I did a quick search but might have missed if it's been asked before.
But what are the best ways to tell if an EDH deck is competitive?
I have a daretti list that's about $350 but it's personally eschewing all the combo or stax mainstays. It can't kill quickly and as a matter of design doesn't run the "mean" stax effects (smokestack, armegeddon, etc).
So is the best way to tell if an EDH deck is competitive the intent of the build (theme, fun, etc), the $$$ or something else?
Can $$$ override the intent at some point, if so at what point?
"Is the purpose of this deck to be competitive in my meta?" is not my definition of competitive.
"Is the purpose of this deck to win in my meta?" is it.
The purpose of the format is to have fun playing with cards from all sets.
The issue with classifying a decks level of being "competitive" is that it depends entirely on the opponents, and the entire meta's quality of decks.
In short - a deck could be considered competitive if it has a higher win-rate or speed compared to all of the decks that goes up against.
In a meta full of just the commander pre-con's, and one person invests $100 to improve his one pre-con with more stream-lined cards, then that deck is going to be considered more "competitive" than the pre-cons.
Deck value does usually have some relation with how quick and consistent a deck can perform (demonic tutor vs diabolic tutor as easy example), but not always. Using the above pre-con table example, if another player builds a budget $50 deck that is very well researched and balanced to the point that it performs better than the precon+$100 example deck, then this $50 deck would be considered more "competitive."
A table could have a bunch of combo decks all tuned to try and win around turn-6, but one player could have a combo deck that is capable of going off a turn earlier, slightly more consistent, with a lower-cmc and high selection of answers, and his deck could be considered more "competitive"
This is also not touching on the skill and knowledge of the player piloting a deck. You could have a 100% optimized tier-1 $5000+ deck ran by a player who, while knowledgeable about the game, doesn't understand the deck, and that player can still get trashed by a highly skilled player running a $30 pre-con if they know the pre-con and the format well.
"Is the purpose of this deck to be competitive in my meta?" is not my definition of competitive.
"Is the purpose of this deck to win in my meta?" is it.
The purpose of the format is to have fun playing with cards from all sets.
I generally disagree with this because of the fun of a game with a win condition is generally to fulfill that condition.
It is actually why I have a problem with the entire Casual/Competitive distinction.
My friends keep telling me that my decks are competitive. Meanwhile, I can count on a number of strategies that I could potentially try that are more lethal than what I currently employ.
It keeps me wondering what would be the "most" correct...
Competitive always comes down to your meta. Does your deck smash your play-group on a regular basis? Then your deck is competitive compared to your meta. Does your deck average 25% win-rate in a 4 man pod? Then your deck is average for your meta and probably tuned just right.
People get all emotional about this debate but I feel its pretty simple.
If a deck is built with the sole purpose to win as consistently as possible it is a competitive deck.
You can talk about budget, meta, spirit of the format. All of that is pure baloney.
I came here to basically say this too.
Your deck can be competitive but suck, ya know? Competitive is more a mind set and philosophy than it is a deck. An inexperienced player who is very competitive will build what they /think/ is competitive. When they find out it isn't they will try and improve it to that point.
If you're concern is less with winning and more enacting a particular game plan, that is not competitive by nature. I mean, it could be hyper competitive by nature if your game plan is "How high can I get the Storm count?" or "How many copies of X token can I make?" or it could be less competitive like, "Can I cast enough spells to give the entire board Flying with Tibor and Lumia?" Your deck is competitive when the goal is "How often can I beat my opponents?"
I think what people really mean when they have this discussion is, "How often does this deck win versus my meta?" If the answer is over 90% and you don't give a crap that your meta might not be having fun, I think you are successfully competitive. The problem is really more, "How competitive is too competitive?" and the answer to that relies heavily on your meta/play group. If your meta is losing consistently despite their best efforts AND are not having fun, that's when you've crossed the line into "too competitive".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The following link is an invitation to join Pucatrade (card trading service though similar to TCGPLayer). If you follow the link then it awards me with tokens to exchange for actual cards. Thanks! https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/86097
If a deck is built with the sole purpose to win as consistently as possible it is a competitive deck.
You can talk about budget, meta, spirit of the format. All of that is pure baloney.
Then what would you classify a deck that is 100% optimized with the intention of winning with a specific method, as consistently and quickly as possible, but that win-condition is centered around a sub-optimal plan or a pathetic general?
If a deck is built with the sole purpose to win as consistently as possible it is a competitive deck.
You can talk about budget, meta, spirit of the format. All of that is pure baloney.
Then what would you classify a deck that is 100% optimized with the intention of winning with a specific method, as consistently and quickly as possible, but that win-condition is centered around a sub-optimal plan or a pathetic general?
Is that deck still "competitive?"
Then it isn't designed to win as consistently as possible. It is designed to win as consistently as possible within certain constraints. If you make a legacydeck with the goal to win as consistently as possible with the constraint that all your cards needs to be 5cmc+ then you don't get a competitive deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Built with the sole intent to win as many games as possible (including meta-gameing like which commander and strategy).
If the win percentage for local meta exceeds 25%.
For a deck to be Casual:
Does not meet any of the criteria for it to be Competitive.
Has been built with a caveat to winning at any cost besides $$$.
If your decks win-con is not a win-con of Magic- divine intervention or in my case causing as much chaos and confusion for the pod, essentially yelling kill me first! I may not win the pod but I achieved my decks goal.
And a deck is fine-tuned:
Has several common core cards of the build and/ or Has been tuned to accomplish its goal in the local meta.
If a deck is built with the sole purpose to win as consistently as possible it is a competitive deck.
You can talk about budget, meta, spirit of the format. All of that is pure baloney.
Then what would you classify a deck that is 100% optimized with the intention of winning with a specific method, as consistently and quickly as possible, but that win-condition is centered around a sub-optimal plan or a pathetic general?
Is that deck still "competitive?"
Yes I would. Its really more the intent of the builder than the actual outcome. I have a mono blue combo deck that its mostly based on goodstuff and power combos. Would the deck be stronger with Azami instead of Thassa? Yes absolutely. I'm not trying as hard as I can with that deck, but its still built on the premise of winning instead of like cute interactions or my pet cards.
This is such a grey area.
My mono-blue deck is very consistent and tends to play without regard to 'fun'(infinite extra turns is the most common wincon), which in my mind makes it my most competitive deck. The win rate is probably around 50%, which I don't think is too oppressive.
I have a mono-black deck that I only run online, and it is jank of a pretty high order. It runs no tutors except for land search, and nearly 10 spells w/ CMC over 8. But it wins right around 80% of the time, which would probably be annoying IRL. Despite that, I don't consider it a competitive deck.
I have the feeling that the 'line' is most likely a personal one.
This is such a grey area.
My mono-blue deck is very consistent and tends to play without regard to 'fun'(infinite extra turns is the most common wincon), which in my mind makes it my most competitive deck. The win rate is probably around 50%, which I don't think is too oppressive.
I have a mono-black deck that I only run online, and it is jank of a pretty high order. It runs no tutors except for land search, and nearly 10 spells w/ CMC over 8. But it wins right around 80% of the time, which would probably be annoying IRL. Despite that, I don't consider it a competitive deck.
I have the feeling that the 'line' is most likely a personal one.
I see what you are saying and I think it raises a good point. There is a difference between "Competitive" and "More Competitive than my Meta". Take Modern for example. Jund is competitive. Shaman Tribal is not competitive on the same level as Jund but its tuned enough that it make be considered oppressive on some kitchen tables. Its not "competitive" at the highest level but it is "more competitive than my meta". This distinction is important because I think people often conflate the two but they are different.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The following link is an invitation to join Pucatrade (card trading service though similar to TCGPLayer). If you follow the link then it awards me with tokens to exchange for actual cards. Thanks! https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/86097
I don't think it has anything to do with the cards in the deck at all.
It is all attitude and personal stance.
I guess. I mean, the attitude does influence the cards more than the other way around. Still, even with the attitude, the wrong cards will never be competitive. At the same time, the right cards might be to oppressive (read: competitive) for a certain meta, even with the right attitude.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The following link is an invitation to join Pucatrade (card trading service though similar to TCGPLayer). If you follow the link then it awards me with tokens to exchange for actual cards. Thanks! https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/86097
I don't think it has anything to do with the cards in the deck at all.
It is all attitude and personal stance.
I think you mean something along the lines of "It's how you play the cards not what the card is that has a big impact on whether a deck is considered competitive." ?
I could agree with that mostly for suped up decks but for low power decks I don't think it would be as true. As having an option for an extremely powerful play and not taking it b/c it is not worth ruining the fun at the table is not the same as using a crappy card to do the most it can do.
From an Internet standpoint there is no meta (although a competetive deck may be tweaked for one) and I think some of the definitions provided above are pretty accurate. The deck has to be successfully built with the sole purpose of winning. I say successfully because intent is not sufficient. An inexperienced play can build a deck to win that a competitive deck would annihilate. Almost always attempts to win through some sort of combo as dealing 40 damage to each other player in a more fair manner is inefficient. Check the competitive edh reddit to get an idea. Obviously you can have your own subjective idea of what competitive means, but the general consensus is what I've described.
Money does not determine how competitive a deck is. Maybe your in a doubling season. But if it is just doubling tokens, would a 1 less cheaper alternative (parralel lives) make it harder to deal with?
Then you have three visits. Which is the same as nature's lore just far more expensive.
A competitive deck to me means that is consistently wins early game or once established does not you do anything.
Yeah I think most people complain about a deck being competitive when they really mean it isn't interactive
If a deck is aimed at shutting people out of the game or at winning super fast no matter what other people are doing, it tends to be labelled competitive, often even if it consistently fails to achieve its goals.
The real questions isn't so much 'is it competitive' as 'is it fun for the playgroup'. And fun for the group usually means 1. not making your victory a foregone conclusion, 2. letting other people play their cards, and 3. interacting with the other players.
I have had decks that win almost 80% of the time (this is on cockatrice), but I have no qualms playing them in 'casual' rooms because they don't have any particularly broken interactions, don't shut people out of the game, and are fun to play against. And I got virtually no complaints in those casual rooms, precisely for that reason.
Id say a deck is competitive in EDH is when its "critical turn" is between 3 and 5. This doesnt mean winning by then. For a combo deck, it would want to combo off consistently around this turn, for a stax deck, it wants the table locked down by now. For a midrange deck, it wants to be so fsr ahead its pretty hard to lose by now. I dont think you can base it off your meta, if your meta is extremely casual, while you might win 80% of the time in that meta, your just the least casual. This isn't a bad thing of course, as level of competitiveness is so customizable in this format, and is one of the best things about it. None of my decks are capable of consistently having its "critical turn" before turn 8 or 9, however i have an incredibly high win rate in both of my groups. I would not consider my decks competitive by any means, as i know i would get stomped in a group that fulfills my definition of competitive. Either my playskill or my decks are simply just a step above the rest i play with
It is efficient enough to keep up with other competitive decks.
It has answers to a reasonable amount of hate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered,
those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid.
Thus the wise win before the fight, while the ignorant fight to win."
I did a quick search but might have missed if it's been asked before.
But what are the best ways to tell if an EDH deck is competitive?
I have a daretti list that's about $350 but it's personally eschewing all the combo or stax mainstays. It can't kill quickly and as a matter of design doesn't run the "mean" stax effects (smokestack, armegeddon, etc).
So is the best way to tell if an EDH deck is competitive the intent of the build (theme, fun, etc), the $$$ or something else?
Can $$$ override the intent at some point, if so at what point?
There is a pretty nice thread on this subject on /r/cEDH right now, but rather than advising you go look there, I'm interested why are you even looking for this definition? What's the need for that label? "Competitive" is almost as nebulous a concept as "fun". Even if a concrete and ideal definition of it would exist, different people will have their own definitions, which means that a certain deck can be perceived to be competitive or not competitive by different people.
Personally, I regard something as competitive if it's optimized to its environment and if it's goal is to win. Being competitive is a combination of playing a competitive deck and making competitive plays.
I basically agree with the whole "intent to win" side of the argument, but there's one important distinction people are missing:
Competitive decks are built to win as reliably as possible within the restrictions of the group.
In that sense, if your playgroup has banned MLD, a competitive deck does its best to win in a metagame where there is no MLD. If a playgroup has banned infinite combos, a competitive deck will do its best to win without combo. House rules and social agreements don't automatically mean everybody's playing soft Hello Kitty-style Magic. Heck a very common house rule I hear people often bring up on my time in these forums is "No Banlist" EDH, so it can clearly go the other direction. These rules doesn't even have to be enforced: If everybody at your table are playing slightly modified precons, busting out an $800 deck filled with Legacy staples might not be the most effective pathway to victory simply because it's considerably more difficult to win when you're sitting down to archenemy every single game.
To put it in the 75% mentality, a 75% deck will leave out some of the most powerful or back-breaking effects from the deck, or leave it poorly tuned simply because bringing the deck's potential to 100% isn't really a priority. For a competitive deck, bringing it as close to 100% as possible is so important most of the deckbuilding boils down to deciding what exactly 100% is for that deck.
But what are the best ways to tell if an EDH deck is competitive?
I have a daretti list that's about $350 but it's personally eschewing all the combo or stax mainstays. It can't kill quickly and as a matter of design doesn't run the "mean" stax effects (smokestack, armegeddon, etc).
4c Gifts Deck Stats: https://bit.ly/2XMPrlY
https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/120495
"Is the purpose of this deck to win in my meta?" is it.
The purpose of the format is to have fun playing with cards from all sets.
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
In short - a deck could be considered competitive if it has a higher win-rate or speed compared to all of the decks that goes up against.
In a meta full of just the commander pre-con's, and one person invests $100 to improve his one pre-con with more stream-lined cards, then that deck is going to be considered more "competitive" than the pre-cons.
Deck value does usually have some relation with how quick and consistent a deck can perform (demonic tutor vs diabolic tutor as easy example), but not always. Using the above pre-con table example, if another player builds a budget $50 deck that is very well researched and balanced to the point that it performs better than the precon+$100 example deck, then this $50 deck would be considered more "competitive."
A table could have a bunch of combo decks all tuned to try and win around turn-6, but one player could have a combo deck that is capable of going off a turn earlier, slightly more consistent, with a lower-cmc and high selection of answers, and his deck could be considered more "competitive"
This is also not touching on the skill and knowledge of the player piloting a deck. You could have a 100% optimized tier-1 $5000+ deck ran by a player who, while knowledgeable about the game, doesn't understand the deck, and that player can still get trashed by a highly skilled player running a $30 pre-con if they know the pre-con and the format well.
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
I generally disagree with this because of the fun of a game with a win condition is generally to fulfill that condition.
It is actually why I have a problem with the entire Casual/Competitive distinction.
It keeps me wondering what would be the "most" correct...
The Unidentified Fantastic Flying Girl.
EDH
Xenagos, the God of Stompy
The Gitrog Monster: Oppressive Value.
Marchesa, Marionette Master - Undying Robots
Yuriko, the Hydra Omnivore
I make dolls as a hobby.
If a deck is built with the sole purpose to win as consistently as possible it is a competitive deck.
You can talk about budget, meta, spirit of the format. All of that is pure baloney.
GWUBAtraxa, Praetor's Voice PrimerGWUB
GWURoon Bant Blink WhateverGWU
BRGLord Windgrace LandsBRG
I came here to basically say this too.
Your deck can be competitive but suck, ya know? Competitive is more a mind set and philosophy than it is a deck. An inexperienced player who is very competitive will build what they /think/ is competitive. When they find out it isn't they will try and improve it to that point.
If you're concern is less with winning and more enacting a particular game plan, that is not competitive by nature. I mean, it could be hyper competitive by nature if your game plan is "How high can I get the Storm count?" or "How many copies of X token can I make?" or it could be less competitive like, "Can I cast enough spells to give the entire board Flying with Tibor and Lumia?" Your deck is competitive when the goal is "How often can I beat my opponents?"
I think what people really mean when they have this discussion is, "How often does this deck win versus my meta?" If the answer is over 90% and you don't give a crap that your meta might not be having fun, I think you are successfully competitive. The problem is really more, "How competitive is too competitive?" and the answer to that relies heavily on your meta/play group. If your meta is losing consistently despite their best efforts AND are not having fun, that's when you've crossed the line into "too competitive".
https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/86097
Then what would you classify a deck that is 100% optimized with the intention of winning with a specific method, as consistently and quickly as possible, but that win-condition is centered around a sub-optimal plan or a pathetic general?
Is that deck still "competitive?"
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
Then it isn't designed to win as consistently as possible. It is designed to win as consistently as possible within certain constraints. If you make a legacydeck with the goal to win as consistently as possible with the constraint that all your cards needs to be 5cmc+ then you don't get a competitive deck.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
For a deck to be Competitive:
For a deck to be Casual:
And a deck is fine-tuned:
Has several common core cards of the build and/ or Has been tuned to accomplish its goal in the local meta.
4c Gifts Deck Stats: https://bit.ly/2XMPrlY
https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/120495
Yes I would. Its really more the intent of the builder than the actual outcome. I have a mono blue combo deck that its mostly based on goodstuff and power combos. Would the deck be stronger with Azami instead of Thassa? Yes absolutely. I'm not trying as hard as I can with that deck, but its still built on the premise of winning instead of like cute interactions or my pet cards.
GWUBAtraxa, Praetor's Voice PrimerGWUB
GWURoon Bant Blink WhateverGWU
BRGLord Windgrace LandsBRG
My mono-blue deck is very consistent and tends to play without regard to 'fun'(infinite extra turns is the most common wincon), which in my mind makes it my most competitive deck. The win rate is probably around 50%, which I don't think is too oppressive.
I have a mono-black deck that I only run online, and it is jank of a pretty high order. It runs no tutors except for land search, and nearly 10 spells w/ CMC over 8. But it wins right around 80% of the time, which would probably be annoying IRL. Despite that, I don't consider it a competitive deck.
I have the feeling that the 'line' is most likely a personal one.
I see what you are saying and I think it raises a good point. There is a difference between "Competitive" and "More Competitive than my Meta". Take Modern for example. Jund is competitive. Shaman Tribal is not competitive on the same level as Jund but its tuned enough that it make be considered oppressive on some kitchen tables. Its not "competitive" at the highest level but it is "more competitive than my meta". This distinction is important because I think people often conflate the two but they are different.
https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/86097
It is all attitude and personal stance.
I guess. I mean, the attitude does influence the cards more than the other way around. Still, even with the attitude, the wrong cards will never be competitive. At the same time, the right cards might be to oppressive (read: competitive) for a certain meta, even with the right attitude.
https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/86097
I think you mean something along the lines of "It's how you play the cards not what the card is that has a big impact on whether a deck is considered competitive." ?
I could agree with that mostly for suped up decks but for low power decks I don't think it would be as true. As having an option for an extremely powerful play and not taking it b/c it is not worth ruining the fun at the table is not the same as using a crappy card to do the most it can do.
4c Gifts Deck Stats: https://bit.ly/2XMPrlY
https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/120495
Then you have three visits. Which is the same as nature's lore just far more expensive.
A competitive deck to me means that is consistently wins early game or once established does not you do anything.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
If a deck is aimed at shutting people out of the game or at winning super fast no matter what other people are doing, it tends to be labelled competitive, often even if it consistently fails to achieve its goals.
The real questions isn't so much 'is it competitive' as 'is it fun for the playgroup'. And fun for the group usually means 1. not making your victory a foregone conclusion, 2. letting other people play their cards, and 3. interacting with the other players.
I have had decks that win almost 80% of the time (this is on cockatrice), but I have no qualms playing them in 'casual' rooms because they don't have any particularly broken interactions, don't shut people out of the game, and are fun to play against. And I got virtually no complaints in those casual rooms, precisely for that reason.
Tymna & Ishai, ie Esper Edric
Crosis Turbotrash
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid.
Thus the wise win before the fight, while the ignorant fight to win."
Personally, I regard something as competitive if it's optimized to its environment and if it's goal is to win. Being competitive is a combination of playing a competitive deck and making competitive plays.
Competitive decks are built to win as reliably as possible within the restrictions of the group.
In that sense, if your playgroup has banned MLD, a competitive deck does its best to win in a metagame where there is no MLD. If a playgroup has banned infinite combos, a competitive deck will do its best to win without combo. House rules and social agreements don't automatically mean everybody's playing soft Hello Kitty-style Magic. Heck a very common house rule I hear people often bring up on my time in these forums is "No Banlist" EDH, so it can clearly go the other direction. These rules doesn't even have to be enforced: If everybody at your table are playing slightly modified precons, busting out an $800 deck filled with Legacy staples might not be the most effective pathway to victory simply because it's considerably more difficult to win when you're sitting down to archenemy every single game.
To put it in the 75% mentality, a 75% deck will leave out some of the most powerful or back-breaking effects from the deck, or leave it poorly tuned simply because bringing the deck's potential to 100% isn't really a priority. For a competitive deck, bringing it as close to 100% as possible is so important most of the deckbuilding boils down to deciding what exactly 100% is for that deck.