If it's legal, then leave him alone and let him play it. Just make a point to tech against him for a while. Then, he will get bored of the deck and change things up.
For example, each of you could run a Nevinyrral's Disk. Problem solved.
I've played in groups with similar dynamics. What happens is that the other three players eventually get sick of it and all end up having a silent agreement that the problem player will be ganged up on first until they are dead, and then the three of us will play.
A single card shouldn't dictate how you build a deck for your playgroup. This is a terrible response.
So you're pretending that someone (me?) is saying a single card dictates how to build your deck? And then you're pretending my response is terrible because you're pretending that? lol, okay buddy.
What you failed to understand in my response, is that I encountered a virtually identical problem (his enchantment turned all my lands into mountains, the OP's friend turns them into swamps) and I didn't whine about it and demand he stop making fair, intelligent plays. I was grateful for what he did--he found the weakness in my deck and I jumped on the opportunity to solve it. And my solution was not simply to counter blood moon, it helps me overcome blood moon, contamination, ruination, land destruction, and numerous other things, and it ramps my deck faster. Plus, my example showed him one of the many ways to deal with contamination - mana rocks that make colored mana.
Telling someone to stop playing contamination (or any other legal card that shuts you down) is not a solution. It's the opposite of a solution. It's like a boxer telling his opponents that they have to stop throwing left hooks in their fights because he doesn't know how to avoid those. If you're weak against a left hook, don't whine about it, don't tell people to stop throwing them, just figure out how to overcome it and turn your weakness into your strength. The worst thing you can do, to yourself and others, is refuse to learn and demand that others come down to your level so you can beat them.
The actual problem I see in this thread is this mentality:
EDIT: All other people in our group play fair decks for fun games not ultra competitive Magic
The contamination player is obviously playing a fair deck for fun as well. A pity you don't recognize that.
The worst thing you can do, to yourself and others, is refuse to learn and demand that others come down to your level so you can beat them.
That's not true. Magic is fun as long as the people are on the same level, no matter what level that is. As much as you like the situation where one person makes a powerful deck and other players adjust because the want to compete with it, the inverse is entirely possible where one person makes a particularly low powered deck and other players adjust because they want it to compete with them. That's what happens when people reach the experience to realize that they'd rather enjoy a game than win it.
I suppose I agree that demanding someone play down to your level is wrong and tasteless, but encouraging it is perfectly acceptable. Anyone who's okay with promoting stronger building to encourage competition but not okay with promoting weaker building to encourage competition is being narrow-minded.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
Turn the game into Archenemy. IE, 3 or 4 against one (him). Make him the first one out the second he sits down at the table and you know it's in his deck. Every single attack goes his way. When he asks why, explain you know how powerful Contamination is, and the rest of you want to be able to play the game. He'll take it out or keep doing it. This happened in our group. We've had 12-15 players in the group over the last six years, and the situation has come up a grand total of ONE TIME, when a player liked running Back to Basics, which I'd argue is even less oppressive than Contamination. And please, no one even bother to respond with "then change your deck to deal with it/that's what you get for a greedy mana base." That's not the point. The point is was that one person was ruining the fun of the entire group with a single card. We all liked to win, but it was more important to have fun, and when one card was ruining the fun of 4 other players, the best way to deal with it was to drill home the point to remove the card. As I said, it's come up a grand total of one time, so it's not a group of *****ers and moaners, if it couldn't immediately be dealt with, no one had fun.
A single card shouldn't dictate how you build a deck for your playgroup. This is a terrible response.
So you're pretending that someone (me?) is saying a single card dictates how to build your deck? And then you're pretending my response is terrible because you're pretending that? lol, okay buddy.
What you failed to understand in my response, is that I encountered a virtually identical problem (his enchantment turned all my lands into mountains, the OP's friend turns them into swamps) and I didn't whine about it and demand he stop making fair, intelligent plays. I was grateful for what he did--he found the weakness in my deck and I jumped on the opportunity to solve it. And my solution was not simply to counter blood moon, it helps me overcome blood moon, contamination, ruination, land destruction, and numerous other things, and it ramps my deck faster. Plus, my example showed him one of the many ways to deal with contamination - mana rocks that make colored mana.
Telling someone to stop playing contamination (or any other legal card that shuts you down) is not a solution. It's the opposite of a solution. It's like a boxer telling his opponents that they have to stop throwing left hooks in their fights because he doesn't know how to avoid those. If you're weak against a left hook, don't whine about it, don't tell people to stop throwing them, just figure out how to overcome it and turn your weakness into your strength. The worst thing you can do, to yourself and others, is refuse to learn and demand that others come down to your level so you can beat them.
The actual problem I see in this thread is this mentality:
EDIT: All other people in our group play fair decks for fun games not ultra competitive Magic
The contamination player is obviously playing a fair deck for fun as well. A pity you don't recognize that.
Well, yeah that is exactly what I said, just in less words. I'll spell it out. If you are using more than a single card to counter a single card, then yes, that card is dictating the playgroup. It's common sense, really. If I really like burgers from McDonalds, but don't like the onions, should I go to a burger joint that doesn't put onions on there burgers, or should I just order it without?
Turn the game into Archenemy. IE, 3 or 4 against one (him). Make him the first one out the second he sits down at the table and you know it's in his deck. Every single attack goes his way. When he asks why, explain you know how powerful Contamination is, and the rest of you want to be able to play the game. He'll take it out or keep doing it. This happened in our group. We've had 12-15 players in the group over the last six years, and the situation has come up a grand total of ONE TIME, when a player liked running Back to Basics, which I'd argue is even less oppressive than Contamination. And please, no one even bother to respond with "then change your deck to deal with it/that's what you get for a greedy mana base." That's not the point. The point is was that one person was ruining the fun of the entire group with a single card. We all liked to win, but it was more important to have fun, and when one card was ruining the fun of 4 other players, the best way to deal with it was to drill home the point to remove the card. As I said, it's come up a grand total of one time, so it's not a group of *****ers and moaners, if it couldn't immediately be dealt with, no one had fun.
This is the worst way to go about it in my opinion. It's far more childish than just sitting down and talking to the other person and explaining how you guys feel about the card. Or asking them to play a different deck that fits more with the power level your group is at.
You're basically hating them out of the game and saying you can play, but not really because we will mercilessly attack you no matter what until we find your deck acceptable. That's just absurd to me. If they don't like a card or combo in your deck is it fine in your playgroup for them to tunnel vision you every game regardless of the detriment to themselves? If they kill you or make it impossible for you to win every game even if they guarantee their own loss they're doing exactly what you guys are doing, but somehow I feel like their use of that rule would be frowned upon.
The worst thing you can do, to yourself and others, is refuse to learn and demand that others come down to your level so you can beat them.
That's not true. Magic is fun as long as the people are on the same level, no matter what level that is. As much as you like the situation where one person makes a powerful deck and other players adjust because the want to compete with it, the inverse is entirely possible where one person makes a particularly low powered deck and other players adjust because they want it to compete with them. That's what happens when people reach the experience to realize that they'd rather enjoy a game than win it.
I suppose I agree that demanding someone play down to your level is wrong and tasteless, but encouraging it is perfectly acceptable. Anyone who's okay with promoting stronger building to encourage competition but not okay with promoting weaker building to encourage competition is being narrow-minded.
That's not the whole truth either. Example:
This past Sunday two new guys showed up at our store. New to our store, not new to magic. They had no cards newer than mercadian masques. Their decks were terribly underpowered. The four of us regulars playing split into two groups of three, each group consisting of two regulars, one new guy.
My pod went like this: two regulars playing high powered cards duking it out, throwing haymakers. New guy biding time, throwing a jab here and there. My friend kills me with him at 4 life. New guy wins the next turn with his sand warrior tokens.
We were happy. He was delighted. Everyone had fun. Three players, two different power levels. Good games.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
That's not the whole truth either. Example:
This past Sunday two new guys showed up at our store. New to our store, not new to magic. They had no cards newer than mercadian masques. Their decks were terribly underpowered. The four of us regulars playing split into two groups of three, each group consisting of two regulars, one new guy.
My pod went like this: two regulars playing high powered cards duking it out, throwing haymakers. New guy biding time, throwing a jab here and there. My friend kills me with him at 4 life. New guy wins the next turn with his sand warrior tokens.
We were happy. He was delighted. Everyone had fun. Three players, two different power levels. Good games.
Yeah, I suppose I said that a little backwards. I didn't intend to exclude all the fun times had playing decks that are not equally matched, but rather point out that the game is reliably fun when the decks are. I don't think it's difficult to have fun playing strong decks against weak ones, but rather that it is more likely to have a bad game than it is with evenly powered decks. What a strangely difficult concept to express succinctly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
That's not the whole truth either. Example:
This past Sunday two new guys showed up at our store. New to our store, not new to magic. They had no cards newer than mercadian masques. Their decks were terribly underpowered. The four of us regulars playing split into two groups of three, each group consisting of two regulars, one new guy.
My pod went like this: two regulars playing high powered cards duking it out, throwing haymakers. New guy biding time, throwing a jab here and there. My friend kills me with him at 4 life. New guy wins the next turn with his sand warrior tokens.
We were happy. He was delighted. Everyone had fun. Three players, two different power levels. Good games.
Yeah, I suppose I said that a little backwards. I didn't intend to exclude all the fun times had playing decks that are not equally matched, but rather point out that the game is reliably fun when the decks are. I don't think it's difficult to have fun playing strong decks against weak ones, but rather that it is more likely to have a bad game than it is with evenly powered decks. What a strangely difficult concept to express succinctly.
I honestly don't think the decks matter, just the mindset of the players. Take what happened to me, now if I was playing new guy 1v1 I'm not tooth and nailing for Palinchron/DEN. I'd probably just grab some random fatty and a mana dork or something. I know I can one spell combo kill him, but what's the fun in that(to me there is none in this hypothetical instance). It'd be like Daigo screaming how I got pwned if we played a game of street fighter.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
I honestly don't think the decks matter, just the mindset of the players. Take what happened to me, now if I was playing new guy 1v1 I'm not tooth and nailing for Palinchron/DEN. I'd probably just grab some random fatty and a mana dork or something. I know I can one spell combo kill him, but what's the fun in that(to me there is none in this hypothetical instance). It'd be like Daigo screaming how I got pwned if we played a game of street fighter.
Yeah, but I've played enough games with the same decks with the same people to recognize that a lot of the time, I'll have a lot more fun if I put down the good deck and pick up something sillier. Playing down is not as much fun for me. Why play Streetfighter against Daigo and make him take it easy when you can both play Mary-Kate and Ashley's Sweet 16: License to Drive?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
Adapt or Die. The best part of Commander is that your deck is never done. It changes with new cards and when your Meta changes. Im not a big fan of two card combos, but if it dose not involve a commander + one other card it should not be a problem and it should give you time to see it coming. Their are lots of answers out their for you but you need to figure out what will be best for your deck and your meta.
If you are still set on not updating your deck you can ask the other player to play less tutors.
If the deck is just way too consistent you could suggest that they remove some tutors to slow his combo down a bit.
Here is what you do:
"I don't like that you are playing contamination, I do not enjoy the game when it is involved. Please take it out or play a different deck"
If your friend doesn't do this, then there is a deeper issue of caring about winning more than caring about having fun that should be addressed.
And I am a bit disgusted by the general response to this thread being "here is a way to start an arms race until no one enjoys the game anymore and is $500 poorer"
Here is what you do:
"I don't like that you are playing contamination, I do not enjoy the game when it is involved. Please take it out or play a different deck"
If your friend doesn't do this, then there is a deeper issue of caring about winning more than caring about having fun that should be addressed.
And I am a bit disgusted by the general response to this thread being "here is a way to start an arms race until no one enjoys the game anymore and is $500 poorer"
what answers to contamination cost $500? Hyperbole much? Pretty sure I can get 5-6 rocks and 5-6 disenchanted effects for under 5$ total. And they're just good utility cards good in just about any game.
The Rms race is actually what you've suggested. What happens when his friend asks him to remove a card? And now another player is asking. Why are we even playing the cards we bought?
Playing magic is not this complicated guys. You play with someone or you don't. I don't know why people feel "I don't like this card" entitles them to selectively edit someone else's deck. That's a huge dick move.
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
A single card shouldn't dictate how you build a deck for your playgroup. This is a terrible response.
You could replace Contamination with at least a dozen other cards and get the same response out of someone like OP. Running mana rocks and dorks is just something you should be doing. Removal is something you should be running. You shouldn't build a deck that's completely invalidated by one card. A four player table that refuses figure out how to destroy an enchantment is more of a problem than the one guy who's running a powerful one.
This about expecting everyone else to play down to your level, which is hands down the most obnoxious aspect of this format. Commander precons, including the mono red one, have both direct answers and ways to play around Contamination and similar cards like Hall of Gemstones, there's no reason your playgroup shouldn't be able to do the same.
I guess I should have clarified, yes, after first asking him to remove it, and explaining it ruined peoples fun.
But what do you do when he then complains about your xyz card ruining his fun?
The fact that it's happened: ONE TIME, in six years, with about 12 players, and literally 100+ decks (I alone have 18 decks, and another player regularly shows up with 25 decks each week) and the fact it was group agreement that we all hated the one card, leads me to believe it won't happen again. We've all dealt with hundreds of powerful cards in that time, most of us are big spenders so there is no shortage of power, and we've all adapted to others cards, leads me to believe it's unlikely to happen again. It's not up to "him" to complain about one card in response/retaliation, because the B2B hatred was a decision made by 4 players against 1 players card that failed to listen to the groups complaints. If I run a card that 4 people hate, ask me to remove, and then I see a game has devolved into the table vs. me, I'll remove the card, but I'd have removed it before it ever came to that point.
While everyone in our group wants to win, and we all spend a lot of $ to do so and are not afraid of building strong decks, ultimately the group is about fun. All of us work hard in our real lives, 40+ hours per week, and we come together once per week for 5 hours. If we can't have fun in that time, and B2B drained the fun, there flat out isn't a reason to get together and play. This isn't a tournament where anything goes provided you stay within the parameters of the format, where an entrance fee was paid or prizes are at stake. In those instances I firmly believe in "build a better deck, adapt to it, etc, etc". Take your B2B enabled win, enjoy it, now remove it because you're making the rest of your friends have a negative experience. Again, we've come to a "gentleman's agreement" over ONE card in 6 years. It's never come up again, so it's not a case of editing someone's deck.
A single card shouldn't dictate how you build a deck for your playgroup. This is a terrible response.
So you're pretending that someone (me?) is saying a single card dictates how to build your deck? And then you're pretending my response is terrible because you're pretending that? lol, okay buddy.
What you failed to understand in my response, is that I encountered a virtually identical problem (his enchantment turned all my lands into mountains, the OP's friend turns them into swamps) and I didn't whine about it and demand he stop making fair, intelligent plays. I was grateful for what he did--he found the weakness in my deck and I jumped on the opportunity to solve it. And my solution was not simply to counter blood moon, it helps me overcome blood moon, contamination, ruination, land destruction, and numerous other things, and it ramps my deck faster. Plus, my example showed him one of the many ways to deal with contamination - mana rocks that make colored mana.
Telling someone to stop playing contamination (or any other legal card that shuts you down) is not a solution. It's the opposite of a solution. It's like a boxer telling his opponents that they have to stop throwing left hooks in their fights because he doesn't know how to avoid those. If you're weak against a left hook, don't whine about it, don't tell people to stop throwing them, just figure out how to overcome it and turn your weakness into your strength. The worst thing you can do, to yourself and others, is refuse to learn and demand that others come down to your level so you can beat them.
The actual problem I see in this thread is this mentality:
EDIT: All other people in our group play fair decks for fun games not ultra competitive Magic
The contamination player is obviously playing a fair deck for fun as well. A pity you don't recognize that.
I'm so glad there's at least one other person in this thread that understands how games work.
[EDH] It's built to be a casual format and to a specific vision, and if you don't like the vision, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not going to change to accommodate everyone. Big tent is not a goal.
A single card shouldn't dictate how you build a deck for your playgroup. This is a terrible response.
You could replace Contamination with at least a dozen other cards and get the same response out of someone like OP. Running mana rocks and dorks is just something you should be doing. Removal is something you should be running. You shouldn't build a deck that's completely invalidated by one card. A four player table that refuses figure out how to destroy an enchantment is more of a problem than the one guy who's running a powerful one.
This about expecting everyone else to play down to your level, which is hands down the most obnoxious aspect of this format. Commander precons, including the mono red one, have both direct answers and ways to play around Contamination and similar cards like Hall of Gemstones, there's no reason your playgroup shouldn't be able to do the same.
That is still a really dumb argument. Does contamination win him the game. On the spot? I'm guessing no. But what it does do, is... Prevents the other players of playing the game. Who wants that in multi-player? 2+ guys sitting there at the table watch. Now I'm not disagreeing that rocks and such should be staples. The contamination can come out as early as turn 3, in curve. That puts everybody else in top-deck mode, which just furthers my point. There's other cards that he could slot in that are just as powerful, but is more interactive for the group.
Edit: In reality, the card they should ask him to ditch is Bitterblossom. I would be much more likely to continue a game if there wasn't an infinite supply of tokens, again, on curve. If the player want to do degenerative things, work for it, don't go for the obvious play. I mean, Bitterblossom can be an awesome card on its own. Maybe say one or the other and then that player could "Challenege" himself to build a deck around either card. You know, work for it.
A single card shouldn't dictate how you build a deck for your playgroup. This is a terrible response.
You could replace Contamination with at least a dozen other cards and get the same response out of someone like OP. Running mana rocks and dorks is just something you should be doing. Removal is something you should be running. You shouldn't build a deck that's completely invalidated by one card. A four player table that refuses figure out how to destroy an enchantment is more of a problem than the one guy who's running a powerful one.
This about expecting everyone else to play down to your level, which is hands down the most obnoxious aspect of this format. Commander precons, including the mono red one, have both direct answers and ways to play around Contamination and similar cards like Hall of Gemstones, there's no reason your playgroup shouldn't be able to do the same.
That is still a really dumb argument. Does contamination win him the game. On the spot? I'm guessing no. But what it does do, is... Prevents the other players of playing the game. Who wants that in multi-player? 2+ guys sitting there at the table watch. Now I'm not disagreeing that rocks and such should be staples. The contamination can come out as early as turn 3, in curve. That puts everybody else in top-deck mode, which just furthers my point. There's other cards that he could slot in that are just as powerful, but is more interactive for the group.
Edit: In reality, the card they should ask him to ditch is Bitterblossom. I would be much more likely to continue a game if there wasn't an infinite supply of tokens, again, on curve. If the player want to do degenerative things, work for it, don't go for the obvious play. I mean, Bitterblossom can be an awesome card on its own. Maybe say one or the other and then that player could "Challenege" himself to build a deck around either card. You know, work for it.
I would say that getting two cards (not including land) in a 99 card deck is pretty challenging.
Unless you're playing Tutors up the A (Which if they are playing casually he shouldn't be) or playing Zur the Enchanter(And more than likely tutors up the A as well) he won't be assembling the lock with any form of consistency. This whole scenario smells like we aren't getting enough info.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
Here is what you do:
"I don't like that you are playing contamination, I do not enjoy the game when it is involved. Please take it out or play a different deck"
If your friend doesn't do this, then there is a deeper issue of caring about winning more than caring about having fun that should be addressed.
And I am a bit disgusted by the general response to this thread being "here is a way to start an arms race until no one enjoys the game anymore and is $500 poorer"
what answers to contamination cost $500? Hyperbole much? Pretty sure I can get 5-6 rocks and 5-6 disenchanted effects for under 5$ total. And they're just good utility cards good in just about any game.
The Rms race is actually what you've suggested. What happens when his friend asks him to remove a card? And now another player is asking. Why are we even playing the cards we bought?
Playing magic is not this complicated guys. You play with someone or you don't. I don't know why people feel "I don't like this card" entitles them to selectively edit someone else's deck. That's a huge dick move.
Treating it like a binary situation shows a misunderstanding of human relationships. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
You talk to them and say you don't like the card. I assume like almost every player they have a limited size playgroup and it is better to have fun with the players around you than to cut people out of the group.
Playing cards like contamination is very similar to forcibly editing someone's deck as well, you have to design around being able to beat it or lose. No one in a casual meta wants to be locked out of the game almost immediately by contamination + anything
Here is what you do:
"I don't like that you are playing contamination, I do not enjoy the game when it is involved. Please take it out or play a different deck"
If your friend doesn't do this, then there is a deeper issue of caring about winning more than caring about having fun that should be addressed.
And I am a bit disgusted by the general response to this thread being "here is a way to start an arms race until no one enjoys the game anymore and is $500 poorer"
what answers to contamination cost $500? Hyperbole much? Pretty sure I can get 5-6 rocks and 5-6 disenchanted effects for under 5$ total. And they're just good utility cards good in just about any game.
The Rms race is actually what you've suggested. What happens when his friend asks him to remove a card? And now another player is asking. Why are we even playing the cards we bought?
Playing magic is not this complicated guys. You play with someone or you don't. I don't know why people feel "I don't like this card" entitles them to selectively edit someone else's deck. That's a huge dick move.
Treating it like a binary situation shows a misunderstanding of human relationships. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
You talk to them and say you don't like the card. I assume like almost every player they have a limited size playgroup and it is better to have fun with the players around you than to cut people out of the group.
Playing cards like contamination is very similar to forcibly editing someone's deck as well, you have to design around being able to beat it or lose. No one in a casual meta wants to be locked out of the game almost immediately by contamination + anything
Absolutely not;
It is not your job as a player to allow the opponent to play their deck. It is their job as a deckbuilder to bring a deck that functions the way he wants it to. If you want to play Craw Wurm, awesome, but it's on you to make it work.
In the case of the OP, I would just ask the problem friend to build another deck and bring both (as a cheap casual deck is only $30 or so), and ask him to only play the Contamination list every third game or so. Let him keep his list (that he obviously enjoys), but ask him to not play it quite as much. If money is an issue for him, pitch in and help.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
Here is what you do:
"I don't like that you are playing contamination, I do not enjoy the game when it is involved. Please take it out or play a different deck"
If your friend doesn't do this, then there is a deeper issue of caring about winning more than caring about having fun that should be addressed.
It has nothing to do with winning, and everything to do with the point you're missing.
What you're really saying is "I don't like that you're playing intelligently. I do not enjoy the game when you do. I could easily start using some cheap cards to improve my deck and defeat your gameplan, but I'm too lazy to do that. Therefore, I would like you to reward my laziness by letting me edit certain cards from your deck."
And when you do reward someone's laziness, you make them more lazy. If whining about whatever card they don't like gets rid of it, they'll usually whine more and more.
And I am a bit disgusted by the general response to this thread being "here is a way to start an arms race until no one enjoys the game anymore and is $500 poorer"
Signets, counterspells, and disenchant-type cards cost $500 where you live? On Mars, maybe. Shipping to other planets is a *****.
Playing cards like contamination is very similar to forcibly editing someone's deck as well, you have to design around being able to beat it or lose. No one in a casual meta wants to be locked out of the game almost immediately by contamination + anything
Cheap, simple cards defeat it easily. If I was playing against him I'd love it if he wasted his tutors to assemble that combo, since it's so easy to defeat.
What's interesting is that if the playgroup did decide to improve their decks and stop letting contamination wreck them, then the guy playing contamination might discover it's not worth it to play anymore. It's interesting the way players evolve that way.
Here is what you do:
"I don't like that you are playing contamination, I do not enjoy the game when it is involved. Please take it out or play a different deck"
If your friend doesn't do this, then there is a deeper issue of caring about winning more than caring about having fun that should be addressed.
And I am a bit disgusted by the general response to this thread being "here is a way to start an arms race until no one enjoys the game anymore and is $500 poorer"
what answers to contamination cost $500? Hyperbole much? Pretty sure I can get 5-6 rocks and 5-6 disenchanted effects for under 5$ total. And they're just good utility cards good in just about any game.
The Rms race is actually what you've suggested. What happens when his friend asks him to remove a card? And now another player is asking. Why are we even playing the cards we bought?
Playing magic is not this complicated guys. You play with someone or you don't. I don't know why people feel "I don't like this card" entitles them to selectively edit someone else's deck. That's a huge dick move.
Treating it like a binary situation shows a misunderstanding of human relationships. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
You talk to them and say you don't like the card. I assume like almost every player they have a limited size playgroup and it is better to have fun with the players around you than to cut people out of the group.
Playing cards like contamination is very similar to forcibly editing someone's deck as well, you have to design around being able to beat it or lose. No one in a casual meta wants to be locked out of the game almost immediately by contamination + anything
Absolutely not;
It is not your job as a player to allow the opponent to play their deck. It is their job as a deckbuilder to bring a deck that functions the way he wants it to. If you want to play Craw Wurm, awesome, but it's on you to make it work.
In the case of the OP, I would just ask the problem friend to build another deck and bring both (as a cheap casual deck is only $30 or so), and ask him to only play the Contamination list every third game or so. Let him keep his list (that he obviously enjoys), but ask him to not play it quite as much. If money is an issue for him, pitch in and help.
EDH is first and foremost a social format played casually, and that is certainly the case being discussed in this thread. It is the job of any socially aware player to try and ensure that everyone is having fun at the table. Deck function is for competitive play.
It has nothing to do with winning, and everything to do with the point you're missing.
What you're really saying is "I don't like that you're playing intelligently. I do not enjoy the game when you do. I could easily start using some cheap cards to improve my deck and defeat your gameplan, but I'm too lazy to do that. Therefore, I would like you to reward my laziness by letting me edit certain cards from your deck."
And when you do reward someone's laziness, you make them more lazy. If whining about whatever card they don't like gets rid of it, they'll usually whine more and more.
This is extremely anti-social behavior.
This guy went to a forum to get help trying to convince someone to take a card that is wrecking games out of his deck.
What the hell is with magic players and obsessing over victory? No one cares if you can do a strong play. They just want to have fun.
For example, each of you could run a Nevinyrral's Disk. Problem solved.
I've played in groups with similar dynamics. What happens is that the other three players eventually get sick of it and all end up having a silent agreement that the problem player will be ganged up on first until they are dead, and then the three of us will play.
Just tech against it instead of whining about it.
What you failed to understand in my response, is that I encountered a virtually identical problem (his enchantment turned all my lands into mountains, the OP's friend turns them into swamps) and I didn't whine about it and demand he stop making fair, intelligent plays. I was grateful for what he did--he found the weakness in my deck and I jumped on the opportunity to solve it. And my solution was not simply to counter blood moon, it helps me overcome blood moon, contamination, ruination, land destruction, and numerous other things, and it ramps my deck faster. Plus, my example showed him one of the many ways to deal with contamination - mana rocks that make colored mana.
Telling someone to stop playing contamination (or any other legal card that shuts you down) is not a solution. It's the opposite of a solution. It's like a boxer telling his opponents that they have to stop throwing left hooks in their fights because he doesn't know how to avoid those. If you're weak against a left hook, don't whine about it, don't tell people to stop throwing them, just figure out how to overcome it and turn your weakness into your strength. The worst thing you can do, to yourself and others, is refuse to learn and demand that others come down to your level so you can beat them.
The actual problem I see in this thread is this mentality:
The contamination player is obviously playing a fair deck for fun as well. A pity you don't recognize that.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
That's not true. Magic is fun as long as the people are on the same level, no matter what level that is. As much as you like the situation where one person makes a powerful deck and other players adjust because the want to compete with it, the inverse is entirely possible where one person makes a particularly low powered deck and other players adjust because they want it to compete with them. That's what happens when people reach the experience to realize that they'd rather enjoy a game than win it.
I suppose I agree that demanding someone play down to your level is wrong and tasteless, but encouraging it is perfectly acceptable. Anyone who's okay with promoting stronger building to encourage competition but not okay with promoting weaker building to encourage competition is being narrow-minded.
Well, yeah that is exactly what I said, just in less words. I'll spell it out. If you are using more than a single card to counter a single card, then yes, that card is dictating the playgroup. It's common sense, really. If I really like burgers from McDonalds, but don't like the onions, should I go to a burger joint that doesn't put onions on there burgers, or should I just order it without?
This is the worst way to go about it in my opinion. It's far more childish than just sitting down and talking to the other person and explaining how you guys feel about the card. Or asking them to play a different deck that fits more with the power level your group is at.
You're basically hating them out of the game and saying you can play, but not really because we will mercilessly attack you no matter what until we find your deck acceptable. That's just absurd to me. If they don't like a card or combo in your deck is it fine in your playgroup for them to tunnel vision you every game regardless of the detriment to themselves? If they kill you or make it impossible for you to win every game even if they guarantee their own loss they're doing exactly what you guys are doing, but somehow I feel like their use of that rule would be frowned upon.
That's not the whole truth either. Example:
This past Sunday two new guys showed up at our store. New to our store, not new to magic. They had no cards newer than mercadian masques. Their decks were terribly underpowered. The four of us regulars playing split into two groups of three, each group consisting of two regulars, one new guy.
My pod went like this: two regulars playing high powered cards duking it out, throwing haymakers. New guy biding time, throwing a jab here and there. My friend kills me with him at 4 life. New guy wins the next turn with his sand warrior tokens.
We were happy. He was delighted. Everyone had fun. Three players, two different power levels. Good games.
Yeah, I suppose I said that a little backwards. I didn't intend to exclude all the fun times had playing decks that are not equally matched, but rather point out that the game is reliably fun when the decks are. I don't think it's difficult to have fun playing strong decks against weak ones, but rather that it is more likely to have a bad game than it is with evenly powered decks. What a strangely difficult concept to express succinctly.
I honestly don't think the decks matter, just the mindset of the players. Take what happened to me, now if I was playing new guy 1v1 I'm not tooth and nailing for Palinchron/DEN. I'd probably just grab some random fatty and a mana dork or something. I know I can one spell combo kill him, but what's the fun in that(to me there is none in this hypothetical instance). It'd be like Daigo screaming how I got pwned if we played a game of street fighter.
But what do you do when he then complains about your xyz card ruining his fun?
Yeah, but I've played enough games with the same decks with the same people to recognize that a lot of the time, I'll have a lot more fun if I put down the good deck and pick up something sillier. Playing down is not as much fun for me. Why play Streetfighter against Daigo and make him take it easy when you can both play Mary-Kate and Ashley's Sweet 16: License to Drive?
If you are still set on not updating your deck you can ask the other player to play less tutors.
If the deck is just way too consistent you could suggest that they remove some tutors to slow his combo down a bit.
"I don't like that you are playing contamination, I do not enjoy the game when it is involved. Please take it out or play a different deck"
If your friend doesn't do this, then there is a deeper issue of caring about winning more than caring about having fun that should be addressed.
And I am a bit disgusted by the general response to this thread being "here is a way to start an arms race until no one enjoys the game anymore and is $500 poorer"
what answers to contamination cost $500? Hyperbole much? Pretty sure I can get 5-6 rocks and 5-6 disenchanted effects for under 5$ total. And they're just good utility cards good in just about any game.
The Rms race is actually what you've suggested. What happens when his friend asks him to remove a card? And now another player is asking. Why are we even playing the cards we bought?
Playing magic is not this complicated guys. You play with someone or you don't. I don't know why people feel "I don't like this card" entitles them to selectively edit someone else's deck. That's a huge dick move.
You could replace Contamination with at least a dozen other cards and get the same response out of someone like OP. Running mana rocks and dorks is just something you should be doing. Removal is something you should be running. You shouldn't build a deck that's completely invalidated by one card. A four player table that refuses figure out how to destroy an enchantment is more of a problem than the one guy who's running a powerful one.
This about expecting everyone else to play down to your level, which is hands down the most obnoxious aspect of this format. Commander precons, including the mono red one, have both direct answers and ways to play around Contamination and similar cards like Hall of Gemstones, there's no reason your playgroup shouldn't be able to do the same.
Pauper: Burn
Modern: Burn
Legacy: Burn
EDH: Marath, Will of the Wild - Ramp/Combo | Anafenza the Foremost - French | Uril, the Miststalker - Voltron | Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury - Goodstuff
Ghost Council of Orzhov - Tokens | Lazav, Dimir Mastermind - Control | Isamaru, Hound of Konda - Tiny Leaders
The fact that it's happened: ONE TIME, in six years, with about 12 players, and literally 100+ decks (I alone have 18 decks, and another player regularly shows up with 25 decks each week) and the fact it was group agreement that we all hated the one card, leads me to believe it won't happen again. We've all dealt with hundreds of powerful cards in that time, most of us are big spenders so there is no shortage of power, and we've all adapted to others cards, leads me to believe it's unlikely to happen again. It's not up to "him" to complain about one card in response/retaliation, because the B2B hatred was a decision made by 4 players against 1 players card that failed to listen to the groups complaints. If I run a card that 4 people hate, ask me to remove, and then I see a game has devolved into the table vs. me, I'll remove the card, but I'd have removed it before it ever came to that point.
While everyone in our group wants to win, and we all spend a lot of $ to do so and are not afraid of building strong decks, ultimately the group is about fun. All of us work hard in our real lives, 40+ hours per week, and we come together once per week for 5 hours. If we can't have fun in that time, and B2B drained the fun, there flat out isn't a reason to get together and play. This isn't a tournament where anything goes provided you stay within the parameters of the format, where an entrance fee was paid or prizes are at stake. In those instances I firmly believe in "build a better deck, adapt to it, etc, etc". Take your B2B enabled win, enjoy it, now remove it because you're making the rest of your friends have a negative experience. Again, we've come to a "gentleman's agreement" over ONE card in 6 years. It's never come up again, so it's not a case of editing someone's deck.
I'm so glad there's at least one other person in this thread that understands how games work.
That is still a really dumb argument. Does contamination win him the game. On the spot? I'm guessing no. But what it does do, is... Prevents the other players of playing the game. Who wants that in multi-player? 2+ guys sitting there at the table watch. Now I'm not disagreeing that rocks and such should be staples. The contamination can come out as early as turn 3, in curve. That puts everybody else in top-deck mode, which just furthers my point. There's other cards that he could slot in that are just as powerful, but is more interactive for the group.
Edit: In reality, the card they should ask him to ditch is Bitterblossom. I would be much more likely to continue a game if there wasn't an infinite supply of tokens, again, on curve. If the player want to do degenerative things, work for it, don't go for the obvious play. I mean, Bitterblossom can be an awesome card on its own. Maybe say one or the other and then that player could "Challenege" himself to build a deck around either card. You know, work for it.
I would say that getting two cards (not including land) in a 99 card deck is pretty challenging.
Unless you're playing Tutors up the A (Which if they are playing casually he shouldn't be) or playing Zur the Enchanter(And more than likely tutors up the A as well) he won't be assembling the lock with any form of consistency. This whole scenario smells like we aren't getting enough info.
Treating it like a binary situation shows a misunderstanding of human relationships. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
You talk to them and say you don't like the card. I assume like almost every player they have a limited size playgroup and it is better to have fun with the players around you than to cut people out of the group.
Playing cards like contamination is very similar to forcibly editing someone's deck as well, you have to design around being able to beat it or lose. No one in a casual meta wants to be locked out of the game almost immediately by contamination + anything
Absolutely not;
It is not your job as a player to allow the opponent to play their deck. It is their job as a deckbuilder to bring a deck that functions the way he wants it to. If you want to play Craw Wurm, awesome, but it's on you to make it work.
In the case of the OP, I would just ask the problem friend to build another deck and bring both (as a cheap casual deck is only $30 or so), and ask him to only play the Contamination list every third game or so. Let him keep his list (that he obviously enjoys), but ask him to not play it quite as much. If money is an issue for him, pitch in and help.
What you're really saying is "I don't like that you're playing intelligently. I do not enjoy the game when you do. I could easily start using some cheap cards to improve my deck and defeat your gameplan, but I'm too lazy to do that. Therefore, I would like you to reward my laziness by letting me edit certain cards from your deck."
And when you do reward someone's laziness, you make them more lazy. If whining about whatever card they don't like gets rid of it, they'll usually whine more and more.
Signets, counterspells, and disenchant-type cards cost $500 where you live? On Mars, maybe. Shipping to other planets is a *****.
Cheap, simple cards defeat it easily. If I was playing against him I'd love it if he wasted his tutors to assemble that combo, since it's so easy to defeat.
What's interesting is that if the playgroup did decide to improve their decks and stop letting contamination wreck them, then the guy playing contamination might discover it's not worth it to play anymore. It's interesting the way players evolve that way.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
EDH is first and foremost a social format played casually, and that is certainly the case being discussed in this thread. It is the job of any socially aware player to try and ensure that everyone is having fun at the table. Deck function is for competitive play.
This is extremely anti-social behavior.
This guy went to a forum to get help trying to convince someone to take a card that is wrecking games out of his deck.
What the hell is with magic players and obsessing over victory? No one cares if you can do a strong play. They just want to have fun.