I don't have an answer, but I love these kinds of tricky rules questions for making me question my own understanding of the game rules.
this post was submitted on 28 May 2025
8 points (90.0% liked)
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
Im nearly certain that because the meld card is an entirely different legendary creature, it would deal its own 3rd track of commander damage. However im not a rules lawyer, it just makes the most sense
That was my initial thought, yeah, but I couldn't find any explicit ruling to that effect; only that both halves of the melded card should be able to go to the command zone in the weird partner/meld case (as per 903.9c applying to each half separately).
@Bbbbbbbbbbb @xgranade thinking about ot, this option solves the most thorny questions. Just annoying to track an additional commander damage track
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.
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).
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.
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.