That is interesting to say the least. It does suggest that a game where Voltron is at least one of the decks means it might be more 1v3 than desired. And the idea that players now have a vested interest in not letting someone else get hit (because the whole table loses) actually seems like a negative. The Voltron player can go after Player 1 for the first couple turns, player 2 for the next turn, and player 3 for a turn and everyone loses. So, getting rid of player 3's infinite combo (for example) still means we lose because they are wide open for the last bit of commander damage.pokken wrote: ↑4 years agoOut 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.
This is obviously a simplistic take on it of course.
I like the idea on the surface but I think the game play turns frustrating where too many catch-22's exist with it since we might have to do more to save an opponent to save ourselves. And, on the selfish side, I would rather let an opponent lose currently if it means I survive. I don't really want to turn more games into Archenemy than necessary.