Why do people have such negative thoughts on good stuff decks though? Some generals can't really be built around for the whole deck, but people like the generals for who they are.
Because they are boring and predictable. Yeah, great, you ramped into a bomby 5 drop, did something cute, and then won. Whoo hoo! By definition they tend to be very consistent and linear - and that gets old fast.
Goodstuff is pretty well defined above as a deck with no direction. Goodstuff is also a mentality. Oh look, all these games are lasting so long, I have mana to cast whatever I want, so I'll just bring the big guns. Discard is good, so I want a Myojin of Night's Reach. Draw is good, Consecrated Sphinx. Ramp, Prime Time. Someone casts a turn 3 Desolation - hey, you guys deal with it. I'm waiting for 6 mana so I can cast bombs, ty.
While goodstuff is generall not overly effective or consistent at being interactive, and control is hardly goodstuff, I can sort of see where the OP's friend is coming from. I don't agree with the assessment really, but the observation might be that goodstuff just sits by until turn 6 and starts casting bombs, and this deck just sits by and waits for stuff to answer, so it must be goodstuff. I don't really think that's goodstuff. Lots of very non-goodstuff decks are combo-control, which will play like that.
But I guess the label has become something of an insult to someone's creativity. But imo anyone who's really creative wouldn't be complaining too often about true goodstuff, because they should be able to take games often enough with their "creativity", wouldn't you say?
I have a couple problems with the "goodstuff" term.
a) Players refer to other decks as goodstuff, when they themselves use plenty of cards that aren't really sticking to any theme or synergy, but are just random overused utility cards in their colors; Thereby they are guilty of the goodstuff mentality themselves, to a lesser degree. Even if they are playing a consistent theme or strategy, their inclusion of cards that are often overplayed doesn't make them any better than goodstuff decks, just because they are sticking to a theme. I don't understand how players don't see this. Personally, I really don't care about much in EDH, as long as I don't play against infinite combo decks and as long as I can play against different decks enough to make the format fresh.
b) Players often refer to decks that have good creatures, or good artifacts, or good [insert a cardtype], et cetera. as "goodstuff decks", or they refer to players who do so as "using goodstuff cards" despite that deck obviously having a theme. My Sedris Reanimator deck WILL kill you with Inferno Titan, Sheoldred, Inkwell Leviathan, Mikaeus + a bunch of non-humans, etc. You can call it "goodstuff" because of my use of "overused staples" all you want; However, Reanimator decks don't reanimate random Squires and terrible Homelands cards (or the like) just to cool your EDH hipster ego. To do so would be contradictory to the whole strategy. However, I've put in creature cards in the deck all _for a reason_ [ like Wurmcoil Engine to fight aggro strats, Nicol Bolas to fight control durdles ], yet some opponents will still roll their eyes at me when I play the deck and beat them. This makes me think that the whole "goodstuff" hating mentality is bogus/vague, some players use the term to deride decks without a theme/strategy/synergy, while others use the term to deride thematic, synergistic decks full of 100% underused cards.
c) Anytime someone critiques an opponent's deck on here, or in real life, as being "mindless", "taking no thought", etc you have to take it with a grain of salt. In my experience, every time someone says this, it's a reflection on how they themselves have played against the same type of decks too often, rather than purposefully attempting to play against new opponents or opponents with a wide variety of decks. Furthermore, I find everyone guilty of this. Tell me your deck and it's theme/goal, and I could probably list many cards you probably use, and/or I won't be surprised when I see what cards you play. Lastly, finding cards using Gatherer or an equivalent, looking at deck lists online, by talking to other players, [insert what ever process you triumph as the way to create an "innovative" and "original" deck] -- that doesn't make you a rocket scientist or a genius. What you did was relatively easy and didn't require a phD or being hip with the underground or something relatively stupid as you think.
d) Some players are severely biased. They hate a color, a strategy, a playstyle, or what have you, then proceed to knock down anyone who plays those, as if they haven't put any thought in their strategy/etc. ...and honestly, the critic might SOUND like they offer something insightful. The reality of this situation is the critic is probably severely biased and their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. I have friends who follow this pattern frequently. There's two players who hate green decks and think they are "too easy" to win and play with (reality? the green players' opponents have built bad decks, don't know how to fight green decks correctly, and/or they are outclassed as players -- so easy has nothing to do with it). There's players who hate control decks or combo decks (reality? these players decree overly interactive or noninteractive decks, but their decks are just a pile of creatures or a couple of synergies, with not much interactive cards to fight their opponents; furthermore, they crutch on too little and thus are often unprepared for decks that have quality answers to what they are doing or can just ignore what they are doing and still win). Stax/control EDH players, and EDH players who play Stax/control 99% of the time in other formats, are some of the most frequent decree-ers (is that a word?) of making fun of other players' decks as "goodstuff", pedestrian, using overused cards, not playing decks that require any thought, etc. In my experience, they just play against the same opponents, don't try to play against different decks at all, and stax/control decks are filled with the same cards and don't require some high bar of intelligence to play [read: I've played control/stax decks before, I like them, but I'm not overly impressed with them more so than any other style of deck].
Lastly....
Lots of very non-goodstuff decks are combo-control, which will play like that.
But I guess the label has become something of an insult to someone's creativity. But imo anyone who's really creative wouldn't be complaining too often about true goodstuff, because they should be able to take games often enough with their "creativity", wouldn't you say?
That last part is SO true.
However, the problem with the goodstuff label, is that plenty of cards that can be labeled as "goodstuff" -- make complete sense to play in an archetype. If you play a blue control deck in EDH, don't you think that Consecrated Sphinx is a _viable_ option. Just because it's frequently played, doesn't mean you shouldn't play it to appease EDH hipsters. Sure, EVERY blue deck you play shouldn't play it - for the pure sake of not playing decks that are mostly staples. You know.... have some variety.
The incongruence of how the term "goodstuff" is used really gets to me. If you play a control deck that's mostly overly played staples, aren't you playing just goodstuff? I'm not quite sure goodstuff control decks requires any more thought than goodstuff ramp decks, if you want to see where I'm going with this. The term really doesn't seem to fit only creature-based strats, imo, or ramp-based strats. It's easily transferable to other playstyles and game play goals.
If you use Myojin of Night's Reach in a mono black control deck, or a mono black reanimator deck, are you using "goodstuff"? Should you not play it because the discard makes complete sense in the strategy you are playing? Like I said before, sure, you shouldn't play it in EVERY black deck you play, but if you only have one or two black decks, you playing it isn't that big of a deal. However, your friends might think you only play staples or goodstuff cards in such an example, yet they might forget -- maybe you only have one or two decks currently ... what's to say your next few decks you build might be completely different from the norm and include different cards in a different strategy that isn't played as frequently?
Those other losers are playing uncreative goodstuff decks.
I'm playing an innovative deck with in-theme cards that synergizes with each other. Damnation and Demonic Tutor has synergy with every deck that runs swamps, right?
Blue / Green shell, splash Black for tutors or White for removal. Run a bunch of legacy/vintage/modern staples and stack the deck with "universal" answers to just about everything. Nothing really standout, no crazy unique synergies, just obvious ones like , say Eternal Witness + any card, etc. Narrow group of win conditions that are just , "no-duh" when you look at them, equip + general damage, Omniscience, Insurrection, Doubling Season + 'walkers, etc.
"Theme" decks such as, "I want to clone and steal everyone else stuff!" , with a lack of self reflection, "literally everyone has come up with this idea at one point in the history of this game. I am not special or unique for this."
I know this because every fricken EDH deck I build becomes a goddamn "goodstuff deck" in its colors. It's almost unavoidable when you have the cards lying around, they are just objectively more versatile and useful than all the other things. It takes time and the right playgroup to work around more esoteric synergy and a combination of thematic or "worse" cards.
I have a couple problems with the "goodstuff" term.
a) Players refer to other decks as goodstuff, when they themselves use plenty of cards that aren't really sticking to any theme or synergy, but are just random overused utility cards in their colors; Thereby they are guilty of the goodstuff mentality themselves, to a lesser degree. Even if they are playing a consistent theme or strategy, their inclusion of cards that are often overplayed doesn't make them any better than goodstuff decks, just because they are sticking to a theme. I don't understand how players don't see this. Personally, I really don't care about much in EDH, as long as I don't play against infinite combo decks and as long as I can play against different decks enough to make the format fresh.
b) Players often refer to decks that have good creatures, or good artifacts, or good [insert a cardtype], et cetera. as "goodstuff decks", or they refer to players who do so as "using goodstuff cards" despite that deck obviously having a theme. My Sedris Reanimator deck WILL kill you with Inferno Titan, Sheoldred, Inkwell Leviathan, Mikaeus + a bunch of non-humans, etc. You can call it "goodstuff" because of my use of "overused staples" all you want; However, Reanimator decks don't reanimate random Squires and terrible Homelands cards (or the like) just to cool your EDH hipster ego. To do so would be contradictory to the whole strategy. However, I've put in creature cards in the deck all _for a reason_ [ like Wurmcoil Engine to fight aggro strats, Nicol Bolas to fight control durdles ], yet some opponents will still roll their eyes at me when I play the deck and beat them. This makes me think that the whole "goodstuff" hating mentality is bogus/vague, some players use the term to deride decks without a theme/strategy/synergy, while others use the term to deride thematic, synergistic decks full of 100% underused cards.
c) Anytime someone critiques an opponent's deck on here, or in real life, as being "mindless", "taking no thought", etc you have to take it with a grain of salt. In my experience, every time someone says this, it's a reflection on how they themselves have played against the same type of decks too often, rather than purposefully attempting to play against new opponents or opponents with a wide variety of decks. Furthermore, I find everyone guilty of this. Tell me your deck and it's theme/goal, and I could probably list many cards you probably use, and/or I won't be surprised when I see what cards you play. Lastly, finding cards using Gatherer or an equivalent, looking at deck lists online, by talking to other players, [insert what ever process you triumph as the way to create an "innovative" and "original" deck] -- that doesn't make you a rocket scientist or a genius. What you did was relatively easy and didn't require a phD or being hip with the underground or something relatively stupid as you think.
d) Some players are severely biased. They hate a color, a strategy, a playstyle, or what have you, then proceed to knock down anyone who plays those, as if they haven't put any thought in their strategy/etc. ...and honestly, the critic might SOUND like they offer something insightful. The reality of this situation is the critic is probably severely biased and their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. I have friends who follow this pattern frequently. There's two players who hate green decks and think they are "too easy" to win and play with (reality? the green players' opponents have built bad decks, don't know how to fight green decks correctly, and/or they are outclassed as players -- so easy has nothing to do with it). There's players who hate control decks or combo decks (reality? these players decree overly interactive or noninteractive decks, but their decks are just a pile of creatures or a couple of synergies, with not much interactive cards to fight their opponents; furthermore, they crutch on too little and thus are often unprepared for decks that have quality answers to what they are doing or can just ignore what they are doing and still win). Stax/control EDH players, and EDH players who play Stax/control 99% of the time in other formats, are some of the most frequent decree-ers (is that a word?) of making fun of other players' decks as "goodstuff", pedestrian, using overused cards, not playing decks that require any thought, etc. In my experience, they just play against the same opponents, don't try to play against different decks at all, and stax/control decks are filled with the same cards and don't require some high bar of intelligence to play [read: I've played control/stax decks before, I like them, but I'm not overly impressed with them more so than any other style of deck]
This needs to be reposted on the next page of the thread because everyone needs to read this.
I don't think using good cards is what defines a goodstuff deck - all decks are going to use good cards, unless you're some kind of perverse weirdo who takes great joy in running Pure Jank.dec - but not using those good cards to their full potential does. Using Trinket Mage with only two or three targets, using Prime Time just to put together Urborg/Coffers, using Reveillark and not knowing what power=<2 creatures you have in your deck beyond Karmic Guide... that's the goodstuff mentality. It's letting the bulk of your cards work at about a 6 or a 7 and letting their raw power carry you though games. My opposition to goodstuff decks isn't about creativity and the hipster cred of using "bad" cards, it's about seeing people put decks together and say, "Good enough." "Good enough" shouldn't be okay in this format. I spend a lot of time fiddling with my decks to all my cards to be working at a 9 or 10, and I'd like to play against people who feel the same way.
Like BaconoftheArk says, lazy deckbuilding, basically.
I don't think using good cards is what defines a goodstuff deck - all decks are going to use good cards, unless you're some kind of perverse weirdo who takes great joy in running Pure Jank.dec - but not using those good cards to their full potential does. Using Trinket Mage with only two or three targets, using Prime Time just to put together Urborg/Coffers, using Reveillark and not knowing what power=<2 creatures you have in your deck beyond Karmic Guide... that's the goodstuff mentality. It's letting the bulk of your cards work at about a 6 or a 7 and letting their raw power carry you though games. My opposition to goodstuff decks isn't about creativity and the hipster cred of using "bad" cards, it's about seeing people put decks together and say, "Good enough." "Good enough" shouldn't be okay in this format. I spend a lot of time fiddling with my decks to all my cards to be working at a 9 or 10, and I'd like to play against people who feel the same way.
Like BaconoftheArk says, lazy deckbuilding, basically.
I have a lot of respect for this sentiment. There's definitely a difference between a crafted deck and a thrown together deck. I love to see a deck that 'does something', where there's not just good engines within the deck, but the entire deck can be considered an engine with each piece serving a purpose.
I have to say, I've been plopping around various versions of Jor Kadeen for awhile, looking at people's lists for ideas, but I was actually struck by your list because of the inclusion of Midnight Haunting. At first it seemed like such a random card to put in the deck until I understood that in addition to creating 2 flying tokens to get pumped by Jor Kadeen, that it activated Mistveil Plains. Nobody building a R/W goodstuff deck (ha ha, that's kind of a joke by itself) would include Midnight Haunting. But it exactly fits the engine of your deck.
Now to play devil's advocate. As a once a week player who likes to fling cardboard to get away from the real world for a few hours, I also understand a player who just wants to play a bunch of pet cards in a deck without worrying too much about CMC and synergy and deck theme. I think the key here is to be honest with yourself and your fellow players about what you're doing, and to show a little respect for the player who has her deck tuned to 3.5 average CMC with a solid theme.
The only time I'm not a fan of a goodstuff deck is when they completely ignore their commander. For example, I have a friend who runs a goodstuff Doran deck, he even calls it that. None of the creatures have higher toughness than power, most have less. If a deck completely ignores the general's powers, or just uses them with maybe two cards (example, using Zur as a general with an Esper deck using only Necropotence and Solitary Confinement as your 3mana enchantments), then that is a goodstuff deck.
To show that goodstuff doesn't neccesarily have to be greatstuff, I would consider the Riku deck I had built to be casual goodstuff. HERE
It really had no theme or direction to it; just a bunch of the best cards I owned (that weren't in other decks) in those colors.
My idea of a goodstuff deck is one that is very open-ended in its strategy. It doesn't really have a clear end goal in mind and just hopes to "get there" based on the power level of its cards.
A lot of decks that people call goodstuff I wouldn't consider goodstuff, however. My Oona combo/control deck, for example, plays a lot of stapley EDH cards, but the goal is ultimately to prolong the game until I can assemble an infinite combo. The backup plan is to win via card advantage (ie act as a straight-up control deck). With that end goal in mind, the deck plays several wrath effects, lots of draw effects, a few tutors, and a bunch of rattlesnake cards. A lot of those cards are played in other types of decks and would probably be included in a U/B goodstuff deck, but each card in the deck has a specific role to play and is included in the deck to facilitate a certain end game. For that reason, I don't consider it a goodstuff deck.
The problem is Goodstuff seems to be used as a negative term implying a lack of thought put into a selection of cards, when all it really should do is be used as a descriptive term for the power level of a certain set of cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Suddenly, Fluffy realized she wasn't quite like the other bunnies anymore.
[QUOTE=Litewarior;/comments/4691747]The only time I'm not a fan of a goodstuff deck is when they completely ignore their commander. For example, I have a friend who runs a goodstuff Doran deck, he even calls it that. None of the creatures have higher toughness than power, most have less. QUOTE]He probably needs to run Karador then
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
I don't think using good cards is what defines a goodstuff deck - all decks are going to use good cards, unless you're some kind of perverse weirdo who takes great joy in running Pure Jank.dec - but not using those good cards to their full potential does. Using Trinket Mage with only two or three targets, using Prime Time just to put together Urborg/Coffers, using Reveillark and not knowing what power=<2 creatures you have in your deck beyond Karmic Guide... that's the goodstuff mentality. It's letting the bulk of your cards work at about a 6 or a 7 and letting their raw power carry you though games. My opposition to goodstuff decks isn't about creativity and the hipster cred of using "bad" cards, it's about seeing people put decks together and say, "Good enough." "Good enough" shouldn't be okay in this format. I spend a lot of time fiddling with my decks to all my cards to be working at a 9 or 10, and I'd like to play against people who feel the same way.
Like BaconoftheArk says, lazy deckbuilding, basically.
Is playing it in this deck 'goodstuff'? No. If you didn't play it in a Stasis deck, it's either because you don't know about it or you don't care about optimization.
Is playing it outside this kind of deck 'goodstuff'? Maybe, maybe not. If you run barely any creatures below 5cc, and thus can't use it before turn 6, you might be goodstuff. If you don't run any other untap effects, or keep tapped effects, you might be goodstuff. If you don't run any expensive cards with flash, like Jin-Gitaxias, you might be goodstuff. Basically if you have no reason for running it other than the fact that its worst-case use is still good enough for your deck, you're goodstuff.
The problem is that there's a lot of cards whose worst-case and best-case use don't vary much at all. I use Tabernacle in a near creatureless deck. Go me! I cast Necropotence. I'm going to have a hand of 7 or 8 cards during my pre-combat main for the rest of the game. My deck uses cards. I use Necropotence to get them. I mean, card draw will often be like that, but not with every single card. Disciple of Bolas for example, might be best used in a deck with lots of threaten effects, or with cheap, big fragile creatures. Fact or Fiction in a deck that can play from the graveyard. But certain things are just flat - Conc Sphinx, Necropotence, etc. If someone calls you 'goodstuff' for playing those cards, it's the cards' fault, not yours.
Candelabra of Tawnos the mother of all infinite mana combos price means something and Tabernacle is a good stuff card.
Alright then. Every card is a goodstuff card then. I'm not sure what metric you are using when you can consider a obscure cards like Tabernacle and Candelabra as "goodstuff".
If someone calls you 'goodstuff' for playing those cards, it's the cards' fault, not yours.
I agree.
In no sense of the idea can constructing a deck of Magic cards make you a poor person. Judging someone for what they play is a poor thing to do.
I do feel a little guilty when I am playing a deck that I know is sweet. Especially when I roll people over. I don't think I'm lame for having tried it out, though.
Alright then. Every card is a goodstuff card then. I'm not sure what metric you are using when you can consider a obscure cards like Tabernacle and Candelabra as "goodstuff".
Just wondering if you have ever played magic because Tabernacle and Candelabra are about as obscure as Time Vault or Library of Alexandria. I live in an america we use the standard system. The matrix I use is a knowledge of the game you clearly know nothing about.
Just wondering if you have ever played magic because Tabernacle and Candelabra are about as obscure as Time Vault or Library of Alexandria. I live in an america we use the standard system. The matrix I use is a knowledge of the game you clearly know nothing about.
Very cute. But I believe the "average" player does not know about Tabernacle (I've had people who have played for over a decade not know what it is) in the same way that they wouldn't know what Chains of Mephestopheles is. Not everyone has been playing as long as you or I (and I'm running under the assumption that you've played a while). Also, people on magic forums know far more than the average card shop or kitchen table player. Remember how large the game is and be less pretentious. You'll come off less like a troll.
I would definite goodstuff decks as decks without a central theme, be it flavor or mechanics. They are just a pile of unrelated good cards.
My Oros deck is all about equipment and small creatures to equip. It runs all five Swords and a Sunforger package. It is not a goodstuff deck.
My Karrthus deck is about attacking with Dargons. It runs Rampant Growth over Sakura-Tribe Elder because it avoids non-dragon creatures. It is not a goodstuff deck.
My Teneb deck is ramp, wraths, fatties, and recursion. It has synergies, a gameplan, and requires skill to play, but it's mostly just a bunch of good cards in three colors. It is a goodstuff deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Numot - Retired
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Goodstuff is pretty well defined above as a deck with no direction. Goodstuff is also a mentality. Oh look, all these games are lasting so long, I have mana to cast whatever I want, so I'll just bring the big guns. Discard is good, so I want a Myojin of Night's Reach. Draw is good, Consecrated Sphinx. Ramp, Prime Time. Someone casts a turn 3 Desolation - hey, you guys deal with it. I'm waiting for 6 mana so I can cast bombs, ty.
While goodstuff is generall not overly effective or consistent at being interactive, and control is hardly goodstuff, I can sort of see where the OP's friend is coming from. I don't agree with the assessment really, but the observation might be that goodstuff just sits by until turn 6 and starts casting bombs, and this deck just sits by and waits for stuff to answer, so it must be goodstuff. I don't really think that's goodstuff. Lots of very non-goodstuff decks are combo-control, which will play like that.
But I guess the label has become something of an insult to someone's creativity. But imo anyone who's really creative wouldn't be complaining too often about true goodstuff, because they should be able to take games often enough with their "creativity", wouldn't you say?
a) Players refer to other decks as goodstuff, when they themselves use plenty of cards that aren't really sticking to any theme or synergy, but are just random overused utility cards in their colors; Thereby they are guilty of the goodstuff mentality themselves, to a lesser degree. Even if they are playing a consistent theme or strategy, their inclusion of cards that are often overplayed doesn't make them any better than goodstuff decks, just because they are sticking to a theme. I don't understand how players don't see this. Personally, I really don't care about much in EDH, as long as I don't play against infinite combo decks and as long as I can play against different decks enough to make the format fresh.
b) Players often refer to decks that have good creatures, or good artifacts, or good [insert a cardtype], et cetera. as "goodstuff decks", or they refer to players who do so as "using goodstuff cards" despite that deck obviously having a theme. My Sedris Reanimator deck WILL kill you with Inferno Titan, Sheoldred, Inkwell Leviathan, Mikaeus + a bunch of non-humans, etc. You can call it "goodstuff" because of my use of "overused staples" all you want; However, Reanimator decks don't reanimate random Squires and terrible Homelands cards (or the like) just to cool your EDH hipster ego. To do so would be contradictory to the whole strategy. However, I've put in creature cards in the deck all _for a reason_ [ like Wurmcoil Engine to fight aggro strats, Nicol Bolas to fight control durdles ], yet some opponents will still roll their eyes at me when I play the deck and beat them. This makes me think that the whole "goodstuff" hating mentality is bogus/vague, some players use the term to deride decks without a theme/strategy/synergy, while others use the term to deride thematic, synergistic decks full of 100% underused cards.
c) Anytime someone critiques an opponent's deck on here, or in real life, as being "mindless", "taking no thought", etc you have to take it with a grain of salt. In my experience, every time someone says this, it's a reflection on how they themselves have played against the same type of decks too often, rather than purposefully attempting to play against new opponents or opponents with a wide variety of decks. Furthermore, I find everyone guilty of this. Tell me your deck and it's theme/goal, and I could probably list many cards you probably use, and/or I won't be surprised when I see what cards you play. Lastly, finding cards using Gatherer or an equivalent, looking at deck lists online, by talking to other players, [insert what ever process you triumph as the way to create an "innovative" and "original" deck] -- that doesn't make you a rocket scientist or a genius. What you did was relatively easy and didn't require a phD or being hip with the underground or something relatively stupid as you think.
d) Some players are severely biased. They hate a color, a strategy, a playstyle, or what have you, then proceed to knock down anyone who plays those, as if they haven't put any thought in their strategy/etc. ...and honestly, the critic might SOUND like they offer something insightful. The reality of this situation is the critic is probably severely biased and their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. I have friends who follow this pattern frequently. There's two players who hate green decks and think they are "too easy" to win and play with (reality? the green players' opponents have built bad decks, don't know how to fight green decks correctly, and/or they are outclassed as players -- so easy has nothing to do with it). There's players who hate control decks or combo decks (reality? these players decree overly interactive or noninteractive decks, but their decks are just a pile of creatures or a couple of synergies, with not much interactive cards to fight their opponents; furthermore, they crutch on too little and thus are often unprepared for decks that have quality answers to what they are doing or can just ignore what they are doing and still win). Stax/control EDH players, and EDH players who play Stax/control 99% of the time in other formats, are some of the most frequent decree-ers (is that a word?) of making fun of other players' decks as "goodstuff", pedestrian, using overused cards, not playing decks that require any thought, etc. In my experience, they just play against the same opponents, don't try to play against different decks at all, and stax/control decks are filled with the same cards and don't require some high bar of intelligence to play [read: I've played control/stax decks before, I like them, but I'm not overly impressed with them more so than any other style of deck].
Lastly....
That last part is SO true.
However, the problem with the goodstuff label, is that plenty of cards that can be labeled as "goodstuff" -- make complete sense to play in an archetype. If you play a blue control deck in EDH, don't you think that Consecrated Sphinx is a _viable_ option. Just because it's frequently played, doesn't mean you shouldn't play it to appease EDH hipsters. Sure, EVERY blue deck you play shouldn't play it - for the pure sake of not playing decks that are mostly staples. You know.... have some variety.
The incongruence of how the term "goodstuff" is used really gets to me. If you play a control deck that's mostly overly played staples, aren't you playing just goodstuff? I'm not quite sure goodstuff control decks requires any more thought than goodstuff ramp decks, if you want to see where I'm going with this. The term really doesn't seem to fit only creature-based strats, imo, or ramp-based strats. It's easily transferable to other playstyles and game play goals.
If you use Myojin of Night's Reach in a mono black control deck, or a mono black reanimator deck, are you using "goodstuff"? Should you not play it because the discard makes complete sense in the strategy you are playing? Like I said before, sure, you shouldn't play it in EVERY black deck you play, but if you only have one or two black decks, you playing it isn't that big of a deal. However, your friends might think you only play staples or goodstuff cards in such an example, yet they might forget -- maybe you only have one or two decks currently ... what's to say your next few decks you build might be completely different from the norm and include different cards in a different strategy that isn't played as frequently?
EDH
BWG Doran Suicide Tempo BWG
BUW Sharuum Midrange Control BUW
I'm playing an innovative deck with in-theme cards that synergizes with each other. Damnation and Demonic Tutor has synergy with every deck that runs swamps, right?
"Theme" decks such as, "I want to clone and steal everyone else stuff!" , with a lack of self reflection, "literally everyone has come up with this idea at one point in the history of this game. I am not special or unique for this."
I know this because every fricken EDH deck I build becomes a goddamn "goodstuff deck" in its colors. It's almost unavoidable when you have the cards lying around, they are just objectively more versatile and useful than all the other things. It takes time and the right playgroup to work around more esoteric synergy and a combination of thematic or "worse" cards.
This needs to be reposted on the next page of the thread because everyone needs to read this.
Like BaconoftheArk says, lazy deckbuilding, basically.
Erebos B | Ghost Council WB | Grimgrin UB | Jhoira UR
Jor Kadeen RW | Melek UR | Mimeoplasm GUB | Rasputin WU
Savra BG | Sisay GW | Teneb BGW | Thada Adel U | Wort BR
I draft and play EDH. If a Standard player can't understand who a card is for, it's probably for me.
I also write things about good films.
I have a lot of respect for this sentiment. There's definitely a difference between a crafted deck and a thrown together deck. I love to see a deck that 'does something', where there's not just good engines within the deck, but the entire deck can be considered an engine with each piece serving a purpose.
I have to say, I've been plopping around various versions of Jor Kadeen for awhile, looking at people's lists for ideas, but I was actually struck by your list because of the inclusion of Midnight Haunting. At first it seemed like such a random card to put in the deck until I understood that in addition to creating 2 flying tokens to get pumped by Jor Kadeen, that it activated Mistveil Plains. Nobody building a R/W goodstuff deck (ha ha, that's kind of a joke by itself) would include Midnight Haunting. But it exactly fits the engine of your deck.
Now to play devil's advocate. As a once a week player who likes to fling cardboard to get away from the real world for a few hours, I also understand a player who just wants to play a bunch of pet cards in a deck without worrying too much about CMC and synergy and deck theme. I think the key here is to be honest with yourself and your fellow players about what you're doing, and to show a little respect for the player who has her deck tuned to 3.5 average CMC with a solid theme.
WUBRG Some of these decks can actually win games...WUBRG
How I know I should build a deck:
Signature by Ace of Spades Studio!
It really had no theme or direction to it; just a bunch of the best cards I owned (that weren't in other decks) in those colors.
| 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
A lot of decks that people call goodstuff I wouldn't consider goodstuff, however. My Oona combo/control deck, for example, plays a lot of stapley EDH cards, but the goal is ultimately to prolong the game until I can assemble an infinite combo. The backup plan is to win via card advantage (ie act as a straight-up control deck). With that end goal in mind, the deck plays several wrath effects, lots of draw effects, a few tutors, and a bunch of rattlesnake cards. A lot of those cards are played in other types of decks and would probably be included in a U/B goodstuff deck, but each card in the deck has a specific role to play and is included in the deck to facilitate a certain end game. For that reason, I don't consider it a goodstuff deck.
I assure you cards like The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale are not Goodstuff. Price means little to nothing.
-Team R&D-
-noitcelfeR maeT
Candelabra of Tawnos the mother of all infinite mana combos price means something and Tabernacle is a good stuff card.
This. Sword of Feast and Famine is a good card. Lots of decks play it. But it is a terrific card in a Stasis, Winter Orb deck.
Is playing it in this deck 'goodstuff'? No. If you didn't play it in a Stasis deck, it's either because you don't know about it or you don't care about optimization.
Is playing it outside this kind of deck 'goodstuff'? Maybe, maybe not. If you run barely any creatures below 5cc, and thus can't use it before turn 6, you might be goodstuff. If you don't run any other untap effects, or keep tapped effects, you might be goodstuff. If you don't run any expensive cards with flash, like Jin-Gitaxias, you might be goodstuff. Basically if you have no reason for running it other than the fact that its worst-case use is still good enough for your deck, you're goodstuff.
The problem is that there's a lot of cards whose worst-case and best-case use don't vary much at all. I use Tabernacle in a near creatureless deck. Go me! I cast Necropotence. I'm going to have a hand of 7 or 8 cards during my pre-combat main for the rest of the game. My deck uses cards. I use Necropotence to get them. I mean, card draw will often be like that, but not with every single card. Disciple of Bolas for example, might be best used in a deck with lots of threaten effects, or with cheap, big fragile creatures. Fact or Fiction in a deck that can play from the graveyard. But certain things are just flat - Conc Sphinx, Necropotence, etc. If someone calls you 'goodstuff' for playing those cards, it's the cards' fault, not yours.
Alright then. Every card is a goodstuff card then. I'm not sure what metric you are using when you can consider a obscure cards like Tabernacle and Candelabra as "goodstuff".
I agree.
In no sense of the idea can constructing a deck of Magic cards make you a poor person. Judging someone for what they play is a poor thing to do.
I do feel a little guilty when I am playing a deck that I know is sweet. Especially when I roll people over. I don't think I'm lame for having tried it out, though.
Bitter much?
Just wondering if you have ever played magic because Tabernacle and Candelabra are about as obscure as Time Vault or Library of Alexandria. I live in an america we use the standard system. The matrix I use is a knowledge of the game you clearly know nothing about.
Very cute. But I believe the "average" player does not know about Tabernacle (I've had people who have played for over a decade not know what it is) in the same way that they wouldn't know what Chains of Mephestopheles is. Not everyone has been playing as long as you or I (and I'm running under the assumption that you've played a while). Also, people on magic forums know far more than the average card shop or kitchen table player. Remember how large the game is and be less pretentious. You'll come off less like a troll.
My Oros deck is all about equipment and small creatures to equip. It runs all five Swords and a Sunforger package. It is not a goodstuff deck.
My Karrthus deck is about attacking with Dargons. It runs Rampant Growth over Sakura-Tribe Elder because it avoids non-dragon creatures. It is not a goodstuff deck.
My Teneb deck is ramp, wraths, fatties, and recursion. It has synergies, a gameplan, and requires skill to play, but it's mostly just a bunch of good cards in three colors. It is a goodstuff deck.