Lowering the effectiveness of necro and other cards that exploit the high life total is just one aspect of lowering starting life totals. It's not even close to my primary reason for wanting to do so. My primary reason I think is best summed up here:
right now a LOT of people put combos in their decks as a "safety valve" for if the game is going too long. And I think this safety valve mentality is what's increased the prevalence of combos in otherwise noncompetitive metas, and made those combos faster and faster. With lower life totals, ending the game without an infinite combo becomes less difficult, and people are less likely to resort to infinite combos as their only reliable option.
Right now EDH has a reputation for creating games so long that they wear out their welcome, and then keep going for another two hours. Cutting down the absurd starting life totals would at least help put a dent in that.
it's pretty rare for someone to try to win except by a dedicated "I win" button, which I personally find very unsatisfying. Rarely is incremental damage relevant when other players are trying to win. Which is supposed to be most of the game. 30 life brings that incremental damage into sharper focus (not as much as 20 life, but baby steps).
I think the narrative that incremental damage isn't meaningful is a bit exaggerated. I have died to ancient tomb and mana crypt before and also been pressured into going for a combo early and losing as a result many times. It's true that tempo plays against life totals are generally less effective in edh, but I feel like that could as easily be a popular feature as a bug.
I'm not saying it never happens. I'm just saying it rarely happens - or at least a lot less often than I personally think it ought to. I think my breakdown of wins in my meta I posted in the other thread is pretty accurate - it's pretty rare for someone else to go for a win on incremental damage. Which is a shame, because that means previous plays will almost always be pretty irrelevant once whatever bomb or combo goes off. As far as the goal of commander telling a compelling story, that's a big problem, imo. I finish very few games that I lose feeling satisfied (and only part of that is because I'm a salty son of a *****).
Lowering the effectiveness of necro and other cards that exploit the high life total is just one aspect of lowering starting life totals. It's not even close to my primary reason for wanting to do so. My primary reason I think is best summed up here:
right now a LOT of people put combos in their decks as a "safety valve" for if the game is going too long. And I think this safety valve mentality is what's increased the prevalence of combos in otherwise noncompetitive metas, and made those combos faster and faster. With lower life totals, ending the game without an infinite combo becomes less difficult, and people are less likely to resort to infinite combos as their only reliable option.
Right now EDH has a reputation for creating games so long that they wear out their welcome, and then keep going for another two hours. Cutting down the absurd starting life totals would at least help put a dent in that.
it's pretty rare for someone to try to win except by a dedicated "I win" button, which I personally find very unsatisfying. Rarely is incremental damage relevant when other players are trying to win. Which is supposed to be most of the game. 30 life brings that incremental damage into sharper focus (not as much as 20 life, but baby steps).
I agree with this but also an increase in the relevance of incremental damage and life loss also hurts those cards.
Playing in formats where it is 20 recently has really nailed down my outlook that 40 is way too much and 30 might even still be too much but 20 is never going to happen in this format at this point.
I just want to jump in and point out that this is a casual format so any "it forces you to be a better deckbuilder" upside isn't necessarily an upside. I'm sure everyone on the RC/CAG Hope's for players to grow in skill and experience, but they want this to be a welcoming format to players of all skill levels.
I also suspect 40 life is one of the hills they will die on and you'd be hard pressed to change their minds. Doesn't mean they won't listen to compelling arguments though, so keep up the discussion.
I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive as you point out.
(Also I am still not convinced this format is casual beyond it being a kitchen table space for multiplayer games of magic, the cards put into the format just go so strongly against that view of it)
I just want to jump in and point out that this is a casual format so any "it forces you to be a better deckbuilder" upside isn't necessarily an upside. I'm sure everyone on the RC/CAG Hope's for players to grow in skill and experience, but they want this to be a welcoming format to players of all skill levels.
I also suspect 40 life is one of the hills they will die on and you'd be hard pressed to change their minds. Doesn't mean they won't listen to compelling arguments though, so keep up the discussion.
Multiplayer is always going to be more friendly to casual players because of the self-balancing nature of it.
I don't agree that lower life totals make the format less friendly to new players. It pushes people toward board-focused incremental strategies, rather than one-hit KOs or infinite combos. I guess it's true that even a new player can win via infinite combo, but right now it feels like the format is actively encouraging or even forcing new players to run combos because so many older players are, and they can't very well win against experience AND combos without either.
To a certain extent, I think the glue holding together a lot of this format is ignorance. I'd love to play somewhere where everyone knows about the best decks but thinks building silly jank is more fun. But the reality that I see is that most players are trying to build their decks as powerful as they can, and mostly lack knowledge and money to get into true cEDH. As WotC has increased the power level of the precons (and the commanders in those precons) and more and more people are using combos as a safety valve, the more new players are getting the message that there aren't any lines to cross and they should just build as powerful of a deck as they can. That's not something that I like to see.
Not to say it's all doom and gloom, there are still plenty of people building jank for fun, with an intentional powering down of their decks. But it does feel like we're on at least a very slow slippery slope, based on the past 10 years I've been playing.
Ad Naus, Citadel, Deluge and Fire Covenant are the first things that come to mind as absurd cards with 40 life that get reigned in with a change.
And none of them need to be reigned in. Which is what I said. Is Fire Covenant a problem? Does Ad Naus see play outside of cEDH (remember, being good in cEDH is irrelevant to rules decisions)? Citadel has more life to work with than in other formats, but is also going to cause more life loss because its also going to be dealing with higher casting costs, especially in non cEDH metas, so it largely balances out (like Bob or similar cards).
To Dirk: I never said it was your main argument, but I've already said what I would say to dispute your other arguments, so no sense rehashing it. In fact, you actually replied to those posts. I hadn't went to deep into the life payment and life matters cards so that's what I focused on.
I also don't really agree that ignorance is what drives people to play suboptimal decks. Its actually probably quite low on the list of reasons because of how easy it is to net deck. No, I do really think that some people like a jankier environment, whether because they want slower games, or want to play with oddball cards, or want to play unique strategies, or want to play a vorthos deck, or even want to set up janky combos. This is going to be less evident in pick up games at events because the social contract is weaker and even many people who prefer weaker metas will build one or two "pimp" decks they can pull out when they sit down with try hards, but those situations aren't the norm. Even on mtgo, where cards are cheap and you play with strangers, I rarely see people plop down outright cEDH decks, because thats ******* boring when nobody else is playing at that level. So I think the number one reason you don't see everyone gravitate to the best strategies built optimally is because most people simply do not want that. After that, for paper magic I'd say price would be the next most important reason, precluding some who would want the most optimized decks from getting them because they don't want to pay that much. But ignorance? Only the spikiest noobs are held back from tier 1 play by ignorance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I think quarantining certain cards in cEDH-ville while you are thinking about Commander can also be disastrous.
I guess to go back to an older style of doing this so much of this post is people posting reasons why we should have life totals lower than 40 and why that would be good and people responding as to why those things are bad.
What are the reasons other than it already being at 40 that it being at 40 is a good number?
I'll chime in to say that I don't play commander, and one of the main reasons is that I don't want to play loooong games where people are racing to press an "I win button" as somebody called it. I'd be more likely to tiptoe into the format with a life total of 30, and I'm not a person who loves aggro.
In my meta I hear a lot of people saying "ooh, I can't wait to get X (often a combo piece or an annoying degenerate card) so I can make my deck better!" I don't hear a lot of "I took out X because it made that deck too competitive". There are definitely people who constrain themselves with silly commanders that make it hard to be competitive (presumably intentionally) but there are a lot of newer players who grab a precon with a powerful commander and then take all the most popular cards from EDH, oftentimes spicing it up with infinite combos as failsafes. That's not exactly cEDH but it's closer than I'd like, and it's homogenizing and often unpleasant to play against.
Obviously this is just personal experience. YMMV.
@Mergatroid_Jones - glad to hear from someone from the outside. Personally I actually don't mind long sloggy games (so long as they don't end unsatisfyingly by an "I win" button) but I know there are lots of people who don't like it. And that's what causes the plague of "I win" cards and combos getting played. I agree, of course, that the better solution is to speed up the normal course of the game by lowering life totals.
I think quarantining certain cards in cEDH-ville while you are thinking about Commander can also be disastrous.
I guess to go back to an older style of doing this so much of this post is people posting reasons why we should have life totals lower than 40 and why that would be good and people responding as to why those things are bad.
What are the reasons other than it already being at 40 that it being at 40 is a good number?
I'm not quarantining card to cEDH, I'm noting that if a card is really only seen in cEDH then it is not an issue because cEDH is irrelevant to the banlist and rules making. A big reason that certain cards get played a lot in cEDH but see little play in more casual settings is because they just aren't as good for casual. Doomsday is a classic example: if you are playing Doomsday you are trying to win on the spot, and you also have to both dedicate a few deckslots to the combo. It puts you on the path of aiming directly for that combo, but unlike other combo cards this is a turn off for more casual players, because it's also a high risk card that is also fairly skill intensive. The best Doomsday lists have a couple different packages they can grab in case one won't work because of the board state. Ad Nauseum meanwhile is awesome when you build your deck to win if it resolves, and super risky and not particularly great otherwise. Again, this makes it less of a fit in more causal decks where instead of a 5 Mana sorcery that wins the game it's a 5 Mana sorcery that draws 5-7 cards for a decent chunk of life, which starts competing with cards like promise of power, which is a 5 Mana draw five lose five life with flexibility (ok, even in casual decks Ad Naus can draw a lot more, but it's highly variable, sometimes you hit a couple six drops right away and you aren't going to be able to dig too deep without getting yourself in range of attacks).
As for the "what's good about leaving it at 40" question, read the thread. It's disingenuous to dismiss the arguments as to why 30 life would be bad, as their mirror is often why 40 life is good. For instance, one complaint about 30 life is that it would push out battle cruiser decks, but the other way of looking at that argument is that it's saying that 40 life is good because it allows battle cruiser decks to happen. On the other side, you see people saying 30 life would be good because it would make aggro more viable, but that could also be rephrased as an argument saying that 40 life is bad because it makes aggro too weak. It doesn't take much thinking to figure that out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
My problem with designating a card a card or cards into that is Commander and EDH is a place full of trickle down cards.
If you are gonna tell me that Ad Nauseam is a card that only sees play within a competitive environment I am gonna call you a liar as one example. People see mechanics and decks and synergies that work well in all kinds of decks and the parts of them they like or are affordable are re-purposed into decks they have made that sacrifice the speed of being tuned for some good hay maker all in strategies.
It is why it is dangerous to ascribe any card to any specific place alone because these formats are not vacuums.
I for one don't think that a change to a lower life total would impact the things you are talking about, because a balanced increase of aggro leads to people also running more responses to said aggro so the control decks and the combo decks both wanting to survive in early portions of the game becomes a real thing. This also allows for a meta that plays mostly in battlecruiser and similar configurations to play largely the same game sure the things that generally happened in those games would happen sooner but the amount of give and take would not be lessened I do not think.
I was more wondering about reasons people like 40 life outside of those, because as it stands right now the reasons to keep the life total where it is seem minimal.
I don't find the arguments for changing the life total to be more compelling than the risks personally and I doubt I am alone in that. The responses to the risks I presented were mostly "no way bro!"
I think the best you could possibly hope for is either:
1) An official guideline that allows for "fast games" to start at 30 life
2) A season with 30 life
And I'd personally be OK with either of those but the idea of just changing the rule seems insanely risky to me, and none of the arguments are anywhere near enough for me to be in favor of making an abrupt permanent rule change.
Literally every argument I have heard is just loaded with assumptions that the things that very informed, experienced, and somewhat spiky players want are the same things everyone wants. Things like focusing on streamlining decks and faster games and so on. There's really no foundation for these assumptions whatsoever.
And another argument is based on the idea that somehow shorter games are going to lead to less combo in the casual community which I think is the exact opposite of what's likely. Presenting that as anything more than a guess is really extreme in my opinion.
I was more wondering about reasons people like 40 life outside of those, because as it stands right now the reasons to keep the life total where it is seem minimal.
I do not like or dislike it but my stance against it is that my instinct when something is successful is to be change averse.
The burden for wanting to change things is heavily on the people arguing for it, and so far I feel that much like the Planeswalker argument that the people proposing the idea are:
1) making not particularly compelling arguments and being kind of bludgeony with them
2) proposing their arguments with a certainty that I find unnerving
This is a very large change. It warrants more caution.
Edit: I will note that Dirk came around (or was already there but I didn't see it until we'd argued a while) on the cautious trial run approach which I think is the natural end stage of the argument. If that's what we're arguing for I'll agree. it's fine to try it. But changing it willy nilly and thinking it's going to be fine is just nutterbutters.
Edit: I will note that Dirk came around (or was already there but I didn't see it until we'd argued a while) on the cautious trial run approach which I think is the natural end stage of the argument. If that's what we're arguing for I'll agree. it's fine to try it. But changing it willy nilly and thinking it's going to be fine is just nutterbutters.
Well I think the onus is on the person suggesting the change to provide justification for trying it. So it's natural to argue aggressively for why it would be better, even if the goal isn't immediately change.
That said, the trial period idea I think has its flaws too, the biggest one being that, as a casual format, success (or failure) is not going to be particularly clear. With a pro scene, they'll adapt to whatever rules changes are made in an attempt to find the new best thing. So if 30 life has no impact on combos being the best (which is totally possible, I think life totals might need to go even lower before they're unseated) then you would see no impact in the pro scene. But we don't have a pro scene, and even if we did, we wouldn't really care because a balanced format at the pro level is not the primary goal. What we care about is sort of a general trend across a bunch of casual playgroups. And that's really hard to measure.
For one thing, regardless of how much impact it actually has on the way games play out, you can probably expect some number of trend setters to try to exploit the lower life totals, even if the same strategies might have been nearly as effective with 40 life (say, purphoros, for example). I think you're also going to see a backlash to those decks because people don't like how powerful they are, even if they're not any more powerful than what those players might have been doing otherwise, just along different axes. "This is BS, Purphoros is way too good now!" they'll complain, even though the winrate of the deck is still lower than the combo urza deck he was playing before, it just didn't win as quickly. People like to have excuses why they lost, and any major change is going to be a GREAT excuse.
The point at which the format starts to settle and the long-term effects of lower life totals and - hopefully - the tendency of fewer decks to include safety valve combos would take a long time to actually bear out (or not). Because the vast majority of players aren't testing various strategies to compare the effectiveness pro-style, they're just bumbling from deck to deck and, maybe after a couple more decks where they include safety valves out of habit, they find themselves building lower, more aggressive curves after getting knocked out by aggressive decks that previously were less of a concern, and now that they're focusing more on the early game they realize they don't need the safety valves anymore, and maybe eventually they take them out. But that could be years down the line. And in metas with less competitive pressure, they might not change at all. It's really hard to say.
So idk. I like the idea of a trial run, but I'm not sure it's actually a feasible way to give you what you're looking for, results-wise.
I would be 100% against the change without a trial run or a long optional rule period.
The likelihood of making the change abruptly straight up ruining the game is high. Pretending that the risk is not massive just to make your point is something I find questionable.
Arguing a point in debate club is where you pull out all the stops and try to win. This setting is not about trying to bring others to your point of view it's about reaching the right conclusion through discussion.
I generally do not care for the debate club approach. It's tiresome. If your goal is to simply win your incentive is to dismiss every counterargument whether it's reasonable or not.
I don't have anything else to say on this topic. It's a massive risk that is poorly justified attempting to achieve ends we're not sure are good for the format anyway.
My problem with designating a card a card or cards into that is Commander and EDH is a place full of trickle down cards.
If you are gonna tell me that Ad Nauseam is a card that only sees play within a competitive environment I am gonna call you a liar as one example. People see mechanics and decks and synergies that work well in all kinds of decks and the parts of them they like or are affordable are re-purposed into decks they have made that sacrifice the speed of being tuned for some good hay maker all in strategies.
It is why it is dangerous to ascribe any card to any specific place alone because these formats are not vacuums.
I for one don't think that a change to a lower life total would impact the things you are talking about, because a balanced increase of aggro leads to people also running more responses to said aggro so the control decks and the combo decks both wanting to survive in early portions of the game becomes a real thing. This also allows for a meta that plays mostly in battlecruiser and similar configurations to play largely the same game sure the things that generally happened in those games would happen sooner but the amount of give and take would not be lessened I do not think.
I was more wondering about reasons people like 40 life outside of those, because as it stands right now the reasons to keep the life total where it is seem minimal.
Well, once again, I'm not designating them anything, I'm calling it as I see it, and I don't see Ad Nauseum being problematic in casual games. I almost never see it there, and when I do its not doing anything broken. I rarely hear it complained about outside of cEDH either, except for you, right now, as it suits your point. Even the point you try to make acknowledges that when these cards do get ran in more casual settings, its not in the same kind of all in way that would make them problematic. And calling me a liar is, as is so often your style, a baseless personal attack. I mean, maybe you've seen differently in your meta and that's why you are saying it, but if I wanted to be a jerk I could call you a liar and say you are making it up to suit your argument because I have not seen it. That would be asinine, because I have no proof that you have seen it, and that's a reasonable explanation for you insisting that its a problem. But unfortunately for your argument Ad Naus is not something that's running around ruining casual games of commander to any degree that would make it hit the banlist criteria, nor is Doomsday. They are cEDH cards simply because that is where they are ran. Should they actually spread out to casual and start making a splash in a problematic way, then they would cease to be cEDH cards. Then they would be relevant to the conversation on rules changes. And all this would be possible while still ignoring cEDH. We aren't ignoring the CARDS, we're ignoring the cEDH meta, and thus the impact that ANY card has in it. This also works for cards that are problematic in casual but bad in cEDH, as "it isn't in tier 1 decks" isn't an argument against banning.
Saying its a cEDH card isn't ignoring the card, its ignoring its impact on cEDH. The impact of the card on casual is still considered (as I do in my posts) and I don't believe those cards to be problematic in casual, or even prolific there. In order to argue that Ad Naus and Doomsday are significant in the format, you need to bring in cEDH, and that is irrelevant to rules discussion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Following Pokken and Onering I have never seen it being played in non cEDH decks in my current meta, the previous one, or the other lgs I’ve been to. I’m sure someone must jam it in a regular deck, but I highly doubt it’s problematic to a bannable extent, if problematic at all.
So I am going to reiterate the points I made three years ago (and nearly a decade ago on the official Commander site).
Length of Game
Commander games, on average, will last a long time. There are multiple factors that affect this, but the high starting life total is notable in that regard.
The high length of games is both a common complaint, and restrictive on actually playing the game. On a near-weekly basis, I see or am part of a group that finishes a game with an hour left, and chooses not to play again because an hour is simply not enough time.
While reducing the starting life total will not affect the length of all games of Commander, it will reduce the average, both increasing the larger appeal of playing Commander and lessening the restrictive nature of time limits.
Aggro-Combo Imbalance
Aggro style decks are heavily disadvantaged in Commander, due to both multiple opponents, and the high starting life total.
Because of the high starting life total, combo decks are advantaged by virtue of simply being the most efficient way to win, and additionally from the increased buffer their own high life total allows.
Regardless of if you think combo decks are an enjoyable experience or antithetical to the format, this imbalance is unhealthy to the game. You do not need to make aggro better than combo. You just need to make aggro better relative to combo to improve the metagame.
This is not a competitive format, and most players are going to gravitate towards what they prefer over what is best. But with the current state of the format, this archetype imbalance is so significant that nearly every deck has some form of combo win condition, simply because it has become a necessity, and combo's dominance is not something that can be effectively addressed with card bannings. Reducing the starting life total will help to address this in a way any targeted ban cannot, while still remaining high enough to meet the other objectives / feeling of the format.
Life Total Matters
Another category of cards that is very commonly complained about are static life total effects, such as Serra Ascendant or Magister Sphinx. This is due to the disproportionately high starting life of the format interacting badly with these types of effects.
Again, you do not need to 'fix' the discrepancy to improve it. A starting life total of 30 will dramatically affect the impact and perception of these cards in a positive manner.
Life as a Resource
Paying life for an effect, with the most notable examples being Ad Nauseam, Necropotence, & Sylvan Library, similarly to Life Total Matters, are cards that receive a dramatic and unnecessary benefit from the current starting life totals. These are again cards I see common complaints about.
Reducing the starting life total will provide a significant benefit in addressing this format-rules discrepant interaction with these effects.
Reducing the starting life total to 20 would be foolish; there is too much about the format that would be negatively impacted, both game play and conceptual. But a starting life of 40 is too high, causing multiple problems with no appreciable benefit.
A starting life total of 30 is the correct balance between these two points, and would result in a considerable improvement to the format as a whole.
I would be 100% against the change without a trial run or a long optional rule period.
The likelihood of making the change abruptly straight up ruining the game is high. Pretending that the risk is not massive just to make your point is something I find questionable.
Arguing a point in debate club is where you pull out all the stops and try to win. This setting is not about trying to bring others to your point of view it's about reaching the right conclusion through discussion.
I generally do not care for the debate club approach. It's tiresome. If your goal is to simply win your incentive is to dismiss every counterargument whether it's reasonable or not.
I don't have anything else to say on this topic. It's a massive risk that is poorly justified attempting to achieve ends we're not sure are good for the format anyway.
I'm saying I don't actually know what would be a good way to test it. I'm not saying we should jump in. I'm not saying we should NOT test it. I'm just not sure how one would even go about it. I confess I don't have a solution to that problem. I'm TRYING to "reach the right conclusion through discussion".
Out of curiosity, when you say "the likelihood of...ruining the game is high", what odds do you put on that, roughly? And what do you mean by "ruin"? I'm having a hard time conceiving of a version of "ruin" that doesn't look something like...certain aggro commanders become annoyingly powerful - purphoros and vial smasher come to mind - and then those commanders can then compete with combo decks in powerful metas, and they get shunned in casual ones for the same reason combo ones get shunned.
I mean, I get how to ruin a competitive format, because people are playing to win so if something is broken, everyone will exploit it. If something is broken in commander, though, there's only a subset of players who are trying to exploit that, and they're already exploiting combo now. So I don't see a way the format could totally collapse - it might get worse, sure, that's definitely possible, but total ruin? I'm not buying. Maybe if you set the life total to 10 or something.
I think the likelihood is at least single digit percent that it causes commander to die completely as a format over some amount of time, perhaps 5 years** or so. It creates a cascade where more aggressive decks are incentivized to the point that the population stops growing, starts shrinking, and eventually fades. Assuming that they don't revert it once they see that trend. When decks have to start packing 15 pieces of ramp and 15 pieces of interaction there's not as much room for craw wurm and vivid grove.
I think the likelihood is probably >= 50% that it would require so many new bans to maintain diversity that even if the format survived it, it'd be changed so much as to have to sacrifice much of the core mission of the format.
\
(Just one example off the top of my head, but Edgar Markov is the 2nd most popular commander on EDHrec; likelihood he has to get banned is close to 100% for me).
Likelihood approaches 100% for me that almost all decks will need to be massively changed or rebuilt and that will cause a lot of turmoil. Whether it's enough to have severe consequences or not, I don't know. But I do know people who do not tune and mod their decks all the time, and this kind of change could easily drive those people out of the format completely.
Personally every deck I own would change by 10-20 cards at minimum. I've spent years foiling out my Ephara deck and if I had to hack 20 cards out of it to re-tune it for the 30 life meta I can't 100% say I would bother with it. It's always hard to predict how your brain will react to something like that.
** It's possible Commander is already dying, so it might be hard to tell if it happened because of a 30 life change.
I can't see a single change to the rules ever bringing down this format outside of some of the truly sweeping bans that some people want for certain types of cards. This format feels rather flexible and at least where I play it the people I play with are too.
Also I would question utilizing any current breakdowns to try and infer what happens due to this change because the amount of Edgar decks probably stems from the fact that Edgar is a deadly efficient way to make aggro work in the current environment of commander, and while Edgar will still be very good if the life totals are lessened I would imagine people would also come to those games packing more answers for that same reason.
While I do not doubt there will also be people who only look at this change as numerical, I bet that number is smaller.
The likelihood of making the change abruptly straight up ruining the game is high. Pretending that the risk is not massive just to make your point is something I find questionable.
And saying any change would be so massive, especially one that has already happened before, would ruin EDH is an even bigger assumption.
Large changes have happened before, and everyone got past it. Pretending this could end EDH is a ludicrous way to frame an argument.
I agree a trial would be a spectacular way to go, but outside once allowing Silver boarder for a set time, they don't do trials.
I do think one day the life total will come down, or the option will be codified.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ad Naus, Citadel, Deluge and Fire Covenant are the first things that come to mind as absurd cards with 40 life that get reigned in with a change.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I agree with this but also an increase in the relevance of incremental damage and life loss also hurts those cards.
Playing in formats where it is 20 recently has really nailed down my outlook that 40 is way too much and 30 might even still be too much but 20 is never going to happen in this format at this point.
I also suspect 40 life is one of the hills they will die on and you'd be hard pressed to change their minds. Doesn't mean they won't listen to compelling arguments though, so keep up the discussion.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
(Also I am still not convinced this format is casual beyond it being a kitchen table space for multiplayer games of magic, the cards put into the format just go so strongly against that view of it)
I don't agree that lower life totals make the format less friendly to new players. It pushes people toward board-focused incremental strategies, rather than one-hit KOs or infinite combos. I guess it's true that even a new player can win via infinite combo, but right now it feels like the format is actively encouraging or even forcing new players to run combos because so many older players are, and they can't very well win against experience AND combos without either.
To a certain extent, I think the glue holding together a lot of this format is ignorance. I'd love to play somewhere where everyone knows about the best decks but thinks building silly jank is more fun. But the reality that I see is that most players are trying to build their decks as powerful as they can, and mostly lack knowledge and money to get into true cEDH. As WotC has increased the power level of the precons (and the commanders in those precons) and more and more people are using combos as a safety valve, the more new players are getting the message that there aren't any lines to cross and they should just build as powerful of a deck as they can. That's not something that I like to see.
Not to say it's all doom and gloom, there are still plenty of people building jank for fun, with an intentional powering down of their decks. But it does feel like we're on at least a very slow slippery slope, based on the past 10 years I've been playing.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
And none of them need to be reigned in. Which is what I said. Is Fire Covenant a problem? Does Ad Naus see play outside of cEDH (remember, being good in cEDH is irrelevant to rules decisions)? Citadel has more life to work with than in other formats, but is also going to cause more life loss because its also going to be dealing with higher casting costs, especially in non cEDH metas, so it largely balances out (like Bob or similar cards).
To Dirk: I never said it was your main argument, but I've already said what I would say to dispute your other arguments, so no sense rehashing it. In fact, you actually replied to those posts. I hadn't went to deep into the life payment and life matters cards so that's what I focused on.
I also don't really agree that ignorance is what drives people to play suboptimal decks. Its actually probably quite low on the list of reasons because of how easy it is to net deck. No, I do really think that some people like a jankier environment, whether because they want slower games, or want to play with oddball cards, or want to play unique strategies, or want to play a vorthos deck, or even want to set up janky combos. This is going to be less evident in pick up games at events because the social contract is weaker and even many people who prefer weaker metas will build one or two "pimp" decks they can pull out when they sit down with try hards, but those situations aren't the norm. Even on mtgo, where cards are cheap and you play with strangers, I rarely see people plop down outright cEDH decks, because thats ******* boring when nobody else is playing at that level. So I think the number one reason you don't see everyone gravitate to the best strategies built optimally is because most people simply do not want that. After that, for paper magic I'd say price would be the next most important reason, precluding some who would want the most optimized decks from getting them because they don't want to pay that much. But ignorance? Only the spikiest noobs are held back from tier 1 play by ignorance.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I guess to go back to an older style of doing this so much of this post is people posting reasons why we should have life totals lower than 40 and why that would be good and people responding as to why those things are bad.
What are the reasons other than it already being at 40 that it being at 40 is a good number?
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
Obviously this is just personal experience. YMMV.
@Mergatroid_Jones - glad to hear from someone from the outside. Personally I actually don't mind long sloggy games (so long as they don't end unsatisfyingly by an "I win" button) but I know there are lots of people who don't like it. And that's what causes the plague of "I win" cards and combos getting played. I agree, of course, that the better solution is to speed up the normal course of the game by lowering life totals.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I'm not quarantining card to cEDH, I'm noting that if a card is really only seen in cEDH then it is not an issue because cEDH is irrelevant to the banlist and rules making. A big reason that certain cards get played a lot in cEDH but see little play in more casual settings is because they just aren't as good for casual. Doomsday is a classic example: if you are playing Doomsday you are trying to win on the spot, and you also have to both dedicate a few deckslots to the combo. It puts you on the path of aiming directly for that combo, but unlike other combo cards this is a turn off for more casual players, because it's also a high risk card that is also fairly skill intensive. The best Doomsday lists have a couple different packages they can grab in case one won't work because of the board state. Ad Nauseum meanwhile is awesome when you build your deck to win if it resolves, and super risky and not particularly great otherwise. Again, this makes it less of a fit in more causal decks where instead of a 5 Mana sorcery that wins the game it's a 5 Mana sorcery that draws 5-7 cards for a decent chunk of life, which starts competing with cards like promise of power, which is a 5 Mana draw five lose five life with flexibility (ok, even in casual decks Ad Naus can draw a lot more, but it's highly variable, sometimes you hit a couple six drops right away and you aren't going to be able to dig too deep without getting yourself in range of attacks).
As for the "what's good about leaving it at 40" question, read the thread. It's disingenuous to dismiss the arguments as to why 30 life would be bad, as their mirror is often why 40 life is good. For instance, one complaint about 30 life is that it would push out battle cruiser decks, but the other way of looking at that argument is that it's saying that 40 life is good because it allows battle cruiser decks to happen. On the other side, you see people saying 30 life would be good because it would make aggro more viable, but that could also be rephrased as an argument saying that 40 life is bad because it makes aggro too weak. It doesn't take much thinking to figure that out.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
If you are gonna tell me that Ad Nauseam is a card that only sees play within a competitive environment I am gonna call you a liar as one example. People see mechanics and decks and synergies that work well in all kinds of decks and the parts of them they like or are affordable are re-purposed into decks they have made that sacrifice the speed of being tuned for some good hay maker all in strategies.
It is why it is dangerous to ascribe any card to any specific place alone because these formats are not vacuums.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I for one don't think that a change to a lower life total would impact the things you are talking about, because a balanced increase of aggro leads to people also running more responses to said aggro so the control decks and the combo decks both wanting to survive in early portions of the game becomes a real thing. This also allows for a meta that plays mostly in battlecruiser and similar configurations to play largely the same game sure the things that generally happened in those games would happen sooner but the amount of give and take would not be lessened I do not think.
I was more wondering about reasons people like 40 life outside of those, because as it stands right now the reasons to keep the life total where it is seem minimal.
I think the best you could possibly hope for is either:
1) An official guideline that allows for "fast games" to start at 30 life
2) A season with 30 life
And I'd personally be OK with either of those but the idea of just changing the rule seems insanely risky to me, and none of the arguments are anywhere near enough for me to be in favor of making an abrupt permanent rule change.
Literally every argument I have heard is just loaded with assumptions that the things that very informed, experienced, and somewhat spiky players want are the same things everyone wants. Things like focusing on streamlining decks and faster games and so on. There's really no foundation for these assumptions whatsoever.
And another argument is based on the idea that somehow shorter games are going to lead to less combo in the casual community which I think is the exact opposite of what's likely. Presenting that as anything more than a guess is really extreme in my opinion.
I do not like or dislike it but my stance against it is that my instinct when something is successful is to be change averse.
The burden for wanting to change things is heavily on the people arguing for it, and so far I feel that much like the Planeswalker argument that the people proposing the idea are:
1) making not particularly compelling arguments and being kind of bludgeony with them
2) proposing their arguments with a certainty that I find unnerving
This is a very large change. It warrants more caution.
Edit: I will note that Dirk came around (or was already there but I didn't see it until we'd argued a while) on the cautious trial run approach which I think is the natural end stage of the argument. If that's what we're arguing for I'll agree. it's fine to try it. But changing it willy nilly and thinking it's going to be fine is just nutterbutters.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
That said, the trial period idea I think has its flaws too, the biggest one being that, as a casual format, success (or failure) is not going to be particularly clear. With a pro scene, they'll adapt to whatever rules changes are made in an attempt to find the new best thing. So if 30 life has no impact on combos being the best (which is totally possible, I think life totals might need to go even lower before they're unseated) then you would see no impact in the pro scene. But we don't have a pro scene, and even if we did, we wouldn't really care because a balanced format at the pro level is not the primary goal. What we care about is sort of a general trend across a bunch of casual playgroups. And that's really hard to measure.
For one thing, regardless of how much impact it actually has on the way games play out, you can probably expect some number of trend setters to try to exploit the lower life totals, even if the same strategies might have been nearly as effective with 40 life (say, purphoros, for example). I think you're also going to see a backlash to those decks because people don't like how powerful they are, even if they're not any more powerful than what those players might have been doing otherwise, just along different axes. "This is BS, Purphoros is way too good now!" they'll complain, even though the winrate of the deck is still lower than the combo urza deck he was playing before, it just didn't win as quickly. People like to have excuses why they lost, and any major change is going to be a GREAT excuse.
The point at which the format starts to settle and the long-term effects of lower life totals and - hopefully - the tendency of fewer decks to include safety valve combos would take a long time to actually bear out (or not). Because the vast majority of players aren't testing various strategies to compare the effectiveness pro-style, they're just bumbling from deck to deck and, maybe after a couple more decks where they include safety valves out of habit, they find themselves building lower, more aggressive curves after getting knocked out by aggressive decks that previously were less of a concern, and now that they're focusing more on the early game they realize they don't need the safety valves anymore, and maybe eventually they take them out. But that could be years down the line. And in metas with less competitive pressure, they might not change at all. It's really hard to say.
So idk. I like the idea of a trial run, but I'm not sure it's actually a feasible way to give you what you're looking for, results-wise.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
The likelihood of making the change abruptly straight up ruining the game is high. Pretending that the risk is not massive just to make your point is something I find questionable.
Arguing a point in debate club is where you pull out all the stops and try to win. This setting is not about trying to bring others to your point of view it's about reaching the right conclusion through discussion.
I generally do not care for the debate club approach. It's tiresome. If your goal is to simply win your incentive is to dismiss every counterargument whether it's reasonable or not.
I don't have anything else to say on this topic. It's a massive risk that is poorly justified attempting to achieve ends we're not sure are good for the format anyway.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Well, once again, I'm not designating them anything, I'm calling it as I see it, and I don't see Ad Nauseum being problematic in casual games. I almost never see it there, and when I do its not doing anything broken. I rarely hear it complained about outside of cEDH either, except for you, right now, as it suits your point. Even the point you try to make acknowledges that when these cards do get ran in more casual settings, its not in the same kind of all in way that would make them problematic. And calling me a liar is, as is so often your style, a baseless personal attack. I mean, maybe you've seen differently in your meta and that's why you are saying it, but if I wanted to be a jerk I could call you a liar and say you are making it up to suit your argument because I have not seen it. That would be asinine, because I have no proof that you have seen it, and that's a reasonable explanation for you insisting that its a problem. But unfortunately for your argument Ad Naus is not something that's running around ruining casual games of commander to any degree that would make it hit the banlist criteria, nor is Doomsday. They are cEDH cards simply because that is where they are ran. Should they actually spread out to casual and start making a splash in a problematic way, then they would cease to be cEDH cards. Then they would be relevant to the conversation on rules changes. And all this would be possible while still ignoring cEDH. We aren't ignoring the CARDS, we're ignoring the cEDH meta, and thus the impact that ANY card has in it. This also works for cards that are problematic in casual but bad in cEDH, as "it isn't in tier 1 decks" isn't an argument against banning.
Saying its a cEDH card isn't ignoring the card, its ignoring its impact on cEDH. The impact of the card on casual is still considered (as I do in my posts) and I don't believe those cards to be problematic in casual, or even prolific there. In order to argue that Ad Naus and Doomsday are significant in the format, you need to bring in cEDH, and that is irrelevant to rules discussion.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
In 7 years of EDH I have seen one ad nauseam cast.
(It didn't end the game)
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Length of Game
Commander games, on average, will last a long time. There are multiple factors that affect this, but the high starting life total is notable in that regard.
The high length of games is both a common complaint, and restrictive on actually playing the game. On a near-weekly basis, I see or am part of a group that finishes a game with an hour left, and chooses not to play again because an hour is simply not enough time.
While reducing the starting life total will not affect the length of all games of Commander, it will reduce the average, both increasing the larger appeal of playing Commander and lessening the restrictive nature of time limits.
Aggro-Combo Imbalance
Aggro style decks are heavily disadvantaged in Commander, due to both multiple opponents, and the high starting life total.
Because of the high starting life total, combo decks are advantaged by virtue of simply being the most efficient way to win, and additionally from the increased buffer their own high life total allows.
Regardless of if you think combo decks are an enjoyable experience or antithetical to the format, this imbalance is unhealthy to the game. You do not need to make aggro better than combo. You just need to make aggro better relative to combo to improve the metagame.
This is not a competitive format, and most players are going to gravitate towards what they prefer over what is best. But with the current state of the format, this archetype imbalance is so significant that nearly every deck has some form of combo win condition, simply because it has become a necessity, and combo's dominance is not something that can be effectively addressed with card bannings. Reducing the starting life total will help to address this in a way any targeted ban cannot, while still remaining high enough to meet the other objectives / feeling of the format.
Life Total Matters
Another category of cards that is very commonly complained about are static life total effects, such as Serra Ascendant or Magister Sphinx. This is due to the disproportionately high starting life of the format interacting badly with these types of effects.
Again, you do not need to 'fix' the discrepancy to improve it. A starting life total of 30 will dramatically affect the impact and perception of these cards in a positive manner.
Life as a Resource
Paying life for an effect, with the most notable examples being Ad Nauseam, Necropotence, & Sylvan Library, similarly to Life Total Matters, are cards that receive a dramatic and unnecessary benefit from the current starting life totals. These are again cards I see common complaints about.
Reducing the starting life total will provide a significant benefit in addressing this format-rules discrepant interaction with these effects.
Reducing the starting life total to 20 would be foolish; there is too much about the format that would be negatively impacted, both game play and conceptual. But a starting life of 40 is too high, causing multiple problems with no appreciable benefit.
A starting life total of 30 is the correct balance between these two points, and would result in a considerable improvement to the format as a whole.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
Out of curiosity, when you say "the likelihood of...ruining the game is high", what odds do you put on that, roughly? And what do you mean by "ruin"? I'm having a hard time conceiving of a version of "ruin" that doesn't look something like...certain aggro commanders become annoyingly powerful - purphoros and vial smasher come to mind - and then those commanders can then compete with combo decks in powerful metas, and they get shunned in casual ones for the same reason combo ones get shunned.
I mean, I get how to ruin a competitive format, because people are playing to win so if something is broken, everyone will exploit it. If something is broken in commander, though, there's only a subset of players who are trying to exploit that, and they're already exploiting combo now. So I don't see a way the format could totally collapse - it might get worse, sure, that's definitely possible, but total ruin? I'm not buying. Maybe if you set the life total to 10 or something.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I think the likelihood is probably >= 50% that it would require so many new bans to maintain diversity that even if the format survived it, it'd be changed so much as to have to sacrifice much of the core mission of the format.
\
(Just one example off the top of my head, but Edgar Markov is the 2nd most popular commander on EDHrec; likelihood he has to get banned is close to 100% for me).
Likelihood approaches 100% for me that almost all decks will need to be massively changed or rebuilt and that will cause a lot of turmoil. Whether it's enough to have severe consequences or not, I don't know. But I do know people who do not tune and mod their decks all the time, and this kind of change could easily drive those people out of the format completely.
Personally every deck I own would change by 10-20 cards at minimum. I've spent years foiling out my Ephara deck and if I had to hack 20 cards out of it to re-tune it for the 30 life meta I can't 100% say I would bother with it. It's always hard to predict how your brain will react to something like that.
** It's possible Commander is already dying, so it might be hard to tell if it happened because of a 30 life change.
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Also I would question utilizing any current breakdowns to try and infer what happens due to this change because the amount of Edgar decks probably stems from the fact that Edgar is a deadly efficient way to make aggro work in the current environment of commander, and while Edgar will still be very good if the life totals are lessened I would imagine people would also come to those games packing more answers for that same reason.
While I do not doubt there will also be people who only look at this change as numerical, I bet that number is smaller.
Large changes have happened before, and everyone got past it. Pretending this could end EDH is a ludicrous way to frame an argument.
I agree a trial would be a spectacular way to go, but outside once allowing Silver boarder for a set time, they don't do trials.
I do think one day the life total will come down, or the option will be codified.