How would a commander with adventure work?

ilovesaprolings
Posts: 328
Joined: 10 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Been thanked: 55 times

Post by ilovesaprolings » 6 months ago

I don't know if i should post here or in the rules section, but i'll try here
Maro said multiple times that they didn't make any legendary cards with adventure to avoid weird rules with commander and the command zone.
So, how would exactly a legend with adventure work? I assume that you can freely cast both parts and the weird thing is that the spell and the creature have to different command taxes.

User avatar
Serenade
UnderKing
Posts: 438
Joined: 10 months ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Post by Serenade » 6 months ago

Nah, same tax. It would suck. You Adventure and then it goes back to general zone. Gonna pay a ton of general tax on this legend. Better hope it's green, so you can use Myth Unbound.

Jenn Ravenna's alt art will be AMAZING.
Expand Signature
All Rats have fear.

ilovesaprolings
Posts: 328
Joined: 10 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Been thanked: 55 times

Post by ilovesaprolings » 6 months ago

Serenade wrote:
6 months ago
You Adventure and then it goes back to general zone.
Can't you adventure, exile it and then cast the creature for the normal cost?

User avatar
JovialJovian
Posts: 434
Joined: 10 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 51 times

Post by JovialJovian » 6 months ago

You have the choice to send your commander back to the command zone when it would change zones.

Therefore if you cast it for its adventure, when the adventure resolves you would have the choice to put it into exile or back into the command zone. The same principle that applies if your commander gets Dissipated, it doesn't automatically go to either exile or to the command zone, you get to pick.

If you put it into exile, you would then be able to cast it for it's base cost from there. Commander tax only applies to spells cast from the command zone, since it's now in exile that wouldn't apply, but the rules for Adventures would.

The question would be if the commander tax is applied to both the legend and the adventure, or if it is separate since they are differently named spells. You could argue that they are different spells in the manner of Partners, and that you would track two taxes for them. Or you could argue that they're one card, and that the tax is applied per card, not per named spell. I'm definitely of the latter opinion, that one tax would accumulate for the card regardless of which part you decide to cast.

User avatar
Serenade
UnderKing
Posts: 438
Joined: 10 months ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Post by Serenade » 6 months ago

Oh, no, I mean they would MAKE it go back to general zone regardless. Like Yuriko but not helpful. "Commander Adventure"
Expand Signature
All Rats have fear.

onering
Posts: 317
Joined: 10 months ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Has thanked: 138 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post by onering » 6 months ago

JovialJovian wrote:
6 months ago
You have the choice to send your commander back to the command zone when it would change zones.

Therefore if you cast it for its adventure, when the adventure resolves you would have the choice to put it into exile or back into the command zone. The same principle that applies if your commander gets Dissipated, it doesn't automatically go to either exile or to the command zone, you get to pick.

If you put it into exile, you would then be able to cast it for it's base cost from there. Commander tax only applies to spells cast from the command zone, since it's now in exile that wouldn't apply, but the rules for Adventures would.

The question would be if the commander tax is applied to both the legend and the adventure, or if it is separate since they are differently named spells. You could argue that they are different spells in the manner of Partners, and that you would track two taxes for them. Or you could argue that they're one card, and that the tax is applied per card, not per named spell. I'm definitely of the latter opinion, that one tax would accumulate for the card regardless of which part you decide to cast.
Given how split cards are treated, with their CMC when not on the stack being the combined CMC of both cards, I believe that would support the latter (its one card with accumulated tax no matter how it was cast).

It would actually be quite an interesting mechanic for a commander. Depending on the adventure, it provides a neat choice everytime you cast it to either exile it so you can cast the creature at cost or return it to the zone so you can cast the adventure again. That is of course in addition to the tension between casting the creature asap or waiting until the adventure is most relevant. Depending on how expensive the adventure itself is to cast, it could even serve as a functional way around commander tax. Take Beanstalk Giant as an example. If it were a commander, its base cost would be 7, so lets say you cast it twice already, now it costs 11 to cast from the zone. Instead, you could cast its adventure for 7, then next turn cast the giant from exile for 7. Its more mana overall, but you get the adventure spell in the balance and get to split the cost over two turns, potentially letting you cast your commander in situations you normally wouldn't be able to, like being stuck at 9 mana. Obviously beanstalk giant isnt the greatest example since the adventure ramps you, but I think its a good example in terms of mana cost differences between adventure and creature. Like, imagine its a blue legend and the adventure is U: instant Draw a card and the creature is 3UU and something reasonable for that CMC. In this case its best to just end of turn cast the cantrip adventure then cast the creature at cost on your turn.

User avatar
hyalopterouslemur
Posts: 885
Joined: 10 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Post by hyalopterouslemur » 6 months ago

Serenade wrote:
6 months ago
Oh, no, I mean they would MAKE it go back to general zone regardless. Like Yuriko but not helpful. "Commander Adventure"
The rules say going back to the command zone is not required. It's just that, when exiled, it's usually better to go back to the command zone, for obvious reasons. (And if it's something like O-Ring or Parallax Wave, yeah, it's a trap.) However, something like (I don't know) killing Kokusho, the Evening Star, you want that death trigger, which going to the command zone doesn't give you.

That said, n00bs would just play it as a spell and put it back in the command zone most of the time.
Expand Signature
Thanks to Feyd_Ruin for the avatar!

User avatar
bobthefunny
Posts: 279
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Post by bobthefunny » 6 months ago

Assuming a Legendary Creature, with regular Adventure.

When you cast the card from the Command Zone, you would have the choice to cast it either as an Adventure, or as a Creature. Either way, you will pay any applicable Command Tax. If you choose Creature, it behaves like a normal Commander, obviously.

If you choose to cast it as an Adventure, you will have the choice when it resolves as to whether to Exile it (via Adventure), or Command Zone it (as it's a Commander). If you Exile it, Adventure then lets you cast the creature half from Exile as normal (and no tax applies). If you Command Zone it, you could cast either half again, but note that the Command tax will be applicable again (and will have gone up).

This also does funky things with how you pay the tax. If the spell half is cheaper than the creature (image a card with an extreme disparity for sake of example, Adventure costs W, and the Creature costs 5WW), you can essentially always use the spell half to split the Commander cost into more manageable pieces. With the example given, you could cast the adventure half for W, then 2W, then 4W, etc... all while your 7 cost Commander remains at 7, allowing you to continue to play your high cost Commander even on a low land count.

The opposite side has a bit less of that problem, but then you run into deck designs that try to bounce the Commander back to hand to replay the spell (especially if the high-cost spell is powerful). If the combo should be disrupted, the deck is able to replay the creature half cheaply to bounce back to hand and start over. No Adventure card actually has enough value to actually encourage this... but who knows.

So, if the spell half is too strong, you could simply end up having a spell in the Command Zone that costs 2 more to cast each time. If the spell costs less than the Commander, you can get into interesting situations where the split Command tax can make deferred payments easier.

My guess is that they didn't want to tackle the "having a spell as a Commander" just yet, though Adventure seems like a way to do it.
JovialJovian wrote:
6 months ago
The question would be if the commander tax is applied to both the legend and the adventure, or if it is separate since they are differently named spells. You could argue that they are different spells in the manner of Partners, and that you would track two taxes for them. Or you could argue that they're one card, and that the tax is applied per card, not per named spell. I'm definitely of the latter opinion, that one tax would accumulate for the card regardless of which part you decide to cast.
Yes, the way the rules are currently written, whichever side of the "Commander with Adventure" you cast - if you cast it from Command Zone, would increase the Tax.

The Commander is the card itself, and this includes both 'halves'. Alternate costs still each apply the tax. You do raise the point that this could be initially confusing to a new player, but I don't think it's a lasting or complicated confusion.
Expand Signature
Trostani | Aryel | Linden | Kenrith (5CS) | Yeva | Rashmi

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Commander”