and extra weird rule to explain.

To address the "death" of Voltron strategies that would cause, I feel it's a bit overstated. While Voltron decks would certainly suffer a loss of power level, the basic gameplay would still be available, you'd just have to actually kill the other players fully, instead of relying on hitting the magic 21. On the flip side, because the opponent's life total would matter, rather than just "how much damage has my commander dealt", it opens up room for using cards that contribute outside the combat step, such as Mage Slayer to voltron strategies.

Overall, I think it would be a good change for the format, but unfortunately one that's hard to get momentum for.

I am kinda coming around on this one - there're things i love about the voltron strategy but it does get awfully tedious. I always wind up the guy keeping track of it for everyone because I've got the board thing.

Exactly. It's a lot of tracking for something that typically doesn't matter unless you have someone explicitly going for that strategy. And honestly, I think that removing commander damage would help Voltron decks feel less linear, even though it would be a power reduction. It might even let offbeat voltron decks, that like loading up someone other than their commander, be more popular. And there's still room for more traditional Voltron, it just has to work a little harder. It's not like a 11/11 Uril with double strike stops being threatening just cause he doesn't one shot you anymore.

[cryogen]

I voted for combined commander damage in my poll. I think it would add an interesting dynamic and help people team up against the combo player that is racing to go infinite.

[WizardMN]

None of the decks I play intend on winning through Commander Damage (though Gisela, Blade of Goldnight can do it pretty easily), and I can't remember the last time someone actually lost through Commander Damage while also being at such a high life total that another swing or two wouldn't take them out anyway.

And yet, as pointed out, I still need to track commander damage for things like Sygg, River Cutthroat which is kind of a pain. It is effectively a joke but what if the game does go long enough, or a player gains enough life where the 1 point of damage per turn could kill them?

Purely from a bookkeeping perspective, I wouldn't mind it going away. And there is a certain "feels bad" element to playing, saying "alright, I take 4 from your commander and go to 13 life" only to hear "well, you just lost because that is 22 commander damage". Against decks like Gisela it is easy to see, but if I am playing against a commander doing 3-4 damage a turn and 5 turns after I was last damaged I hear I am about to lose, it is frustrating since it isn't something worth remembering while the rest of the game is going on. It also kind of sucks to have to blow removal on their commander when they have a much more impressive board state solely because that card says "if this damages you again, you lose".

Yes, Voltron takes a hit. I don't think there is really any way around that. I would be curious to hear from Voltron players whether this completely invalidates their deck though. Is there no other option or is the double damage necessary without it just far too much to overcome? I have always viewed Voltron decks as pretty linear as it is where you suit up your commander (or another creature if needed) and go after a single player. Then, continue with the next player. The playstyle isn't all that conducive to spreading the damage around but then once that creature goes away, it is a huge stumbling block.

Uril, the Miststalker has built in protection for this but do many others? Aren't Swords to Plowshares and Path to Exile or things like Murderous Rider // Swift End played anyway? Or is the assumption that a Voltron general is going to be untargetable?

I think the only real strategy Commander Damage is useful *against* is massive amounts of life gain. "Infinite" life is a pain to deal with without Commander Damage. Though, even with Commander Damage it isn't exactly the easiest.

So, I used to be big on wanting it to stick around but the strategies of Commander are so diverse as it is that this is starting to feel like a rule that really isn't pulling its weight (somewhat ironically the same argument for the removal of Mana Burn) and I don't think enough is lost by its removal. The main concern though, in terms of actually arguing for its removal, is: "what is gained?". Is the removal of the bookkeeping enough? Limiting those feels bad moments I mentioned? I am not sure.

[pokken]

I think the only real strategy Commander Damage is useful *against* is massive amounts of life gain. "Infinite" life is a pain to deal with without Commander Damage. Though, even with Commander Damage it isn't exactly the easiest.

This is a good point and it cuts both ways - commander damage invalidating lifegain as a strategy in many ways is a problem I have with. If you do lifegain as a theme you probably need a bunch of ways to stop voltron commanders too and that's kinda frustrating since lifegain is supposed to beat aggro

It's a reasonable point to worry about infinite life since it's a pretty achievable combo, but it's more of a problem with infinite anything I think - needing to treat actual infinite life like infinite damage and just scoop if you can't beat it doesn't feel like that big of a concern to me. People already need to have rule 0 convos about that stuff?

[Rorseph]

I would be curious to hear from Voltron players whether this completely invalidates their deck though. Is there no other option or is the double damage necessary without it just far too much to overcome?

As a connoisseur of fine Boros Voltron decks, I'd say it depends, but at least for my Aurelia or Gisela based decks it wouldn't matter too terribly much. Those decks are control shells that use their generals for finishers and Commander damage just means it happens faster. In the case of the Gisela list, it wouldn't matter much at all since I've routinely taken out opponents with single hits from a well-Equipped Boros Swiftblade or Swiftblade Vindicator for 30+ damage.

I wouldn't be too terribly sad to see Commander Damage go away or otherwise change. It's definitely a headache to keep track of.

[Magiqmaster]

I have to agree with most of what's been said so far, especialy the tedious damage tracking and the rare occasions where commander damage actually has any impact on the game, based on my own experience.

If I can add my two cents about voltron decks, I have 2 that I am currently using: Greven, Predator Captain and Zurgo Helmsmasher, which are both quite fun to play. It is true that they are somewhat linear but what I really like is that they usually make the games run much faster, which is sometimes a good thing when it gets late in the evening and I want to avoid a long drawn out match.

I am the only one in my group which uses this strategy and I believe that it spices things up. When my opponents realize what's coming their way, they become nervous since they know they need to stop me ASAP. I enjoy seeing them squirm and hearing ''Oh no, not Zurgo again... we need to kill him faaast...'' always makes me smile (its all good, considering that we are long time friends). Other than that, it is sometimes fun to play a deck which is easier to pilot, without too much planning, triggered abilities and/or other complicated decisions that often arise when playing other kinds of decks.

Anyway, what I mean to say is that despite everything that's been said about commander damage, I believe that a voltron build is one of many strategies which makes EDH the amazing format that it is, appealing to a variety of player styles. Thus, I think that it would be a shame if this strategy were to to disappear, only to simplify the damage tracking issues.

[Wallycaine]

I have to agree with most of what's been said so far, especialy the tedious damage tracking and the rare occasions where commander damage actually has any impact on the game, based on my own experience.

If I can add my two cents about voltron decks, I have 2 that I am currently using: Greven, Predator Captain and Zurgo Helmsmasher, which are both quite fun to play. It is true that they are somewhat linear but what I really like is that they usually make the games run much faster, which is sometimes a good thing when it gets late in the evening and I want to avoid a long drawn out match.

I am the only one in my group which uses this strategy and I believe that it spices things up. When my opponents realize what's coming their way, they become nervous since they know they need to stop me ASAP. I enjoy seeing them squirm and hearing ''Oh no, not Zurgo again... we need to kill him faaast...'' always makes me smile (its all good, considering that we are long time friends, so no animosity other that initial statement). Other than that, it is sometimes fun to play a deck which is easier to pilot, without too much planning, triggered abilities and/or other complicated decisions that often arise when playing other kinds of decks.

Anyway, what I mean to say is that despite everything that's been said about commander damage, I believe that a voltron build is one of many strategies which makes EDH the amazing format that it is, appealing to a variety of player styles. Thus, I think that it would be a shame if this strategy were to to disappear.

So the important question would be obvious then: "Would you stop playing those decks if commander damage stopped being a thing?"

[Magiqmaster]

I have to agree with most of what's been said so far, especialy the tedious damage tracking and the rare occasions where commander damage actually has any impact on the game, based on my own experience.

If I can add my two cents about voltron decks, I have 2 that I am currently using: Greven, Predator Captain and Zurgo Helmsmasher, which are both quite fun to play. It is true that they are somewhat linear but what I really like is that they usually make the games run much faster, which is sometimes a good thing when it gets late in the evening and I want to avoid a long drawn out match.

I am the only one in my group which uses this strategy and I believe that it spices things up. When my opponents realize what's coming their way, they become nervous since they know they need to stop me ASAP. I enjoy seeing them squirm and hearing ''Oh no, not Zurgo again... we need to kill him faaast...'' always makes me smile (its all good, considering that we are long time friends, so no animosity other that initial statement). Other than that, it is sometimes fun to play a deck which is easier to pilot, without too much planning, triggered abilities and/or other complicated decisions that often arise when playing other kinds of decks.

Anyway, what I mean to say is that despite everything that's been said about commander damage, I believe that a voltron build is one of many strategies which makes EDH the amazing format that it is, appealing to a variety of player styles. Thus, I think that it would be a shame if this strategy were to to disappear.

So the important question would be obvious then: "Would you stop playing those decks if commander damage stopped being a thing?"

That's a good question, but I think I might stop, or more probably heavily modify those decks since their main wincon no longer works. In any case, this rule change would definitely remove the pleasure I having playing the decks in their actual condition, for sure.

[Myllior]

Apologies if this seems a little rushed, but I don't have as much time as I'd like for this post right now.

I'd be opposed to removing commander damage from the format. In fact, I'd be for giving a small buff in the form of combined commander damage, like @cryogen mentioned. That is also simplifies tracking is a neat bonus. Trying to address a few points briefly,

Tedium: Think about the commanders at the table and how likely it is that commander damage will become relevant. I never track the commander damage I've dealt with Roon because, based on my game plan and how the deck typically plays, I know it's a virtual impossibility that I'll hit someone for 21 with him. You don't have to track every point if it's apparent it won't matter.

Long Games: Specifically with reference to commanders with low power, such as Sygg, where you need to connect a full 21 times for it to be relevant. The sheer length of games required for this to become relevant would suggest, at least to me, that the game you're playing has devolved into a living hell. Usually by the 2 hour mark I'm ready to concede, unless I'm confident I can close the game in a turn or two. I'd much rather move onto the next game than concern myself with whether or not I've hit someone a dozen or more times with my commander and hence might be able to take one person out, potentially leaving another two still. Again, think about if it'll be relevant.

Game Relevance: The question is, do you run a dedicated Voltron deck? I do, and I've knocked out plenty of people where the only damage they took all game was from my commander, or where a player who was about to win was just taken out by commander damage, but would have otherwise had enough life to survive. If it's something you never try to pursue, then it's hardly surprising if it's not relevant to your games. But it definitely is to mine.

Feels-Bads: To be a little blunt here, there's no difference between being forced on the defensive due to having a low life total or being near death from commander damage. Being on the defensive is not as prevalent in EDH due to the larger life totals and having multiple opponents, but it is a fundamental part of Magic. Of course, if the example here was instead referring to accepting incoming damage from a commander and being unaware that it will take them out, then that's on the person whose commander was attacking, not commander damage as a concept. This is a social format, and "Gotcha!" moments are always bad as they are about tricking a player or making them feel misled. If this ever comes up, do not play with that person.

Linearity: It seems there is some stigma against 'linearity' in decks within Magic; at least, if perusing the State of Modern threads is anything to go by. It's perfectly fine for an archetype to be defined as largely proactive, or even definitively linear. Not all play styles are for everyone, so if you don't enjoy playing it, that's not actually a reason to change it. Beyond that, a deck is entirely as you build it; linearity is a result of the choices a deck builder makes during deck construction, which leads me onto the next point.

My Deck: My Kefnet deck is my dedicated Voltron deck. It's also quite definitely my most non-linear deck despite being proactive because, among other things, it has to care about opposing board states but doesn't have the luxury of durdling, because it needs to go on the offensive. Regarding the comments on changes in Voltron's power if commander damage were removed, it would be a huge blow. Voltron is already on the back foot due to it often becoming the archenemy and needing to keep a high pace over a prolonged period. There are a number of games where I've barely crossed the line with a naked Kefnet, because of numerous board wipes, and plenty of other games where it's clearly performed far and above the other decks at the table, but fallen short because of a large number of board wipes.

I would be curious to hear from Voltron players whether this completely invalidates their deck though. Is there no other option or is the double damage necessary without it just far too much to overcome?

Pretty much. The necessary changes to allow the deck to perform would alter the play style of the deck in such a way that I would no longer enjoy playing it.

[Wallycaine]

While I appreciate the thoughts, I do want to address one pair directly: Tedium and Feels-bad. You actually do a pretty good job of showing exactly why commander damage can create extreme feel bad moments. Because so many players subscribe to the "oh, I'm not planning on killing you with my commander, so don't worry about tracking it" line of thought, it's extremely extremely easy to get caught off guard by it. Sure, maybe you weren't planning on killing someone with commander damage with Roon. But now that you think about it, you've hit him 5 times because, well, he was open, and whoops I guess this next one's lethal buddy! Looks like you've gotta spend your turn recasting Kess for 8 so you have something to chump him with!

I run into this issue a lot with Ghave in particular. He's a solid brawler, and my deck is non-combo and tries to win through combat. So I often end up swinging in with him at whoever is open. But there's plenty of board states where that ends up being the same player (even with attempts to spread out the damage, as perhaps only one player is open for a 5/5 to attack, or alternately Ghave is the only one that can attack into the player with a 4/4), and after a couple turns, they have to start desperately chumping him because I could sacrifice a creature for lethal commander damage. There's even been moments where no one notices until the actual attack is completed, and the third player points out that that's the 4th time ghave's hit them as a 6/6. So while my Ghave deck is decidedly not built for voltron, and doesn't ever plan to end the game that way, I have to track it rigorously, lest I surprise someone with a death out of nowhere.

[WizardMN]

I'd be opposed to removing commander damage from the format. In fact, I'd be for giving a small buff in the form of combined commander damage, like cryogen mentioned. That is also simplifies tracking is a neat bonus. Trying to address a few points briefly,

I would be fine with this as well, but what is the magic number where it doesn't feel too low to count 3 commanders against you but isn't so high as to limit Voltron strategies?

Tedium: Think about the commanders at the table and how likely it is that commander damage will become relevant. I never track the commander damage I've dealt with Roon because, based on my game plan and how the deck typically plays, I know it's a virtual impossibility that I'll hit someone for 21 with him. You don't have to track every point if it's apparent it won't matter.

But that is the problem, right? How do you absolutely know it won't matter? And, more importantly, how would I know playing against you that it won't matter? Are we both fine with just not playing with Commander damage against that general whether he manages 21 eventually or not?

Long Games: Specifically with reference to commanders with low power, such as Sygg, where you need to connect a full 21 times for it to be relevant. The sheer length of games required for this to become relevant would suggest, at least to me, that the game you're playing has devolved into a living hell. Usually by the 2 hour mark I'm ready to concede, unless I'm confident I can close the game in a turn or two. I'd much rather move onto the next game than concern myself with whether or not I've hit someone a dozen or more times with my commander and hence might be able to take one person out, potentially leaving another two still. Again, think about if it'll be relevant.

Sygg might not have been the best example. But I still track it. @Wallycaine addresses this pretty well above. And 2 hour games aren't hell for all of us.

Game Relevance: The question is, do you run a dedicated Voltron deck? I do, and I've knocked out plenty of people where the only damage they took all game was from my commander, or where a player who was about to win was just taken out by commander damage, but would have otherwise had enough life to survive. If it's something you never try to pursue, then it's hardly surprising if it's not relevant to your games. But it definitely is to mine.

*I* don't run Voltron but I still don't see it in any games I am involved in so my opponents aren't doing it either. Even on MTGO where the meta is more diverse (or more random anyway) I have yet to see someone die from Commander Damage. Or, if they did, it only happened once or twice and I don't remember it. It is very infrequent so far.

To be clear, I am not saying Voltron is bad or anything; it just comes up very infrequently. And, I did forget about an opposing Zurgo Helmsmasher deck which has killed to commander damage a couple times. He only got me once and I haven't played against it in 4 months so I kind of forgot about it.

Feels-Bads:Of course, if the example here was instead referring to accepting incoming damage from a commander and being unaware that it will take them out, then that's on the person whose commander was attacking, not commander damage as a concept.

This is what I was referring to. And that answer doesn't work. Let's say I am about to attack someone for lethal Commander Damage. I tell them "hey this will kill you" and all is right with the world. They know, I know, they can make blocking decisions accordingly.

But that isn't the case or the end of the story. The point is that not knowing means they played differently up to that point. Let's say they had a Vindicate in hand but nothing worth using it on. Then, their opponent tells them they are about to die right when they get attacked. It is too late to use Vindicate. Unless the idea is that the controller of the commander should always be informing people of where they are? "Hey, by the way, you will die next turn if you don't do anything". I don't see that happening too often and the problem is exacerbated when there are multiple turns between the previous attack and the "final" attack.

I would be curious to hear from Voltron players whether this completely invalidates their deck though. Is there no other option or is the double damage necessary without it just far too much to overcome?

Pretty much. The necessary changes to allow the deck to perform would alter the play style of the deck in such a way that I would no longer enjoy playing it.

This goes back to the question above but what combined total would be acceptable?

[Myllior]

While I appreciate the thoughts, I do want to address one pair directly: Tedium and Feels-bad.

Thanks for the response. (And you as well @WizardMN). With regards to it being your own commander dealing damage, my thought is that you can essentially opt out of it for the game. No surprise deaths from your commander because you've decided to not deal commander damage to opponents this game. If someone else wants to track it instead, sweet. This way, the mental load of tracking damage dealt by your own commander is removed.

Of course, this is the easy side of the equation. If the other players decide not to opt out (i.e. the default), then you're left in the situation that you do need to be aware of the damage you've taken from their commanders, as you pointed out above WizardMN. Regarding this, I think I have to recognise that my personal experience with tracking incoming commander damage appears to differ from the norm, as I've not experienced any instances of noticeable mental load or feels-bad moments as a result of commander damage. (I've probably worded that extremely poorly, for which I apologise; hopefully the intent is still clear). Consequently, it's possible that we simply fall on opposite sides regarding this issue. I'll take some time to try and better understand this from your perspectives, but I'll admit that I'm pretty heavily biased because of my Kefnet deck.

Hopefully that answers both of your responses, even if indirectly, although I do note I've missed one.

I would be fine with this as well, but what is the magic number where it doesn't feel too low to count 3 commanders against you but isn't so high as to limit Voltron strategies?

I'd go the simple option: Keep it at 21. Is this a buff to Voltron, and does it increase the chances of deaths to commander damage? Yes to both. Is that a negative change? Based on my own experiences, it wouldn't be. I think adding a bit of aggressiveness to the format would be a good thing. But I recognise that your experiences or expectations of the format may differ.

[pokken]

The more I think about it the less I like how uninteractive Voltron aims to be. The goal is to attack a life total you can't raise by making a creature untargetable and unblockable or close enough.

The ultimate goal of Voltron is to basically play solitaire. And your means of interacting are sweepers and counterspells and sometimes enchantment and artifact removal but usually only good enough if mass. (Or edicts which gets old pretty fast for everyone else).

I really do not like poison in commander and I don't know that commander damage is that different...except that there are a few things that can interact with poison and the creatures aren't usually hexproof.

Yeh. I think I am converted on this issue.

[Yatsufusa]

To Voltron players, what is the number of attacks do you usually need to finish off someone?

I was thinking of suggesting the commander damage rules be changed to a "mark" system. When a Commander deals combat damage of X and above to a player, that player gets a "mark" in the Command Zone. When a player has Y or marks, he or she loses.

There needs to be a minimum damage requirement of X so it doesn't cave-in to literally every 1-power Commander doing the same.
X also needs to be relatively high to favor Voltron strategies so that the requirement for Y doesn't have to be impossible to achieve for a single player, but not too high that it isn't possible for others to chip it if possible (if we go for a combined mark route).

Assuming we take the traditional Elder Dragon formula, X = 7, Y = 3 (basically 21 minimum).

Main advantage: Tracking becomes much much easier, only when you take 7 or more combat damage from a Commander, you get a mark. 3 Marks, you lose.

Disadvantages: 1-hit kills from Voltron are basically impossible. Even with double strike and power 7, you only inflict 2 Marks. Chip damage from other Commanders cannot contribute. It becomes almost pointless to go beyond 7 damage at one go. It may potentially affect other players to consider powering their Commanders to 7 if you already did 2/3rds of the job, but I have this feeling people will continue to just ignore it.

We could reduce the value of X to give more incentive for players to contribute via knocking someone out via the Marks system, but that would almost necessitate an increase of Y requirements, which further stifles the Voltron strategy.

[cryogen]

The more I think about it the less I like how uninteractive Voltron aims to be. The goal is to attack a life total you can't raise by making a creature untargetable and unblockable or close enough.

The ultimate goal of Voltron is to basically play solitaire. And your means of interacting are sweepers and counterspells and sometimes enchantment and artifact removal but usually only good enough if mass. (Or edicts which gets old pretty fast for everyone else).

I really do not like poison in commander and I don't know that commander damage is that different...except that there are a few things that can interact with poison and the creatures aren't usually hexproof.

Yeh. I think I am converted on this issue.

You're not wrong, but if we are assuming a *traditional* voltron deck as opposed to one that's actually a combo deck in disguise (i.e. needing multiple cards used in conjunction to give that player one-hit kills, or even killing all opponents in one turn), then it is still an interactive deck because they require multiple turns to pull off a win, giving their opponents many chances for disruption.

Another thing I like about combined Commander damage is that it gives you an incentive to attack when you would otherwise not. If I'm running a 2 power general that isn't combat oriented then it is unlikely I will randomly attack into an open player because I know the Commander damage won't matter, and the chance to shave two points off their life total is not worth the potential kick back for provoking them.

But I definitely agree that we would have to take into consideration players killing off generals more frequently as defense. I'm not sure if I agree with this because I'm of the mindset that generals are OP and should die more frequently already.

[WizardMN]

Regarding this, I think I have to recognise that my personal experience with tracking incoming commander damage appears to differ from the norm, as I've not experienced any instances of noticeable mental load or feels-bad moments as a result of commander damage. (I've probably worded that extremely poorly, for which I apologise; hopefully the intent is still clear). Consequently, it's possible that we simply fall on opposite sides regarding this issue. I'll take some time to try and better understand this from your perspectives, but I'll admit that I'm pretty heavily biased because of my Kefnet deck.

To be fair, this seems likely *because* you have a dedicated voltron deck. It is much harder to simply "forget" about commander damage when you are getting attacked with a voltron commander fairly often. That is, in games where we are just getting in potshots with our commanders and happen to get to 21, it sometimes ends up as "remember 6 turns ago when I was able to hit you with Marchesa? That put you at 18 commander damage so this will be 21".

I do accept that the situations are different depending on playgroups and it seems possible that the groups that deal with commander damage the least as it is now would be the ones more to fall in line with the tedium and feels-bad "issues" just because it is ignored so often as it is. Until it suddenly becomes relevant. Against voltron, it is likely always relevant so players are simply more diligent.

Either way, it is good to read other perspectives since local metas tend to become somewhat insular and my experiences are obviously different from yours

[ZenN]

In my usual group, there have been a few decks over the years that often kill with commander damage, or use it as the primary win condition. Off the top of my head, Zurgo Helmsmasher, Thraximundar, Ramos, Dragon Engine, and my own Maelstrom Wanderer and Korvold, Fae-Cursed King decks.

I don't think anybody in my group has found tracking commander damage to be a particularly large burden, but it can be a little annoying from time to time. I do appreciate its existence as a means of overcoming excessive amounts of life gain, and I think it's a necessary balancing factor. Many decks already play a couple of ways to get back a solid chunk of life, even without going infinite, and those would definitely be getting a buff if commander damage went away.

[Wallycaine]

I do appreciate its existence as a means of overcoming excessive amounts of life gain, and I think it's a necessary balancing factor. Many decks already play a couple of ways to get back a solid chunk of life, even without going infinite, and those would definitely be getting a buff if commander damage went away.

This is always an argument that feels weird to me. Like... we've already talked about how commander damage doesn't matter in, say, 90% of games. So is lifegain so close to breaking the format that it's being kept it check exclusively by that ~10% of games? Or are we against any rule change that buffs anything, because that seems like an untenable position to take. Yes, lifegain gets very minorly buffed by removing commander damage. I'm extremely skeptical that means it breaks the format, any more than 100 other things that aren't held back by the current rules.

[pokken]

I'd say it's more that currently lifegain as a strategy is largely invalidated by the existence of commander damage (and the rest of the way by infinite combos)- unless your goal is to use it to draw cards or make mana (e.g. Necropotence). Using it as a way to win damage races is typically meaningless since someone will combo you out or kill you with commander damage.

[Crazy Monkey]

On the topic of Commander damage, I'd be against removing it. I personally play with and against decks that threaten commander damage fairly often and I like to decisions this forces in play and deckbuilding. Voltron sort of exemplifies the aggro>combo>control>aggro conflict, and I think it's needed to help keep combo decks more honest. It also can be the only out for some decks if their opponent has gained infinite life. I've seen games come down to an evasive 2/2 or 3/3 commander chipping down on the life of a player who is otherwise immortal but stalled out on their combo.

That said, and I know this makes me a bad aggro player; I don't usually focus down a single player just because they are open. I will aggro down a combo or control player if I know my deck can't otherwise deal with them, but killing someone just because they are behind isn't really how I want to be perceived in my playgroup. I'd rather them have a chance to come back, and use my previous leniency as political capital.

Regarding the arguments against it; It's not that much book-keeping in paper, because most players (at least in my group) have a pile of dice for tracking various things. I know that I have 30+ D20s from various prereleases, and most LGS have massive piles of them for sale at 10/$1 or something. I can see it being a bit tedious for online play if the life total trackers used don't have it available, or easily identifiable. I've played on webcam and cockatrice, and there just isn't a good method on webcam. On cockatrice, I use the mana tracker for each commander.

I could see a combined commander damage total, probably at least 25, if a playgroup doesn't want to do the bookkeeping it requires. I'm not sure how it would change my building or playing styles, but more incentive to attack with my small value commander if the board allows it. I'd probably look at changing my early value creatures to have higher toughness, if anything.

[pokken]

Out there idea: What about if you deal X (30 or 40?)damage total to the table with your commander you win the game. Then you can track it yourself and it puts it closer to viewed like combo where you're the enemy of the table. If you try to Hatred someone out of the game everyone wants to stop it.

I have no idea if I would even like that but it seems like a more interesting aggro dynamic potentially.