The fact remains, if you play in a metagame where people are trying to build strong quality decks, it is simply too hard to win without resorting to some kind of combo.
So THIS is a fact? No, this is also an opinion, and a misinformed one at that. Plenty of EDH games get played that no one combos out the table, even when people are trying to make quality decks. Answers happen at good tables, so do fun and interesting decks that don't win with combo.
I agree with Kahno. If the meta is actually GOOD decks, you are typically only going to see combo or control (and most control I've seen win with a combo eventually....)
I agree with Kahno. If the meta is actually GOOD decks, you are typically only going to see combo or control (and most control I've seen win with a combo eventually....)
*Competitive. Most competitve metas are made up of combo decks. Just because it isn't a competitive deck doesn't mean it's bad.
That said, in a competitive meta lowering the life total to 30 isn't going to help aggro decks much. The still likely won't win before someone combos off, and there is likely more than one deck that would need to be focused down.
Ok. Show me a list of a true aggro deck then. I haven't seen one that takes the entire field of 4 or more players.
A tuned Purphoros can take a full table. If I'm not mistaken, Beusapo has a solid decklist in the multiplayer forum. But that's beside the point. Currently, all aggro builds need something extra to actually carry out their aggro plan: control elements, extra turns, stax elements, etc. If we officially reduced the life totals, these elements would become less needed and pure aggro deck would get a better chance to shine.
The fact remains, if you play in a metagame where people are trying to build strong quality decks, it is simply too hard to win without resorting to some kind of combo.
So THIS is a fact? No, this is also an opinion, and a misinformed one at that. Plenty of EDH games get played that no one combos out the table, even when people are trying to make quality decks. Answers happen at good tables, so do fun and interesting decks that don't win with combo.
I apologize. In such a discussion, we are always dealing with opinions and I was too hasty in my labeling. My opinion is, however, not misinformed. If you have a table of tuned decks (and that's what I mean by "quality"), decks that don't include a combo finish are at a disadvantage. There are a few exceptions, of course. One of them is a stax-heavy environment. Combos are severely handicapped there.
The main advantage of combos over continuous damage: while they are both being handled in a quality game, the combo most be handled much more strictly. If you are resorting to continuous damage, there are high chances, that you will experience a major setback (a sweeper slips through) that will have minimal effect on the combo player. While you start to rebuild, the combo player will accumulate enough resources to reliably combo off. The last scenario has happened countless times in my meta. If nobody plays combo in a quality meta (perhaps due to an agreement), this problem logically never arises. But as soon as there is a smart combo player present, non-combo players (players that have NO combo finishers) are at a disadvantage. They may still win, but they are fighting an uphill battle. A battle that is even harder due to 40 life totals.
As you all can see.. the NO votes have it.. Stop tryin to tweak the game guys there is nothing wrong with it!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
**** this site. I'd delete this account but that doesn't seem to be an option. The mods here are ******* useless ********s who ban people for simple ass normal words. **** them and **** this site.
I apologize. In such a discussion, we are always dealing with opinions and I was too hasty in my labeling. My opinion is, however, not misinformed. If you have a table of tuned decks (and that's what I mean by "quality"), decks that don't include a combo finish are at a disadvantage. There are a few exceptions, of course. One of them is a stax-heavy environment. Combos are severely handicapped there.
Understood, but that's ONLY if people care about winning over having fun and/or enjoy combo. There are a lot of groups who detest it, and lowering the life total would give agro more traction against other decks in such an environment.
As you all can see.. the NO votes have it.. Stop tryin to tweak the game guys there is nothing wrong with it!
Even as a staunch RC supporter I would not say there is 'nothing wrong'. Stagnation is a real thing, and the opinion of a small fringe group (MTGS or any other forum) does not represent the whole. It does tend to cover all the bases and have some interesting discussions though.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
i'v played at 30 life many times and it did not change the game at all. If the deck isn't winning at 40 life it does not win more at 30.
Changing the starting life is an ineffective way to spice up the game.
Banning and unbanning of cards or variants of play such as archenemy or emperor are good ways to spice things up.
In such discussions it is expected that each side presents arguments that support its case. Simply saying "changing life totals doesn't work" is not very constructive. Also archenemy-style variants are a completely different topic which should be adressed in a different thread altogether.
I like control as much as anybody, but sometimes, I feel having 40 life is too much. You know much life I can pay before I start to worry? Like 20-30.
In Sharuum, I can get to 3, and then just copy Magister Shpinx to get back in the game. Pretty sweet right?
I mean, I can get 3v1'd and still come back.
Real fair right? Oh shucks, if we have 10 less life, I would screw around less and actually try to play better.
Overall, EDH makes you a worst player and play recklessly. I mean why would anyone turn 1 Fetch land into a shock just to cast Top, Sol Ring, or Vampiric Tutor. The massive amount of life is why you can off those really terrible plays.
If anyone of you scrubs on here are from Portland, why don't you play me a game at Time Vault? Let's test your little theory on why 40 life is great.
Heck I play 20 life EDH with no general, and my decks do fine. Just play more reliable and you don't have to worry about getting your general tucked. Don't cast it, and that solves the whole problem right there.
Infraction for trolling / flaming. Please refrain from attacking players and playgroups. -ISB
But yeah, I do agree with you, playing T1 Fetch->Shock->Vampiric = 5 life lost, if you're playing at starting life of 20 that's 25 % now I would be willing to pay that if it would lead to a guaranteed back breaking play next turn, otherwise? Not so much. So yes, 40 life does help players make bad plays and as a control player that usually wins with a beatdown I would cry a little inside if starting life in my group went back up to 40, then I'd go back to playing combo ...
The bolded statement is exactly the point us players who support the 30 life side are trying to make. The overall gameplay is more balanced with 30 life and it brings more strategies into the picture. I also like playing more games in a session and the amount definitely goes up.
The bolded statement is exactly the point us players who support the 30 life side are trying to make. The overall gameplay is more balanced with 30 life and it brings more strategies into the picture. I also like playing more games in a session and the amount definitely goes up.
It also kills some decks, while just encouraging more ruthless combo decks. I doubt I'd ever get to use my Patron deck again, and it's one of the most fair in our group, even though it's a combo deck. The change wouldn't even stop Oona though, the deck generally tries to win turn three, and I'd rather not be stuck playing that deck every time I wanna switch it up from creature based strategies. I'm guessing it would also make my Marath deck pretty I fun to play against. I'm so guessing that it doesn't really help aggro decks against fast combo, just slower combo decks.
If it works in your group, that's fantastic. I just think that it should be an optional rule, rather than a blanket rule for every group.
The bolded statement is exactly the point us players who support the 30 life side are trying to make. The overall gameplay is more balanced with 30 life and it brings more strategies into the picture. I also like playing more games in a session and the amount definitely goes up.
It also kills some decks, while just encouraging more ruthless combo decks. I doubt I'd ever get to use my Patron deck again, and it's one of the most fair in our group, even though it's a combo deck. The change wouldn't even stop Oona though, the deck generally tries to win turn three, and I'd rather not be stuck playing that deck every time I wanna switch it up from creature based strategies. I'm guessing it would also make my Marath deck pretty I fun to play against. I'm so guessing that it doesn't really help aggro decks against fast combo, just slower combo decks.
If it works in your group, that's fantastic. I just think that it should be an optional rule, rather than a blanket rule for every group.
If the Oona deck can goldfish combo out on turn three fairly consistently, then wouldn't some disruption and added aggro pressure from starting at 30 life be more difficult to overcome for that player? It is generally agreed upon that combo strategies, fast or slow, will be more beatable with less life to start. Also as others have mentioned including myself, that combo player freely spending life points to tutor or draw cards for whatever he/she needs will have more difficulty doing so with 10 less life to start. All-in combo strategies will need to be re-tooled and become more interactive and defensive. Isn't that a good thing?
I would recommend simply trying it in your playgroup before casting judgment. If games aren't as fun for everyone then you can easily switch back.
The bolded statement is exactly the point us players who support the 30 life side are trying to make. The overall gameplay is more balanced with 30 life and it brings more strategies into the picture. I also like playing more games in a session and the amount definitely goes up.
It also kills some decks, while just encouraging more ruthless combo decks. I doubt I'd ever get to use my Patron deck again, and it's one of the most fair in our group, even though it's a combo deck. The change wouldn't even stop Oona though, the deck generally tries to win turn three, and I'd rather not be stuck playing that deck every time I wanna switch it up from creature based strategies. I'm guessing it would also make my Marath deck pretty I fun to play against. I'm so guessing that it doesn't really help aggro decks against fast combo, just slower combo decks.
If it works in your group, that's fantastic. I just think that it should be an optional rule, rather than a blanket rule for every group.
If the Oona deck can goldfish combo out on turn three fairly consistently, then wouldn't some disruption and added aggro pressure from starting at 30 life be more difficult to overcome for that player? It is generally agreed upon that combo strategies, fast or slow, will be more beatable with less life to start. Also as others have mentioned including myself, that combo player freely spending life points to tutor or draw cards for whatever he/she needs will have more difficulty doing so with 10 less life to start. All-in combo strategies will need to be re-tooled and become more interactive and defensive. Isn't that a good thing?
I would recommend simply trying it in your playgroup before casting judgment. If games aren't as fun for everyone then you can easily switch back.
I'm not referring to goldfishing. There are enough control decks in our group that someone is usually playing countrol each game, and if I can't go off on turn three, I probably don't have the resources to combo and fight the blue player for my spells to resolve. At that point, I turn into a faerie aggro deck with a bit of control to stop other people's shennanigans, and I have ten less life to eat through for everyone else, while having instant speed chump blockers.
I did bring this up with my playgroup last night actually and it was recieved with a unanimous no. Those of us who do play combat oriented decks feel like in our group it would swing it too hard into the favor of burn and combat decks, mainly being the majority of my decks, and Kaervek deck, a Zo-Zu deck, and a couple others without really adding anything new and harming some of the more casual decks. I guess an upside would be that it makes Lovisa kind of viable, but that deck's not supposed to be super good. It's my, let's all play mono red deck.
My point was, I don't think it should become a normal rule. If the change is becomes popular enough, then maybe they could work a paragraph into the rules section of the Commander website about choosing one of the two starting life totals, based on what would be best for your playgroup. Then again, that could also be confusing but it should be a group choice to drop to 30 instead of 40.
The bolded statement is exactly the point us players who support the 30 life side are trying to make. The overall gameplay is more balanced with 30 life and it brings more strategies into the picture. I also like playing more games in a session and the amount definitely goes up.
It also kills some decks, while just encouraging more ruthless combo decks. I doubt I'd ever get to use my Patron deck again, and it's one of the most fair in our group, even though it's a combo deck. The change wouldn't even stop Oona though, the deck generally tries to win turn three, and I'd rather not be stuck playing that deck every time I wanna switch it up from creature based strategies. I'm guessing it would also make my Marath deck pretty I fun to play against. I'm so guessing that it doesn't really help aggro decks against fast combo, just slower combo decks.
If it works in your group, that's fantastic. I just think that it should be an optional rule, rather than a blanket rule for every group.
If the Oona deck can goldfish combo out on turn three fairly consistently, then wouldn't some disruption and added aggro pressure from starting at 30 life be more difficult to overcome for that player? It is generally agreed upon that combo strategies, fast or slow, will be more beatable with less life to start. Also as others have mentioned including myself, that combo player freely spending life points to tutor or draw cards for whatever he/she needs will have more difficulty doing so with 10 less life to start. All-in combo strategies will need to be re-tooled and become more interactive and defensive. Isn't that a good thing?
I would recommend simply trying it in your playgroup before casting judgment. If games aren't as fun for everyone then you can easily switch back.
I'm not referring to goldfishing. There are enough control decks in our group that someone is usually playing countrol each game, and if I can't go off on turn three, I probably don't have the resources to combo and fight the blue player for my spells to resolve. At that point, I turn into a faerie aggro deck with a bit of control to stop other people's shennanigans, and I have ten less life to eat through for everyone else, while having instant speed chump blockers.
I did bring this up with my playgroup last night actually and it was recieved with a unanimous no. Those of us who do play combat oriented decks feel like in our group it would swing it too hard into the favor of burn and combat decks, mainly being the majority of my decks, and Kaervek deck, a Zo-Zu deck, and a couple others without really adding anything new and harming some of the more casual decks. I guess an upside would be that it makes Lovisa kind of viable, but that deck's not supposed to be super good. It's my, let's all play mono red deck.
My point was, I don't think it should become a normal rule. If the change is becomes popular enough, then maybe they could work a paragraph into the rules section of the Commander website about choosing one of the two starting life totals, based on what would be best for your playgroup. Then again, that could also be confusing but it should be a group choice to drop to 30 instead of 40.
Well either way it would be a playgroup decision to do 30 or 40 life so it doesn't really matter right? My playgroup was hesitant to the change at first but once we starting playing it just felt better. Just like with all those people in the Rumor Mill subforum here declaring a new spoiler complete jank without any playtesting, you truly won't know how it plays out until testing.
Casual decks matched up against tuned high power decks will always be at a disadvantage, but you need to keep in mind that in a multiplayer free-for-all, threat assessment and politics play a huge role and will change the outcome. It sounds like your Oona deck is the highest power level in the group so I don't see why it would harm the others if they team up on you considering your deck can combo out so fast.
The bolded statement is exactly the point us players who support the 30 life side are trying to make. The overall gameplay is more balanced with 30 life and it brings more strategies into the picture. I also like playing more games in a session and the amount definitely goes up.
It also kills some decks, while just encouraging more ruthless combo decks. I doubt I'd ever get to use my Patron deck again, and it's one of the most fair in our group, even though it's a combo deck. The change wouldn't even stop Oona though, the deck generally tries to win turn three, and I'd rather not be stuck playing that deck every time I wanna switch it up from creature based strategies. I'm guessing it would also make my Marath deck pretty I fun to play against. I'm so guessing that it doesn't really help aggro decks against fast combo, just slower combo decks.
If it works in your group, that's fantastic. I just think that it should be an optional rule, rather than a blanket rule for every group.
If the Oona deck can goldfish combo out on turn three fairly consistently, then wouldn't some disruption and added aggro pressure from starting at 30 life be more difficult to overcome for that player? It is generally agreed upon that combo strategies, fast or slow, will be more beatable with less life to start. Also as others have mentioned including myself, that combo player freely spending life points to tutor or draw cards for whatever he/she needs will have more difficulty doing so with 10 less life to start. All-in combo strategies will need to be re-tooled and become more interactive and defensive. Isn't that a good thing?
I would recommend simply trying it in your playgroup before casting judgment. If games aren't as fun for everyone then you can easily switch back.
I'm not referring to goldfishing. There are enough control decks in our group that someone is usually playing countrol each game, and if I can't go off on turn three, I probably don't have the resources to combo and fight the blue player for my spells to resolve. At that point, I turn into a faerie aggro deck with a bit of control to stop other people's shennanigans, and I have ten less life to eat through for everyone else, while having instant speed chump blockers.
I did bring this up with my playgroup last night actually and it was recieved with a unanimous no. Those of us who do play combat oriented decks feel like in our group it would swing it too hard into the favor of burn and combat decks, mainly being the majority of my decks, and Kaervek deck, a Zo-Zu deck, and a couple others without really adding anything new and harming some of the more casual decks. I guess an upside would be that it makes Lovisa kind of viable, but that deck's not supposed to be super good. It's my, let's all play mono red deck.
My point was, I don't think it should become a normal rule. If the change is becomes popular enough, then maybe they could work a paragraph into the rules section of the Commander website about choosing one of the two starting life totals, based on what would be best for your playgroup. Then again, that could also be confusing but it should be a group choice to drop to 30 instead of 40.
Wait, so you're saying you have an Oona deck that consistently combos off turn 3 through disruption and can also turn into an aggro deck? I call exaggeration. If your deck is so strong that you can control others and kill them with physical attacks on a bad day, something is probably wrong with your playgroup (your opponents are bad). In any case, lowering life totals is beneficial regardless of the type of decks are present at the table. Even 2/2 creatures will make a difference if they attack dilligently at a reckless 30 life player.
Wait, so you're saying you have an Oona deck that consistently combos off turn 3 through disruption and can also turn into an aggro deck? I call exaggeration. If your deck is so strong that you can control others and kill them with physical attacks on a bad day, something is probably wrong with your playgroup (your opponents are bad). In any case, lowering life totals is beneficial regardless of the type of decks are present at the table. Even 2/2 creatures will make a difference if they attack dilligently at a reckless 30 life player.
So, you missed my point, but sure, let's walk through this. I built that deck with my older brother, not to use with my playgroup but to take with me against my siblings and cousins, where they all play some of control, with a win condition of either their own combo or slower goodstuff aggro. Technically, I can go off at any point but I have to wait for them to fight a counter war over something else and try to resolve like a Teferi on someone else's turn. But In the mean time, I have a 5/5 flier who makes 1/1 faeries with her ability. There is one mono blue deck in that group, so all I need to do is mill him. Bonus points if I can exile a win condition while I'm at it, but tat does give me a bunch of faeries that can attack on my turn. If I can resolve anything that boosts them by +1/+1 turns Oona herself into a four turn clock, and... 2/2 fliers, which as you say is relevant because I'm not the only person swinging. I can also win by milling someone out (without combo), but it's pretty slow and clunky. The deck runs every tutor I could cram in, so it's not that hard to grab Grim Monolith and Power artifact. I'm not saying I consistently win on turn three, but I consistently try to go off before people have the resources to stop me.. Sometimes it works, a lot of times it doesn't and I have to switch tactics.
Also, my main point with this, is that against aggro decks who may not have that kind of counterspell disruption, ten less like won't matter in a lot of cases. There are always exceptions. My other combo deck already struggles against aggro, as it's a lot slower. If someone wanted to kill me while I was playing that deck just because they were afraid of mono blue, I don't know how well I could stop them. There are creatures, but not many and I value most of them too much to let them die if I can avoid it.
Now, for the actual point of all this, I brought up trying the change with my playgroup, which I guess you skipped over that part. It was decided that it wouldn't be a healthy change for the group. Despite the fact that I used combo decks as examples, it's really not a combo heavy meta. There are dozens of burn and combat oriented decks that we feel don't need help. My biggest point was the rule shouldn't be for everyone. Personally I think it should stay a house rule, but there are a lot of people who think that it should be an official rule, so instead I was proposing a compromise where it isn't a blanket rule either way. Which was the part I would have preferred to have a discussion about.
Wait, so you're saying you have an Oona deck that consistently combos off turn 3 through disruption and can also turn into an aggro deck? I call exaggeration. If your deck is so strong that you can control others and kill them with physical attacks on a bad day, something is probably wrong with your playgroup (your opponents are bad). In any case, lowering life totals is beneficial regardless of the type of decks are present at the table. Even 2/2 creatures will make a difference if they attack dilligently at a reckless 30 life player.
So, you missed my point, but sure, let's walk through this. I built that deck with my older brother, not to use with my playgroup but to take with me against my siblings and cousins, where they all play some of control, with a win condition of either their own combo or slower goodstuff aggro. Technically, I can go off at any point but I have to wait for them to fight a counter war over something else and try to resolve like a Teferi on someone else's turn. But In the mean time, I have a 5/5 flier who makes 1/1 faeries with her ability. There is one mono blue deck in that group, so all I need to do is mill him. Bonus points if I can exile a win condition while I'm at it, but tat does give me a bunch of faeries that can attack on my turn. If I can resolve anything that boosts them by +1/+1 turns Oona herself into a four turn clock, and... 2/2 fliers, which as you say is relevant because I'm not the only person swinging. I can also win by milling someone out (without combo), but it's pretty slow and clunky. The deck runs every tutor I could cram in, so it's not that hard to grab Grim Monolith and Power artifact. I'm not saying I consistently win on turn three, but I consistently try to go off before people have the resources to stop me.. Sometimes it works, a lot of times it doesn't and I have to switch tactics.
Also, my main point with this, is that against aggro decks who may not have that kind of counterspell disruption, ten less like won't matter in a lot of cases. There are always exceptions. My other combo deck already struggles against aggro, as it's a lot slower. If someone wanted to kill me while I was playing that deck just because they were afraid of mono blue, I don't know how well I could stop them. There are creatures, but not many and I value most of them too much to let them die if I can avoid it.
Now, for the actual point of all this, I brought up trying the change with my playgroup, which I guess you skipped over that part. It was decided that it wouldn't be a healthy change for the group. Despite the fact that I used combo decks as examples, it's really not a combo heavy meta. There are dozens of burn and combat oriented decks that we feel don't need help. My biggest point was the rule shouldn't be for everyone. Personally I think it should stay a house rule, but there are a lot of people who think that it should be an official rule, so instead I was proposing a compromise where it isn't a blanket rule either way. Which was the part I would have preferred to have a discussion about.
Edit: Because whatever I quoted was huge. O.o
I understand your point. However, my point was to consider the big picture of how the 10 life difference will affect the playgroup metagame and strategy. Everyone's decks would not be exactly the same if your house rule were to change. There would be more defensive tactics as control like using more creatures as blockers. Aggro could be more effective but consider that if there are other aggro players, they can pounce on the aggro guy who is playing recklessly. It appears to me that you have a slight bias to how a few of your decks would perform with the change and that they wouldn't be as effective. What about everyone else's decks? Also would you simply leave the cards in said decks as is or adapt to the metagame?
I'm guessing your Oona deck probably has a 80% to 90% plus win ratio. Do you think other players are completely happy that you win all the time with that deck? Wouldn't you like more of a challenge with that deck instead of easy wins all the time? IMO games or sports in general are more fun when the competition level is more even. For my playgroup, EDH is more interesting and fun with the life difference. Maybe you're right and it isn't for everyone but not everyone has tried it yet.
I understand your point. However, my point was to consider the big picture of how the 10 life difference will affect the playgroup metagame and strategy. Everyone's decks would not be exactly the same if your house rule were to change. There would be more defensive tactics as control like using more creatures as blockers. Aggro could be more effective but consider that if there are other aggro players, they can pounce on the aggro guy who is playing recklessly. It appears to me that you have a slight bias to how a few of your decks would perform with the change and that they wouldn't be as effective. What about everyone else's decks? Also would you simply leave the cards in said decks as is or adapt to the metagame?
I'm guessing your Oona deck probably has a 80% to 90% plus win ratio. Do you think other players are completely happy that you win all the time with that deck? Wouldn't you like more of a challenge with that deck instead of easy wins all the time? IMO games or sports in general are more fun when the competition level is more even. For my playgroup, EDH is more interesting and fun with the life difference. Maybe you're right and it isn't for everyone but not everyone has tried it yet.
I was actually referring to the guy I was quoting missing the point. And considering who that deck goes up against and what they play, I think they are fine. Playing with my family it's understood that the gloves come off, and it's not something that I take into my normal playgroup. I play things like non-combo Marath, Lovisa, and Kamahl in that group, all decks that would actually benefit the most from starting at 30. Unless everyone busts out a durdle deck, our games are somewhat long depending on hands, decks, and board states, but not excruciatingly so.
The decks I can think in my group that would be most affected are Aurelia, Zo-Zu, Kaervek, Jenara (which really REALLY doesn't need more help), and probably a few that I can think of that are played by people who show up less frequently. Then there's a couple of mine (Kresh, Marath, Kamahl, Lovisa, Borborygmos, Sachi, and Damia). Everything else has an alternate win condition or general damage oriented. The Zo-Zu deck becomes pretty terrifying and only needs one or two cards changed to negate the damage coming to him earlier. I would almost never play Patron, but maybe add some faster pump effects and some smaller value creature like Hellrider to most of my other decks. The guy who plays Kaervek will probably die before he can get off the ground, or get lucky with mana rocks and win quickly (it's based around other burn effects than his general, so lowering our curves will help some but not really deter the deck). Some Trostani and Oloro decks might pop up if it got really bad.
After all that, I'm still the only one who really likes that playstyle. Most similar players prefer commander based voltron.
When I win quickly with a good hand while playing Marath, people tend to not enjoy it. I don't really need to be able to alpha strike the table any faster. I haven't said that it's a bad idea for every group, but it's not a good idea for every group either.
Edit: It's been a long morning and I missed some of your post. >.<
I agree with Kahno. If the meta is actually GOOD decks, you are typically only going to see combo or control (and most control I've seen win with a combo eventually....)
WWUGeist of Saint TraftUWW
UUBBLazav, Dimir MastermindBBUU
BRMalfegorRB
RGThromok the InsatiableGR
GGWWTrostani, Selesnya's VoiceWWGG
WBTeysa, Orzhov ScionBW
BGGGlissa, the TraitorGGB
GGUUPrime Speaker ZeganaUUGG
URJhoira of the GhituRU
RRWWAurelia, the WarleaderWWRR
UBRJeleva, Nephalias ScourgeRBU
*Competitive. Most competitve metas are made up of combo decks. Just because it isn't a competitive deck doesn't mean it's bad.
That said, in a competitive meta lowering the life total to 30 isn't going to help aggro decks much. The still likely won't win before someone combos off, and there is likely more than one deck that would need to be focused down.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
A tuned Purphoros can take a full table. If I'm not mistaken, Beusapo has a solid decklist in the multiplayer forum. But that's beside the point. Currently, all aggro builds need something extra to actually carry out their aggro plan: control elements, extra turns, stax elements, etc. If we officially reduced the life totals, these elements would become less needed and pure aggro deck would get a better chance to shine.
I apologize. In such a discussion, we are always dealing with opinions and I was too hasty in my labeling. My opinion is, however, not misinformed. If you have a table of tuned decks (and that's what I mean by "quality"), decks that don't include a combo finish are at a disadvantage. There are a few exceptions, of course. One of them is a stax-heavy environment. Combos are severely handicapped there.
The main advantage of combos over continuous damage: while they are both being handled in a quality game, the combo most be handled much more strictly. If you are resorting to continuous damage, there are high chances, that you will experience a major setback (a sweeper slips through) that will have minimal effect on the combo player. While you start to rebuild, the combo player will accumulate enough resources to reliably combo off. The last scenario has happened countless times in my meta. If nobody plays combo in a quality meta (perhaps due to an agreement), this problem logically never arises. But as soon as there is a smart combo player present, non-combo players (players that have NO combo finishers) are at a disadvantage. They may still win, but they are fighting an uphill battle. A battle that is even harder due to 40 life totals.
Understood, but that's ONLY if people care about winning over having fun and/or enjoy combo. There are a lot of groups who detest it, and lowering the life total would give agro more traction against other decks in such an environment.
Even as a staunch RC supporter I would not say there is 'nothing wrong'. Stagnation is a real thing, and the opinion of a small fringe group (MTGS or any other forum) does not represent the whole. It does tend to cover all the bases and have some interesting discussions though.
Changing the starting life is an ineffective way to spice up the game.
Banning and unbanning of cards or variants of play such as archenemy or emperor are good ways to spice things up.
In such discussions it is expected that each side presents arguments that support its case. Simply saying "changing life totals doesn't work" is not very constructive. Also archenemy-style variants are a completely different topic which should be adressed in a different thread altogether.
I like control as much as anybody, but sometimes, I feel having 40 life is too much. You know much life I can pay before I start to worry? Like 20-30.
In Sharuum, I can get to 3, and then just copy Magister Shpinx to get back in the game. Pretty sweet right?
I mean, I can get 3v1'd and still come back.
Real fair right? Oh shucks, if we have 10 less life, I would screw around less and actually try to play better.
Overall, EDH makes you a worst player and play recklessly. I mean why would anyone turn 1 Fetch land into a shock just to cast Top, Sol Ring, or Vampiric Tutor. The massive amount of life is why you can off those really terrible plays.
If anyone of you scrubs on here are from Portland, why don't you play me a game at Time Vault? Let's test your little theory on why 40 life is great.
Heck I play 20 life EDH with no general, and my decks do fine. Just play more reliable and you don't have to worry about getting your general tucked. Don't cast it, and that solves the whole problem right there.
Infraction for trolling / flaming. Please refrain from attacking players and playgroups. -ISB
EDH
BWG Doran Suicide Tempo BWG
BUW Sharuum Midrange Control BUW
The bolded statement is exactly the point us players who support the 30 life side are trying to make. The overall gameplay is more balanced with 30 life and it brings more strategies into the picture. I also like playing more games in a session and the amount definitely goes up.
It also kills some decks, while just encouraging more ruthless combo decks. I doubt I'd ever get to use my Patron deck again, and it's one of the most fair in our group, even though it's a combo deck. The change wouldn't even stop Oona though, the deck generally tries to win turn three, and I'd rather not be stuck playing that deck every time I wanna switch it up from creature based strategies. I'm guessing it would also make my Marath deck pretty I fun to play against. I'm so guessing that it doesn't really help aggro decks against fast combo, just slower combo decks.
If it works in your group, that's fantastic. I just think that it should be an optional rule, rather than a blanket rule for every group.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
If the Oona deck can goldfish combo out on turn three fairly consistently, then wouldn't some disruption and added aggro pressure from starting at 30 life be more difficult to overcome for that player? It is generally agreed upon that combo strategies, fast or slow, will be more beatable with less life to start. Also as others have mentioned including myself, that combo player freely spending life points to tutor or draw cards for whatever he/she needs will have more difficulty doing so with 10 less life to start. All-in combo strategies will need to be re-tooled and become more interactive and defensive. Isn't that a good thing?
I would recommend simply trying it in your playgroup before casting judgment. If games aren't as fun for everyone then you can easily switch back.
I'm not referring to goldfishing. There are enough control decks in our group that someone is usually playing countrol each game, and if I can't go off on turn three, I probably don't have the resources to combo and fight the blue player for my spells to resolve. At that point, I turn into a faerie aggro deck with a bit of control to stop other people's shennanigans, and I have ten less life to eat through for everyone else, while having instant speed chump blockers.
I did bring this up with my playgroup last night actually and it was recieved with a unanimous no. Those of us who do play combat oriented decks feel like in our group it would swing it too hard into the favor of burn and combat decks, mainly being the majority of my decks, and Kaervek deck, a Zo-Zu deck, and a couple others without really adding anything new and harming some of the more casual decks. I guess an upside would be that it makes Lovisa kind of viable, but that deck's not supposed to be super good. It's my, let's all play mono red deck.
My point was, I don't think it should become a normal rule. If the change is becomes popular enough, then maybe they could work a paragraph into the rules section of the Commander website about choosing one of the two starting life totals, based on what would be best for your playgroup. Then again, that could also be confusing but it should be a group choice to drop to 30 instead of 40.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
Well either way it would be a playgroup decision to do 30 or 40 life so it doesn't really matter right? My playgroup was hesitant to the change at first but once we starting playing it just felt better. Just like with all those people in the Rumor Mill subforum here declaring a new spoiler complete jank without any playtesting, you truly won't know how it plays out until testing.
Casual decks matched up against tuned high power decks will always be at a disadvantage, but you need to keep in mind that in a multiplayer free-for-all, threat assessment and politics play a huge role and will change the outcome. It sounds like your Oona deck is the highest power level in the group so I don't see why it would harm the others if they team up on you considering your deck can combo out so fast.
Wait, so you're saying you have an Oona deck that consistently combos off turn 3 through disruption and can also turn into an aggro deck? I call exaggeration. If your deck is so strong that you can control others and kill them with physical attacks on a bad day, something is probably wrong with your playgroup (your opponents are bad). In any case, lowering life totals is beneficial regardless of the type of decks are present at the table. Even 2/2 creatures will make a difference if they attack dilligently at a reckless 30 life player.
So, you missed my point, but sure, let's walk through this. I built that deck with my older brother, not to use with my playgroup but to take with me against my siblings and cousins, where they all play some of control, with a win condition of either their own combo or slower goodstuff aggro. Technically, I can go off at any point but I have to wait for them to fight a counter war over something else and try to resolve like a Teferi on someone else's turn. But In the mean time, I have a 5/5 flier who makes 1/1 faeries with her ability. There is one mono blue deck in that group, so all I need to do is mill him. Bonus points if I can exile a win condition while I'm at it, but tat does give me a bunch of faeries that can attack on my turn. If I can resolve anything that boosts them by +1/+1 turns Oona herself into a four turn clock, and... 2/2 fliers, which as you say is relevant because I'm not the only person swinging. I can also win by milling someone out (without combo), but it's pretty slow and clunky. The deck runs every tutor I could cram in, so it's not that hard to grab Grim Monolith and Power artifact. I'm not saying I consistently win on turn three, but I consistently try to go off before people have the resources to stop me.. Sometimes it works, a lot of times it doesn't and I have to switch tactics.
Also, my main point with this, is that against aggro decks who may not have that kind of counterspell disruption, ten less like won't matter in a lot of cases. There are always exceptions. My other combo deck already struggles against aggro, as it's a lot slower. If someone wanted to kill me while I was playing that deck just because they were afraid of mono blue, I don't know how well I could stop them. There are creatures, but not many and I value most of them too much to let them die if I can avoid it.
Now, for the actual point of all this, I brought up trying the change with my playgroup, which I guess you skipped over that part. It was decided that it wouldn't be a healthy change for the group. Despite the fact that I used combo decks as examples, it's really not a combo heavy meta. There are dozens of burn and combat oriented decks that we feel don't need help. My biggest point was the rule shouldn't be for everyone. Personally I think it should stay a house rule, but there are a lot of people who think that it should be an official rule, so instead I was proposing a compromise where it isn't a blanket rule either way. Which was the part I would have preferred to have a discussion about.
Edit: Because whatever I quoted was huge. O.o
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
I understand your point. However, my point was to consider the big picture of how the 10 life difference will affect the playgroup metagame and strategy. Everyone's decks would not be exactly the same if your house rule were to change. There would be more defensive tactics as control like using more creatures as blockers. Aggro could be more effective but consider that if there are other aggro players, they can pounce on the aggro guy who is playing recklessly. It appears to me that you have a slight bias to how a few of your decks would perform with the change and that they wouldn't be as effective. What about everyone else's decks? Also would you simply leave the cards in said decks as is or adapt to the metagame?
I'm guessing your Oona deck probably has a 80% to 90% plus win ratio. Do you think other players are completely happy that you win all the time with that deck? Wouldn't you like more of a challenge with that deck instead of easy wins all the time? IMO games or sports in general are more fun when the competition level is more even. For my playgroup, EDH is more interesting and fun with the life difference. Maybe you're right and it isn't for everyone but not everyone has tried it yet.
I was actually referring to the guy I was quoting missing the point. And considering who that deck goes up against and what they play, I think they are fine. Playing with my family it's understood that the gloves come off, and it's not something that I take into my normal playgroup. I play things like non-combo Marath, Lovisa, and Kamahl in that group, all decks that would actually benefit the most from starting at 30. Unless everyone busts out a durdle deck, our games are somewhat long depending on hands, decks, and board states, but not excruciatingly so.
The decks I can think in my group that would be most affected are Aurelia, Zo-Zu, Kaervek, Jenara (which really REALLY doesn't need more help), and probably a few that I can think of that are played by people who show up less frequently. Then there's a couple of mine (Kresh, Marath, Kamahl, Lovisa, Borborygmos, Sachi, and Damia). Everything else has an alternate win condition or general damage oriented. The Zo-Zu deck becomes pretty terrifying and only needs one or two cards changed to negate the damage coming to him earlier. I would almost never play Patron, but maybe add some faster pump effects and some smaller value creature like Hellrider to most of my other decks. The guy who plays Kaervek will probably die before he can get off the ground, or get lucky with mana rocks and win quickly (it's based around other burn effects than his general, so lowering our curves will help some but not really deter the deck). Some Trostani and Oloro decks might pop up if it got really bad.
After all that, I'm still the only one who really likes that playstyle. Most similar players prefer commander based voltron.
When I win quickly with a good hand while playing Marath, people tend to not enjoy it. I don't really need to be able to alpha strike the table any faster. I haven't said that it's a bad idea for every group, but it's not a good idea for every group either.
Edit: It's been a long morning and I missed some of your post. >.<
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf