Killing commanders (permanently)

[gilrad]

I always liked natural balance and balancing act as a way to limit land ramp strategies without actually resorting to MLD. Both of them limit resources without preventing people from playing, and really only denies commanders that have built up a relatively large tax.

keldon firebombers is a good one too but three lands is a bit harsher than I prefer. I really wish there were more cards that set land count.

[DirkGently]

I love me a good thought experiment, but this thread strikes me as a somewhat putrid display of gamesmanship. You're going to deliberately try to permanently disable a fundamental, defining aspect of the format and gameplay experience for what exactly? To prove you can? To show that Korvold player who's boss because you couldn't be bothered to discuss that a t5 win is not within your ideal game today?

Honestly, the format is better if you don't break it. It's even better if everyone plays to maximize each player's chance at a good time. Nothing in this thread is going to make anyone's games better, but it might convince a few to do something else with their free time than play EDH with people who are actively trying to turn the games into highlander vintage.

EDIT: just remembered that this stuff was exactly what got Tuck the axe, now I'm concerned you all are gonna make those poor folks rewrite the rules again to cover this %$#% too.

As I said before, this thread is first and foremost a brainstorming thread. I'm just curious what sorts of things we can come up with. Things like the fakeout exile and fakeout tuck are pretty tricky and not immediately obvious - I think it's interesting to explore at least theoretically, even if they're almost certainly impractical. Call it a mental exercise.

As far as me personally, I've been running song of the dryads in Phelddagrif for a while, because there's invariably some commander that just can't live if the game is going to continue. And while it's probably still the best option, I am curious if there might be something more...durable. Now, you might say "just tell them you don't want that high power of a game"...but that's not exactly true. Phelddagrif is built to handle pretty competitive decks. And it wins at roughly the same high rate against most decks regardless of power level (to a point, at least). So for me to say "here's my deck that wins all the time, but please play at a lower power level against me" would look pretty hypocritical. Oftentimes the offending deck is playing at a higher level than the other two players. My goal with Phelddagrif is to balance the table by aiming my disruption at the most dangerous player. So I want tools that can bring that deck down to the power level of the other players.

If you sit down with an urza deck against people playing numot and rarity, imo you're basically taking advantage of the other players for a free win. But I can't be the one to say that, because my deck can still beat Urza. So instead I play the policeman keeping Urza in check. I could just keep countering and removing him every time he comes down, that is an option. I could wipe the board over and over so he never gets to get himself built up. Or I could just remove their commander from the game, and force them to play fair.

If, afterwards, they ask "why did you turn off my commander?" I can tell them "I didn't have a choice, you would have gotten out of control and won if I hadn't. If you don't want me to do that, then don't force me to do it." And if that means they choose to play something more balanced for the table, great. If it doesn't, then that's fine too - I can play a cEDH game over in the corner wrecking Urza's day, while the rest of the table plays regular EDH. If the urza player is going to put zero thought into what will make an enjoyable game for the other players, and just wants to get a free win, I'm happy to rectify the situation by giving them a worthy adversary.

[Ulka]

I've always been a solid fan of Grove of the Burnwillows and Punishing Fire to keep low toughness commanders in check.

One of my groups actually re-implemented tucking and man that group just feels better as you can solve things 'permanently'. Like you are always guaranteed your commander once, any more guarantee we decided feels like hand holding. Instead if you need to keep your commander we found you have to commit deck slots to protect it or find it again. If you have a steady group i recommend just talking to your group about it ugh I kinda hate i just quoted rule 0 but i mean it worked for me.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

I love me a good thought experiment, but this thread strikes me as a somewhat putrid display of gamesmanship. You're going to deliberately try to permanently disable a fundamental, defining aspect of the format and gameplay experience for what exactly? To prove you can? To show that Korvold player who's boss because you couldn't be bothered to discuss that a t5 win is not within your ideal game today?

Honestly, the format is better if you don't break it. It's even better if everyone plays to maximize each player's chance at a good time. Nothing in this thread is going to make anyone's games better, but it might convince a few to do something else with their free time than play EDH with people who are actively trying to turn the games into highlander vintage.

EDIT: just remembered that this stuff was exactly what got Tuck the axe, now I'm concerned you all are gonna make those poor folks rewrite the rules again to cover this %$#% too.

As I said before, this thread is first and foremost a brainstorming thread. I'm just curious what sorts of things we can come up with. Things like the fakeout exile and fakeout tuck are pretty tricky and not immediately obvious - I think it's interesting to explore at least theoretically, even if they're almost certainly impractical. Call it a mental exercise.

As far as me personally, I've been running song of the dryads in Phelddagrif for a while, because there's invariably some commander that just can't live if the game is going to continue. And while it's probably still the best option, I am curious if there might be something more...durable. Now, you might say "just tell them you don't want that high power of a game"...but that's not exactly true. Phelddagrif is built to handle pretty competitive decks. And it wins at roughly the same high rate against most decks regardless of power level (to a point, at least). So for me to say "here's my deck that wins all the time, but please play at a lower power level against me" would look pretty hypocritical. Oftentimes the offending deck is playing at a higher level than the other two players. My goal with Phelddagrif is to balance the table by aiming my disruption at the most dangerous player. So I want tools that can bring that deck down to the power level of the other players.

If you sit down with an urza deck against people playing numot and rarity, imo you're basically taking advantage of the other players for a free win. But I can't be the one to say that, because my deck can still beat Urza. So instead I play the policeman keeping Urza in check. I could just keep countering and removing him every time he comes down, that is an option. I could wipe the board over and over so he never gets to get himself built up. Or I could just remove their commander from the game, and force them to play fair.

If, afterwards, they ask "why did you turn off my commander?" I can tell them "I didn't have a choice, you would have gotten out of control and won if I hadn't. If you don't want me to do that, then don't force me to do it." And if that means they choose to play something more balanced for the table, great. If it doesn't, then that's fine too - I can play a cEDH game over in the corner wrecking Urza's day, while the rest of the table plays regular EDH. If the urza player is going to put zero thought into what will make an enjoyable game for the other players, and just wants to get a free win, I'm happy to rectify the situation by giving them a worthy adversary.

I don't think you understand my point. This entire "exercise" is based on idea that you're up against vile commanders, but rule zero says you don't have to play those games anyway. Just say, "Nah, I really don't think Urza is a good fit for this table", and poof! No Urza.

Why even invite someone to play if you're going to take their ball and go home? I can say certainly I would rather you just ask me to play a different deck than be bullied through a game on principle and a false sense of moral superiority.

[DirkGently]

I don't think you understand my point. This entire "exercise" is based on idea that you're up against vile commanders, but rule zero says you don't have to play those games anyway.

Rule 0 says nothing. I don't get to choose who I play against, it's an open meta. My only alternative much of the time is to walk away and not play at all. That said, I don't mind the challenge. I mean, I kinda wish wotc would stop printing such powerful cards, but I'd rather practice and stay sharp.

But I'd like to have the right tools for the job. Most likely song the dryads is the best option, but it's at least interesting to brainstorm alternatives.

And a final note - commanders aren't everything. Most gitfrog decks I've played are degenerate, but I've also played against a gitfrog deck that appeared to have a budget of maybe $20 and didn't do anything of significance all game. Once I'm in the game I can make the assessment of whether I need to erase their commander, or if it's going to be fine. Can't tell that just from looking at the commanders before the game starts.

Just say, "Nah, I really don't think Urza is a good fit for this table", and poof! No Urza.

More likely no me. It's an open meta. I wait for there to be 4 people to start a game, which can sometimes take quite a while. And a lot of time people don't have multiple decks, or they do but they want to play one of them specifically. If I have a problem with their choice of commander, I don't get to decide that they don't get to play it. Especially not when I'm playing a deck that CAN play at that level.

Why even invite someone to play if you're going to take their ball and go home?

I don't "invite" anyone, pods just coalesce as people show up and games end. I could choose not to join that pod, but then I'm waiting another who-knows-how-long for the next one. And as I said - I'm ok with the challenge, I just want to be well prepared.

But anyway, if they're playing a cEDH-level deck, playing the nastiest removal available isn't "taking their ball and going home". It's "playing at their level".

They don't get to play a cEDH deck and then request that nobody else interact with them the way one interacts with a cEDH deck. I'm not compelled to roll over and take it. If they're not pulling punches, neither am I.

a false sense of moral superiority.

Mhmm...

[Rumpy5897]

Rule zero is cute and all, but not always practically available. For example, you can pretty much write it off entirely when playing on Cockatrice, to the point where you're way more likely to encounter a predatory "casual no infinites" host blasting Armageddon than you are to have any meaningful power level discussion before the game. Casual means different things to different folks, I've had a Moat Kaalia with all the ugly fats tilt out at me for making infinite mana in a Patron of the Orochi deck. Talking power level is hard, especially with strangers. Everybody thinks they're a 7/10, and rooms disintegrate after one game anyway. So no chance to use the experience as burn-in and tailor accordingly.

That said, all the crazier measures should be just a thought experiment in an actual established group. Among friends, conversation should take precedent over Mindslaver pooping on commanders

[TheAmericanSpirit]

@DirkGently I play in a few metas (few different lgs's) regularly, and I've never seen a meta where people were so antisocial and cloistered as to force a table into CEDH regularly before. Honestly, we've been using Rule 0 a lot this year and it's vastly improved my games at least.

But hey, if you're as powerlessly incapable of pregame table talk as you imply, I guess maybe you do need the removal. I find this surprising considering your stated affinity for politics, but perhaps quarantine has turned your silver tongue to rust already?

[DirkGently]

I play in a few metas (few different lgs's) regularly, and I've never seen a meta where people were so antisocial and cloistered as to force a table into CEDH regularly before.

Some decks are actual cEDH, but I'd say a much higher percentage are cEDH-adjacent. Haven't seen any flash hulk or anything. But there are a fair number of dedicated combo decks. For the most part the other players don't raise much of an eyebrow and don't seem to be bothered much if they lose. I don't think I've ever seen anyone else request that somebody play a different deck, and definitely not on the first game. "Oh, that's his Urza deck, it's really good."

I think most of them are sort of in the phase of understanding of the format where they don't really know enough to understand the desirability of self-regulation. If someone has a powerful deck, it's because they're a better player, and other players aspire to be them. That sort of mindset. If somebody wants someone else to switch decks, it's not generally because they don't want to play at that power level - they want to, they aspire to, but they lack the ability (or $$$) to do so. So they ask the "superior" player to deign to play to their level.

I'll admit to a certain satisfaction in knocking those "superior" players down a peg.

But hey, if you're as powerlessly incapable of pregame table talk as you imply, I guess maybe you do need the removal.

As I've said, I'm okay playing against those decks. It's an opportunity to test the strength of my build.

Imo if you're playing cEDH, it's because you want a challenge, and that challenge is no-holds-barred. You're assuming these players are going to be sad about me neutering their deck, but that's kind of the goal in cEDH. No true cEDH player ever whined because another player took their toys away. They just resolved to play better next time.

If they are sad because they wanted an uncontested win and I got in the way of that, screw 'em. I don't cater to bad attitudes.

I find this surprising considering your stated affinity for politics, but perhaps quarantine has turned your silver tongue to rust already?

Silver doesn't rust. Also I haven't played a game of magic since the quarantine began in earnest (which has been a little over two weeks here in NZ). But not to worry, I've been talking to myself a lot, so my tongue is as loose as ever. If anything I'm probably talking MORE.

As much as I enjoy the compliment, the cake that is politics in commander is baked with 90% threat assessment, understanding what your opponents want, how each player sees the board, etc...with a frosting on top of 10% smooth talking, and that's probably my weakest point as a player. I'm probably pretty close to the median magic player in terms of my awkwardness at interpersonal communication, I'm mostly just good at reading the table and seeing novel ways to take advantage of it. So none of that is of particular use when the goal is to talk someone out of playing a particular deck. But as I said, for the most part I'm happy to accept their challenge, I just don't aim to bring a knife to a gun fight.

[materpillar]

I don't think you understand my point. This entire "exercise" is based on idea that you're up against vile commanders, but rule zero says you don't have to play those games anyway. Just say, "Nah, I really don't think Urza is a good fit for this table", and poof! No Urza.

Why even invite someone to play if you're going to take their ball and go home? I can say certainly I would rather you just ask me to play a different deck than be bullied through a game on principle and a false sense of moral superiority.

I don't really understand your stance here. There's a ton of commanders that are extremely likely to just end the game in one or maybe two turn cycles if left unattended to completely independent of the deck.

How do you ignore stuff like Kaalia of the Vast, Chulane, Teller of Tales, Animar, Soul of Elements, or Korvold, Fae-Cursed King? Even when built at a 75% level, all those decks can easily gain insurmountable advantages if their commander sticks around for more than a turn. Heaven forbid they get two full turn cycles. None of these commanders are oppressive by any means, but they gotta die every time they're cast or they'll just run away with the game.

Yuriko, the Tiger's Shadow, Atla Palani, Nest Tender, Krenko, Mob Boss. These decks are super popular. I can't just blanket ban on commanders that are extremely powerful if they stick. I'd never get a game in with anyone.

I love me a good thought experiment, but this thread strikes me as a somewhat putrid display of gamesmanship. You're going to deliberately try to permanently disable a fundamental, defining aspect of the format and gameplay experience for what exactly? To prove you can? To show that Korvold player who's boss because you couldn't be bothered to discuss that a t5 win is not within your ideal game today?

If you sit down with Niv-Mizzet, The Firemind. I have every right to doom blade him the moment he hits the table every single time, up to and including when he's 20 mana because if you untap I'll likely die to curiosity. If your general is a kill-on-sight threat and I deal with him as such, that's on you for picking him not on me for take the appropriate counter-measures to not die. That doesn't mean I'm out to ruin your fun specifically but I'd also like to play magic and watching you dredge your deck or play a free Eldrazi isn't going to allow me to do that.

I have a Shirei, Shizo's Caretaker deck. If they don't kill Shirei, he'll likely kill everyone within a turn cycle or two. Watching him get kicked in the teeth three times a game is what I sign up for every time I want to play that deck. If I wanted to cast my general and watch him never die ever I'd play dirkgently's Phelddagrif deck.

[pokken]

Honestly I think making a list of "this commander centralizes the game too damn much" commanders would be probably one of the most impactful things for having good games of commander that could be done.

Just...don't play stuff on this list. No Brago, no Animar, etc.

It's funny I'm so against these guys given that 6 of my decks are made up of them (5 golos and 1 Maelstrom wanderer) but it's really got me thinking about changing those decks significantly -- cutting the ability to activate golos straight up for example from the mono colored golos decks (no more cascading cataracts for instance).

As an essentially rule 0'd subformat I could see it working out pretty well.

[toctheyounger]

Personally, I play most of my magic online - like Rumpy mentioned, these games are pickup and run with it. You don't a second shake at what people play and fine tuning the meta. Yesterday I playtested my Purph 2.0 deck against The Mimeoplasm, Teneb, the Harvester and Kurkesh, Onnake Ancient. Honestly expected to be punching downwards, until Kurkesh set up a Mindslaver lock and forced me to sac my commander and the ooze to exile it. There literally is no meta, you take what you get and roll with it. No tilt from me, I've become used to just rolling with whatever happens and I still had fun. The point is Rule 0 can't be used in every game. It's already hard enough playing via computer screen, having that discussion with people you've literally never seen or talked to before is just an exercise in futility. The best you can do is strive for balance during the game and see what happens.

I find this surprising considering your stated affinity for politics, but perhaps quarantine has turned your silver tongue to rust already?

Not so subtle shade aside, there's often no scope for this conversation in games, especially at the LGS Dirk frequents. It's been a while since I've been there, but the games at this store really are 'pickup and run with it' games, and the people who frequent the store vary massively between competitive spikes and Kemba, Kha Regent 'Cat in the Hat' tribal (seriously, have had a good chuckle with one of the staff about this deck of his).

Having also met Dirk and being generally a bit socially anxious myself, there's no need for this jibe. You're making it sound like Dirk is Grima Wormtongue from Lord of the Rings and that's not true, nor is implying it productive to the discussion. In the same context of Dirk's meta, most people would struggle to have the rule 0 discussion, and I know from personal experience I'd rather not bother and just deal with whatever happens throughout the game as it happens.

I feel like it's a little disingenuous to pretend that there aren't 'must answer' commanders out there. Something as Timmy as Gishath, Sun's Avatar can take over a game (can confirm, my wife's dino deck is pretty warping), then there's Spike commanders like Marchesa, the Black Rose and Meren of Clan Nel Toth. These are popular commanders. You will see them, and it's absolutely right to make it hard for a deck with one of these or others at the helm to function. All of them are free value and hard to put down, and as I mentioned before, they damn well know it. They expect their commander to be removed repeatedly, and build ways into their decks to work around it. To then say that we're not good sports for letting people get away with dominating a table is a little disappointing to say the least.

[Cyberium]

I love me a good thought experiment, but this thread strikes me as a somewhat putrid display of gamesmanship. You're going to deliberately try to permanently disable a fundamental, defining aspect of the format and gameplay experience for what exactly? To prove you can? To show that Korvold player who's boss because you couldn't be bothered to discuss that a t5 win is not within your ideal game today?

Ability to remove a troublesome card had always been an essential part of the game. If there's a troubling commander in play, the table is going to nuke it till it's too expensive to show up again, and that's entirely fair. It falls onto individual players to have removal/protection of their own to kill the cards that kept your commander at bay, or at least let their commander "die" and run back to CZ.

[Kavu Enthusiast]

If someone has a powerful deck, it's because they're a better player, and other players aspire to be them. That sort of mindset.

Literally one of the worst qualities/mindsets among the average magic player honestly, especially when it's an assumption they make about themselves instead of others; that they are a better player than others simple by the process of their choice to play nakedly broken degenerate cards in casual play, as if they were able to evaluate the card as powerful when others weren't or some self serving logic. As if it were hard to look at a card that is so good it's a mistake it was printed see that it's powerful.

A similar situation seems to occur with the idea that exploiting the obviously lax rules of a casual format that are super permissive of combo and make it rather easy somehow makes you a smarter or better player. Instead of the reality of just being someone choosing to play overpowered combos in a casual format that puts that archetype on easy mode.

The conflation of power of cards and competitiveness of play is a common trope among too many players than can't be dispossessed of it. Parity of power levels and playskill and optimal deck building within self imposed themes.or restrictions don't register as the actual measurements.of competition or player ability. It's a very frustrating sort of person to deal with, especially if you are forced to deal with them regularly.