I have zero interest in making another good stuffs deck and alternate strategies unrelated to the commander usually rely on specific cards that the singleton format makes too inconsistent to have fun.
Here's the problem: you're not trying hard enough! I bet when you try and do something wonky with niche cards you go "well, I've got 4 or 5 cards dedicated to this screwball strategy and then 55 staples because I'll definitely lose without them." Screw that, go all in! Hermit druid decks rely on exactly one card and have terrorized many a community by selling out completely to what they want to do. Not that you have to be that extreme. But I've seen decks win with Caustic Tar as a primary win condition, reliable turn 5 Grozoth combos, eldrazi processor control, precursor golem explosions. None of those are done by the commander, but they all worked. If you want an effect every game, play redundancy. If redundancy doesn't exist, tutor for it. If you can't tutor in your colors, draw more cards. But if you're cutting your deck to size and your choice is between more winning more often and doing what you want the deck to do more often, screw winning! I promise, you can build around anything and get away with it.
This results in horrible games though, where the strategy either works and you win in a boring way or it doesn't work and you are topdecking garbage for the rest of the game.
There is a difference between playing out there strategies and making bad decks that do not work.
I think a good example of linear strategies I dislike is most voltron decks. They either hit critical mass with their commander or the commander dies a couple times and the voltron player might as well drop out as they get buried by good stuffs. It's almost impossible to have a fun game with voltron at the table, and I think there are tons of strategies that are similarly unfun, win or lose.
Multicolor decks generally have enough tutors to get to key pieces on a somewhat consistent basis. I'd say part of your problem is giving up too early on a commander. There are always new strategies to try.
It sounds like it might be your group's approach to games that's a little flat. The way you're describing it, you have a deck with Plan A, you then execute Plan A as mana permits, then watch what happens. It doesn't seem to matter whether it's Voltron, goodstuff, or what have you.
Point being, there's not enough interaction going on. The identity of a Trading Card Game is not unique to Magic anymore, and if you want this game to continue its appeal, I think the key is looking at what distinguishes it as unique. To have a look out there, the unique aspects of Magic are: 1) the direct management of mana as a resource, 2) sensitity to the timing of spells. I think players who aren't looking at those things will eventually get disenchanted with Magic. It's just not well designed in other areas now compared to other games.
I know that in saying that, I'm probably departing somewhat from design intent. Especially as evidenced by the past half dozen sets or so, and the rules changes over that same time period, shifting more to flat board states. But, mastering interactions on the stack and during the turn structure is what keeps the game fresh for me.
Importantly here in EDH, there should be players passing often with mana up in order to respond at Instant to what others are doing. Getting your stuff to do what you want it to should be a delicate, skill-intensive discipline of reading player holdings and tendencies. The game does reward you for doing that, which is what keeps players hooked.
For multiplayer, rather than subtracting from that and leaning even more into a "fire and forget" type of game, I find that the decision trees and timing sensitivity can be even more critical. At the same time, the same multiplayer aspect can lean to more reward for passive players, such that the dominant strategy might become placing burden on others to interact and just spam the board yourself instead. If that happens, I think it's an issue that the type of decks that exploit timing aren't being built (or are being swept out of the group by social pressure). In my own games in public and in private groups, I certiainly continue to see rewards for using those skills. To get the same benefit, I'd suggest designing win conditions that are a little more compact, and playing more flexible cards.
My suggestion is try less mainstream stuff. I play a lot more mono colored decks now and or less played commanders now than I ever have before. I was just eyeballing the potential to play a Fumiko the Lowblood either pillow fort or super aggression as a potential. To keep it fresh I suggest going with less streamlined commanders and or changing up your playstyle with some decks now and then.
Fumiko the Lowblood for instance would be a very interesting commander because just by hitting play you throw people off of their usual comfort zone of how they play and force them to play a slightly different game for you. This sounds very amusing to me and it really opens up some interesting avenues of play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
My suggestion is try less mainstream stuff. I play a lot more mono colored decks now and or less played commanders now than I ever have before. I was just eyeballing the potential to play a Fumiko the Lowblood either pillow fort or super aggression as a potential. To keep it fresh I suggest going with less streamlined commanders and or changing up your playstyle with some decks now and then.
Fumiko the Lowblood for instance would be a very interesting commander because just by hitting play you throw people off of their usual comfort zone of how they play and force them to play a slightly different game for you. This sounds very amusing to me and it really opens up some interesting avenues of play.
Basically what I want is to be able to play any enchantment as my general so I can make more neat decks that won't necessarily suck. I looked through the entirety of available generals and came out with nothing, so I can no longer enjoy deckbuilding.
"It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
This results in horrible games though, where the strategy either works and you win in a boring way or it doesn't work and you are topdecking garbage for the rest of the game.
Unless you actually do a good job with it and bridge that gap, but then you'd actually be building a deck.
I'm of the opinion that casual deck building is a greater challenge than competitive deck building because when you build competitively, you're only goal is to win, where when you build for casual fun, you have to try to win while also making an enjoyable experience for yourself and others. If you are unwilling or incapable of doing that without wizards printing commanders that build themselves, it's not anyone's fault but your own that you're not enjoying making your own decks. It's your job to find a strategy you like, it's your job to make sure you never just topdeck garbage, and it's your job to make sure you don't win in boring, repetitive ways. It's all on you. I stand by my original assessment: you're not trying hard enough.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
I'd recommend giving Magic itself a break for a little while. I usually give myself Magic breaks of a month or two and come back liking it more than before.
You are not even close to having done all the decks, plus, rarely are hyper competitive decks "goodstuff" - there are usually specific strategies.
This results in horrible games though, where the strategy either works and you win in a boring way or it doesn't work and you are topdecking garbage for the rest of the game.
Unless you actually do a good job with it and bridge that gap, but then you'd actually be building a deck.
I'm of the opinion that casual deck building is a greater challenge than competitive deck building because when you build competitively, you're only goal is to win, where when you build for casual fun, you have to try to win while also making an enjoyable experience for yourself and others. If you are unwilling or incapable of doing that without wizards printing commanders that build themselves, it's not anyone's fault but your own that you're not enjoying making your own decks. It's your job to find a strategy you like, it's your job to make sure you never just topdeck garbage, and it's your job to make sure you don't win in boring, repetitive ways. It's all on you. I stand by my original assessment: you're not trying hard enough.
If I don't want to topdeck badly, I need to include a large amount of good stuffs cards.
If I want to win in an interesting way, I need to include a lot of cards that topdeck badly.
There is very little overlap between interesting ways to win and cards that work well generally. That's WHY they are staples, they don't have good replacements.
If I don't want to topdeck badly, I need to include a large amount of good stuffs cards.
If I want to win in an interesting way, I need to include a lot of cards that topdeck badly.
There is very little overlap between interesting ways to win and cards that work well generally. That's WHY they are staples, they don't have good replacements.
The cards that are staples are so because they generally work better than their next best replacement in a vacuum. But you're not building in a vacuum, you're building a cohesive deck. The other day, I was playing with a guy I don't see often and I dumped my hand to Firestorm to wipe the board, and he reads the c ard and goes "huh, isn't that really bad? Couldn't you just play Wrath of God in that deck?" and the rest of the table was people who play against my Zedruu regularly who are like "Noooooo. That wouldn't be nearly as good in that deck." Because context is everything.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
If I don't want to topdeck badly, I need to include a large amount of good stuffs cards.
If I want to win in an interesting way, I need to include a lot of cards that topdeck badly.
There is very little overlap between interesting ways to win and cards that work well generally. That's WHY they are staples, they don't have good replacements.
The cards that are staples are so because they generally work better than their next best replacement in a vacuum. But you're not building in a vacuum, you're building a cohesive deck. The other day, I was playing with a guy I don't see often and I dumped my hand to Firestorm to wipe the board, and he reads the c ard and goes "huh, isn't that really bad? Couldn't you just play Wrath of God in that deck?" and the rest of the table was people who play against my Zedruu regularly who are like "Noooooo. That wouldn't be nearly as good in that deck." Because context is everything.
Zedruu is the perfect example of a boring general to me. A bunch of cards that obviously synergize, a bunch of good stuffs because it's edh, and then a few cards devoted to winning. It doesn't feel like there is any room for creativity.
Zedruu is the perfect example of a boring general to me. A bunch of cards that obviously synergize, a bunch of good stuffs because it's edh, and then a few cards devoted to winning. It doesn't feel like there is any room for creativity.
I go through this sort of thing pretty much annually, and always find something that draws me back in. Sometimes it's a card or group of cards I want to play but have never been able to work into a deck before, sometimes it's a Commander with abilities different than my usual fare, etc. Most recently, I decided to make a deck featuring cards with the old frame only; I thought of it as a deckbuilding exercise, and it legitimately reinvigorated my desire to play the format as I compiled the decklist. The best advice I can give is not to force it, because then you'll build a deck you don't enjoy and you'll have spent all of that time and effort (and maybe money) on it for no reason. Just let it come to you when it comes.
Zedruu is the perfect example of a boring general to me. A bunch of cards that obviously synergize, a bunch of good stuffs because it's edh, and then a few cards devoted to winning. It doesn't feel like there is any room for creativity.
Yeah but the voltron deck AND the stax deck both fall into the "it will have tons of terrible games" category, on top of both voltron and stax being some of the most played out deck archetypes in commander.
It's purely subjective, but I want something that is both interesting/different/newish AND somewhat consistent and fun for the table. This naturally limits my available options substantially, to the point where I made this topic in the first place.
Sounds like you just need a break. I have taken two long breaks in my MTG career. Honestly, what brought me back to the game is playing non-competitively although I run optimized Denial Zur and Stax Kaalia. I do not care for winning anymore. There are two things I want and look for in a game? I want to rise to a challenge, and I look for like-minded players.
This way, I can have a drink, eat steak and not worry about the result.
Keep brewing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This results in horrible games though, where the strategy either works and you win in a boring way or it doesn't work and you are topdecking garbage for the rest of the game.
I think a good example of linear strategies I dislike is most voltron decks. They either hit critical mass with their commander or the commander dies a couple times and the voltron player might as well drop out as they get buried by good stuffs. It's almost impossible to have a fun game with voltron at the table, and I think there are tons of strategies that are similarly unfun, win or lose.
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden EDH
GAzusa, Always in a Rush EDH
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Warlord EDH
Trade thread on MOTL
Point being, there's not enough interaction going on. The identity of a Trading Card Game is not unique to Magic anymore, and if you want this game to continue its appeal, I think the key is looking at what distinguishes it as unique. To have a look out there, the unique aspects of Magic are: 1) the direct management of mana as a resource, 2) sensitity to the timing of spells. I think players who aren't looking at those things will eventually get disenchanted with Magic. It's just not well designed in other areas now compared to other games.
I know that in saying that, I'm probably departing somewhat from design intent. Especially as evidenced by the past half dozen sets or so, and the rules changes over that same time period, shifting more to flat board states. But, mastering interactions on the stack and during the turn structure is what keeps the game fresh for me.
Importantly here in EDH, there should be players passing often with mana up in order to respond at Instant to what others are doing. Getting your stuff to do what you want it to should be a delicate, skill-intensive discipline of reading player holdings and tendencies. The game does reward you for doing that, which is what keeps players hooked.
For multiplayer, rather than subtracting from that and leaning even more into a "fire and forget" type of game, I find that the decision trees and timing sensitivity can be even more critical. At the same time, the same multiplayer aspect can lean to more reward for passive players, such that the dominant strategy might become placing burden on others to interact and just spam the board yourself instead. If that happens, I think it's an issue that the type of decks that exploit timing aren't being built (or are being swept out of the group by social pressure). In my own games in public and in private groups, I certiainly continue to see rewards for using those skills. To get the same benefit, I'd suggest designing win conditions that are a little more compact, and playing more flexible cards.
Fumiko the Lowblood for instance would be a very interesting commander because just by hitting play you throw people off of their usual comfort zone of how they play and force them to play a slightly different game for you. This sounds very amusing to me and it really opens up some interesting avenues of play.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Basically what I want is to be able to play any enchantment as my general so I can make more neat decks that won't necessarily suck. I looked through the entirety of available generals and came out with nothing, so I can no longer enjoy deckbuilding.
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
I haven't really given it much thought because it isn't legal, but cards like survival of the fittest and cowardice could have some interesting decks.
Unless you actually do a good job with it and bridge that gap, but then you'd actually be building a deck.
I'm of the opinion that casual deck building is a greater challenge than competitive deck building because when you build competitively, you're only goal is to win, where when you build for casual fun, you have to try to win while also making an enjoyable experience for yourself and others. If you are unwilling or incapable of doing that without wizards printing commanders that build themselves, it's not anyone's fault but your own that you're not enjoying making your own decks. It's your job to find a strategy you like, it's your job to make sure you never just topdeck garbage, and it's your job to make sure you don't win in boring, repetitive ways. It's all on you. I stand by my original assessment: you're not trying hard enough.
I'd recommend giving Magic itself a break for a little while. I usually give myself Magic breaks of a month or two and come back liking it more than before.
You are not even close to having done all the decks, plus, rarely are hyper competitive decks "goodstuff" - there are usually specific strategies.
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.
If I don't want to topdeck badly, I need to include a large amount of good stuffs cards.
If I want to win in an interesting way, I need to include a lot of cards that topdeck badly.
There is very little overlap between interesting ways to win and cards that work well generally. That's WHY they are staples, they don't have good replacements.
The cards that are staples are so because they generally work better than their next best replacement in a vacuum. But you're not building in a vacuum, you're building a cohesive deck. The other day, I was playing with a guy I don't see often and I dumped my hand to Firestorm to wipe the board, and he reads the c ard and goes "huh, isn't that really bad? Couldn't you just play Wrath of God in that deck?" and the rest of the table was people who play against my Zedruu regularly who are like "Noooooo. That wouldn't be nearly as good in that deck." Because context is everything.
Zedruu is the perfect example of a boring general to me. A bunch of cards that obviously synergize, a bunch of good stuffs because it's edh, and then a few cards devoted to winning. It doesn't feel like there is any room for creativity.
I disagree. tstorm823's GOAT deck plays completely differently from Hunding Gjornersen's Zedruu voltron deck, and they both play differently from (the now-retired) Pristaxcontrombmodruu. I'm sure there's other ways to build it, if you look hard enough.
Yeah but the voltron deck AND the stax deck both fall into the "it will have tons of terrible games" category, on top of both voltron and stax being some of the most played out deck archetypes in commander.
It's purely subjective, but I want something that is both interesting/different/newish AND somewhat consistent and fun for the table. This naturally limits my available options substantially, to the point where I made this topic in the first place.
This way, I can have a drink, eat steak and not worry about the result.
Keep brewing.