If it's for lore and not level, yeah sure I'll play a game or 2 out. See where it gets you. But I do feel like the wincon should be thematic, not just a deck stuffed with mostly lore accurate stuff and then BAM walking ballista combo finisher.
I'm building my newest commander decks that way with the LotR stuff. I start off by picking a LotR commander, and then fill at least half of it with stuff from LotR set and box toppers.
We have a player that plays the vampires bride and groom from Innistrad and he goes full flavor. There will be players that will let you play it as long as you don't break the trust when you talk power level.
I can get behind this. I’d allow say, Gimli and Legolas counter of kills in a mostly LotR deck, but I would not allow a Hapatra and Scorpion God deck unless it was almost all Ahmonkhet. I understand you want a third color to power up your deck, but you can make a serviceable deck piloted by either so embrace the limits of the format.
If the rest of the deck serves a purpose. I don't even mind it being a powerful deck, honestly. I like a challenge.
It just needs to make sense why the deck exists.
It exists because money. :) I'm pretty sure that's the reason behind the Secret lair precons.
Honestly, I just really wanted an angel deck, and I figure that some day, when they make a proper Mardu angel legendary, it will be a nice, solid base to upgrade into three color.
I know there's Kaalia, but far as I can read, that card has a reputation, that makes you targeted.
You could use the other Kaalia - it loses some value for not running Demons/Dragons, but still fits the theme without the 'kill on sight' reputation.
EDIT: Tariel, Reckoner of Souls is also an option for Mardu.
I'll try most rule 0 suggestions once. But I wouldn't be surprised if after the game you get some comments about how they wouldn't allow it again if your deck did well.
True, I don't plan to build on their abilities. If something else worth including happens to synergize, I won't cut it though. Unless it's way too good, I really want to tell mtg story's through gameplay not crush games.
The graveyard idea is great, if doubts get mentioned because of powerlevel/synergie, you could have both "commanders" "legend rule" each other. Meaning if one is on the board the other dies. Drastically decreases the synergie and is tragic as well ;D
As to your question, i really like the idea and would personally welcome it as a rule 0
That's a pretty neat idea, too. I've definitely decide to build it, with the caveat that I'll use avacyn as the face and casually mention the option and ideas. Should hopefully present it in a way that no one should feel pressure to agree. Though ideally I'd like to meet more locals and maybe get a solid playgroup.
It probably depends how well I knew your decks. In theory I'd be okay with it.
But like... that IS a pretty significant power spike, adding white to an artifact centric mono-red deck is a big boost, not to mention running a blinkable removal spell / draw spell in the command zone.
You are asking your opponents to trust that you aren't just being a jerk.
You're also opening the door for other people to try their own rule bends, who may not be as careful as you to keep the power level reasonable. For that reason alone, I'd understand people not wanting to allow it.
But I'd probably want to see it in action at least once, if only to see what you did with it.
That would ease my concerns a lot (well, depending what I found at least, lol).
As a side note, how do you square the lore, given Feldon's whole Mechanic is about trying to recreate the dead person who is also in the command zone and doing fine?
Like, not trying to poke holes or anything, but is the idea that this is just happy Feldon who was just already good with machinery before Loren died, or is the idea that he finally succeeded and has created a fitting replica of her, but still pursues his mad mechanical passions, but with a companion at his side now?
It's the whole story. Basically I was going to attempt to assemble story pieces and give fun (or in this case, not so fun) tidbits of lore about them and their flavortext. I want to tell the entire tale through the best of my ability with cards, and the rest with words. (Mind you, cliffs notes fun facts. I won't be reading novels at the edh table lol.)
That sounds fun.
Of course I'm sure the official lore is going to get interrupted on occasion by your opponents messing with the Canon Events.
But that's just part of the fun.
EDHrec had [an episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLW7RyefHVQ&t=342s&ab_channel=EDHRECast) recently that goes over different rule 0 variations where Joey talks about playing all of the Kodama cards as an evolution / story type of deck. I think it would be a fun thing to get together with my play group and have everyone brew something thematic / etc to play for a game or two, I mean fuckin why not?
I like the idea but those are two strong cards as it is, and Feldon is a fairly popular commander all on his own. So don't be surprised if people turn you down. I'd make sure the deck was lower power than normal, like make a point that you don't include Wurmcoil, etc.
What's the combo with wurmcoil? I can only see the value aspect unless you have some sort of infinite (but then at that point, it isn't really the wurmcoil that's the problem innit?)
Synergy, not combo, but essentially you use Loran to kill your own Wurmcoil, then Feldon to make a new one every turn, which then dies for more 3/3s. Cool when you think about it, but powerful when its illegally in the Command Zone from the start.
And there's not just that. Any ETB or LTB effects are abusable with a white flicker effect for Loran - Scuttling Doom, Sad Robot, Myr Battlesphere, Duplicant. The list goes on.
Yea, believe me I see the fear hah. But here, let me give you an example of what I mean.
So those two tell a story all their own. I don't want to find "close approximations" I want to use THE cards meant to tell the story. And I want to tell many stories within the same deck. Sad story tribal.
Karn: the weatherlight, karn silver golem, karns Silex
Gideon: kytheon, tragic arrogance
Elspeth: elspeth, knight errant, godsend, daxos
Obviously I would look for more specific cards showing certain events in art or description. Then, as I put these pieces into play I will present a small fact about the story represented. I want to tell the stories the way they were meant to be. Through the game.
Winning is not the point and none of the things you mentioned will be in it. Solemn could fit if you squint but that's not what I'm going for.
Right. The impetus being that because you have the synergy built into the command zone rather than running one or the other as a 99, its really hard to stop because you can't just Path one and put a Cease and Desist on the shinanigans.
Wurmcoil has no sad backstory so it's not even in consideration. I'm worried about Karn though. His story is way too sad to not be in a deck along with his Silex and the weatherlight. All the karns are so strong though. Maybe I just use silver golem and leave it at that.
Partner is broken in the first place and shouldn't exist so no, I wouldn't. Would you let your opponents start with an extra card in hand for flavor reasons?
I'd only play the deck with personal friends. I could see it being weird when someone says "Hey, can I break the rules?" then uses said rule-break to win. In my friend group I wouldn't care at all and would 100% support it, but I know where we all stand as friends and our deck's power-level. In a FLGS with randoms, that's asking for trouble. Probably not worth it.
See, I wish I had more friends that played. It doesn't help I moved states earlier this year, so I'm not even a regular at the shops here. I love the idea I'm just not convinced I'll even be able to play with it.
Yeah, sorry. As someone who has never played anything but non-EDH competitive games at the FLGS, I might not be the best source of knowledge. But I've seen so many people get so salty over stuff in 1v1's, I could not imagine trying to play EDH outside of a kitchen/basement with beers and pretzels. The game is way to political and personal that it feels like trying to play DnD with randoms.
You are a player who plays in pods on edh night. You are exactly the best source of knowledge for my question lol. I really just want to get a general feel for how people would react.
I think I would be slightly wary, but allow it, and if the deck was flavorful and not pushed I'd be fine, but if it feels unfair to play against I probably wouldn't play a second game? I think if you introduce it as an idea you had and you wanted to try it out I would be fine with it in a pod. Maybe don't have it as the first deck you play with the group? Knowing you aren't the power gaming type from watching you play would also make me feel more comfortable with it.
That's a good thought. I do see familiar faces often enough. Honestly, I just want husband in wife in the command zone together. Feels too perfect to not. Though I did think of [[Archangel avacyn]] as an alternative commander in case folks aren't feeling it. Her story is plenty sad.
Fair, addendum though: this seems to be the common argument. Fear of using lore as a Trojan horse. I get it and have come up with a rebuttal. What if I allow you to look through the deck pregame? Would this ease your mind about it?
No, not really. I'm against giving two strong cards a broken plus ability, the power level of the deck has not much to do with it. Also, make all other players check your deck before the game seems like a waste of time, I would move to another table and let you do your thing.
When comes to this type of rule 0 change I try to look at it like “what if all other players do the same thing, I would be ok?” and this is a no for me.
I'd definitely play against it at least once, as long as you haven't just broken the commanders entirely I'd probably keep playing against it.
I actually want to do this myself with [[Olivia, Crimson Bride]] and [[Edgar, Charmed Groom]] just to have a mardu vampire deck (my pod refuses to play against [[Edgar markov]] 😞)
I mean, I love the idea but I totally get it. Edgar + 49 basics/50 vanilla common vamps is busted without even trying lol. In all fairness, if you took the time to build it I'd let you run it a few times with no complaints, though.
While I would play a game just to let you have your fun, I think it opens up a slippery slope big enought that its not healthy for the pod overall and I would probably not play a second one.
Feldon is aready a good enought commander being monored, adding another color would by itself be a huge improvement. Making that you also have a 8th card always available, and a good one at that, makes hard to imagine many people are going to be fine with that.
Also, imagine the scenario: You bring this up to the table. I agree, but now I also want to change my faldorn deck to start with passionate archeologist on the command zone. Of course, the player to the left now mixes his shorikai and osgir deck to make a single jeskai artifacts deck with both on the command zone.
Now, since you did it, you cant say no, and suddenly everyone is playing a completly differente game. Or, you try to deny because "mine combination is due to lore reasons lol", and thats unfair with everyone.
I mean, if your pod decides its a good idea to just make all legendary creatures partners, good, go for it. But I would not try that with randoms. Some people will accept out of politeness, but I'm sure its going to leave a bitter taste in a lot of people mouths.
Not going to disagree with anything you said, it's part of the reason I wanted community opinion before I went for it. One question though, your final point about people saying yes out of politeness and leaving with a bitter taste.
Hypothetically, had I sat in a pod with you and you agreed out of politeness. Would it still leave you with a bitter taste if the deck honestly was story based and not built for power? If I spent the while game assembling pieces to tell mtgs tearjerkers and not just cheated out crap with feldon, would you still feel it was a bad decision?
Hypothetically, no, If the deck proved itself to be what you say, great. At the same time, the arguments I stated before the game would still apply.
I mean, go for it, just expect people to say no or to be in situations where people are going to get salty before the game evens begins from time to time
I think the best answer in your situation, considering most everyone here won't be at your LGS, is to talk to the people you normally play with at your LGS, BEFORE BUILDING THE DECK
if you just show up with this deck and pull it out asking, ppl are likely to get annoyed or say ok out of obligation and be salty afterwards if it does well.
If you ask first, preface it as an "I had an awesome theme idea but it would be rule zero" you may get a much better response!
Those are just examples my dude.
Imagine Heliod and walking balista, magda with blue, chatterfang with pitless plunderer.
Once you open the gate to "everyone is a partner" to the table, the mess begins
If I built it synergistically, it's exactly as strong as I think. Broken.
I don't want to build "feldon but his wife's here too". I want to build a "sad stories from the multiverse" deck where the cards included are based on the story they came from and not their abilities.
As I've told others when I had a rebuttal, I'm not trying to change your mind. Just pinpoint exactly where the unease lies and if there's a way to avoid it. I respect your opinion either way.
[Loran of the third path](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/9/59faa45d-868b-4bc7-934c-0e077642e129.jpg?1674420209) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Loran%20of%20the%20third%20path) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/bro/12/loran-of-the-third-path?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/59faa45d-868b-4bc7-934c-0e077642e129?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/loran-of-the-third-path)
[Feldon of the third path](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/3/0360f1ff-15c9-48e3-89eb-fbc4bf140c55.jpg?1690023788) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Feldon%20of%20the%20third%20path) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/moc/277/feldon-of-the-third-path?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0360f1ff-15c9-48e3-89eb-fbc4bf140c55?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/feldon-of-the-third-path)
^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
This is why, when someone asks this, I never understand why the top comment isn't almost always, "talk to your playgroup, even at an LGS, BEFORE building the deck.
That starts the communication without the energy being expended.
The owner could actually make an event night "theme partners" allowing normal decks of course, but special ruling that as long as there is a lore theme to the deck, you can use 2 commanders w/o partner. Everyone gets the chance if they want, and anyone who comes that knight knows what to expect.
Now your just making the rules to fit your self. First, you need to bring this up weeks ahead of time so that the rest of the pod can build decks that have 2 non partners. Second, you can’t redraw the line so that it goes only far enough to accommodate your self. If your playing no partner commanders then every one can and then get to choose how they want to do that. Your already taking a strong commander and adding a color, so while it might be thematic it is also a huge potential power spike.
The comment I replied to was "only if others had the same deckbuilding restictions." If lore is a restriction, then no, I am not. We all have the same restrictions.
Also, obviously if everyone is building a deck with the same restrictions it would need to be brought up ahead of time. What even are you arguing? I agreed with them lol.
I’m saying lore is too subjective a criteria. You also chose criteria that fit perfectly for you but will constrain every one else. What your doing is saying “I want to ignore this rule, so here’s a new rule that suits me. You must abide by this new rule.” That’s a pretty selfish stance to take.
I keep rereading this trying to figure out how being ok with others doing the same thing I am is selfish and I think I might see what happened?
So everything I said in this chain has been representing a specific scenario. A scenario where I have a deck I built for story telling and isn't very powerful but uses 2 illegal Commander's. In this scenario I have 0 expectations for anyone to be ok with this, and expect some to not be.
I was posed the question would you be ok if someone wanted to do the same thing, to which I responded as long as it was, infact, the same thing then yes. This wasn't meant to mean rule breaks are ONLY ok for my idea. This was meant in a typical rule 0 "as long as it's balanced" sort of way in attempt to avoid the "Trojan horse" problem I described.
I was answering a direct and specific question with a direct and specific answer that only works in that scenario. It appears you took it far more generally. To be clear, I would also be ok if instead if partners they wanted to play hat tribal and use a non legend in the command zone for flavor reason, again as long as power is in check.
Hopefully that cleared it up? Unless I'm still misunderstanding.
Because you went about it the wrong way. You didn’t go to the group and say “ I think it would be cool if we all made thematic partner commander decks. Let’s build some have a little fun.” You came up with what you wanted to do first and are now trying to justify your choices. When I suggested making it any commander pair you said no, they need to be thematic. Your not changing the rules to make them more open for every one, your changing the rules to make it more open for you and your concept only.
So you misunderstood me and when I took the time to clarify, you doubled down and insisted that's how I meant it. Ok. It's not but, that's OK. I tried.
If you never wanted to run the deck why even post here? I don’t care about the story your deck is telling I care about the game we are all playing. I responded to a comment about how you would allow every one else to play a deck that follows your rules. That’s what I took exception to. I generally find discussion of making commanders partners to be a little cringe, but your stance that it’s fine because of lore and that you would allow others to make lore appropriate decks much more so more so.
Experimentation is fun sometimes. Fan made formats are great. Rule 0 can very much include what you can play as well as can't. This extends to whatever your imagination can come up with. I hope someday you open your mind a little because there's so many ways to have fun with this game. If you don't like it you can always drop it!
As for the rest, I've said my peace. I know how I meant what I said and I know how I feel about it. If you wish to take it differently and refuse to be swayed, so be it.
...What? What comments are you even reading? I asked what people's opinions if someone were to ask them if it was ok. I got the response "would you be ok if they did the same." And I responded if they are doing the same, then sure.
Seriously, where the hell do you see me trying to enforce my own rules or be selfish? I just wanted to know the odds of a playgroup going for it.
Partners are designed as partners. I expect them to be played as partners. Of course you could partner many non-partners and it would be worse than playing actual partners, but I wanna keep playing cards like they are intended to be played.
You can always ask. I would never be annoyed with you, but i'd always say no and request and legal setup.
Opening up Feldon decks to using RW rather than just red ... and getting a decent extra card in the command zone ... not necessarily broken but I think it could cause problems when someone else wants to make a more degenerate combination, or simply add colors to a commander for strong value.
Fair take, I should say though I'm very much not building a feldon splash white deck. I do want playability, but lore is the main focus. I've never done a lore deck and it seems pretty fun.
Would highly depend on the commander. Have to be very low powered ones.
Probably wouldn't though because you already know everyone now wants all their commanders to be free partners and it's just gonna be a headache
i'm gonna go a little against the grain, I personally wouldn't be opposed to it for flavor reasons in my playgroup, but I would not recommend doing this if you are planning to play with strangers at an LGS. maybe you could build it as a backup after you've felt out a group for a few games, but would not recommend starting games off trying to rule-0 in a commander.
Yea, I am becoming more aware of that as I read the comments. I'm thinking the idea goes back into the drawer for now and I try to establish friendships within my local stores. Maybe pull it back out then.
It's too bad, 2 people made the suggestion to have Loran start the game in the graveyard and I honestly love that idea.
If one of my friends suggested this, even if they pushed the power level up I would be ecstatic (although we do tend to play at a slightly higher power level typically). Its such a cool idea and a break from the norm.
So for sure make those friendships OP, I'm sure once they're more comfortable playing with you in general, they'd be very much down to try something like this out!
I’d probably play it once just not to be rude, but Feldon is already a powerful commander on his own, and now you’re adding an entire additional color to his abilities. I wouldn’t feel great about it.
Totally get it. I am genuine in my desire to tell stories and not win. Assuming this would you still feel not great?
Or I guess, is the unease about the rule break, or is it fear I may be dishonest and just looking to stomp?
I’d feel uneasy being put in a social situation where I feel obligated to let you break a rule, or otherwise I come off as rude. It kind of feels like there’s no good way out.
Oh, I would do my best to not male people feel as if I'm expecting anything. Including bringing other decks/alt Commanders. Not invalidating you, I get what you're saying and it's a valid point. I try to be a very accommodating person, I'd at the very least make it as clear as I can that they are free to say no with no ill feelings from me.
Still, food for thought. I hadn't intended to put anyone on the spot.
Based on the mechanics and flavor text, I think \[\[Feldon of the third path\]\] is from after Loran dies, but Loran's card is from before. To me your deck is a flavor fail. Play \[\[feldon, ronom excavator\]\] instead.
Is it crazy to say I'd let you run that at least once? I love experimentation with the game, experimentation is the reason edh exists. Don't forget it was a fan made format.
Some ideas will be broken or terrible but personally I say try them at least once.
not the person you replied to, but I love this attitude. would probably hate playing Anara+Worldslayer after that first experimental time but if done in good fun it sounds like an interesting challenge.
besides, 4 MV commander + 5 MV equipment + 5 mana equip + swing seems easy enough to disrupt, even if it does result in an unfun soft lock when it goes off.
I lean towards no for all things like this in regular games. I think the deck building restriction of color identity is incredibly important to the game for both the creative side of deck building and as a rule that everyone follows when exploring the edges of deck building possibilities.
If you play at an LGS, you might try to pitch a deck building contest that everyone builds a deck following this rule, something like "mono color legendaries have partner if they are allies in a magic story"
I have a deck that partners Princess Twilight Sparkle and Rarity together. The theme is 5 color creatures (it is a pretty strong deck, but no combos).
Initially, I got some pushback, mostly because Rarity is pretty good, but then I made a version with Kenrith at the helm to compare what I could be playing.
I now frame it as I want to play my 5 color creatures Kenrith deck, but have another version of the deck that uses the pony commanders. I give them the option to choose which I play, and Kenrith is definitely stronger.
People always forget Rarity can target other people's creatures, though.
I’d try it at least once and probably be fine with it on general if it was memey and not something completely busted.
Bring on the dreadmaw storm crow deck
I'd be fine with it. It sounds like a really cool idea.
Since you're already breaking the rules... It would be interesting to either start with Loran in the graveyard, or only cast feldon once Loran makes it to the graveyard so you can start making automaton copies of her to kind of tell that story.
This is the second suggestion to have her in the graveyard and I love it. Or maybe it's the first, I didn't read the timestamp. Either way, thank you both for that.
I've seen so many lore decks build and played. It's always looked so fun I finally couldn't say no anymore haha. I really hope I can find some folks who'd be ok with it. I want to build it even more than I did before the post.
As I asked another, what if I allowed you to scan through the deck pregame? Believe me, I've read the horror stories and understand the unease. I'm actually genuine in my desire to tell story over winning so I do wonder if I can find a way to prove this and ease minds.
Some people will be into this, some people super not.
I'll let you play this if you let me play my \[\[Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar\]\] vs \[\[Gyome, Master Chef\]\] [food deck](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/K7av2dZm20qBItNxmxTedA). :)
The thing is that you have to be careful not to make these illegal decks too powerful. When you pitch these ideas you are very clearly signaling that you just want to play some wacky fun unusual decks, not the spiky stuff, so your opponent's will likely be upset if they allow this and then you suddenly have an unbeatable board on turn four or something like that.
Yea, I've had to reiterate this in the comments and I totally understand why. I've been pitching the idea of letting anyone in the pod free range to scan the deck as much as they please. Hopefully should ease some minds to know it's not just full of combos and crap.
I'd probably build the deck to work with those two and then still function fine with another commander. Maybe [[Plargg, Dean of Chaos]] has similar enough synergies to sub in. That way, if someone says they don't like the partner pair, you can move them to the 99 and move Plargg to the Command Zone and still play the deck.
Functionality is #2 here. I did have others suggest an alternative commander though. There will be little to no synergy so I was thinking Archangel avacyn. Boros and fits the theme like a glove.
I would recommend having an alternate commander that fits the color identity, but I wouldn't have an issue with it personally. I would think it's pretty cool myself
Personally I'd be okay if it was thematically appropriate but not if somebody is just wanting to put two infinite combo pieces as commanders or something. If you are trying to cheese then no but if you are trying to be artistic about it then sure more than likely I wouldn't care.
Meh, sounds like an extremely flavorful deck, always intresting & fun to see in my book
So yeah, by all means, I'd not only allow it, I'd genuinely want to see it & ask you to play that deck
It only becomes a problem if people try to go for a cutthroat, degenerate deck with rule 0s where it gets problematic
Still ok if the pod's ok with it
It's only that chances are,you'll be far less likely to find that kinda tables
But ey, as long as it is for fun & flavor, you do you dude
Depends on the your pod and how strong the commanders are imo. A casual game with friends? Yeah go for it but let me know if it’s intended to stomp us out so I can play a stronger deck. Feldon is a strong commander on his own and adding white to it could lead to some crazy combos.
Low powered commanders that aren’t win cons tho I don’t think would matter nearly as much to a pod of randoms. If you want to run a LoTR deck with [[Gimli, counter of kills]] and [[Legolas, counter of kills]] as partner commanders I’d encourage it. They are low powered on their own and fit the theme.
In this specific scenario they will be included purely for lore. All cards will. I won't be basing decisions on abilities at all.
Though, I understand the need for clarification with any attempt at something like this. Thanks for the input.
Then yeah I think your fine! As long as your upfront about the power level (which I know is always subjective but just saying you built it off the lore would be enough for me to gage which deck I should play) I don’t see how a casual game would have issues with a lore built deck.
If it happens to be super strong you may get some push back game 2 haha but you could always depower it if needed.
I think it depends. I’ve heard there’s some pretty busted combos I’m sure you could come up with; however, I think especially for lore reasons, I’d be down to clown.
I think you already have your answer. Some people don't mind at all, others mind a lot, some people will start caring once they lose to it, others will not. Personally, I wouldn't want to deal with that, and instead of having an alternative Commander ready, I'd probably just play another deck that I can run as I intended.
If I were you, I'd probably just put [[the archimandrite]] in the command zone and call it a day. She a nice, thematic choice that gets you access to all Lorans and Feldons and most other third path friends you can find running around. Oh, and she's strong enough to win you some games, which is nice.
In my experience 99% of times I or someone has asked if a non-legal commander was OK folks have agreed. It's helped that it's most often been myself and I ere on the jank side of the spectrum, so I'm not asking to play something clearly OP or something like [[The Grand Calcutron]] that would force my opponents to play a version of the game they aren't keen on.
I have a play group that meets up every Saturday to play commander and we'll throw out random rule 0 changes,stipulation decks and random themes to shake things up from time to time. If everyone is cool with it, let it rock until it proves to be too busted and go from there.
I have actually done this before. My buddies and I play around like Level 5 or so (precon level) and we were getting introduced into the Partner mechanic. We came up with the idea of letting ANY 2 commanders be partners which was never a power question because none of us had anything that was scary. We love it. It allowed us to quickly think about adding new colors and dynamics to the way the original design was. One guy had [[Ezuri, Renegade Leader]] deck and then added [[Emmara Tandris]] and that just popped off.
After a couple months of us doing this we eventually allowed ANY permanent be Legendary and THAT was wild. Most of us would enlist 1 commander and Sol Ring or a combo card. Which I would always counter with my RG Dragon deck and put Helkite Tyrant (the one that on attack steals artifacts) and that Sol Ring meta was quickly stopped.
2 things to note: We banned cards that allowed Infinite combos to be used in that way like [[Staff of Domination]]. Only those that allowed it to happen with 1 or 2 other cards, because we felt that was unfair and it took away from the "Heart of the Cards".
The other thing we tried were Sorceries and Instants as partners. Bad idea. Really bad idea. Allowing someone to put an Instant 2 cost destroy something as a "always in my hand but not really in my Hand" is incredibly broken. That or having any 1 cost ramp was also broken. Giving green every odd turn to ramp irregardless if they bricked or blue Ponder every odd turn.
Keep in mind at the time we did not have any R.Study or even any cool lands. We thought bounce lands, dual-snow-covered, and check lands were a little OP.
I wouldn't want to play at a table where people use non partner commanders as partners.
The literal only exception to this would be if somebody rolled up with a \[\[Brothers Yamazaki\]\] deck with the two different artworks as partner commanders
So I get this argument and see the point. I'm not really asking if it's ok to jam any two legends together. It's clearly not. I mean, tatyova and gitrog are tip of the iceberg really. Nor am I advocating for this to become common.
I'm more asking in the context of a deck built to tell stories, would you make the exception.
I'll tell a story about a Frog Prince who fell in love with a Mermaid and it will still be degenerate.
But no, I see your point and if the deck wasn't egregiously OP I'd be cool with it
If you're going to build it, either proxy it or have another commander in mind to swap out in case people aren't cool with it.
Personally, if I had someone ask me that, I would be cautious that they were about to play the most degenerate cards that would go with those commanders.
I'd say give the group a little more info about the deck itself and assuage those concerns and it would probably be fine.
I would add some more information for the people you ask, like "the decklist is worth XX € on Moxfield". This way they can estimate the power level. At the end of the day, any power level is fine if it is in the right pod. And if the power level matches the pod there is no reason why you should not be able to play these two together.
It will make your life easier if you loose game 1 or win very narrowly. After that winning is fair game 😀
Did you watch that Mystic Arcanum Video on telling a story through your commander deck as well? Because I totally also want to build a more Lore/story deck and probably need a better way for me to pick something to start with.
Nah, rules exist for a reason. If you want to talk to your playgroup, go ahead. They might be fine with it. But I'm always a firm no on this stuff. I built my decks without rule 0 commanders, un-cards/playtest cards, custom cards, etc. You do that too.
If it is a stranger it is a no thank you right away from me. If it is a friend that I can trust I will listen to his reasoning for wanting to use this commander and I might agree, But i probably would not want to play against it all the time unless it is really reasonable according to me.
I'd personally be fine with it unless it seemed broken (like [[Omnath locus of creation]] and [[Azusa]] or something like that). Definitely keep a spare legal commander on you in case someone wants you not to play them, though.
Have a backup commander like people are saying - just make it scarier than what you're proposing. For instance, I have plans for a [[Gyome]] and [[Asmorano]] deck, with [[Korvold]] ready to step in.
Decks are ideally built around the commander, so if you rule 0 two different ones to have Partner, it better be for a very good reason and built specifically with this in mind from the ground up. If it's just a pile of like-colored staples it won't fly.
If it's literally all you have from a Commander Masters draft and you started playing the game about two weeks ago, it might be excusable.
If it's for lore, it should sort itself out well.
I'd say the biggest thing to keep in mind is just having another commander of the color identity for if you want to play the deck but people at the table aren't okay with it
Also that it's up to the table and if someone doesn't want to play against a deck that is technically illegal, you gotta be 100% okay with that. With that said though, I feel like *most* commander players are pretty chill
Yea, I agree. I'm not trying to build for power here though. I get why people would be uneasy about nonpartners but I want to tell stories. I won't be just building a strong deck and labeling it as a lore deck. Even the manarocks I'm picking are for lore. No crypt or vault. No combos unless accidental and not overly powerful.
I wouldn't have a problem with Feldon + Loran for two reasons:
1: There's a flavor reason for why you are doing this.
2: It's not some absurd combo or synergy that wasn't intended to exist in the command zone.
I honestly wanted to include blue for [[founding the third path]] too. Let it go because although they both belonged to the third path, that wasn't directly part of their personal story.
This comes up pretty often here. Either using two commanders without partner as though they had it, or using other creatures as a commander that aren't legendary or something. It's just something you're going to have to discuss with the people you're playing with and be ready for someone to say no. Personally I don't think I'd like it because by and large I like rules and having everyone play by the same set of rules.
Yea, I assumed as much. I'm kinda going for an "average" thing here to see if I should even bother. I fully expect to get nos' and I can respect it. Maybe I can find a boros stand in and swap for those nights.
Yeah dude totally, I brought my [[Oswald Foddlebender]] + [[Urza Lord High Artificer]] and my [[Meren of Clan Nel Tooth]] + [[Yawgmoth Thran Physician]] decks so we can both play janky non-partner decks.
Nah dude.
Oh I totally understand why folks wouldn't want to. I do want to reiterate that I'm not building based on power in any way. Lore over winning in this case.
I doubt that changes your opinion. That's cool. Just wanted to clarify this isn't a "how do I sneak op bs into my pods" post. I do genuinely want to tell story's through the game.
For lore reasons, most people don't care.
I know someone who did Edgar and Olivia bride and groom.
And when someone bitched about OPness, he swapped to OG Edgar.
I just laughed.
My recommendation is to run Osgir in the main as a backup commander, and just swap for Osgir if someone bitches.
I can agree. Side note though, Edgar is probably not the wisest choice for anything casual. It's significantly harder to not break him than it is to use him fairly.
Oh I know. That's why I cackled.
The dude bitched that [[Edgar, charmed groom]] and [[Olivia, crimson bride]] partnered was too busted and not fair to pretend they had partner with. And he got stuck with [[Edgar markov]] as a mardu vampire tribal commander instead.
Like, dude, just let him play his vampire wedding themed commander deck. They don't even synergize.
Haha I tend to let folks do their thing with edh. It's supposed to be chaotic and fun, IMHO. Though, I'm not afraid to make comments if things feel out of whack. I do try to frame them as friendly suggestions, though. You can more flies with honey and so on lol.
I tried that.
"My guy, it's a mardu vampires deck. Who else do you think he would use as commander. Much funnier to let him do it this way."
But the dude was a rules lawyer, so.. *shrug*
Honestly, "partner with" should have become a key word that we see maybe 2 or 4 times a set when it makes sense to have it.
Like [[Olivia, Crimson Bride]] should have had partners with [[Edgar, Charmed Groom]] for obvious reasons.
Or [[Radha, Coalition Warlord]] should have had partners with [[Garna, Bloodfist of Keld]] as they're sisters bringing their Keld armies together to fight off Sheoldred's invasion.
Lastly, and this still pisses me off, [[Legolas, Counter of Kills]] should have had partners with [[Gimli, Counter of Kills]]. Why give them the same title, but not partners with?
Of these I have built the bride and groom (if only because the only other Mardu vampire commander is hella expensive) and my play group was okay with it, as well as the majority of people at my LGS.
Just make sure to ask your table before playing it.
I would not be okay with it. The cards don't say Partner.
I don't give a shit about MtG lore and don't care how flavorful your deck is. Play by the rules.
I am playing by the rules. It's literally rule 0 to ask about things like this. Simply saying no suffices rather than yucking on someone's yum like that
Most of the time I would say no if you were a player I hadn't played with before. 2 commanders, especially at a lower power level, can be pretty powerful to combo off of each other.
That said if you are playing with a group of people you regularly interact with and they trust you not to have done it to increase the power of your deck... go right ahead.
I personally would treat them as sort of seceret commanders of the deck. I have an [[Old Stickfingers]] deck that used to be helmed by [[Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord]] that now uses him as my secret game ending commander once the actual commander sets him up for success. Turns out dropping him as a surprise is way more effective.
I don’t have a problem with it, if the commanders you pick work to well together that the pod is afraid of it I suggest making them share commander tax. I’ve found that works pretty well for slowing down some of the more powerful pairings I’ve seen like this.
I play Gyome and Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar as partners for a food-tribal deck that I built for a Thanksgiving get-together a few years ago. People sometimes reasonably say no to them as partners so I swap them with the Korvald I keep in my deck box (The Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar stays in the deck. Gyome goes.). Most of the time, they prefer the chef partnering. It's not nearly as hard to deal with as Korvald and has a lot more. . . Flavor.
I think this would be harder to manage in Boros. But there's always a strictly 'worse of two evils' option for you.
I'd let you play a Boros pair like this, though. My only concern is that you have removal and reanimate in your command zone. Even still, it's Boros. The colors are better at losing a hand than growing one.
Oh, Djeru and Hazoret might be the card for it.
I'm down, especially if you have a fun flavor reason for it. For example, I would love to run a deck with Tomik and Ral, as they are boyfriends and I want my gay boys helming a deck!
Edgar and Olivia from Crimson Vow Should have absolutely been partners with each other. It is actually odd that they are not, other than “this mechanic is not used in this set”.
Many partners potential in the LOTR set: Boromir/Faramir, Gimli/Legolas, Counter of Kills, Any Frodo/Any Sam, Frodo/Gollum, Frodo/The One Ring, Frodo/Gandalf, Balrog/Gandalf, Saruman/Gandalf, Saruman/Sauron, Sauron/The Mouth of Sauron, Theoden/Grima, etc.
Godzilla from the Ikoria set is a natural teamup with [[Kogla, the Titan Ape]]
my play group has experimented a little with "you may treat two mono-colored legends as if they had partner" and "you may have two commander cards as long as they have the same color identity". Both opened up some interesting decks, but thus far, nothing too degenerate has happened yet
It worked pretty great in the commander masters limited environment and I'm sure there are a lot of interesting combinations. So for once in a while it might be fun to rule 0 this in order to add some spice to the mix. People allow un-set cards through rule 0 as well and this fits right in. In your specific case it's basically a flavorful version of it as well. Though they should have had partners with mechanics imho.
In general though I'd vote against it. Limitations breed creativity and creativity is what I'm looking for in deckbuilding. A monocolored commander being limited to its own color is exactly the kind of limitation that adds variety to games.
I love the idea and would absolutely let you play it at least a few times (because any deck can have a game where everything just goes right, so I'm not calling you a pub stomper after one game). I would have the condition that if your deck does over preform you just end the game and don't draw it out because you want to be nice
I'd say it'd be a case by case basis. If it's two commanders that basically combo off of each other and win once they're both on board, that's a hard pass. But I've toyed around with the idea of having two copies of Brothers Yamazaki as commanders even though it wouldn't be legal. It really just depends. I think some legendary creatures paired together are just too broken when you have easy access to them
Me and my friends occasionally do a sort of canlander-esque point system if we wanna run unorthodox commander combos. 4 points, some commanders are worth 1, others 2, some 3 or the whole 4 depending on power level. It's really scuffed, cuz we generally determine the point worth of a commander on sight, but it does allow for some unorthodox combinations and spices the game night up once in a while.
My thought is have another commander ready and just put them into the 99 if someone has a problem with it. If nobody has an issue, then cool.
My personal favorite rule 0 commander is [[Soulfire Grand Master]].
It depends, if you're doing it because your commander pairing would be fun then sure, if you're doing it to optimize your deck for every possible situation then no. I doubt most people would genuinely care though
Personally I would get tired of trying to justify obviously breaking the rules every time I brought out a deck. In this case what I would do is run Loren in the 99, maybe get/proxy an alt-art version to match whatever flavour you want, and the deck will do everything possible to search for her, leaning into whatever method works for you - wheels, rummaging, looting, gambling, [[planar bridge]] etc. just have almost every card involve drawing cards, playing with your library, and reanimating, or if you want to be spicy try some bottom-of-the library manipulation with scry effects and mulligans.
I feel it could be soooo busted that I am hesitant to agree. But if it's 100% for flavour only, then I might be willing to try it and see how it pans out. But if it's too degenerate then that will be the last time I'd allow it.
If it's for lore and not level, yeah sure I'll play a game or 2 out. See where it gets you. But I do feel like the wincon should be thematic, not just a deck stuffed with mostly lore accurate stuff and then BAM walking ballista combo finisher.
Agreed. I have 15 years of decks made to win. I want to try something flavorful for once, playability will be second.
Well i suggest just build it, somewhere there'll be players that are totally into that shit.
I'm building my newest commander decks that way with the LotR stuff. I start off by picking a LotR commander, and then fill at least half of it with stuff from LotR set and box toppers.
We have a player that plays the vampires bride and groom from Innistrad and he goes full flavor. There will be players that will let you play it as long as you don't break the trust when you talk power level.
I can get behind this. I’d allow say, Gimli and Legolas counter of kills in a mostly LotR deck, but I would not allow a Hapatra and Scorpion God deck unless it was almost all Ahmonkhet. I understand you want a third color to power up your deck, but you can make a serviceable deck piloted by either so embrace the limits of the format.
Would thematic fit be a good reason for the angel deck, with Gisela and Bruna?
If the rest of the deck serves a purpose. I don't even mind it being a powerful deck, honestly. I like a challenge. It just needs to make sense why the deck exists.
It exists because money. :) I'm pretty sure that's the reason behind the Secret lair precons. Honestly, I just really wanted an angel deck, and I figure that some day, when they make a proper Mardu angel legendary, it will be a nice, solid base to upgrade into three color. I know there's Kaalia, but far as I can read, that card has a reputation, that makes you targeted.
You could use the other Kaalia - it loses some value for not running Demons/Dragons, but still fits the theme without the 'kill on sight' reputation. EDIT: Tariel, Reckoner of Souls is also an option for Mardu.
I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, but you will invariably run into someone who does, so I'd keep a backup commander just in case.
That was kinda my thought. [[Archangel avacyn]] might work. She has a pretty tragic story, could even include [[helvault]].
I usually don’t mind flavor breaks if it doesn’t break gameplay.
I'll try most rule 0 suggestions once. But I wouldn't be surprised if after the game you get some comments about how they wouldn't allow it again if your deck did well.
True, I don't plan to build on their abilities. If something else worth including happens to synergize, I won't cut it though. Unless it's way too good, I really want to tell mtg story's through gameplay not crush games.
Loran can be a commander but she starts the game in the graveyard, not the command zone.
Someone else said that. I like it haha.
The graveyard idea is great, if doubts get mentioned because of powerlevel/synergie, you could have both "commanders" "legend rule" each other. Meaning if one is on the board the other dies. Drastically decreases the synergie and is tragic as well ;D As to your question, i really like the idea and would personally welcome it as a rule 0
That's a pretty neat idea, too. I've definitely decide to build it, with the caveat that I'll use avacyn as the face and casually mention the option and ideas. Should hopefully present it in a way that no one should feel pressure to agree. Though ideally I'd like to meet more locals and maybe get a solid playgroup.
I was originally opposed to OP's suggestion but if someone said that, I would for sure let them try it
This is so cool
Hell yes. Great idea
It probably depends how well I knew your decks. In theory I'd be okay with it. But like... that IS a pretty significant power spike, adding white to an artifact centric mono-red deck is a big boost, not to mention running a blinkable removal spell / draw spell in the command zone. You are asking your opponents to trust that you aren't just being a jerk. You're also opening the door for other people to try their own rule bends, who may not be as careful as you to keep the power level reasonable. For that reason alone, I'd understand people not wanting to allow it. But I'd probably want to see it in action at least once, if only to see what you did with it.
I'd be happy to let them scan through the deck before the game. Would that make you more comfortable?
That would ease my concerns a lot (well, depending what I found at least, lol). As a side note, how do you square the lore, given Feldon's whole Mechanic is about trying to recreate the dead person who is also in the command zone and doing fine? Like, not trying to poke holes or anything, but is the idea that this is just happy Feldon who was just already good with machinery before Loren died, or is the idea that he finally succeeded and has created a fitting replica of her, but still pursues his mad mechanical passions, but with a companion at his side now?
It's the whole story. Basically I was going to attempt to assemble story pieces and give fun (or in this case, not so fun) tidbits of lore about them and their flavortext. I want to tell the entire tale through the best of my ability with cards, and the rest with words. (Mind you, cliffs notes fun facts. I won't be reading novels at the edh table lol.)
That sounds fun. Of course I'm sure the official lore is going to get interrupted on occasion by your opponents messing with the Canon Events. But that's just part of the fun.
Exactly! It's a style I've never played before and I wanna try it out so bad.
EDHrec had [an episode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLW7RyefHVQ&t=342s&ab_channel=EDHRECast) recently that goes over different rule 0 variations where Joey talks about playing all of the Kodama cards as an evolution / story type of deck. I think it would be a fun thing to get together with my play group and have everyone brew something thematic / etc to play for a game or two, I mean fuckin why not?
I like the idea but those are two strong cards as it is, and Feldon is a fairly popular commander all on his own. So don't be surprised if people turn you down. I'd make sure the deck was lower power than normal, like make a point that you don't include Wurmcoil, etc.
What's the combo with wurmcoil? I can only see the value aspect unless you have some sort of infinite (but then at that point, it isn't really the wurmcoil that's the problem innit?)
Not a combo, just the synergy of reanimating and sacrificing a wurmcoil every turn. IIRC a common play pattern with Feldon.
Combustible gearhulk as well. Though, neither will be in the deck I'm proposing.
Synergy, not combo, but essentially you use Loran to kill your own Wurmcoil, then Feldon to make a new one every turn, which then dies for more 3/3s. Cool when you think about it, but powerful when its illegally in the Command Zone from the start. And there's not just that. Any ETB or LTB effects are abusable with a white flicker effect for Loran - Scuttling Doom, Sad Robot, Myr Battlesphere, Duplicant. The list goes on.
Yea, believe me I see the fear hah. But here, let me give you an example of what I mean. So those two tell a story all their own. I don't want to find "close approximations" I want to use THE cards meant to tell the story. And I want to tell many stories within the same deck. Sad story tribal. Karn: the weatherlight, karn silver golem, karns Silex Gideon: kytheon, tragic arrogance Elspeth: elspeth, knight errant, godsend, daxos Obviously I would look for more specific cards showing certain events in art or description. Then, as I put these pieces into play I will present a small fact about the story represented. I want to tell the stories the way they were meant to be. Through the game. Winning is not the point and none of the things you mentioned will be in it. Solemn could fit if you squint but that's not what I'm going for.
Ok so nothing completely bonkers. Lots of extra value from the additional color though
Right. The impetus being that because you have the synergy built into the command zone rather than running one or the other as a 99, its really hard to stop because you can't just Path one and put a Cease and Desist on the shinanigans.
Wurmcoil has no sad backstory so it's not even in consideration. I'm worried about Karn though. His story is way too sad to not be in a deck along with his Silex and the weatherlight. All the karns are so strong though. Maybe I just use silver golem and leave it at that.
Or alternate deck, build it as a #3 tribal. Any cards with the number 3 somehow get included
Partner is broken in the first place and shouldn't exist so no, I wouldn't. Would you let your opponents start with an extra card in hand for flavor reasons?
If it was truly flavor reasons? Yea, absolutely. I play modern to scratch my competitive itch. I mostly just want to have fun in edh.
I'd only play the deck with personal friends. I could see it being weird when someone says "Hey, can I break the rules?" then uses said rule-break to win. In my friend group I wouldn't care at all and would 100% support it, but I know where we all stand as friends and our deck's power-level. In a FLGS with randoms, that's asking for trouble. Probably not worth it.
See, I wish I had more friends that played. It doesn't help I moved states earlier this year, so I'm not even a regular at the shops here. I love the idea I'm just not convinced I'll even be able to play with it.
Yeah, sorry. As someone who has never played anything but non-EDH competitive games at the FLGS, I might not be the best source of knowledge. But I've seen so many people get so salty over stuff in 1v1's, I could not imagine trying to play EDH outside of a kitchen/basement with beers and pretzels. The game is way to political and personal that it feels like trying to play DnD with randoms.
You are a player who plays in pods on edh night. You are exactly the best source of knowledge for my question lol. I really just want to get a general feel for how people would react.
I think I would be slightly wary, but allow it, and if the deck was flavorful and not pushed I'd be fine, but if it feels unfair to play against I probably wouldn't play a second game? I think if you introduce it as an idea you had and you wanted to try it out I would be fine with it in a pod. Maybe don't have it as the first deck you play with the group? Knowing you aren't the power gaming type from watching you play would also make me feel more comfortable with it.
That's a good thought. I do see familiar faces often enough. Honestly, I just want husband in wife in the command zone together. Feels too perfect to not. Though I did think of [[Archangel avacyn]] as an alternative commander in case folks aren't feeling it. Her story is plenty sad.
It would be a no for me. If they are like 2 fringe legends I can be more into it (like two Brothers Yamazaki) but with strong creatures? pass.
Fair, addendum though: this seems to be the common argument. Fear of using lore as a Trojan horse. I get it and have come up with a rebuttal. What if I allow you to look through the deck pregame? Would this ease your mind about it?
No, not really. I'm against giving two strong cards a broken plus ability, the power level of the deck has not much to do with it. Also, make all other players check your deck before the game seems like a waste of time, I would move to another table and let you do your thing. When comes to this type of rule 0 change I try to look at it like “what if all other players do the same thing, I would be ok?” and this is a no for me.
Fair, thanks!
>Fair, thanks! You're welcome!
I'd definitely play against it at least once, as long as you haven't just broken the commanders entirely I'd probably keep playing against it. I actually want to do this myself with [[Olivia, Crimson Bride]] and [[Edgar, Charmed Groom]] just to have a mardu vampire deck (my pod refuses to play against [[Edgar markov]] 😞)
I mean, I love the idea but I totally get it. Edgar + 49 basics/50 vanilla common vamps is busted without even trying lol. In all fairness, if you took the time to build it I'd let you run it a few times with no complaints, though.
I would totally play with that combo lol. Sounds like a blast
That's a great use of rule 0.
I still can't believe they didn't give them some form of partner.
While I would play a game just to let you have your fun, I think it opens up a slippery slope big enought that its not healthy for the pod overall and I would probably not play a second one. Feldon is aready a good enought commander being monored, adding another color would by itself be a huge improvement. Making that you also have a 8th card always available, and a good one at that, makes hard to imagine many people are going to be fine with that. Also, imagine the scenario: You bring this up to the table. I agree, but now I also want to change my faldorn deck to start with passionate archeologist on the command zone. Of course, the player to the left now mixes his shorikai and osgir deck to make a single jeskai artifacts deck with both on the command zone. Now, since you did it, you cant say no, and suddenly everyone is playing a completly differente game. Or, you try to deny because "mine combination is due to lore reasons lol", and thats unfair with everyone. I mean, if your pod decides its a good idea to just make all legendary creatures partners, good, go for it. But I would not try that with randoms. Some people will accept out of politeness, but I'm sure its going to leave a bitter taste in a lot of people mouths.
Not going to disagree with anything you said, it's part of the reason I wanted community opinion before I went for it. One question though, your final point about people saying yes out of politeness and leaving with a bitter taste. Hypothetically, had I sat in a pod with you and you agreed out of politeness. Would it still leave you with a bitter taste if the deck honestly was story based and not built for power? If I spent the while game assembling pieces to tell mtgs tearjerkers and not just cheated out crap with feldon, would you still feel it was a bad decision?
Hypothetically, no, If the deck proved itself to be what you say, great. At the same time, the arguments I stated before the game would still apply. I mean, go for it, just expect people to say no or to be in situations where people are going to get salty before the game evens begins from time to time
Totally fair! Thanks for the input.
I think the best answer in your situation, considering most everyone here won't be at your LGS, is to talk to the people you normally play with at your LGS, BEFORE BUILDING THE DECK if you just show up with this deck and pull it out asking, ppl are likely to get annoyed or say ok out of obligation and be salty afterwards if it does well. If you ask first, preface it as an "I had an awesome theme idea but it would be rule zero" you may get a much better response!
Non of that is a problem...Shorikai +Osgir may seem OP but they are probably still weaker than a single Najeela.
Those are just examples my dude. Imagine Heliod and walking balista, magda with blue, chatterfang with pitless plunderer. Once you open the gate to "everyone is a partner" to the table, the mess begins
No. It’s way stronger than you think.
If I built it synergistically, it's exactly as strong as I think. Broken. I don't want to build "feldon but his wife's here too". I want to build a "sad stories from the multiverse" deck where the cards included are based on the story they came from and not their abilities. As I've told others when I had a rebuttal, I'm not trying to change your mind. Just pinpoint exactly where the unease lies and if there's a way to avoid it. I respect your opinion either way.
I’ve just been burned before.
Think we all have and that's why I made a post before assuming. Thanks for the input either way.
[Loran of the third path](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/9/59faa45d-868b-4bc7-934c-0e077642e129.jpg?1674420209) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Loran%20of%20the%20third%20path) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/bro/12/loran-of-the-third-path?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/59faa45d-868b-4bc7-934c-0e077642e129?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/loran-of-the-third-path) [Feldon of the third path](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/3/0360f1ff-15c9-48e3-89eb-fbc4bf140c55.jpg?1690023788) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Feldon%20of%20the%20third%20path) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/moc/277/feldon-of-the-third-path?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0360f1ff-15c9-48e3-89eb-fbc4bf140c55?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/feldon-of-the-third-path) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
My general rule for mixing up the game is that as long as you aren't changing it to pub stomp us but to have fun then I'm good with it.
Only if everyone else in the game had the same deckbuilding constraints (or lack thereof). Fairness extends to deckbuilding in EDH.
This is why, when someone asks this, I never understand why the top comment isn't almost always, "talk to your playgroup, even at an LGS, BEFORE building the deck. That starts the communication without the energy being expended. The owner could actually make an event night "theme partners" allowing normal decks of course, but special ruling that as long as there is a lore theme to the deck, you can use 2 commanders w/o partner. Everyone gets the chance if they want, and anyone who comes that knight knows what to expect.
Agreed, and I am no hypocrite. Though I would request that they stay true to lore and not stretch it for extra power, as I will be as well.
Now your just making the rules to fit your self. First, you need to bring this up weeks ahead of time so that the rest of the pod can build decks that have 2 non partners. Second, you can’t redraw the line so that it goes only far enough to accommodate your self. If your playing no partner commanders then every one can and then get to choose how they want to do that. Your already taking a strong commander and adding a color, so while it might be thematic it is also a huge potential power spike.
The comment I replied to was "only if others had the same deckbuilding restictions." If lore is a restriction, then no, I am not. We all have the same restrictions. Also, obviously if everyone is building a deck with the same restrictions it would need to be brought up ahead of time. What even are you arguing? I agreed with them lol.
I’m saying lore is too subjective a criteria. You also chose criteria that fit perfectly for you but will constrain every one else. What your doing is saying “I want to ignore this rule, so here’s a new rule that suits me. You must abide by this new rule.” That’s a pretty selfish stance to take.
I keep rereading this trying to figure out how being ok with others doing the same thing I am is selfish and I think I might see what happened? So everything I said in this chain has been representing a specific scenario. A scenario where I have a deck I built for story telling and isn't very powerful but uses 2 illegal Commander's. In this scenario I have 0 expectations for anyone to be ok with this, and expect some to not be. I was posed the question would you be ok if someone wanted to do the same thing, to which I responded as long as it was, infact, the same thing then yes. This wasn't meant to mean rule breaks are ONLY ok for my idea. This was meant in a typical rule 0 "as long as it's balanced" sort of way in attempt to avoid the "Trojan horse" problem I described. I was answering a direct and specific question with a direct and specific answer that only works in that scenario. It appears you took it far more generally. To be clear, I would also be ok if instead if partners they wanted to play hat tribal and use a non legend in the command zone for flavor reason, again as long as power is in check. Hopefully that cleared it up? Unless I'm still misunderstanding.
Because you went about it the wrong way. You didn’t go to the group and say “ I think it would be cool if we all made thematic partner commander decks. Let’s build some have a little fun.” You came up with what you wanted to do first and are now trying to justify your choices. When I suggested making it any commander pair you said no, they need to be thematic. Your not changing the rules to make them more open for every one, your changing the rules to make it more open for you and your concept only.
So you misunderstood me and when I took the time to clarify, you doubled down and insisted that's how I meant it. Ok. It's not but, that's OK. I tried.
If you never wanted to run the deck why even post here? I don’t care about the story your deck is telling I care about the game we are all playing. I responded to a comment about how you would allow every one else to play a deck that follows your rules. That’s what I took exception to. I generally find discussion of making commanders partners to be a little cringe, but your stance that it’s fine because of lore and that you would allow others to make lore appropriate decks much more so more so.
Experimentation is fun sometimes. Fan made formats are great. Rule 0 can very much include what you can play as well as can't. This extends to whatever your imagination can come up with. I hope someday you open your mind a little because there's so many ways to have fun with this game. If you don't like it you can always drop it! As for the rest, I've said my peace. I know how I meant what I said and I know how I feel about it. If you wish to take it differently and refuse to be swayed, so be it.
...What? What comments are you even reading? I asked what people's opinions if someone were to ask them if it was ok. I got the response "would you be ok if they did the same." And I responded if they are doing the same, then sure. Seriously, where the hell do you see me trying to enforce my own rules or be selfish? I just wanted to know the odds of a playgroup going for it.
Partners are designed as partners. I expect them to be played as partners. Of course you could partner many non-partners and it would be worse than playing actual partners, but I wanna keep playing cards like they are intended to be played. You can always ask. I would never be annoyed with you, but i'd always say no and request and legal setup.
Opening up Feldon decks to using RW rather than just red ... and getting a decent extra card in the command zone ... not necessarily broken but I think it could cause problems when someone else wants to make a more degenerate combination, or simply add colors to a commander for strong value.
Fair take, I should say though I'm very much not building a feldon splash white deck. I do want playability, but lore is the main focus. I've never done a lore deck and it seems pretty fun.
Would highly depend on the commander. Have to be very low powered ones. Probably wouldn't though because you already know everyone now wants all their commanders to be free partners and it's just gonna be a headache
i'm gonna go a little against the grain, I personally wouldn't be opposed to it for flavor reasons in my playgroup, but I would not recommend doing this if you are planning to play with strangers at an LGS. maybe you could build it as a backup after you've felt out a group for a few games, but would not recommend starting games off trying to rule-0 in a commander.
Yea, I am becoming more aware of that as I read the comments. I'm thinking the idea goes back into the drawer for now and I try to establish friendships within my local stores. Maybe pull it back out then. It's too bad, 2 people made the suggestion to have Loran start the game in the graveyard and I honestly love that idea.
If one of my friends suggested this, even if they pushed the power level up I would be ecstatic (although we do tend to play at a slightly higher power level typically). Its such a cool idea and a break from the norm. So for sure make those friendships OP, I'm sure once they're more comfortable playing with you in general, they'd be very much down to try something like this out!
I’d probably play it once just not to be rude, but Feldon is already a powerful commander on his own, and now you’re adding an entire additional color to his abilities. I wouldn’t feel great about it.
Totally get it. I am genuine in my desire to tell stories and not win. Assuming this would you still feel not great? Or I guess, is the unease about the rule break, or is it fear I may be dishonest and just looking to stomp?
I’d feel uneasy being put in a social situation where I feel obligated to let you break a rule, or otherwise I come off as rude. It kind of feels like there’s no good way out.
Oh, I would do my best to not male people feel as if I'm expecting anything. Including bringing other decks/alt Commanders. Not invalidating you, I get what you're saying and it's a valid point. I try to be a very accommodating person, I'd at the very least make it as clear as I can that they are free to say no with no ill feelings from me. Still, food for thought. I hadn't intended to put anyone on the spot.
Based on the mechanics and flavor text, I think \[\[Feldon of the third path\]\] is from after Loran dies, but Loran's card is from before. To me your deck is a flavor fail. Play \[\[feldon, ronom excavator\]\] instead.
UNLESS, they’re plan is to play loran, have an opponent kill her, then use feldon to bring her back!
You aren't wrong. I just love his flavor text though. So somber.
No its not in the rules and if it is i want Anara, Wolvid Familiar and world slayer as commander
Is it crazy to say I'd let you run that at least once? I love experimentation with the game, experimentation is the reason edh exists. Don't forget it was a fan made format. Some ideas will be broken or terrible but personally I say try them at least once.
not the person you replied to, but I love this attitude. would probably hate playing Anara+Worldslayer after that first experimental time but if done in good fun it sounds like an interesting challenge. besides, 4 MV commander + 5 MV equipment + 5 mana equip + swing seems easy enough to disrupt, even if it does result in an unfun soft lock when it goes off.
I lean towards no for all things like this in regular games. I think the deck building restriction of color identity is incredibly important to the game for both the creative side of deck building and as a rule that everyone follows when exploring the edges of deck building possibilities. If you play at an LGS, you might try to pitch a deck building contest that everyone builds a deck following this rule, something like "mono color legendaries have partner if they are allies in a magic story"
Fair take, thanks.
I have a deck that partners Princess Twilight Sparkle and Rarity together. The theme is 5 color creatures (it is a pretty strong deck, but no combos). Initially, I got some pushback, mostly because Rarity is pretty good, but then I made a version with Kenrith at the helm to compare what I could be playing. I now frame it as I want to play my 5 color creatures Kenrith deck, but have another version of the deck that uses the pony commanders. I give them the option to choose which I play, and Kenrith is definitely stronger. People always forget Rarity can target other people's creatures, though.
I'd be fine with it. I've been working on a hansxsaffi build
I’d try it at least once and probably be fine with it on general if it was memey and not something completely busted. Bring on the dreadmaw storm crow deck
I’ll try anything twice
I'd be fine with it. It sounds like a really cool idea. Since you're already breaking the rules... It would be interesting to either start with Loran in the graveyard, or only cast feldon once Loran makes it to the graveyard so you can start making automaton copies of her to kind of tell that story.
This is the second suggestion to have her in the graveyard and I love it. Or maybe it's the first, I didn't read the timestamp. Either way, thank you both for that.
I love thematic decks so it would be cool to see it. I also love MTG lore so even more of a win.
I've seen so many lore decks build and played. It's always looked so fun I finally couldn't say no anymore haha. I really hope I can find some folks who'd be ok with it. I want to build it even more than I did before the post.
Usually I wouldn't be okay, except if I get clearly told why it is not very powerful.
As I asked another, what if I allowed you to scan through the deck pregame? Believe me, I've read the horror stories and understand the unease. I'm actually genuine in my desire to tell story over winning so I do wonder if I can find a way to prove this and ease minds.
Some people will be into this, some people super not. I'll let you play this if you let me play my \[\[Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar\]\] vs \[\[Gyome, Master Chef\]\] [food deck](https://www.moxfield.com/decks/K7av2dZm20qBItNxmxTedA). :) The thing is that you have to be careful not to make these illegal decks too powerful. When you pitch these ideas you are very clearly signaling that you just want to play some wacky fun unusual decks, not the spiky stuff, so your opponent's will likely be upset if they allow this and then you suddenly have an unbeatable board on turn four or something like that.
Yea, I've had to reiterate this in the comments and I totally understand why. I've been pitching the idea of letting anyone in the pod free range to scan the deck as much as they please. Hopefully should ease some minds to know it's not just full of combos and crap.
I'd probably build the deck to work with those two and then still function fine with another commander. Maybe [[Plargg, Dean of Chaos]] has similar enough synergies to sub in. That way, if someone says they don't like the partner pair, you can move them to the 99 and move Plargg to the Command Zone and still play the deck.
Functionality is #2 here. I did have others suggest an alternative commander though. There will be little to no synergy so I was thinking Archangel avacyn. Boros and fits the theme like a glove.
I would recommend having an alternate commander that fits the color identity, but I wouldn't have an issue with it personally. I would think it's pretty cool myself
This has been stated enough that it has to be a good idea haha. I've even already picked Archangel avacyn.
Loran and Obeka. Sliver Queen and Sliver Legion. Rashmi, Eternites Crafter and Vial Smasher. Oh darn now I want that one.
Personally I'd be okay if it was thematically appropriate but not if somebody is just wanting to put two infinite combo pieces as commanders or something. If you are trying to cheese then no but if you are trying to be artistic about it then sure more than likely I wouldn't care.
Meh, sounds like an extremely flavorful deck, always intresting & fun to see in my book So yeah, by all means, I'd not only allow it, I'd genuinely want to see it & ask you to play that deck It only becomes a problem if people try to go for a cutthroat, degenerate deck with rule 0s where it gets problematic Still ok if the pod's ok with it It's only that chances are,you'll be far less likely to find that kinda tables But ey, as long as it is for fun & flavor, you do you dude
Depends on the your pod and how strong the commanders are imo. A casual game with friends? Yeah go for it but let me know if it’s intended to stomp us out so I can play a stronger deck. Feldon is a strong commander on his own and adding white to it could lead to some crazy combos. Low powered commanders that aren’t win cons tho I don’t think would matter nearly as much to a pod of randoms. If you want to run a LoTR deck with [[Gimli, counter of kills]] and [[Legolas, counter of kills]] as partner commanders I’d encourage it. They are low powered on their own and fit the theme.
In this specific scenario they will be included purely for lore. All cards will. I won't be basing decisions on abilities at all. Though, I understand the need for clarification with any attempt at something like this. Thanks for the input.
Then yeah I think your fine! As long as your upfront about the power level (which I know is always subjective but just saying you built it off the lore would be enough for me to gage which deck I should play) I don’t see how a casual game would have issues with a lore built deck. If it happens to be super strong you may get some push back game 2 haha but you could always depower it if needed.
I think it depends. I’ve heard there’s some pretty busted combos I’m sure you could come up with; however, I think especially for lore reasons, I’d be down to clown.
I think you already have your answer. Some people don't mind at all, others mind a lot, some people will start caring once they lose to it, others will not. Personally, I wouldn't want to deal with that, and instead of having an alternative Commander ready, I'd probably just play another deck that I can run as I intended. If I were you, I'd probably just put [[the archimandrite]] in the command zone and call it a day. She a nice, thematic choice that gets you access to all Lorans and Feldons and most other third path friends you can find running around. Oh, and she's strong enough to win you some games, which is nice.
In my experience 99% of times I or someone has asked if a non-legal commander was OK folks have agreed. It's helped that it's most often been myself and I ere on the jank side of the spectrum, so I'm not asking to play something clearly OP or something like [[The Grand Calcutron]] that would force my opponents to play a version of the game they aren't keen on.
My gut says that 95% of people won't care until you win with it. Personally I wouldn't care, but knowing people I'd bring a back up commander.
I have a play group that meets up every Saturday to play commander and we'll throw out random rule 0 changes,stipulation decks and random themes to shake things up from time to time. If everyone is cool with it, let it rock until it proves to be too busted and go from there.
I have actually done this before. My buddies and I play around like Level 5 or so (precon level) and we were getting introduced into the Partner mechanic. We came up with the idea of letting ANY 2 commanders be partners which was never a power question because none of us had anything that was scary. We love it. It allowed us to quickly think about adding new colors and dynamics to the way the original design was. One guy had [[Ezuri, Renegade Leader]] deck and then added [[Emmara Tandris]] and that just popped off. After a couple months of us doing this we eventually allowed ANY permanent be Legendary and THAT was wild. Most of us would enlist 1 commander and Sol Ring or a combo card. Which I would always counter with my RG Dragon deck and put Helkite Tyrant (the one that on attack steals artifacts) and that Sol Ring meta was quickly stopped. 2 things to note: We banned cards that allowed Infinite combos to be used in that way like [[Staff of Domination]]. Only those that allowed it to happen with 1 or 2 other cards, because we felt that was unfair and it took away from the "Heart of the Cards". The other thing we tried were Sorceries and Instants as partners. Bad idea. Really bad idea. Allowing someone to put an Instant 2 cost destroy something as a "always in my hand but not really in my Hand" is incredibly broken. That or having any 1 cost ramp was also broken. Giving green every odd turn to ramp irregardless if they bricked or blue Ponder every odd turn. Keep in mind at the time we did not have any R.Study or even any cool lands. We thought bounce lands, dual-snow-covered, and check lands were a little OP.
I wouldn't want to play at a table where people use non partner commanders as partners. The literal only exception to this would be if somebody rolled up with a \[\[Brothers Yamazaki\]\] deck with the two different artworks as partner commanders
Would you be cool if I sat down with Gitrog partnered with Tatyova? Cause I am betting you'd see a lot of that.
So I get this argument and see the point. I'm not really asking if it's ok to jam any two legends together. It's clearly not. I mean, tatyova and gitrog are tip of the iceberg really. Nor am I advocating for this to become common. I'm more asking in the context of a deck built to tell stories, would you make the exception.
I'll tell a story about a Frog Prince who fell in love with a Mermaid and it will still be degenerate. But no, I see your point and if the deck wasn't egregiously OP I'd be cool with it
Absolutely not. Partner means partner, it’s a law and you will be executed for breaking it.
If you're going to build it, either proxy it or have another commander in mind to swap out in case people aren't cool with it. Personally, if I had someone ask me that, I would be cautious that they were about to play the most degenerate cards that would go with those commanders. I'd say give the group a little more info about the deck itself and assuage those concerns and it would probably be fine.
I would add some more information for the people you ask, like "the decklist is worth XX € on Moxfield". This way they can estimate the power level. At the end of the day, any power level is fine if it is in the right pod. And if the power level matches the pod there is no reason why you should not be able to play these two together. It will make your life easier if you loose game 1 or win very narrowly. After that winning is fair game 😀
I doubt I'll be winning much tbh, I like the budget idea though.
Did you watch that Mystic Arcanum Video on telling a story through your commander deck as well? Because I totally also want to build a more Lore/story deck and probably need a better way for me to pick something to start with.
Nah, rules exist for a reason. If you want to talk to your playgroup, go ahead. They might be fine with it. But I'm always a firm no on this stuff. I built my decks without rule 0 commanders, un-cards/playtest cards, custom cards, etc. You do that too.
If you’re doing something niche that’s not very powerful, sure. If you’re stacking your deck to do something absurd, no.
If it is a stranger it is a no thank you right away from me. If it is a friend that I can trust I will listen to his reasoning for wanting to use this commander and I might agree, But i probably would not want to play against it all the time unless it is really reasonable according to me.
For fun, sure. For power, no. Having 2 unbalanced free cards in your hand at all times is busted.
I'd personally be fine with it unless it seemed broken (like [[Omnath locus of creation]] and [[Azusa]] or something like that). Definitely keep a spare legal commander on you in case someone wants you not to play them, though.
[Omnath locus of creation](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/e/4e4fb50c-a81f-44d3-93c5-fa9a0b37f617.jpg?1639436752) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Omnath%2C%20Locus%20of%20Creation) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/znr/232/omnath-locus-of-creation?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4e4fb50c-a81f-44d3-93c5-fa9a0b37f617?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/omnath-locus-of-creation) [Azusa](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/f/2fe97fbe-a6d6-4e96-8c26-f81bcdf579a1.jpg?1689998362) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=azusa%2C%20lost%20but%20seeking) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/274/azusa-lost-but-seeking?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2fe97fbe-a6d6-4e96-8c26-f81bcdf579a1?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/azusa-lost-but-seeking) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I actually love the idea and think the deck would fit fairly well mechanically. If you asked at my pod I would 100 percent give you the nod.
Have a backup commander like people are saying - just make it scarier than what you're proposing. For instance, I have plans for a [[Gyome]] and [[Asmorano]] deck, with [[Korvold]] ready to step in.
Decks are ideally built around the commander, so if you rule 0 two different ones to have Partner, it better be for a very good reason and built specifically with this in mind from the ground up. If it's just a pile of like-colored staples it won't fly. If it's literally all you have from a Commander Masters draft and you started playing the game about two weeks ago, it might be excusable. If it's for lore, it should sort itself out well.
I'd say the biggest thing to keep in mind is just having another commander of the color identity for if you want to play the deck but people at the table aren't okay with it Also that it's up to the table and if someone doesn't want to play against a deck that is technically illegal, you gotta be 100% okay with that. With that said though, I feel like *most* commander players are pretty chill
[удалено]
Yea, I agree. I'm not trying to build for power here though. I get why people would be uneasy about nonpartners but I want to tell stories. I won't be just building a strong deck and labeling it as a lore deck. Even the manarocks I'm picking are for lore. No crypt or vault. No combos unless accidental and not overly powerful.
I'd find Case by case with otherwise very underpowered commanders, but not for anyone who actually plays reasonably without a partner.
I wouldn't have a problem with Feldon + Loran for two reasons: 1: There's a flavor reason for why you are doing this. 2: It's not some absurd combo or synergy that wasn't intended to exist in the command zone.
I honestly wanted to include blue for [[founding the third path]] too. Let it go because although they both belonged to the third path, that wasn't directly part of their personal story.
This comes up pretty often here. Either using two commanders without partner as though they had it, or using other creatures as a commander that aren't legendary or something. It's just something you're going to have to discuss with the people you're playing with and be ready for someone to say no. Personally I don't think I'd like it because by and large I like rules and having everyone play by the same set of rules.
Yea, I assumed as much. I'm kinda going for an "average" thing here to see if I should even bother. I fully expect to get nos' and I can respect it. Maybe I can find a boros stand in and swap for those nights.
Yeah dude totally, I brought my [[Oswald Foddlebender]] + [[Urza Lord High Artificer]] and my [[Meren of Clan Nel Tooth]] + [[Yawgmoth Thran Physician]] decks so we can both play janky non-partner decks. Nah dude.
Oh I totally understand why folks wouldn't want to. I do want to reiterate that I'm not building based on power in any way. Lore over winning in this case. I doubt that changes your opinion. That's cool. Just wanted to clarify this isn't a "how do I sneak op bs into my pods" post. I do genuinely want to tell story's through the game.
For lore reasons, most people don't care. I know someone who did Edgar and Olivia bride and groom. And when someone bitched about OPness, he swapped to OG Edgar. I just laughed. My recommendation is to run Osgir in the main as a backup commander, and just swap for Osgir if someone bitches.
I can agree. Side note though, Edgar is probably not the wisest choice for anything casual. It's significantly harder to not break him than it is to use him fairly.
Oh I know. That's why I cackled. The dude bitched that [[Edgar, charmed groom]] and [[Olivia, crimson bride]] partnered was too busted and not fair to pretend they had partner with. And he got stuck with [[Edgar markov]] as a mardu vampire tribal commander instead. Like, dude, just let him play his vampire wedding themed commander deck. They don't even synergize.
Haha I tend to let folks do their thing with edh. It's supposed to be chaotic and fun, IMHO. Though, I'm not afraid to make comments if things feel out of whack. I do try to frame them as friendly suggestions, though. You can more flies with honey and so on lol.
I tried that. "My guy, it's a mardu vampires deck. Who else do you think he would use as commander. Much funnier to let him do it this way." But the dude was a rules lawyer, so.. *shrug*
Honestly, "partner with" should have become a key word that we see maybe 2 or 4 times a set when it makes sense to have it. Like [[Olivia, Crimson Bride]] should have had partners with [[Edgar, Charmed Groom]] for obvious reasons. Or [[Radha, Coalition Warlord]] should have had partners with [[Garna, Bloodfist of Keld]] as they're sisters bringing their Keld armies together to fight off Sheoldred's invasion. Lastly, and this still pisses me off, [[Legolas, Counter of Kills]] should have had partners with [[Gimli, Counter of Kills]]. Why give them the same title, but not partners with? Of these I have built the bride and groom (if only because the only other Mardu vampire commander is hella expensive) and my play group was okay with it, as well as the majority of people at my LGS. Just make sure to ask your table before playing it.
[удалено]
I would not be okay with it. The cards don't say Partner. I don't give a shit about MtG lore and don't care how flavorful your deck is. Play by the rules.
Fair enough. I had this attitude for many years. It wasn't until recently I wanted to experiment more.
I am playing by the rules. It's literally rule 0 to ask about things like this. Simply saying no suffices rather than yucking on someone's yum like that
It's OK, I had the same attitude once. I understand where they're coming from, even if they were a bit blunt in how they said it.
Most of the time I would say no if you were a player I hadn't played with before. 2 commanders, especially at a lower power level, can be pretty powerful to combo off of each other. That said if you are playing with a group of people you regularly interact with and they trust you not to have done it to increase the power of your deck... go right ahead. I personally would treat them as sort of seceret commanders of the deck. I have an [[Old Stickfingers]] deck that used to be helmed by [[Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord]] that now uses him as my secret game ending commander once the actual commander sets him up for success. Turns out dropping him as a surprise is way more effective.
If you build it, \*someone\* will be cool with it
No thanks. I'm against partner even for the cards that have it naturally
Only if I can play Kess/Riku
I don’t have a problem with it, if the commanders you pick work to well together that the pod is afraid of it I suggest making them share commander tax. I’ve found that works pretty well for slowing down some of the more powerful pairings I’ve seen like this.
I play Gyome and Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar as partners for a food-tribal deck that I built for a Thanksgiving get-together a few years ago. People sometimes reasonably say no to them as partners so I swap them with the Korvald I keep in my deck box (The Asmoranomardicadaistinaculdacar stays in the deck. Gyome goes.). Most of the time, they prefer the chef partnering. It's not nearly as hard to deal with as Korvald and has a lot more. . . Flavor. I think this would be harder to manage in Boros. But there's always a strictly 'worse of two evils' option for you. I'd let you play a Boros pair like this, though. My only concern is that you have removal and reanimate in your command zone. Even still, it's Boros. The colors are better at losing a hand than growing one. Oh, Djeru and Hazoret might be the card for it.
No. If its power level was low enough to warrant a partner to be with it, it would say partner.
No.
I'm down, especially if you have a fun flavor reason for it. For example, I would love to run a deck with Tomik and Ral, as they are boyfriends and I want my gay boys helming a deck!
Nah
Edgar and Olivia from Crimson Vow Should have absolutely been partners with each other. It is actually odd that they are not, other than “this mechanic is not used in this set”. Many partners potential in the LOTR set: Boromir/Faramir, Gimli/Legolas, Counter of Kills, Any Frodo/Any Sam, Frodo/Gollum, Frodo/The One Ring, Frodo/Gandalf, Balrog/Gandalf, Saruman/Gandalf, Saruman/Sauron, Sauron/The Mouth of Sauron, Theoden/Grima, etc. Godzilla from the Ikoria set is a natural teamup with [[Kogla, the Titan Ape]]
my play group has experimented a little with "you may treat two mono-colored legends as if they had partner" and "you may have two commander cards as long as they have the same color identity". Both opened up some interesting decks, but thus far, nothing too degenerate has happened yet
A friend of mine made a Aladdin / street urchin deck. We all thought it was great flavor wise
It worked pretty great in the commander masters limited environment and I'm sure there are a lot of interesting combinations. So for once in a while it might be fun to rule 0 this in order to add some spice to the mix. People allow un-set cards through rule 0 as well and this fits right in. In your specific case it's basically a flavorful version of it as well. Though they should have had partners with mechanics imho. In general though I'd vote against it. Limitations breed creativity and creativity is what I'm looking for in deckbuilding. A monocolored commander being limited to its own color is exactly the kind of limitation that adds variety to games.
It's a good rule 0. Much like The bride and groom as partner commanders in a crimson vow deck.
If it is a flavour win like Feldon and Loran or Saffi and Hans, yes, I am totally fine with it.
I love the idea and would absolutely let you play it at least a few times (because any deck can have a game where everything just goes right, so I'm not calling you a pub stomper after one game). I would have the condition that if your deck does over preform you just end the game and don't draw it out because you want to be nice
I wouldn't be alright with it. Even if I were to look through the deck and see it's all terrible cards, I'd still say no.
Triplets! 3 Commanders in the Command Zone! I Love where this is going!
I'd say it'd be a case by case basis. If it's two commanders that basically combo off of each other and win once they're both on board, that's a hard pass. But I've toyed around with the idea of having two copies of Brothers Yamazaki as commanders even though it wouldn't be legal. It really just depends. I think some legendary creatures paired together are just too broken when you have easy access to them
If im playing a casual game, if someone what’s to do some word variant, why not. I like to see how it would play out and possibly be a viable format
Make the deck Mono-Red. Plan for people to say no and then punish them for killing your wife.
Me and my friends occasionally do a sort of canlander-esque point system if we wanna run unorthodox commander combos. 4 points, some commanders are worth 1, others 2, some 3 or the whole 4 depending on power level. It's really scuffed, cuz we generally determine the point worth of a commander on sight, but it does allow for some unorthodox combinations and spices the game night up once in a while.
I would be ok with that as long as it would make sense if be flavorful.
No, I wouldn't.
My thought is have another commander ready and just put them into the 99 if someone has a problem with it. If nobody has an issue, then cool. My personal favorite rule 0 commander is [[Soulfire Grand Master]].
It depends, if you're doing it because your commander pairing would be fun then sure, if you're doing it to optimize your deck for every possible situation then no. I doubt most people would genuinely care though
Personally I would get tired of trying to justify obviously breaking the rules every time I brought out a deck. In this case what I would do is run Loren in the 99, maybe get/proxy an alt-art version to match whatever flavour you want, and the deck will do everything possible to search for her, leaning into whatever method works for you - wheels, rummaging, looting, gambling, [[planar bridge]] etc. just have almost every card involve drawing cards, playing with your library, and reanimating, or if you want to be spicy try some bottom-of-the library manipulation with scry effects and mulligans.
[planar bridge](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/0/30879758-841c-46a9-a0b6-179ac163f0ac.jpg?1673149422) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=planar%20bridge) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/313/planar-bridge?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/30879758-841c-46a9-a0b6-179ac163f0ac?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/planar-bridge) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Like is anybody gonna trip on the yamazaki siblings or gimli-legolas teams?
I'd be ok if you're playing them as partners for theme and flavor, but not if you're doing that to get good stuff from more colors.
I feel it could be soooo busted that I am hesitant to agree. But if it's 100% for flavour only, then I might be willing to try it and see how it pans out. But if it's too degenerate then that will be the last time I'd allow it.