Azami can fit in Tempo, as a description. A tempo deck seeks to efficiently gain resources and options, while efficiently denying resources and options as the game continues. Azami herself is very powerful at efficiently gaining resources, so she can be a good tempo card.
Azami can be considered a control deck, in that a lot of the 'denial' of resources may come from counterspells and bounce, which is generally bad at efficiency. An Azami deck that focuses primarily on such removal, and doesn't build a board state, would be control.
An Azami deck that focuses on building board presence (with more and more wizards) in order to gain further resources, and build an overwhelming board state (via Wizard synergy) could be a Tempo deck.
Since a lot of cards that generate good resource advantage (Mind over matter, to turn those cards into mana), in fact end up comboing with Azami, some tempo decks may have both control and combo elements. While a Control Combo deck is different than a Tempo deck (primarily in the acquisition of resources), they can be closely related, especially in blue, where a number of cards will be common to both sets.
A quick vague idea is: Aggro - seeks to capitalize on initiative Midrange - seeks to capitalize on value (will typically run out after Aggro, but still seeks to end the game in a set time, and will run out if pushed passed it) Tempo - seeks to capitalize on resource differential Control - seeks to capitalize on denial, pacing and control Combo - seeks to capitalize on a moment of weakness
Most of the archetypes typically fit based on their pacing in the game, with the exception of combo. Combo can apply to fast combo decks, that seek to exploit a weakness in hitting before an opponent manages to set up sufficient defenses (dedicated combo), or it could be a combo deck that seeks to control the board and apply the combo in such a time as the opponents options are more limited compared to their own (control combo)(midrange decks may also have combos within them, in order to take advantage of that moment in time they are at the top of their bellcurve in power, when an opposing deck cannot answer the combo and the value board presence simultaneously), or it could even be a combo deck that seeks to exploit a moment of weakness at any point of the game, such as by causing an opponent to tap out, and using that window to activate the combo.
I generally agree with all of this.
Given the nature of EDH, random one-ofs that just end the game on the spot have a disproportionately powerful effect to the proportion of card slots they take up (and thus the proportion of cards that don't contribute to one's main strategy). An Azami deck that has Mind Over Matter/LabMan is not inherently worse as a control deck, or at least not to such a significant degree that the inclusion of the combo suddenly makes it "tempo" instead of "control." Rather, it gains a different line of play that can be aggressively pursued (or not) depending on how well it does in the particular matchup(s). I would expect CEDH decks in every archetype (except perhaps dedicated combo) to build a few ways of "combo killing" or "going infinite" into its overall strategy, as those are the most efficient way of winning against 2+ players, especially from a disadvantage in board/life/cards.
I disagree that tempo is something that every deck should strive for. You can build a control/stax deck that can safely ignore early tempo/pacing if you 1) have powerful haymakers that can produce massive tempo swings in your favor by themselves, and/or 2) have cards that slow down the tempo of all players, such that everyone is failing to advance their win-condition turn after turn but the control/stax player believes they have the greatest chance to eventually break out of that state. (For a non-EDH example, Miracles in Legacy is one - it's still one of the top decks, but it's so slow that sometimes Storm purposely delays "going off" because it has time to sculpt a hand of better cards without interference from the Miracles player.)
Also: Aggro (including Voltron) does/n't exist in CEDH. Opinions?
Also: Aggro (including Voltron) does/n't exist in CEDH. Opinions?
It doesn't? Maybe the existence of aggro depends on the number of players in a game of CEDH. It is more difficult to aggro out multiple players.
This gets me thinking. What does everyone here think about the number of players in a CEDH game? For example, I think games should probably be limited to 3-4 players in order to limit luck and the advantage of going first. Fewer people also seems more friendly to aggro. Granted I haven't had as much experience playing CEDH games at a high level. If you have experience playing lots of CEDH games could you share your opinion on this?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
By your definition 95% of the people playing Commander are "Playing to Win"
Every single time I and most if not all the people I play with sit down to play ANY game regardless of what it is, by the nature of it having RULES and a PROGRESSION means that we are all whether we choose to or not "Playing To Win"
"Playing to Win" is the default state of games like these with hard coded rules and a Win State and Loss State, you have to actively try to not Play to Win not the other way around.
@Taleran: Technically everyone is "Playing to win" as that is the end goal of the game. It's just degrees of how one wants to/what people will do to achieve victory.
People who don't play to win tend to end up trolling the game through some means under the guise of "I play for fun" (regardless of their true intent).
Taleran, I just assume that "Playing in Such a Way as to Optimize My Deck Choices, My Level of Play, and Knowledge of the Game in Order to Win in the Most Consistent and Earliest Manner While Disrupting and Fighting Off Disruption from Three Other Players" proved to be too long of a title with focus groups.
This gets me thinking. What does everyone here think about the number of players in a CEDH game? For example, I think games should probably be limited to 3-4 players in order to limit luck and the advantage of going first. Fewer people also seems more friendly to aggro. Granted I haven't had as much experience playing CEDH games at a high level. If you have experience playing lots of CEDH games could you share your opinion on this?
Personally, I prefer a minimum of 4 players for multiplayer games. Playing with 3 creates a vastly different dynamic than either 4+ or 2. Since games can really be slowed down with 6 or more, 4-5 players has been the sweet spot in my experience.
Aggro doesn't really exist at high-level play, no. There are a few tier two-three decks like Krenko, Kaalia, and Maelstrom Wanderer that can win by combat damage.
By your definition 95% of the people playing Commander are "Playing to Win"
Every single time I and most if not all the people I play with sit down to play ANY game regardless of what it is, by the nature of it having RULES and a PROGRESSION means that we are all whether we choose to or not "Playing To Win"
"Playing to Win" is the default state of games like these with hard coded rules and a Win State and Loss State, you have to actively try to not Play to Win not the other way around.
No. Many people play commander with a goal other than performing well. If you are not playing an infinite combo because they're unfun, you're not playing to win. If you're not including off-color fetches in your deck because they don't "feel right," you're not playing to win. There are ends-in-themselves that people play to other than winning the game, like playing cool cards. These people are not playing to win - though that may be one of their many goals. These people will say they play "for fun," though of course I also play for fun.
I want to thank you for your time putting this together. I know it takes a lot of work. However, it is nothing new (at least to me), but rather old information repainted with Magic the Gathering (and commander) over the top of it.
I am not going to tell anyone how they should have fun, but I can't help but get the "If you're playing cutthroat EDH, then you are doing it wrong," feeling. The appeal to the format for me and my friends is to play something where the traditional competitive mindset can take a back seat to fun cards and interactions. That if you want to be cutthroat, literally every other sanctioned format is an outlet for you to do that in. I have vintage decks, a legacy deck, I borrow modern decks from friends. When i want to be cut throat and win prizes, there I a time and place for that. One of the things that makes (made?) EDH so appealing is that silly "trade binder/bulk box" cards like Desertion and Decree of Pain suddenly became playable and game changing.
To me... there is a big difference between "competitive EDH" and "playing to win." To me, "playing to win" means proper threat assessment, making efficient plays, and working together when needed to answer a problem at the table before it ends the fun for everyone else.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
I am not going to tell anyone how they should have fun, but I can't help but get the "If you're playing cutthroat EDH, then you are doing it wrong," feeling. The appeal to the format for me and my friends is to play something where the traditional competitive mindset can take a back seat to fun cards and interactions. That if you want to be cutthroat, literally every other sanctioned format is an outlet for you to do that in. I have vintage decks, a legacy deck, I borrow modern decks from friends. When i want to be cut throat and win prizes, there I a time and place for that. One of the things that makes (made?) EDH so appealing is that silly "trade binder/bulk box" cards like Desertion and Decree of Pain suddenly became playable and game changing.
I am not going to say how you should think, but I can't help but share my thoughts. I only started playing MtG in October 2014. I primarily played 60-card 1v1 with a friend who did not allow infinite combos and allowed one Sol Ring in our decks. Aside from that we didn't really have anything else banned. So I guess you could say we were playing legacy and I would say we were playing to win. Shortly after being introduced to the format I started to play commander and much preferred it with the variety of games it produced, more interactions and the need to only purchase a single card instead of 4-ofs (this particularly better matched my collecting desires and wallet). Speeding things along I joined more play groups, made more decks and learned I prefer a more competitive EDH. The thing is EDH in casual or competitive form is completely different from casual or competitive legacy, vintage, modern or standard. For those of us who like variety EDH is much better than any 60-card format. For those of us who like collecting in addition to playing EDH is much better than any 60-card format since one does not need to buy 4-ofs to play. For those of us who want to play competitively with strategies disliked in modern or standard (e.g. stax, infinite loops, etc.), but do not have a huge wallet EDH is more affordable to play than legacy or vintage. These are just some of the reasons why I really dislike when others tell CEDH players to simply play vintage or legacy. This being said I completely understand the desire of others to play with a style and level of power they prefer. I wouldn't tell someone playing a casual game of EDH is wrong. If they are having fun that is what matters.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
To me... there is a big difference between "competitive EDH" and "playing to win." To me, "playing to win" means proper threat assessment, making efficient plays, and working together when needed to answer a problem at the table before it ends the fun for everyone else.
CEDH players do all of these things, too. Why should the "deck select game" be exempt from the desire to choose the options that will most likely lead to victory?
I've been playing competitive commander for a bit now (well, I've been playing it - some people in my LGS have not been!), but I want to improve my decklist. That said, my "competitive" deck is a variant on Imperial Animar, and I would really like to see your take on the decklist! I know you mentioned the deck in the summaries, but you didn't have a list, so if you wouldn't mind, would you be able to put one up, and a bit of a summary?
I like it! It's quite accurate and informative. A very good resource for anyone wishing to get into more competitive EDH.
One teensy thing I disagree with. Zur plays best as a control/stax commander. Combos like Ad Nausea and Helm of Obedience can be useful backup win conditions, but they're not by themselves the best strategy. Resource denial in the form of cards like Stasis and Armageddon are far more viable.
Other than that minor qualm, I highly support this writeup.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Instead of building a fast car to win the race, you fill the race track with manure and drive your tractor to victory.
That is stax."
~cmv_lawyer, 2016
I want to thank you for your time putting this together. I know it takes a lot of work. However, it is nothing new (at least to me), but rather old information repainted with Magic the Gathering (and commander) over the top of it.
I am not going to tell anyone how they should have fun, but I can't help but get the "If you're playing cutthroat EDH, then you are doing it wrong," feeling. The appeal to the format for me and my friends is to play something where the traditional competitive mindset can take a back seat to fun cards and interactions. That if you want to be cutthroat, literally every other sanctioned format is an outlet for you to do that in. I have vintage decks, a legacy deck, I borrow modern decks from friends. When i want to be cut throat and win prizes, there I a time and place for that. One of the things that makes (made?) EDH so appealing is that silly "trade binder/bulk box" cards like Desertion and Decree of Pain suddenly became playable and game changing.
To me... there is a big difference between "competitive EDH" and "playing to win." To me, "playing to win" means proper threat assessment, making efficient plays, and working together when needed to answer a problem at the table before it ends the fun for everyone else.
I would like to counter this: if you want to play casually, why do you need a format at all? Simply playing on the kitchen table should be an outlet for that. Desertion and Decree of Pain are totally playable on the kitchen table, provided you and your friends all understand the type of game you guys want to play (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?) No one really needed Wizards to come in and tell them they could play whatever, so why does the RC get to say "You can only play Craw Wurm.dec if you wish to play EDH"?
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've been playing competitive commander for a bit now (well, I've been playing it - some people in my LGS have not been!), but I want to improve my decklist. That said, my "competitive" deck is a variant on Imperial Animar, and I would really like to see your take on the decklist! I know you mentioned the deck in the summaries, but you didn't have a list, so if you wouldn't mind, would you be able to put one up, and a bit of a summary?
Thanks!
I'm not very familiar with Animar, which is why I didn't include it in the write-up - not because it's a bad deck. To my knowledge, the best Animar deck is likely gelf's Animar deck here. Again, I don't regularly play with or against the deck, so don't quote me on this.
I like it! It's quite accurate and informative. A very good resource for anyone wishing to get into more competitive EDH.
One teensy thing I disagree with. Zur plays best as a control/stax commander. Combos like Ad Nausea and Helm of Obedience can be useful backup win conditions, but they're not by themselves the best strategy. Resource denial in the form of cards like Stasis and Armageddon are far more viable.
Other than that minor qualm, I highly support this writeup.
I have played against a lot of Zur, and the general consensus is that the "Esper Storm" variant is a notch above the stax-control variant. I agree with you that Zur as a card does more work in the stax variant, but Esper Storm is a bit faster and most people agree has an edge. On the other hand, I've never played Zur first-hand, so I can't say first-hand which I prefer playing.
So, what is your opinion on the mulligan rule change and its effect on CEDH? I've noticed so far this week that a lot of the "high-tier" decks I play against are not coming out of the gate as strong as they used to - do you agree with this notion?
The mulligan change has massively hurt the format in my opinion, both from a competitive and a casual standpoint.
A deck with four relatively-even power-level decks with the old mulligan usually saw one deck with a particularly fast start and the other three with solid openers because they could mulligan away the cards that didn't help their early game plan; Sharuum could ship back the Magister Sphinx, Zur could put back any number of 3-drop enchantments that he'd be tutoring for later, Scion could ship back Worldgorger to entomb him for 2 later, the Mimeoplasm could ship back the Terastodon he needed to Entomb. But now those decks have perfectly viable opening hands save for the 8 and 9 drops that are essential to the game plan, and those cards effectively decrease the size of your opening hand if you're forced to keep the rest because it's your best chance of actually hitting your land drops. Now, one deck gets a great opener and the rest are forced to keep hands based purely on the number of lands and mana sources; you can't mulligan for disruption to stop the one lucky deck at the table. It's not like modern or legacy where good deck construction means you shouldn't have to mulligan more than once to get a decent hand; in EDH, if you want to run those "EDH cards" like Tooth and Nail or Open the Vaults, you've got to run scared of being stuck with them in an opener that doesn't have disruption. The format is slower now, which isn't a bad thing, but it's also much less fun overall because I'm having to cut the cards that this format used to be built around just to maintain a decent curve. I don't want this to turn into a value format. Sheldon seemed to be under the impression that combo players aggressively mulliganed for their combo pieces with the PP; he was wrong. Against a table full of powerful decks that can threaten to win early, your most important tool is cheap, efficient disruption for other people's combos. Now that is unfortunately much harder to get to.
Casual games are hurt for similar reasons, because those players already had slow opening hands and games already took forever and this has only made those hands slower. Pickup games in your college's student union or library didn't have broken turn 3 wins; now, those 2-hour games are pushed even longer and the outcomes are still going to be the same--people are going to have fun playing big dumb cards. This change doesn't really help the target audience.
This is exactly the fear I have about the change. I have to admit we haven't yet played enough games to get a feel for the new mulligan, but this might indeed turn out like you said. Maybe more competitive groups should embrace the closing remark of the change and stick with a different mulligan choice (read: continue playing with PP).
I'm completely disagree. If someone can't mulligan, it's problem with his skill or with his deck. Good deck with enough lands and CA and good player can easily win with 5 card opener. PP was a bit cheating and encourager of poor deck building ("I always can put put this 9 mana bombs away from starter and comfortably play with 25 lands") and poor mulliganing skill. Vancouver is very good for CEDH, we used it in our playgroup since it creations and it was difficult maybe in the first session only.
That's great to hear. I'm just afraid that your findings may fall on deaf ears, since you and your playgroup (as well as other groups with similar playstyles/powerlevels) might be considered "cutthroat".
My playgroup (Sharuum, Tasigur, Scion, Doomsday Zur, and Karn mostly) has gotten in a dozen or more games in the last few days with the Vancouver and I'll say probably 75% of our games start with one player saying "Okay, this game doesn't count" because they've drawn a phenomenal opening hand by chance that the rest of the table can't compete with. We'll be playing a lot more games Tuesday night and getting feedback from a lot of players at our weekly tournament, and you can bet I'll be relaying that feedback to Sheldon.
How is this any different than the previous rule? This new rule should make that type of hand much LESS likely.
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 have played against a lot of Zur, and the general consensus is that the "Esper Storm" variant is a notch above the stax-control variant. I agree with you that Zur as a card does more work in the stax variant, but Esper Storm is a bit faster and most people agree has an edge. On the other hand, I've never played Zur first-hand, so I can't say first-hand which I prefer playing.
I've played against Skuloth's Ad Nauseam Doomsday Zur build, which I believe is considered the defining Esper Storm deck. It was decently strong, but no match in testing against the mana denial build. I may have a skewed perspective though. There may be a stronger Esper storm build out there that I have not yet run across.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Instead of building a fast car to win the race, you fill the race track with manure and drive your tractor to victory.
That is stax."
~cmv_lawyer, 2016
So, what is your opinion on the mulligan rule change and its effect on CEDH? I've noticed so far this week that a lot of the "high-tier" decks I play against are not coming out of the gate as strong as they used to - do you agree with this notion?
I believe the mulligan change will promote diversity in EDH played at a high power level. The change affects your deck more the more you tune it, since these decks are more in tune to the ebb and flow of the commander game. This may account for why your meta's top decks are underperforming immediately after the change. I wrote the mulligan section of this article. In summary, I believe this will make the format more "fair" and seriously hinder some top decks that require fast mana to be good, especially Teferi, Narset, and some storm variants. In general, I believe this change is good for CEDH, but bad for casual players who now are punished for playing the "EDH cards" ajacobik discusses:
A pod with four relatively-even power-level decks with the old mulligan usually saw one deck with a particularly fast start and the other three with solid openers because they could mulligan away the cards that didn't help their early game plan; Sharuum could ship back the Magister Sphinx, Zur could put back any number of 3-drop enchantments that he'd be tutoring for later, Scion could ship back Worldgorger to entomb him for 2 later, the Mimeoplasm could ship back the Terastodon he needed to Entomb. But now those decks have perfectly viable opening hands save for the 8 and 9 drops that are essential to the game plan, and those cards effectively decrease the size of your opening hand if you're forced to keep the rest because it's your best chance of actually hitting your land drops. Now, one deck gets a great opener and the rest are forced to keep hands based purely on the number of lands and mana sources; you can't mulligan for disruption to stop the one lucky deck at the table. It's not like modern or legacy where good deck construction means you shouldn't have to mulligan more than once to get a decent hand; in EDH, if you want to run those "EDH cards" like Tooth and Nail or Open the Vaults, you've got to run scared of being stuck with them in an opener that doesn't have disruption. The format is slower now, which isn't a bad thing, but it's also much less fun overall because I'm having to cut the cards that this format used to be built around just to maintain a decent curve. I don't want this to turn into a value format. Sheldon seemed to be under the impression that combo players aggressively mulliganed for their combo pieces with the PP; he was wrong. Against a table full of powerful decks that can threaten to win early, your most important tool is cheap, efficient disruption for other people's combos. Now that is unfortunately much harder to get to.
This is written from the perspective that EDH should be about "big plays" like Tooth and Nail or Open the Vaults, and that you shouldn't be punished for playing high-cost cards on few lands. I disagree. I think EDH (more than any other format) is great because it promotes and rewards diversity of strategy. The mana-cheat strategies you describe get a bit worse, yes, but I believe the decks that they're in get better. Midrange decks like Sharuum and The Mimeoplasm are likely to become the new head of the archetype. I would guess based on this passage that you play in a meta already dominated by midrange strategies, without storm or similar decks. If you did play in a spellslinger meta, you might agree with me that the mulligan change is a good one. Many - I'll even say most - games with spellslinger decks progressed the way you described. I think you will find that as time goes on, people are less likely to play quick-win cards and more likely to play decks that can survive a healthy midgame.
I also think the new mulligan rule adds a layer of skill to mulliganing. While there are many decision points in Partial Paris mulliganing, those decision points were much easier. Now, when you can't follow the old "Pitch everything but tutors and mana," you are forced to make a more meaningful approach to the hand.
I have played against a lot of Zur, and the general consensus is that the "Esper Storm" variant is a notch above the stax-control variant. I agree with you that Zur as a card does more work in the stax variant, but Esper Storm is a bit faster and most people agree has an edge. On the other hand, I've never played Zur first-hand, so I can't say first-hand which I prefer playing.
I've played against Skuloth's Ad Nauseam Doomsday Zur build, which I believe is considered the defining Esper Storm deck. It was decently strong, but no match in testing against the mana denial build. I may have a skewed perspective though. There may be a stronger Esper storm build out there that I have not yet run across.
Indeed, the list I use in my article is Skuloth's. It would of course do poorly against a mana-denial deck, as stax is a bad matchup for combo decks in general. If you truly feel that your build is superior to Esper Storm, I recommend you write a primer or at least start some serious discussion. Do you have a decklist I can take a look at?
I generally agree with all of this.
Given the nature of EDH, random one-ofs that just end the game on the spot have a disproportionately powerful effect to the proportion of card slots they take up (and thus the proportion of cards that don't contribute to one's main strategy). An Azami deck that has Mind Over Matter/LabMan is not inherently worse as a control deck, or at least not to such a significant degree that the inclusion of the combo suddenly makes it "tempo" instead of "control." Rather, it gains a different line of play that can be aggressively pursued (or not) depending on how well it does in the particular matchup(s). I would expect CEDH decks in every archetype (except perhaps dedicated combo) to build a few ways of "combo killing" or "going infinite" into its overall strategy, as those are the most efficient way of winning against 2+ players, especially from a disadvantage in board/life/cards.
I disagree that tempo is something that every deck should strive for. You can build a control/stax deck that can safely ignore early tempo/pacing if you 1) have powerful haymakers that can produce massive tempo swings in your favor by themselves, and/or 2) have cards that slow down the tempo of all players, such that everyone is failing to advance their win-condition turn after turn but the control/stax player believes they have the greatest chance to eventually break out of that state. (For a non-EDH example, Miracles in Legacy is one - it's still one of the top decks, but it's so slow that sometimes Storm purposely delays "going off" because it has time to sculpt a hand of better cards without interference from the Miracles player.)
Also: Aggro (including Voltron) does/n't exist in CEDH. Opinions?
Avatar by Numotflame96 of Maelstrom Graphics
Sig banner thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Plane Studios!
It doesn't? Maybe the existence of aggro depends on the number of players in a game of CEDH. It is more difficult to aggro out multiple players.
This gets me thinking. What does everyone here think about the number of players in a CEDH game? For example, I think games should probably be limited to 3-4 players in order to limit luck and the advantage of going first. Fewer people also seems more friendly to aggro. Granted I haven't had as much experience playing CEDH games at a high level. If you have experience playing lots of CEDH games could you share your opinion on this?
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
Every single time I and most if not all the people I play with sit down to play ANY game regardless of what it is, by the nature of it having RULES and a PROGRESSION means that we are all whether we choose to or not "Playing To Win"
"Playing to Win" is the default state of games like these with hard coded rules and a Win State and Loss State, you have to actively try to not Play to Win not the other way around.
People who don't play to win tend to end up trolling the game through some means under the guise of "I play for fun" (regardless of their true intent).
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
No. Many people play commander with a goal other than performing well. If you are not playing an infinite combo because they're unfun, you're not playing to win. If you're not including off-color fetches in your deck because they don't "feel right," you're not playing to win. There are ends-in-themselves that people play to other than winning the game, like playing cool cards. These people are not playing to win - though that may be one of their many goals. These people will say they play "for fun," though of course I also play for fun.
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog
I am not going to tell anyone how they should have fun, but I can't help but get the "If you're playing cutthroat EDH, then you are doing it wrong," feeling. The appeal to the format for me and my friends is to play something where the traditional competitive mindset can take a back seat to fun cards and interactions. That if you want to be cutthroat, literally every other sanctioned format is an outlet for you to do that in. I have vintage decks, a legacy deck, I borrow modern decks from friends. When i want to be cut throat and win prizes, there I a time and place for that. One of the things that makes (made?) EDH so appealing is that silly "trade binder/bulk box" cards like Desertion and Decree of Pain suddenly became playable and game changing.
To me... there is a big difference between "competitive EDH" and "playing to win." To me, "playing to win" means proper threat assessment, making efficient plays, and working together when needed to answer a problem at the table before it ends the fun for everyone else.
I am not going to say how you should think, but I can't help but share my thoughts. I only started playing MtG in October 2014. I primarily played 60-card 1v1 with a friend who did not allow infinite combos and allowed one Sol Ring in our decks. Aside from that we didn't really have anything else banned. So I guess you could say we were playing legacy and I would say we were playing to win. Shortly after being introduced to the format I started to play commander and much preferred it with the variety of games it produced, more interactions and the need to only purchase a single card instead of 4-ofs (this particularly better matched my collecting desires and wallet). Speeding things along I joined more play groups, made more decks and learned I prefer a more competitive EDH. The thing is EDH in casual or competitive form is completely different from casual or competitive legacy, vintage, modern or standard. For those of us who like variety EDH is much better than any 60-card format. For those of us who like collecting in addition to playing EDH is much better than any 60-card format since one does not need to buy 4-ofs to play. For those of us who want to play competitively with strategies disliked in modern or standard (e.g. stax, infinite loops, etc.), but do not have a huge wallet EDH is more affordable to play than legacy or vintage. These are just some of the reasons why I really dislike when others tell CEDH players to simply play vintage or legacy. This being said I completely understand the desire of others to play with a style and level of power they prefer. I wouldn't tell someone playing a casual game of EDH is wrong. If they are having fun that is what matters.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
CEDH players do all of these things, too. Why should the "deck select game" be exempt from the desire to choose the options that will most likely lead to victory?
Avatar by Numotflame96 of Maelstrom Graphics
Sig banner thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Thanks!
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
One teensy thing I disagree with. Zur plays best as a control/stax commander. Combos like Ad Nausea and Helm of Obedience can be useful backup win conditions, but they're not by themselves the best strategy. Resource denial in the form of cards like Stasis and Armageddon are far more viable.
Other than that minor qualm, I highly support this writeup.
That is stax."
~cmv_lawyer, 2016
WUI Don't Mean to Brago, But... RWBI'll Kaalia Back Later GBWKaradora the Graveyard Explorer BRGLive Long and Prosshper
BGUMuscle Plasm URGImperial Animarch BGLemon Meren Pie GWStop Being Such a Sisay UTefearsome RGWMarath of the Titans
UBRNow Watch me Trai Trai RWBAleshstax GWUPrison Can Roon Your Life BRGrenzo: Your Doom UArcum's Asylum of Stax
BGFeel the Ground Croak GThe All New 2016 Yisan Wanderer URFo Rizzle Mah Mizzle UBRA Game of Marchess
I would like to counter this: if you want to play casually, why do you need a format at all? Simply playing on the kitchen table should be an outlet for that. Desertion and Decree of Pain are totally playable on the kitchen table, provided you and your friends all understand the type of game you guys want to play (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?) No one really needed Wizards to come in and tell them they could play whatever, so why does the RC get to say "You can only play Craw Wurm.dec if you wish to play EDH"?
I'm not very familiar with Animar, which is why I didn't include it in the write-up - not because it's a bad deck. To my knowledge, the best Animar deck is likely gelf's Animar deck here. Again, I don't regularly play with or against the deck, so don't quote me on this.
I have played against a lot of Zur, and the general consensus is that the "Esper Storm" variant is a notch above the stax-control variant. I agree with you that Zur as a card does more work in the stax variant, but Esper Storm is a bit faster and most people agree has an edge. On the other hand, I've never played Zur first-hand, so I can't say first-hand which I prefer playing.
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
This is exactly the fear I have about the change. I have to admit we haven't yet played enough games to get a feel for the new mulligan, but this might indeed turn out like you said. Maybe more competitive groups should embrace the closing remark of the change and stick with a different mulligan choice (read: continue playing with PP).
I've played against Skuloth's Ad Nauseam Doomsday Zur build, which I believe is considered the defining Esper Storm deck. It was decently strong, but no match in testing against the mana denial build. I may have a skewed perspective though. There may be a stronger Esper storm build out there that I have not yet run across.
That is stax."
~cmv_lawyer, 2016
WUI Don't Mean to Brago, But... RWBI'll Kaalia Back Later GBWKaradora the Graveyard Explorer BRGLive Long and Prosshper
BGUMuscle Plasm URGImperial Animarch BGLemon Meren Pie GWStop Being Such a Sisay UTefearsome RGWMarath of the Titans
UBRNow Watch me Trai Trai RWBAleshstax GWUPrison Can Roon Your Life BRGrenzo: Your Doom UArcum's Asylum of Stax
BGFeel the Ground Croak GThe All New 2016 Yisan Wanderer URFo Rizzle Mah Mizzle UBRA Game of Marchess
I believe the mulligan change will promote diversity in EDH played at a high power level. The change affects your deck more the more you tune it, since these decks are more in tune to the ebb and flow of the commander game. This may account for why your meta's top decks are underperforming immediately after the change. I wrote the mulligan section of this article. In summary, I believe this will make the format more "fair" and seriously hinder some top decks that require fast mana to be good, especially Teferi, Narset, and some storm variants. In general, I believe this change is good for CEDH, but bad for casual players who now are punished for playing the "EDH cards" ajacobik discusses:
This is written from the perspective that EDH should be about "big plays" like Tooth and Nail or Open the Vaults, and that you shouldn't be punished for playing high-cost cards on few lands. I disagree. I think EDH (more than any other format) is great because it promotes and rewards diversity of strategy. The mana-cheat strategies you describe get a bit worse, yes, but I believe the decks that they're in get better. Midrange decks like Sharuum and The Mimeoplasm are likely to become the new head of the archetype. I would guess based on this passage that you play in a meta already dominated by midrange strategies, without storm or similar decks. If you did play in a spellslinger meta, you might agree with me that the mulligan change is a good one. Many - I'll even say most - games with spellslinger decks progressed the way you described. I think you will find that as time goes on, people are less likely to play quick-win cards and more likely to play decks that can survive a healthy midgame.
I also think the new mulligan rule adds a layer of skill to mulliganing. While there are many decision points in Partial Paris mulliganing, those decision points were much easier. Now, when you can't follow the old "Pitch everything but tutors and mana," you are forced to make a more meaningful approach to the hand.
Indeed, the list I use in my article is Skuloth's. It would of course do poorly against a mana-denial deck, as stax is a bad matchup for combo decks in general. If you truly feel that your build is superior to Esper Storm, I recommend you write a primer or at least start some serious discussion. Do you have a decklist I can take a look at?
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog