... alpha strike someone out of the game (i.e. Sneak Attack a Blightsteel Colossus into them on turn 3). I see it said from time to time that this is frowned upon, but then I find myself thinking that that's the exact gameplan of a lot of decks, voltron decks in particular. It doesn't make any sense to put 7 commander damage on opponent A, then 7 on opponent B the next turn, 7 on opponent C the next etc. before coming around for another round and put them all at 14. You'd never win a single game that way. Instead, knocking an opponent entirely out of the game (likely the most threatening opponent at the table), is a much better strategy. But are you going to get grief about the fact that that player then sits there for the next hour while the game plays out? Thoughts?
Commander has some of the shiniest players in any format of Magic. Play the way you want to play. If they can't handle it or throw a fit, don't play with them. These cards exist in this game and can be used and combined, there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of what is at your disposal.
Knowledge Pool count: 308
Looking for Knowledge Pools! All languages, conditions, foil/non-foil, etc. PM me with your Pools and we can work something out
Like a lot of things in the format it depends on the group. Some are going to be entirely OK with that, some won't invite you back if you do it.
I'm generally OK with it. I would get tired of someone doing it every game if they couldn't keep the momentum going and wipe out the rest of the table (at least occasionally, doesn't have to happen every game). Aggressive decks that can pull it off are a nice change of pace from the typical value train EDH deckbuilding. Assassin-like decks that take out a single player and then sit are not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
I think that early game "Golden Guns" are lame and should be avoided. It sucks to wait around for an hour or so because you got killed off in the first 5 turns. I think this type of thing, including 21 points of commander damage, is okay as long as its not so early that you have to wait over half and hour to play again. Personally, my time to play commander ranges from 3-6 hours a week and its precious. If the groups are full or so few that I have to wait its gonna waste my time. Being conscious of this might not net you wins but its good manners.
I think that the attitude is all wrong in the OP and the first reply. "You're never gonna win if..." "take advantage of everything at your disposal.." are sayings that bring up red flags for me. Its the mindset of playing against everyone instead of with them. If you're whole group is playing with that mindset, why not be the vanguard for a more polite experience? I find games are more fun and memorable when everyone gets to play and interact. But Hey, thats just me.
If you killed off the rest of the table with similar speed, I wouldn't mind getting knocked out on T3. If I got knocked out on T3 and then the game continued for another hour, I would be quite annoyed.
I think that the attitude is all wrong in the OP and the first reply. "You're never gonna win if..." "take advantage of everything at your disposal.." are sayings that bring up red flags for me. Its the mindset of playing against everyone instead of with them. If you're whole group is playing with that mindset, why not be the vanguard for a more polite experience? I find games are more fun and memorable when everyone gets to play and interact. But Hey, thats just me.
If your whole group is playing that mindset, that's great! Good for the group for finding the way they want to play and a bunch of like minded people. The format is big enough for different mindsets to coexist. The problem is when you show up to an unknown group with that mindset, or when the whole group isn't on the same page.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
... alpha strike someone out of the game (i.e. Sneak Attack a Blightsteel Colossus into them on turn 3). I see it said from time to time that this is frowned upon, but then I find myself thinking that that's the exact gameplan of a lot of decks, voltron decks in particular. It doesn't make any sense to put 7 commander damage on opponent A, then 7 on opponent B the next turn, 7 on opponent C the next etc. before coming around for another round and put them all at 14. You'd never win a single game that way. Instead, knocking an opponent entirely out of the game (likely the most threatening opponent at the table), is a much better strategy. But are you going to get grief about the fact that that player then sits there for the next hour while the game plays out? Thoughts?
Sneak Attack Blightsteel isn't lethal just FYI, 15 Poison needed to kill in multiplayer edh.
Edit: Nvm that apparently is just the rules all the shops and play groups in my area use. Thought it was an official change.
I think that early game "Golden Guns" are lame and should be avoided. It sucks to wait around for an hour or so because you got killed off in the first 5 turns. I think this type of thing, including 21 points of commander damage, is okay as long as its not so early that you have to wait over half and hour to play again. Personally, my time to play commander ranges from 3-6 hours a week and its precious. If the groups are full or so few that I have to wait its gonna waste my time. Being conscious of this might not net you wins but its good manners.
I think that the attitude is all wrong in the OP and the first reply. "You're never gonna win if..." "take advantage of everything at your disposal.." are sayings that bring up red flags for me. Its the mindset of playing against everyone instead of with them. If you're whole group is playing with that mindset, why not be the vanguard for a more polite experience? I find games are more fun and memorable when everyone gets to play and interact. But Hey, thats just me.
There is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to these kinds of decisions. Some groups are very cutthroat and enjoy it that way, never mind what you consider polite, and some are like yours. It only poses a problem when there is a mismatch due to a new member. A more aggressive player will ruffle feathers in a less hardcore group, and a player going into a highly competitive group unprepared will get destroyed. I've been in both positions before, and the key is to ascertain and adapt to the kind of environment I'm playing in.
Commander has some of the shiniest players in any format of Magic. Play the way you want to play. If they can't handle it or throw a fit, don't play with them. These cards exist in this game and can be used and combined, there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of what is at your disposal.
If you treat commander as a casual format, there is absolutely 100% something wrong with thinking and playing like this. You aren't playing a fun game, you are just abusing years of overpowered card combinations to win as fast as possible.
Which is why it's a good idea to have decks of varying power levels. Sometimes it feels good to throw insanely OP combos against one another. Sometimes you want to kick back and relax.
Anyway, as echoed above, as long as the entire table folds before too long, be my guest. I just don't like having to wait a long time for the next game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Yes, in my playgroup it would be considered bad form to Blightsteel someone on turn 3. But if we are all playing our "main decks" then we would probably get over it pretty soon. We don't play competitive and games usually go on for quite a while. We play to the mid/late game so early turn wins are normally frowned upon.
One of our main group members built a combo deck which routinely won by turn 6-7. Once we got wise it was much harder for him to win in a 3v1 match every time he played that deck. It didn't last long as we are all easy going and he moved on to other types of deck.
I feel that commander can have some of whiniest players in the game. I remember playing Sharuum in a commander pod at GP Montreal last year and went infinite after being ignored all game, only to have them complain about infinite combos in commander. My point being, people will complain about almost anything in this format.
I wouldn't be doing something like that every game, but I think it's perfectly fine. I find that in my group, we don't really consider much to be "bad taste" but you will get targeted more if others know what your deck can do. To be fair though, we haven't played in a month or two. I find that I tend to switch decks so people don't get sick of me doing the game thing though
I think that early game "Golden Guns" are lame and should be avoided. It sucks to wait around for an hour or so because you got killed off in the first 5 turns. I think this type of thing, including 21 points of commander damage, is okay as long as its not so early that you have to wait over half and hour to play again. Personally, my time to play commander ranges from 3-6 hours a week and its precious. If the groups are full or so few that I have to wait its gonna waste my time. Being conscious of this might not net you wins but its good manners.
I think that the attitude is all wrong in the OP and the first reply. "You're never gonna win if..." "take advantage of everything at your disposal.." are sayings that bring up red flags for me. Its the mindset of playing against everyone instead of with them. If you're whole group is playing with that mindset, why not be the vanguard for a more polite experience? I find games are more fun and memorable when everyone gets to play and interact. But Hey, thats just me.
There is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to these kinds of decisions. Some groups are very cutthroat and enjoy it that way, never mind what you consider polite, and some are like yours. It only poses a problem when there is a mismatch due to a new member. A more aggressive player will ruffle feathers in a less hardcore group, and a player going into a highly competitive group unprepared will get destroyed. I've been in both positions before, and the key is to ascertain and adapt to the kind of environment I'm playing in.
I think that the attitude is all wrong in the OP and the first reply. "You're never gonna win if..." "take advantage of everything at your disposal.." are sayings that bring up red flags for me. Its the mindset of playing against everyone instead of with them. If you're whole group is playing with that mindset, why not be the vanguard for a more polite experience? I find games are more fun and memorable when everyone gets to play and interact. But Hey, thats just me.
If your whole group is playing that mindset, that's great! Good for the group for finding the way they want to play and a bunch of like minded people. The format is big enough for different mindsets to coexist. The problem is when you show up to an unknown group with that mindset, or when the whole group isn't on the same page.
I think youre both basically saying I'm not taking into account people who want to play 'cut throat'? Both also mention a mismatch of players being the real issue.
I agree that people need to communicate on what type of games they want to have. I'm saying that for me I would not enjoy the specific example mentioned in the OP or other cases of Early, and emphasis on early here, one-shot kills. I would indeed consider it bad form. The only reason I posted was to provide example of people who don't enjoy that style of play and why. I came across as... crappy or whatever. That was not my intent, so I apologize for that. I stand by my opinion that early one-shots are lame, but I don't meant that to be offensive.
I've played games where the whole point was to win and games where fostering a good experience was more of a goal than winning. I've changed my stance over the years. I know that there are people who play in a different win-oriented style. I just wanna say that since I've toned down my decks and stop trying to win so hard, I've had so much more fun. This might not work for everyone but its not like trying it can hurt. Once again I mention this tangential point just to provide example and voice for others elsewhere are the winning -- goofy scale of commander decks.
Since nobody else has outright said it, I'll be blunt. Knocking a player out of the game on turn three with a Blightsteel Colossus is bad form.
Commander is different from most formats. Aside from being multiplayer, Commander isn't about winning as efficiently as possible; it's about creating a narrative. If what you're interested in is competitive Magic, that's okay, just look elsewhere. There are plenty of other formats that cater to competitive play. Commander just isn't one of those formats.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Somehow it completely didn't cross my mind before I posted that there would be some in the "it's totally fine" camp and some in the "it's totally a d-bag move" camp, and that eventually the conversation would gravitate toward a conversation about what's "fun," what's "in the spirit of EDH," etc.
That said, I just find myself curious - to those who consider themselves EDH purists (i.e. the format is not about winning, the format is about having "fun"). It seems like infinite combo is deemed uncool. And based on this thread creature-based alpha striking (a decidedly less powerful strategy) is uncool. I know that in many circles infect is deemed uncool. So what's left? Are mid-rangey value-based strategies the only thing that's acceptable?
Anywho, back to my original thought here: I should've remembered that the answer is basically "it's up to your playgroup."
EDIT: I mean, is Url, the Miststalker frowned upon? Strategies like his are like Tier 2-3, but utterly dependent on alpha striking people.
Like others have said, as long as the rest of the game finishes in a similar amount of time then fine. Time to shuffle up and play another game.
But if it drags on and no other player gets knocked out and I'm just sitting there lonely and sad, then no thanks.
The problem is that that's really out of the player doing the alpha-striking's control. Those strategies are usually dependent on being able to fight through a certain amount of hate, but will usually draw all the table's hate at a certain point and can definitely falter and totally fall apart. Be mad at the control player(s) instead?
Like others have said, as long as the rest of the game finishes in a similar amount of time then fine. Time to shuffle up and play another game.
But if it drags on and no other player gets knocked out and I'm just sitting there lonely and sad, then no thanks.
The problem is that that's really out of the player doing the alpha-striking's control. Those strategies are usually dependent on being able to fight through a certain amount of hate, but will usually draw all the table's hate at a certain point and can definitely falter and totally fall apart. Be mad at the control player(s) instead?
I guess that's true to some extent. But I came to play magic, if I get knocked out of the game and have to sit around with nothing to do for 30mins to an hour, yeah I'm going to be a little bitter. If someone else(like alpha-strikes mcgee) gets knocked out then we can play modern or something while we wait for another commander game and then I don't really mind. If I get to play magic I'm happy, if not then booooooo.
I guess that's true to some extent. But I came to play magic, if I get knocked out of the game and have to sit around with nothing to do for 30mins to an hour, yeah I'm going to be a little bitter. If someone else(like alpha-strikes mcgee) gets knocked out then we can play modern or something while we wait for another commander game and then I don't really mind. If I get to play magic I'm happy, if not then booooooo.
And that's fair. So, do you think that the average player would prefer that everyone at the table lose to infinite combo than that players get knocked off one by one by voltron or other alpha-striking type of deck?
Like others have said, as long as the rest of the game finishes in a similar amount of time then fine. Time to shuffle up and play another game.
But if it drags on and no other player gets knocked out and I'm just sitting there lonely and sad, then no thanks.
Two responses to yours and some other posts. First, just because a person alpha strikes the first doesn't mean they can't be derailed by the other players, so you can't pin it all on the alpha striker that has the capability/potential and just happens to get shut down. After all, if you build your deck right, and everyone else does, too, then it's very likely someone gets that answer in hand to extend the game. Otherwise, everyone had a bad game or their decks are underpowered.
Second, "cool" and "in the spirit" is a wholly subjective thing. The rules committee can try and define the undefinable, but some people who say alpha strike is lame also have their own interpretations of other things that are lame, while others like alpha striking, all the while both parties are both quoting "in the spirit of edh". As a still relatively new edh player it has been somewhat confusing as a result. In this case, another person is saying "creating a narrative" I've not heard that before, so I can get people get confused. Three people seem to produce five opinions on any bulletin board you post.
I don't have a problem with any of the opinions, not at all, it can just be confusing wading through the various positions to make sense of the format as either a game or creative theater or something else.
That said, I just find myself curious - to those who consider themselves EDH purists (i.e. the format is not about winning, the format is about having "fun"). It seems like infinite combo is deemed uncool. And based on this thread creature-based alpha striking (a decidedly less powerful strategy) is uncool. I know that in many circles infect is deemed uncool. So what's left? Are mid-rangey value-based strategies the only thing that's acceptable?
When folks say they find combo decks unfun or that they find infect decks unfun, they're not really telling you the whole truth. It's possible to make just about any strategy unfun to play against. As such, what strategy you choose to play isn't important. What's important is how you play the strategy you do.
Okay so then why even have this discussion? It's all dependent on OPs play group. It's always going to be dependent on the people you play with. If I'm at a GP in a side event, I'm going to play to win. If I have a few friends over and we just want to screw around and have fun, then sure, maybe we'll dial it back and take our sweet time. And often times we will get together and play test new cards and lists and will want to win as fast as possible, as really, that is the point of most kinds of games; to win.
So again, the experience should be tailored to how your group wants to play. There is nothing wrong with wanting to win. There is nothing wrong with wanting to play a game where everybody wants to take their time. If the group decides they want to take their time, then don't tutor up your T3 win every game. Do other stuff. These threads pop up so often and really the answers should be pretty obvious at this point.
Knowledge Pool count: 308
Looking for Knowledge Pools! All languages, conditions, foil/non-foil, etc. PM me with your Pools and we can work something out
I think youre both basically saying I'm not taking into account people who want to play 'cut throat'? Both also mention a mismatch of players being the real issue.
I agree that people need to communicate on what type of games they want to have. I'm saying that for me I would not enjoy the specific example mentioned in the OP or other cases of Early, and emphasis on early here, one-shot kills. I would indeed consider it bad form. The only reason I posted was to provide example of people who don't enjoy that style of play and why. I came across as... crappy or whatever. That was not my intent, so I apologize for that. I stand by my opinion that early one-shots are lame, but I don't meant that to be offensive.
Your initial response seemed very much in the spirit of "you're wrong for playing like that," which very rarely leads to any kind of good discussion. It pushes the conversation towards an us vs. them mentality, which happens way too often for my taste when people talk EDH online. I''m not sure I've ever seen anyone change their mind from an argument like that and there's really no reason the super casual and super competitive players can't coexist peacefully. I'm a very casual player when it comes to EDH and honestly don't understand the allure of competitive multiplayer. That doesn't make the people who disagree with me wrong. It does mean we probably shouldn't be playing together. I think we're more or less on the same page and your earlier comment came across a little more absolute than you intended.
That said, I just find myself curious - to those who consider themselves EDH purists (i.e. the format is not about winning, the format is about having "fun"). It seems like infinite combo is deemed uncool. And based on this thread creature-based alpha striking (a decidedly less powerful strategy) is uncool. I know that in many circles infect is deemed uncool. So what's left? Are mid-rangey value-based strategies the only thing that's acceptable?
I'm good with anything as long as there's variety. I lean away from infinite combo personally but I'm not offended to run into it. If I'm playing against someone who's playing the same series of cards every game, or exclusively playing format powerhouses, I'm going to get bored with it quickly. It's common knowledge that a line of play like Buried Alive or Tooth and Nail into Mike/Trike or Deadeye/Palinchron is probably going to win the game, but it's boring as hell. I only get out to play once, maybe twice a week, so I want the games I play to be interesting. Seeing the same tired combos and win conditions doesn't do that for me. Pulling off a fast Sneak Attack → Blightsteel Colossus is fun to see. Demonic Tutor into the same play every game is not.
I dont mind being focused but I dont much like it if you can alpha strike someone super early and then the game goes for the next 2 hours after that with me sitting on the sideline. So... no I dont really blame people for killing players as thats what they should do. I just dont like to sit and wait a long game when I got punked out early. I like it even less if I get punked out for who I am rather than what I am playing / what I have in play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
R.I.P. Sundering Titan (6/20/12) and Braids, Cabal Minion (9/12/14)
STANDARD:
RRRMono RedRRR
MODERN:
BGBeatdown ElvesBG
GWDevoted Druid ComboGW
EDH:
URGMaelstrom WandererURG
BBBSheoldred, Whispering OneBBB
BGNath of the Gilt-LeafBG
Looking for Knowledge Pools! All languages, conditions, foil/non-foil, etc. PM me with your Pools and we can work something out
I'm generally OK with it. I would get tired of someone doing it every game if they couldn't keep the momentum going and wipe out the rest of the table (at least occasionally, doesn't have to happen every game). Aggressive decks that can pull it off are a nice change of pace from the typical value train EDH deckbuilding. Assassin-like decks that take out a single player and then sit are not.
I think that the attitude is all wrong in the OP and the first reply. "You're never gonna win if..." "take advantage of everything at your disposal.." are sayings that bring up red flags for me. Its the mindset of playing against everyone instead of with them. If you're whole group is playing with that mindset, why not be the vanguard for a more polite experience? I find games are more fun and memorable when everyone gets to play and interact. But Hey, thats just me.
GWUBAtraxa, Praetor's Voice PrimerGWUB
GWURoon Bant Blink WhateverGWU
BRGLord Windgrace LandsBRG
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Sneak Attack Blightsteel isn't lethal just FYI, 15 Poison needed to kill in multiplayer edh.
Edit: Nvm that apparently is just the rules all the shops and play groups in my area use. Thought it was an official change.
There is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to these kinds of decisions. Some groups are very cutthroat and enjoy it that way, never mind what you consider polite, and some are like yours. It only poses a problem when there is a mismatch due to a new member. A more aggressive player will ruffle feathers in a less hardcore group, and a player going into a highly competitive group unprepared will get destroyed. I've been in both positions before, and the key is to ascertain and adapt to the kind of environment I'm playing in.
If you treat commander as a casual format, there is absolutely 100% something wrong with thinking and playing like this. You aren't playing a fun game, you are just abusing years of overpowered card combinations to win as fast as possible.
Anyway, as echoed above, as long as the entire table folds before too long, be my guest. I just don't like having to wait a long time for the next game.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Yes, in my playgroup it would be considered bad form to Blightsteel someone on turn 3. But if we are all playing our "main decks" then we would probably get over it pretty soon. We don't play competitive and games usually go on for quite a while. We play to the mid/late game so early turn wins are normally frowned upon.
One of our main group members built a combo deck which routinely won by turn 6-7. Once we got wise it was much harder for him to win in a 3v1 match every time he played that deck. It didn't last long as we are all easy going and he moved on to other types of deck.
I wouldn't be doing something like that every game, but I think it's perfectly fine. I find that in my group, we don't really consider much to be "bad taste" but you will get targeted more if others know what your deck can do. To be fair though, we haven't played in a month or two. I find that I tend to switch decks so people don't get sick of me doing the game thing though
I think youre both basically saying I'm not taking into account people who want to play 'cut throat'? Both also mention a mismatch of players being the real issue.
I agree that people need to communicate on what type of games they want to have. I'm saying that for me I would not enjoy the specific example mentioned in the OP or other cases of Early, and emphasis on early here, one-shot kills. I would indeed consider it bad form. The only reason I posted was to provide example of people who don't enjoy that style of play and why. I came across as... crappy or whatever. That was not my intent, so I apologize for that. I stand by my opinion that early one-shots are lame, but I don't meant that to be offensive.
I've played games where the whole point was to win and games where fostering a good experience was more of a goal than winning. I've changed my stance over the years. I know that there are people who play in a different win-oriented style. I just wanna say that since I've toned down my decks and stop trying to win so hard, I've had so much more fun. This might not work for everyone but its not like trying it can hurt. Once again I mention this tangential point just to provide example and voice for others elsewhere are the winning -- goofy scale of commander decks.
GWUBAtraxa, Praetor's Voice PrimerGWUB
GWURoon Bant Blink WhateverGWU
BRGLord Windgrace LandsBRG
Commander is different from most formats. Aside from being multiplayer, Commander isn't about winning as efficiently as possible; it's about creating a narrative. If what you're interested in is competitive Magic, that's okay, just look elsewhere. There are plenty of other formats that cater to competitive play. Commander just isn't one of those formats.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
That said, I just find myself curious - to those who consider themselves EDH purists (i.e. the format is not about winning, the format is about having "fun"). It seems like infinite combo is deemed uncool. And based on this thread creature-based alpha striking (a decidedly less powerful strategy) is uncool. I know that in many circles infect is deemed uncool. So what's left? Are mid-rangey value-based strategies the only thing that's acceptable?
Anywho, back to my original thought here: I should've remembered that the answer is basically "it's up to your playgroup."
EDIT: I mean, is Url, the Miststalker frowned upon? Strategies like his are like Tier 2-3, but utterly dependent on alpha striking people.
R.I.P. Sundering Titan (6/20/12) and Braids, Cabal Minion (9/12/14)
But if it drags on and no other player gets knocked out and I'm just sitting there lonely and sad, then no thanks.
BGGRock
Modern
BRGJund
BBGRock
The problem is that that's really out of the player doing the alpha-striking's control. Those strategies are usually dependent on being able to fight through a certain amount of hate, but will usually draw all the table's hate at a certain point and can definitely falter and totally fall apart. Be mad at the control player(s) instead?
R.I.P. Sundering Titan (6/20/12) and Braids, Cabal Minion (9/12/14)
I guess that's true to some extent. But I came to play magic, if I get knocked out of the game and have to sit around with nothing to do for 30mins to an hour, yeah I'm going to be a little bitter. If someone else(like alpha-strikes mcgee) gets knocked out then we can play modern or something while we wait for another commander game and then I don't really mind. If I get to play magic I'm happy, if not then booooooo.
BGGRock
Modern
BRGJund
BBGRock
And that's fair. So, do you think that the average player would prefer that everyone at the table lose to infinite combo than that players get knocked off one by one by voltron or other alpha-striking type of deck?
R.I.P. Sundering Titan (6/20/12) and Braids, Cabal Minion (9/12/14)
Two responses to yours and some other posts. First, just because a person alpha strikes the first doesn't mean they can't be derailed by the other players, so you can't pin it all on the alpha striker that has the capability/potential and just happens to get shut down. After all, if you build your deck right, and everyone else does, too, then it's very likely someone gets that answer in hand to extend the game. Otherwise, everyone had a bad game or their decks are underpowered.
Second, "cool" and "in the spirit" is a wholly subjective thing. The rules committee can try and define the undefinable, but some people who say alpha strike is lame also have their own interpretations of other things that are lame, while others like alpha striking, all the while both parties are both quoting "in the spirit of edh". As a still relatively new edh player it has been somewhat confusing as a result. In this case, another person is saying "creating a narrative" I've not heard that before, so I can get people get confused. Three people seem to produce five opinions on any bulletin board you post.
I don't have a problem with any of the opinions, not at all, it can just be confusing wading through the various positions to make sense of the format as either a game or creative theater or something else.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
So again, the experience should be tailored to how your group wants to play. There is nothing wrong with wanting to win. There is nothing wrong with wanting to play a game where everybody wants to take their time. If the group decides they want to take their time, then don't tutor up your T3 win every game. Do other stuff. These threads pop up so often and really the answers should be pretty obvious at this point.
STANDARD:
RRRMono RedRRR
MODERN:
BGBeatdown ElvesBG
GWDevoted Druid ComboGW
EDH:
URGMaelstrom WandererURG
BBBSheoldred, Whispering OneBBB
BGNath of the Gilt-LeafBG
Looking for Knowledge Pools! All languages, conditions, foil/non-foil, etc. PM me with your Pools and we can work something out
I'm good with anything as long as there's variety. I lean away from infinite combo personally but I'm not offended to run into it. If I'm playing against someone who's playing the same series of cards every game, or exclusively playing format powerhouses, I'm going to get bored with it quickly. It's common knowledge that a line of play like Buried Alive or Tooth and Nail into Mike/Trike or Deadeye/Palinchron is probably going to win the game, but it's boring as hell. I only get out to play once, maybe twice a week, so I want the games I play to be interesting. Seeing the same tired combos and win conditions doesn't do that for me. Pulling off a fast Sneak Attack → Blightsteel Colossus is fun to see. Demonic Tutor into the same play every game is not.
My current decks are Jaya Ballard, Task Mage control, some kind of awkward Daxos the Returned delay into large tokens, a Tana, the Bloodsower/Reyhan, Last of the Abzan combat tricks/creature buff, and a Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa/Tymna the Weaver hatebears. My group currently has a non-combo Breya, Etherium Shaper that aims to grind people out with artifact advantage, Oona, Queen of the Fae mill, Ishai, Ojutai Dragonspeaker/Reyhan, Last of the Abzan counter shenanigans, Kynaios and Tiro of Meletis hug/chaos that aims to burn people out in the long game, Ghoulcaller Gisa zombie swarm, Vial Smasher the Fierce/Ludevic, Necro-Alchemist direct damage, and a few others I'm forgetting. Games can end to large creature swings, small creature swarms, general damage, direct damage, mill, soft locks (with some inevitable kill), and probably an infinite combo or two. Aside from everyone trying out the new general options, there's a lot of variety in decks and win conditions. A more competitive player would probably be bored to tears playing in my group, but it works for us.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies