We've all experienced imbalanced games. Whether you're feeling guilty while stomping some folks who just got into the format and are playing with decks made primarily of draft chaff, or sitting on the other side of a deck you're not equipped to handle and feeling helpless while you get stomped, those games aren't much fun for anyone.
Obviously one solution to this problem is to simply have a variety of decks of differing power levels to ensure you have a deck for any occasion. The downside to this system is - what deck do you play first? And what if you want to play a deck that's outside of the group's power level? And what if you don't want to carry a ton of decks around?
One thing I've often aspired to do is create decks that can play to a wide range of tables, so that they don't feel overpowered nor do they roll over to powerful decks. I've got a few deckbuilding tricks I've tried to accomplish this:
1) Instant-speed targeted removal (including counterspells) tends to be useful but not overpowered in almost all matchups - it can just as easily break up a game-winning combo as it can stop a threatening craw wurm. The value you get scales with the value of the opponent. I especially like that it keeps powerful decks in check while not disrupting lower-powered decks. The downside is that you have to play carefully with them, since they are card disadvantage in a multiplayer format, generally. And they don't contribute much to your actual win.
2) Cards that let you play the opponents deck is a simple way to fix the problem - cards like shared fate or Daxos of Meletis. The downside is that they're typically not effective against very fast decks, and sometimes (especially geth) they can become overpowered by simply being able to play way more of your opponents weak cards than they can. And results may vary when you're playing against a heavily-synergistic deck that requires having a critical mass of cards from their deck before they become useful.
3) Effects that keep the board "honest" like spirit of the labyrinth or containment priest. They can block certain powerful effects while not hurting more common strategies. The risk is that they could potentially become oppressive against fair decks, because they're a global effect, and you could end up playing stax. Also, some of them are niche and may be borderline useless in a lot of matchups.
4) Tools to rein in the power level of the field, like wrath of god, fracturing gust, and keldon firebombers. Pretty self-explanatory why these can be useful. A lot of these are a bit slow for most fast combo decks though, and anything that reins in lands tends to get the stink eye. Plus we don't really have anything that does a great job of it that I can think of - straight armageddon or jokulhaups is a pretty bad way to stabilize the game, and even keldon firebombers is kind of a lot for most groups.
5) Effects that are better when you're allied with someone else, and suck when you're the group enemy. Not a lot of great options in this category, but for example the offering cycle is a pretty powerful effect if you're benefitting from both sides of it - say, because you're teaming up to fight a powerful deck. But the effect generally sucks if everyone is fighting you because you're the most powerful deck at the table. So it's good when you're weak, but weak when you're good.
What other ideas do people have that help create fun games in a variety of environments?
Best deck to use when not sure lol. Decent enough to slow down and possibly win against more competitive decks (counters and targeted removal ftw) and Combo out against them (Helm of Obedience + Leyline of the void ftw), but slow and precise enough to not steamroll over more casual decks.
Bonus points? Gets new players used to playing vs control
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
My first intuition was to suggest group hug, which technically works in all situations, but you made it very clear that you don't enjoy it.
I play politically with my decks, regardless its type (except combo), therefore I always ensure that I or others do not focus too much on the same player unless there's an immediate threat. In other words, if I want a fair and balanced game I manipulate it so it happens. In most situations, I choose my Marath, Will of the Wild deck because it's the most versatile in terms of removal and political bargains. I also play [c]Erebos, God of the Dead]/c] which, while effective, limiting my deck to mono-color tends to provide a "weakness" for my opponents to exploits, allow the game to be more balanced.
We've all experienced imbalanced games. Whether you're feeling guilty while stomping some folks who just got into the format and are playing with decks made primarily of draft chaff, or sitting on the other side of a deck you're not equipped to handle and feeling helpless while you get stomped, those games aren't much fun for anyone.
When I play with something a little more janky I usually get a table full of killer decks. When I play my alpha decks, I'll get a table of casual budget players. In any case it ends up being a mismatch and the fun gets drained pretty quick.
Hug decks just provide for more unbalance where powerful decks can just do what they want much quicker, so that always ends up being a bloodbath as well.
I've wanted to make a deck which seeks to balance games out by giving advantages to the weaker players and disrupting the stronger ones. I even had a named lined up for it "Robin Hood vs the Sheriff of Nottingham".
The idea is to steal from the rich (competitive) and give to the poor (casual).
Sure you could just build a counterspell deck and just stop what the stronger decks are doing, but quite often you end up being the "bad guy" and people just attack/kill you because you're perceived as the control player.
I used to play quite a bit of Two-headed Giant, and you learn of some nice interactions with targeting your partner to gain advantages, like Time Warp them, or untap their lands, etc.
But there is a whole range of cards that fall under "opponents" to give both you and them advantages.
Once you've established to the table that you are trying to bring balance, players are more inclined to give you the card needed to stop the other players. I've found that if you activate Tasigur in response to a spell on the stack, that your opponents will give you the disruption needed to stop it.
Best deck to use when not sure lol. Decent enough to slow down and possibly win against more competitive decks (counters and targeted removal ftw) and Combo out against them (Helm of Obedience + Leyline of the void ftw), but slow and precise enough to not steamroll over more casual decks.
Bonus points? Gets new players used to playing vs control
If you play a competitive infinite combo at my more casual tables I will never play against you again.
Best deck to use when not sure lol. Decent enough to slow down and possibly win against more competitive decks (counters and targeted removal ftw) and Combo out against them (Helm of Obedience + Leyline of the void ftw), but slow and precise enough to not steamroll over more casual decks.
Bonus points? Gets new players used to playing vs control
If you play a competitive infinite combo at my more casual tables I will never play against you again.
What about a non competitive infinite combo? I mean when i pay infinite combo, it is infinite damage and thus a win con. Throwing a fireball with millions of damage on it at your face is a win con. Sure it may seem unfair but who is to say that it is not a winning strategy. If my deck is control heavy I don't want to take away some control to build a creature base and smash face. I rather do it with a burn spell. Or maybe pump millions and millions of damage into rocket launcher.
People need to learn that combat damage is not the only way to win. Getting everyone else life to 0 is the common way to win but also not the only way to win.
Best deck to use when not sure lol. Decent enough to slow down and possibly win against more competitive decks (counters and targeted removal ftw) and Combo out against them (Helm of Obedience + Leyline of the void ftw), but slow and precise enough to not steamroll over more casual decks.
Bonus points? Gets new players used to playing vs control
If you play a competitive infinite combo at my more casual tables I will never play against you again.
1) That is a horridly immature and close minded opinion. So to you, winning with Craterhoof+Avenger is ok? Or how about tokens with Triumph of the Hordes? Those are ok but say... infinite myr tokens with Myr Galvanized, Palladium myr, Myr Propagator, and another mana producing myr is bad? I never understand this irrational hatred for combo...
2) note how I said the combo is used vs more aggressive decks. Like more competitive decks. Leyline is a solid card for most all mill decks and solid tech vs Gy shenanigans. And you just chose not to use helm when playing against more casual decks. Note what the subject of this thread is. A deck that can play against casuals without being oppressive and more competitive decks without being steamrolled.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
Best deck to use when not sure lol. Decent enough to slow down and possibly win against more competitive decks (counters and targeted removal ftw) and Combo out against them (Helm of Obedience + Leyline of the void ftw), but slow and precise enough to not steamroll over more casual decks.
Bonus points? Gets new players used to playing vs control
If you play a competitive infinite combo at my more casual tables I will never play against you again.
1) That is a horridly immature and close minded opinion. So to you, winning with Craterhoof+Avenger is ok? Or how about tokens with Triumph of the Hordes? Those are ok but say... infinite myr tokens with Myr Galvanized, Palladium myr, Myr Propagator, and another mana producing myr is bad? I never understand this irrational hatred for combo...
2) note how I said the combo is used vs more aggressive decks. Like more competitive decks. Leyline is a solid card for most all mill decks and solid tech vs Gy shenanigans. And you just chose not to use helm when playing against more casual decks. Note what the subject of this thread is. A deck that can play against casuals without being oppressive and more competitive decks without being steamrolled.
I've encountered many players like you
"I just won't use X"
That goes out the window the moment they feel even a little bit threatened.
In fact, I've encountered it with exactly this combo before.
And no, I clearly DO NOT think avenger + craterhoof is ok, hell I started the banlist discussion for avenger.
Best deck to use when not sure lol. Decent enough to slow down and possibly win against more competitive decks (counters and targeted removal ftw) and Combo out against them (Helm of Obedience + Leyline of the void ftw), but slow and precise enough to not steamroll over more casual decks.
Bonus points? Gets new players used to playing vs control
If you play a competitive infinite combo at my more casual tables I will never play against you again.
1) That is a horridly immature and close minded opinion. So to you, winning with Craterhoof+Avenger is ok? Or how about tokens with Triumph of the Hordes? Those are ok but say... infinite myr tokens with Myr Galvanized, Palladium myr, Myr Propagator, and another mana producing myr is bad? I never understand this irrational hatred for combo...
2) note how I said the combo is used vs more aggressive decks. Like more competitive decks. Leyline is a solid card for most all mill decks and solid tech vs Gy shenanigans. And you just chose not to use helm when playing against more casual decks. Note what the subject of this thread is. A deck that can play against casuals without being oppressive and more competitive decks without being steamrolled.
I've encountered many players like you
"I just won't use X"
That goes out the window the moment they feel even a little bit threatened.
In fact, I've encountered it with exactly this combo before.
And no, I clearly DO NOT think avenger + craterhoof is ok, hell I started the banlist discussion for avenger.
So you are one of those Battlecruiser players? Let's just smash big things into each other till someone dies! Fun right!
Again, note what the topic of this thread is. A deck that can play against both casuals and AND competitive people. And yes, I do hold my helm if playing in casual games. I have lost many times when I COULD have tutored out helm, but chose not to BECAUSE the game is casual and I can take a loss.
And you must really be REALLY "casual" if you think Avenger needs to be banned. And tell me, do you think ramp into eldrazi is bad? Because annihilator is much more oppressive than a janky combo. Or how about burn using stupid big fireballs? That has to be bad right?
And I like how you didnt mention Triumph of the Hordes. So a wall of trampling infect tokens is ok right? So, as to not derail this thread too much farther, what is the problem with combos so long as they are not consistently going off turns 2-5?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
I'm no moderator but I think it's important that we don't turn this into a competitive vs casual discussion, nor the ethics behind infinite combo.
As others have said, control fits the bill the best, but I think the type of control used should be looked at. One of my friends plays incredibly reactively but almost never uses direct spot removal or counterspells. Instead, he's running cards like
These are very strong options that offer defensive options for yourself, or to aide another player, which gives you the power to be very political while still remaining a threat to be dealt with, but when push comes to shove all of them offer a huge line of defense for your own strategies.
I can agree with this. If the pilot sticks with it, control can tuned "on the fly" if you will better than most decks to handle different group skill/deck levels, barring Stax of course.
Oh the other deck that could be good for either direction is Kaseto Voltron/Sub-theme tribal. Kaseto can be used quite politically since he can make enemy creatures Unblockable, allowing more casual players to have some fun hits at each other. Tribal Snakes is casual enough not to overwhelm your opponents, while voltron elements can turn the deck more competitive as to allowing Kaseto himself to get some beats in.
2) note how I said the combo is used vs more aggressive decks. Like more competitive decks. Leyline is a solid card for most all mill decks and solid tech vs Gy shenanigans. And you just chose not to use helm when playing against more casual decks. Note what the subject of this thread is. A deck that can play against casuals without being oppressive and more competitive decks without being steamrolled.
I'm not really interested in "solutions" like this. If you're actually removing cards from the deck, that's one thing, but playing badly in order to gimp yourself to the level of non-competitive decks isn't really what I'm talking about. Besides my moral(?) compunctions against it, once we start talking about playing badly on purpose it stops being the omni-deck and starts being the omni-player.
I also don't REALLY like the "remove it from the deck" plan because it doesn't work for game 1. It basically has all the failings that having multiple decks does, except that it's a bit more compact since you only need a few extra cards instead of an entire extra deck.
2) note how I said the combo is used vs more aggressive decks. Like more competitive decks. Leyline is a solid card for most all mill decks and solid tech vs Gy shenanigans. And you just chose not to use helm when playing against more casual decks. Note what the subject of this thread is. A deck that can play against casuals without being oppressive and more competitive decks without being steamrolled.
I'm not really interested in "solutions" like this. If you're actually removing cards from the deck, that's one thing, but playing badly in order to gimp yourself to the level of non-competitive decks isn't really what I'm talking about. Besides my moral(?) compunctions against it, once we start talking about playing badly on purpose it stops being the omni-deck and starts being the omni-player.
I also don't REALLY like the "remove it from the deck" plan because it doesn't work for game 1. It basically has all the failings that having multiple decks does, except that it's a bit more compact since you only need a few extra cards instead of an entire extra deck.
I can understand this. The big issue is that any deck that by itself will be good vs competitive decks, will be oppressive vs casual decks without intentional misplays. A deck that can aggro fast enough to stand up to combo or control will steam roll over less competitive decks. Stax is just hated by everyone. Control that is consistent enough vs competitive decks will mandate countering badly/not using some cards to not dominate casual decks.
Sadly I do not think there is one deck that can play both extremes without having an "omni-player"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
I can understand this. The big issue is that any deck that by itself will be good vs competitive decks, will be oppressive vs casual decks without intentional misplays. A deck that can aggro fast enough to stand up to combo or control will steam roll over less competitive decks. Stax is just hated by everyone. Control that is consistent enough vs competitive decks will mandate countering badly/not using some cards to not dominate casual decks.
Sadly I do not think there is one deck that can play both extremes without having an "omni-player"
Well, straddling the entire gulf from draft chaff to doomsday is a little difficult, maybe impossible - but that's why it's a "search" not a "destination".
I agree that aggro that beats combo is going to dominate casual decks, which is why I don't think aggro is really ever going to work as an omni-deck. Stax I agree, same problem.
Control, I don't see what you're talking about. Counterspell, for example, will always trade 1:1 with whatever their best card is - whether that's doomsday or craw wurm. Sure, vs doomsday maybe you need to be prepared to counter 3 spells by turn 4, whereas vs casuals maybe you don't need to have any removal or counters up until turn 8, but it's not like sitting there with a hand full of counters and removal ready while nothing important happens in the early turns is going to be a bad thing. I guess you could argue that a strong control deck will have a lot of draw power which will crush an attrition war vs casual decks, but that still seems like a much more fair fight than playing a fast combo deck. Even with powerful draw it's pretty hard to outpace an entire table, especially if most of your removal is single-target.
Personally, I've really been liking my latest phelddagrif deck for doing this pretty well. It has cheap removal and counters to handle powerful decks, especially combo, decently, but it has hardly any board presence so it can't run people over quickly. Maybe you could argue I'm misplaying, but I think the best way to beat any table with it is basically to help the weakest player kill the others while grinding thsemselves out of resources, then pounce and finish them off in 1v1. I suspect that it would be pretty difficult to pull off at a table of nothing but fast combo decks, since I can only stop so many and I have no way to win quickly on my own. But as I said, it may not be possible to span the WHOLE range from competitive to casual. I think my deck, so far, does a pretty good job - I haven't played at the very far ends of the spectrum but it's done a good job at countering some fairly strong decks and it's almost impossible for it to be terribly oppressive in any meta - I have won a game or two from capsize lock, but that's only after a long game where everyone else died by someone else's hand, so that doesn't seem THAT bad to me, even if it's a slightly dickish way to win in the end.
I think it's only a problem when the control deck is able to take on the entire table at once effectively - good example being my Child of Alara deck, which was in the business of wiping the board every turn starting on turn 4-5 or so. That deck still took a while to win, but it wasn't much fun for the rest of the table. Atomic baby bombs the competitive and the casual alike back to the stone age. Targeted removal, obviously, is more selective, and lets you focus on the competitive while letting the casual stuff, or even the less scary stuff from the competitive deck, develop a bit, so people don't feel like they're incapable of doing anything.
Even if the control deck wins often, I don't think it's a problem so long as it doesn't win super quickly or against the entire table at once.
one of the more interesting decks i use is this 'aikido' style deck, where i play tonnes of clones, spell copy effects, damage redirect effects and so on. the idea is that if you only use your opponents resources against them, it scales kinda well to the meta. that being said, no matter how you cut it, the extremely efficient decks and the extremely janky decks will still cause problems, so thats something to keep in mind.
my build is somewhat controlly (mostly spot removal/stack manipulation), and has parts of infinite combo elements in it, though i need to steal/copy other player's rings and stuff to actually complete the combo (i think its ok if my opponent decides to field known combo enablers to use it for myself). in my meta though, it usually ends up with a win via Benthic Behemoth beatdown, so its generally not well tested against high powered decks.
i think its not super necessary to build a single deck that is scales to the entire field, but at least reaches the bottom 25% and the top 75% in power. Its def possible.
There was a pretty cool BWR deck that adjusted to opponents Link. It is somewhat outdated but looked really fun to play and seemed to be able to hangout with the big boys.
one of the more interesting decks i use is this 'aikido' style deck, where i play tonnes of clones, spell copy effects, damage redirect effects and so on. the idea is that if you only use your opponents resources against them, it scales kinda well to the meta. that being said, no matter how you cut it, the extremely efficient decks and the extremely janky decks will still cause problems, so thats something to keep in mind.
my build is somewhat controlly (mostly spot removal/stack manipulation), and has parts of infinite combo elements in it, though i need to steal/copy other player's rings and stuff to actually complete the combo (i think its ok if my opponent decides to field known combo enablers to use it for myself). in my meta though, it usually ends up with a win via Benthic Behemoth beatdown, so its generally not well tested against high powered decks.
i think its not super necessary to build a single deck that is scales to the entire field, but at least reaches the bottom 25% and the top 75% in power. Its def possible.
I think within certain boundaries - maybe even 25-75%, obviously the percentages are pretty much arbitrary - multiplayer as a format tends to balance things out. I even think that fairly competitive decks can lose all the time to tables of people hating them out quickly. That typically doesn't mean a great game, of course, but it does show how the format itself balances a lot of things out.
I think I sort of covered redirecting cards back at your opponent, but maybe I left out cards that use their resources against them without directly taking them.
There was a pretty cool BWR deck that adjusted to opponents Link. It is somewhat outdated but looked really fun to play and seemed to be able to hangout with the big boys.
Interesting read, it does seem like the deck would be pretty DOA against a competitive deck, though. Although it does have some pretty good answers to infinite creature combos, at least.
His deck seems fairly similar to my phelddagrif in terms of playstyle, except that phelddagrif is better suited to fighting more competitive decks, but tends to win much more slowly which can be boring sometimes. I think his might be more amusing within that 25%-75% range when it works, but I can also see it doing a whole lot of nothing or just being ineffective against more powerful decks.
I do believe that, within a certain range (call it 25%-75%) most decks do sort of OK - that's sort of the sweet spot for EDH, in that less competitive decks team up on more competitive decks and can usually sort-of-balance the tables. At the top end of competitive combo/stax/etc, though, less competitive decks just have no chance to stop them, and at the bottom end (like, sub-precon level) any decent deck will crush them regardless of who makes it to the final 2. It's at those extremes where you really need to use deckbuilding tricks to keep the game on an even-ish playing field.
Yeah, the problem is that beating a table with multiple strong decks is not possible without combo win-cons. If you are at a table with a BGx graveyard combo deck, Fungus Tribal, and 5c superfriends, you will probably be able to win by killing or countering the BGx player’s attempts to go off, exiling their graveyard, and then waiting around with one or two cards like Sepulchral Primordial or Vicious Shadows in your deck to beat the Timmies with. But against something like BGx grave combo, Zur Doomsday, and Narset, the best you can do is buy time to have a shot at being the first one to combo off.
Also, just filling the deck with enough counterspells is not going to be enough to just put in a run of the mill wincon and ride it out. To stop most combo decks, you will need graveyard hate at some point. And then, it becomes a huge challenge to stay alive v any real beatdown when your deck is full of those kinds of cards that totally don’t affect the board.
The closest I’ve ever come to this “omni-deck” was much more toward the competitive side, in the end, and actually had a few rl friends tired of it. It was a Keranos deck that ran everything at Instant speed, used Scrabbling Claws and things like that to fill in the gaps in grave hate for the colors, but ultimately what did it in was having the Reset-Reiterate combo in there. At its inception, it had Repercussion , Insurrection, and Rite of Replication in as win conditions, but a lot of that went out as cards like Meishin, the Mind Cage got added.
I remember a game where one player was about to go off with Sword of Feast and Famine and Aggravated Assault, where I used Firemind’s Foresight to tutor a counter. Then, I grabbed combo pieces with the rest of the tutor, and went off. It wasn’t very well received by that player.
I wish I had an opinion other than the one I do. I like the idea myself, and enjoy a Control a lot in EDH. But, I think you need to decide with a deck what kind of games you’re just going to forget about and stop preparing for.
I don't think having a reasonable win rate in a meta that's nothing but high powered combo decks, alongside being non-oppressive in casual metas, is achievable. You can definitely be a kingmaker in those combo metas by blocking one or two combos, but sooner or later someone's going to get past you most likely. And if you're the only control player, obviously trading 1:1 with literally must-answer threats will probably run you out of gas quickly, and then you can't even win an attrition war. You probably have some chance if there's other control stuff going on, but solo, definitely not.
As noble of a goal as a true omni-deck is, I don't really think I'd enjoy playing those sorts of metas anyway. It's nice to at least have a reasonable effect on the game, though, which is more than you could say for a lot of 75% decks.
I think these are the important types of games to look at for an omni-deck:
top tier = usually a well-known netdeck around one of the common "best" commanders - zur, arcum, doomsday, HD, that sort of thing. Usually combo.
mid = your usual 25-75% deck. Basically anything from a precon to a "good" commander deck.
low = worse than a precon. Usually a new player, probably just using cards they've acquired from recent sets from friends, drafts, etc.
1 -everyone playing top-tier decks or close: I've rarely run across this sort of thing in pickup games. While I think a certain win% is achievable, I don't think you can expect to have an equal share at the table and not be oppressive in other metas.
2 - one person playing a top-tier deck, the rest of the table mid or lower: These games seem very workable to me with efficient answers. You can use targeted removal to answer the fastest, most dangerous threats, and direct the table towards the powerful player. Another nice tool to fight this sort of deck is cards like telepathy, which helps show the rest of the table WHY they need to kill that player, and helps you figure out how to sequence your answers to avoid letting them win, or to avoid holding up more than necessary.
3 - everyone playing mid: most decks that aren't top-tier should be able to handle this with a reasonable win%. Even bad decks can win if they're not targeted. This is almost guaranteed to be fine for anyone not trying to build a top-tier deck.
4 - a mix of mid and low powered decks: this is where some of your more aggressive 75% decks can start to be problematic - maelstrom wanderer, for example, can sometimes just roll lower powered metas even if everyone is fighting against them. This isn't necessarily a deal breaker for a game, but an omni-deck should probably aim to have some chance to lose this match, so it can't just win without any back and forth.
5 - everyone playing low: this is where things get pretty tricky again, but this is a very rare meta unless you're also a new player playing kitchen table. I think it's difficult to be playing a decent deck and not be able to roll the table to a certain extent. It's also potentially hard to lose because newer players will probably have poor threat assessment and are likely to misplay to your advantage. It's pretty hard to have a reasonable win% here, but I think a good omni-deck should at least take a while to win and let other people develop their stuff a bit.
I think most people would agree that 2-4 are by far the most common, so that's mostly what I'm targeting. If it sometimes works for 1 and 5, that's great, but I think no matter how well you make your omni-deck, you'd probably be better off breaking out another deck for game 2 in those extreme metas.
I think that the gap between “top tier” and the “75%” decks is actually pretty wide.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “top tier” deck outside of Cockatrice, and maybe Moxnix. There are probably only half a dozen decks that would be categorized here (Storm, Ad Naus, etc). In fact, a good number of the decks I’ve seen in the cEDH subreddit are below the level of top tier (such as Ruric Thar, any sort of Stax deck, Blue-less GY combo, etc).
Even taking that aside, there’s a pretty big gulf with “75% decks”. Most decks I’ve seen with the 75% label are unable to consistently have any disruption in hand by Turn 5, and take several turns of combat damage to actually win. People with 75% decks are about 0% against the top tier, because they just fail to run any sort of relevant disruption.
The best you can do is probably a deck that is ok against a table with one deck that someone might run at a Competitive tournament, without running any combo’s. At that point though, you’re basically changing nothing other than cutting out the MLD and the combo. And without those two, there are going to be games where your deck just doesn’t have anything timely or relevant to do.
Maybe I'm missing something from your post (there's a lot of ambiguity in your last paragraph about who's running/not running the combos/MLD) but it kinda just sounds like you're saying "you can't reliably beat a table of competitive decks with an omni-deck"...which I believe has already been said multiple times?
I agree that most 75% decks are going to suck vs even one good combo deck, but that's why we're talking about an omni-deck, not a 75% deck.
I almost don't want to comment on your last paragraph because it's so ambiguous, but it SEEMS like what you're saying is "without running MLD/combo the best you can expect to do is beat a table with one competitive deck" which I agree with, but then it sounds like you're saying "the only thing you're changing is removing the MLD/combo, without which you won't be able to do anything relevant in some games"...which makes no sense. Obviously I'm not just talking about taking a competitive deck and removing the combo/MLD, I'm building a deck from the ground up to work in a wide spectrum of metas. And even if an omni-deck probably can't reliably win in competitive metas, it can certainly do something relevant by blocking one or more players from comboing out. But more importantly than that, by taking out the MLD/combos we're able to play in lower-powered metas and still have a good game.
That's sort of the point of this exercise. Anyone can make a competitive EDH deck that crushes lower-powered metas. The trick here is to find a deck that DOESN'T crush weaker metas, while still not getting completely wrecked in moderately-powerful ones. And ideally, if possible, having at least some small chance in competitive metas, and having some chance to lose in the weakest metas, but those are definitely the lowest priority matches as they're the rarest.
I would start with a BUG shapeshifter deck with The Mimeoplasm as it's commander (Creature type flavor fail I know). Excluding red and white cards as well as unsets, there are currently 48 shapeshifters in BUG colors, enough to make a deck. Also add Copy Artifact, Copy Enchantment, Sculpting Steel and that 1 mana copy artifact for equipments. Fill out with some additional stuff to make the deck work (some removal, draw) and I think you're good to go.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The secret to enjoyable Commander games is not winning first, but losing last.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
Maybe I'm missing something from your post (there's a lot of ambiguity in your last paragraph about who's running/not running the combos/MLD) but it kinda just sounds like you're saying "you can't reliably beat a table of competitive decks with an omni-deck"...which I believe has already been said multiple times?
I agree that most 75% decks are going to suck vs even one good combo deck, but that's why we're talking about an omni-deck, not a 75% deck.
I almost don't want to comment on your last paragraph because it's so ambiguous, but it SEEMS like what you're saying is "without running MLD/combo the best you can expect to do is beat a table with one competitive deck" which I agree with, but then it sounds like you're saying "the only thing you're changing is removing the MLD/combo, without which you won't be able to do anything relevant in some games"...which makes no sense. Obviously I'm not just talking about taking a competitive deck and removing the combo/MLD, I'm building a deck from the ground up to work in a wide spectrum of metas. And even if an omni-deck probably can't reliably win in competitive metas, it can certainly do something relevant by blocking one or more players from comboing out. But more importantly than that, by taking out the MLD/combos we're able to play in lower-powered metas and still have a good game.
What I mean is you have the apparent choice between building an omni-deck and building a deck designed specifically to hold its own as the primary concern. The difference between those two choices is that the omni-deck seems like it can’t run anything that irritates people or is too strong (combo, MLD), but the other deck can.
If you’re ok having a game against one more competitive players without being able to rely on that, then sounds fine to me. You will probably want a bunch of spot removal and graveyard exile, would be my recommendation.
That's sort of the point of this exercise. Anyone can make a competitive EDH deck that crushes lower-powered metas. The trick here is to find a deck that DOESN'T crush weaker metas, while still not getting completely wrecked in moderately-powerful ones. And ideally, if possible, having at least some small chance in competitive metas, and having some chance to lose in the weakest metas, but those are definitely the lowest priority matches as they're the rarest.
It’s hard to build a deck that doesn’t crush people, since it depends on what they’re playing. Lots and lots of people get crushed by Hexproof, to read all the threads about Uril and Sigarda.
You will probably want UWx or UBx, for the counters and graveyard exile. After that, maybe just find some threats that you think people would find fun to play against. And then if you still have people complain about it being too strong, you’ll know you probably just have some complainers on your hands.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Obviously one solution to this problem is to simply have a variety of decks of differing power levels to ensure you have a deck for any occasion. The downside to this system is - what deck do you play first? And what if you want to play a deck that's outside of the group's power level? And what if you don't want to carry a ton of decks around?
One thing I've often aspired to do is create decks that can play to a wide range of tables, so that they don't feel overpowered nor do they roll over to powerful decks. I've got a few deckbuilding tricks I've tried to accomplish this:
1) Instant-speed targeted removal (including counterspells) tends to be useful but not overpowered in almost all matchups - it can just as easily break up a game-winning combo as it can stop a threatening craw wurm. The value you get scales with the value of the opponent. I especially like that it keeps powerful decks in check while not disrupting lower-powered decks. The downside is that you have to play carefully with them, since they are card disadvantage in a multiplayer format, generally. And they don't contribute much to your actual win.
2) Cards that let you play the opponents deck is a simple way to fix the problem - cards like shared fate or Daxos of Meletis. The downside is that they're typically not effective against very fast decks, and sometimes (especially geth) they can become overpowered by simply being able to play way more of your opponents weak cards than they can. And results may vary when you're playing against a heavily-synergistic deck that requires having a critical mass of cards from their deck before they become useful.
3) Effects that keep the board "honest" like spirit of the labyrinth or containment priest. They can block certain powerful effects while not hurting more common strategies. The risk is that they could potentially become oppressive against fair decks, because they're a global effect, and you could end up playing stax. Also, some of them are niche and may be borderline useless in a lot of matchups.
4) Tools to rein in the power level of the field, like wrath of god, fracturing gust, and keldon firebombers. Pretty self-explanatory why these can be useful. A lot of these are a bit slow for most fast combo decks though, and anything that reins in lands tends to get the stink eye. Plus we don't really have anything that does a great job of it that I can think of - straight armageddon or jokulhaups is a pretty bad way to stabilize the game, and even keldon firebombers is kind of a lot for most groups.
5) Effects that are better when you're allied with someone else, and suck when you're the group enemy. Not a lot of great options in this category, but for example the offering cycle is a pretty powerful effect if you're benefitting from both sides of it - say, because you're teaming up to fight a powerful deck. But the effect generally sucks if everyone is fighting you because you're the most powerful deck at the table. So it's good when you're weak, but weak when you're good.
What other ideas do people have that help create fun games in a variety of environments?
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Best deck to use when not sure lol. Decent enough to slow down and possibly win against more competitive decks (counters and targeted removal ftw) and Combo out against them (Helm of Obedience + Leyline of the void ftw), but slow and precise enough to not steamroll over more casual decks.
Bonus points? Gets new players used to playing vs control
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
I play politically with my decks, regardless its type (except combo), therefore I always ensure that I or others do not focus too much on the same player unless there's an immediate threat. In other words, if I want a fair and balanced game I manipulate it so it happens. In most situations, I choose my Marath, Will of the Wild deck because it's the most versatile in terms of removal and political bargains. I also play [c]Erebos, God of the Dead]/c] which, while effective, limiting my deck to mono-color tends to provide a "weakness" for my opponents to exploits, allow the game to be more balanced.
Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest WUR Voltron Control
Temmet, Vizier of Naktamun WU Unblockable Mirror Trickery
Ra's al Ghul (Sidar Kondo) and Face-Down Ninjas
Brudiclad, Token Engineer
Vaevictis (VV2) the Dire Lantern
Rona, Disciple of Gix
Tiana the Auror
Hallar
Ulrich the Politician
Zur the Rebel
Scorpion, Locust, Scarab, Egyptian Gods
O-Kagachi, Mathas, Mairsil
"Non-Tribal" Tribal Generals, Eggs
Hug decks just provide for more unbalance where powerful decks can just do what they want much quicker, so that always ends up being a bloodbath as well.
I've wanted to make a deck which seeks to balance games out by giving advantages to the weaker players and disrupting the stronger ones. I even had a named lined up for it "Robin Hood vs the Sheriff of Nottingham".
The idea is to steal from the rich (competitive) and give to the poor (casual).
Sure you could just build a counterspell deck and just stop what the stronger decks are doing, but quite often you end up being the "bad guy" and people just attack/kill you because you're perceived as the control player.
I used to play quite a bit of Two-headed Giant, and you learn of some nice interactions with targeting your partner to gain advantages, like Time Warp them, or untap their lands, etc.
But there is a whole range of cards that fall under "opponents" to give both you and them advantages.
// Cards the give an opponent advantage as well as you
Forcemage Advocate
Nullmage Advocate
Pulsemage Advocate
Shieldmage Advocate
Spurnmage Advocate
Skullwinder
Hunted Troll
Hunted Phantasm
Hunted Lammasu
Hunted Horror
Hunted Dragon
Forbidden Orchard
Wheel and Deal
Intellectual Offering
Turnabout
Zedruu the Greathearted
Nova Pentacle
Phelddagrif
Questing Phelddagrif
Stealing the more powerful players cards can bring back a bit of balance
// Cards that steal
Mindclaw Shaman
Reins of Power
Commandeer
Sower of Temptation
Act of Aggression
Acquire
Bribery
Praetor's Grasp
Plagiarize
Thada Adel, Acquisitor
// Skip turn type cards
Time Stop
Exhaustion
Time Warp
"Evil" hand disruption, but if you can use it on the player who is waaay ahead you can perhaps stop their runaway plan
// Hand disruption
Mind Twist
Thought-Knot Seer
Scandalmonger
Vendilion Clique
Duress
Thoughtseize
Identity Crisis
// Creature kill
Diaochan, Artful Beauty
Curse of the Swine
Running a number of counterspells will be essential to stopping the broken stuff from happening.
// Counterspells
Force of Will
Glen Elendra Archmage
Voidslime
Pact of Negation
Forbid
Mental Misstep
Dispel
Swan Song
Arcane Denial
Negate
Counterspell
Mana Drain
Annul
Having a set of uncounterable cards can be really good against control decks.
// Uncounterable
Sudden Spoiling
Krosan Grip
Boseiju, Who Shelters All
Cavern of Souls
Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre
Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger
Kozilek, Butcher of Truth
Kozilek, the Great Distortion
Emrakul, the Promised End
Abrupt Decay
Supreme Verdict
// General good disruption
Nature's Claim
Swords to Plowshares
Beast Within
Focusing on removing one players key cards can rein on their broken parade
// Library removal cards
Grinning Totem
Jester's Cap
Bitter Ordeal
Cranial Extraction
Infinite Obliteration
Life's Finale
Lost Legacy
Memoricide
Nightmare Incursion
Praetor's Grasp *very playable card
Sadistic Sacrament
Stain the Mind
// Super hate cards
Hatred
Cruel Ultimatum
The commanders that seem obvious in this type of deck are Phelddagrif or Zedruu the Greathearted, but actually I'm steering towards Tasigur, the Golden Fang.
Once you've established to the table that you are trying to bring balance, players are more inclined to give you the card needed to stop the other players. I've found that if you activate Tasigur in response to a spell on the stack, that your opponents will give you the disruption needed to stop it.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
If you play a competitive infinite combo at my more casual tables I will never play against you again.
What about a non competitive infinite combo? I mean when i pay infinite combo, it is infinite damage and thus a win con. Throwing a fireball with millions of damage on it at your face is a win con. Sure it may seem unfair but who is to say that it is not a winning strategy. If my deck is control heavy I don't want to take away some control to build a creature base and smash face. I rather do it with a burn spell. Or maybe pump millions and millions of damage into rocket launcher.
People need to learn that combat damage is not the only way to win. Getting everyone else life to 0 is the common way to win but also not the only way to win.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
1) That is a horridly immature and close minded opinion. So to you, winning with Craterhoof+Avenger is ok? Or how about tokens with Triumph of the Hordes? Those are ok but say... infinite myr tokens with Myr Galvanized, Palladium myr, Myr Propagator, and another mana producing myr is bad? I never understand this irrational hatred for combo...
2) note how I said the combo is used vs more aggressive decks. Like more competitive decks. Leyline is a solid card for most all mill decks and solid tech vs Gy shenanigans. And you just chose not to use helm when playing against more casual decks. Note what the subject of this thread is. A deck that can play against casuals without being oppressive and more competitive decks without being steamrolled.
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
I've encountered many players like you
"I just won't use X"
That goes out the window the moment they feel even a little bit threatened.
In fact, I've encountered it with exactly this combo before.
And no, I clearly DO NOT think avenger + craterhoof is ok, hell I started the banlist discussion for avenger.
So you are one of those Battlecruiser players? Let's just smash big things into each other till someone dies! Fun right!
Again, note what the topic of this thread is. A deck that can play against both casuals and AND competitive people. And yes, I do hold my helm if playing in casual games. I have lost many times when I COULD have tutored out helm, but chose not to BECAUSE the game is casual and I can take a loss.
And you must really be REALLY "casual" if you think Avenger needs to be banned. And tell me, do you think ramp into eldrazi is bad? Because annihilator is much more oppressive than a janky combo. Or how about burn using stupid big fireballs? That has to be bad right?
And I like how you didnt mention Triumph of the Hordes. So a wall of trampling infect tokens is ok right? So, as to not derail this thread too much farther, what is the problem with combos so long as they are not consistently going off turns 2-5?
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
As others have said, control fits the bill the best, but I think the type of control used should be looked at. One of my friends plays incredibly reactively but almost never uses direct spot removal or counterspells. Instead, he's running cards like
-Cremate to "counter" graveyard cards
-Blossoming Defense to stop targeting effects
-Boros Fury Shield to redirect damage
-Sadistic Sacrament effects to proactively get rid of combo cards before they can become a problem
and so forth.
These are very strong options that offer defensive options for yourself, or to aide another player, which gives you the power to be very political while still remaining a threat to be dealt with, but when push comes to shove all of them offer a huge line of defense for your own strategies.
UBRSedris, the Necromancer KingUBR
Oh the other deck that could be good for either direction is Kaseto Voltron/Sub-theme tribal. Kaseto can be used quite politically since he can make enemy creatures Unblockable, allowing more casual players to have some fun hits at each other. Tribal Snakes is casual enough not to overwhelm your opponents, while voltron elements can turn the deck more competitive as to allowing Kaseto himself to get some beats in.
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
I also don't REALLY like the "remove it from the deck" plan because it doesn't work for game 1. It basically has all the failings that having multiple decks does, except that it's a bit more compact since you only need a few extra cards instead of an entire extra deck.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I can understand this. The big issue is that any deck that by itself will be good vs competitive decks, will be oppressive vs casual decks without intentional misplays. A deck that can aggro fast enough to stand up to combo or control will steam roll over less competitive decks. Stax is just hated by everyone. Control that is consistent enough vs competitive decks will mandate countering badly/not using some cards to not dominate casual decks.
Sadly I do not think there is one deck that can play both extremes without having an "omni-player"
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
I agree that aggro that beats combo is going to dominate casual decks, which is why I don't think aggro is really ever going to work as an omni-deck. Stax I agree, same problem.
Control, I don't see what you're talking about. Counterspell, for example, will always trade 1:1 with whatever their best card is - whether that's doomsday or craw wurm. Sure, vs doomsday maybe you need to be prepared to counter 3 spells by turn 4, whereas vs casuals maybe you don't need to have any removal or counters up until turn 8, but it's not like sitting there with a hand full of counters and removal ready while nothing important happens in the early turns is going to be a bad thing. I guess you could argue that a strong control deck will have a lot of draw power which will crush an attrition war vs casual decks, but that still seems like a much more fair fight than playing a fast combo deck. Even with powerful draw it's pretty hard to outpace an entire table, especially if most of your removal is single-target.
Personally, I've really been liking my latest phelddagrif deck for doing this pretty well. It has cheap removal and counters to handle powerful decks, especially combo, decently, but it has hardly any board presence so it can't run people over quickly. Maybe you could argue I'm misplaying, but I think the best way to beat any table with it is basically to help the weakest player kill the others while grinding thsemselves out of resources, then pounce and finish them off in 1v1. I suspect that it would be pretty difficult to pull off at a table of nothing but fast combo decks, since I can only stop so many and I have no way to win quickly on my own. But as I said, it may not be possible to span the WHOLE range from competitive to casual. I think my deck, so far, does a pretty good job - I haven't played at the very far ends of the spectrum but it's done a good job at countering some fairly strong decks and it's almost impossible for it to be terribly oppressive in any meta - I have won a game or two from capsize lock, but that's only after a long game where everyone else died by someone else's hand, so that doesn't seem THAT bad to me, even if it's a slightly dickish way to win in the end.
I think it's only a problem when the control deck is able to take on the entire table at once effectively - good example being my Child of Alara deck, which was in the business of wiping the board every turn starting on turn 4-5 or so. That deck still took a while to win, but it wasn't much fun for the rest of the table. Atomic baby bombs the competitive and the casual alike back to the stone age. Targeted removal, obviously, is more selective, and lets you focus on the competitive while letting the casual stuff, or even the less scary stuff from the competitive deck, develop a bit, so people don't feel like they're incapable of doing anything.
Even if the control deck wins often, I don't think it's a problem so long as it doesn't win super quickly or against the entire table at once.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
my build is somewhat controlly (mostly spot removal/stack manipulation), and has parts of infinite combo elements in it, though i need to steal/copy other player's rings and stuff to actually complete the combo (i think its ok if my opponent decides to field known combo enablers to use it for myself). in my meta though, it usually ends up with a win via Benthic Behemoth beatdown, so its generally not well tested against high powered decks.
i think its not super necessary to build a single deck that is scales to the entire field, but at least reaches the bottom 25% and the top 75% in power. Its def possible.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
I think I sort of covered redirecting cards back at your opponent, but maybe I left out cards that use their resources against them without directly taking them. Interesting read, it does seem like the deck would be pretty DOA against a competitive deck, though. Although it does have some pretty good answers to infinite creature combos, at least.
His deck seems fairly similar to my phelddagrif in terms of playstyle, except that phelddagrif is better suited to fighting more competitive decks, but tends to win much more slowly which can be boring sometimes. I think his might be more amusing within that 25%-75% range when it works, but I can also see it doing a whole lot of nothing or just being ineffective against more powerful decks.
I do believe that, within a certain range (call it 25%-75%) most decks do sort of OK - that's sort of the sweet spot for EDH, in that less competitive decks team up on more competitive decks and can usually sort-of-balance the tables. At the top end of competitive combo/stax/etc, though, less competitive decks just have no chance to stop them, and at the bottom end (like, sub-precon level) any decent deck will crush them regardless of who makes it to the final 2. It's at those extremes where you really need to use deckbuilding tricks to keep the game on an even-ish playing field.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Also, just filling the deck with enough counterspells is not going to be enough to just put in a run of the mill wincon and ride it out. To stop most combo decks, you will need graveyard hate at some point. And then, it becomes a huge challenge to stay alive v any real beatdown when your deck is full of those kinds of cards that totally don’t affect the board.
The closest I’ve ever come to this “omni-deck” was much more toward the competitive side, in the end, and actually had a few rl friends tired of it. It was a Keranos deck that ran everything at Instant speed, used Scrabbling Claws and things like that to fill in the gaps in grave hate for the colors, but ultimately what did it in was having the Reset-Reiterate combo in there. At its inception, it had Repercussion , Insurrection, and Rite of Replication in as win conditions, but a lot of that went out as cards like Meishin, the Mind Cage got added.
I remember a game where one player was about to go off with Sword of Feast and Famine and Aggravated Assault, where I used Firemind’s Foresight to tutor a counter. Then, I grabbed combo pieces with the rest of the tutor, and went off. It wasn’t very well received by that player.
I wish I had an opinion other than the one I do. I like the idea myself, and enjoy a Control a lot in EDH. But, I think you need to decide with a deck what kind of games you’re just going to forget about and stop preparing for.
As noble of a goal as a true omni-deck is, I don't really think I'd enjoy playing those sorts of metas anyway. It's nice to at least have a reasonable effect on the game, though, which is more than you could say for a lot of 75% decks.
I think these are the important types of games to look at for an omni-deck:
top tier = usually a well-known netdeck around one of the common "best" commanders - zur, arcum, doomsday, HD, that sort of thing. Usually combo.
mid = your usual 25-75% deck. Basically anything from a precon to a "good" commander deck.
low = worse than a precon. Usually a new player, probably just using cards they've acquired from recent sets from friends, drafts, etc.
1 -everyone playing top-tier decks or close: I've rarely run across this sort of thing in pickup games. While I think a certain win% is achievable, I don't think you can expect to have an equal share at the table and not be oppressive in other metas.
2 - one person playing a top-tier deck, the rest of the table mid or lower: These games seem very workable to me with efficient answers. You can use targeted removal to answer the fastest, most dangerous threats, and direct the table towards the powerful player. Another nice tool to fight this sort of deck is cards like telepathy, which helps show the rest of the table WHY they need to kill that player, and helps you figure out how to sequence your answers to avoid letting them win, or to avoid holding up more than necessary.
3 - everyone playing mid: most decks that aren't top-tier should be able to handle this with a reasonable win%. Even bad decks can win if they're not targeted. This is almost guaranteed to be fine for anyone not trying to build a top-tier deck.
4 - a mix of mid and low powered decks: this is where some of your more aggressive 75% decks can start to be problematic - maelstrom wanderer, for example, can sometimes just roll lower powered metas even if everyone is fighting against them. This isn't necessarily a deal breaker for a game, but an omni-deck should probably aim to have some chance to lose this match, so it can't just win without any back and forth.
5 - everyone playing low: this is where things get pretty tricky again, but this is a very rare meta unless you're also a new player playing kitchen table. I think it's difficult to be playing a decent deck and not be able to roll the table to a certain extent. It's also potentially hard to lose because newer players will probably have poor threat assessment and are likely to misplay to your advantage. It's pretty hard to have a reasonable win% here, but I think a good omni-deck should at least take a while to win and let other people develop their stuff a bit.
I think most people would agree that 2-4 are by far the most common, so that's mostly what I'm targeting. If it sometimes works for 1 and 5, that's great, but I think no matter how well you make your omni-deck, you'd probably be better off breaking out another deck for game 2 in those extreme metas.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “top tier” deck outside of Cockatrice, and maybe Moxnix. There are probably only half a dozen decks that would be categorized here (Storm, Ad Naus, etc). In fact, a good number of the decks I’ve seen in the cEDH subreddit are below the level of top tier (such as Ruric Thar, any sort of Stax deck, Blue-less GY combo, etc).
Even taking that aside, there’s a pretty big gulf with “75% decks”. Most decks I’ve seen with the 75% label are unable to consistently have any disruption in hand by Turn 5, and take several turns of combat damage to actually win. People with 75% decks are about 0% against the top tier, because they just fail to run any sort of relevant disruption.
The best you can do is probably a deck that is ok against a table with one deck that someone might run at a Competitive tournament, without running any combo’s. At that point though, you’re basically changing nothing other than cutting out the MLD and the combo. And without those two, there are going to be games where your deck just doesn’t have anything timely or relevant to do.
I agree that most 75% decks are going to suck vs even one good combo deck, but that's why we're talking about an omni-deck, not a 75% deck.
I almost don't want to comment on your last paragraph because it's so ambiguous, but it SEEMS like what you're saying is "without running MLD/combo the best you can expect to do is beat a table with one competitive deck" which I agree with, but then it sounds like you're saying "the only thing you're changing is removing the MLD/combo, without which you won't be able to do anything relevant in some games"...which makes no sense. Obviously I'm not just talking about taking a competitive deck and removing the combo/MLD, I'm building a deck from the ground up to work in a wide spectrum of metas. And even if an omni-deck probably can't reliably win in competitive metas, it can certainly do something relevant by blocking one or more players from comboing out. But more importantly than that, by taking out the MLD/combos we're able to play in lower-powered metas and still have a good game.
That's sort of the point of this exercise. Anyone can make a competitive EDH deck that crushes lower-powered metas. The trick here is to find a deck that DOESN'T crush weaker metas, while still not getting completely wrecked in moderately-powerful ones. And ideally, if possible, having at least some small chance in competitive metas, and having some chance to lose in the weakest metas, but those are definitely the lowest priority matches as they're the rarest.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Ramp, tutor, time walk. Win.
I hate it but it's the truth, otherwise you have Tooth Nail, Bribery, Spelljack, Rise Dark Rhealms and stuff like that that can just win on own.
GWRUB[EDH] Reaper KingGWRUB
GW[Legacy] BEARS (#1 Threat in America)GW
UR[Legacy] Arcane MeleeUR
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
What I mean is you have the apparent choice between building an omni-deck and building a deck designed specifically to hold its own as the primary concern. The difference between those two choices is that the omni-deck seems like it can’t run anything that irritates people or is too strong (combo, MLD), but the other deck can.
If you’re ok having a game against one more competitive players without being able to rely on that, then sounds fine to me. You will probably want a bunch of spot removal and graveyard exile, would be my recommendation.
It’s hard to build a deck that doesn’t crush people, since it depends on what they’re playing. Lots and lots of people get crushed by Hexproof, to read all the threads about Uril and Sigarda.
You will probably want UWx or UBx, for the counters and graveyard exile. After that, maybe just find some threats that you think people would find fun to play against. And then if you still have people complain about it being too strong, you’ll know you probably just have some complainers on your hands.