Please proofread your posts for broken quotes, this gets difficult to follow at points.
onering wrote: ↑3 years ago
It would be negligible. It would mostly effect slower combo decks, which aren't the problem and can already be disrupted easily enough. Fast combo isn't getting hated out by aggro at 30 life most of the time. If the table is all aggro and directs all fire at them, sure, but that's not going to be common at all. Aggro is still not going to be good enough at 30 life. That suddenly enough people will run it that gunning down fast combo will be realistic.
Slower combo can be killed by straight aggro. Slow combo decks aren't as big of a problem, sure, but I still think it's fair to help aggro against them. Fast combo decks won't be outraced solely by aggro at almost any life total, sure, but my point was that disruption matters a lot more when they're on a shorter clock, which is true both because aggro is better and because aggro will become more popular in a lower-life format.
Very low to the ground zerg rush aggro isn't viable, that doesn't mean that the full breadth of aggro isn't viable. Aggro control is viable, hatebears are viable, Those are still true aggro. Your argument relies on narrowly defining aggro to be a very specific subset of aggro (and the deck you gave as an example wouldn't be anymore viable in a 20 life format than hatebears or fish is in commander as it is now, and a bad joke in a 30 life format).
Later you may notice that I explicitly said I didn't want cavalcade-style hyper-aggro decks to become viable in commander, so that wasn't an accident.
The line between aggro and midrange is subjective, but when I look at my "aggro" decks that have worked, they'd be considered midrange or slower even in standard, let alone legacy or vintage (which seem like fairer comparisons given the card pool). But you can define aggro how you want I suppose.
Your usually reasonable, but you fail here badly at understanding what I was saying. Go back and reread what I wrote, and you'll see that I said that sometimes taking someone out early is necessary, and that generally you won't knock out everyone in one big turn when playing aggro. I specifically faulted zerg rushing one player without a plan for actually winning the game, which is what I see too often from unskilled aggro players. Committing too many resources to the board to take out one guy then getting put on you ass by one wrath and finding yourself completely unable to be relevant the rest of the game.
I don't think I've ever seen this happen so I'm mostly speculating here, but it sounds like in the scenario you're talking about, the player overextended, didn't have enough gas in his deck, and had no real chance of winning regardless.
Perhaps this is an online vs IRL difference, but I also don't understand why the player getting attacked can't argue for why he's a lesser threat and convince the aggro player to go elsewhere. I've seen people go after one player for a while, then realize other players are more threatening and change targets, I've seen aggro deck peck around a bit before trying to burst down someone with a big attack (a recent krenko game comes to mind), but in many years of play across many playgroups, I don't think I've ever seen the wrong player get immediately rushed all the way to the death to the exclusion of all others by an aggro deck.
This is not a super productive argument to have because your position hinges entirely on bad aggro players who zerg the wrong target while overextending. If that's a common situation, then I'd agree that dissuading bad players from aggro seems worthwhile. But I've never seen this happen to the best of my recollection. I've seen people kill the wrong person, of course, but rarely aggro and never from the word go.
For anyone else, how they feel depends entirely on their experience of the game and whether it matches with yours or mine. I don't think there's much else to say on this topic, really.
Taking a player out IN THEORY raises your odds of winning based on generic statistics, but generic statistics don't matter when you apply context. We've had this conversation before, and it seems to be a blind spot for you. Bad aggro players play based on the generic statistics that removing a player means there are fewer players in the game, and thus the generic chance that they will win increases (say from 25% to 33.3333%). The reality is that the generic statistics are never relevant. Your chance of winning isn't related only to how many players are in the game at the moment. Other factors are usually more important. I know that you know this, because when you describe games you've been in and the choices you make they don't boil down to just taking out players whenever you can.
Playing aggro doesn't mean you forget politics, and it doesn't mean you ignore what other players are doing, and how they can help you, to just goldfish. As I said in the post you replied to, sometimes zerg rushing a player is correct, and rarely will you be putting everyone away in one turn, but everything is based on the context of what is happening in the game. Most of the time, whittling down everyone a bit early and then focusing fire based on what is happening in the game is correct, it makes it less likely that any one person will feel the need to commit everything to stopping you, it lets you find out who needs to be put away first, and it gets the other players to more manageable life totals for when you need to turn your focus to them. Other times, you have to be opportunistic. Context matters.
Again, I have no issue with taking someone out, or someone taking me out, if its actually contributing to victory. I take issue with people who blindly rush someone at random and succeed only in making sure they both lose. Discouraging lower skilled players from trying aggro makes this less likely.
All this fits into what I said above. I don't think there's anything else productive to say here. Of course I agree about number of players, win%s, etc. since many of my decks are based on that concept. But the aggro plan and the Phelddagrif plan are basically total opposites.
What's weird is that your bringing up how it varies by format. 1v1, aggro can require a lot less skill to pilot. It should have been clear however that I was talking about multiplayer, given that many of the reasons I gave for aggro requiring skill to pilot effectively only applying to multiplayer.
I assumed you meant aggro in general, instead of aggro in commander specifically, because people always complain about aggro being a low-skilled archetype in other formats but I rarely, if ever, hear that talk in commander. Tbh I rarely hear people talk about aggro at all in my commander groups, because aggro is so rare - and usually not hyper aggro either, of the type that tends to raise people's hackles in, say, standard. But sure, I agree that aggro (or "aggro") is fairly high skill in commander - but so is everything tbh, except combo
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/1-smile-fb.png)
.
Weak argument. You know that this format is never going to be in a place where every play style is equally viable at all levels of play. This is the one format where Battle Cruiser and other more durdly archetypes are at least somewhat viable, and they stand to lose the most from aggro getting better due to lower life totals, and will do so before aggro gets good enough to actually impact control or combo.
I think shaving off 10 life absolutely helps aggro against control, less so against combo but as I mentioned earlier, I think it still helps in a not-insignificant way across two fronts.
When I'm playing aggro, if someone is actually playing a "classic battlecruiser deck" like sea monster tribal or something equally weak, they're probably my lowest-priority target, so I'm likely chewing through two other players before going after them. If they can't muster a defense by that point, it's on them. True at 40, true at 30.
You can say "but what about bad aggro players that will zerg rush the battlecruiser deck for no reason", but then we're kind of back to that earlier impasse.
I don't think everything needs to be equally viable but right now aggro is practically nonexistent. I think we should strive for more balance than THAT.
Again, context matters. If your going to pick out things to respond to, do your due diligence and at least to attempt to understand what you are responding to. From the context, it should be clear that I wasn't saying unskilled players would be unable to win with combo decks. I was talking about how unskilled aggro play can hurt the enjoyment of other players, and comparing it to the effects of unskilled play of other archetypes. The effect of unskilled play of a combo deck just results, at most, in that player losing (due to trying to force through a combo at an inopportune time, or screwing up triggers, or not realizing that something on the board blanks the combo, etc). It doesn't usually ruin the game for anyone except the unskilled combo player if they screw up. Casting T&N into a Stranglehold or Aven Mindcensor is just a funny oof for the combo player. Zerg rushing someone out of the game at random then running out of gas and sitting around being irrelevant means the guy you took out lost because you were an idiot, and that feels a lot worse than losing because you were outplayed. You'll notice that I also compared it to poorly played control, which I said can be annoying because they don't answer the right threats, but that this tends to even out (because they usually will not just focus on answering only one player's things, so the effects of their misplays are evened out).
Fair enough, I don't think that was clear but from that context, but I see what you're saying now - although I do think a lot of low-skilled players choose to play combo (or are pushed towards combo) in the first place because of the difficulty of dealing 40 damage, which ruins plenty of games because losing to combo is rarely interesting and usually anticlimactic.
You didn't see it so it doesn't happen is a piss poor argument.
I mean, it's kind of the only argument. I agree that, if this is a regular occurrence, then that's generally bad. But from my experience it's not regular, or even existent. I'm sure you're not lying about it happening, but it doesn't square with my experience at all.
It's like someone saying "we've gotta do something about these butterflies, they keep flying into people's eyes and blinding them! I see it every day!" What else am I to say, except "If that's happening it sounds bad....but I've never seen it happen....so....?"
Do you play online only? I wonder if it's a cultural difference or something. Because I genuinely have not seen this behavior.
I have seen people going vendetta against one player who pissed them off for whatever reason, which can "ruin" the game, although that's as likely to be removal, counterspells, and other control nasties than just attacking them. So again, I don't see singling out aggro specifically as reasonable. But this 100% based off my experience - as is yours.
Its not theory crafting, its from experience. When I am straight targeted by some idiot, or when I see it happen, people sit on their answers until he finishes killing the guy, and then answer him, because its sensible to hold your answers until you actually need to use them. Honestly, your smarter than this dude, because I've heard you make the same arguments when talking up your flying hippo deck. I'm not pathing any beater that isn't pointed at me, and if someone is telegraphing that they're aimed at one guy then I'll hold spot removal up but wait until they finish before throwing out a wrath. Spreading out damage doesn't make you a must answer threat to any one player, but is also more likely to bait out a wrath once you start swinging with a decent board. If you overextend, that's obviously going to be really bad, but if you don't overextend you can redeploy pretty quickly. The fact that you're just not going to be able to zerg rush the entire table is a disincentive to just vomit your hand onto the battlefield, unless you have some reliable way of refilling it (Sygg, Ephara, etc) or some way to protect against wipes. And you know that you can't just talk a bad player out of targeting you, as evidenced by the example you give above about dunce that made you discard everything. If you, master of magic politics, couldn't dissuade him, how's that going to go for average players? Oh, and if he was playing an aggro deck and decided to just spend everything to take you out instead of a bad control deck spending everything to attack your hand, you wouldn't have been able to sit back until you won.
Of course I agree about holding back targeted removal, but you specifically mentioned sitting on a board wipe, not STP, and most wipes are assumed to be sorceries. If an aggro player has a strong aggro position and is killing one dude who seems to be a lesser threat, why would the person sitting on his WoG assume that the aggro player will keep doing what he's doing? If it's my WoG and the aggro player is getting out of hand, I'm not going to trust that he'll finish off that one player and give me a chance to wipe his board before turning on me, especially not if attacking that same player again is a clear mistake. I'm going to assume my opponents make good decisions and that he'll attack me as the most important target. So I'll play WoG before he gets the chance to do me real damage.
All of this is context dependent though, if he's only got 10 damage on board then I'm more likely to accept the risk that he starts targeting me, and save my wrath until that happens. Or if I have a temporary answer like a fog, or instant-speed removal to mitigate the damage, etc. But the way you framed it sounded like aggro is just being fully left alone because the other players are assuming he'll keep attacking the same person without a clear reason to assume that.
In the draft example, the reason he targeted me seemed to be explicitly because he wasn't trying to win. There's no reasoning with that position, because he has no motivation. I'm assuming in this aggro situation (which I've never witnessed) that the aggro player is trying to win. Thus, reason can in theory be achieved.
If he'd been trying to aggro me it would have been no problem at all, because he couldn't have built or played a good aggro draft deck to save his life, and I could have easily defended myself. Getting hit a few times doesn't ruin your game, but getting your hand shredded or your board blown apart absolutely can. I'd MUCH rather be unfairly targeted by aggro than unfairly targeted by control, no question.
This particular No True Scotsman sucked the first time you made it, and it doesn't get any better here.
Archetype boundaries are arbitrary. Define it where you want, but I think most people would consider, say, purphoros 1.0 to be an aggro deck in commander, while any deck that has to resolve a 4-mana enchantment before it does anything in any other format would never be considered aggro.
Would 50 be absurd? Absolutely.
Why though? I think in an alternate universe where commander doesn't exist, most people would say 40 is absurd for a game conceived with a 20 life starting total.
Would 20? I think just as much.
I don't actually want a 20 life starter, but absurd? It's the starter for nearly every other format, it hardly seems "absurd".
You think 40 is too high for the reasons you gave, I think 30 is too low for the reasons I gave. I of course think my reasons are more valid, or else I wouldn't be holding my position. 35 is more intriguing though.
I've argued why I think aggro should be better and why I think a lower life total hurts control and combo which I think are too powerful, etc, but I don't think it's really possible to make a good argument for why 30 life specifically is the right number, any more than 35 or 20 or 50.
The way I see it, the only way to REALLY figure out the right total is experimentation. Right now we've got one solid data point, which is what the format looks like at 40 life. We can presumably infer that lower life totals benefit aggro and midrange, and hurt control, combo, and ramp (as well as specific cards like necro and fetches). So the question is, are we satisfied with the balance at 40 life? Should we go lower, or higher, or stay the same?
My opinion is lower because I see the format as profoundly imbalanced, but idk that 30 is the number. It might be 35, it might be 20, it might be 5 (it's probably not 5). I can hazard a guess about the right number but there are way too many variables to make a good argument for anything specific. I just think we need to go lower.
I think that's still high enough to scare off enough low skilled players from misplaying aggro. I think 30 might as well, but not well enough, while sub 30 its no longer a deterrent.
I don't know how you think you know this. Even at 20 life, there's still 3 opponents which is a heavily uphill battle for aggro. Granted, I do think aggro would become a lot more popular and thus it would be less man-against-the-world, as mentioned, so I think the format would ultimately become aggro friendly, but I don't think that's guaranteed by any stretch.
Unless we actually change the life total this all sounds like wild speculation to me.
More importantly, I think what life total is right depends on how many players there are in a game. I think 40 is definitely too much when the game is large, 6+ players, but I think its about right with 4 or less, and I lean toward in being alright with 5. There should probably be a sliding scale with life totals decreasing as the number of players increases. 40 life for 4 or fewer, 35 for 5-6, 30 for 7-8.
Oh god it's been a long time since I did 7-8
I kinda like 120 life split. 40 for 3 players, 30 for 4 players, 24 for 5 players, 20 for 6.
I agree with the general sentiment but I'm dubious the RC would consider such a change. Plus it'd be kind of weird to have a card like necro that's absurd with higher life totals and potentially kind of bad with low enough ones.
Well, you're not going to have much luck getting aggro to punish those decks at 30 life. If Omniscience into Expropriate is happening turn 4, then aggro is boned,
That's a worst-case-scenario. In that game, against such a strong hand, sure, aggro loses. In another game, maybe Jodah doesn't have such a good hand and stumbles, giving aggro a chance to kill him before he gets out of control. Or the control player kills the jodah forcing him to regroup and giving aggro a chance to kill him first. Aggro isn't playing a 1v1 game here.
The goal isn't for aggro to beat Jodah when he has a god hand. The goal is to give aggro a fighting chance against an average hand.
I also consider such decks to be more in the combo realm that Battlecruiser, because cheating out haymakers that give you a bunch of free spells or extra turns is combo territory. Not all combos are infinite. Show and Tell sure as hell wasn't but fell under the combo umbrella nonetheless. I still see more traditional Battlecruiser on mtgo, especially when people label the games casual or power 5-6, and before the Rona it would still pop up in my playgroup unless we went with our higher power decks. But, just as theres aggro/control with Sygg dumping 2 and 3 drops while countering answers, maybe Battlecruiser/combo is a better descriptor for Jodah dumping out Omniscience/Expropriate or similar decks.
Even if we set Jodah and other spell-cheaters aside, when I see someone ramping into a big bomb, it's usually not some big beater anymore, which is what I think of as "battlecruiser". It's usually
expropriate or
Rise of the Dark Realms or
Torment of Hailfire or
Craterhoof Behemoth or
Emergent Ultimatum or
Nyxbloom Ancient or vorinclex or jin gitaxias or a T&N combo or some other gross thing. It's not cute, it's not fun, it's not interesting, it's the same crap over and over, whether it's cheated out or ramped out or just played on curve.
If you're actually seeing people hardcasting 7+ mana creatures that just beat face then I guess we're in the attack-butterfly situation again, because that's not the world I live in.