Ticker, this is why I don't particularly like use of the term "casual," because I think it implies a mindset that we're not trying to promote and I think that many players take it to be synonymous with "bad," which I don't think it is, but I get that others do. I think "social" is a far better term.
"Build socially, play competitively" has been my mantra for a while. It means a certain kind of restraint while deck building, and nothing of the kind once the game starts.
Hmm, that Mantra wouldn't work at my group.
I always tend to build decks that offer me choice on how to play.
That's important because our store has all kinds of players: From die-hard vintage players to kids who just bought their first deck.
I love my decks/playstyle because they have the ability to be entertaining for both parties no matter their experience or budget.
When playing against those die-hards my deck really gets tested in its power.
But when playing against newbies, I can still "play" decently (which means I am having fun) while also giving the opponent a chance. Example: Azami in play and MoM in my hand..
I can either play it and win against the newbie or I can shuffle it back with Time Spiral and try to win in another less overpowered way.
Yes, I often win against those players. But they had fun, I gave them a chance because I didn't play to win.
We also have a 'personal point' system in multiplayer, with harder opponents.
By that I mean: "Who cares if player B won? I just did the most awesome trick ever and answered a threat in a mindblowing way. Even though I lost the game, I felt like the winner of that evening."
That's what people like about me in my LGS: I'm like a computer-game where they can select their difficulty.
tldr: My mantra would be more like "build competitively, play socially"
Hmm, that Mantra wouldn't work at my group.
I always tend to build decks that offer me choice on how to play.
That's important because our store has all kinds of players: From die-hard vintage players to kids who just bought their first deck.
...
tldr: My mantra would be more like "build competitively, play socially"
The thing about both your mantras is that you're both building a deck with both social lay and competitive play in mind. You have simply reversed your mindset based on meta concerns.
EDH is like French fries: some people like waffle cut, crinkle cut, or plain old straight cut, and while there's slight flavor difference and personal preference, at the end of the day they're still fries.
Example: Azami in play and MoM in my hand..
I can either play it and win against the newbie or I can shuffle it back with Time Spiral and try to win in another less overpowered way.
tldr: My mantra would be more like "build competitively, play socially"
But why would you even play mind MoM in the first place in an Azami deck? I understand that there are different player types and spikes are going to try to win at any cost, but its not interesting or cool to play an instant-win combo in this format when you always have access to half the combo. Its degenerate and antisocial. You're wasting other people's time. And why would you want to sit there and drag the game out when you already have the win? This is a perfect example of the type of player that will limit the growth of EDH. The way it is currently played, the format is unbalanced in that spikes/trolls have an easy time making games unfun for the other players that are playing for a different reason. I'm not sure what the solution is, but if the goal of the RC is to promote and expand the amount EDH played in shops, I think something should be done on this front. Perhaps adding 10-20 of the most egregious offenders to the banned list. Perhaps promoting your points system. I promise you I have seen multiple new players come into shops and leave pissed off after somebody combo'd off in a degenerate way. Its a complicated problem, but I think if you could come up with a more effective way to discourage antisocial behavior in this social format, EDH would flourish into something even more impressive than its already become.
But why would you even play mind MoM in the first place in an Azami deck? I understand that there are different player types and spikes are going to try to win at any cost, but its not interesting or cool to play an instant-win combo in this format when you always have access to half the combo. Its degenerate and antisocial.
Because in one group you can always expect people to have answers, so you need to "draw away" those answers in order to win with something else.
You're wasting other people's time. And why would you want to sit there and drag the game out when you already have the win? This is a perfect example of the type of player that will limit the growth of EDH. The way it is currently played, the format is unbalanced in that spikes/trolls have an easy time making games unfun for the other players that are playing for a different reason.
Seeing as you don't know the meta I am talking about, your comment can be ignored.
That meta will never be won with a combo, people have too many answers. You win a game because you got to establish a full control over the board, a combo just makes it easier than attacking 80 times with a 1/2 General.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but if the goal of the RC is to promote and expand the amount EDH played in shops, I think something should be done on this front. Perhaps adding 10-20 of the most egregious offenders to the banned list. Perhaps promoting your points system. I promise you I have seen multiple new players come into shops and leave pissed off after somebody combo'd off in a degenerate way.
Most of those people are pissed because they were winning and than someone "stole" the win, something I would never do.
The others are just pissed because they hate the idea of combo, even if they would have lost due to any of the other 200 reasons.
Again, I am not advocating this be utilized verbatim, but something like:
We, the RC define a combo as...
Combos are banned in EDH
Now the definition would have to be meticulously worded however, if you make combos illegal, then how many cards can come off the banned list because their largest offense was fueling combos?
Another crazy approach could be:
Players may only be eliminated via combat damage. (this is obviously absurd, but it's for discussion/illustration)
The biggest problem with this is that groups that didn't like this approach would just ignore it. Then someone would travel to one of these groups and instead of banned list discussions we would be having discussions on old rules vs new rules. That or tons of people would just quit playing EDH all together.
Forcing the game into a very specific way to victory is never a good thing (and the reason I hate Standard), because all your decks end up being the same thing with a different face.
Jace SHOULD be unbanned in modern. I hate all the people saying "JACE IS BROKEN OHMYGOD HE'LL TAKE OVER AND CAWBLADE WILL REIGN SUPREME AGAIN" when bloodbraid elf literally comes down after jace and kicks jace right in the crotch, takes jace's lunch money, and jace is left to bleed out on the sidewalk in agonizing pain.
'sub-optimal', 'room for improvement'...seems like the RC is not doing what YOU want.
Yes. I see a room for improvement, which also implies i see problems.
Remember the roots of the format: judges playing swingy, back-and-forth games with all the cards that weren't legal in any format.
I know the roots, but that doesn't have anything to do with what EDH is right now. It's not just judges relaxing after events, there are all sorts of players.
If the games in your group are not going the 'right' way, the RC encourages you to make a house rule.
The problem with house rules is that they are thrown out the window once a new person joins. Or we have to keep a giant sideboard in case i play with someone who doesn't want any LD, prime time, etc. in their EDH game.
My friends and I tried a 'early pawn move' variation where you draw your opening seven, then search your deck for two basics that go into play tapped. We just wanted to speed the game up a little. It didn't work out.
We tried a 'you can only tutor for basic lands' idea that didn't pan out either.
The point being that we are able to adjust the rules as we see fit. Sheldon, PFunk, they approve of playgroups trying to find what is perfect for that group.
I understand what the RC encourages, I just think it doesn't always work. I mean.. case in point - your past experience!
I mean this is all assuming every player in your group agrees on house rulings. I tried to unban koko and sundering titan in our group, but even the player who ran sundering said no. Why? Because it's just easier to have everyone on the same page- regardless if he thinks it was an unjustifiable ban. Having a ton of banned lists just splinters the community.
Local lists cause trouble because they can be very personal if only 1 or 2 people are making the lists. They might hate LD, but a person who hates combo will still be upset when johnny goes off. Then it just causes arguments similar to these threads. I mean how many threads about the banned list do we need?
QUOTE]Perfection, though, takes different forms to different people.[/QUOTE]
The list will NEVER be perfect. But that doesn't mean we can't strive to make things better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hmm, that Mantra wouldn't work at my group.
I always tend to build decks that offer me choice on how to play.
That's important because our store has all kinds of players: From die-hard vintage players to kids who just bought their first deck.
I love my decks/playstyle because they have the ability to be entertaining for both parties no matter their experience or budget.
When playing against those die-hards my deck really gets tested in its power.
But when playing against newbies, I can still "play" decently (which means I am having fun) while also giving the opponent a chance.
Example: Azami in play and MoM in my hand..
I can either play it and win against the newbie or I can shuffle it back with Time Spiral and try to win in another less overpowered way.
Yes, I often win against those players. But they had fun, I gave them a chance because I didn't play to win.
We also have a 'personal point' system in multiplayer, with harder opponents.
By that I mean: "Who cares if player B won? I just did the most awesome trick ever and answered a threat in a mindblowing way. Even though I lost the game, I felt like the winner of that evening."
That's what people like about me in my LGS: I'm like a computer-game where they can select their difficulty.
tldr: My mantra would be more like "build competitively, play socially"
The thing about both your mantras is that you're both building a deck with both social lay and competitive play in mind. You have simply reversed your mindset based on meta concerns.
EDH is like French fries: some people like waffle cut, crinkle cut, or plain old straight cut, and while there's slight flavor difference and personal preference, at the end of the day they're still fries.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
To extend it, look at the toppings/dips used with fries!
I went and started a Commander/EDH blog! Come see it at http://wordofcommander.blogspot.com/ and it includes all 15 of my custom super-art generals!
If you're more into the finance section of the game, I write on Fridays for MTGPrice.com.
But why would you even play mind MoM in the first place in an Azami deck? I understand that there are different player types and spikes are going to try to win at any cost, but its not interesting or cool to play an instant-win combo in this format when you always have access to half the combo. Its degenerate and antisocial. You're wasting other people's time. And why would you want to sit there and drag the game out when you already have the win? This is a perfect example of the type of player that will limit the growth of EDH. The way it is currently played, the format is unbalanced in that spikes/trolls have an easy time making games unfun for the other players that are playing for a different reason. I'm not sure what the solution is, but if the goal of the RC is to promote and expand the amount EDH played in shops, I think something should be done on this front. Perhaps adding 10-20 of the most egregious offenders to the banned list. Perhaps promoting your points system. I promise you I have seen multiple new players come into shops and leave pissed off after somebody combo'd off in a degenerate way. Its a complicated problem, but I think if you could come up with a more effective way to discourage antisocial behavior in this social format, EDH would flourish into something even more impressive than its already become.
Blanket bans and stringent rules are for Standard.
I went and started a Commander/EDH blog! Come see it at http://wordofcommander.blogspot.com/ and it includes all 15 of my custom super-art generals!
If you're more into the finance section of the game, I write on Fridays for MTGPrice.com.
Because in one group you can always expect people to have answers, so you need to "draw away" those answers in order to win with something else.
Seeing as you don't know the meta I am talking about, your comment can be ignored.
That meta will never be won with a combo, people have too many answers. You win a game because you got to establish a full control over the board, a combo just makes it easier than attacking 80 times with a 1/2 General.
Most of those people are pissed because they were winning and than someone "stole" the win, something I would never do.
The others are just pissed because they hate the idea of combo, even if they would have lost due to any of the other 200 reasons.
The biggest problem with this is that groups that didn't like this approach would just ignore it. Then someone would travel to one of these groups and instead of banned list discussions we would be having discussions on old rules vs new rules. That or tons of people would just quit playing EDH all together.
Forcing the game into a very specific way to victory is never a good thing (and the reason I hate Standard), because all your decks end up being the same thing with a different face.
Yes. I see a room for improvement, which also implies i see problems.
I know the roots, but that doesn't have anything to do with what EDH is right now. It's not just judges relaxing after events, there are all sorts of players.
The problem with house rules is that they are thrown out the window once a new person joins. Or we have to keep a giant sideboard in case i play with someone who doesn't want any LD, prime time, etc. in their EDH game.
I understand what the RC encourages, I just think it doesn't always work. I mean.. case in point - your past experience!
I mean this is all assuming every player in your group agrees on house rulings. I tried to unban koko and sundering titan in our group, but even the player who ran sundering said no. Why? Because it's just easier to have everyone on the same page- regardless if he thinks it was an unjustifiable ban. Having a ton of banned lists just splinters the community.
Local lists cause trouble because they can be very personal if only 1 or 2 people are making the lists. They might hate LD, but a person who hates combo will still be upset when johnny goes off. Then it just causes arguments similar to these threads. I mean how many threads about the banned list do we need?
QUOTE]Perfection, though, takes different forms to different people.[/QUOTE]
The list will NEVER be perfect. But that doesn't mean we can't strive to make things better.