This entry is part 304 of 313 in the series CommanderCast

Hello everyone and welcome to CommanderCast Episode 292! We’re your weekly source for Community, Strategy, and Technology, hosted on MTGcast.com and our homesite: CommanderCast.com! This week Mark and Adam have a few topicsthat they feel needs to be addressed. First up, What happened to Tiny Leaders? A format that came in a Blaze and burned out as fast as it appeared. What’s up? After that they go over COLLUSION! Why would two people who are trying to win would work together? Then they wrap things up with a quick discussion of Split cards.

So if you’re down with that all you have to do is click the IB!!!

 

Ib Download

 

 

***************************

CommanderCast Episode 292

Posted: July 31, 2017

 

Intros:

 

Adam

 

Mark

 

Shoutouts:

 

 

Keep up with the conversation on Facebook & Twitter.

 

Community:

 

Lessons for Commander from the death of Tiny Leaders

 

Or don’t, because TL kinda sucked.

Worth reading/viewing:

 

Why Tiny Leaders Died:

  • The format was “solved” too quickly; top decks too dominant, not enough variety for design space.
  • Neither Commander, nor Legacy; it was a format for no one.
  • Overly restrictive ban list and rules (no four-color commanders allowed, even with Partner mechanic).
  • Perceived as a cash grab; trademarked name rubbed people the wrong way, cards subject to huge price spikes, etc.

 

What lessons/warnings does this hold for Commander?

  • Wait to buy, avoid the bubble (not foolproof)
  • Keep casual formats casual
  • Keep wotc out of things

 

Strategy:  

 

COLLUSION!! Or just manipulation?

 

“Opponent(s) Choose(s)” cards in EDH. Are they worth running? Is collusion viable strategy in EDH?  What about simply manipulating your opponent into making moves that you profit from?

 

Examples:

 

Gold Standard: Fact or Fiction (maybe contrast with Truth or Tale?)

 

Other notables: forgotten lore/Shrouded Lore, Guided Passage, fatal lore, edicts, torment of hailfire

 

Bad cards: Mogis, god of the slaughter, evangelize, preacher, misfortune, riches

 

Technology:

 

Split cards

 

Rules

 

708.2. Although split cards have two castable halves, each split card is only one card. For example, a player who has drawn or discarded a split card has drawn or discarded one card, not two.

 

708.3. A player chooses which half of a split card he or she is casting before putting it onto the stack.

 

708.3a Only the chosen half is evaluated to see if it can be cast. Only that half is considered to be put onto the stack.

 

708.3b While on the stack, only the characteristics of the half being cast exist. The other half’s characteristics are treated as though they didn’t exist.

 

  • Including cmc

 

 

708.3c An effect may create a copy of a split card and allow a player to cast the copy. That copy retains the characteristics of the two halves separated into the same two halves as the original card. (See rule 706.12.)

 

708.4. In every zone except the stack, the characteristics of a split card are those of its two halves combined. This is a change from previous rules.

 

708.4a Each split card has two names. If an effect instructs a player to choose a card name and the player wants to choose a split card’s name, the player must choose one of those names and not both. An object has the chosen name if one of its names is the chosen name.

 

708.4b The mana cost of a split card is the combined mana costs of its two halves. A split card’s colors and converted mana cost are determined from its combined mana cost.

 

 

 

708.4c A split card has each card type specified on either of its halves and each ability in the text box of each half.

 

708.4d The characteristics of a fused split spell on the stack are also those of its two halves combined (see rule 702.101, “Fuse”).

 

702.101c The total cost of a fused split spell includes the mana cost of each half.

 

Favorite split cards cards

 

Mark: hide // seek, life // death, pure // simple, spite // malice, far // away

 

Adam: flesh // blood, turn // burn, catch // release, leave // chance, wear // tear

 

 

 

Outtro/Contacts:

 

CommanderCast  – Email: commandercast(at)gmail(dot)com // twitter: (at)CommanderCast

 

Rachel – Email: wiehernandez(at)gmail(dot)com // twitter: (at)Blueram1409

 

Calvin – Email: captainredzone(at)gmail(dot)com  // twitter: (at)CaptainRedZone

 

Mark – Email: mahlerma(at)gmail(dot)com

 

Adam – (at)squire9999 // (at)thetrinisphere

 

Be sure to check out our CommanderCast Facebook page.

 

And a big thanks to everyone here at the CommanderCast Network. We’ll see you next week with more community, strategy, and technology. Until then, LET’S GET IT!

 

Series Navigation<< CommanderCast Ep 291 – I’d Tap ThatCommanderCast Ep 293 – Adam and Mark Flip Out! >>
  • Jeremy Parsons

    Upkeep: Rachael has updated her twitter handle.

    And for a bit I was afraid I was going to end up with a podcasts with no hosts as it sounded like Adam was on the cusp of saying WOTC shouldn’t cater to players by making dinosaur legends.

    I’m mixed on WOTC catering to us, but in a sense they’re the only ones that can. There’s not that many places they can introduce cards with a specific Multiplayer focus. And without some kind of interest from them, they wouldn’t be plugging up holes in commander options anywhere, be it commander products or in new sets. Is the power level a bit wonky for their commander specific editions? Yes. But what power level do we want them at?

    • Jeremy Parsons

      I will say on the matter of dinosaur commanders, I’m kind of hoping to get a Grimlock to make a deck in paper around. So what if it’s Silver Bordered. It’s Grimlock! (Now if only they also had a Snarl card)

    • Adam Traas

      I just think that the format was born without specific design and could continue to exist without it. You could change templating so that each opponent is a constant term and then you have value add without effecting design.

      I do see your point though and at some points agree, but it is mostly a cash grab.

      • Jeremy Parsons

        I kind of agree that some of the Commander specific cards, especially Legends, could use more finesse. But it’s rather like the matter of window of opportunity for reprints. Ideas for cards and mechanics that play poorly in Standard or in 1v1. I think they’re doing a good job with Conspiracy, but it’s not a constant product, or a supremely available one. It’s nice, I appreciate it, but I’m more likely to play a random new commander Precon or two then ever get around to drafting it or opening packs.

        As for cash grab, we need to pay money in to support WOTC and our gaming stores. and I’m more likely to grab this than any of the Masters sets with their overpriced packs and not terribly useful for me card pools. 🙂

  • Dadsquatch

    Had to rename myself to prevent Disqus from banning me as Spam for some reason.

    I tried playing Tiny Leaders, it wasn’t fun for my group and 1v1 wasn’t what we were looking for. It did allow me to play land destruction and not feel bad about it, because even a Stone Rain was viable if you only have to worry about one player. Other than that, I feel the description of it being a niche rules set laid on top of an already niche rules set was appropriate, and it made for the smallest Venn diagram overlap not visible with the naked eye.

    I was going to argue that Shrouded Lore was playable, if only for the sweet Kev Walker art, but I realized, if it’s playable, why am I literally not playing it in any of my 30 decks? I won and lost my own argument there.

    Speaking of Extended format, I lost repeatedly before my first turn to a Flash Hulk deck back in the day. It was a cute trick once, but after a lot of heavy sighs the player stopped net decking.

    I love Preacher and I’m pretty sure part of it is the Quinton Hoover (RIP) artwork. Submitted for your approval, though, I give you Pious Evangel. There’s something about wicked muttonchops and and old-timey, fire and brimstone preachers. Also, Kev Walker.

    I’ve stated this before, but Insult//Injury is probably my newest favorite split card. Most red decks would love something like this even if it was only the Insult side. I have bought seven or eight copies. I really use to like Crime//Punishment, because Punsihment was a poor man’s Perncious Deed and Crime wasn’t too bad in a multiplayer format.

    I would be a little sad if Wizards stopped making Commander specific sets, as some of my favorite generals have come from out of them, but I think they’ve been doing a fantastic job of printing stuff that is a pretty blatant wink and a nod to our player base in their core products. Most of the dragons from Tarkir seemed bound for our format, and switching the language to plural opponents really helps.

  • Alex Cook

    Any reason shows haven’t been popping up in the rss feed?

  • Eshed

    Wear / Tear is fantastic, especially with Sunforger as mentioned… but my favorite split card is Armed / Dangerous! Quite a few generals have 6 power, and Double Strike on top of +1/+1 can win you a game on occasion. The other half is nothing to sneeze at, and thank goodness this one’s got Fuse! It enables the target of the first half to sneak in that Double Strike, while potentially devastating an opponent’s army, or if you’re really lucky (and you play goofy cards like Druid’s Call), you’ll get an army of Squirrels!

    Amonkhet gave me a new toy in Onward / Victory. Since Anax and Cymede are a pet deck of mine, what more perfect flavor win can be had with such a deck than your Akroan Royal Generals leading their army, “Onward, to VICTORY!”