Aggro can win in cEDH, but not on it's own merit unfortunately. It's typically "Let's forget about the Aggro deck while we make sure the other two don't combo out" and then suddenly you're swimming in thousands of goblins wondering how no one saw Krenko coming.
That's the thing about multiplayer competitive games. Say you've got Krenko, Damia, Derevi, and Narset. Early game Derevi and Damia are trying to stop Krenko and Narset, and if they do it's a race for their combo. But if either falter then it gives the aggro decks a chance to win. As long as all the decks are roughly equal any of them have a chance to be win. These types of games are where the adage "second best wins the game" hold true.
See, I don't agree with that though. Aggro and Ramp to Fatty should be just as capable of holding their own in competitive circles, not be "Second Best to win".
We usually play 3 player (Narset, Prossh, Ruric) and Ruric Thar elfball can be really dangerous, especially if left unchecked. In 4-player I think agro would be slightly weaker due to 120 total opp hp instead of 80, as 120 is becoming quiet hard for single craterhoof/overrun effect.
Another thing is that viability of aggro is high dependant of stax/combo count in aggro deck and wrath count in opps decks.
See, I think Aggro has gotten some really good tools in the past couple of sets in the form of Ash Zealot and Eidolon of the Great Revel, as both can slaughter a Combo deck if made un-removable. I think Gruul/Boros could actually become a driving force in Aggro if there were more Damage Hatebears over the Selesnia/Azorius Stax Hatebears.
Honestly I feel the actual problem is that not enough damage dealers like Zealot/Eidolon/Burning-Tree Shaman than it not being viable. If there was more redundancy in that department, it wouldn't matter as much if you were wrathed when you could draw another one; it would also help the 40 life total problem if everyone was killing themselves just trying to combo/counter everything.
This could mean that Ruric Thar, the Unbowed is waiting to be broken, or everyone is right in him being just simply too expensive to utilize fully.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
For example, people keep calling decks "storm" decks that actually just win through Lab Maniac/Doomsday, and don't have the "storm" keyword in any of the cards. Meanwhile, I'm stuck wondering how getting Tendrils/Mind's Desire to work is better than other options, because what archetype that makes me isn't clear, and it seems like I have to be playing storm to be a storm deck.
If I'm not mistaken, the Archetype "Storm" while named after the mechanic just refers to a combo deck that attempts to chain cheap and or free spells that produce mana and or card advantage to win. Legacy Doomsday is still considered a storm deck even when the pilot doesn't use Tendrils.
For example, people keep calling decks "storm" decks that actually just win through Lab Maniac/Doomsday, and don't have the "storm" keyword in any of the cards. Meanwhile, I'm stuck wondering how getting Tendrils/Mind's Desire to work is better than other options, because what archetype that makes me isn't clear, and it seems like I have to be playing storm to be a storm deck.
If I'm not mistaken, the Archetype "Storm" while named after the mechanic just refers to a combo deck that attempts to chain cheap and or free spells that produce mana and or card advantage to win. Legacy Doomsday is still considered a storm deck even when the pilot doesn't use Tendrils.
"Storm" has taken on a life of its own in a sense, kind of like how these days "Affinity" is used to refer to any aggro deck with Arcbound Ravager. For instance, I call combo Elves a "creature storm" deck. Turn 1 Goblin Charbelcher could be considered a "storm kill" since the deck operates (and can be disrupted) in much the same way.
Comming from duel commander, Im wondering what exactly people like about competetive multiplayer where aggro decks are basicaly non-existent and only realistic option if you want to win is combo or control? Anyone willing to comment on that?
Also, what exactly is the reason that hermit druid is no longer tier one? And, is the Nekusar deck realy that good? Relies on chaining wheels with 5 mana commander on board without any protection in the deck whatsoever
I wouldn't say aggro decks are basically non-existent imo... There are some hidden gem decks out there that see fringe play, honestly Titania, Protector of Argoth is one that I am shocked doesn't get mentioned more often, that I guess it is meta dependent more than not a realistic option. Combo/Control are more visible because they are more resilient than aggro - if aggro over extends and is dealt with, recovering is nye impossible some times.
Im not saying that aggro is not played but realisticaly, you dont have much chance defeating 3 other players, because you need to do 120 damage total with high chances someone wrathing.
Titania is more like a midrange/combo deck to me
Im not saying that aggro is not played but realisticaly, you dont have much chance defeating 3 other players, because you need to do 120 damage total with high chances someone wrathing.
Titania is more like a midrange/combo deck to me
Maybe it is just me, but doing 120 damage has not been a difficult thing to achieve since the printing of Craterhoof Behemoth, which is easily tutored out into play through a variety of means.
I think a lot of people dislike utilizing MLD, but especially with aggro I have found it a necessity to pack resource denial/hate because it keeps the game state from developing so that your threats maintain the same "status" (a loosely used word) and are not overmatched by other factors later in the game.
Im not sure but craterhoofing for 120 needs maybe 8-10 creatures on board and if you get THAT boardstate AND resolve craterhoof in multiplayer game then either:
Easy acheivable with Prossh, for example, even with good opponents=)
To me the biggest difference between casual and competitive players is the willingness to examine their deck/tactics and find ways to improve upon them. Casuals tend to be content to throw a deck together and just play. Competitive players tend to look for flaws and fix them. It takes energy to constantly look for weaknesses and make adjustments, and not everyone is that dedicated. Which is fine.
The only time there's a problem is when people start complaining. And since casuals are the ones who aren't winning as much, the complaints mostly come from them.
It reminds me of the time I practiced Jiu Jitsu. I was decent at it, but not great, and I didn't have the time or inclination to work out constantly or practice the same submissions on my buddies thousands of times in order to perfect them. Thus, I was casual at Jiu Jitsu. Naturally, I usually lost against competitive Jiu Jitsu practitioners. But I certainly never expected the good fighters to fight badly so I could beat them, which is what far too many casual edh players expect from competitive players.
Public Mod Note
(ISBPathfinder):
Warning for disregarding a moderator request. Please do not turn this thread into a competative vs casual thread.
Honestly, it has been a long time since I've seen a "Wrath" in EDH tables I'd consider competitive. Last time I played Casual in paper, I also can't remember seeing a board wipe. Take it back, I did see one Cataclysm and one attempted Cyclonic Rift. And Massacre Wurm if you count that. Point is, I think even casual play has drifted away from the plays that prevent you from losing and onto the plays that enable you to win. A Sorcery-speed, table wide Wrath at 4+ cmc is the textbook example of playing not to lose.
So if something is holding back "aggro" or creature-based strategies, it's not the possibility of getting Wrathed. It's probably because Aggro's natural enemy is Combo.
I don't think that cards like Eidolon of the Great Revel are that great, but that's the right idea. If you want to play a slower deck, and aggro is slower than combo by far in EDH, then you're going to have to play some disruption. There are so many good grave hate cards, hatebears, extract effects, that just don't be played because people can't cut cards like Avenger of Zendikar. Because if you do something like include some creature-based 3-card'er yourself, suddenly you're not aggro anymore and you've defeated the purpose of the exercise.
As discussed, the classic archetypes just aren't a good tool to analyze EDH.
Honestly, it has been a long time since I've seen a "Wrath" in EDH tables I'd consider competitive. Last time I played Casual in paper, I also can't remember seeing a board wipe. Take it back, I did see one Cataclysm and one attempted Cyclonic Rift. And Massacre Wurm if you count that. Point is, I think even casual play has drifted away from the plays that prevent you from losing and onto the plays that enable you to win. A Sorcery-speed, table wide Wrath at 4+ cmc is the textbook example of playing not to lose.
So if something is holding back "aggro" or creature-based strategies, it's not the possibility of getting Wrathed. It's probably because Aggro's natural enemy is Combo.
I don't think that cards like Eidolon of the Great Revel are that great, but that's the right idea. If you want to play a slower deck, and aggro is slower than combo by far in EDH, then you're going to have to play some disruption. There are so many good grave hate cards, hatebears, extract effects, that just don't be played because people can't cut cards like Avenger of Zendikar. Because if you do something like include some creature-based 3-card'er yourself, suddenly you're not aggro anymore and you've defeated the purpose of the exercise.
As discussed, the classic archetypes just aren't a good tool to analyze EDH.
Last ones I remember are Volcanic Fallout and Toxic Deluge. While it's debatable how competitive any individual wraths are, I wouldn't discount them as a whole.
As someone who loves playing Titania, Protector of Argoth, and has piloted her frequently in a competitive meta... she's not tier one material. Tuned aggro lists can absolutely pull off wins now and then against the very best, but not all the time, and not reliably, and usually while the decks with a combo finish are policing each other. I think there are a number of issues:
1. The obvious one: life totals. Instead of twenty life to plow through, you've got, at a four player pod, 120 life to go through. Format differences aside, burn would not exist in sixty card formats if they had to burn 40, let alone that number. I happen to see this as something slightly problematic with the format itself, but whether or not that's a format health issue, it's certainly an aggro-viability issue.
2. Combo finishes are simply easier. Instead of having divide your forces up, so to speak, you just get the right ones on your side. This is an oversimplification, but "who to kill first" is one of the toughest choices in multiplayer aggro, and one combo rarely needs to consider (there are exceptions e.g. who to Helm of Obedience).
3. Most powerful aggro decks are already borderline combo. Elfball or Avenger into Craterhoof is essentially a combo that uses the attack step, and is the easiest competitive one. Purphorous is non-infinite but rarely wins through the attack step. Maelstrom Wanderer and Animar are frequently too slow to win the "fair" fight and become partial combo decks, or least have the option to be.
What do I think would make this better on the competitive side?
1. Better Infect creatures; more powerful Infect enablers. Highly unpopular in more casual circles and possibly a little format-destabilizing for other formats if any of them have too low a cmc, better Infect cards make aggro much more manageable. Infect turns that 120 number into 30, a much more manageable number.
2. More Myriad. I don't feel any of the printed Myriad cards printed are competitive-viable, but I saw in that mechanic a route ahead for aggro. Making all opponents take the damage at once helps aggro scale.
3. Give Burn the ability to scale. Purphorous was the right idea here, but Burn needs much more "each opponent" and less "target player".
The funny thing is, a tuned aggro deck as is can slaughter a casual table, but doesn't really have a place at the top at the moment, leaving most of them in a bit of a middle ground.
I don't see the predominance of combo in competitive play as particularly harmful, though. In Modern, Delver, Infect, and Merfolk all mostly win through combat - are they really that much alike? Not really, and I'd say the same about Sidisi ANT, Azami, and Teferi Stax, even though all three typically have a combo finish.
I have just honestly never tried Mono-Green for aggro, because it seems really light on disruption. I can think of only maybe Halls of Gemstone, which can actually prevent a third opponent from stopping a combo, Scavenging Ooze, Ground Seal and then whatever crypts there are in artifact, Cage, Torpor Orb, etc. Not that every deck needs or can have stack control, but the anti-combo tools are really thin in Mono-G.
Imo though, a White or Blue based "aggro" deck can be fine at a competitive table, if what you mean by that term is that the primary win method is combat damage. I think it would have to be general-based though, because swarm and overrun methods just aren't compact enough to allow for as much disruption as you'd need. Now, it's quite possible that this hypothetical deck would be an underdog on the casual table, because it'd be weak to enough removal, fold to Maze of Ith, and the rest of the deck being tuned to stop combo would leave it without anything to do in a conventional game once stopped.
So I guess I somewhat disagree with the premise in the OP that it's impossible to build a deck to keep up with competitive decks without blowing out casuals. I do agree with the idea that the 75% route leaves you too poorly off in the competitive scene due to leaving too much out. But, if you're a control deck or some other threat-light deck and you're full of disruption that is dead against casuals, and your win condition is vulnerable to the kind of removal casuals run but competitives don't, then you're in this odd spot where you're better off at a table the harder opponents are trying to combo off. Which is sort of how I've felt about Stax decks for a while. Good against decks that are very highly synergized and answer-light (read competitive), but pretty bad against decks with a high amount of redundancy, removal, and threat density (read well-tuned casual).
Which is sort of how I've felt about Stax decks for a while. Good against decks that are very highly synergized and answer-light (read competitive), but pretty bad against decks with a high amount of redundancy, removal, and threat density (read well-tuned casual).
Wouldn't that make this hypothetical Stax deck bad against other stax/control and therefore not able to "keep up?" The "Stax" decks in the OP actually seem, to me, to be generic blue control decks with an 8-10 card "Stax package". I'm pretty sure the floor for a deck full of card draw and counterspells can't be that low, even at a casual table full of midrange decks.
I just thought about it that this is probably as good a thread as any to ask seeing as its a thread about competitively tuned multiplayer commander decks. I usually use mtgtop8's duel commander tops as a jumping off point while building decks, and for the most part it works alright, remembering to use the power cards on their list that aren't on the committee's list. For a while now I've been mentally including the unbanned Mox in most of my decks (well, I've only had 3-4 and two are heavily Artifact based and stax-y which means I'm also including Mox Opal and the need for the speed they give).
I noticed most lists for the decks in question (Teferi, Daretti) don't play them but for a long time I just kind of assumed maybe they were on the Duel Commander banlist. I embarassingly only recently found out they weren't, which begs the question from me now-- why don't decks play these cards in 1v1, but I always see them in normal Commander deck lists? Is it something about the nature of 1v1 versus multiplayer? Or is it a split jury, where some people think these cards are worth it and some who don't, and I just coincidentally have been seeing the divide in the form of 1v1 versus multiplayer when it's not really about that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
They didn't care that he was the savior of Fort Keff, the great hunter of Ondu, the champion of Kabira. To them, he was just another piece of flesh, a thing with life to be drained away.
I think in 1v1, card parity is a lot more important. And honestly, the combo strategy which is usually seen giving up a ton of card advantage for speed is a whole ton worse. In the abstract, Combo should be the worst archetype in singleton because it relies on synergy. It should be even worse for not making use of its Commander, most of the time. So it's not that hard for, say, a V-clique deck or a Wydwen deck to counter whatever the fast combo deck tries to do. The control deck has dozens and dozens of options to counter stuff, and the combo deck has to dig for what it does. So, much better to just play off the top, and its hard to recover the card from Chrome Mox/Mox Diamond.
In multi though, you just want to be able to combo as soon as you can dig for it, because when two other players are going at it, or when it's before everyone can really get started, you really don't want to miss your window because you didn't have enough mana to take advantage of an opportunity.
I really enjoyed the read, Razzilox, and the route you took with this argument. People can argue until they are blue in the face about what type of EDH is better, more authentic, more fun, more respectful of others, whatever. But can anyone say that playing EDH competitively is the same experience as playing any other format competitively? No, I don't think that they can, for the reasons that you laid out. That's all that's needed for this approach to EDH to stand on its own legs.
Thanks man. I always get taken aback when I talk about how I play EDH and a casual player tells me that I'm not having fun the right way.
Aggro decks in EDH have to take the form of stompy decks to be close to competitive - small threats are simply bad in this format. Aggro decks can take advantage of a meta where decks use their life total as a resource, and can win games that are drawn out by using damage over time. Aggro decks can also utilize hatebear strategies pretty effectively as they synergize with the combat plan. There are also some non-aggro decks that rely on combat as a wincon. Angelforge's Alesha Stax uses Elesh Norn as one of its primary win-cons. Reanimator decks can use damage as a plan B if they can't combo, or can try to lock down the board by reanimating prison cards like Void Winnower and Iona and then turning them sideways for a few turns. Unfortunately Craterhoof Behemoth decks are just not top of the line, though that card is certainly a great way to finish the table for such a deck. I know some Yisan builds utilize Craterhoof as a win-con if Yisan goes past his combo-count (where he can fetch combo pieces, in slots 1-4). Infect is pretty bad though. I think Jusstice attacks the issue at its heart:
I do think that the archetype discussion is a really hard one to have. The thing is, and you seem to acknowledge this, every deck will be trying to win thorough some kind of combo, or a gamestate where 3 players at 40 life each can be killed. If a deck does win incrementally, through something like combat damage, it's going to be by default in the middle of some sort of standoff where people have been stopped from combo'ing. Given that, there's an inclination for everyone (especially those who've sworn off combo's) to label anything like that as "combo". The real nuances of how quick, resilient, or compact a combo is, and what the rest of the deck does as a consequence of those factors, that's going to be lost on the non-competitive player base. So for example, people who define "tempo" as something like Llorwyn Faeries are going to be confused.
One simplification I've thought on now and then is this:
Control: wants win conditions that are compact
Combo: wants win conditions that are abrupt
Aggro: wants win conditions that are redundant
Tempo: wants win conditions that are resilient
A combo can be any of those things, or none of them. For example, I think of a "speedy" combo deck as being the very most abrupt, but not redundant at all. And again, some people see any combo as abrupt, insultingly so for some.
Side note, I think a lot of people don't understand how aggro wins in 60-card, much less EDH. It's a common misunderstanding that aggro decks have to win on speed, or combat damage. Take the Red deck in Standard with a bunch of 5-damage spells. How it wins is that there's just a bunch of stuff, you can't stop all of it, and any single piece of it can actually be the thing that does you in. That's what enables aggro against control, the control deck's answers don't have anything inefficient to be pinpointed against. Everything just ends up trading 1 for 1, slowly, instead control's precision dismantling other strategies with higher synergy (such as combo).
So if you think about it, lots of EDH decks incorporate redundancy into their game plan, whether with their combo's or with their alternate routes to victory. A Sharuum deck, for example, can go off a number of ways through a varity of combo pieces, and it's exactly the sort of deck you see beating in with combat damage against one player during those stalled games. Because it's just designed to win because other people failed to, and it's not itself slowed down by any one piece of disruption.
So I guess what I'm saying, I wish there were a little more clarity in archetype distinctions, myself. For example, people keep calling decks "storm" decks that actually just win through Lab Maniac/Doomsday, and don't have the "storm" keyword in any of the cards. Meanwhile, I'm stuck wondering how getting Tendrils/Mind's Desire to work is better than other options, because what archetype that makes me isn't clear, and it seems like I have to be playing storm to be a storm deck.
I did like your explanation of archetype balance, though, since it explains to me a little bit of why I see certain decks (what you call "midrange") dominate in environments that don't allow spellslinger/fast combo. People have just allowed those decks to sort of run rampant, because playing over the top of them in a way that they're weak to is just not permitted, and it's considered unwholesome even to try to win that fast. But combo'ing off through Living Death after some stalling is just fine to some people.
I like your analysis of aggro in 60-card, and find it's roughly analogous to midrange in this format. Sharuum is definitely a midrange deck, and they present a win multiple times in a game - there's just too much "stuff" to stop it all.
Honestly, it has been a long time since I've seen a "Wrath" in EDH tables I'd consider competitive. Last time I played Casual in paper, I also can't remember seeing a board wipe. Take it back, I did see one Cataclysm and one attempted Cyclonic Rift. And Massacre Wurm if you count that. Point is, I think even casual play has drifted away from the plays that prevent you from losing and onto the plays that enable you to win. A Sorcery-speed, table wide Wrath at 4+ cmc is the textbook example of playing not to lose. I predict many more people will be playing Moxen after the mulligan change.
So if something is holding back "aggro" or creature-based strategies, it's not the possibility of getting Wrathed. It's probably because Aggro's natural enemy is Combo.
I don't think that cards like Eidolon of the Great Revel are that great, but that's the right idea. If you want to play a slower deck, and aggro is slower than combo by far in EDH, then you're going to have to play some disruption. There are so many good grave hate cards, hatebears, extract effects, that just don't be played because people can't cut cards like Avenger of Zendikar. Because if you do something like include some creature-based 3-card'er yourself, suddenly you're not aggro anymore and you've defeated the purpose of the exercise.
I just thought about it that this is probably as good a thread as any to ask seeing as its a thread about competitively tuned multiplayer commander decks. I usually use mtgtop8's duel commander tops as a jumping off point while building decks, and for the most part it works alright, remembering to use the power cards on their list that aren't on the committee's list. For a while now I've been mentally including the unbanned Mox in most of my decks (well, I've only had 3-4 and two are heavily Artifact based and stax-y which means I'm also including Mox Opal and the need for the speed they give).
I noticed most lists for the decks in question (Teferi, Daretti) don't play them but for a long time I just kind of assumed maybe they were on the Duel Commander banlist. I embarrassingly only recently found out they weren't, which begs the question from me now-- why don't decks play these cards in 1v1, but I always see them in normal Commander deck lists? Is it something about the nature of 1v1 versus multiplayer? Or is it a split jury, where some people think these cards are worth it and some who don't, and I just coincidentally have been seeing the divide in the form of 1v1 versus multiplayer when it's not really about that?
French is a value-based format. In French, incremental advantage over time is key, and negative card advantage is definitely not worth it. Furthermore, French decks can't go off as quickly as Commander decks (since they lack powerful quick combo strategies involving dumb combos like Food Chain or Druid), so fastmana isn't as good there.
If the best sweepers run are ones like Volcanic Fallout and Pyroclasm, wouldn't that mean Jacques la Vert is probably the best Aggro commander? Assuming we are talking about traditional aggro?
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 really think looking at the archetypes of EDH as analogous to the archetypes of traditional Magic is not productive. I use the same names as them in the thread simply because they have shared attributes, but they don't really fall into the same definition.
If the best sweepers run are ones like Volcanic Fallout and Pyroclasm, wouldn't that mean Jacques la Vert is probably the best Aggro commander? Assuming we are talking about traditional aggro?
No. The best aggro commander is likely Mayael or Krenko.
Not sure what is meant by aggro at all then. Seems like to qualify as aggro, you need to have built a deck where your one and only route to victory is the combat step. If you're purph, now you're tempo because you don't need to attack. If you have one combo in your deck, now you're "midrange combo".
Much better to look at an archetype that works by keeping pressure up. If Aggro == turning dumb creatures sideways, then essentially no deck in Magic ever was aggro.
It's not a good idea to be defined by labels. It's not a good idea in real life. It's not a good idea in Magic. The discussion here is a fantastic read, and the worst thing that can happen to it is for it to devolve into defining deck archetypes rather than defining effective strategies towards making your opponents quit commander entirely, in frustration -- table flipping optional but welcome. It doesn't matter if, for example, Jusstice destroys me with a midrange deck or a control deck, but only that I fully understand how I lost. I lose a lot. I lose at least half the time. I lose to Azami decks particularly, but I also lose to Zur. I used to lose all the time to Kaalia, but I got better as a player. I learned my deck. Learning how to be a better winner is of enormous interest to me. On a semi-related note, if anyone has suggestions for playing mono-black to win against mono-blue, I'm all ears. How does one play to win against Azami's insurmountable card advantage and counterspell suite? Often, I feel like I'm not even there. Quitting isn't an option. Mono-black legal strategies are.
I will say too, Revoker is a really solid card in this format. Of all the things that eat Sol Ring/Mana Crypt, it's probably the most versatile. In Mono-B, there aren't many ways to be able to get ahead of MoM, since it's an enchantment. You'll have to either kill the creature with excellent timing, or stop activated abilities with Needle/Revoker. Also Cursed Totem, but it seems like Xiahou Dun might not want to be playing that card.
Another route, Underworld Dreams and Fate Unraveler typically stop that kind of combo from going off. They are less versatile and less efficient than needle/revoker though.
I will say too, Revoker is a really solid card in this format. Of all the things that eat Sol Ring/Mana Crypt, it's probably the most versatile. In Mono-B, there aren't many ways to be able to get ahead of MoM, since it's an enchantment. You'll have to either kill the creature with excellent timing, or stop activated abilities with Needle/Revoker. Also Cursed Totem, but it seems like Xiahou Dun might not want to be playing that card.
Another route, Underworld Dreams and Fate Unraveler typically stop that kind of combo from going off. They are less versatile and less efficient than needle/revoker though.
Not sure what is meant by aggro at all then. Seems like to qualify as aggro, you need to have built a deck where your one and only route to victory is the combat step. If you're purph, now you're tempo because you don't need to attack. If you have one combo in your deck, now you're "midrange combo".
Much better to look at an archetype that works by keeping pressure up. If Aggro == turning dumb creatures sideways, then essentially no deck in Magic ever was aggro.
Aggro is roughly defined as any proactive deck who's primary win-condition is direct damage dealt either from combat or burn-type abilities. This includes the weenie decks we traditionally think of as aggro (Krenko, Ezuri) as well as fatty decks that take control of the board via land-destruction and beat down with creatures while others struggle on mana (Maelstrom Wanderer, Kaalia). I include "proactive" in the definition to keep out control/stax decks that happen to use something like Sun Titan or Elesh Norn as their win-conditions.
It's not a good idea to be defined by labels. It's not a good idea in real life. It's not a good idea in Magic. The discussion here is a fantastic read, and the worst thing that can happen to it is for it to devolve into defining deck archetypes rather than defining effective strategies towards making your opponents quit commander entirely, in frustration -- table flipping optional but welcome. It doesn't matter if, for example, Jusstice destroys me with a midrange deck or a control deck, but only that I fully understand how I lost.
I don't agree. Labels are a useful categorical tool that allows me to make statements about many decks at once without listing out those decks every time. I can say "If you're losing to [fast combo] decks, try [tax effects]" instead of "If you're losing to [Zur, Jeleva, Prossh, Hermit Druid, or Sidisi] try [Thalia, Vryn Wingmare, Trinisphere...]" Note that neither set is close to complete. While labels may not always fit perfectly, they are still a useful way of looking at the game.
Play sweepers to kill Azami. I'm particularly found of Decree of Pain since it's much harder to counter the cycling.
No. The best aggro commander is likely Mayael or Krenko.
Surely you're kidding.. How can Mayael even come close to Marath? I'd much quicker say that the best aggro deck is some 5c list of best land disruption, hatebears and really high quality creatures with Horde of Notions at the helm.
See, I don't agree with that though. Aggro and Ramp to Fatty should be just as capable of holding their own in competitive circles, not be "Second Best to win".
See, I think Aggro has gotten some really good tools in the past couple of sets in the form of Ash Zealot and Eidolon of the Great Revel, as both can slaughter a Combo deck if made un-removable. I think Gruul/Boros could actually become a driving force in Aggro if there were more Damage Hatebears over the Selesnia/Azorius Stax Hatebears.
Honestly I feel the actual problem is that not enough damage dealers like Zealot/Eidolon/Burning-Tree Shaman than it not being viable. If there was more redundancy in that department, it wouldn't matter as much if you were wrathed when you could draw another one; it would also help the 40 life total problem if everyone was killing themselves just trying to combo/counter everything.
This could mean that Ruric Thar, the Unbowed is waiting to be broken, or everyone is right in him being just simply too expensive to utilize fully.
If I'm not mistaken, the Archetype "Storm" while named after the mechanic just refers to a combo deck that attempts to chain cheap and or free spells that produce mana and or card advantage to win. Legacy Doomsday is still considered a storm deck even when the pilot doesn't use Tendrils.
Nath of the Gilt-Leaf Stax
Legacy:
Miracles 24/7
"Storm" has taken on a life of its own in a sense, kind of like how these days "Affinity" is used to refer to any aggro deck with Arcbound Ravager. For instance, I call combo Elves a "creature storm" deck. Turn 1 Goblin Charbelcher could be considered a "storm kill" since the deck operates (and can be disrupted) in much the same way.
Avatar by Numotflame96 of Maelstrom Graphics
Sig banner thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
I think a lot of people dislike utilizing MLD, but especially with aggro I have found it a necessity to pack resource denial/hate because it keeps the game state from developing so that your threats maintain the same "status" (a loosely used word) and are not overmatched by other factors later in the game.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
Easy acheivable with Prossh, for example, even with good opponents=)
The only time there's a problem is when people start complaining. And since casuals are the ones who aren't winning as much, the complaints mostly come from them.
It reminds me of the time I practiced Jiu Jitsu. I was decent at it, but not great, and I didn't have the time or inclination to work out constantly or practice the same submissions on my buddies thousands of times in order to perfect them. Thus, I was casual at Jiu Jitsu. Naturally, I usually lost against competitive Jiu Jitsu practitioners. But I certainly never expected the good fighters to fight badly so I could beat them, which is what far too many casual edh players expect from competitive players.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
So if something is holding back "aggro" or creature-based strategies, it's not the possibility of getting Wrathed. It's probably because Aggro's natural enemy is Combo.
I don't think that cards like Eidolon of the Great Revel are that great, but that's the right idea. If you want to play a slower deck, and aggro is slower than combo by far in EDH, then you're going to have to play some disruption. There are so many good grave hate cards, hatebears, extract effects, that just don't be played because people can't cut cards like Avenger of Zendikar. Because if you do something like include some creature-based 3-card'er yourself, suddenly you're not aggro anymore and you've defeated the purpose of the exercise.
As discussed, the classic archetypes just aren't a good tool to analyze EDH.
Last ones I remember are Volcanic Fallout and Toxic Deluge. While it's debatable how competitive any individual wraths are, I wouldn't discount them as a whole.
As someone who loves playing Titania, Protector of Argoth, and has piloted her frequently in a competitive meta... she's not tier one material. Tuned aggro lists can absolutely pull off wins now and then against the very best, but not all the time, and not reliably, and usually while the decks with a combo finish are policing each other. I think there are a number of issues:
1. The obvious one: life totals. Instead of twenty life to plow through, you've got, at a four player pod, 120 life to go through. Format differences aside, burn would not exist in sixty card formats if they had to burn 40, let alone that number. I happen to see this as something slightly problematic with the format itself, but whether or not that's a format health issue, it's certainly an aggro-viability issue.
2. Combo finishes are simply easier. Instead of having divide your forces up, so to speak, you just get the right ones on your side. This is an oversimplification, but "who to kill first" is one of the toughest choices in multiplayer aggro, and one combo rarely needs to consider (there are exceptions e.g. who to Helm of Obedience).
3. Most powerful aggro decks are already borderline combo. Elfball or Avenger into Craterhoof is essentially a combo that uses the attack step, and is the easiest competitive one. Purphorous is non-infinite but rarely wins through the attack step. Maelstrom Wanderer and Animar are frequently too slow to win the "fair" fight and become partial combo decks, or least have the option to be.
What do I think would make this better on the competitive side?
1. Better Infect creatures; more powerful Infect enablers. Highly unpopular in more casual circles and possibly a little format-destabilizing for other formats if any of them have too low a cmc, better Infect cards make aggro much more manageable. Infect turns that 120 number into 30, a much more manageable number.
2. More Myriad. I don't feel any of the printed Myriad cards printed are competitive-viable, but I saw in that mechanic a route ahead for aggro. Making all opponents take the damage at once helps aggro scale.
3. Give Burn the ability to scale. Purphorous was the right idea here, but Burn needs much more "each opponent" and less "target player".
The funny thing is, a tuned aggro deck as is can slaughter a casual table, but doesn't really have a place at the top at the moment, leaving most of them in a bit of a middle ground.
I don't see the predominance of combo in competitive play as particularly harmful, though. In Modern, Delver, Infect, and Merfolk all mostly win through combat - are they really that much alike? Not really, and I'd say the same about Sidisi ANT, Azami, and Teferi Stax, even though all three typically have a combo finish.
UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU's prison: blue is the new orange is the new black.
Mizzix Of The Izmagnus : wheels on fire... rolling down the road...
BSidisi, Undead VizierB: Bis zum Erbrechen
GTitiania, Protector Of ArgothG: Protecting Argoth, by blowing it up!
GYisan, The Wanderer BardG: Gradus Ad Elfball.
Duel EDH: Yisan & Titania.
In Progress: Grand Arbiter Augustin IV duel; Grenzo, Dungeon Warden Doomsday.
Imo though, a White or Blue based "aggro" deck can be fine at a competitive table, if what you mean by that term is that the primary win method is combat damage. I think it would have to be general-based though, because swarm and overrun methods just aren't compact enough to allow for as much disruption as you'd need. Now, it's quite possible that this hypothetical deck would be an underdog on the casual table, because it'd be weak to enough removal, fold to Maze of Ith, and the rest of the deck being tuned to stop combo would leave it without anything to do in a conventional game once stopped.
So I guess I somewhat disagree with the premise in the OP that it's impossible to build a deck to keep up with competitive decks without blowing out casuals. I do agree with the idea that the 75% route leaves you too poorly off in the competitive scene due to leaving too much out. But, if you're a control deck or some other threat-light deck and you're full of disruption that is dead against casuals, and your win condition is vulnerable to the kind of removal casuals run but competitives don't, then you're in this odd spot where you're better off at a table the harder opponents are trying to combo off. Which is sort of how I've felt about Stax decks for a while. Good against decks that are very highly synergized and answer-light (read competitive), but pretty bad against decks with a high amount of redundancy, removal, and threat density (read well-tuned casual).
Wouldn't that make this hypothetical Stax deck bad against other stax/control and therefore not able to "keep up?" The "Stax" decks in the OP actually seem, to me, to be generic blue control decks with an 8-10 card "Stax package". I'm pretty sure the floor for a deck full of card draw and counterspells can't be that low, even at a casual table full of midrange decks.
Avatar by Numotflame96 of Maelstrom Graphics
Sig banner thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Plane Studios!
I noticed most lists for the decks in question (Teferi, Daretti) don't play them but for a long time I just kind of assumed maybe they were on the Duel Commander banlist. I embarassingly only recently found out they weren't, which begs the question from me now-- why don't decks play these cards in 1v1, but I always see them in normal Commander deck lists? Is it something about the nature of 1v1 versus multiplayer? Or is it a split jury, where some people think these cards are worth it and some who don't, and I just coincidentally have been seeing the divide in the form of 1v1 versus multiplayer when it's not really about that?
But the people behind the barrier knew.
In multi though, you just want to be able to combo as soon as you can dig for it, because when two other players are going at it, or when it's before everyone can really get started, you really don't want to miss your window because you didn't have enough mana to take advantage of an opportunity.
Thanks man. I always get taken aback when I talk about how I play EDH and a casual player tells me that I'm not having fun the right way.
Aggro decks in EDH have to take the form of stompy decks to be close to competitive - small threats are simply bad in this format. Aggro decks can take advantage of a meta where decks use their life total as a resource, and can win games that are drawn out by using damage over time. Aggro decks can also utilize hatebear strategies pretty effectively as they synergize with the combat plan. There are also some non-aggro decks that rely on combat as a wincon. Angelforge's Alesha Stax uses Elesh Norn as one of its primary win-cons. Reanimator decks can use damage as a plan B if they can't combo, or can try to lock down the board by reanimating prison cards like Void Winnower and Iona and then turning them sideways for a few turns. Unfortunately Craterhoof Behemoth decks are just not top of the line, though that card is certainly a great way to finish the table for such a deck. I know some Yisan builds utilize Craterhoof as a win-con if Yisan goes past his combo-count (where he can fetch combo pieces, in slots 1-4). Infect is pretty bad though. I think Jusstice attacks the issue at its heart:
I like your analysis of aggro in 60-card, and find it's roughly analogous to midrange in this format. Sharuum is definitely a midrange deck, and they present a win multiple times in a game - there's just too much "stuff" to stop it all.
French is a value-based format. In French, incremental advantage over time is key, and negative card advantage is definitely not worth it. Furthermore, French decks can't go off as quickly as Commander decks (since they lack powerful quick combo strategies involving dumb combos like Food Chain or Druid), so fastmana isn't as good there.
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog
No. The best aggro commander is likely Mayael or Krenko.
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog
Much better to look at an archetype that works by keeping pressure up. If Aggro == turning dumb creatures sideways, then essentially no deck in Magic ever was aggro.
Another route, Underworld Dreams and Fate Unraveler typically stop that kind of combo from going off. They are less versatile and less efficient than needle/revoker though.
Surgical Extraction will do it.
In my experiences, there's at least one card in every deck that needs gitten gone. A little bit of protection (Boseiju) will go a long way.
Edit: Not Surgical Extraction, Sadistic Sacrament. My bad
Aggro is roughly defined as any proactive deck who's primary win-condition is direct damage dealt either from combat or burn-type abilities. This includes the weenie decks we traditionally think of as aggro (Krenko, Ezuri) as well as fatty decks that take control of the board via land-destruction and beat down with creatures while others struggle on mana (Maelstrom Wanderer, Kaalia). I include "proactive" in the definition to keep out control/stax decks that happen to use something like Sun Titan or Elesh Norn as their win-conditions.
I don't agree. Labels are a useful categorical tool that allows me to make statements about many decks at once without listing out those decks every time. I can say "If you're losing to [fast combo] decks, try [tax effects]" instead of "If you're losing to [Zur, Jeleva, Prossh, Hermit Druid, or Sidisi] try [Thalia, Vryn Wingmare, Trinisphere...]" Note that neither set is close to complete. While labels may not always fit perfectly, they are still a useful way of looking at the game.
Play sweepers to kill Azami. I'm particularly found of Decree of Pain since it's much harder to counter the cycling.
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog
What's your opinion on Grenzo, Dungeon Warden as an aggro commander? It can play almost the exact same list as Krenko but with the black tutors.
WUBRGReaper King - Superfriends
WUBRGChild of Alara - The Nauseating Aurora
WUBSharuum the Hegemon - Christmas In Prison
WUBZur the Enchanter - Ow My Face
WRJor Kadeen, the Prevailer - Snow Goats
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden - International Goblin All Purpose Recycling Facility Number 12
WGSaffi Eriksdotter - Saffi Combosdotter
UPatron of the Moon - The Age of Aquarius
BHorobi, Death's Wail - Bring Out Your Dead
GSachi, Daughter of Seshiro - Sneks