I could also get behind the 30 life change to benefit not only agro, but make combo decks a little less able to be "all-in" with their only defense being the higher life total to buy them time.
I think this requires a significant amount of testing and the area I am watching is Droptimal's "Modern Commander" format - I think there is some interesting promise coming out from over there.
I prefer starting at 40. I like how you have to do lots of damage to kill somebody in the format. Making exponential Dragons with Utvara Hellkite and similar splashy plays seem almost reasonable because of the high starting life total. I like that.
If you want a more balanced format, sure, 30 life makes sense. For me, that's not what EDH is about. 30 life would make lower-to-the-ground aggro better, which is fair enough, but it would simultaneously make excessive, over-the-top aggro and voltron worse. I enjoy the huge plays that 40 starting life encourages. Commander damage stands out as a defining feature of the format. Starting at 30 life, commander damage begins to look superfluous.
Commander damage is mostly viable only if you have a commander with ability to inflict 6 or more combat dmg every turn or if you make a voltron deck. Sure I've been killed by Riku pumped with Kessig wolf run, but that's an exception not a rule. But as Kahno has pointed out making sure that random bears attacking you become suddenly relevant.
Sure if you want to enjoy battle cruiser Magic you can still do it even on 30 life, you just need to be playing in a group where people like that, but if you want to decrease the number of combo decks that are able to function in such environment then moving from 40 life to 30 is the right call.
Just adding my 2 cents as another person that is a part of Kahnos playgroup and have actually enjoyed the challange that was brought up by changing life total.
My only caution is if a group already says no to infinite combos, I would not suggest dropping the life total down. Aggro and Mid-range decks immediately get a boost when you remove infinites and dropping life even further would make it even more so. Outside of that though, I think 30 life being the only thing to change is an excellent way to bring a little balance into the archtypes of decks. I'd love to give it a shot in my local group and see what happens.
I see EDH as a format where you spend the evening playing one game that goes backwards and forwards with your mates. It usually ends with big combos, or big creatures that often wouldn't see the light of day in 60 card formats. If I just want a quick game, I'll play Modern or Standard, personally I don't feel that's what EDH is about.
BUT it is by design a casual format. If your group wants a quicker game with more aggro, i don't see why a rule change should be needed to drop the life totals?
If your group wants a quicker game with more aggro, i don't see why a rule change should be needed to drop the life totals?
It's more that we don't want the game oversaturated with passive ramp/combo strategies because people are strongly disincentivized to even try attacking each other, until they start attacking for 90. Having this as a global rules change would IMO bring more diversity to all playgroups. I can also assure you that ramp decks and other archetypes which are favorably positioned currently at 40 life do not suffer so much that they become unplayable. If anything, decks that would suffer from the life change the most are the ones which rely on abusing Ad Nauseam (a card that the competitive crowd deems overpowered and could use a bit more effort to use, while the RC doesn't care about it at all).
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.
EDH was designed as a format where big plays can be made. A format where spells that cost 7 mana (The elder dragons themselves!) could be played. Higher life totals were used to make sure of exactly that: prevent games from being finished to quickly. This is exactly the opposite of what aggro decks try to do: kill the opponent quickly before he/she can execute their game plan. You say people abuse the life total as a resource, but I think that's just people doing exactly what it is meant for in the first place.
Of course, speed is relative: you can still play a tempo based game plan in EDH, but the deck you need will probably not qualify as an aggro deck in the traditional sense: swarm the board with cheap creatures and kill the opponent before they can stabilize against it. For example, I have a EDH deck with Xenagos, God of Revels as the commander. (Based on this list) that if unhindered, kills an opponent on turn 6 or 7. Which is very fast for non-infinite combo EDH standards (At least in my group). But when you look at the decklist you cannot possibly say it is an aggro deck.
As for why I don't like playing against an aggro deck: when I play a regular game of magic I don't mind. In commander I do not either, since as explained above it is usually easy to handle them. But I play EDH because it allows for the big plays, the big numbers involved. And I like my commander games to last more then 5 minutes. Changing the life total to 30 life would mean aggro becomes more of a thing which in turn would change the nature of most EDH games AND force me to adjust my decks in order to add more defense against aggro ultimately leading to an, in my opinion, less fun EDH experience.
I think you are greatly exaggerating the side that you do not agree with for dramatic effect, and also the amount that you would have to change you deck, it is still a multiplayer game and it is still more than the standard amount of life.
I think you are greatly exaggerating the side that you do not agree with for dramatic effect, and also the amount that you would have to change you deck, it is still a multiplayer game and it is still more than the standard amount of life.
I'd love to give a seriousresponse, but you'd have to be a little more specific on the exaggerating bit. As far as I can tell i'm only stating facts and my honest interpretation of the consequences of said facts.
As for the amount of deck change, decks would need more sweepers or other " anti larger amount of creatures" cards like Dream Tides or whatever since the nature of anti-aggro cards means you need them early in the game. Given the fact you play 100 card singleton, if you want to be able to do that you have to add redundancy or tutors which take up the spots now occupied by cards that actually work with my commander or the occasional " just added because it's fun" card.
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 don't think benefiting aggressive decks will make the games not last until 7+ turns in, nor will I think it will radically make games Shorter, just more manageable in length.
In fact I think it would have a stabilizing effect because a lot of what wins the game very quickly are very devil may care strategies that rely on cards that utilize the high life totals for profit, even Fetches and Shocks would be come something much more significant a choice without that 10 extra life cushion.
Also for sure people will adapt their decks but in a way that is positive and not in a large enough way to actually change how a deck is determined to be run.
I don't think benefiting aggressive decks will make the games not last until 7+ turns in, nor will I think it will radically make games Shorter, just more manageable in length.
In fact I think it would have a stabilizing effect because a lot of what wins the game very quickly are very devil may care strategies that rely on cards that utilize the high life totals for profit, even Fetches and Shocks would be come something much more significant a choice without that 10 extra life cushion.
Also for sure people will adapt their decks but in a way that is positive and not in a large enough way to actually change how a deck is determined to be run.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree then.
In practice though, any group that feels it needs to can change that rule.
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.
EDH was designed as a format where big plays can be made. A format where spells that cost 7 mana (The elder dragons themselves!) could be played. Higher life totals were used to make sure of exactly that: prevent games from being finished to quickly. This is exactly the opposite of what aggro decks try to do: kill the opponent quickly before he/she can execute their game plan.
Actually, the archetype you are thinking of is combo. It does not care about the number of opponents and abuses the high life totals to assemble its victory engine. It also finishes games abruptly and sometimes in a truly anticlimactic fashion. All the mentioned things have been labeled problematic by the RC, however they are as of yet unwilling to address one of the major enablers to this strategy: high life totals.
You say people abuse the life total as a resource, but I think that's just people doing exactly what it is meant for in the first place.
Of course, speed is relative: you can still play a tempo based game plan in EDH, but the deck you need will probably not qualify as an aggro deck in the traditional sense: swarm the board with cheap creatures and kill the opponent before they can stabilize against it. For example, I have a EDH deck with Xenagos, God of Revels as the commander. (Based on this list) that if unhindered, kills an opponent on turn 6 or 7. Which is very fast for non-infinite combo EDH standards (At least in my group). But when you look at the decklist you cannot possibly say it is an aggro deck.
See, even you yourself consider infinite combo on another level in regards to "fair" strategies. With the current life totals, it is actually hard to kill the combo deck by attacking even if multiple people gang up on it. Reducing it by 10 opens up a lot more possiblities and cuts down on lazy in-game decisions.
As for why I don't like playing against an aggro deck: when I play a regular game of magic I don't mind. In commander I do not either, since as explained above it is usually easy to handle them. But I play EDH because it allows for the big plays, the big numbers involved. And I like my commander games to last more then 5 minutes. Changing the life total to 30 life would mean aggro becomes more of a thing which in turn would change the nature of most EDH games AND force me to adjust my decks in order to add more defense against aggro ultimately leading to an, in my opinion, less fun EDH experience.
I believe Taleran was mostly aiming at your "5 minute long games" assessment as exaggeration. Since you were mentioning Elder Dragons earlier, why don't we use them as a baseline and label 10 life as one combat step attacking with an Elder Dragon and a small creature. There, games now become exactly one turn shorter
See, even you yourself consider infinite combo on another level in regards to "fair" strategies. With the current life totals, it is actually hard to kill the combo deck by attacking even if multiple people gang up on it. Reducing it by 10 opens up a lot more possiblities and cuts down on lazy in-game decisions.
I personally dislike infinite combo decks yes, that's true. But in our group, this is not solved by the rules of the game, it is solved by the group dynamic: we respect the people that want to play it so they can bring it to the table game 1. They respect that they get picked on early, as that's what their decks provoke. They also respect that the rest of the group is not particularly fond of combo, so game 2 they play a different deck. Mutual respect = problem solved and good games all around.
Life total is in no way part of the problem nor part of the solution: unless all decks are pillowfort / do nothing for the first 10 turn decks, any reasonably build EDH deck can put the pressure on the combo player. If everyone does play slow decks, that seems to be the problem, not the life total: your meta is too forgiving for decks that run too little defense.
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 patiently sandbag all the time and I still wouldn't mind 30 life all that much. Unless I go and get myself focused on it's still very possible for me to have enough time to pull out my master plan needing less damage to win with my master plan.
Life total is in no way part of the problem nor part of the solution: unless all decks are pillowfort / do nothing for the first 10 turn decks, any reasonably build EDH deck can put the pressure on the combo player. If everyone does play slow decks, that seems to be the problem, not the life total: your meta is too forgiving for decks that run too little defense.
I don't understand why you are so confident in your statements. I get that any deck can put pressure on a player. My point was that at 40 life, that pressure simply isn't enough, even when coming from multiple people. I can't really assess the power level of your playgroup, but it actually seems that you could benefit from the life total change. How is using social interaction to BAN a deck better than proposing a rules change that facilitates playing against it? Saying that your playgroup has mutual respect is fine (every playgroup should), but that's also kind of narrow, since most people don't play in close playgroups. Social interaction might not work in the majority of cases, especially if a combo deck is the only deck that particular person has/plays.
Also, my playgroup is only partly fond of the life change because it weakens combo (we are still mostly combo players). When I'm playing against newer players and they manage to knock me out with my combo one turn away from assembling, I'm happy because I know the life total actually works. In any case, we are mostly fond of it because it makes EDH more complex, because any cost involving life is that much more important. Operating with less life forces you to make tighter in-game decisions.
Life total is in no way part of the problem nor part of the solution: unless all decks are pillowfort / do nothing for the first 10 turn decks, any reasonably build EDH deck can put the pressure on the combo player. If everyone does play slow decks, that seems to be the problem, not the life total: your meta is too forgiving for decks that run too little defense.
I don't understand why you are so confident in your statements. I get that any deck can put pressure on a player. My point was that at 40 life, that pressure simply isn't enough, even when coming from multiple people. I can't really assess the power level of your playgroup, but it actually seems that you could benefit from the life total change. How is using social interaction to BAN a deck better than proposing a rules change that facilitates playing against it? Saying that your playgroup has mutual respect is fine (every playgroup should), but that's also kind of narrow, since most people don't play in close playgroups. Social interaction might not work in the majority of cases, especially if a combo deck is the only deck that particular person has/plays.
Also, my playgroup is only partly fond of the life change because it weakens combo (we are still mostly combo players). When I'm playing against newer players and they manage to knock me out with my combo one turn away from assembling, I'm happy because I know the life total actually works. In any case, we are mostly fond of it because it makes EDH more complex, because any cost involving life is that much more important. Operating with less life forces you to make tighter in-game decisions.
We're not using social interaction to ban a deck, we're making sure everyone gets to play the deck they want while also ensuring all players get their fun during the evening. I have seen enough pressure on combo players happen on 40 life, seeing them killed long before their combo was assembled. Of course, your mileage may vary and maybe the power level in your group is not strong enough to deal with a combo player in time but it's far from impossible to do. It just means some decks need to become a little more agressive/disruptive.
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.
We're not using social interaction to ban a deck, we're making sure everyone gets to play the deck they want while also ensuring all players get their fun during the evening. I have seen enough pressure on combo players happen on 40 life, seeing them killed long before their combo was assembled. Of course, your mileage may vary and maybe the power level in your group is not strong enough to deal with a combo player in time but it's far from impossible to do. It just means some decks need to become a little more agressive/disruptive.
You can word it differently, but from your earlier comment, I understood that combo decks play one game and then switch decks as part of your social agreement. What if someone doesn't wish to switch decks for whatever reason? Does that person really continue playing the deck they want? You can convince yourself that everyone is happy but the truth is that someone has to make a compromise in the end (probably the combo player, since he/she seems to be the minority). Also, ask yourself why aren't people generally fond of combo in the first place? Personally I think it's because of the speed and abruptness at which they operate. The so-called "social agreement" (talking about the RC here, not necessarily you), tries to combat this by demonizing the archetype. The only reason I see for such behaviour is that combo is legitimately too strong in most groups and I find such an approach to be suboptimal.
I'm all for powering up with disruption and stepping up to battle combo, but the truth is that most groups/players seem to be unwilling to do so, at least judging by many frequent threads that complain about combo and the general dislike for it in the (non-competitive) community. Take for instance Prophet of Kruphix, a card that is completely useless if handled right away (like most combos). In the days following its banning, I argued that since the card had no immediate impact and could easily be handled, it shouldn't have been banned. I was met with many opposing comments, specifically mentioning that stacking a deck with efficient single target removal isn't their idea of EDH, etc. If people are unwilling to do that for PoK, why would they do it for combo? Especially since abusing the "social interaction" is so much easier.
In any case, I'm going wildly offtopic, so I'd be interested to hear your opinion on game decisions in regards to a lower life total. Do you think that it makes the game more interesting, or do you think that the added stress of being closer to losing is what could possibly dissuade people to adopt a new life total?
You can word it differently, but from your earlier comment, I understood that combo decks play one game and then switch decks as part of your social agreement. What if someone doesn't wish to switch decks for whatever reason? Does that person really continue playing the deck they want? You can convince yourself that everyone is happy but the truth is that someone has to make a compromise in the end (probably the combo player, since he/she seems to be the minority). Also, ask yourself why aren't people generally fond of combo in the first place? Personally I think it's because of the speed and abruptness at which they operate. The so-called "social agreement" (talking about the RC here, not necessarily you), tries to combat this by demonizing the archetype. The only reason I see for such behaviour is that combo is legitimately too strong in most groups and I find such an approach to be suboptimal.
We have not yet had the situation where someone wanted to play combo or nothing, so I can't really say anything about that. As for why we dislike combo, it's not that it's too strong, it's that it feels like that person is playing solitary. Usually a 4 player game with one combo player is three people playing interactively until player 4 suddenly declares it's over. At which point the game can stop (Combo player enjoys his win), the three remaining players can continue the game without the winner (Combo player sees his win kind of invalidated) or, which happens most of the time: combo player is quickly ganged up upon and killed as soon as it only vaguely looks as if he can assemble the combo. Result: combo player spends next hour+ bored as the rest of the players finish their game. This is not a problem in-game, but it is in the social dynamic.
In any case, I'm going wildly offtopic, so I'd be interested to hear your opinion on game decisions in regards to a lower life total. Do you think that it makes the game more interesting, or do you think that the added stress of being closer to losing is what could possibly dissuade people to adopt a new life total?
Let me start by saying that I agree with you that life totals affect game decisions. In fact, I think the height of the life total greatly determines the way the game is played, as it directly influences the strength of certain strategies and thus the metagame. I don't think added stress of being closer to losing is a problem. After all, your opponent is closer to losing too. People in general will gravitate to playing what's winning, and if if you don't you must be prepared to face people who are. That's why I'm not a fan of lowering the life total for EDH, as it will change the very nature of the format. In fact, I think it would lead to it's own ' medium leader' format so to speak, compared to what EDH is now.
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.
Longer, more intricate games are one of the appeals of Commander. If the life total were reduced I believe this would decrease the likelihood of said games. Reducing the life total would also benefit whomever is on the play even more. With all the broken cards in Commander I think a higher starting life total helps balance things out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
Longer, more intricate games are one of the appeals of Commander. If the life total were reduced I believe this would decrease the likelihood of said games.
Not necessarily. I find that usually, there are certain parts of the game where players need help from the added life total. After that, the game usually stabilizes (a sweeper hits, for instance) and people are not in any immediate danger of dying due to 0 life. This means that games with lower life totals could potentailly last the same amount of time (and do, in my personal experience), while also opening the possiblity of threating individual players more directly in the crucial stage of the game where that is possible.
Reducing the life total would also benefit whomever is on the play even more. With all the broken cards in Commander I think a higher starting life total helps balance things out.
This doesn't make sense to me. How are higher life totals supposed to balance things out, if the starting person has an unfair advantage?? I believe you are referring to the fact that he or she starts the game first and because in multiplayer, everyone gets to draw a card, the starting person essentially has no weakness and is able to shoot ahead in resources. I don't see how others are compensated if everyone starts at 40 life. On the other hand, if everyone starts at a lower life total, the rest of the table can at least more easily gang up on the person that gained an advantage. Which is the point of multiplayer and at least partly the reason we are allowed to play busted ***** like Mana Crypt.
I really think 30 life may be a sweet spot. Less life total abuse from certain cards makes them more balanced (less bans), fewer poor interactions with life total cards like Felidar Sovereign or Serra Ascendant, and more legitimacy for aggro and burn decks (30 less life to have to get through is a lot).
That said, I don't know if 40 life becomes necessary to shield the slower, true battlecruiser decks that are heavily encouraged in the format from both fast aggro and even efficient mid-range lists. When 3 players can attack the slower deck who is wide open early in the game while playing ramp and other things, that 40 life becomes more necessary.
the 21 is simple. EDH started with Elder dragons only (Hence the name Elder Dragon Highlander) and since they played with 20 life, 21 would kill you.
That's why Commander Damage is 21, not regular life totals.
exactly. But when you boosted the life to 40 you kept the 21 damage for commander damage. It is a nice (and working) gimmick. While not always utilized it does help defeat decks that gain tons of life or have ways to prevent damage often.
Combo decks you can usually take down with normal 40 damage if the cannot get their engine going early enough or lack the protection needed.
40 seems too high. A lot of multiplayer games I have taken part in have devolved into a mexican standoffs and a 31+ life total has usually played a part in this. I will concur that 30 life is a lot better for the format. For white and red, considered the weakest colors, it makes them more powerful. But because of the higher life totals, things normally considered good or great like a Lightning Bolt fall by the wayside due to your opponent's having double the life total than Lightning Bolt was originally designed for.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Peasant: Storm (UR) Commander:Hazezon Tamar (GRW), Arjun, the Shifting Flame (UR), [Waiting on Amonkhet] Tiny Leader: [Waiting on Amonkhet] Peasant Dragon: [Waiting on Amonkhet] Modern: Orzhova Spirits (WB) Legacy: Burn (R) Vintage: Bazaar Dredge (B)
40 seems too high. A lot of multiplayer games I have taken part in have devolved into a mexican standoffs and a 31+ life total has usually played a part in this. I will concur that 30 life is a lot better for the format. For white and red, considered the weakest colors, it makes them more powerful. But because of the higher life totals, things normally considered good or great like a Lightning Bolt fall by the wayside due to your opponent's having double the life total than Lightning Bolt was originally designed for.
Stuff like Lightning Bolt isn't good in EDH because you need to deal 120 damage instead of 20. Changing that to 90 won't magically make Lightning Bolt playable.
Somewhat ironically, my best deck for dealing 120 damage (or 21 Commander Damage to each player) the quickest is my Red/White Gisela, Blade of Goldnight deck. It would become more powerful with 30 life but it in no way struggles against 40 life.
I personally think 40 life is just fine. It lets games go long and lets players play their decks for a relatively enjoyable game. Obviously some metas find that 40 life lets people abuse Ad Nauseum and cards like that but the metas that the RC makes the rules for find the 40 life to be sufficient. I believe the metas I play in are more in line with what the RC wants (though I can't be absolutely sure) and I have never heard anyone complaining about the life totals being too high.
I think this requires a significant amount of testing and the area I am watching is Droptimal's "Modern Commander" format - I think there is some interesting promise coming out from over there.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
If you want a more balanced format, sure, 30 life makes sense. For me, that's not what EDH is about. 30 life would make lower-to-the-ground aggro better, which is fair enough, but it would simultaneously make excessive, over-the-top aggro and voltron worse. I enjoy the huge plays that 40 starting life encourages. Commander damage stands out as a defining feature of the format. Starting at 30 life, commander damage begins to look superfluous.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
BUT it is by design a casual format. If your group wants a quicker game with more aggro, i don't see why a rule change should be needed to drop the life totals?
EDH was designed as a format where big plays can be made. A format where spells that cost 7 mana (The elder dragons themselves!) could be played. Higher life totals were used to make sure of exactly that: prevent games from being finished to quickly. This is exactly the opposite of what aggro decks try to do: kill the opponent quickly before he/she can execute their game plan. You say people abuse the life total as a resource, but I think that's just people doing exactly what it is meant for in the first place.
Of course, speed is relative: you can still play a tempo based game plan in EDH, but the deck you need will probably not qualify as an aggro deck in the traditional sense: swarm the board with cheap creatures and kill the opponent before they can stabilize against it. For example, I have a EDH deck with Xenagos, God of Revels as the commander. (Based on this list) that if unhindered, kills an opponent on turn 6 or 7. Which is very fast for non-infinite combo EDH standards (At least in my group). But when you look at the decklist you cannot possibly say it is an aggro deck.
As for why I don't like playing against an aggro deck: when I play a regular game of magic I don't mind. In commander I do not either, since as explained above it is usually easy to handle them. But I play EDH because it allows for the big plays, the big numbers involved. And I like my commander games to last more then 5 minutes. Changing the life total to 30 life would mean aggro becomes more of a thing which in turn would change the nature of most EDH games AND force me to adjust my decks in order to add more defense against aggro ultimately leading to an, in my opinion, less fun EDH experience.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
As for the amount of deck change, decks would need more sweepers or other " anti larger amount of creatures" cards like Dream Tides or whatever since the nature of anti-aggro cards means you need them early in the game. Given the fact you play 100 card singleton, if you want to be able to do that you have to add redundancy or tutors which take up the spots now occupied by cards that actually work with my commander or the occasional " just added because it's fun" card.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
In fact I think it would have a stabilizing effect because a lot of what wins the game very quickly are very devil may care strategies that rely on cards that utilize the high life totals for profit, even Fetches and Shocks would be come something much more significant a choice without that 10 extra life cushion.
Also for sure people will adapt their decks but in a way that is positive and not in a large enough way to actually change how a deck is determined to be run.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree then.
In practice though, any group that feels it needs to can change that rule.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
See, even you yourself consider infinite combo on another level in regards to "fair" strategies. With the current life totals, it is actually hard to kill the combo deck by attacking even if multiple people gang up on it. Reducing it by 10 opens up a lot more possiblities and cuts down on lazy in-game decisions. I believe Taleran was mostly aiming at your "5 minute long games" assessment as exaggeration. Since you were mentioning Elder Dragons earlier, why don't we use them as a baseline and label 10 life as one combat step attacking with an Elder Dragon and a small creature. There, games now become exactly one turn shorter
I personally dislike infinite combo decks yes, that's true. But in our group, this is not solved by the rules of the game, it is solved by the group dynamic: we respect the people that want to play it so they can bring it to the table game 1. They respect that they get picked on early, as that's what their decks provoke. They also respect that the rest of the group is not particularly fond of combo, so game 2 they play a different deck. Mutual respect = problem solved and good games all around.
Life total is in no way part of the problem nor part of the solution: unless all decks are pillowfort / do nothing for the first 10 turn decks, any reasonably build EDH deck can put the pressure on the combo player. If everyone does play slow decks, that seems to be the problem, not the life total: your meta is too forgiving for decks that run too little defense.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
Also, my playgroup is only partly fond of the life change because it weakens combo (we are still mostly combo players). When I'm playing against newer players and they manage to knock me out with my combo one turn away from assembling, I'm happy because I know the life total actually works. In any case, we are mostly fond of it because it makes EDH more complex, because any cost involving life is that much more important. Operating with less life forces you to make tighter in-game decisions.
We're not using social interaction to ban a deck, we're making sure everyone gets to play the deck they want while also ensuring all players get their fun during the evening. I have seen enough pressure on combo players happen on 40 life, seeing them killed long before their combo was assembled. Of course, your mileage may vary and maybe the power level in your group is not strong enough to deal with a combo player in time but it's far from impossible to do. It just means some decks need to become a little more agressive/disruptive.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
I'm all for powering up with disruption and stepping up to battle combo, but the truth is that most groups/players seem to be unwilling to do so, at least judging by many frequent threads that complain about combo and the general dislike for it in the (non-competitive) community. Take for instance Prophet of Kruphix, a card that is completely useless if handled right away (like most combos). In the days following its banning, I argued that since the card had no immediate impact and could easily be handled, it shouldn't have been banned. I was met with many opposing comments, specifically mentioning that stacking a deck with efficient single target removal isn't their idea of EDH, etc. If people are unwilling to do that for PoK, why would they do it for combo? Especially since abusing the "social interaction" is so much easier.
In any case, I'm going wildly offtopic, so I'd be interested to hear your opinion on game decisions in regards to a lower life total. Do you think that it makes the game more interesting, or do you think that the added stress of being closer to losing is what could possibly dissuade people to adopt a new life total?
Let me start by saying that I agree with you that life totals affect game decisions. In fact, I think the height of the life total greatly determines the way the game is played, as it directly influences the strength of certain strategies and thus the metagame. I don't think added stress of being closer to losing is a problem. After all, your opponent is closer to losing too. People in general will gravitate to playing what's winning, and if if you don't you must be prepared to face people who are. That's why I'm not a fan of lowering the life total for EDH, as it will change the very nature of the format. In fact, I think it would lead to it's own ' medium leader' format so to speak, compared to what EDH is now.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
This doesn't make sense to me. How are higher life totals supposed to balance things out, if the starting person has an unfair advantage?? I believe you are referring to the fact that he or she starts the game first and because in multiplayer, everyone gets to draw a card, the starting person essentially has no weakness and is able to shoot ahead in resources. I don't see how others are compensated if everyone starts at 40 life. On the other hand, if everyone starts at a lower life total, the rest of the table can at least more easily gang up on the person that gained an advantage. Which is the point of multiplayer and at least partly the reason we are allowed to play busted ***** like Mana Crypt.
That said, I don't know if 40 life becomes necessary to shield the slower, true battlecruiser decks that are heavily encouraged in the format from both fast aggro and even efficient mid-range lists. When 3 players can attack the slower deck who is wide open early in the game while playing ramp and other things, that 40 life becomes more necessary.
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
As the RC tweaked the game they improved it and tested it, 40 is perfect.
Now if only the RC could ban Tooth and Nail
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
That's why Commander Damage is 21, not regular life totals.
exactly. But when you boosted the life to 40 you kept the 21 damage for commander damage. It is a nice (and working) gimmick. While not always utilized it does help defeat decks that gain tons of life or have ways to prevent damage often.
Combo decks you can usually take down with normal 40 damage if the cannot get their engine going early enough or lack the protection needed.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Commander: Hazezon Tamar (GRW), Arjun, the Shifting Flame (UR), [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Tiny Leader: [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Peasant Dragon: [Waiting on Amonkhet]
Modern: Orzhova Spirits (WB)
Legacy: Burn (R)
Vintage: Bazaar Dredge (B)
Somewhat ironically, my best deck for dealing 120 damage (or 21 Commander Damage to each player) the quickest is my Red/White Gisela, Blade of Goldnight deck. It would become more powerful with 30 life but it in no way struggles against 40 life.
I personally think 40 life is just fine. It lets games go long and lets players play their decks for a relatively enjoyable game. Obviously some metas find that 40 life lets people abuse Ad Nauseum and cards like that but the metas that the RC makes the rules for find the 40 life to be sufficient. I believe the metas I play in are more in line with what the RC wants (though I can't be absolutely sure) and I have never heard anyone complaining about the life totals being too high.