So, this is something I am sure many of us control players end up having to deal with, how to play control vs more casual players. In commander this is ESPECIALLY tricky since we have so many tools but also, commander is a more casual format to begin with.Commander is also a format that tends to draw people looking for Battlecruiser magic and playing big things.
So how do you reconcile playing a control deck vs more casual players, who often are not very fond of being told no. Do you intentionally play poorly (hold counter spells, wraths, ect. Counter sub-optimal spells. Ect)? Do you build the deck much weaker (which itself is a challenge as control decks kind of need a certain amount of control elements to set itself up)? Or do you just forgo playing control at all?
For me, I tend to run my Fine Tuned Circu Lantern Control deck and just intentionally pick slightly sub-optimal targets as Circu has a bit of precision as to when and where he hits. But I still grapple with the issue of counterspells and kill spells and how not to be too oppressive while also not being a total push over and not doing anything at all.
So what are your guys thoughts? How do you balance being a control player vs more casual players and decks?
EDIT: forgot to mention, I was wondering this because I was reminded of a game of Commander on cockatrice where a guy ragequit because I used Cryptic Command to bounce a sliver he had that was enchanted with Call of the Kindred and he got mad. Oh and I had Faerie Snitches so I could see what people were about to draw (it was my lantern control deck). And I have had this happen a few times on Cockatrice and IRL (especially with Taniwha...)
I had someone rage quit because I path to exile on oricale of Mul daya in the draw step after a cavern of souls was revealed. Turns out they were playing 5 colour with no basics and they needed the land. but I am a counterspell control deck I have to get rid of cavern.
I have run into a lot of players that get super mad if I stop thier big play or lock them out of something they wanted to do. But whatever they were about to do was either going to make things hard for me like cavern or it was going to win them the game. I cast Wrath of god, you are complaining that I destoried everything, It doesn't matter that you aren't currently attacking me because at some point you will be, perhaps after you kill others I want to simplify this boardstate so I can control the game. If you build a deck that doesn't take the chance of someone casting wrath of god at some point you are doing it wrong, even in causal, you learn very quickly what commander is about and that is getting wrathed a lot.
Commander needs control players the format straight breaks if people don't play control, this is also true of casual commander. If everyone plays ramp or goodstuff midrange or combo or something like that the game quickly devolves into who dumbest thing faster. Bit by bit it stops being casual, people just start an arms race. I would argue casual doesn't stay casual unless someone plays control and puts a break on the most redicilous things that can happen in the format.
In casual, fun is basically the metric of winning the game, who had the most fun. It is possible to distribute fun in such a way that eveyone has it. I feel like controls job in casual is not to win the game but to push the fun around the table. NO you don't get to have the most fun this game, give these other people a chance. I feel like control gets a lot of hate in casual but people don't understand the hard work required to stop the game going completely nuts. There is a too much, killing my creature made me feel bad but not understanding stopping you helps the game continue in a healthy way.
I think control players in casual need:
1. A very keen sense of target selection and who is a winning the game at any point.
2. You need a path to victory but as per most control decks winning isn't the primary goal, surviving is. Some casual control decks can have the problem of just dragging the game on without winning it or the opposite they can be too aggresive towards winning the game but doing so with counterspells (but I don't consider those control decks they just look like control decks)
3. Political skill. You are going to have to justify your actions a lot. If I let you keep that you were going to win the game. I used strip mine on Cabal coffers because it was too dangerous to have around even if you don't have Urbog yet.
Tl;DR Control decks are an important part of a healthy Commander meta game even in casual. But you are going to need certain skills to pilot them fairly, skills not everyone has and skills that are different to playing control in other formats.
I also make Narset, Enlightened Master commander players rage quit because they are always the biggest threat no matter what they claim about thier deck. I swear that card has no place in casual commander.
Casual control is fine, but there comes a point where control stops being casual and that line gets very blurry. I've basically sworn off playing with the local Mizzix player, because his deck is literally nothing but X cost or buyback spells, instant speed answers, board wipes and archaeomancer effects backed up by ramp and card draw. That's never going to become an interactive game unless everyone plays blue because of the sheer volume and reusability of his instant speed answers.
I would probably end up hating your circu deck off the board because recurring exile every turn is really oppressively obnoxious. The problem isn't necessarily being told no, the problem is the volume and frequency of no. If your deck revolves around knowing everyone's top decks and repeatedly denying people good draws while also countering/wiping everything, most people I know would want to ram every fast aggro creature they had down your throat until you died so they didnt have to deal with you anymore.
A multiplayer victory has to exist beyond simply beating your opponent, there has to be a mutual enjoyment of everyone involved. If you win the game and everyone else is miserable then you've still lost. What gets played is irrelevant.
My attitude towards playing Control (particularly Stax) can be summed up as
"I don't understand the problem. I'm still playing Magic."
I did have a game at some point in the last few weeks with a newer player, where I was sitting on a Glen Elendra Archmage for basically the entire game. Said new player could not figure out why I was not countering things. I ended up winning without ever using the Archamge.
There simply was never anything worth countering. While that player was starting to freak out over the Archamge, I do not see how the game would have been more enjoyable for her if I had been countering her spells with it.
I also make Narset, Enlightened Master commander players rage quit because they are always the biggest threat no matter what they claim about thier deck. I swear that card has no place in casual commander.
There was a game a while back, where the Narset player was threatening to cast her on turn 3 with Haste, I think. I had the ability to delay it a couple turns (probably Nature's Claim on a Signet with two necessary colors, or something similar, though I do not actually recall).
Instead, I just chose to cast a Trinisphere.
If I remember correctly, the Narset player was never the biggest threat that game.
As long as you're sharing your Counters around, and not just targeting one player, I doubt anyone will complain too much. If you do start getting too oppressive, things are likely to balance themselves out when everyone else turns on you! Play the deck you want, as long as you're prepared for the consequences!
I haven't run into any problems recently. I think the main thing is, don't get too controlly until it's necessary. If someone is mad that you countered their infinite combo or removed their lethal attack against you...they're just a butthole. On the other hand, if you preemptively kill or counter a bunch of their stuff before it really becomes a threat I could see them getting reasonably annoyed. I think when you're playing correctly, at least with targeted removal/counters/etc, you shouldn't be repeatedly answering one player's cards all the time. It's just not really a tenable way to play. You need to save your answers for the threats that really matter.
If you're answering everything because you're sitting on DEN + mystic snake or something, then that's really more of a combo than control strategy imo.
I had someone rage quit because I path to exile on oricale of Mul daya in the draw step after a cavern of souls was revealed. Turns out they were playing 5 colour with no basics and they needed the land. but I am a counterspell control deck I have to get rid of cavern.
I don't get it, how does pathing their oracle get rid of the land? Sure, it delays it a turn but that is it.
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
As a casual player (self-defined as enjoying splashy and chaotic plays, eschewing most tutors, rarely paying Rhystic Study tax, preferring red in my decks, not actively striving to keep my decks' average-cmc around 3, preferring flavor and theme and pet cards over the most efficient cards, liking group hug, and basic-land heavy manabases), my view of control is thus: it needs to exist in some form at every table, and when I gun for a control player, I expect to see removal or countermagic aimed my way. It is when the game turns into draw-go for multiple turns as a result of the control player(s) that frustration mounts.
Sometimes the games becomes draw-go due to the ebb and flow of the game, and while it is frustrating, that frustration is aimed at the deck(builder) and chance more than a specific opponent. Granted, a well-time counterspell that prolongs this situation (countering a landfetch or draw spell, for example) then focuses that frustration into ire at the blue wizard.
While I'd argue that every deck needs some form of control, in the form of answers, it is the hard control (with or without stax) that sets my teeth on edge.
A closed metagame has its own 'gentlemen's agreements,' unspoken or not. Those same agreements and the play they encourage goes out the window in a pickup game, and I think that is where the heartache sets in - players bring clashing expectations to the table. Still, control is needed to combat the combo decks that pickup games with half-strangers can bring.
Tl;dr - let opponents do things, except maybe win or harm you directly.
Cheers!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If in the area, check out Gamers N Geeks and Mini War Games in Mobile, Alabama and Underhill's Games in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
@Muspellsheimr
You can see people saying don't hard target a player in this thread but sometimes... its nessairy. I am not sure how I feel about stax. I would say my control deck has "stax elements" where I try to funnel people into playing a fair game but I don't like restricting mana as much as what they can do with it. Trinisphere is a good way to deal with narset though haha.
@HugSeal
I don't get why they raged out... 12 maybe.. people are terrible. Well I get to path with no downside as well you see. Either they take the ramp and cavern goes away or they get cavern next turn. I think they didn't have another land in hand. Although I didn't know that when I pathed mul daya, because its typically dangerous at getting people way ahead in mana.
@krichaiushii. Oh yeah that is an important point. I think that is where I was going with having a clear way to win because if the game is draw go you should be actively winning the game in someway. Perhaps through mana sinks or your commander. I think casual control commander can really lack this and just make things miserable then still lose. Your Tl;Dr is also important but I actually don't think that is possible to counter everything like that I think you actually just burn yourself out and lose horribly. Unless you are using some semi combo of somekind. when I think control I think something super fair.
Casual control is fine, but there comes a point where control stops being casual and that line gets very blurry. I've basically sworn off playing with the local Mizzix player, because his deck is literally nothing but X cost or buyback spells, instant speed answers, board wipes and archaeomancer effects backed up by ramp and card draw. That's never going to become an interactive game unless everyone plays blue because of the sheer volume and reusability of his instant speed answers.
I would probably end up hating your circu deck off the board because recurring exile every turn is really oppressively obnoxious. The problem isn't necessarily being told no, the problem is the volume and frequency of no. If your deck revolves around knowing everyone's top decks and repeatedly denying people good draws while also countering/wiping everything, most people I know would want to ram every fast aggro creature they had down your throat until you died so they didnt have to deal with you anymore.
1) That is kind of childish of you. It is not hard to stop mizzix. If his deck is full of so many expensive cards, just beat him in the face until Mizzix comes, then blow up Mizzix and keep killing Mizzix. Mizzix is slow to enter, slow to build up XP, and super fragile. And from what you are describing, his deck is VERY interactive. He is interacting with you guys and interacting with your plays. If your deck is lacking removal that is kind of on you...
2) And that attitude is the VERY thing I am talking about. Circu is NOT VERY good in EDH at all. Milling 1 card a spell is very slow, and often you can end up getting rid of a card just to reveal a better card beneath it. But your antagonistic attitude would make playing control of any form utterly unfun at all. THIS is the very attitude I am worried about -.-
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
And from what you are describing, his deck is VERY interactive. He is interacting with you guys and interacting with your plays. If your deck is lacking removal that is kind of on you...
That's one of my favorite ironies common to this format. Complaining that hyper interactive decks make games "uninteractive." Usually stated by a player whose deck only interacts with itself or with the opponent through the combat step.
One of the biggest problems this format has is that so many people use "it's a casual game" to demonize archetypes they don't like personally. Like they seem to think their opponents shouldn't be allowed to play Magic because it isn't how they want the game to be played. And in before the "control decks don't let me play Magic" argument...No. It doesn't let you play your deck. Your deck poorly designed to deal with control.
In the end it all boils down to relative power levels between decks. Control decks tend to be higher power level decks. Battlecruiser or creature based decks (that aren't strong ETB decks) are pretty weak.
Players should shoulder some responsibility and try to equalize power levels as much as possible in regular play groups. If one guy has a deck significantly more powerful than everyone elses and won't change up, he's a douche. If someone has a deck significantly weaker and won't change up (typically while complaining), he's a douche.
But the idea that certain playstyles or archetypes shouldn't be played because some people have personal issues with them is the ultimate douche attitude.
At its core, the problem is changing peoples' perceptions and attitudes toward control, which can be a very difficult endeavor. Some people will not want to have their minds changed. They will continue to espouse their hatred of blue (yet will be the first one to beg a blue player to save the table from something awful being cast) and hold onto their entitlement that they should be able to cast whatever they want in a game. For those who are new(er) to Magic, or may not have a clear understanding of how control works/wins, an open dialogue is the only solution. After a game, explain why you countered/controlled the game the way you did. Explain that its not personal, it is calculated threat assessment with the underlying goal of trying to win. If you want to take it a step further, make the suggestion to swap your control deck with their deck. Give them the chance to experience what its like to play control against multiple people while still trying to have a a good time and/or win. Have them experience first hand the hard decision of what to counter, and the fact that a control deck does not always have the counter/kill spell in hand.
If you are feeling really nice, you could give them some pointers on how to beat control (bait counters, push through counters, don't overextend, etc).
I have been a life long control player (like trying to make counters and Shard Phoenix back in my noob days, or running Scepter-Chant back when Extended was a format), so that has greatly influenced my attitude toward control decks. I also played aggro, control, and combo decks when I used to play competitively, so I came to understand how those archetypes all interacted and the roles they played in a given meta. So I am really curious as to how players arrive at their hatred for control and/or blue decks.
At its core, the problem is changing peoples' perceptions and attitudes toward control, which can be a very difficult endeavor. Some people will not want to have their minds changed. They will continue to espouse their hatred of blue (yet will be the first one to beg a blue player to save the table from something awful being cast) and hold onto their entitlement that they should be able to cast whatever they want in a game. For those who are new(er) to Magic, or may not have a clear understanding of how control works/wins, an open dialogue is the only solution. After a game, explain why you countered/controlled the game the way you did. Explain that its not personal, it is calculated threat assessment with the underlying goal of trying to win. If you want to take it a step further, make the suggestion to swap your control deck with their deck. Give them the chance to experience what its like to play control against multiple people while still trying to have a a good time and/or win. Have them experience first hand the hard decision of what to counter, and the fact that a control deck does not always have the counter/kill spell in hand.
If you are feeling really nice, you could give them some pointers on how to beat control (bait counters, push through counters, don't overextend, etc).
I have been a life long control player (like trying to make counters and Shard Phoenix back in my noob days, or running Scepter-Chant back when Extended was a format), so that has greatly influenced my attitude toward control decks. I also played aggro, control, and combo decks when I used to play competitively, so I came to understand how those archetypes all interacted and the roles they played in a given meta. So I am really curious as to how players arrive at their hatred for control and/or blue decks.
I do greatly endorse this. I have done this plenty of times to try and placate people who have ragequit because of control and to try and teach the nuances of control.
As for WHY, I personally believe it is 3 fold:
1) People naturally don't like being told no. They want to do this crazy cool thing but end up not being able to because they haven't learned how to play against control and how to bait or not overextend (hardest thing to learn when I first started playing aggro for me, just how much to play). This generation being full of participation trophy winners doesn't exactly help but that is a whole can of worms best not going in to.
2) Many casuals came from Standard/Modern where counter control is kind of at minimum and control as a whole is a much smaller archetype. So they are just not used to seeing traditional Ux control or old school B control.
3) Those who have been playing for a few years probably got started when Faeries, Cawblade, Delver, or Bant Control were big decks and so, they developed their opinions on U from hyper powerful decks of the time. They started hating U because they remember the joy of Snapcaster+Mana Leak.
That is my theory anyway
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
I had someone rage quit because I path to exile on oricale of Mul daya in the draw step after a cavern of souls was revealed. Turns out they were playing 5 colour with no basics and they needed the land. but I am a counterspell control deck I have to get rid of cavern.
I don't get it, how does pathing their oracle get rid of the land? Sure, it delays it a turn but that is it.
Probably one or more people at the table didn't realize the land search from Path was optional. If you do search up a land as the controller of the Path'ed creature, you've got to shuffle, and the Cavern is gone. Of course, you could simply not search, and then not shuffle, but not everyone realizes that is an option.
You seem to create a lot of these threads SnowBunny As with combo's, I feel that many newer EDH players will feel countering the creature they just paid 8 mana for with a cmc 3 spell is a cheap move. And they probably feel it's done just to spite them as they weren't even attacking with it yet! However, experienced players will know that the control player will not have a counter ready at all moments and will hope he/she has that counter when another player is trying to combo out or cast a back breaking Exsanguinate .
To me it isn't casuals and control but newer players and control that is the issue.
You seem to create a lot of these threads SnowBunny As with combo's, I feel that many newer EDH players will feel countering the creature they just paid 8 mana for with a cmc 3 spell is a cheap move. And they probably feel it's done just to spite them as they weren't even attacking with it yet! However, experienced players will know that the control player will not have a counter ready at all moments and will hope he/she has that counter when another player is trying to combo out or cast a back breaking Exsanguinate .
To me it isn't casuals and control but newer players and control that is the issue.
That is because I have been doing a lot of thinking due to my time spent on cockatrice and seeing all the hate regarding many strategies that I personally like lol. That and I tend to be that awkward middle ground player in that I tend to make off the wall decks, but try to make them as solid as I possibly can (Like my Higure deck that has lots of Unblockable dudes, swords and other things that trigger on combat damage, and plenty of tempo cards to keep them going). So I tend to be too "competitive" for casual games, but too "casual" for competitive lol.
As for newer vs casual, I can agree to some extent. Except I have seen more than a few casuals who never really get beyond the "Timmy" phase.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
Another thing you can do for building control with more casual players is use counterspells that don't feel quite as bad. Arcane Denial and Dream Fracture replace the spell that was lost in compensation. Remand, Unsubstantiate, and Brutal Expulsion all let them try again later. Delay and Ertai's Meddling each let them automatically try again later, without extra mana investment.
Another thing you can do for building control with more casual players is use counterspells that don't feel quite as bad. Arcane Denial and Dream Fracture replace the spell that was lost in compensation. Remand, Unsubstantiate, and Brutal Expulsion all let them try again later. Delay and Ertai's Meddling each let them automatically try again later, without extra mana investment.
I guess to that end you could also throw Mana Leak and Convolute, etc into this list. It lets the "get out" of your counter if they are willing/able to pay the tax. I think that's a good teaching tool for new players too because it rewards them for playing into the counter in a way that they can still get their spell if they want it bad enough. It also forces them to make a decision as to whether they should pay the tax or get to cast a different spell that turn, again potentially rewarding them for baiting.
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
So I might give some interesting perspective on this, seeing that my most controllish build is a sac-heavy Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder casual build. That is, a black control deck utilizing sac tech. I'm not using blue.
The deck has ways to go somewhat Stax-y, with cards such as Phyrexian Plaguelord and Sadistic Hypnotist going from awful to absolutely backbreaking, unless answered with counters - The cards basically read "distribute at least -5/-5 among up to five creatures" and "Any number of players discard a total of ten cards, at least", with this being the very minimum of action I can get out of the cards. Combined with attrition cards such as Dictate of Erebos and a bunch of search spells such as Sidisi, Undead Vizier, I will take over the game unless I'm held back.
The deck isn't non-casual enough to be completely ridiculous to play against - I don't play Sol Ring on principle, neither Painful Quandary nor Exsanguinate.
But it's basically a control deck that can deal with both creatures and hands if having enough land. But if I'm the only control deck at the table, seeing that unless I have the enablers my board is mostly threatless but with enough rattlesnakes to keep opponents away, I can very well win. Control decks are needed to keep decks like Endrek at bay. Without removal, the deck will go bonkers.
On the other hand, if I face only control decks, I'll never achieve a board state due to the amount of Wraths. That's unhealthy too.
Seems like a lot of threads in general are about helping people not gripe, not just from SnowBunny, but in general. It shouldn’t be this hard not to gripe.
The best way forward against control depends on what kind of “Control” is played. If someone is playing some sort of UBx build that plans on slowly bleeding players out with Whispering Madness, then you should just be getting your face beaten off before then. It is not hard for every creature-based deck to run either wipe protection, recursion, or both, and for counterspells, there are just not enough to go around for the table unless your own win condition is tempo-based (read, combo). As in, basically every time I’ve seen the stock Leovold, Emissary of Trest deck with wheels, the Gx fatty stomp and RWx aggro decks get their hands wiped, then just make a meal out of Leovold with 1-2 creatures before Leovold can actually get about the business of taking the game. At least (and this is the key), as long as the one thing actually threatening from Leovold such as Waste Not or Bloodchief Ascension eats a disenchant from the White or Green players. If opponents are too slow at developing or can’t deal with one card, then that is the problem, not that they’re playing against Control.
If it’s a Stax style of “control” deck, then you are understandably going to deal with more upset players. Most EDH decks are built to use 100% of the resources they draw, and still don’t draw enough resources a good chunk of the time. But, this is what Stax does.
If you’re playing Control with a combo win-con that only requires that you access certain cards with sufficient mana, then you are probably going to get more gripes about winning via infinite combo than you are about countering something, But imo, this happens to be just about the only way to play dedicated Control in this format in a way that isn’t just waiting to get your face bashed in by the first couple of creatures you can’t kill.
So an alternative approach would be to just coach players on building decks that are more resilient to disruption, and that have a bare minimum of answer cards themselves, regardless of what kind of deck they are. This is just responsible EDH goodstuff deckbuilding. Try mentioning, hey, you probably would have won if you’d dealt with my Vicious Shadows, or had a wrath for after my Rite of Replication/Sepulchral Primordial. Honestly, it’s about 6-7 things that are actually capable of defeating a table of 3 other players at 40 life, so figure out what they are and plan on killing them.
So an alternative approach would be to just coach players on building decks that are more resilient to disruption, and that have a bare minimum of answer cards themselves, regardless of what kind of deck they are. This is just responsible EDH goodstuff deckbuilding.
I've been looking through a lot of decklists recently to find ideas for the Breya and Yidris decks I am working on, and I was appalled at the lack of answers that many decks were running. This was especially true in the Breya noncombo lists I was looking through. Decks jammed with (crappy) artifacts for Breya's abilities but they could only make room for one removal spell, one wrath, and a couple draw spells. I cant even imagine the type of EDH meta where this would be remotely enough answers in a four player game.
One way I interpret the above quote is that any good deck should have some control elements in them. How else are we to protect and further our boardstate while denying our opponents' attempts to reach this same goal but through the control elements we place in our decks?
So, this is something I am sure many of us control players end up having to deal with, how to play control vs more casual players. In commander this is ESPECIALLY tricky since we have so many tools but also, commander is a more casual format to begin with.Commander is also a format that tends to draw people looking for Battlecruiser magic and playing big things.
So how do you reconcile playing a control deck vs more casual players, who often are not very fond of being told no. Do you intentionally play poorly (hold counter spells, wraths, ect. Counter sub-optimal spells. Ect)? Do you build the deck much weaker (which itself is a challenge as control decks kind of need a certain amount of control elements to set itself up)? Or do you just forgo playing control at all?
For me, I tend to run my Fine Tuned Circu Lantern Control deck and just intentionally pick slightly sub-optimal targets as Circu has a bit of precision as to when and where he hits. But I still grapple with the issue of counterspells and kill spells and how not to be too oppressive while also not being a total push over and not doing anything at all.
So what are your guys thoughts? How do you balance being a control player vs more casual players and decks?
EDIT: forgot to mention, I was wondering this because I was reminded of a game of Commander on cockatrice where a guy ragequit because I used Cryptic Command to bounce a sliver he had that was enchanted with Call of the Kindred and he got mad. Oh and I had Faerie Snitches so I could see what people were about to draw (it was my lantern control deck). And I have had this happen a few times on Cockatrice and IRL (especially with Taniwha...)
You could try playing different decks between rounds? Try explaining to them how your deck works. I used to get a little salty about mass counter spell decks, however over time i've realized that playing against different deck styles keeps things interesting. In one of my playgroups we switch decks almost every round. Keeps things refreshing.
So an alternative approach would be to just coach players on building decks that are more resilient to disruption, and that have a bare minimum of answer cards themselves, regardless of what kind of deck they are. This is just responsible EDH goodstuff deckbuilding.
I've been looking through a lot of decklists recently to find ideas for the Breya and Yidris decks I am working on, and I was appalled at the lack of answers that many decks were running. This was especially true in the Breya noncombo lists I was looking through. Decks jammed with (crappy) artifacts for Breya's abilities but they could only make room for one removal spell, one wrath, and a couple draw spells. I cant even imagine the type of EDH meta where this would be remotely enough answers in a four player game.
One way I interpret the above quote is that any good deck should have some control elements in them. How else are we to protect and further our boardstate while denying our opponents' attempts to reach this same goal but through the control elements we place in our decks?
Yeah, basically. The vulnerability of decks that are very answer-dense is that they are very threat-light. So, they don’t deal with having too much of their stuff killed. The way they usually deal with that is to have a very compact threat that is impossible to kill, such as T&N fetching a 2-carder from the library (i.e. combo). Except, lots of players will take issue with that. The other way to deal with that is to have something like Vicious Shadows that’s just harder to kill, or having a lot of recursion for their threats.
So if every deck runs a few slots of spot removal, especially for non-creatures, then maybe some exile, no single card will usually be able to go the distance. The control deck will wipe 2-3 times, Rest in Peace everyone, then when it comes to playing their finishing material like Luminarch Ascension, what have you, it eats old Chaos Warp, and can find itself without anything left in the deck that can get there.
If more players understood that about building Control in this format (and, no one was running combo), it would be really easy to deal with any overly answer-heavy deck just by running 2-3 slots of removal in every deck.
So how do you reconcile playing a control deck vs more casual players, who often are not very fond of being told no. Do you intentionally play poorly (hold counter spells, wraths, ect. Counter sub-optimal spells. Ect)? Do you build the deck much weaker (which itself is a challenge as control decks kind of need a certain amount of control elements to set itself up)? Or do you just forgo playing control at all?
For me, I tend to run my Fine Tuned Circu Lantern Control deck and just intentionally pick slightly sub-optimal targets as Circu has a bit of precision as to when and where he hits. But I still grapple with the issue of counterspells and kill spells and how not to be too oppressive while also not being a total push over and not doing anything at all.
So what are your guys thoughts? How do you balance being a control player vs more casual players and decks?
EDIT: forgot to mention, I was wondering this because I was reminded of a game of Commander on cockatrice where a guy ragequit because I used Cryptic Command to bounce a sliver he had that was enchanted with Call of the Kindred and he got mad. Oh and I had Faerie Snitches so I could see what people were about to draw (it was my lantern control deck). And I have had this happen a few times on Cockatrice and IRL (especially with Taniwha...)
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
I had someone rage quit because I path to exile on oricale of Mul daya in the draw step after a cavern of souls was revealed. Turns out they were playing 5 colour with no basics and they needed the land. but I am a counterspell control deck I have to get rid of cavern.
I have run into a lot of players that get super mad if I stop thier big play or lock them out of something they wanted to do. But whatever they were about to do was either going to make things hard for me like cavern or it was going to win them the game. I cast Wrath of god, you are complaining that I destoried everything, It doesn't matter that you aren't currently attacking me because at some point you will be, perhaps after you kill others I want to simplify this boardstate so I can control the game. If you build a deck that doesn't take the chance of someone casting wrath of god at some point you are doing it wrong, even in causal, you learn very quickly what commander is about and that is getting wrathed a lot.
Commander needs control players the format straight breaks if people don't play control, this is also true of casual commander. If everyone plays ramp or goodstuff midrange or combo or something like that the game quickly devolves into who dumbest thing faster. Bit by bit it stops being casual, people just start an arms race. I would argue casual doesn't stay casual unless someone plays control and puts a break on the most redicilous things that can happen in the format.
In casual, fun is basically the metric of winning the game, who had the most fun. It is possible to distribute fun in such a way that eveyone has it. I feel like controls job in casual is not to win the game but to push the fun around the table. NO you don't get to have the most fun this game, give these other people a chance. I feel like control gets a lot of hate in casual but people don't understand the hard work required to stop the game going completely nuts. There is a too much, killing my creature made me feel bad but not understanding stopping you helps the game continue in a healthy way.
I think control players in casual need:
1. A very keen sense of target selection and who is a winning the game at any point.
2. You need a path to victory but as per most control decks winning isn't the primary goal, surviving is. Some casual control decks can have the problem of just dragging the game on without winning it or the opposite they can be too aggresive towards winning the game but doing so with counterspells (but I don't consider those control decks they just look like control decks)
3. Political skill. You are going to have to justify your actions a lot. If I let you keep that you were going to win the game. I used strip mine on Cabal coffers because it was too dangerous to have around even if you don't have Urbog yet.
Tl;DR Control decks are an important part of a healthy Commander meta game even in casual. But you are going to need certain skills to pilot them fairly, skills not everyone has and skills that are different to playing control in other formats.
I also make Narset, Enlightened Master commander players rage quit because they are always the biggest threat no matter what they claim about thier deck. I swear that card has no place in casual commander.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
I would probably end up hating your circu deck off the board because recurring exile every turn is really oppressively obnoxious. The problem isn't necessarily being told no, the problem is the volume and frequency of no. If your deck revolves around knowing everyone's top decks and repeatedly denying people good draws while also countering/wiping everything, most people I know would want to ram every fast aggro creature they had down your throat until you died so they didnt have to deal with you anymore.
"I don't understand the problem. I'm still playing Magic."
I did have a game at some point in the last few weeks with a newer player, where I was sitting on a Glen Elendra Archmage for basically the entire game. Said new player could not figure out why I was not countering things. I ended up winning without ever using the Archamge.
There simply was never anything worth countering. While that player was starting to freak out over the Archamge, I do not see how the game would have been more enjoyable for her if I had been countering her spells with it.
There was a game a while back, where the Narset player was threatening to cast her on turn 3 with Haste, I think. I had the ability to delay it a couple turns (probably Nature's Claim on a Signet with two necessary colors, or something similar, though I do not actually recall).
Instead, I just chose to cast a Trinisphere.
If I remember correctly, the Narset player was never the biggest threat that game.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
If you're answering everything because you're sitting on DEN + mystic snake or something, then that's really more of a combo than control strategy imo.
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 get it, how does pathing their oracle get rid of the land? Sure, it delays it a turn but that is it.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Sometimes the games becomes draw-go due to the ebb and flow of the game, and while it is frustrating, that frustration is aimed at the deck(builder) and chance more than a specific opponent. Granted, a well-time counterspell that prolongs this situation (countering a landfetch or draw spell, for example) then focuses that frustration into ire at the blue wizard.
While I'd argue that every deck needs some form of control, in the form of answers, it is the hard control (with or without stax) that sets my teeth on edge.
A closed metagame has its own 'gentlemen's agreements,' unspoken or not. Those same agreements and the play they encourage goes out the window in a pickup game, and I think that is where the heartache sets in - players bring clashing expectations to the table. Still, control is needed to combat the combo decks that pickup games with half-strangers can bring.
Tl;dr - let opponents do things, except maybe win or harm you directly.
Cheers!
Krichaiushii on PucaTrade.
You can see people saying don't hard target a player in this thread but sometimes... its nessairy. I am not sure how I feel about stax. I would say my control deck has "stax elements" where I try to funnel people into playing a fair game but I don't like restricting mana as much as what they can do with it. Trinisphere is a good way to deal with narset though haha.
@HugSeal
I don't get why they raged out... 12 maybe.. people are terrible. Well I get to path with no downside as well you see. Either they take the ramp and cavern goes away or they get cavern next turn. I think they didn't have another land in hand. Although I didn't know that when I pathed mul daya, because its typically dangerous at getting people way ahead in mana.
@krichaiushii. Oh yeah that is an important point. I think that is where I was going with having a clear way to win because if the game is draw go you should be actively winning the game in someway. Perhaps through mana sinks or your commander. I think casual control commander can really lack this and just make things miserable then still lose. Your Tl;Dr is also important but I actually don't think that is possible to counter everything like that I think you actually just burn yourself out and lose horribly. Unless you are using some semi combo of somekind. when I think control I think something super fair.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
1) That is kind of childish of you. It is not hard to stop mizzix. If his deck is full of so many expensive cards, just beat him in the face until Mizzix comes, then blow up Mizzix and keep killing Mizzix. Mizzix is slow to enter, slow to build up XP, and super fragile. And from what you are describing, his deck is VERY interactive. He is interacting with you guys and interacting with your plays. If your deck is lacking removal that is kind of on you...
2) And that attitude is the VERY thing I am talking about. Circu is NOT VERY good in EDH at all. Milling 1 card a spell is very slow, and often you can end up getting rid of a card just to reveal a better card beneath it. But your antagonistic attitude would make playing control of any form utterly unfun at all. THIS is the very attitude I am worried about -.-
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
That's one of my favorite ironies common to this format. Complaining that hyper interactive decks make games "uninteractive." Usually stated by a player whose deck only interacts with itself or with the opponent through the combat step.
One of the biggest problems this format has is that so many people use "it's a casual game" to demonize archetypes they don't like personally. Like they seem to think their opponents shouldn't be allowed to play Magic because it isn't how they want the game to be played. And in before the "control decks don't let me play Magic" argument...No. It doesn't let you play your deck. Your deck poorly designed to deal with control.
In the end it all boils down to relative power levels between decks. Control decks tend to be higher power level decks. Battlecruiser or creature based decks (that aren't strong ETB decks) are pretty weak.
Players should shoulder some responsibility and try to equalize power levels as much as possible in regular play groups. If one guy has a deck significantly more powerful than everyone elses and won't change up, he's a douche. If someone has a deck significantly weaker and won't change up (typically while complaining), he's a douche.
But the idea that certain playstyles or archetypes shouldn't be played because some people have personal issues with them is the ultimate douche attitude.
EDH Decks:
WUBOloro, Combo ControlWUB
UBOona Reanimator ComboUB
BRGProssh, Eater of the Blue MageBRG
UBRGrixis StormUBR
Rebuilding Jenara (stealyourstuff.dec)
Pauper Deck:
UBInspired SirenUB
If you are feeling really nice, you could give them some pointers on how to beat control (bait counters, push through counters, don't overextend, etc).
I have been a life long control player (like trying to make counters and Shard Phoenix back in my noob days, or running Scepter-Chant back when Extended was a format), so that has greatly influenced my attitude toward control decks. I also played aggro, control, and combo decks when I used to play competitively, so I came to understand how those archetypes all interacted and the roles they played in a given meta. So I am really curious as to how players arrive at their hatred for control and/or blue decks.
The Mimeoplasm || Karador, Ghost Chieftain
Prossh, Skyraider of Kher || Vial Smasher/Tymna Group Slug
Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief || Talrand, Sky Summoner
Yidris - Unblockable Saboteurs || Kiki-Jiki, ETB breaker
Kess, Dissident Mage
I do greatly endorse this. I have done this plenty of times to try and placate people who have ragequit because of control and to try and teach the nuances of control.
As for WHY, I personally believe it is 3 fold:
1) People naturally don't like being told no. They want to do this crazy cool thing but end up not being able to because they haven't learned how to play against control and how to bait or not overextend (hardest thing to learn when I first started playing aggro for me, just how much to play). This generation being full of participation trophy winners doesn't exactly help but that is a whole can of worms best not going in to.
2) Many casuals came from Standard/Modern where counter control is kind of at minimum and control as a whole is a much smaller archetype. So they are just not used to seeing traditional Ux control or old school B control.
3) Those who have been playing for a few years probably got started when Faeries, Cawblade, Delver, or Bant Control were big decks and so, they developed their opinions on U from hyper powerful decks of the time. They started hating U because they remember the joy of Snapcaster+Mana Leak.
That is my theory anyway
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
To me it isn't casuals and control but newer players and control that is the issue.
BRGWTana and TymnaBRGW
RTeneb, the EternalR
UBRNekusar, Mind RazerUBR
Rakdos, Lord of Riots
BGWGhave, Guru of SporesBGW
Aurelia, the Warleader
BDrana, Kalastria BloodchiefB
WBROros, the AvengerWBR
That is because I have been doing a lot of thinking due to my time spent on cockatrice and seeing all the hate regarding many strategies that I personally like lol. That and I tend to be that awkward middle ground player in that I tend to make off the wall decks, but try to make them as solid as I possibly can (Like my Higure deck that has lots of Unblockable dudes, swords and other things that trigger on combat damage, and plenty of tempo cards to keep them going). So I tend to be too "competitive" for casual games, but too "casual" for competitive lol.
As for newer vs casual, I can agree to some extent. Except I have seen more than a few casuals who never really get beyond the "Timmy" phase.
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I guess to that end you could also throw Mana Leak and Convolute, etc into this list. It lets the "get out" of your counter if they are willing/able to pay the tax. I think that's a good teaching tool for new players too because it rewards them for playing into the counter in a way that they can still get their spell if they want it bad enough. It also forces them to make a decision as to whether they should pay the tax or get to cast a different spell that turn, again potentially rewarding them for baiting.
https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/86097
The deck has ways to go somewhat Stax-y, with cards such as Phyrexian Plaguelord and Sadistic Hypnotist going from awful to absolutely backbreaking, unless answered with counters - The cards basically read "distribute at least -5/-5 among up to five creatures" and "Any number of players discard a total of ten cards, at least", with this being the very minimum of action I can get out of the cards. Combined with attrition cards such as Dictate of Erebos and a bunch of search spells such as Sidisi, Undead Vizier, I will take over the game unless I'm held back.
The deck isn't non-casual enough to be completely ridiculous to play against - I don't play Sol Ring on principle, neither Painful Quandary nor Exsanguinate.
But it's basically a control deck that can deal with both creatures and hands if having enough land. But if I'm the only control deck at the table, seeing that unless I have the enablers my board is mostly threatless but with enough rattlesnakes to keep opponents away, I can very well win. Control decks are needed to keep decks like Endrek at bay. Without removal, the deck will go bonkers.
On the other hand, if I face only control decks, I'll never achieve a board state due to the amount of Wraths. That's unhealthy too.
The best way forward against control depends on what kind of “Control” is played. If someone is playing some sort of UBx build that plans on slowly bleeding players out with Whispering Madness, then you should just be getting your face beaten off before then. It is not hard for every creature-based deck to run either wipe protection, recursion, or both, and for counterspells, there are just not enough to go around for the table unless your own win condition is tempo-based (read, combo). As in, basically every time I’ve seen the stock Leovold, Emissary of Trest deck with wheels, the Gx fatty stomp and RWx aggro decks get their hands wiped, then just make a meal out of Leovold with 1-2 creatures before Leovold can actually get about the business of taking the game. At least (and this is the key), as long as the one thing actually threatening from Leovold such as Waste Not or Bloodchief Ascension eats a disenchant from the White or Green players. If opponents are too slow at developing or can’t deal with one card, then that is the problem, not that they’re playing against Control.
If it’s a Stax style of “control” deck, then you are understandably going to deal with more upset players. Most EDH decks are built to use 100% of the resources they draw, and still don’t draw enough resources a good chunk of the time. But, this is what Stax does.
If you’re playing Control with a combo win-con that only requires that you access certain cards with sufficient mana, then you are probably going to get more gripes about winning via infinite combo than you are about countering something, But imo, this happens to be just about the only way to play dedicated Control in this format in a way that isn’t just waiting to get your face bashed in by the first couple of creatures you can’t kill.
So an alternative approach would be to just coach players on building decks that are more resilient to disruption, and that have a bare minimum of answer cards themselves, regardless of what kind of deck they are. This is just responsible EDH goodstuff deckbuilding. Try mentioning, hey, you probably would have won if you’d dealt with my Vicious Shadows, or had a wrath for after my Rite of Replication/Sepulchral Primordial. Honestly, it’s about 6-7 things that are actually capable of defeating a table of 3 other players at 40 life, so figure out what they are and plan on killing them.
I've been looking through a lot of decklists recently to find ideas for the Breya and Yidris decks I am working on, and I was appalled at the lack of answers that many decks were running. This was especially true in the Breya noncombo lists I was looking through. Decks jammed with (crappy) artifacts for Breya's abilities but they could only make room for one removal spell, one wrath, and a couple draw spells. I cant even imagine the type of EDH meta where this would be remotely enough answers in a four player game.
One way I interpret the above quote is that any good deck should have some control elements in them. How else are we to protect and further our boardstate while denying our opponents' attempts to reach this same goal but through the control elements we place in our decks?
The Mimeoplasm || Karador, Ghost Chieftain
Prossh, Skyraider of Kher || Vial Smasher/Tymna Group Slug
Drana, Kalastria Bloodchief || Talrand, Sky Summoner
Yidris - Unblockable Saboteurs || Kiki-Jiki, ETB breaker
Kess, Dissident Mage
You could try playing different decks between rounds? Try explaining to them how your deck works. I used to get a little salty about mass counter spell decks, however over time i've realized that playing against different deck styles keeps things interesting. In one of my playgroups we switch decks almost every round. Keeps things refreshing.
Yeah, basically. The vulnerability of decks that are very answer-dense is that they are very threat-light. So, they don’t deal with having too much of their stuff killed. The way they usually deal with that is to have a very compact threat that is impossible to kill, such as T&N fetching a 2-carder from the library (i.e. combo). Except, lots of players will take issue with that. The other way to deal with that is to have something like Vicious Shadows that’s just harder to kill, or having a lot of recursion for their threats.
So if every deck runs a few slots of spot removal, especially for non-creatures, then maybe some exile, no single card will usually be able to go the distance. The control deck will wipe 2-3 times, Rest in Peace everyone, then when it comes to playing their finishing material like Luminarch Ascension, what have you, it eats old Chaos Warp, and can find itself without anything left in the deck that can get there.
If more players understood that about building Control in this format (and, no one was running combo), it would be really easy to deal with any overly answer-heavy deck just by running 2-3 slots of removal in every deck.
R8whackR
WUBGAtraxa Stax-Superfriends *Under Construction*WUBG