I really only play competitive EDH, be it 1v1 or 4 person FFAs
This is mostly just a result of my local meta being extremely competitive: My LGS does 1v1 EDH with the standard banlist, and there's a ton of busted decks that see play there. I thoroughly enjoy it, however. The fact that the games are generally quick (With respect to most EDH games, I suppose) make it feel a lot better when you just loose to those busted solring into stupid mana rocks T1 hands. Sometimes that even looses people the game because so much artifact hate gets run. Furthermore, games where stupid stuff happens like playing a T2 Dragonlord Atarka to kill their T2 JTMS feels good.
I'm kind of rambling here, but I suppose my point is that I just love playing a 99-card highlander stack of utterly broken garbage with a synergistic creature card that's always available to tie the whole thing together. The card pool for even competitive play is huge and dwarfs any other format in terms of the number of unique cards that are playable, and this is one of the things I love about it. However, I don't play much outside of my local meta because there's not too many who seem to feel the same. I tried Duel Commander for a little while but that didn't go over so well and the maintainers destroyed the format anyhow.
There is a quote in Christopher Nolans The Dark Knight. In reference to the joker he says some men just want to see the world burn. That same saying applies to uber competetive types you seek to understand. They could care less who likes them or not. They simply want the whole table to be smashed as early as possible. The reasoning is simple they simply enjoy winning and doing it so quickly they get that shock factor. Now in my opinion they simply enjoy pissing other people off. I also believe that it may or may not be linked to that competition edge they have. I have played against many of these types. I have nothing against them anymore. I used to hate playing them even avoid it. Then I just realized if I want to play at LGS locally I need answers. So I streamlined my blue and white control deck to handle most threats. While its not topshelf it certainly can hold it owns against these types. These players aren't going to change its simply against there nature. They want the shock and awe. You can avoid them or simply beat them at there own game. As a long time EDH player I understand your questions. Though lately I've seen less of these decks and more a push to return to casual decks. So I hope it helps you see why they play that style. Good luck!
I feel the need to comment because in my view the answer is really simple. Competitive can be just as much fun as casual games, but everyone needs to be on the same level. If everyone plays turn 4 combo decks at the table this brings back the excitement and interactions necessary to make it a good and functional game.
The content of the game will however still be different from a casual "serra angel is the bomb" game.
There is a quote in Christopher Nolans The Dark Knight. In reference to the joker he says some men just want to see the world burn. That same saying applies to uber competetive types you seek to understand. They could care less who likes them or not. They simply want the whole table to be smashed as early as possible. The reasoning is simple they simply enjoy winning and doing it so quickly they get that shock factor. Now in my opinion they simply enjoy pissing other people off. I also believe that it may or may not be linked to that competition edge they have. I have played against many of these types. I have nothing against them anymore. I used to hate playing them even avoid it. Then I just realized if I want to play at LGS locally I need answers. So I streamlined my blue and white control deck to handle most threats. While its not topshelf it certainly can hold it owns against these types. These players aren't going to change its simply against there nature. They want the shock and awe. You can avoid them or simply beat them at there own game. As a long time EDH player I understand your questions. Though lately I've seen less of these decks and more a push to return to casual decks. So I hope it helps you see why they play that style. Good luck!
You seem to be confusing competitive players and ********s, which can be found in the casual parts of the playerbase too. The general consensus that I've seen from competitive players is that stomping an unprepared table isn't fun for them either. You can find several posts in this thread saying as much.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
It depends, personally I don't play stax decks because nobody else has fun, but I will play control, which seems contradictory. A buddy in our playgroup plays a lot of discard, and got out a Cunning Lethemancer really early last nigh, long story short the whole table took him out, and he was tilted as to why. I play decks that I enjoy playing, for some that could be spikeier decks, and winning is always in my mind but seeing my decks function are mainly why I play.
I personally feel like if that persons having fun, then they're playing the game right the point of commander is to be more on the casual side yes, but that doesn't mean in terms of playing casual cards only; it's in terms of having fun, and building cool decks that you fall in love with, not in being not competitive. If someone were to sit down and play a game of commander and actually take winning seriously, or get annoyed when people beat you with cards like Winter Orb, I feel like that person would be doing the same as their opponent in terms of "trying to win", not to mention taking the game seriously. If you can't congratulate your opponent on cool combos, or get pissy when they work, then you're obviously not having fun and not playing casual (or, I should say, for fun) as your supposed to. If this persons deck were to bug someone so much, then maybe not play against them, or find a way to take the game less seriously. That's just how I view the game, though. As mentioned earlier by other users in the post, there's players who like competitive fast games, and players who don't! Just don't go with the group that doesn't agree with your play style and vice versa
I also feel like for the people who spend TONS and toonnnnnns of money on these EDH decks to play-to-win, well, they're the ones spending tons of money to win in a game where good plays aren't gonna get you anywhere in this format. They're obviously having fun doing so, and they spent their own money to do this, why is anyone to say this automatically makes them an ********? They're having fun their way! Plus, for people who ARE doing this AND are ********s, who aren't even having fun... Well, they're the ones doing this in commander and not in modern or something, so that's their problem I suppose
Meh, doesn't bug me though, I just won't play against those people if their decks frustrate me, and I don't really get too bugged when someone beats me if we both have fun, as long as opponent isn't being a massive douche about winning (in which case it says a lot about who they are as a person and I know not to play with them next time)
edit: wanna throw in I agree on the competitive doesn't mean ********s, and those are two totally separate categories (also fixed my wording on some stuff)
EDH: Bruna, Light of Alabaster | Karlov of the Ghost Council | Breya, Etherium Shaper | Marchesa, the Black Rose | Queen Marchesa | The Mimeoplasm | Avacyn, Angel of Hope |
Pauper:
Orzhov Nightsky Mimic
Frequent lurker and vorthos player
I´m kind of bored of the classic comment here on mtg salvation:
"i like to play competitive not playing 7-mana-fatties-battlecruiser-turning-creatures-sideways etc etc etc"
I don't play turn 3-4 combos in any of my decks but are not crawwurm.dec as many of the players here seem to think, but with all said you can now understand why some play like that, because in some way they think they are superior than the rest.
Now, let's not think of what will happen after or the fact of a) He probably needs another play group and b) The rest of the group doesnt want to play with him anymore.
I want to try and understand.. Why does that player like that? Just smashing and winning early.
Ive heard it countless times. So many people bragging about how much their deck is hated or how good it is becuase they can win easily. I don't understand why that would bring you joy. Maybe it's just a "you dont need to understand, they just do" type of thing. I would really like to know though. No hate, no salt, I simply just am curious.
I am not sure what your point of reference is. Have you ever played any game where you’re supposed to come to the brink of reaching the game’s objective, step back instead, and then try to find more fun somehow instead?
Say you are playing Chess and you opponent leaves themselves open to a 3-4 turn checkmate. Are both players supposed to talk about it, decide that early Queen development is “OP”, and then make another play? Or, are they supposed to learn, adapt, and play the game according to the rules? It seems like if you don’t like early wins, then Checkers is the better game for you.
Conversely, have you ever heard someone proud of how bad their deck is? As in, hey, “I have never won a single game with this deck. It’s so bad!”
I mean, I understand that there are certain do’s and don’t’s. But, people will try to get better at the game. So, better to focus on these do’s and dont’s and their reason for being rather than questioning why someone gets enjoyment from overpowering wins.
After commenting on a "Tooth and Nail" post and a "Losing fun vs unfun" (or something) post I came to a conclusion.
There are basically two groups of people playing EDH:
1. The group where people thinks a Serra Angel is the BOMB to play (I am clearly exaggerating, dont take offence)
2. The group where people thinks a Leovold + Timetwister effects and including a Doomsday + Lab Maniac are the BOMBS to play.
I myself is part of group number 2. Which seems to be the least reprensented both in these forums and at my LGS. Which is fine. But I think it is pointless that these two groups tries to convince each other which is the best way to play EDH. Its pointless to say "you are not playing it the way its meant to be played".
I heard a good comparison lately actually between Storm Herd and Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur. Both are the same cost (forget that it’s easier generally to get Jin-Jin into play), and both tend to win the game in practicality unless they’re dealt with. But, they are both starkly different in the way that they go about winning the game. One gives you a decisive amount of stuff, the other takes away all your opponents stuff (and gives you more stuff to keep on taking away your opponents’ stuff).
Now, I think it’s obvious that the community considers Jin-Jin the “better” card. That said, my own personal experience is that the person playing Storm Herd actually wins more often than the person playing Jin-Jin. There is something to be said in this format for being direct.
I’d wager that a lot of the reason behind the perception of Jin-Jin being the better card though is related to the perception of how Magic games are won and lost, in theory. You get more stuff and take away your opponent’s stuff. You don’t stick something like Malignus or what not, then swing for the actual win, because you know, responses. Cards that respond are good, and cards that are defeated by responses are bad. So the rationale goes.
So, this explains somewhat the existence of the groups that are, 1) trying to blow up lands, etc, to keep players out of the game, and 2) players looking for combo wins that are hard to interact with. It doesn’t matter to them that mana-denial doesn’t win as often as people believe, or that Hermit Druid/Necrotic Ooze are actually highly vulnerable to Purify the Grave. It’s just the perception that these strategies are good by this group in question.
If your group’s perception is different, it should in my mind come down to a put up or shut up scenario. If GBx decks are combo’ing out, then run GY hate. If people are playing around with Armageddon and Winter Orb, then play decks that are more aggressive and less mana-dependent. I for one am somewhat tired of stories that claim MLD decks win because everyone scoops after the MLD. Play it out, then complain if it's warranted.
But if your conclusion is that Ramirez DePietro Pirate tribal should take 1 out of every 4 games in EDH, then I’m afraid that conclusion is not at all supported in the card pool for this format. Basically, Storm Herd or Jin-Jin take your pick, but one of these two philosophies is what wins. Other ideas are just worse by nature, and plz don't expect other players to attend to complaints when they lose.
As an old time player ill totally agree that as long as everyone is on the same page about the level of competitiveness then the games will be fun.
When you have a bunch of serra fans and a hard core stax player enters the game the fun evaporates. Conversely you have a bunch of folkes with tuned top tier decks and someone shows up with cat tribal then it really isnt fun.
You can have fun games with a mix of power levels at the table, those typically have an archenemy feel which can be fun
Say you are playing Chess and you opponent leaves themselves open to a 3-4 turn checkmate. Are both players supposed to talk about it, decide that early Queen development is “OP”, and then make another play? Or, are they supposed to learn, adapt, and play the game according to the rules? It seems like if you don’t like early wins, then Checkers is the better game for you.
Conversely, have you ever heard someone proud of how bad their deck is? As in, hey, “I have never won a single game with this deck. It’s so bad!”
I mean, I understand that there are certain do’s and don’t’s. But, people will try to get better at the game. So, better to focus on these do’s and dont’s and their reason for being rather than questioning why someone gets enjoyment from overpowering wins.
Chess is a very poor analogy.
Commander is a lot more like pen and paper gaming. If you bring a character that's completely optimized to win in combat and you find out that the game is set in a court full of subtle political intrigue, it's going to be a bad time. Conversely, if the party is kitted out for kick-down-the-door campaigning, your thoughtful scholar or silver-tongued rogue are going to find themselves frustratingly useless.
It's the same thing with Commander. The game works best if everyone's on the same page and, as with pen and paper gaming, if you discuss with the other players what kind of character (or, as the case may be, deck) you're playing and what you hope to get out of the game. You can't do that with chess. It's too linear, all the information is known and there's too few interactions.
Each player, and by proxie, each playgroup, is completely different. The more games that a group of people play together, the more in-tune their decks typically become in terms of power-level. So a pile of players that are just starting in to MtG may be swinging with shivan dragon variants, while players who have an extensive collection of cards, or are more experienced with competitive formats, would be building stronger decks.
Take someone who literally just started playing MtG last week, and compare that to someone who plays legacy storm at every high level tournament. Both players decide to get into EDH. Do you really think it is fair to be upset at the veteran legacy player for automatically developing a deck that can win faster than the newbie?
edit; for a personal opinion - I hate the phrase "spirit of EDH." This almost always comes out when someone is upset about an incompatible power-level or experience-level between players, or having a high rate of loosing, or having opponents that play un-interactive decks and they are too stubborn to adjust their decks to answer. If you want a more casual game with players that attack with shivan dragons, then find a new playgroup. Don't blame people for their choice in deck design/archetype and choice card inclusion.
Stating that something "breaks the spirit of edh" sounds more like trying to make someone feel bad for being good at the game.
Say you are playing Chess and you opponent leaves themselves open to a 3-4 turn checkmate. Are both players supposed to talk about it, decide that early Queen development is “OP”, and then make another play? Or, are they supposed to learn, adapt, and play the game according to the rules? It seems like if you don’t like early wins, then Checkers is the better game for you.
Conversely, have you ever heard someone proud of how bad their deck is? As in, hey, “I have never won a single game with this deck. It’s so bad!”
I mean, I understand that there are certain do’s and don’t’s. But, people will try to get better at the game. So, better to focus on these do’s and dont’s and their reason for being rather than questioning why someone gets enjoyment from overpowering wins.
Chess is a very poor analogy.
Commander is a lot more like pen and paper gaming. If you bring a character that's completely optimized to win in combat and you find out that the game is set in a court full of subtle political intrigue, it's going to be a bad time. Conversely, if the party is kitted out for kick-down-the-door campaigning, your thoughtful scholar or silver-tongued rogue are going to find themselves frustratingly useless.
It's the same thing with Commander. The game works best if everyone's on the same page and, as with pen and paper gaming, if you discuss with the other players what kind of character (or, as the case may be, deck) you're playing and what you hope to get out of the game. You can't do that with chess. It's too linear, all the information is known and there's too few interactions.
Paper D&D is actually the poor analogy because, you know, it's not a game that has the objective of winning. The skill-based diplomacy Rogue can fail his attempt to sneak attack 50 hobgoblins, but no one is to say he is better or worse for it as long as his group survived the encounter.
This "being on the same page" baloney is supposed to be accomplished by the rules set, including the ban list. Because the measure of whether you are making progress or not is measured by, you know, actually being able to reach the explicit objective of the game.
I like casting powerful cards. I also liked figuring out how to get out of tricky situations that my opponents' powerful plays have put me in. That's what cube is all about, and why I love that format best. EDH adds a different kind of complexity though, and that's being able to navigate the table to get what you want. I like that, too, so I also play EDH. Yes, when I Wildfire some lands and creatures away, I understand that the table might come at me a bit. I'm fine with that. You play cards that allow you to interact. You can interact with a Winter Orb if your curve is low enough, if you're playing answers, and if you're a good negotiator. All of that adds up to make EDH fun for me. Pouting about Armageddon is not fun for me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can't say I'm pleased to see you and must warn you I may have to do something about it.
EDH: UGEdric
Pauper: URDelver
Modern: UGRDelver
Draft my cube: Eric's 390 Unpowered
I heard a good comparison lately actually between Storm Herd and Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur. Both are the same cost (forget that it’s easier generally to get Jin-Jin into play), and both tend to win the game in practicality unless they’re dealt with. But, they are both starkly different in the way that they go about winning the game. One gives you a decisive amount of stuff, the other takes away all your opponents stuff (and gives you more stuff to keep on taking away your opponents’ stuff).
Now, I think it’s obvious that the community considers Jin-Jin the “better” card. That said, my own personal experience is that the person playing Storm Herd actually wins more often than the person playing Jin-Jin. There is something to be said in this format for being direct.
I’d wager that a lot of the reason behind the perception of Jin-Jin being the better card though is related to the perception of how Magic games are won and lost, in theory. You get more stuff and take away your opponent’s stuff. You don’t stick something like Malignus or what not, then swing for the actual win, because you know, responses. Cards that respond are good, and cards that are defeated by responses are bad. So the rationale goes.
So, this explains somewhat the existence of the groups that are, 1) trying to blow up lands, etc, to keep players out of the game, and 2) players looking for combo wins that are hard to interact with. It doesn’t matter to them that mana-denial doesn’t win as often as people believe, or that Hermit Druid/Necrotic Ooze are actually highly vulnerable to Purify the Grave. It’s just the perception that these strategies are good by this group in question.
If your group’s perception is different, it should in my mind come down to a put up or shut up scenario. If GBx decks are combo’ing out, then run GY hate. If people are playing around with Armageddon and Winter Orb, then play decks that are more aggressive and less mana-dependent. I for one am somewhat tired of stories that claim MLD decks win because everyone scoops after the MLD. Play it out, then complain if it's warranted.
But if your conclusion is that Ramirez DePietro Pirate tribal should take 1 out of every 4 games in EDH, then I’m afraid that conclusion is not at all supported in the card pool for this format. Basically, Storm Herd or Jin-Jin take your pick, but one of these two philosophies is what wins. Other ideas are just worse by nature, and plz don't expect other players to attend to complaints when they lose.
You quoted me, but that might be a mistake? I don't get what you are debatting or if its even with me? (I'm not trying to provoke you, but I'm honestly very confused).
All I said was that there a two groups. Which boils down to people who thinks TnN is OP and those who doesnt. Some people says winning with one card alone (TnN) makes it OP. I would argue that if you cant stop a spell being cast for 9 mana you deserve to lose. And what I said to that was that its pointless to try and make these two groups agree on the "spirit of EDH", because they are fundementally different by nature.
OP, seriously, stop wasting your time posting here and go press the people you play with if you want an actual answer to your question; all you will receive here is proselytizing and self-righteous body hair. Rule of thumb: MTGSalvation is great for strategy, tactics, and build advice, horrible for anything else - especially involving society.
Edh is supposed to be fun, and I ply cards that try to make things fun for everyone. Armageddon isn't fun, so I don't play with or against it.
That said I run sacred ground because I don't have 100% precognition to know if my opponent brought Ulamog and Boom//Bust.
I heard a good comparison lately actually between Storm Herd and Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur. Both are the same cost (forget that it’s easier generally to get Jin-Jin into play), and both tend to win the game in practicality unless they’re dealt with. But, they are both starkly different in the way that they go about winning the game. One gives you a decisive amount of stuff, the other takes away all your opponents stuff (and gives you more stuff to keep on taking away your opponents’ stuff).
Now, I think it’s obvious that the community considers Jin-Jin the “better” card. That said, my own personal experience is that the person playing Storm Herd actually wins more often than the person playing Jin-Jin. There is something to be said in this format for being direct.
I’d wager that a lot of the reason behind the perception of Jin-Jin being the better card though is related to the perception of how Magic games are won and lost, in theory. You get more stuff and take away your opponent’s stuff. You don’t stick something like Malignus or what not, then swing for the actual win, because you know, responses. Cards that respond are good, and cards that are defeated by responses are bad. So the rationale goes.
So, this explains somewhat the existence of the groups that are, 1) trying to blow up lands, etc, to keep players out of the game, and 2) players looking for combo wins that are hard to interact with. It doesn’t matter to them that mana-denial doesn’t win as often as people believe, or that Hermit Druid/Necrotic Ooze are actually highly vulnerable to Purify the Grave. It’s just the perception that these strategies are good by this group in question.
If your group’s perception is different, it should in my mind come down to a put up or shut up scenario. If GBx decks are combo’ing out, then run GY hate. If people are playing around with Armageddon and Winter Orb, then play decks that are more aggressive and less mana-dependent. I for one am somewhat tired of stories that claim MLD decks win because everyone scoops after the MLD. Play it out, then complain if it's warranted.
But if your conclusion is that Ramirez DePietro Pirate tribal should take 1 out of every 4 games in EDH, then I’m afraid that conclusion is not at all supported in the card pool for this format. Basically, Storm Herd or Jin-Jin take your pick, but one of these two philosophies is what wins. Other ideas are just worse by nature, and plz don't expect other players to attend to complaints when they lose.
You quoted me, but that might be a mistake? I don't get what you are debatting or if its even with me? (I'm not trying to provoke you, but I'm honestly very confused).
All I said was that there a two groups. Which boils down to people who thinks TnN is OP and those who doesnt. Some people says winning with one card alone (TnN) makes it OP. I would argue that if you cant stop a spell being cast for 9 mana you deserve to lose. And what I said to that was that its pointless to try and make these two groups agree on the "spirit of EDH", because they are fundementally different by nature.
Not debating, more agreeing with you.
I agree there's these two groups you talk about. Just sharing another analogy I heard recently between Jin-Jin and Storm Herd, which seemed a pretty good analogy to me.
That one sort of brought to light for me the second point, that these groups don't have as much to do with winning and losing as is generally thought. It's really most to do with what each group enjoys playing and believes is good. And for the one group, that's combo'ing and interfering with lands.
And if you ask me, a decent aggressive strategy (read, something like Tymna and hatebears, not Storm Herd) will actually tend to run all over these MLD and combo decks. Ramirez will not.
I heard a good comparison lately actually between Storm Herd and Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur. Both are the same cost (forget that it’s easier generally to get Jin-Jin into play), and both tend to win the game in practicality unless they’re dealt with. But, they are both starkly different in the way that they go about winning the game. One gives you a decisive amount of stuff, the other takes away all your opponents stuff (and gives you more stuff to keep on taking away your opponents’ stuff).
Now, I think it’s obvious that the community considers Jin-Jin the “better” card. That said, my own personal experience is that the person playing Storm Herd actually wins more often than the person playing Jin-Jin. There is something to be said in this format for being direct.
I’d wager that a lot of the reason behind the perception of Jin-Jin being the better card though is related to the perception of how Magic games are won and lost, in theory. You get more stuff and take away your opponent’s stuff. You don’t stick something like Malignus or what not, then swing for the actual win, because you know, responses. Cards that respond are good, and cards that are defeated by responses are bad. So the rationale goes.
So, this explains somewhat the existence of the groups that are, 1) trying to blow up lands, etc, to keep players out of the game, and 2) players looking for combo wins that are hard to interact with. It doesn’t matter to them that mana-denial doesn’t win as often as people believe, or that Hermit Druid/Necrotic Ooze are actually highly vulnerable to Purify the Grave. It’s just the perception that these strategies are good by this group in question.
If your group’s perception is different, it should in my mind come down to a put up or shut up scenario. If GBx decks are combo’ing out, then run GY hate. If people are playing around with Armageddon and Winter Orb, then play decks that are more aggressive and less mana-dependent. I for one am somewhat tired of stories that claim MLD decks win because everyone scoops after the MLD. Play it out, then complain if it's warranted.
But if your conclusion is that Ramirez DePietro Pirate tribal should take 1 out of every 4 games in EDH, then I’m afraid that conclusion is not at all supported in the card pool for this format. Basically, Storm Herd or Jin-Jin take your pick, but one of these two philosophies is what wins. Other ideas are just worse by nature, and plz don't expect other players to attend to complaints when they lose.
You quoted me, but that might be a mistake? I don't get what you are debatting or if its even with me? (I'm not trying to provoke you, but I'm honestly very confused).
All I said was that there a two groups. Which boils down to people who thinks TnN is OP and those who doesnt. Some people says winning with one card alone (TnN) makes it OP. I would argue that if you cant stop a spell being cast for 9 mana you deserve to lose. And what I said to that was that its pointless to try and make these two groups agree on the "spirit of EDH", because they are fundementally different by nature.
Not debating, more agreeing with you.
I agree there's these two groups you talk about. Just sharing another analogy I heard recently between Jin-Jin and Storm Herd, which seemed a pretty good analogy to me.
That one sort of brought to light for me the second point, that these groups don't have as much to do with winning and losing as is generally thought. It's really most to do with what each group enjoys playing and believes is good. And for the one group, that's combo'ing and interfering with lands.
And if you ask me, a decent aggressive strategy (read, something like Tymna and hatebears, not Storm Herd) will actually tend to run all over these MLD and combo decks. Ramirez will not.
Ahh now it makes sense. And I do really agree with you then, your english is just way better than mine it seems:). And as you are saying its not like I have to win in my playgroup (although winning is fun;) ). Its more like you said, I just enjoy the counter game, where you interact while its the other players turns. Be it with counterspells, activated abilities, spot removal or whatever.
Paper D&D is actually the poor analogy because, you know, it's not a game that has the objective of winning. The skill-based diplomacy Rogue can fail his attempt to sneak attack 50 hobgoblins, but no one is to say he is better or worse for it as long as his group survived the encounter.
This "being on the same page" baloney is supposed to be accomplished by the rules set, including the ban list. Because the measure of whether you are making progress or not is measured by, you know, actually being able to reach the explicit objective of the game.
D&D does have winning as an objective, it's just abstracted as experience points and gaining levels.
Commander is a social format, where players are encouraged to use social skills to add to the experience, just like in D&D. As others on this forum say, it's a format you play with other people, not against them.
I wish I could understand why you're being so rigid about this.
At the end of the day, if you enjoy playing regardless of outcome, more power to you. If you like to win, then at some point your opponents will have to lose, it's the nature of the beast, and if them having fun is more important than winning, play less tilty decks. Or just play planeschase, anything goes with that stuff.
I don't think it's as much about how much you like to win or lose. If it were a game that was always won, it would not have the same kind of appeal. If D&D isn't a good example, mabye Pokemon Go. Everyone who logs in gets participation points. Go to a gym, and win if you have more participation points than the other person.
They are way different games from Magic. In Magic, you decide how to build a deck from the ground up and play that deck. Players are engaged in measuring how well/poorly they are doing that. The measurement of that is your ability to reach the game objectives.
With the exception of my vintage EDH deck (5 color reanimator with p9 and the works), I design all of my decks to eventually be finely tuned and competitive playable. However, I use EDH as an opportunity to experiment and work-in side routes to my decks so they aren't naturally oppressive if I choose not to play them as such. The ability to do this is why I love the format SO MUCH. Once I finally have a "finished" or fully tuned deck, I can play for fun in a political and more casual environment most of the time, and, if the situational calls for some cutthroat playing (either to save the game for the rest of the players due to one oppressive player or because that's just how we want to play the whole game), I can easily keep up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Universal Basic Income
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is mostly just a result of my local meta being extremely competitive: My LGS does 1v1 EDH with the standard banlist, and there's a ton of busted decks that see play there. I thoroughly enjoy it, however. The fact that the games are generally quick (With respect to most EDH games, I suppose) make it feel a lot better when you just loose to those busted solring into stupid mana rocks T1 hands. Sometimes that even looses people the game because so much artifact hate gets run. Furthermore, games where stupid stuff happens like playing a T2 Dragonlord Atarka to kill their T2 JTMS feels good.
I'm kind of rambling here, but I suppose my point is that I just love playing a 99-card highlander stack of utterly broken garbage with a synergistic creature card that's always available to tie the whole thing together. The card pool for even competitive play is huge and dwarfs any other format in terms of the number of unique cards that are playable, and this is one of the things I love about it. However, I don't play much outside of my local meta because there's not too many who seem to feel the same. I tried Duel Commander for a little while but that didn't go over so well and the maintainers destroyed the format anyhow.
tl;dr broken things are fun
The content of the game will however still be different from a casual "serra angel is the bomb" game.
RJaya Ballard, Task Mage Mono Red Control Decklist
WNahiri, the Lithomancer Mono White Control Decklist
RGWUKynaios and Tiro of Meletis Aikido Control Decklist
UBGisa and Geralf Tribal Aggro Decklist
URGRiku of Two Reflections Non-combo coolstuff Decklist
RWUBruse Tarl, Boorish Herder and Kraum, Ludovic's Opus Equipments Decklist
WBAthreos, God of Passage Reanimate/Goodstuff Decklist
(W/U)(B/R)GForm of Progenitus, Shape of a Scrubland
BRGJund Tokens with Prossh, the Magic Dragon Foil
URGAnimar, the RUG CleanerFoil
RRRFeldon of the Third Path 2.0 Foil
BG(B/G)Not Another Meren DeckFoil
UR(U/R)Mizzix, Y Control and X Burn Spells
(W/U)(B/R)GHarold Ramos - The 35 Foot Long Twinkie (In +1/+1 counters)
UB(U/B)Dragonlord Silumgar
I also feel like for the people who spend TONS and toonnnnnns of money on these EDH decks to play-to-win, well, they're the ones spending tons of money to win in a game where good plays aren't gonna get you anywhere in this format. They're obviously having fun doing so, and they spent their own money to do this, why is anyone to say this automatically makes them an ********? They're having fun their way! Plus, for people who ARE doing this AND are ********s, who aren't even having fun... Well, they're the ones doing this in commander and not in modern or something, so that's their problem I suppose
Meh, doesn't bug me though, I just won't play against those people if their decks frustrate me, and I don't really get too bugged when someone beats me if we both have fun, as long as opponent isn't being a massive douche about winning (in which case it says a lot about who they are as a person and I know not to play with them next time)
edit: wanna throw in I agree on the competitive doesn't mean ********s, and those are two totally separate categories (also fixed my wording on some stuff)
Bruna, Light of Alabaster | Karlov of the Ghost Council | Breya, Etherium Shaper | Marchesa, the Black Rose | Queen Marchesa | The Mimeoplasm | Avacyn, Angel of Hope |
Pauper:
Orzhov Nightsky Mimic
Frequent lurker and vorthos player
"i like to play competitive not playing 7-mana-fatties-battlecruiser-turning-creatures-sideways etc etc etc"
I don't play turn 3-4 combos in any of my decks but are not crawwurm.dec as many of the players here seem to think, but with all said you can now understand why some play like that, because in some way they think they are superior than the rest.
I am not sure what your point of reference is. Have you ever played any game where you’re supposed to come to the brink of reaching the game’s objective, step back instead, and then try to find more fun somehow instead?
Say you are playing Chess and you opponent leaves themselves open to a 3-4 turn checkmate. Are both players supposed to talk about it, decide that early Queen development is “OP”, and then make another play? Or, are they supposed to learn, adapt, and play the game according to the rules? It seems like if you don’t like early wins, then Checkers is the better game for you.
Conversely, have you ever heard someone proud of how bad their deck is? As in, hey, “I have never won a single game with this deck. It’s so bad!”
I mean, I understand that there are certain do’s and don’t’s. But, people will try to get better at the game. So, better to focus on these do’s and dont’s and their reason for being rather than questioning why someone gets enjoyment from overpowering wins.
I heard a good comparison lately actually between Storm Herd and Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur. Both are the same cost (forget that it’s easier generally to get Jin-Jin into play), and both tend to win the game in practicality unless they’re dealt with. But, they are both starkly different in the way that they go about winning the game. One gives you a decisive amount of stuff, the other takes away all your opponents stuff (and gives you more stuff to keep on taking away your opponents’ stuff).
Now, I think it’s obvious that the community considers Jin-Jin the “better” card. That said, my own personal experience is that the person playing Storm Herd actually wins more often than the person playing Jin-Jin. There is something to be said in this format for being direct.
I’d wager that a lot of the reason behind the perception of Jin-Jin being the better card though is related to the perception of how Magic games are won and lost, in theory. You get more stuff and take away your opponent’s stuff. You don’t stick something like Malignus or what not, then swing for the actual win, because you know, responses. Cards that respond are good, and cards that are defeated by responses are bad. So the rationale goes.
So, this explains somewhat the existence of the groups that are, 1) trying to blow up lands, etc, to keep players out of the game, and 2) players looking for combo wins that are hard to interact with. It doesn’t matter to them that mana-denial doesn’t win as often as people believe, or that Hermit Druid/Necrotic Ooze are actually highly vulnerable to Purify the Grave. It’s just the perception that these strategies are good by this group in question.
If your group’s perception is different, it should in my mind come down to a put up or shut up scenario. If GBx decks are combo’ing out, then run GY hate. If people are playing around with Armageddon and Winter Orb, then play decks that are more aggressive and less mana-dependent. I for one am somewhat tired of stories that claim MLD decks win because everyone scoops after the MLD. Play it out, then complain if it's warranted.
But if your conclusion is that Ramirez DePietro Pirate tribal should take 1 out of every 4 games in EDH, then I’m afraid that conclusion is not at all supported in the card pool for this format. Basically, Storm Herd or Jin-Jin take your pick, but one of these two philosophies is what wins. Other ideas are just worse by nature, and plz don't expect other players to attend to complaints when they lose.
When you have a bunch of serra fans and a hard core stax player enters the game the fun evaporates. Conversely you have a bunch of folkes with tuned top tier decks and someone shows up with cat tribal then it really isnt fun.
You can have fun games with a mix of power levels at the table, those typically have an archenemy feel which can be fun
In Progress
GBIshkanah, Grafwidow ~ BWGRTymna the Weaver & Tana, the Bloodsower ~ UGRashmi, Eternities Crafter ~ RGAtarka, World Render
Chess is a very poor analogy.
Commander is a lot more like pen and paper gaming. If you bring a character that's completely optimized to win in combat and you find out that the game is set in a court full of subtle political intrigue, it's going to be a bad time. Conversely, if the party is kitted out for kick-down-the-door campaigning, your thoughtful scholar or silver-tongued rogue are going to find themselves frustratingly useless.
It's the same thing with Commander. The game works best if everyone's on the same page and, as with pen and paper gaming, if you discuss with the other players what kind of character (or, as the case may be, deck) you're playing and what you hope to get out of the game. You can't do that with chess. It's too linear, all the information is known and there's too few interactions.
Take someone who literally just started playing MtG last week, and compare that to someone who plays legacy storm at every high level tournament. Both players decide to get into EDH. Do you really think it is fair to be upset at the veteran legacy player for automatically developing a deck that can win faster than the newbie?
edit; for a personal opinion - I hate the phrase "spirit of EDH." This almost always comes out when someone is upset about an incompatible power-level or experience-level between players, or having a high rate of loosing, or having opponents that play un-interactive decks and they are too stubborn to adjust their decks to answer. If you want a more casual game with players that attack with shivan dragons, then find a new playgroup. Don't blame people for their choice in deck design/archetype and choice card inclusion.
Stating that something "breaks the spirit of edh" sounds more like trying to make someone feel bad for being good at the game.
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
Paper D&D is actually the poor analogy because, you know, it's not a game that has the objective of winning. The skill-based diplomacy Rogue can fail his attempt to sneak attack 50 hobgoblins, but no one is to say he is better or worse for it as long as his group survived the encounter.
This "being on the same page" baloney is supposed to be accomplished by the rules set, including the ban list. Because the measure of whether you are making progress or not is measured by, you know, actually being able to reach the explicit objective of the game.
EDH: UGEdric
Pauper: UR Delver
Modern: UGR Delver
Draft my cube: Eric's 390 Unpowered
You quoted me, but that might be a mistake? I don't get what you are debatting or if its even with me? (I'm not trying to provoke you, but I'm honestly very confused).
All I said was that there a two groups. Which boils down to people who thinks TnN is OP and those who doesnt. Some people says winning with one card alone (TnN) makes it OP. I would argue that if you cant stop a spell being cast for 9 mana you deserve to lose. And what I said to that was that its pointless to try and make these two groups agree on the "spirit of EDH", because they are fundementally different by nature.
That said I run sacred ground because I don't have 100% precognition to know if my opponent brought Ulamog and Boom//Bust.
Not debating, more agreeing with you.
I agree there's these two groups you talk about. Just sharing another analogy I heard recently between Jin-Jin and Storm Herd, which seemed a pretty good analogy to me.
That one sort of brought to light for me the second point, that these groups don't have as much to do with winning and losing as is generally thought. It's really most to do with what each group enjoys playing and believes is good. And for the one group, that's combo'ing and interfering with lands.
And if you ask me, a decent aggressive strategy (read, something like Tymna and hatebears, not Storm Herd) will actually tend to run all over these MLD and combo decks. Ramirez will not.
Ahh now it makes sense. And I do really agree with you then, your english is just way better than mine it seems:). And as you are saying its not like I have to win in my playgroup (although winning is fun;) ). Its more like you said, I just enjoy the counter game, where you interact while its the other players turns. Be it with counterspells, activated abilities, spot removal or whatever.
D&D does have winning as an objective, it's just abstracted as experience points and gaining levels.
Commander is a social format, where players are encouraged to use social skills to add to the experience, just like in D&D. As others on this forum say, it's a format you play with other people, not against them.
I wish I could understand why you're being so rigid about this.
(W/U)(B/R)GForm of Progenitus, Shape of a Scrubland
BRGJund Tokens with Prossh, the Magic Dragon Foil
URGAnimar, the RUG CleanerFoil
RRRFeldon of the Third Path 2.0 Foil
BG(B/G)Not Another Meren DeckFoil
UR(U/R)Mizzix, Y Control and X Burn Spells
(W/U)(B/R)GHarold Ramos - The 35 Foot Long Twinkie (In +1/+1 counters)
UB(U/B)Dragonlord Silumgar
They are way different games from Magic. In Magic, you decide how to build a deck from the ground up and play that deck. Players are engaged in measuring how well/poorly they are doing that. The measurement of that is your ability to reach the game objectives.