Reasons I don't play 1vs1
1. You can't gang up on the guy that built a deck way to strong or is about to win. Sure, sometimes you are the guy in that position, but even if you are it makes the game much more interactive.
2. I prefer multiplayer to 1 vs 1, so all of my decks are going to be designed with multiplayer in mind. It essentially guarantees I am going to lose when my opponent has many more early plays than I do and I am sitting on something like Blatant Thievery, wishing I had a relevant spell for 1 vs 1 instead.
3. I actually don't want EDH to turn into something tournament sanctioned, as I feel it would lose a lot of its charm for me if it did. Non-team based multiplayer is also nearly impossible to pull off too, so that makes 1 vs 1 "the enemy". If refusing to play 1 vs 1 with people helps stop tournaments from happening, then I am going to refuse to play some 1 vs 1.
Reason #2 is probably why most people won't play with you. They won't spend the time or money to create a deck for a format which they don't like, and since they won't its essentially an auto loss. Imagine you have a hardcore vintage deck, but there are only standard players in your area. You offer to play a game with them, but they only have a standard deck. The game is already a foregone conclusion, and unless they are really hungry for magic they won't even bother to play, since they already know what the outcome will be. This is a lot like what being offered to play 1 vs 1 EDH when you only have a multiplayer deck with you is like.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH Decks:
Halfdane Sek'Kuar
Please remember to autocard, just do [ card ] CARD NAME [ / card ] and for decks you can cover the whole thing in one deck tag like this: [ deck ] All of the cards in the deck [ / deck ]
@Snow It's awosome to see people play even a little bit 1v1. I understand the part of 1v1 vs multiplayer decks but your post gives me hope
@MRdown2urth What? I own a imperial seal, workshop and such just by taking 20 dollars a check, and just waiting it out.
But I'm going to pretend you bring a valid point which I haven't addressed. The avialiability of cards like imperial seal,
and so on. They say legacy will run out of duals soon, and if edh reached widespread popularity their might not be enough to support the format
@Killkeny 100% with you man,
@Waiting in the weeds. Combo decks are probually harder to dirsupt in multiplayer. If a player isn't playing dedicated combo they just come out of the gates with a random combo and win.
So unless you hate out the person they will just randomly win, because they sat there and did nothing all game. You in return feel like a hater for having the table gang up on him. In 1v1
you run tons of diruption, more so than in multiplayer, and you also don't have to worry about being a "douchbad".
Finally magic was created as a format that most people would buy one or two packs and play casual games with your friends.
Becoming competetitive allowed players reason to play the game (For prizes and so on).
@FoxBat yes thats the problem. Except vintage has more players xD. But something to remember a large percentage of players who play edh play kitchen table. I'm trying to get those "spikes" and get them to experiance this great format
@Killkeny #2. Perfect example, Highlander died pretty fast.
@viperesque and Instereo. It's fine that you play multiplayer. It's not like I never play multiplayer, It's in my roots of most of my decks. But Your argument Insteroe is that it should be a casual format. Playing casual standard decks you get to use some of the bad cards cloggin your binder, it's the same argument. I'm also not saying to destroy your multiplayer deck. Multiplayer has it's place, but so does 1v1.
@Hadoukkened. 1v1 is a whole differant enviorment, Multiplayer has it's place, Really to summarize everything I've said is why have so much oppression to 1v1 edh. I remember everyone around my shop hated edh, even when we played primarily multiplayer. I argued for months to stop hating the format, and now everyone loves it.
@BRyndon I'm not hating people who play multiplayer. I hate people, to put it plainly who are stupid. People who don't give anything a chance. I still love playing multiplayer occassionally. I don't call people who don't play 1v1 communist pigs who enjoy eating babies.
@darcanegel, I appreciate your openess to 1v1. Their is a differant ban list then multiplayer so some of your problems with the format are already fixed. We all love points about edh, and I respect them. But their is a differant level of stragedy meshing a 100 card singletons to be consistant and have a good match vs everything. A example I hate about multiplayer is that the best player loses, but thats another topic.
@rhythmguy: Multiplayer does allow more chaos. But your point about 1v1 is a bit twisted. Most decks often find out their worst matchup and add cards to make the matchup better. For example Azusa had a tough matchup vs teeg, Cards like masticore help the matchup tremendously.
@Surging Chaos, Yeah you described the format pretty much down to the nail. And My question about why other spikes don't play 1v1 edh is because they play this format as a break from standard/legacy. My first is pretty much a dumb rantand me losing hope in the format as a whole, that and godo the bandit warlord is just about to be shelfed. My hope is that you multiplayer players eventually give the format a chance.
I'm not sure if the masses likes to redefine a deck to its core and make it as optimal as possible. In this format their is always room to grow, new decks emerge. Even though some generals invalidate other generals, this is the same as competitive magic. Don't look at 1v1 with the same eyes as multiplayer. Look at the format like legacy. A very competitive format based around tempo and playskill. If legacy is not your game than 1v1 isn't either. I'm not forcing kitchen table players to go to a standard tournament. I'm just trying to get the word out. I appreciate everyones comments, but to those who just hate 1v1 don't spread the hate.
EDIT: My english is pretty bad, thats why I'm a math major
About philosophy, that EDH should stay a casual format, I can only say that what is the point then? Go play Uno or D&D then, the point of the game is winning, and without the motivation to win, there would be no fun. Yes, maybe Wizards won't make PTs or GPs of EDH, but every game with an exact winner has to be competitive at least to some extent.
This is what kills me right here. I'm a nice guy, so I'm going to move right on past the fact that you cited Uno as casual and then said every game with an exact winner has to be competitive.
The point is that MTG is a completely different game from D&D and Uno! that's like saying "oh, you're playing casual basketball in your backyard? well why don't you just play NBA Live on the PS3?" ...because that's not what we want to do?
I think the biggest difference in 1 v 1 and MP is that when I play 1 v 1 (and I do, on occasion) I care a lot more about winning. Every play I make is because it directly benefits me, not because I want to "see what happens." In most 1 v 1 matches I remember who won, and usually why or how.
In multiplayer? I remember the game where a guy resolved a Brilliant Ultimatum with Hive Mind on the board just because. And I remember that the blue player got a twincast off of it... and used it, giving every one the chance to twincast the ultimatum again. Who won that game? no clue. Don't really care, I just remember it was awesome and bananas.
The point uis, I don't hate 1 v 1 or think it's going to ruin the format. If that's what you want to play, who the heck am I to tell you what to do? Just don't get mad when I don't join you.
I find multiplayer games just stale over the 4 hrs of play and prefer the 1vs1 style of EDH myself. I'm also totally for casual play and it's very easy to accomplish; you just can't allow yourself to be a doosh when you build your deck. Build your deck to a theme or mechanic and totally style it up! That way when you play your card your opponent says "wow! totally didn't expect that coming" instead of "you suck, I scoop". My group has spent hours upon hours of gametime already with 1vs1 casual and I don't see if changing anytime soon.
Take my Wort, the Raidmother deck I'm working on right now (link in my sig)....it's not going to be the greatest deck....it's definately not going to fit into any "primer" catagory. But, I am having fun building it, and I'll have fun playing it, and my fellow gamers might even gain a new respect for direct burn spells. We shall see. I think that's what EDH should be about.
But that's just my opinion...
@darcanegel, I appreciate your openess to 1v1. Their is a differant ban list then multiplayer so some of your problems with the format are already fixed. We all love points about edh, and I respect them. But their is a differant level of stragedy meshing a 100 card singletons to be consistant and have a good match vs everything. A example I hate about multiplayer is that the best player loses, but thats another topic.
last I heard the banlist didn't even have library on it, which seems like a terrible idea to me, but maybe it's been changed since then. Anyway I won't pretend like I'm up on the 1v1 balance, I just hear a lot of people whining about clique.
Also, I 100000% disagree that the best player loses. I think what you mean is that the person with the best DECK often loses. which is something I don't mind at all - it always annoys the hell out of me that it costs hundreds of dollars to have a tier 1 FNM deck. But yes, the person who cranks out the early-game threats and freaks everyone out (because they have a powerful, aggresive deck) loses frequently because THEY PLAY LIKE CRAP IN MULTIPLAYER. If you take a 1v1 strategy into a multiplayer game, expect to get beat the #$@#$ down. Strategy is the thing that counts in multiplayer, and indiscriminately throwing out bombs as quickly as possible is a BAD FREAKING STRATEGY.
multiplayer is 100% about being a good, strategic player and 100% not about having an expensive, powerful deck. I know that goes against the 1v1 sensibility and that's what I love about it.
multiplayer is 100% about being a good, strategic player and 100% not about having an expensive, powerful deck. I know that goes against the 1v1 sensibility and that's what I love about it.
This notion annoys the hell out of me (no offense intended to darcanegal). I know this is from days gone by, by tier one standard/extended decks haven't always been the bank busters that they are now (Look at Sligh/Stompy lists from Tempest Era standard, or Rebels from Masques). On top of that, I find that the better players, no matter what they do, lose first/early in MP games unless they do something ridiculous (combo out, turn 4 Eldrazi, etc). There is only so much you can do strategically when you are known to be "the best player" at the table. If you present a board presence then you are the obvious threat and if you don't you are up to no good and need to be stopped. I've literally had MP games where against 2/3 opponents, everything I played was countered or destroyed while someone else resolved something gigantic because he "wasn't the threat." It is very frustrating.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There's no such thing as a good play. There's the right play, then there's the mistake" -Jon Finkel
This notion annoys the hell out of me (no offense intended to darcanegal). I know this is from days gone by, by tier one standard/extended decks haven't always been the bank busters that they are now (Look at Sligh/Stompy lists from Tempest Era standard, or Rebels from Masques). On top of that, I find that the better players, no matter what they do, lose first/early in MP games unless they do something ridiculous (combo out, turn 4 Eldrazi, etc). There is only so much you can do strategically when you are known to be "the best player" at the table. If you present a board presence then you are the obvious threat and if you don't you are up to no good and need to be stopped. I've literally had MP games where against 2/3 opponents, everything I played was countered or destroyed while someone else resolved something gigantic because he "wasn't the threat." It is very frustrating.
when I used to play t2 (the first mirrodin block and ravnica) it was definitely a lot cheaper, but the key bombs were still usually in the $20 range. which isn't terrible but the tier 1 decks were still usually in the 100$-200$ range, which is more than a poor college student like myself cares to spend. meh. anyway...
it's possible that sometimes people really, really just want to teabag you for winning previous games, but I can tell you that I win a huge number of EDH and 1v1 games (I don't really keep track but I'm betting I win at least 80% of my games, both 1v1 and multiplayer) and I still don't have trouble usually dealing with table hate because I focus on a political game.
Obviously in 1v1 it's in your best interest to have the balls-bustingest deck you can manage, but I recommend playing something a little jankier, or at least nicer, in multiplayer. If people know your deck is packed with combos, OF COURSE they're going to facepound you from turn 1 even if you don't have any combos right away. But if you switch out your Azami deck for a Jedit Ojanen when you go to a multiplayer game, and pointlessly use your janktacular healing salve on someone ELSE just to be nice, I'd be VERY surprised if you still end up taking heavy heat, especially if you also toss in spurnmage advocate to deter people from attacking you "for S&G".
Building a multiplayer deck is about balancing your threats. If everyone knows your deck is full of pain, they'll beat you down for it before you get the chance. if you only have a few, carefully selected threats you can avoid suspicion until you can guarantee your victory. That's how you play a good multiplayer game.
as has been mentioned a deck built for mp folds to 1v1. i dont mind playing my mp decks vs other mp decks in 1v1 but when the deck im playing has a bunch of spot removal that i cant afford to play over sweeps in my mp deck its obviously going to b one sided. even counterspells become much much stronger in 1v1.
I wonder how many people would find it annoying if I complained just as much about creature combat, because I dislike games where people do nothing but cast creatures, butt heads and do boring combat math?
I love playing multiplayer edh - and ensure my decks can handle that environment.
I also love playing 1v1 edh - provided the two decks are relatively equal in power. When a game can go either way at the tip of a hat - it's fun. When a game is pointedly in one person's favor - it's pointless to continue, and the fun is gone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tantarus: It didn't make the gaka greifer level, so it should be fine
We all know 1-on-1 is lame for a competitive/casual, MP-oriented, more-than-likely-meant-to-be-physical (as in, you play in real life because it should showcase what cards you actually own...and online is no fun because no one really owns The Abyss and all those dual and fetches for ONE deck) format.
Clique also demolishes all other decks anyway.
Clique is king of 1v1. And I've got a The Abyss and other cards like that
That said, 1v1 is a very different game from what EDH was probably intended to be in a larger sense. That said, that's why I have a 1v1 deck, a deck that goes in both 1v1 and multiplayer, and a multiplayer deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ask yourselves, all of you, what power would hell have if those imprisoned here could not dream of heaven?
EDH:
Grand Arbiter Augustin IV Zo-Zu the Punisher Phelddagrif
Rhys the Redeemed
Ashling the Pilgrim
Ruhan of the Fomori
Rafiq of the Many
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker
Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief
Lazav, Dimir Mastermind
Aurelia, the Warleader
Animar, Soul of Elements
Borborygmos Enraged
Riku of Two Reflections
Vendillion Clique is pretty easy to hate out over here, so no one plays it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Anthony Lowry, Article Writer for Manashift.
Your #1 source for New York City Magic!
Twitter: @Aufam
Complaining about card prices accomplishes nothing. Read some Medina articles, learn to trade better, don’t act like the only way to do ANYTHING in this game is to price out decks and buy every single you ever need.
Reasons I don't play 1vs1
1. You can't gang up on the guy that built a deck way to strong or is about to win. Sure, sometimes you are the guy in that position, but even if you are it makes the game much more interactive.
This would be my biggest reason. I don't own as near as many cards as the people I play with. I have to buy expensive singles online if I want to make a new deck that can even begin to compete with my groups. So when they start crazy combos, it helps immensely to have others there to help stop it. I've lost many games to combos that simply lock the board in one persons favor.
Contrary to Hunter245, I come from a location where the opposite actually occurs -- i.e. 1v1 games are way more common than multiplayer games. No, I do not live in France or anywhere in the vicinity of Western Europe. Where I play, players use (and dare I say, "abuse") the multiplayer ban list for 1v1 games. It is totally wrong but yet, everybody seems to do it that way
One of the reason for the acceptance of 1v1 games is because fewer players have EDH decks here and it can be inconvenient to arrange a multiplayer game. Say, there are four players with EDH decks. Two of them will arrive to the appointed meeting point first and start playing a 1v1 game "while waiting" for the other two players. When the other two players arrive, the first two pairs will be too busy in their EDH games and the second pair of players will start an EDH game of their own "while waiting". Of course, this is a vicious cycle and we would all usually go home without playing a multiplayer game at all But here's the thing. We all walk away enjoying the 1v1 games even if we originally intended to play MP. Besides, most of us have a limited budget so we will usually only have 1-2 decks where we will either design them to be 1v1 decks or multiplayer decks and since circumstances pushes us towards 1v1 games more often than not, guess which are the more prevalent decks running around?
I do not quite understand some of the posters in this thread. Firstly, why are some of the posters equating multiplayer games as "casual" and 1v1 games as "competitive"? When all the decks in the multiplayer games are competitive cut-throat decks, won't that multiplayer game be "competitive"? Similarly, when both decks in the 1v1 games are casual, won't that 1v1 game be "casual"? Am I missing something here? Why are players feeling some inexorable pressure to win 1v1 games but magically have no pressure in winning in multiplayer games? I play 1v1 games often and I feel no real pressure in winning the game and more often than not, the 1v1 game will usually be filled with some casual banter of some form of non-Magic discussion. Secondly, one poster was saying: -
-people tend to relax a lot more.
-strategy is INFINITELY more complex. a computer could be programmed to play a perfect game of magic. in multiplayer, it's not only about keeping track of every player's board position and whatnot, it's also about gauging and manipulating their attitude towards you and everyone else. It's not just playing the cards - it's playing the PEOPLE.
Errr... Okay, I am a little slow here. Players tend to relax a lot more even though / because "the strategy is INFINITELY more complex"? I don't know about you but in my playgroup, all the politicians in my playgroup are definitely not "relaxed" when it comes to plotting their next political coup.
-last, and certainly not least, because i'm pretty good at it and tend to win even against vastly superior opponents. which always feels freakin' awesome.
I don't want to sound like a jerk but it does sound as if you like multiplayer games because you get to win against vastly superior opponents. I should point out that there is no reason why you should get to feel "freakin' awesome" against "vastly superior opponents" to justify playing 1v1 games to MP games. To be honest, this sounds like a perverse system where the better players lose and the not-so-good players win.
Also, do not make the mistaken assumption that politics is a "great equaliser". It isn't. You are assuming that players with good decks are poor politicians. This is atypical. I know of many good players with good decks who could handily manipulate the table to go against the most inocuous decks. Fear and paranoia means that MP games are as likely to be filled with irrational agents than they are with rational players.
Also, why are people taking offence to being called "Timmy"? Timmy is not even an equivalent for "noob" but it just means players who enjoy large splashy effects.
I personally don't hate 1v1 games. Sometimes it's the only chance to play. Usually I'll win among my playgroup because I just love EDH and tweak and modify my decks more often.
But I just love EDH even more when it's a 3+ player Free-For-All and everyone is fighting to establish and re-establish board position. Or everyone gangs up on someone because they just unleashed Emrakul on turn 3 and they have that 1 window of opportunity before it can swing.
Errr... Okay, I am a little slow here. Players tend to relax a lot more even though / because "the strategy is INFINITELY more complex"? I don't know about you but in my playgroup, all the politicians in my playgroup are definitely not "relaxed" when it comes to plotting their next political coup.
Well, personally I am more relaxed because people tend to target the guy sweating bullets and taking 12 minutes to use sensei's divining top, so it's a strategic decision. But besides that, surely you've noticed that conversation tends to be more vibrant with a larger group, in magic and otherwise.
I don't want to sound like a jerk but it does sound as if you like multiplayer games because you get to win against vastly superior opponents. I should point out that there is no reason why you should get to feel "freakin' awesome" against "vastly superior opponents" to justify playing 1v1 games to MP games. To be honest, this sounds like a perverse system where the better players lose and the not-so-good players win.
Haha, well you lose 10 points for missing the intended irony, but I guess I should clarify that when I say "vastly superior" I mean "people with much more money invested into their deck". Some of the guys in my group have tons of old dual lands and mythics and whatnot, whereas most of mine are built on something of a shoestring budget (ok, I have a mana crypt, but the rest of the stuff is usually $5 or less). I don't mean they're better players - imo, if they were, they would have won.
in 1v1 it's also fun to win against players with much better decks, but it's usually a lot more difficult and they have to make some serious play mistakes or just have terrible luck. It's no fun (imo) to beat down people who have worse decks, nor is it fun to lose repeatedly to someone with a better one, and one of those is often what happens in 1v1. multiplayer is the great equalizer.
besides that, the larger number of people means that you have much worse odds of winning from the start - so that victory is that much more impressive and fun when it comes.
Also, do not make the mistaken assumption that politics is a "great equaliser". It isn't. You are assuming that players with good decks are poor politicians. This is atypical. I know of many good players with good decks who could handily manipulate the table to go against the most inocuous decks. Fear and paranoia means that MP games are as likely to be filled with irrational agents than they are with rational players.
Of course people with good decks can be good politicians, and people with bad decks can be terrible. However, it's still usually more difficult to draw attention away from yourself when you've got a massive dangerous board position. Either way, you don't NEED to have an expensive deck to win - if you're clever enough you can win with almost anything. Anyone can get better at playing a political game, but some people don't want to shell over the $$$ it takes to be good at 1v1.
Also, why are people taking offence to being called "Timmy"? Timmy is not even an equivalent for "noob" but it just means players who enjoy large splashy effects.
I take offense to being called a timmy simply because I'm not one. The average cmc for my EDH decks (MP decks) usually hovers in the 2-3 range. Also, because the implication of being a timmy is that you're more interested in playing big effects than you are with winning, which again, simply isn't true.
....people don't use the MP list for casual, real-life games? Hell, I didn't even know a 1v1 list existed until a week or two ago. No Clique and online? Why even play the game!
fzian, Your group looks to be on the same track as mine was a couple years ago, eventually you guys will be cursed like we are. Also great job explaining Your logical argument is pretty much shut up the thread.
Some thoughts on your questions are: It just seems automatically people jump to win as soon as they are playing 1v1 like if they were playing a standard tournament. I think a key reason why 1v1 hasn't taken off because the select few of 1v1ers enjoy fine tuning a deck into a beast that can even take on it's hardest match-ups. I recently actually clicked the link of the multi-player part of the forum and noticed that most people had multiple decks up to 7! It's pretty much impossible to tune this many decks to a optimal stage. I can barely keep up with my play group.
This leads to another point that was mentioned earlier in a thread, that most people netdeck because a lack of time. It took quite a while to develop some of the decks in my meta, and newer players would feel lost with all of the options. This is if they actually care to develop a deck, which many players don't nowadays.
So I understand why kitchen players will never enjoy 1v1 on a tournament level, But is the reason most "spikes" will not play 1v1 is because of the prize support? Because this is a new frontier and most magic players don't make their own decks on a competitive level they feel their decks won't be able to compete. I don't think we're mean in the 1v1 part of the forum, if you post a decklist with enough input and thought in the deck I'm sure you'll get tons of input. So maybe I'll end this thread with a plead that those forum lurkers post more often in the 1v1 section.
I Personally will play with anyone 1 v 1 or multi. Generally 1 on 1 games happen while I wait to get in on a larger game. I generally use my Emrakul deck in 1 on 1 games as the decks a mono-brown aggro deck with very little removal. It literally can't beat something like a gravepact. On the other hand its fun to play and doesn't result in awkward situations. Like the ones I get when I play my other decks, which being older have all my better cards and two of them, Uril and Rafiq, get supercharged in 1 on 1 games.
All this said I wouldn't want to see a 1 on 1 EDH tournament with prizes in my area as the power creep caused by prizes would quickly change the environment. EDH is such a fun format because it allows creative deck-building and the rules mandated slowness insures players can make it to late game. This lets you play with stuff that looks cool but always gets cut for efficiency's sake. Competitive EDH is the same as 100 card highlander with guaranteed access to a general. Not much 100 card singleton is played much anymore because it just became another legacy.
The same would happen to EDH if real prizes started to be given out for 1 on 1 play.
This would be my biggest reason. I don't own as near as many cards as the people I play with. I have to buy expensive singles online if I want to make a new deck that can even begin to compete with my groups. So when they start crazy combos, it helps immensely to have others there to help stop it. I've lost many games to combos that simply lock the board in one persons favor.
This is why i don't like the idea of EDH mp. Granted I don't think any of the people I played in the 1 v 1 tournament have the combo mindset, but regardless in MP I find it much easier to deal with combo deck with my 4x of decks rather than a 100 card 1x of deck. While mine might be consistent, a 1 vs 1 combo edh deck can tutor up the combo cards with damn near 4 of quality.
Example, if anyone remembers back in early 2002 extended when jon finkle I believed placed top 8 with a battle of wits deck. It had a ton of tutors and despite being a 250 card deck or so, look how far he got against 60 card finely tuned decks.
To be fair, though, Jon Finkel uses the tattooed number 20 on his chest as a life counter, and when he uses Fact or Fiction he gets both piles.
As for the main point of the thread, being someone who plays both MP and 1v1 (Magic is Magic people, play with who shows up), the main reason 1v1 makes me cringe a little is the loss of the splashy, fun, and cheap cards in favor of efficient, usually more expensive ones. That said, there's something elegant and wonderful about getting a 100 card singleton combo deck to do what it needs to do every time. Dragonstorm ain't got crap on me!
fzian, Your group looks to be on the same track as mine was a couple years ago, eventually you guys will be cursed like we are. Also great job explaining Your logical argument is pretty much shut up the thread.
I am not sure which of my points led you to conclude that my playgroup would be "cursed" (i.e. presumably destined to die off or develop any form of apathy to 1v1 games). Personally, I doubt that this is the case. The one difference I see here is that the interests of players are somewhat aligned in this; all of us are really into 1v1 games where politics play a relatively minimal role.
Your logical argument is pretty much shut up the thread.
Again, I either do not understand the above statement or have no idea which part of my points led you to believe that I am for this thread being closed up. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Some thoughts on your questions are: It just seems automatically people jump to win as soon as they are playing 1v1 like if they were playing a standard tournament. I think a key reason why 1v1 hasn't taken off because the select few of 1v1ers enjoy fine tuning a deck into a beast that can even take on it's hardest match-ups. I recently actually clicked the link of the multi-player part of the forum and noticed that most people had multiple decks up to 7! It's pretty much impossible to tune this many decks to a optimal stage. I can barely keep up with my play group.
I am a little confused with the phrase "Some thoughts on your questions are: It just seems automatically people jump to win as soon as they are playing 1v1 like if they were playing a standard tournament." Were you implying that I said it or were you bringing out a new point?
To reiterate my earlier point, it is misleading and indeed non sequitur to claim that 1v1 games is synonymous with optimised and competitive decklists. This could not be further from the truth. It is more often than not the player's choice which determines how competitive decks would be. If a group of Spikes were to play multiplayer EDH, you will find that their decks will be similarly competitve and optimised for multiplayer games. If two Johnny's or Timmy's play 1v1 games, their decks will not necessarily be "competitive" just because it is a 1v1 game. I have been to a few different playgroups in my vicinity and I can somewhat confirm that it is the collective attitude of the particular playgroup that determines where the group lies on the "brutally competitive" to "casual relaxed" spectrum.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1. You can't gang up on the guy that built a deck way to strong or is about to win. Sure, sometimes you are the guy in that position, but even if you are it makes the game much more interactive.
2. I prefer multiplayer to 1 vs 1, so all of my decks are going to be designed with multiplayer in mind. It essentially guarantees I am going to lose when my opponent has many more early plays than I do and I am sitting on something like Blatant Thievery, wishing I had a relevant spell for 1 vs 1 instead.
3. I actually don't want EDH to turn into something tournament sanctioned, as I feel it would lose a lot of its charm for me if it did. Non-team based multiplayer is also nearly impossible to pull off too, so that makes 1 vs 1 "the enemy". If refusing to play 1 vs 1 with people helps stop tournaments from happening, then I am going to refuse to play some 1 vs 1.
Reason #2 is probably why most people won't play with you. They won't spend the time or money to create a deck for a format which they don't like, and since they won't its essentially an auto loss. Imagine you have a hardcore vintage deck, but there are only standard players in your area. You offer to play a game with them, but they only have a standard deck. The game is already a foregone conclusion, and unless they are really hungry for magic they won't even bother to play, since they already know what the outcome will be. This is a lot like what being offered to play 1 vs 1 EDH when you only have a multiplayer deck with you is like.
Halfdane
Sek'Kuar
Please remember to autocard, just do [ card ] CARD NAME [ / card ] and for decks you can cover the whole thing in one deck tag like this: [ deck ] All of the cards in the deck [ / deck ]
@MRdown2urth What? I own a imperial seal, workshop and such just by taking 20 dollars a check, and just waiting it out.
But I'm going to pretend you bring a valid point which I haven't addressed. The avialiability of cards like imperial seal,
and so on. They say legacy will run out of duals soon, and if edh reached widespread popularity their might not be enough to support the format
@Killkeny 100% with you man,
@Waiting in the weeds. Combo decks are probually harder to dirsupt in multiplayer. If a player isn't playing dedicated combo they just come out of the gates with a random combo and win.
So unless you hate out the person they will just randomly win, because they sat there and did nothing all game. You in return feel like a hater for having the table gang up on him. In 1v1
you run tons of diruption, more so than in multiplayer, and you also don't have to worry about being a "douchbad".
Finally magic was created as a format that most people would buy one or two packs and play casual games with your friends.
Becoming competetitive allowed players reason to play the game (For prizes and so on).
@FoxBat yes thats the problem. Except vintage has more players xD. But something to remember a large percentage of players who play edh play kitchen table. I'm trying to get those "spikes" and get them to experiance this great format
@Killkeny #2. Perfect example, Highlander died pretty fast.
@viperesque and Instereo. It's fine that you play multiplayer. It's not like I never play multiplayer, It's in my roots of most of my decks. But Your argument Insteroe is that it should be a casual format. Playing casual standard decks you get to use some of the bad cards cloggin your binder, it's the same argument. I'm also not saying to destroy your multiplayer deck. Multiplayer has it's place, but so does 1v1.
@Hadoukkened. 1v1 is a whole differant enviorment, Multiplayer has it's place, Really to summarize everything I've said is why have so much oppression to 1v1 edh. I remember everyone around my shop hated edh, even when we played primarily multiplayer. I argued for months to stop hating the format, and now everyone loves it.
@BRyndon I'm not hating people who play multiplayer. I hate people, to put it plainly who are stupid. People who don't give anything a chance. I still love playing multiplayer occassionally. I don't call people who don't play 1v1 communist pigs who enjoy eating babies.
@darcanegel, I appreciate your openess to 1v1. Their is a differant ban list then multiplayer so some of your problems with the format are already fixed. We all love points about edh, and I respect them. But their is a differant level of stragedy meshing a 100 card singletons to be consistant and have a good match vs everything. A example I hate about multiplayer is that the best player loses, but thats another topic.
@rhythmguy: Multiplayer does allow more chaos. But your point about 1v1 is a bit twisted. Most decks often find out their worst matchup and add cards to make the matchup better. For example Azusa had a tough matchup vs teeg, Cards like masticore help the matchup tremendously.
@Surging Chaos, Yeah you described the format pretty much down to the nail. And My question about why other spikes don't play 1v1 edh is because they play this format as a break from standard/legacy. My first is pretty much a dumb rantand me losing hope in the format as a whole, that and godo the bandit warlord is just about to be shelfed. My hope is that you multiplayer players eventually give the format a chance.
I'm not sure if the masses likes to redefine a deck to its core and make it as optimal as possible. In this format their is always room to grow, new decks emerge. Even though some generals invalidate other generals, this is the same as competitive magic. Don't look at 1v1 with the same eyes as multiplayer. Look at the format like legacy. A very competitive format based around tempo and playskill. If legacy is not your game than 1v1 isn't either. I'm not forcing kitchen table players to go to a standard tournament. I'm just trying to get the word out. I appreciate everyones comments, but to those who just hate 1v1 don't spread the hate.
EDIT: My english is pretty bad, thats why I'm a math major
This is what kills me right here. I'm a nice guy, so I'm going to move right on past the fact that you cited Uno as casual and then said every game with an exact winner has to be competitive.
The point is that MTG is a completely different game from D&D and Uno! that's like saying "oh, you're playing casual basketball in your backyard? well why don't you just play NBA Live on the PS3?" ...because that's not what we want to do?
I think the biggest difference in 1 v 1 and MP is that when I play 1 v 1 (and I do, on occasion) I care a lot more about winning. Every play I make is because it directly benefits me, not because I want to "see what happens." In most 1 v 1 matches I remember who won, and usually why or how.
In multiplayer? I remember the game where a guy resolved a Brilliant Ultimatum with Hive Mind on the board just because. And I remember that the blue player got a twincast off of it... and used it, giving every one the chance to twincast the ultimatum again. Who won that game? no clue. Don't really care, I just remember it was awesome and bananas.
The point uis, I don't hate 1 v 1 or think it's going to ruin the format. If that's what you want to play, who the heck am I to tell you what to do? Just don't get mad when I don't join you.
I find multiplayer games just stale over the 4 hrs of play and prefer the 1vs1 style of EDH myself. I'm also totally for casual play and it's very easy to accomplish; you just can't allow yourself to be a doosh when you build your deck. Build your deck to a theme or mechanic and totally style it up! That way when you play your card your opponent says "wow! totally didn't expect that coming" instead of "you suck, I scoop". My group has spent hours upon hours of gametime already with 1vs1 casual and I don't see if changing anytime soon.
Take my Wort, the Raidmother deck I'm working on right now (link in my sig)....it's not going to be the greatest deck....it's definately not going to fit into any "primer" catagory. But, I am having fun building it, and I'll have fun playing it, and my fellow gamers might even gain a new respect for direct burn spells. We shall see. I think that's what EDH should be about.
But that's just my opinion...
| B Erebos, God of VampiresB | GYeva SmashG | RBosh ArtifactsR | GURAnimar +1 BeatsGUR | RBVial's Secret Hot SauceRB | UBRNekusar, Draw if you DareUBR | RGBDarigaaz'z DragonsRGB | GBSlimeFEETGB | UBOn-Hit LazavUB | URBrudiclad's Artificer InventionsUR | GUBMuldrotha's ElementalsGUB | WUGKestia's EnchantmentsWUG | GUTatyova - Draw, Land, Go!GU | WGArahbo's EquipmentWG | BUWVarina's ZOMBIE HORDESBUW | WLyra's Angelic SalvationW | WBChurch of TeysaWB | UAzami...WizardsU
last I heard the banlist didn't even have library on it, which seems like a terrible idea to me, but maybe it's been changed since then. Anyway I won't pretend like I'm up on the 1v1 balance, I just hear a lot of people whining about clique.
Also, I 100000% disagree that the best player loses. I think what you mean is that the person with the best DECK often loses. which is something I don't mind at all - it always annoys the hell out of me that it costs hundreds of dollars to have a tier 1 FNM deck. But yes, the person who cranks out the early-game threats and freaks everyone out (because they have a powerful, aggresive deck) loses frequently because THEY PLAY LIKE CRAP IN MULTIPLAYER. If you take a 1v1 strategy into a multiplayer game, expect to get beat the #$@#$ down. Strategy is the thing that counts in multiplayer, and indiscriminately throwing out bombs as quickly as possible is a BAD FREAKING STRATEGY.
multiplayer is 100% about being a good, strategic player and 100% not about having an expensive, powerful deck. I know that goes against the 1v1 sensibility and that's what I love about it.
WUB Merieke Ri Berit BUW
GWU Phelddagrif 1 2 3 4 UWG
BR Kaervek the Merciless RB
B Chainer, Dementia Master B
WUB Sen Triplets BUW
BG Sisters of Stone Death GB
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon GRBUW
GWU Angus Mackenzie UWG
R Kumano, Master Yamabushi R
WB Teysa BW
U Higure U
B Geth B
WUBRG Child of Alara 1 2GRBUW
R Zirilan R
U Arcum U
UR Nin RU
BRG Sek'Kuar GRB
U Teferi U
G Melira G
GU Edric UG
BG Glissa GB
Casual
GUB Knacksaw Clique BUG
RWU Sunforger UWR
This notion annoys the hell out of me (no offense intended to darcanegal). I know this is from days gone by, by tier one standard/extended decks haven't always been the bank busters that they are now (Look at Sligh/Stompy lists from Tempest Era standard, or Rebels from Masques). On top of that, I find that the better players, no matter what they do, lose first/early in MP games unless they do something ridiculous (combo out, turn 4 Eldrazi, etc). There is only so much you can do strategically when you are known to be "the best player" at the table. If you present a board presence then you are the obvious threat and if you don't you are up to no good and need to be stopped. I've literally had MP games where against 2/3 opponents, everything I played was countered or destroyed while someone else resolved something gigantic because he "wasn't the threat." It is very frustrating.
when I used to play t2 (the first mirrodin block and ravnica) it was definitely a lot cheaper, but the key bombs were still usually in the $20 range. which isn't terrible but the tier 1 decks were still usually in the 100$-200$ range, which is more than a poor college student like myself cares to spend. meh. anyway...
it's possible that sometimes people really, really just want to teabag you for winning previous games, but I can tell you that I win a huge number of EDH and 1v1 games (I don't really keep track but I'm betting I win at least 80% of my games, both 1v1 and multiplayer) and I still don't have trouble usually dealing with table hate because I focus on a political game.
Obviously in 1v1 it's in your best interest to have the balls-bustingest deck you can manage, but I recommend playing something a little jankier, or at least nicer, in multiplayer. If people know your deck is packed with combos, OF COURSE they're going to facepound you from turn 1 even if you don't have any combos right away. But if you switch out your Azami deck for a Jedit Ojanen when you go to a multiplayer game, and pointlessly use your janktacular healing salve on someone ELSE just to be nice, I'd be VERY surprised if you still end up taking heavy heat, especially if you also toss in spurnmage advocate to deter people from attacking you "for S&G".
Building a multiplayer deck is about balancing your threats. If everyone knows your deck is full of pain, they'll beat you down for it before you get the chance. if you only have a few, carefully selected threats you can avoid suspicion until you can guarantee your victory. That's how you play a good multiplayer game.
WUB Merieke Ri Berit BUW
GWU Phelddagrif 1 2 3 4 UWG
BR Kaervek the Merciless RB
B Chainer, Dementia Master B
WUB Sen Triplets BUW
BG Sisters of Stone Death GB
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon GRBUW
GWU Angus Mackenzie UWG
R Kumano, Master Yamabushi R
WB Teysa BW
U Higure U
B Geth B
WUBRG Child of Alara 1 2GRBUW
R Zirilan R
U Arcum U
UR Nin RU
BRG Sek'Kuar GRB
U Teferi U
G Melira G
GU Edric UG
BG Glissa GB
Casual
GUB Knacksaw Clique BUG
RWU Sunforger UWR
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
I also love playing 1v1 edh - provided the two decks are relatively equal in power. When a game can go either way at the tip of a hat - it's fun. When a game is pointedly in one person's favor - it's pointless to continue, and the fun is gone.
EDH:
RNorin the WaryR <-Link! (Primer - Mono Red Control)
GUEdric, Spymaster of TrestUG <- Link! (Mini-Primer - Dredge)
Duel Commander:
WUGeist of Saint TraftUW <- Link! (Aggro-Control)
BGSkullbriar, the Walking GraveGB <- Link! (Aggro)
BUGDamia, Sage of StoneGUB <- Link! (Extinction Control)
Church of the Wary
Clique is king of 1v1. And I've got a The Abyss and other cards like that
That said, 1v1 is a very different game from what EDH was probably intended to be in a larger sense. That said, that's why I have a 1v1 deck, a deck that goes in both 1v1 and multiplayer, and a multiplayer deck.
EDH:
Zo-Zu the Punisher
Phelddagrif
Rhys the Redeemed
Ashling the Pilgrim
Ruhan of the Fomori
Rafiq of the Many
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker
Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief
Lazav, Dimir Mastermind
Aurelia, the Warleader
Animar, Soul of Elements
Borborygmos Enraged
Riku of Two Reflections
Vendillion Clique is pretty easy to hate out over here, so no one plays it.
Anthony Lowry, Article Writer for Manashift.
Your #1 source for New York City Magic!
Twitter: @Aufam
This would be my biggest reason. I don't own as near as many cards as the people I play with. I have to buy expensive singles online if I want to make a new deck that can even begin to compete with my groups. So when they start crazy combos, it helps immensely to have others there to help stop it. I've lost many games to combos that simply lock the board in one persons favor.
One of the reason for the acceptance of 1v1 games is because fewer players have EDH decks here and it can be inconvenient to arrange a multiplayer game. Say, there are four players with EDH decks. Two of them will arrive to the appointed meeting point first and start playing a 1v1 game "while waiting" for the other two players. When the other two players arrive, the first two pairs will be too busy in their EDH games and the second pair of players will start an EDH game of their own "while waiting". Of course, this is a vicious cycle and we would all usually go home without playing a multiplayer game at all But here's the thing. We all walk away enjoying the 1v1 games even if we originally intended to play MP. Besides, most of us have a limited budget so we will usually only have 1-2 decks where we will either design them to be 1v1 decks or multiplayer decks and since circumstances pushes us towards 1v1 games more often than not, guess which are the more prevalent decks running around?
I do not quite understand some of the posters in this thread. Firstly, why are some of the posters equating multiplayer games as "casual" and 1v1 games as "competitive"? When all the decks in the multiplayer games are competitive cut-throat decks, won't that multiplayer game be "competitive"? Similarly, when both decks in the 1v1 games are casual, won't that 1v1 game be "casual"? Am I missing something here? Why are players feeling some inexorable pressure to win 1v1 games but magically have no pressure in winning in multiplayer games? I play 1v1 games often and I feel no real pressure in winning the game and more often than not, the 1v1 game will usually be filled with some casual banter of some form of non-Magic discussion. Secondly, one poster was saying: -
Errr... Okay, I am a little slow here. Players tend to relax a lot more even though / because "the strategy is INFINITELY more complex"? I don't know about you but in my playgroup, all the politicians in my playgroup are definitely not "relaxed" when it comes to plotting their next political coup.
I don't want to sound like a jerk but it does sound as if you like multiplayer games because you get to win against vastly superior opponents. I should point out that there is no reason why you should get to feel "freakin' awesome" against "vastly superior opponents" to justify playing 1v1 games to MP games. To be honest, this sounds like a perverse system where the better players lose and the not-so-good players win.
Also, do not make the mistaken assumption that politics is a "great equaliser". It isn't. You are assuming that players with good decks are poor politicians. This is atypical. I know of many good players with good decks who could handily manipulate the table to go against the most inocuous decks. Fear and paranoia means that MP games are as likely to be filled with irrational agents than they are with rational players.
Have you tried using a square block with each sides measuring no more than (√2)r, where r = radius of the round hole?
Also, why are people taking offence to being called "Timmy"? Timmy is not even an equivalent for "noob" but it just means players who enjoy large splashy effects.
But I just love EDH even more when it's a 3+ player Free-For-All and everyone is fighting to establish and re-establish board position. Or everyone gangs up on someone because they just unleashed Emrakul on turn 3 and they have that 1 window of opportunity before it can swing.
I love how hectic it gets
EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter :symb::symu::symw:
:symw::symg: Captain Sisay :symg::symw:
:symb::symg: Nath of the Gilt-Leaf :symg::symb:
:symr::symu: Jhoira of the Ghitu :symu::symr:
:symw::symb::symr:Kaalia of the Vast :symr::symb::symw:
I take offense to being called a timmy simply because I'm not one. The average cmc for my EDH decks (MP decks) usually hovers in the 2-3 range. Also, because the implication of being a timmy is that you're more interested in playing big effects than you are with winning, which again, simply isn't true.
WUB Merieke Ri Berit BUW
GWU Phelddagrif 1 2 3 4 UWG
BR Kaervek the Merciless RB
B Chainer, Dementia Master B
WUB Sen Triplets BUW
BG Sisters of Stone Death GB
WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon GRBUW
GWU Angus Mackenzie UWG
R Kumano, Master Yamabushi R
WB Teysa BW
U Higure U
B Geth B
WUBRG Child of Alara 1 2GRBUW
R Zirilan R
U Arcum U
UR Nin RU
BRG Sek'Kuar GRB
U Teferi U
G Melira G
GU Edric UG
BG Glissa GB
Casual
GUB Knacksaw Clique BUG
RWU Sunforger UWR
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
Doubt it. A lot of playgroups I go to use the multiplayer banlist for 1v1 games.
Some thoughts on your questions are: It just seems automatically people jump to win as soon as they are playing 1v1 like if they were playing a standard tournament. I think a key reason why 1v1 hasn't taken off because the select few of 1v1ers enjoy fine tuning a deck into a beast that can even take on it's hardest match-ups. I recently actually clicked the link of the multi-player part of the forum and noticed that most people had multiple decks up to 7! It's pretty much impossible to tune this many decks to a optimal stage. I can barely keep up with my play group.
This leads to another point that was mentioned earlier in a thread, that most people netdeck because a lack of time. It took quite a while to develop some of the decks in my meta, and newer players would feel lost with all of the options. This is if they actually care to develop a deck, which many players don't nowadays.
So I understand why kitchen players will never enjoy 1v1 on a tournament level, But is the reason most "spikes" will not play 1v1 is because of the prize support? Because this is a new frontier and most magic players don't make their own decks on a competitive level they feel their decks won't be able to compete. I don't think we're mean in the 1v1 part of the forum, if you post a decklist with enough input and thought in the deck I'm sure you'll get tons of input. So maybe I'll end this thread with a plead that those forum lurkers post more often in the 1v1 section.
All this said I wouldn't want to see a 1 on 1 EDH tournament with prizes in my area as the power creep caused by prizes would quickly change the environment. EDH is such a fun format because it allows creative deck-building and the rules mandated slowness insures players can make it to late game. This lets you play with stuff that looks cool but always gets cut for efficiency's sake. Competitive EDH is the same as 100 card highlander with guaranteed access to a general. Not much 100 card singleton is played much anymore because it just became another legacy.
The same would happen to EDH if real prizes started to be given out for 1 on 1 play.
This is why i don't like the idea of EDH mp. Granted I don't think any of the people I played in the 1 v 1 tournament have the combo mindset, but regardless in MP I find it much easier to deal with combo deck with my 4x of decks rather than a 100 card 1x of deck. While mine might be consistent, a 1 vs 1 combo edh deck can tutor up the combo cards with damn near 4 of quality.
Example, if anyone remembers back in early 2002 extended when jon finkle I believed placed top 8 with a battle of wits deck. It had a ton of tutors and despite being a 250 card deck or so, look how far he got against 60 card finely tuned decks.
As for the main point of the thread, being someone who plays both MP and 1v1 (Magic is Magic people, play with who shows up), the main reason 1v1 makes me cringe a little is the loss of the splashy, fun, and cheap cards in favor of efficient, usually more expensive ones. That said, there's something elegant and wonderful about getting a 100 card singleton combo deck to do what it needs to do every time. Dragonstorm ain't got crap on me!
BRRakdos, Lord of RiotsBR
I am not sure which of my points led you to conclude that my playgroup would be "cursed" (i.e. presumably destined to die off or develop any form of apathy to 1v1 games). Personally, I doubt that this is the case. The one difference I see here is that the interests of players are somewhat aligned in this; all of us are really into 1v1 games where politics play a relatively minimal role.
Again, I either do not understand the above statement or have no idea which part of my points led you to believe that I am for this thread being closed up. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
I am a little confused with the phrase "Some thoughts on your questions are: It just seems automatically people jump to win as soon as they are playing 1v1 like if they were playing a standard tournament." Were you implying that I said it or were you bringing out a new point?
To reiterate my earlier point, it is misleading and indeed non sequitur to claim that 1v1 games is synonymous with optimised and competitive decklists. This could not be further from the truth. It is more often than not the player's choice which determines how competitive decks would be. If a group of Spikes were to play multiplayer EDH, you will find that their decks will be similarly competitve and optimised for multiplayer games. If two Johnny's or Timmy's play 1v1 games, their decks will not necessarily be "competitive" just because it is a 1v1 game. I have been to a few different playgroups in my vicinity and I can somewhat confirm that it is the collective attitude of the particular playgroup that determines where the group lies on the "brutally competitive" to "casual relaxed" spectrum.