Obligatory mention of which "unfun" cards should be on the banned list, the spirit of EDH, social contract, casual vs competitive, house rules, definition of fun, and the never ending repetition of the same arguments.
This thread is already starting to devolve into one of those bickering threads.
@OP: Talk to your friend. If he is constantly tutoring for Contamination every game, ask that he not always make it his tutor target or ask that he switch up decks so the card doesnt constantly hit the table, ie give the group a break from it. If he doesnt tutor for it, and it hits the table once in a while, try seeing the situation from his side and consider modifying your decks to handle Contamination or other problematic cards that people might play. Concessions have to be willing to be made on both sides, not just his.
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.
Not a hyperbole, you're missing the point. If the other players in OPs playgroup start using more powerful cards to try and beat Contamination-player before they can get the combo, then they will run into increasing costs, and end up spending a lot of money on more and more powerful cards.
-------------------------
The argument that all of the other players need to adapt to contamination player is ridiculous. One player shouldn't dictate how the entire playgroup plays.
The 'run more answers' argument is silly as well. Recently, I played a 3 player game, against Braids, Conjurer Adept and Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury using my newly built Meren of Clan Nel Toth deck. Both Braids and I were testing the decks out for the first time. Braids got a turn 2 Back to Basics. I had played 2 lands, one Vivid, one other non-basic that didn't do anything special. I was screwed. And not because I didn't run enough answers, I had about 8 ways to remove enchantments in that deck, and none of them came up. I had no Black until about turn 8 because I didn't find any basic swamps. I spent about 6 turns doing nothing just waiting for enough land to crack my Blighted Woodland
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.
Emphasis mine. In your own words, that's exactly what it was. But tell yourself whatever you need to in order to sleep better or feel right.
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 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.
Emphasis mine. In your own words, that's exactly what it was. But tell yourself whatever you need to in order to sleep better or feel right.
To sleep better at night? Lol, get over yourself with that melodramatic nonsense. Yes, I lie awake at night in cold sweats, in agony over something that happened in 2010.
When you selectively put emphasis on something you conveniently IGNORE everything else. Like the fact it happened once in six years. One card. Hundreds of decks. GROUP CONCENSUS TO REMOVE THE CARD.
You know what I DO concern myself about? That the 5 people that I act as HOST to at MY house nearly every Wednesday for the last six years had a good time that night, and want to come back next week. Tell you what: YOU host a gathering. Watch 4-5 people sit miserably, unable to play the game to any reasonable degree. On successive weeks. Then tell me if you don't step in to remedy the situation? If the answer is remove one card from a pool of 10's of thousands vs everyone making changes to their decks to deal with it, which is most logical? Again, because you chose to focus on one part of my post, you're ignoring that we deal with strong cards every single week, things like Iona, Moat, Blood Moon, things that by their nature are restrictive. Nothing sucked the fun off the table like B2B, repeatedly. We're not afraid to adapt our decks. NO ONE WAS HAVING FUN.
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.
Emphasis mine. In your own words, that's exactly what it was. But tell yourself whatever you need to in order to sleep better or feel right.
To sleep better at night? Lol, get over yourself with that melodramatic nonsense. Yes, I lie awake at night in cold sweats, in agony over something that happened in 2010.
When you selectively put emphasis on something you conveniently IGNORE everything else. Like the fact it happened once in six years. One card. Hundreds of decks. GROUP CONCENSUS TO REMOVE THE CARD.
You know what I DO concern myself about? That the 5 people that I act as HOST to at MY house nearly every Wednesday for the last six years had a good time that night, and want to come back next week. Tell you what: YOU host a gathering. Watch 4-5 people sit miserably, unable to play the game to any reasonable degree. On successive weeks. Then tell me if you don't step in to remedy the situation? If the answer is remove one card from a pool of 10's of thousands vs everyone making changes to their decks to deal with it, which is most logical? Again, because you chose to focus on one part of my post, you're ignoring that we deal with strong cards every single week, things like Iona, Moat, Blood Moon, things that by their nature are restrictive. Nothing sucked the fun off the table like B2B, repeatedly. We're not afraid to adapt our decks. NO ONE WAS HAVING FUN.
Actually, one person was, I'd wager.
Doesn't change the fact that you took it upon yourself to edit his deck. No amount of details or excuses changes that. Grats to you and your awesome playgroup that only plays the best cards and has a million, bajillion dollars in every playthrough of all 600 decks.
But still can't handle a Back to basics?
:insert eyeroll emoji:
"It's MY house and YOU can't play that card!" Sounds like a great place to play.
Public Mod Note
(cryogen):
Infraction for trolling
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.
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.
I can't see you having very many social relationships, I mean, you'll say otherwise, and that you have tons of friends, but I'm just not going to buy it. Back to the point, if you want to push "evolve or die", then you are still wrong. This is the more likely scenario. The OP and his playgroup will grow tired of this guy always locking down boards in a casual environment, turning it into a cutthroat experience. Soon, they will stop inviting him to join. The group evolved, and that player "died". Sure, he could find another playgroup, but was it worth the cardboard to do so? For some people, like you sir, this may be fine for you. For normal human beings, however, it is not and is a sign of deeper issues. Sacrificing social interaction for the sake of a single card. I'm not expecting you to get my point, you've made it very clear, but I can assure you that your "philosophy" is shared by the minorty, even outside of a MTG setting.
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.
EDH is first and foremost a game, and games that are not cooperative are automatically competitive. Someone, at the end of the game, is going to win it. Saying it's a social format played casually is true, but everyone knows Casual really isn't ("Hey guys, I'mma bring my ChannelEmrakul deck to our next kitchen table game. That's fair, right?")
Poker is a game that is Social (Being played with a group of people) and Casual (Being played by people who are not pros). Try to tell any Poker player that he shouldn't try to win.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
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?
I remove it because this is basically Friday Night casual hangout and not a cutthroat anything goes tournament? It's not that hard to change a single card in my deck if the group doesn't like it.
My friends asked me to stop playing Tooth and nail. My response wasn't "lulz, nah, get gud man." It was "okay." I took it out, and I haven't missed it much.
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?
I remove it because this is basically Friday Night casual hangout and not a cutthroat anything goes tournament? It's not that hard to change a single card in my deck if the group doesn't like it.
My friends asked me to stop playing Tooth and nail. My response wasn't "lulz, nah, get gud man." It was "okay." I took it out, and I haven't missed it much.
I guess it's just something about me. I don't like editing people's lists and telling them what they can and can't play.
I had a friend playing Karador with a consistent and annoying set of combos. I didn't say "Hey, can you not play pattern of rebirth?" I just built a sweet Anafenza deck. We both get to play the cards we want and have fun going back and forth. If that's "lulz, got gud" so be it, I guess.
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 had a long thing written up for all of the people auguring on this topic but its pointless. OP you and your group need to figure this out for your self. There is no right answer to this problem because people will be butt hurt either way.
I can't see you having very many social relationships, I mean, you'll say otherwise, and that you have tons of friends, but I'm just not going to buy it.
I think you should embrace this fantasy and hold it dear, because it will help you get through the day.
Back to the point, if you want to push "evolve or die", then you are still wrong. This is the more likely scenario. The OP and his playgroup will grow tired of this guy always locking down boards in a casual environment, turning it into a cutthroat experience. Soon, they will stop inviting him to join. The group evolved, and that player "died".
This doesn't follow. Your story makes no sense at all. If they evolved, then the contamination would no longer be a problem and they would love to play with him.
In my experience, this is what does happen. The players evolve into better, stronger players. They welcome people into playing cards like contamination, because they now have the tools and expertise to deal with problems like that. They reminisce about the days where they were shut down by that card and take pride in how much they have grown since then. They are mature, experienced players that can play with anyone and have a good time. Furthermore, they now enjoy a better gaming experience at a deeper level.
Or they do what you suggest, which leads to scenarios more like this: They see a problem (contamination) and any of them could easily overcome this obstacle if they wanted to, but they choose to complain and build resentment instead. They threaten the player to make him stop playing the card because they're too lazy to deal with it. Then, another card does well and that card is added to the banlist. This bitter group of players is always on the lookout for new cards to add to the banlist, and they have learned that whining and resentment is the way to deal with problems. Now that they've learned that, they are completely unprepared when they play new people that aren't limited in cards and mentality like they are.
Sure, he could find another playgroup, but was it worth the cardboard to do so? For some people, like you sir, this may be fine for you. For normal human beings, however,
How disconcerting it is to learn I'm not a normal human being, lol.
But anyway, what you said here makes no sense either. Finding another playgroup is the opposite of what I'm suggesting. I'm saying he should help his current playgroup grow as players, but if they have your mentality, then they won't.
Sacrificing social interaction for the sake of a single card. I'm not expecting you to get my point, you've made it very clear, but I can assure you that your "philosophy" is shared by the minorty, even outside of a MTG setting.
You're the one promoting the sacrifice of social interaction. And if my philosophy of promoting personal growth is in the minority, it won't change my stance any.
Everything you said is nonsense. It's wrong. It's delusional. And it's unfortunate to know you will continue to believe that whining is better than learning.
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.
EDH is first and foremost a game, and games that are not cooperative are automatically competitive. Someone, at the end of the game, is going to win it. Saying it's a social format played casually is true, but everyone knows Casual really isn't ("Hey guys, I'mma bring my ChannelEmrakul deck to our next kitchen table game. That's fair, right?")
Poker is a game that is Social (Being played with a group of people) and Casual (Being played by people who are not pros). Try to tell any Poker player that he shouldn't try to win.
To bad the only similarity between poker and MTG is the cardboard. At no point during any poker game I have ever played was I denied a chance to play said game. Ever. In this instance, without an answer to contamination it prevents the others from playing. Is it so hard to grasp that freaking concept? It's like playing sand-lot baseball and the kid keeps hitting home runs over the fence. Congrats, man, you can hit a ball 500 feet. Your reward is no longer playing for the day. Keep doing it and you won't be invited back. I mean, really, what is there to gain by not removing one card? Bragging rights? How do you brag about that. "Remeber those times we used to play MTG and I'd lock out the table with contamination?" "Yeah man, those were the good old days, we always had so much fun."
Personally I think just asking him not to play the card is the best way to go about it. But I will also suggest my good friend mycrosynth lattice. I use it as global color fixing with the unique ability to let players use colors not in their deck color identity and ignoring contamination and bloodmoon
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.
There is no one card, Contamination included, that locks people out of the game. The other persons' deck construction and cards they happen to draw are just as much to blame. My two main decks are extremely mana hungry and color intensive, but both can deal with cards like Contamination and Armageddon; one even runs 'geddon. Both have won long, drawn out games against dedicated stax decks. Sure, sometimes it's because I can stick something like Bane of Progress or Sun Titan that directly counteracts some mana denial effect, but more often it's just having a good balance of land and nonland sources that so that no one effect shuts down everything. The two great things about this are 1) Every color configuration can do it 2) building your mana base this way makes your deck better in a vacuum, not just when MLD and Contamination effects are in play. Spending like $5 on Pucatrade to pick up all the cheap mana rocks is absolutely worth it I promise.
To bad the only similarity between poker and MTG is the cardboard. At no point during any poker game I have ever played was I denied a chance to play said game. Ever. In this instance, without an answer to contamination it prevents the others from playing. Is it so hard to grasp that freaking concept? It's like playing sand-lot baseball and the kid keeps hitting home runs over the fence. Congrats, man, you can hit a ball 500 feet. Your reward is no longer playing for the day. Keep doing it and you won't be invited back. I mean, really, what is there to gain by not removing one card? Bragging rights? How do you brag about that. "Remeber those times we used to play MTG and I'd lock out the table with contamination?" "Yeah man, those were the good old days, we always had so much fun."
You aren't being denied a chance to play magic. You get to take your turn, pass priority and do everything the rules say you can. If you're choosing not to run enchantment removal and some mana rocks, you're choosing not to play. No ones saying you need a moat and a force and... 2$ could probably buy several rocks AND several disenchant effects.
Mana rocks and enchantment removal is pretty standard in most any deck, takes up a few slots and is great for a variety of situations, not just contamination.
But hey, a lot of people seem to agree with you that "Play what I want you to play" is another valid option.
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.
To bad the only similarity between poker and MTG is the cardboard. At no point during any poker game I have ever played was I denied a chance to play said game. Ever. In this instance, without an answer to contamination it prevents the others from playing. Is it so hard to grasp that freaking concept? It's like playing sand-lot baseball and the kid keeps hitting home runs over the fence. Congrats, man, you can hit a ball 500 feet. Your reward is no longer playing for the day. Keep doing it and you won't be invited back. I mean, really, what is there to gain by not removing one card? Bragging rights? How do you brag about that. "Remeber those times we used to play MTG and I'd lock out the table with contamination?" "Yeah man, those were the good old days, we always had so much fun."
This is exactly why no one can "grasp that freaking concept". It's such a damn punishment to be prevented from playing the game, but it's something you're fully willing to unleash upon someone because they play a different way from you. It is perfectly OK for YOU to say "Play my way or else you can't play", but the moment someone else does it (With legal game pieces, as opposed to out-of-game bullying) suddenly that's a problem?
Both players (you and I, or rather, hypothetical you and I in the playgroup) in this situation are saying "play at a certain level, or not at all", but somehow I'm the one who is being unfair? You're the one willing to ostracize a player because they love a different style of deck, where as I'm the one saying "Yo, just put in a Reclamation Sage. You're green, you have ways of getting that singleton."
That in and of itself, more so than playing a card that other people hate, is antisocial. Please note that the person playing Contamination is showing up for events, talking to people, playing the game, and socializing, and people who use "Kick him out of the group" as a crutch are the ones being stubborn. Those people aren't even trying to answer or play with him, they are merely saying "We play this way" without even trying to accommodate. It's been said before "It's only one card, it won't change his deck too much", so why aren't YOU playing Extract, Sadistic Sacrament, Reclamation Sage, or any of the colorless answers? It would only be one card and you could literally hold it in your hand until he plays (or with Extract/Sacrament, merely target him every time) it and negate the problem instead of wishing it away without growing as a player.
This is why we have the big Competitive vs "Casual" debates on this forum. Oddly enough, the Competitive players are the ones more interested in format diversity and the fairness of playing cards people want to play (You will never see a competitive player saying "You can't play that because I don't like it", only "You shouldn't play that as it's not efficient"), the "Casuals" are the ones who would force the game to be one type of deck every game (usually involving Craw Wurms).
Man, this popcorn is too salty. I grabbed my popcorn and started munching, but there's way too much salt for me to enjoy it after the first three bites... You know what I mean?
Seriously, OP, ignore this thread. It's not going to give you the right way to convince your peer not to run Contamination. But hey, on the chance that they don't, I suppose that yeah, Mycosynth Lattice is a nice option to make use of.
I think pretty much all of the options available to you have already been discussed to death here. I still advocate discussing the situation with the group first and finding out what everyone thinks of the situation. If the group discusses it and agrees that contamination should be removed, then you remove it. If they decide to let it stay, then it stays. At least then you find out if the entire group shares your thoughts or if it's just you that finds the card trouble.
I will also weigh in briefly on the semi-off topic discussion of play on improving decks and playgroups. Most play groups I have played with will eventually find themselves a power level that they are comfortable with and tune their decks to that power level.
Jedi, I would guess judging by the thoughts you have presented in your posts that you are part of a different type of playgroup that I have also had the pleasure of encountering. That playgroup were filled with players that thrived on the constant competition and constant tuning and improvement of their decks. Most of the players were tournament players or enjoyed a move, counter move style of play. There is nothing wrong with this type of playgroup. I personally found them a little intense for my taste, but they did help me find a certain pleasure in intense competition.
The point of all of this is to discuss these things with your playgroup and allow yourself to hear all of the opinions of the group. Whether you like them or not.
No, just no. EDH is about fun for everyone first and foremost. 'Adapt or die' is the competitive mantra.
In tournament or highly competitive games that's the way to go for sure. Heck if everyone wants to play EDH that way, also cool. Doing it against people who want to play fun lower powered games should be allowed to do so without being called out.
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 would have replied to everybody, but now to many are drinking the Kool-Aid. Here is diplomacy. You tell the guy, your one card is wrecking our day, can you find something a bit more interactive? I could give you hundreds of other broken synergies that you can cram into any color deck, including black. The point of this one however, prevents the game from progressing their game at all. Lets look at the scenarios you need to destroy contamination. It unless you have a mana rock/dork, or instant speed removal, in hand no less, it sticks and then you have to top deck an answer or tutor, but judging by the complaint of the OP it doesn't seem to be an option. I never once said that rocks and removal shouldn't be in every deck, it's common sense in all honesty, but... If that one freaking card is ruining the fun of 2+ other players, you are only changing 1 single card. It's not an archetype. Heck, run Infernal Darkness. This has been my point all along, a turn later, upkeep cost is a bit harder to do than curving into BitterblossomContamination. It's a hoser, but it requires a much more reasonable drawback that synergizes better with the other players apparent play style. Everybody keeps arguing this guy shouldn't be forced to rework his deck, yet that's what you ultimately are saying the others, plural, have to do. All of these "smart" guys keep arguing themselves into a giant circle. I don't even think half of you read the OP at all.
I also think discussion is most important here. People simply have different viewpoints on what's 'fun' and it's naive to think there is only one way to play, especially in a social format. I'd try to come up with some way to compromise, or at least get everyone's thoughts expressed. After all, the more casual players won't be happy if they're not allowed to play their decks because of a hyper-competitive person locking them out. The same can be said about the competitive player too: they won't have any fun if they don't get to play at all.
If the playgroup is fairly regular, then it's pretty important to have some sort of mutual agreement set. This way, everyone knows what's expected and what's taboo.
There is a difference from your friend playing a mean deck that your table doesn't like, and your friend evolving into a player that builds stronger decks. It is best for everyone to become better players instead of rejecting a friends strong deck because of a few card interactions.
To be honest contamination isn't all that bad in a multi-player format. Once everyone is aware that an opponent runs that sort of thing, most typically include answers to the threat, and it becomes very easy to politic the game into the contamination player being the ArchEnemy.
Perhaps it is time for your table to also build a few "mean" decks to compete with his mono-black thing. Keep what decks you all have, and build yourself a mean one to play with on occasions. Explain that to your friend so he can also build a deck that is comparable to everyones current decks, so he doesnt always play the mono-black one.
If the group isn't interested in shelling out rather important sums of money of Commander (I just spent $250 finishing up my Meren deck) then it is ridiculous to claim that the problem is the group dragging down the player who has improved.
If the player who has improved does not fit in with his current meta then he or she has two choices: adapt to the meta or find a new one. The group decides what it wants, not the one player who is ruining everybody's fun.
"Hey mate, Contaminated Blossom sure is a powerful synergy installed into a well-tuned deck, kudos to you! Still, the rest of us like playing a little less, ah, let's say efficiently, so, any chance you could maybe sculpt something more in that vein?"
"Why thank you! Oh, of course! maybe we could even come up with something together, that'd be a great fun time! Just to be on the up and up though, I really enjoy playing, well, efficiently and sometimes it can be a bummer to not face, um, stiff competition? Maybe you guys could try some builds with a little more lean and mean? I'd even be happy to make suggestions or help find good, cheap solutions for you!"
"Sounds excellent! We'll be able to alternate decks and keep things fresh. Heck, we may all even find some new aspects of the game we enjoy we never knew were there!"
"How wonderful it is we've reached such a mature solution to our impasse! Brandies for all!"
This thread is already starting to devolve into one of those bickering threads.
@OP: Talk to your friend. If he is constantly tutoring for Contamination every game, ask that he not always make it his tutor target or ask that he switch up decks so the card doesnt constantly hit the table, ie give the group a break from it. If he doesnt tutor for it, and it hits the table once in a while, try seeing the situation from his side and consider modifying your decks to handle Contamination or other problematic cards that people might play. Concessions have to be willing to be made on both sides, not just his.
The Mimeoplasm || Karador, Ghost Chieftain
Prossh, Skyraider of Kher || Vial Smasher/Tymna Group Slug
Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief || Talrand, Sky Summoner
Yidris - Unblockable Saboteurs || Kiki-Jiki, ETB breaker
Kess, Dissident Mage
Not a hyperbole, you're missing the point. If the other players in OPs playgroup start using more powerful cards to try and beat Contamination-player before they can get the combo, then they will run into increasing costs, and end up spending a lot of money on more and more powerful cards.
-------------------------
The argument that all of the other players need to adapt to contamination player is ridiculous. One player shouldn't dictate how the entire playgroup plays.
The 'run more answers' argument is silly as well. Recently, I played a 3 player game, against Braids, Conjurer Adept and Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury using my newly built Meren of Clan Nel Toth deck. Both Braids and I were testing the decks out for the first time. Braids got a turn 2 Back to Basics. I had played 2 lands, one Vivid, one other non-basic that didn't do anything special. I was screwed. And not because I didn't run enough answers, I had about 8 ways to remove enchantments in that deck, and none of them came up. I had no Black until about turn 8 because I didn't find any basic swamps. I spent about 6 turns doing nothing just waiting for enough land to crack my Blighted Woodland
Emphasis mine. In your own words, that's exactly what it was. But tell yourself whatever you need to in order to sleep better or feel right.
To sleep better at night? Lol, get over yourself with that melodramatic nonsense. Yes, I lie awake at night in cold sweats, in agony over something that happened in 2010.
When you selectively put emphasis on something you conveniently IGNORE everything else. Like the fact it happened once in six years. One card. Hundreds of decks. GROUP CONCENSUS TO REMOVE THE CARD.
You know what I DO concern myself about? That the 5 people that I act as HOST to at MY house nearly every Wednesday for the last six years had a good time that night, and want to come back next week. Tell you what: YOU host a gathering. Watch 4-5 people sit miserably, unable to play the game to any reasonable degree. On successive weeks. Then tell me if you don't step in to remedy the situation? If the answer is remove one card from a pool of 10's of thousands vs everyone making changes to their decks to deal with it, which is most logical? Again, because you chose to focus on one part of my post, you're ignoring that we deal with strong cards every single week, things like Iona, Moat, Blood Moon, things that by their nature are restrictive. Nothing sucked the fun off the table like B2B, repeatedly. We're not afraid to adapt our decks. NO ONE WAS HAVING FUN.
Actually, one person was, I'd wager.
Doesn't change the fact that you took it upon yourself to edit his deck. No amount of details or excuses changes that. Grats to you and your awesome playgroup that only plays the best cards and has a million, bajillion dollars in every playthrough of all 600 decks.
But still can't handle a Back to basics?
:insert eyeroll emoji:
"It's MY house and YOU can't play that card!" Sounds like a great place to play.
I can't see you having very many social relationships, I mean, you'll say otherwise, and that you have tons of friends, but I'm just not going to buy it. Back to the point, if you want to push "evolve or die", then you are still wrong. This is the more likely scenario. The OP and his playgroup will grow tired of this guy always locking down boards in a casual environment, turning it into a cutthroat experience. Soon, they will stop inviting him to join. The group evolved, and that player "died". Sure, he could find another playgroup, but was it worth the cardboard to do so? For some people, like you sir, this may be fine for you. For normal human beings, however, it is not and is a sign of deeper issues. Sacrificing social interaction for the sake of a single card. I'm not expecting you to get my point, you've made it very clear, but I can assure you that your "philosophy" is shared by the minorty, even outside of a MTG setting.
EDH is first and foremost a game, and games that are not cooperative are automatically competitive. Someone, at the end of the game, is going to win it. Saying it's a social format played casually is true, but everyone knows Casual really isn't ("Hey guys, I'mma bring my Channel Emrakul deck to our next kitchen table game. That's fair, right?")
Poker is a game that is Social (Being played with a group of people) and Casual (Being played by people who are not pros). Try to tell any Poker player that he shouldn't try to win.
My friends asked me to stop playing Tooth and nail. My response wasn't "lulz, nah, get gud man." It was "okay." I took it out, and I haven't missed it much.
I guess it's just something about me. I don't like editing people's lists and telling them what they can and can't play.
I had a friend playing Karador with a consistent and annoying set of combos. I didn't say "Hey, can you not play pattern of rebirth?" I just built a sweet Anafenza deck. We both get to play the cards we want and have fun going back and forth. If that's "lulz, got gud" so be it, I guess.
This doesn't follow. Your story makes no sense at all. If they evolved, then the contamination would no longer be a problem and they would love to play with him.
In my experience, this is what does happen. The players evolve into better, stronger players. They welcome people into playing cards like contamination, because they now have the tools and expertise to deal with problems like that. They reminisce about the days where they were shut down by that card and take pride in how much they have grown since then. They are mature, experienced players that can play with anyone and have a good time. Furthermore, they now enjoy a better gaming experience at a deeper level.
Or they do what you suggest, which leads to scenarios more like this: They see a problem (contamination) and any of them could easily overcome this obstacle if they wanted to, but they choose to complain and build resentment instead. They threaten the player to make him stop playing the card because they're too lazy to deal with it. Then, another card does well and that card is added to the banlist. This bitter group of players is always on the lookout for new cards to add to the banlist, and they have learned that whining and resentment is the way to deal with problems. Now that they've learned that, they are completely unprepared when they play new people that aren't limited in cards and mentality like they are.
How disconcerting it is to learn I'm not a normal human being, lol.
But anyway, what you said here makes no sense either. Finding another playgroup is the opposite of what I'm suggesting. I'm saying he should help his current playgroup grow as players, but if they have your mentality, then they won't.
You're the one promoting the sacrifice of social interaction. And if my philosophy of promoting personal growth is in the minority, it won't change my stance any.
Everything you said is nonsense. It's wrong. It's delusional. And it's unfortunate to know you will continue to believe that whining is better than learning.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
To bad the only similarity between poker and MTG is the cardboard. At no point during any poker game I have ever played was I denied a chance to play said game. Ever. In this instance, without an answer to contamination it prevents the others from playing. Is it so hard to grasp that freaking concept? It's like playing sand-lot baseball and the kid keeps hitting home runs over the fence. Congrats, man, you can hit a ball 500 feet. Your reward is no longer playing for the day. Keep doing it and you won't be invited back. I mean, really, what is there to gain by not removing one card? Bragging rights? How do you brag about that. "Remeber those times we used to play MTG and I'd lock out the table with contamination?" "Yeah man, those were the good old days, we always had so much fun."
Modern: WURG Twin
Standard: Mardu Planeswalkers
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/standard-type-2/deck-creation-standard/661834-mardu-planeswalker?comment=1
Monthly Proxy Legacy
Charlotte/Greensboro area, NC
Pm me for details
There is no one card, Contamination included, that locks people out of the game. The other persons' deck construction and cards they happen to draw are just as much to blame. My two main decks are extremely mana hungry and color intensive, but both can deal with cards like Contamination and Armageddon; one even runs 'geddon. Both have won long, drawn out games against dedicated stax decks. Sure, sometimes it's because I can stick something like Bane of Progress or Sun Titan that directly counteracts some mana denial effect, but more often it's just having a good balance of land and nonland sources that so that no one effect shuts down everything. The two great things about this are 1) Every color configuration can do it 2) building your mana base this way makes your deck better in a vacuum, not just when MLD and Contamination effects are in play. Spending like $5 on Pucatrade to pick up all the cheap mana rocks is absolutely worth it I promise.
Pauper: Burn
Modern: Burn
Legacy: Burn
EDH: Marath, Will of the Wild - Ramp/Combo | Anafenza the Foremost - French | Uril, the Miststalker - Voltron | Freyalise, Llanowar's Fury - Goodstuff
Ghost Council of Orzhov - Tokens | Lazav, Dimir Mastermind - Control | Isamaru, Hound of Konda - Tiny Leaders
You aren't being denied a chance to play magic. You get to take your turn, pass priority and do everything the rules say you can. If you're choosing not to run enchantment removal and some mana rocks, you're choosing not to play. No ones saying you need a moat and a force and... 2$ could probably buy several rocks AND several disenchant effects.
Mana rocks and enchantment removal is pretty standard in most any deck, takes up a few slots and is great for a variety of situations, not just contamination.
But hey, a lot of people seem to agree with you that "Play what I want you to play" is another valid option.
This is exactly why no one can "grasp that freaking concept". It's such a damn punishment to be prevented from playing the game, but it's something you're fully willing to unleash upon someone because they play a different way from you. It is perfectly OK for YOU to say "Play my way or else you can't play", but the moment someone else does it (With legal game pieces, as opposed to out-of-game bullying) suddenly that's a problem?
Both players (you and I, or rather, hypothetical you and I in the playgroup) in this situation are saying "play at a certain level, or not at all", but somehow I'm the one who is being unfair? You're the one willing to ostracize a player because they love a different style of deck, where as I'm the one saying "Yo, just put in a Reclamation Sage. You're green, you have ways of getting that singleton."
That in and of itself, more so than playing a card that other people hate, is antisocial. Please note that the person playing Contamination is showing up for events, talking to people, playing the game, and socializing, and people who use "Kick him out of the group" as a crutch are the ones being stubborn. Those people aren't even trying to answer or play with him, they are merely saying "We play this way" without even trying to accommodate. It's been said before "It's only one card, it won't change his deck too much", so why aren't YOU playing Extract, Sadistic Sacrament, Reclamation Sage, or any of the colorless answers? It would only be one card and you could literally hold it in your hand until he plays (or with Extract/Sacrament, merely target him every time) it and negate the problem instead of wishing it away without growing as a player.
This is why we have the big Competitive vs "Casual" debates on this forum. Oddly enough, the Competitive players are the ones more interested in format diversity and the fairness of playing cards people want to play (You will never see a competitive player saying "You can't play that because I don't like it", only "You shouldn't play that as it's not efficient"), the "Casuals" are the ones who would force the game to be one type of deck every game (usually involving Craw Wurms).
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheReasonYouSuckSpeech
Seriously, OP, ignore this thread. It's not going to give you the right way to convince your peer not to run Contamination. But hey, on the chance that they don't, I suppose that yeah, Mycosynth Lattice is a nice option to make use of.
~Lil Kalki
Proud Disciple of the Church of the Wary
I will also weigh in briefly on the semi-off topic discussion of play on improving decks and playgroups. Most play groups I have played with will eventually find themselves a power level that they are comfortable with and tune their decks to that power level.
Jedi, I would guess judging by the thoughts you have presented in your posts that you are part of a different type of playgroup that I have also had the pleasure of encountering. That playgroup were filled with players that thrived on the constant competition and constant tuning and improvement of their decks. Most of the players were tournament players or enjoyed a move, counter move style of play. There is nothing wrong with this type of playgroup. I personally found them a little intense for my taste, but they did help me find a certain pleasure in intense competition.
The point of all of this is to discuss these things with your playgroup and allow yourself to hear all of the opinions of the group. Whether you like them or not.
Diplomacy before warfare
-Botched
In tournament or highly competitive games that's the way to go for sure. Heck if everyone wants to play EDH that way, also cool. Doing it against people who want to play fun lower powered games should be allowed to do so without being called out.
If the playgroup is fairly regular, then it's pretty important to have some sort of mutual agreement set. This way, everyone knows what's expected and what's taboo.
If the group isn't interested in shelling out rather important sums of money of Commander (I just spent $250 finishing up my Meren deck) then it is ridiculous to claim that the problem is the group dragging down the player who has improved.
If the player who has improved does not fit in with his current meta then he or she has two choices: adapt to the meta or find a new one. The group decides what it wants, not the one player who is ruining everybody's fun.
"Why thank you! Oh, of course! maybe we could even come up with something together, that'd be a great fun time! Just to be on the up and up though, I really enjoy playing, well, efficiently and sometimes it can be a bummer to not face, um, stiff competition? Maybe you guys could try some builds with a little more lean and mean? I'd even be happy to make suggestions or help find good, cheap solutions for you!"
"Sounds excellent! We'll be able to alternate decks and keep things fresh. Heck, we may all even find some new aspects of the game we enjoy we never knew were there!"
"How wonderful it is we've reached such a mature solution to our impasse! Brandies for all!"