So I know why Commander Damage is set at 21 it is because 7x3 and 3 is a good number of swings that all checks out. What I don't know is why the overall life total is set at 40. The simple answer is that is is double 20, and there are a couple others I can think of that make sense but why is it 40 for real and do you guys think 40 is still a good number.
Personally I think it is too high, and I think lowering that number would actually help a lot of other things people don't like about Commander that 40 Life helps facilitate.
1) Certain cards which relay on you having life to pay get drastically weaker as the starting life totals get pulled down now.
2) 40 Life is a pretty nice cushion and it allows people I think too much time to sit in relative safety and accumulate a win without needing to worry or care about a total.
3) Aggro is a pretty non-existent archetype in Commander it more exists on the fringes or in completely different forms (Voltron and decks like Purphoros are the big examples or more Battlecruiser type sets ups)
4) I play primarily combo decks and I know for me depending on the deck I know I don't need nearly as much protection / disruption because of the 40 Life I start the game with, especially if the any part of what I am doing also has life gain built into it.
I haven't personally gotten to try something smaller (that wasn't 1v1) because the places I play Commander stick pretty heavily to the rules as written, but I have been trying to figure out if there would be any massive downsides to lowering the starting life total.
(I put that 3rd entry in the poll in mostly as a joke but does anyone actually think 40 is not enough?)
I think lowering the life total could alleviate a lot on certain cards (Ad Nauseum and Sylvan Library spring to mind). Having played Duel Commander some time, makes me think that 30 might be more on the right numbering. Would also shorten some games sometimes, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. My only issue is with how ingrained the 40 life have become and as such it might be really hard to change although magic players are some of the most adept at managing change and adapting to them, so maybe it could work.
Originally the life total was 200/#players, meaning a five player game using all five elder dragons had a starting life of 40. Once they settled on a set starting life total they probably chose 40 because of this, combined with the 2x20 like you already said.
Our local playgroup started using 30 life years ago and we haven't looked back. Games become much more interesting, because people are actually at risk of dying from hatebears and other smaller creatures. It just feels like more of a Magic game, because aggro, blocking and not blocking actually matter. I've argued in the past that we should at least consider officially shifting to 30 life, but as I recall, the RC was surprisingly adamant about keeping the life totals as they are :/
Reducing the starting life total to 30 has numerous positive effects, and is a change I have long been in favor of.
Currently, one of the particularly common categories of cards I see complained about (regardless of if they actually are a problem or not), are static life total effects - Magister Sphinx, Sera Ascendant, etc. These complaints stem almost entirely from the high starting life total. While they would still have a greater than normal effect with a starting life total of 30, this discrepancy would be greatly diminished, and those complaints would likely die out. This is very much a problem with an entire category of card effects 'interacting badly with the structure of the format', and while not enough to justify a format structural change on its own, is a contributing factor.
The above argument additionally extends to life payment effects, most notably cards such as Ad Nauseum and Necropotence. These already strong cards gain a considerable and unnecessary increase to their power when the life available to fuel them is so radically high.
Another common complaint I hear, this time about the format in general, is that games frequently are simply to long. This is the primary reason I so rarely see five player games anymore. A shame, as five players is by far my preferred group size, if I can have a reasonable expectation of not spending two or more hours on a single game.
The high starting life total is a major factor as to why games of Commander so often last long enough to frustrate players. It is not an uncommon occurrence for me to be in games where, after a certain point, the players have largely lost interest in playing, and simply want the game to end. There is a problem when the group mutually agrees to Kingmaker plays, such as Cataclysm when another player very clearly has the dominate advantage from it, simply to end the game.
My final point, and the one I regard as the most important, is that the high life total warps the entire format around specific strategies. For the various archetypes, Control seems to be roughly as effective as it is in other formats, the higher life buffer competing with multiple opponents. Aggro suffers considerably, to the point of largely being unviable due to how much damage has to be done.
Combo, on the other hand, is heavily encouraged by the high life totals. It is simply the most efficient, most effective way to win the game. While I personally do not have any problems with combo based strategies, many people among the target audience dislike this style of play, and I do have a problem with the large discrepancy in the effectiveness of these overarching strategies.
It seems counter-intuitive for the rules of the format to encourage the type of deck the target audience (broadly speaking) hates.
While I have not had the ability to play in a group that uses a 30 starting life total, I do not recall ever hearing a player who has claim they prefer starting at 40.
It is hard to cast a vote for this sort of question due to the fact that I have't played commander with any other life value than 40, but I can see how a strong argument can be made for reducing life totals. I'd be interested to see what some RC members have to say about 40 life compared to 30 life.
I would totally stand behind a move to 30 starting life for commander as the official rule. I have long thought that 40 life gives too little incentive to try to play the early game aggro plan. It makes it far too forgiving to not bother defending yourself from the first few hits.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
Originally the life total was 200/#players, meaning a five player game using all five elder dragons had a starting life of 40. Once they settled on a set starting life total they probably chose 40 because of this, combined with the 2x20 like you already said.
So if you have a 20 player game everyone starts at 10! Then aggro would be insane.
While I have not had the ability to play in a group that uses a 30 starting life total, I do not recall ever hearing a player who has claim they prefer starting at 40.
I have played both, and much prefer 40. Too many games from 40 swing when someone is below 10. I also enjoy that is dissuades larger groups, because people doing stupid stuff and not being prepared is the real reason games drag on. The less chance for that the better.
Interesting you have such a strong thought out opinion having never played it. I see almost no combo, and don't think people 'hide' behind the life totals, but its nice you dont have to immediately answer a 3/3 coming at you for a few turns. Gives people a chance to build a board and do battle-cruiser things.
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.
Easily half the games I play, I feel they would be better if the starting life total was 30.
I consistently play decks that benefit from having the higher starting life, and still feel games would be better if it was reduced. That is before factoring in the benefits to otherwise stifled strategies such as traditional agro, which would be positive to the format for increased variety.
In those half, what makes it seem that way? Just length of game? What would have changed if nothing but the life totals were different? No one switched archetypes, because they assumed 40 life, but all of the sudden it was 30. What makes it seem like that game would be better right now?
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 agree with 40 life total, but am often open to changing it. My playgroup all hoards all non currently played cards at the "collectors" house and we have about 40 pre-built commander decks that we role dice to see. Some matchup a we'll say, oo, let's do 30 life this time, but mostly 40 life is nice.
You also have to take into account the competitiveness of the decks playing. In less strong EDH decks, I feel 40 life is needed in most cases without giving too much cushion. It happens decently often that a player can ride a T2 or T3 creature in for upwards of 20 damage in our games due to the casual builds of our decks. Often, if a person gets a good draw and can play on curve for the first 4 turns, they can do like 35 damage before the other deck gets online and stabilizes.
I think 40 is a good starting point, but players should be open to tweaking it.
In those half, what makes it seem that way? Just length of game? What would have changed if nothing but the life totals were different? No one switched archetypes, because they assumed 40 life, but all of the sudden it was 30. What makes it seem like that game would be better right now?
I think a change in the life total would lead to more healthy and varied archetypes of decks take the fore because it isn't a reasonable request for those styles of play to win.
The longer the game is printed the more and better removal and board clearing tools will be printed. Commander is not a favorable environment for creatures turning sideways on the best of days, it is why you find the hint of combo hidden in every deck, because they know that a straight aggro plan can't hope to succeed.
So obviously people would have decks prepared for a change in life total.
A change in that direction makes smaller things more threatening and can give people more a reason to want to attack because they feel it will be worth it or meaningful.
If life totals were 30 points instead of 40, it would actually make me tweak my decks slightly so I don't have to shoot someone for 40 in a single turn. 30 in a single hit or turn is much easier to obtain.
I would also actually be more careful with my life total and not sandbag like crazy until the last reasonable moment.
The longer the game is printed the more and better removal and board clearing tools will be printed. Commander is not a favorable environment for creatures turning sideways on the best of days, it is why you find the hint of combo hidden in every deck, because they know that a straight aggro plan can't hope to succeed.
I don't actually see a hint of combo in most decks. I die most often to creatures turning sideways, even in the 'unfavorable' EDH environment.
A change in that direction makes smaller things more threatening and can give people more a reason to want to attack because they feel it will be worth it or meaningful.
I just dont see this psychological barrier being much affected by 10 life. An agro player still sits against 90+ life, they cant do it by themselves. Hence politics, synergies, and more mid-range stuff. Combo does not care how much life is involved so they wont change.
It wouldn't ruin the game or anything, but I just see it as a net-negative.
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 am not saying I haven't been killed by creatures, I am saying the ways in which creature based attacking strategies are effective in commander is narrow.
I also think you are wrong about the psychological aspect of it, if you have a 2/2 creature and someone has 40 life vs. the same person with 30 life that 2 damage is fundamentally more important and 28 is a much different number than 38.
People understand how Commander players attack and how they can hold resources for the bigger pushes, at least that is how aggro looks in every game I see it that isn't a few select commanders who break that mold and can be threatening regularly.
I would love a 20 life version of this format but as a separate format. I think it would be a better format compeitivly speaking even at 30 life but as jivan said since it's casual I can't see them changing it.
I would hate it if the life total was changed for two reasons:
The fact that it is played as battelcruiser magic makes Commander actually play different than normal magic. Yes, this prevents true aggro from being a thing in EDH, but that's kind of the point of the design of the format. And why I, personally, like it.
The fact that it is played as battlecruiser magic means a lot of cards are good for Commander are not good for official tournament play, keeping card prices down. If the top cards of the GP and PTQ's are also the top cards for Commander, the format would be a lot more expensive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The secret to enjoyable Commander games is not winning first, but losing last.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
I would hate it if the life total was changed for two reasons:
The fact that it is played as battelcruiser magic makes Commander actually play different than normal magic. Yes, this prevents true aggro from being a thing in EDH, but that's kind of the point of the design of the format. And why I, personally, like it.
The fact that it is played as battlecruiser magic means a lot of cards are good for Commander are not good for official tournament play, keeping card prices down. If the top cards of the GP and PTQ's are also the top cards for Commander, the format would be a lot more expensive.
Can you elaborate why invalidating one of the core archetypes of MTG is the point of EDH? What are the reasons you dislike playing against aggro? Also, I can assure you that lowering the life totals won't suddenly super-buff all aggro decks and you will get overrun turn 4 every game. It will merely make cards like Sylvan Library and Reanimate a bit more difficult to use, since reanimating Jin-Gitaxias will now cost you a third of your life and not just a quarter. At 40, people usually abuse life as a resource instead of using it. Also, since smaller creatures will matter more, and the politics and aggro alliances will be able to begin even earlier.
As life total amounts can be tuned for format balance and EDH is not designed to be balanced I see no issue with the current life total.
Whoa, missed this one! This is IMHO a horrible outlook to have. You could take the same reasoning and apply it to each and every change the RC has made to the format (banning/unbanning, rules changes, etc.). What else is the RC supposed to do but tune the existing state of the format to the most enjoyable configuration??
Kahno, I don't think that aggro is invalidated, just changed. "Aggro" decks in EDH have larger creatures, more ramp, things that double damage, more midrange characteristics, etc. It's only really invalidated if you're talking about cEDH, but that is a completely different discussion regarding the speed of combo as opposed to the speed of aggro with high life totals. In "normal" EDH, I don't see aggro as being invalid and I actually see it as the most popular way to win: through combat.
To speak to your other comment, I agree with Jivan and I don't think EDH is supposed to be balanced either. It is a self-regulating format to some extent in that playgroups balance whatever power they want to be at. The RC's banlist is not meant to "balance" things. The rules that are changed are meant to increase enjoyment in a multiplayer format, not necessarily "balance" anything. Cards can be banned for "interacting poorly with the rules of the format" which is where you could get an argument for banning a card like Serra Ascendant or AN or Sylvan Library because life totals are too abusable. Multiplayer's very nature is imbalanced.
That said, I think 30 life would probably be good for the format. It would help true aggro a little bit and punish decks that abuse their life total, but still give you enough life to probably not get 3v1'd before getting to do anything.
Kahno, I don't think that aggro is invalidated, just changed. "Aggro" decks in EDH have larger creatures, more ramp, things that double damage, more midrange characteristics, etc. It's only really invalidated if you're talking about cEDH, but that is a completely different discussion regarding the speed of combo as opposed to the speed of aggro with high life totals. In "normal" EDH, I don't see aggro as being invalid and I actually see it as the most popular way to win: through combat.
I don't actually believe that aggro is invalidated either, but I was interested in the point of view of the other poster. He seemed to believe that aggro is "not a thing in EDH" and rightfully so, which seems wrong to me and I wanted to hear from him why that was the case.
To speak to your other comment, I agree with Jivan and I don't think EDH is supposed to be balanced either. It is a self-regulating format to some extent in that playgroups balance whatever power they want to be at. The RC's banlist is not meant to "balance" things. The rules that are changed are meant to increase enjoyment in a multiplayer format, not necessarily "balance" anything. Cards can be banned for "interacting poorly with the rules of the format" which is where you could get an argument for banning a card like Serra Ascendant or AN or Sylvan Library because life totals are too abusable. Multiplayer's very nature is imbalanced.
But it's actually just your personal (and Jivan's apparently) interpretation that tuning life totals is considered "balance", while banning problematic cards is considered "increasing the enjoyment of the game". I don't see how they are different. Is it because setting life total is a modifying a clear numerical value, while single card effects on a format are more intantgible? In any case, I maintain the opinion that setting the life total to 30 is in fact increasing the enjoyment of the game.
That said, I think 30 life would probably be good for the format. It would help true aggro a little bit and punish decks that abuse their life total, but still give you enough life to probably not get 3v1'd before getting to do anything.
Yup. After playing with it for years, my playgroup really feels like it is a magic number for EDH.
Personally I think it is too high, and I think lowering that number would actually help a lot of other things people don't like about Commander that 40 Life helps facilitate.
1) Certain cards which relay on you having life to pay get drastically weaker as the starting life totals get pulled down now.
2) 40 Life is a pretty nice cushion and it allows people I think too much time to sit in relative safety and accumulate a win without needing to worry or care about a total.
3) Aggro is a pretty non-existent archetype in Commander it more exists on the fringes or in completely different forms (Voltron and decks like Purphoros are the big examples or more Battlecruiser type sets ups)
4) I play primarily combo decks and I know for me depending on the deck I know I don't need nearly as much protection / disruption because of the 40 Life I start the game with, especially if the any part of what I am doing also has life gain built into it.
I haven't personally gotten to try something smaller (that wasn't 1v1) because the places I play Commander stick pretty heavily to the rules as written, but I have been trying to figure out if there would be any massive downsides to lowering the starting life total.
(I put that 3rd entry in the poll in mostly as a joke but does anyone actually think 40 is not enough?)
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Currently, one of the particularly common categories of cards I see complained about (regardless of if they actually are a problem or not), are static life total effects - Magister Sphinx, Sera Ascendant, etc. These complaints stem almost entirely from the high starting life total. While they would still have a greater than normal effect with a starting life total of 30, this discrepancy would be greatly diminished, and those complaints would likely die out. This is very much a problem with an entire category of card effects 'interacting badly with the structure of the format', and while not enough to justify a format structural change on its own, is a contributing factor.
The above argument additionally extends to life payment effects, most notably cards such as Ad Nauseum and Necropotence. These already strong cards gain a considerable and unnecessary increase to their power when the life available to fuel them is so radically high.
Another common complaint I hear, this time about the format in general, is that games frequently are simply to long. This is the primary reason I so rarely see five player games anymore. A shame, as five players is by far my preferred group size, if I can have a reasonable expectation of not spending two or more hours on a single game.
The high starting life total is a major factor as to why games of Commander so often last long enough to frustrate players. It is not an uncommon occurrence for me to be in games where, after a certain point, the players have largely lost interest in playing, and simply want the game to end. There is a problem when the group mutually agrees to Kingmaker plays, such as Cataclysm when another player very clearly has the dominate advantage from it, simply to end the game.
My final point, and the one I regard as the most important, is that the high life total warps the entire format around specific strategies. For the various archetypes, Control seems to be roughly as effective as it is in other formats, the higher life buffer competing with multiple opponents. Aggro suffers considerably, to the point of largely being unviable due to how much damage has to be done.
Combo, on the other hand, is heavily encouraged by the high life totals. It is simply the most efficient, most effective way to win the game. While I personally do not have any problems with combo based strategies, many people among the target audience dislike this style of play, and I do have a problem with the large discrepancy in the effectiveness of these overarching strategies.
It seems counter-intuitive for the rules of the format to encourage the type of deck the target audience (broadly speaking) hates.
While I have not had the ability to play in a group that uses a 30 starting life total, I do not recall ever hearing a player who has claim they prefer starting at 40.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
So if you have a 20 player game everyone starts at 10! Then aggro would be insane.
In Progress
GBIshkanah, Grafwidow ~ BWGRTymna the Weaver & Tana, the Bloodsower ~ UGRashmi, Eternities Crafter ~ RGAtarka, World Render
Except it is largely not about balancing.
It is about a larger, overall improvement to multiple facets of gameplay.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
Interesting you have such a strong thought out opinion having never played it. I see almost no combo, and don't think people 'hide' behind the life totals, but its nice you dont have to immediately answer a 3/3 coming at you for a few turns. Gives people a chance to build a board and do battle-cruiser things.
I consistently play decks that benefit from having the higher starting life, and still feel games would be better if it was reduced. That is before factoring in the benefits to otherwise stifled strategies such as traditional agro, which would be positive to the format for increased variety.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
You also have to take into account the competitiveness of the decks playing. In less strong EDH decks, I feel 40 life is needed in most cases without giving too much cushion. It happens decently often that a player can ride a T2 or T3 creature in for upwards of 20 damage in our games due to the casual builds of our decks. Often, if a person gets a good draw and can play on curve for the first 4 turns, they can do like 35 damage before the other deck gets online and stabilizes.
I think 40 is a good starting point, but players should be open to tweaking it.
I think a change in the life total would lead to more healthy and varied archetypes of decks take the fore because it isn't a reasonable request for those styles of play to win.
The longer the game is printed the more and better removal and board clearing tools will be printed. Commander is not a favorable environment for creatures turning sideways on the best of days, it is why you find the hint of combo hidden in every deck, because they know that a straight aggro plan can't hope to succeed.
So obviously people would have decks prepared for a change in life total.
A change in that direction makes smaller things more threatening and can give people more a reason to want to attack because they feel it will be worth it or meaningful.
I would also actually be more careful with my life total and not sandbag like crazy until the last reasonable moment.
The Unidentified Fantastic Flying Girl.
EDH
Xenagos, the God of Stompy
The Gitrog Monster: Oppressive Value.
Marchesa, Marionette Master - Undying Robots
Yuriko, the Hydra Omnivore
I make dolls as a hobby.
I just dont see this psychological barrier being much affected by 10 life. An agro player still sits against 90+ life, they cant do it by themselves. Hence politics, synergies, and more mid-range stuff. Combo does not care how much life is involved so they wont change.
It wouldn't ruin the game or anything, but I just see it as a net-negative.
I also think you are wrong about the psychological aspect of it, if you have a 2/2 creature and someone has 40 life vs. the same person with 30 life that 2 damage is fundamentally more important and 28 is a much different number than 38.
People understand how Commander players attack and how they can hold resources for the bigger pushes, at least that is how aggro looks in every game I see it that isn't a few select commanders who break that mold and can be threatening regularly.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
Whoa, missed this one! This is IMHO a horrible outlook to have. You could take the same reasoning and apply it to each and every change the RC has made to the format (banning/unbanning, rules changes, etc.). What else is the RC supposed to do but tune the existing state of the format to the most enjoyable configuration??
To speak to your other comment, I agree with Jivan and I don't think EDH is supposed to be balanced either. It is a self-regulating format to some extent in that playgroups balance whatever power they want to be at. The RC's banlist is not meant to "balance" things. The rules that are changed are meant to increase enjoyment in a multiplayer format, not necessarily "balance" anything. Cards can be banned for "interacting poorly with the rules of the format" which is where you could get an argument for banning a card like Serra Ascendant or AN or Sylvan Library because life totals are too abusable. Multiplayer's very nature is imbalanced.
That said, I think 30 life would probably be good for the format. It would help true aggro a little bit and punish decks that abuse their life total, but still give you enough life to probably not get 3v1'd before getting to do anything.
EDH:
G[cEDH] Selvala, Heart of the StormG
URW[cEDH] Narset, the Last AirmericanURW
GWUSt. Jenara, the ArchangelGWU
UBGrimgrin, Chaos MarineUB
GOmnath, Mana BaronG
URWNarset, Justice League AmericaURW
GWUBAtraxa, Countess of CountersGWUB
GWUEstrid, Enbantress PrimeGWU