Dual Commander
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Jan. 29, 2015, 11:09 p.m. by zerowner
A couple of weeks ago, I posted a thread about changing a commanders color identity to perhaps make some legendary commanders more, well, viable. Some legends are plain awful, and really can't shine in EDH where most cards boil down to each being incredibly valuable in some way or another. The thread was shot down rather quickly as people cried over Azusa, Lost but Seeking having access to blue and the like, but since then, I've been wondering how EDH could expand its horizons and allow for more variety in its commanders.
Then Tiny Leaders came out, a format where all cards in the 50 singleton deck had a cmc of 3 or less mana, and its been very popular ever since its released. Since a variation of EDH has proven to be so popular, I thought I'd throw out ideas for another variation of the format; "Dual Commander", but since "Duel Commander" already exists and the two sound exactly the, it may be easier to simply call the format "Twins".
Twins would be similar to normal EDH, except for the fact that it changes a ton of things, which I'll just list below.
Decks would most likely have their sizes increased, so instead of 100 card decks, we'd probably either have a deck size of 125 cards or 150 cards, with two of those being your commanders.
Wait, commanders? As in, plural? Yeah, why not? Dual Commander/Twins would feature two commanders per deck. Each one may be cast individually, and you may only produce mana within the colors of your commanders. Commander tax would still apply, of course, but I think it may be increased to 3 generic mana instead of two, but thats up for discussion. I don't want to shove decks into splashing green just because of an intense command tax, but with two commanders this is all up to discussion.
My biggest question here is how to prevent decks from just boiling down to five color good stuff in the format, so maybe the colors for each deck could be capped at three. This would mean that I could use Selvala, Explorer Returned and Rafiq of the Many as my two commanders, but not Rafiq of the Many and MaelSTORM Wanderer as my two commanders. On the same note, perhaps the two commanders would have to share at least one color, but I'd like to see what other people think on that.
I'd like to see what other people think of the format, but in case you don't like to read enormous bodies of text about card games, I'll just have a TL;DR below.
TL;DR
Dual Commander/Twins is a format with 125/150 cards per deck. The deck is still a singleton deck. There would be two commanders per deck. Commanders may have to share at least one color, but thats up for discussion. Each commander acts exactly as they would in normal EDH, but the commander tax may be increased to three generic mana as you now have two commanders, but thats also up for debate.
Thanks for reading, and let me know what you think. Thanks!
ThisIsBullshit says... #4
I think increasing the deck size isn't necessary, as well as making it a pain to shuffle and carry around.
But it seems really interesting, having two commanders that can work together.
January 29, 2015 11:14 p.m.
What about instead of sharing one color in common make it 2 colors in common and 4 color max. This prevents the 5 color risk but gives people access to something like Damia, Sage of Stone and Oloro, Ageless Ascetic (the Twin Team I would love to play together)
Just a thought. I do like the idea. But I'm with ThisIsBullshit. Increasing the deck size is not needed. Not sure how i feel about increasing the commander tax either. That would render something like damia (arguably one of the best commanders for control) almost unplayable as she gets too hard to cast after getting removed just once.
I would be interested to hear Epochalyptik's thoughts on this as well.
January 29, 2015 11:27 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #6
So there are two cards that are always available? You mean combo format?
Extra deck size = extra ass pain for people with little hands.
January 29, 2015 11:35 p.m.
I don't like the color cap cause one of my favorite commanders is Scion of the Ur-Dragon and I'd love to pair him with say Zirilan of the Claw
January 29, 2015 11:39 p.m.
Also they should not have to share a color cause that makes using 2 single color commanders (with diferent colors) impossible
January 29, 2015 11:43 p.m.
fadelightningmm says... #9
I like the idea but as stated above the larger deck size seems annoying. Maybe instead of having both available at their normal cost have one commander taxed already to at least delay the combos Epochalyptik mentioned. For instance in my deck Predatory Instinct Yisan, the Wanderer Bard is my normal commander and Azusa, Lost but Seeking would be my second commander however instead of two 3 drops Azusa would cost 5 to start and if she were to go back to the command zone instead of a 2 mana tax it could be a 3 mana tax
January 30, 2015 12:15 a.m.
What about 1 "Sargent" (a legendary creature) and 1 "Genneral" (a planeswalker)?
January 30, 2015 12:22 a.m.
BiggRedd54 says... #14
Dibbs on Edric, Spymaster of Trest and Sygg, River Cutthroat
January 30, 2015 1:16 a.m.
And maybe you can't cast the 1 without the other already on the battlefield?
January 30, 2015 1:18 a.m.
I've been thinking about a similar format since i saw lieutenants introduced in the recent commander set.
i like the idea but not lucking into them on the draw i feel like a lieutenant could be almost as integral as a commander, so i was thinking about a format where you declare a non legendary lieutenant that is excluded from your deck in a lieutenant zone that follows the same rules as your commander except the commander tax stacks. so for example if i cast my commander and want to cast my lieutenant it costs its regular mana cost, however if either dies my commander tax increases to resummon either. basically stapling a dope non legend as a secondary commander into the game.
January 30, 2015 1:28 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #19
That's really just overcomplicating the idea, I think. Which isn't so much a reflection of the solution as it is of the problem. There are balance issues with the idea, and limiting players to one active commander at a time basically turns it back into regular EDH; it's quite possible to build a deck that consistently has access to specific non-general creatures.
I don't think the proposed variation really offers enough new things to overcome the issues.
January 30, 2015 1:30 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #20
I like the idea, but I think that it can be simplified a lot more. Take a normal Edh decks, and make one of them the "lieutenant" or something. It starts in the command zone, but it can't be put back. And sometimes that means you'll have a bant deck with a Selesnya lieutenant, but it's still a Bant deck and still a bant commander.
What do you think about that idea?
January 30, 2015 2:36 a.m.
it doesn't limit to one activated at a time both can be on the field.
January 30, 2015 10:57 p.m.
i honestly think commander is crazy enough as it is, i do like the '2nd in command' idea. having a second creature that fits into the already predetermined color scheme of your commander start in the command zone, but that doesn't go back to the command zone like the commander does.
January 31, 2015 6:59 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #25
It seems like a lot of fun, but think of who broken it is lol
Nekusar and Niv mizzet
Momir Vig and Deadeye navigator
Narset and Medomai
Purphoros and Norin the wary
Or even Narset for a five color superfriends
January 31, 2015 8:19 p.m.
but deadeye isn't legendary, r we doing it that way now?
January 31, 2015 8:42 p.m.
jandrobard says... #28
Maybe as a 1v1 competitive format. Too much win more. Also, maybe the commanders have to share a color?
January 31, 2015 9:33 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #30
I'm thinking that the second in command be within the colors of the real commander, so if you want Sydri, Galvanic Genius to delegate to Karn, Silver Golem, I see no problems with that.
January 31, 2015 10:36 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #32
This allows Karn to be lieutenant of an esper deck.
Basically, if you want a reliable legendary creature for a deck using colors it doesn't have, I think it's only fair that it can only be a commander. Sure you get to use it, but only once.
On the other hand, if you want to use white in an Edric, Spymaster of Trest, it is my opinion that it would be WAAAY too broken if Edric had the possibility of being a commander rather than only being able to be a lieutenant under a bant commander.
It's not really giving commanders more colors, but it's still interesting.
January 31, 2015 11:11 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #34
I think that would be an unwieldy answer when having the lieutenant be within the actual commander's colors is both sufficient and convenient for the spread of the format, since most decks can easily pop a legend from their deck into the lieutenant spot.
January 31, 2015 11:20 p.m.
HeroInMyOwnMind says... #35
I think if they created logically color restrictions there would be no problem. There has to be Lieutenant specific rules as well.
Ideas we have discussed in our group include:
*The Lieutenant must fall within the colors of the Commander. Basically any card you would already be able to use in the deck if it were normal EDH.
*The Lieutenant must be a Legendary Creature.
*The Lieutenant can only enter the field if your Commander is in play.
*You can defeat an opponent by dealing 21 Lieutenant combat damage. This total is kept separate of Commander damage.
*Lieutenant tax works in the same manner as Commander tax, and is separate from Commander tax.
We kicked around ideas about the Lieutenant leaving play if the Commander leaves play, requiring Lieutenant colors to be exactly the same as the Commander's colors, and a few other things that created a lot of exploits, so we have decided on them yet. I would love to hear ideas from everyone else though, so keep posting on this thread if you have a concept or rule that might be interesting.
February 3, 2015 3:56 p.m.
Epochalyptik The reason for potentially increasing deck sizes is so that you don't have people just slamming tons of combos into their decks just in order to keep one commander on ice until you can combo out with them, but isn't a necessary change. Two commanders also wouldn't really turn it into a combo format as I honestly can't think of any infinite combos between two legendary creatures at this moment, but feel free to post a couple.
February 3, 2015 9:52 p.m.
The whole idea is that you can cast either one whenever you'd like Kozelek
I still think commander tax should be increased because as much as it might punish a Damia, Sage of Stone player, you still have another commander to use and cast during your turns. When the amount of commanders in a normal EDH game would be double that in Twins, odds are that people don't necessarily save their removal just for a Damia when a Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker now has access to blue for infinite combos and such. If your Damia is removed, then resort to your other commander for the time being. I actually address a different look on this below, however. Bellock86 Also, another problem with forcing each commander to share two colors is that then both commanders must be at least dual colored, and that immediately cuts out all mono colored commanders, which is exactly what I wanted to prevent in this format as generally in commander, the more colors you have, the more good stuff you can then run.
February 3, 2015 9:53 p.m.
I do like your idea MagicalHacker but perhaps that could be another type of dual commander format, because the idea behind the format I'm attempting to make isn't to have a free tutor for your lieutenant to start the game and then just playing like a normal EDH from then on, because with your idea, I might as well just start with an extra creature card of my choice in hand.
fadelightningmm I do really like the idea of one commander already having an increased casting cost to start off the game, and if one of the commanders had the increased cost to start off then commander tax being three probably wouldn't be necessary, and could simply remain at two additional mana per cast from the command zone for both commanders.
February 3, 2015 9:54 p.m.
jasz the problem with that idea is that that DOES turn the format into a combo format. Infinite combos between two legendary creatures may be uncommon but between a legendary and a non legendary? Thats just a nice way of losing games to Melira, Sylvok Outcast and Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker on around turn three.
February 3, 2015 9:54 p.m.
And honestly, I think rather than forcing them to share a color, I think we could simply make it so that the color total does not exceed three colors or something, so basically Nin, the Pain Artist and Azusa, Lost but Seeking may be the two commanders of a deck, while Oloro, Ageless Ascetic and Damia, Sage of Stone cannot be used together. This way, two mono colored commanders may be used together, and decks don't just fall under good stuff.
On this same note, I think that we could also allow for a bypass in the color limit when it comes to 5 color commanders. One idea for this would be to only allow mono colored commanders to be used with 5 color commanders, so Scion of the Ur-Dragon can be used with Brothers Yamazaki while Reaper King can't be used with Tasigur, the Golden Fang.
Per norm, this is all subject to change.
February 3, 2015 10:02 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #41
You don't run two commanders because they combo with each other. You run two commanders so you can combo with one and use the other as utility.
I just don't like the idea. It widens the power gap and introduces unnecessary balance issues. And increasing deck size isn't a solution to those issues. It's just another issue.
February 3, 2015 10:02 p.m.
I'll toss together a couple of decks whenever we finalize rules for this and I'll post them up here as example decks to showcase the rules.
February 3, 2015 10:04 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #43
You're getting ahead of yourself. There are still balance issues that haven't been addressed. Worry about getting the format to a workable state; them you can start thinking about how to showcase it.
Right now, all of my EDH expertise is screaming about how bad an idea it is to give Arcum Dagsson access to black.
February 3, 2015 10:13 p.m.
Increasing deck size makes drawing into combos harder, that was the point behind deck sizes potentially being increased now that you run two commanders where one can just be saved for a combo.
If you don't like the idea behind the format, then don't play it Epochalyptik. I can stall into Triskelion and Mikaeus, the Unhallowed with a sac outlet in normal EDH, so pointing out that you can just keep your commander on reserve until you want to combo is stupid to point out, as pulling that combo apart is just as easy as pulling it apart in a format where the only difference is an additional commander.
February 3, 2015 10:13 p.m.
Ohhhh my god I just love it when people pull up Arcum Dagsson having access to different colors and then post nothing to point out why it'd be a problem. And if it is a problem, how about you run some removal?
February 3, 2015 10:16 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #46
If you have a moderate amount of experience with EDH, it should be fairly evident why giving a notorious combo commander access to the most powerful tutors in the game is a bad idea.
The point I've been trying to make is that some commanders are naturally balanced by their deficiencies. Arcum Dagsson is powerful, but it's slightly checked by the fact that it's mono-
.
Once you start giving these limited-breadth commanders access to the utility of other colors, you introduce very real balance issues for the diversity of the format. Issues that aren't remotely solved by the currently-proposed rules. For example, how do you maintain or replace the natural balance of certain mono- or bi-colored commanders? How do you prevent already prevalent combo decks from just becoming more powerful and completely overtaking the meta?
And the "run some removal" argument is as bad a dismissal of power as the "dies to removal" argument is to the condemnation of vulnerability. Tell me how often you resolve a removal spell against a dedicated primary- combo deck. Because I play combo exclusively and I can assure you that it isn't often.
Similarly, increasing the deck size from 100 to 125 or 150 does little to smooth these issues over. Instead, it makes land bases more unreliable (100 is a great number for tricolor decks, but any more and you lose consistency) and decks less consistent. You're basically telling people "play green so you know you don't get mana screwed, and play black so you know you can find the cards that actually matter." The mechanics of 125- and 150-card decks are vastly different from those of the current 100-card decks. It's not a linearly-scaling system that just increases options without hurting other qualities.
Now don't take this the wrong way. I'm supportive of efforts to devise new formats. What I'm critical of is the carefree attitude toward fixing the issues that present themselves to those efforts. Part of the process is solving those issues, and we have no real solutions this far. And instead of showing interest in developing some solutions, you seem to want to invest time in building sample decks and writing off challenges to your idea.
February 3, 2015 10:35 p.m.
jandrobard says... #47
@Epochalyptik You have raised some good points, this could deteriorate into a twisted combo format. Or it could be raised to a higher art form, depending on how much of a johnny you are.
February 3, 2015 10:41 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #48
I don't deny that the new options do open the door for lots of Johnny and Timmy brews in playgroups that don't really use combos. That's part of the reason I'd like to see the idea developed more. But you can't base the balance and health of a format solely on one demographic of players. You need to consider the other possibilities as well.
February 3, 2015 10:47 p.m.
jandrobard says... #49
It does appeal to johnny and spike for obvious reasons, but I feel that big, splashy effects are going to be outshone by stupid combos. Also it'd be nice if the wording of the sub-commander appealed to vorthos.
February 3, 2015 10:54 p.m.
As much as you can simply say that allowing Arcum Dagsson to have access to other colors is a problem, and that it makes him so much more powerful, I feel as if you're almost forgetting that every player in the format is also gaining more power from their second commanders. My Jenara, Asura of War is gaining a huge power boost from my second commander, Rafiq of the Many, and can potentially rush down any kind of combo deck before they use their second commander to simply infinite combo off for the game. As much as combo might gain power from color additions or simply from just having another commander from similar colors, so does any other play style. Timmys, Spikes, Johnnys and even potentially Vorthos's can enjoy the new style of a Twins deck, and 'abuse' having access to more colors and another commander as they see fit.
Also, I said I'd create sample decks once the rules are finalized, meaning after people come to an agreement on terms. You're trying to make it seem like I just want to make sample decks and ignore glaring problems in the format I'm trying to have created, where I've done nothing but attempt to come to terms with people on an entirely new subformat that I had only first posted about a grand total of three days ago, and have made no indication towards actually having made a sample deck of any kind.
Tell me what exactly you want fixed with the format as of right now and I'll tell you exactly what I think Epochalyptik
zerowner says... #2
Whoops, spelled Maelstrom Wanderer incorrectly. My bad.
January 29, 2015 11:11 p.m.