MTG

2167 readers

27 users here now

Magic: the Gathering discussion

General discussion, questions, and media related to Magic: the Gathering that doesn't fit within a more specific community. Our equivalent of /r/magicTCG!

Type [[Card name]] in your posts and comments and CardBot will reply with a link to the card! More info here.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Commander damage for Partner + Meld? (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

OK, so weird rules question: how do you track commander combat damage for two commanders that each have partner and that meld with each other? When the melded commander does combat damage to a player, is that a third combat damage track, does it go towards the un-melded combat damage trackers, or does something else weird happen?

This is absolutely a strange rules question, since not a single card on Scryfall would seem to run into this scenario, but for Pride Commander, all commanders are given the partner keyword, so you can run into this case with commander partners like Fang, Fearless l'Cie and Vanille, Fearless l'Cie, both of which meld into Ragnarok, Divine Deliverance. Similarly, Gisela/Bruna.

Anyway, thanks for the help!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

The closest I've been able to find to a resolution has been the Gatherer rulings on [[Gisela, the Broken Blade]]:

In a Commander game, your commander may be Bruna, the Fading Light or Gisela, the Broken Blade, and the other may be in your deck. If they meld into Brisela, Voice of Nightmares, Brisela will also be your commander; but if Brisela leaves the battlefield, only the card chosen as your commander at the start of the game may be put into the command zone.

That just says that the melded card is a commander, though, and not what happens when the melded commander does combat damage. From the Comprehensive Rules, it seems to come down to what's meant by "the same commander":

903.10a A player who’s been dealt 21 or more combat damage by the same commander over the course of the game loses the game. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

A few other CRs would seem to shed light, but I'm still not quite sure of the resolution:

903.3b If a player’s commander is a meld card and it’s melded with the other member of its meld pair, the resulting melded permanent is that player’s commander.

903.3c If a player’s commander is a component of a merged permanent, the resulting merged permanent is that player’s commander.

903.9c If a commander is a melded permanent or a merged permanent and its owner chooses to put it into the command zone using the replacement effect described in rule 903.9b, that permanent and each component representing it that isn’t a commander are put into the appropriate zone, and the card that represents it and is a commander is put into the command zone.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Not a judge, so take with a grain of salt, but I don't see why a creature can't be more than one player's commander at the same time. 903.3b would apply twice here - one for each commander that was part of the pair.

So basically, if my reading is correct, combat damage dealt by the melded creature would be treated as commander damage by both of its components. 8 damage from an attack would be 8 commander damage from each (16 commander damage total, but split between both commanders as 8 and 8).

[–] prodigalsorcerer 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Meld cards all have the restriction of "own and control", so while your scenario sounds fun, it's unfortunately not possible (yet).

It's text on the card, rather than a built in restriction, so in theory it could be possible in the future.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

This is correct - all meld cards that exist have this requirement. It does not require that in the CR though as far as I can tell, so a theoretical future card might not have that restriction.

Also, I guess if you rule 0'd in ante cards for some reason, then sure.