There are a myriad of deck archetypes in EDH, all of which exist somewhere along the spectrum of casual to cutthroat. I know that stax generally exists on the higher end of the cutthroat side, and it's usually considered, in it's stronger builds, an effective competitive option.
However, that's not my question. I'm wondering why any well adjusted, relatively social person would want to take MTG and play every card they can to ruin the experience for everyone else. Stuff like Smokestack, Possessed Portal, Winter Orb that shut down the core concepts of playing the game: using mana, drawing cards, casting spells. This doesn't create a fun, interactive environment for people to play a game together. All this does is force people to sit through you dragging the game on as long as possible while they stare at pieces of paper in their hand that they can't use.
I play stax strategies for the same reason any other player in the game plays any strategy: I find it fun. If you and/or your play group find that these cards lead to games that no one enjoys, ban them. But they exist in the game, they appeal to some players, so those players choose to play them.
These threads pop up almost daily at this point. Rather than getting upset and policing what other players do, have a civil dialogue with those that you play with. If you don't like infinite combos, talk to the player that wins every game the exact same way with an infinite combo. If you don't like stax, talk to the player locking everyone out of the game and taking a long time to win. If you don't like the mono blue player countering everything you do, talk to them. Coming here doesn't change anything. Let people play the cards they want to play with, let them have fun. If you're not having fun, just talk to them. It's really that simple.
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 play stax strategies for the same reason any other player in the game plays any strategy: I find it fun. If you and/or your play group find that these cards lead to games that no one enjoys, ban them. But they exist in the game, they appeal to some players, so those players choose to play them.
These threads pop up almost daily at this point. Rather than getting upset and policing what other players do, have a civil dialogue with those that you play with. If you don't like infinite combos, talk to the player that wins every game the exact same way with an infinite combo. If you don't like stax, talk to the player locking everyone out of the game and taking a long time to win. If you don't like the mono blue player countering everything you do, talk to them. Coming here doesn't change anything. Let people play the cards they want to play with, let them have fun. If you're not having fun, just talk to them. It's really that simple.
No, it doesn't, but it is an interesting topic I'd like to discuss, which is why I'm on an online forum in the first place. This thread was posted in response to my buddy and I discussing a discard themed Nath stax deck he wants to build, and my response of overt disgust that someone would want to ruin MTG for everyone else. I fully intend on countering it with hardcore Arcum combo or a Grand Arbiter tax build, but that's not the point of this thread. I want to peek into the brain of people who actually like this type of build.
Personally I see stax as sort of the anti-competitive deck, in a twisted sort of way. I.e. your group is becoming fast and combo-based, and you don't like it, so it's a way to try to "fix" it by making games long and attrition-based rather than fast and combo-based. Same is true even for less combo-based builds that just generate tons of value and take over the game. Stax sort of "solves" those problems.
Of course some people just prefer that playstyle too. When I've played stax-esque decks, though, it's usually because I want to play a grindy value game rather than an explosive one, though, and I want my opponents to do the same.
I play stax strategies for the same reason any other player in the game plays any strategy: I find it fun. If you and/or your play group find that these cards lead to games that no one enjoys, ban them. But they exist in the game, they appeal to some players, so those players choose to play them.
These threads pop up almost daily at this point. Rather than getting upset and policing what other players do, have a civil dialogue with those that you play with. If you don't like infinite combos, talk to the player that wins every game the exact same way with an infinite combo. If you don't like stax, talk to the player locking everyone out of the game and taking a long time to win. If you don't like the mono blue player countering everything you do, talk to them. Coming here doesn't change anything. Let people play the cards they want to play with, let them have fun. If you're not having fun, just talk to them. It's really that simple.
No, it doesn't, but it is an interesting topic I'd like to discuss, which is why I'm on an online forum in the first place. This thread was posted in response to my buddy and I discussing a discard themed Nath stax deck he wants to build, and my response of overt disgust that someone would want to ruin MTG for everyone else. I fully intend on countering it with hardcore Arcum combo or a Grand Arbiter tax build, but that's not the point of this thread. I want to peek into the brain of people who actually like this type of build.
You seem to be answering all the questions you are asking pretty well right here.
Because some people find it fun. We live in a world where "well adjusted, relatively social" people jump out of airplanes, hop bare ass naked into frigid water, and try to beat each other to death for money and the adulation of strangers. Much like degenerate combo decks, the only time they're an issue is when other decks aren't prepared to face them.
I see commander as the format for me to play cards to sucker punch people
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm actively maintaining a comprehensive article to help explain to new cube players how some complex vintage level cards work in a cube environment. Vintage Cube Cards Explained
This topic pops up periodically. For me, I suppose the answer to your question ("Why any well adjusted, relatively social person...would play stax"), is this: my opponents do not get to decide for me what I consider a fun game. There are people in magic that consider the challenge of shutting down multiple opponents' resources to be a challenge, and consider that challenge fun. There are people that would argue that why is their strategy of winning (shutting down other peoples' resources while being able to build their own) is just as viable of a strategy to win as is other strategies, such as agro or combo.
I play stax strategies for the same reason any other player in the game plays any strategy: I find it fun. If you and/or your play group find that these cards lead to games that no one enjoys, ban them. But they exist in the game, they appeal to some players, so those players choose to play them.
These threads pop up almost daily at this point. Rather than getting upset and policing what other players do, have a civil dialogue with those that you play with. If you don't like infinite combos, talk to the player that wins every game the exact same way with an infinite combo. If you don't like stax, talk to the player locking everyone out of the game and taking a long time to win. If you don't like the mono blue player countering everything you do, talk to them. Coming here doesn't change anything. Let people play the cards they want to play with, let them have fun. If you're not having fun, just talk to them. It's really that simple.
No, it doesn't, but it is an interesting topic I'd like to discuss, which is why I'm on an online forum in the first place. This thread was posted in response to my buddy and I discussing a discard themed Nath stax deck he wants to build, and my response of overt disgust that someone would want to ruin MTG for everyone else. I fully intend on countering it with hardcore Arcum combo or a Grand Arbiter tax build, but that's not the point of this thread. I want to peek into the brain of people who actually like this type of build.
Not a thread directly about stax, but a thread with one person complaining about another person's choice in deck. My Nath deck is also a stax build, I love it.
What always bothers me are these statements: "my response of overt disgust that someone would want to ruin MTG for everyone else." Sorry you feel that way? That's just your opinion. I have always loved playing against stax. That is what drew me to the archetype years and years ago. Which, of course, is my opinion. I understand not everyone likes everything.
But I remember back in the day a friend of mine had a black and red stax deck with cards like Smokestack, Winter Orb, Sinkhole, and Mishra's Helix. Games with a turn one Dark Ritual into Duress and Sinkhole were crazy. It was fascinating (and frustrating, but mostly fascinating) to see those explosive, aggressive early plays, and then watch someone skillfully balance cards like Smokestack and Tangle Wire to their advantage, while I praying on top decks like Uktabi Orangutan to possibly get me out of the situation. It's sort of like a balancing act. I love making sure I am properly managing my resources and watching my opponent's board and hand shrink, so I can set up my win.
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
Resource denial is one method of controlling the board. It's also a more efficient method of controlling multiple opponents simultaneously than, say, counterspells.
So you might as well ask "why do people play control?"
Granted, there are a variety of ways you can play stax, from Stax-Lite to Teferi-Knowledge pool lockdowns. That said, most of the responses here so far are referring to stax as "resource management". This is, of course, a valid technique that one must understand to play MTG effectively.
That said, there is a point where stax goes from "effective resource management" to actively ruining the game for 3+ other people. There is a reason Braids was banned.
Stax is only a problem when everyone else at the table ignores the elephant in the room and only focuses on their own precious board states. I see it all the time. Three people playing Farmville and one person playing Magic. Ironically, the guy playing Magic usually ends up being the bad guy somehow. Kooky.
Braids wasn't banned because of Stax Braids was banned because of a power imbalance inherit to Commander that was dealt with in the simplest way that Braids was collateral damage of.
I'm wondering why any well adjusted, relatively social person would want to take MTG and play every card they can to ruin the experience for everyone else.
While I applaud you for seemingly putting forth an effort to understand, you are implying that someone who enjoys this cannot be 'well adjusted, relatively social person'. This is incredibly biased, and indicative of a mindset of 'people not like me are wrong'.
I do not think there can be a reasonable discussion unless you can recognize that bias.
Resource denial & attrition strategies are enjoyable to play with, and interesting to play against.
Stax is fun and effective. It attacks you from a different angel. It is also fun to play against once you start to understand how to value your resources correctly.
Playing against stax is an entierly different landscape then most decks. Akin to playing against old school draw go decks. How do you bait out those counterspells is a fun little sub game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have dyslexia, no I am not going to spell check for you, yes you have to live with the horrors of it.
Player 2 wants to make player 1 squirm for wanting to win so badly. The enjoyment gained for player 2 is ideologically different.
Player 1 is happiest if they're winning, player 2 is happiest when they're just playing out a game, albeit at the expense of player 1 due to the difference in playstyle.
You could say that "winning" is as subjective of a concept as the playstyle enjoyed from one person or another
Edit: I love control, I do like exposing decks with a linear nature and find it funny how hard they are shut down by poking the proverbial "stick" into their spokes
I'm wondering why any well adjusted, relatively social person would want to take MTG and play every card they can to ruin the experience for everyone else.
While I applaud you for seemingly putting forth an effort to understand, you are implying that someone who enjoys this cannot be 'well adjusted, relatively social person'. This is incredibly biased, and indicative of a mindset of 'people not like me are wrong'.
I do not think there can be a reasonable discussion unless you can recognize that bias.
Resource denial & attrition strategies are enjoyable to play with, and interesting to play against.
In my post, I'm directly linking renowned cards that rapidly shut down the game in a way that is antifun. I agree after some of the replies in this thread that stax isn't inherently bad and can actually be strategically interesting. I do not, however, think that cards like Possessed Portal can ever be justified as necessary.
I'm wondering why any well adjusted, relatively social person would want to take MTG and play every card they can to ruin the experience for everyone else.
While I applaud you for seemingly putting forth an effort to understand, you are implying that someone who enjoys this cannot be 'well adjusted, relatively social person'. This is incredibly biased, and indicative of a mindset of 'people not like me are wrong'.
I do not think there can be a reasonable discussion unless you can recognize that bias.
Resource denial & attrition strategies are enjoyable to play with, and interesting to play against.
In my post, I'm directly linking renowned cards that rapidly shut down the game in a way that is antifun. I agree after some of the replies in this thread that stax isn't inherently bad and can actually be strategically interesting. I do not, however, think that cards like Possessed Portal can ever be justified as necessary.
So... Only cards that are necessary can be justified? May I ask justified to whom exactly?
I'm wondering why any well adjusted, relatively social person would want to take MTG and play every card they can to ruin the experience for everyone else.
While I applaud you for seemingly putting forth an effort to understand, you are implying that someone who enjoys this cannot be 'well adjusted, relatively social person'. This is incredibly biased, and indicative of a mindset of 'people not like me are wrong'.
I do not think there can be a reasonable discussion unless you can recognize that bias.
Resource denial & attrition strategies are enjoyable to play with, and interesting to play against.
In my post, I'm directly linking renowned cards that rapidly shut down the game in a way that is antifun. I agree after some of the replies in this thread that stax isn't inherently bad and can actually be strategically interesting. I do not, however, think that cards like Possessed Portal can ever be justified as necessary.
If I am for example playing Unesh, Criosphinx Sovereign as my commander the Portal seems like a pretty good card to assist in going on a Sphinx beatdown plan.
You phrase your question “Why would any well-adjusted, relatively social person do X”, and you are surprised that people come to its defense rather than take the question at face value?
Magic was designed with a number of particulars involved in the playing field – artifacts/enchantments, creatures, lands. There are spells and effects that affect those cards. From the beginning, none of these were thought of as “off limits” for interaction. Cards for destroying lands (see Sinkhole and Armageddon) were roughly equal mana cost as cards destroying creatures (see Terror and Wrath of God), and non-creatures (see Disenchant).
This is how the game was designed. Development modified the balance of these spells and effects that destroy cards, but it is a stretch to even say that game balance requires that one permanent type be harder to kill than another. Take Violent Impact as the most recent removal to kill lands. That is considered very inefficient by historical standards, but it also goes hand in hand with the trend over the same recent period to also make creature removal more inefficient. Also consider what effects development sees fit to put on a creature. Desolation Angel was reprinted recently as mass land destruction on a body, but unconditional mass creature removal on a body is very hard to find, with Reiver Demon and similar coming to mind as examples.
Point is, it’s just you that don’t like your mana messed with. If that’s true, maybe you should consider a TCG that doesn’t have the “mana” type resource on a card that you have to draw from your deck and put in play. There are lots of them like that. Play Magic though, and players will blow up your lands now and then. If you want to be prepared for a discussion within your group about house-ruling that out, be prepared to discuss the house-ban of the more powerful land ramp and single lands like Gaea’s Cradle.
You phrase your question “Why would any well-adjusted, relatively social person do X”, and you are surprised that people come to its defense rather than take the question at face value?
I don't see where I am surprised, I posed the question exactly as such because I wanted people to explain to me why my view is wrong.
I view Stax as a playstyle that attempts to deny other players the ability to engage with and play the game. Given that EDH is a multiplayer designed, casually balanced format, and is based on encouraging socializing and interaction between players, Stax is then, by definition, antisocial.
However, that's not my question. I'm wondering why any well adjusted, relatively social person would want to take MTG and play every card they can to ruin the experience for everyone else. Stuff like Smokestack, Possessed Portal, Winter Orb that shut down the core concepts of playing the game: using mana, drawing cards, casting spells. This doesn't create a fun, interactive environment for people to play a game together. All this does is force people to sit through you dragging the game on as long as possible while they stare at pieces of paper in their hand that they can't use.
What's the point?
Padeem, Consul of Innovation - Artifact value/combo.
Sidisi, Brood Tyrant - Sultai zombie reanimator.
These threads pop up almost daily at this point. Rather than getting upset and policing what other players do, have a civil dialogue with those that you play with. If you don't like infinite combos, talk to the player that wins every game the exact same way with an infinite combo. If you don't like stax, talk to the player locking everyone out of the game and taking a long time to win. If you don't like the mono blue player countering everything you do, talk to them. Coming here doesn't change anything. Let people play the cards they want to play with, let them have fun. If you're not having fun, just talk to them. It's really that simple.
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
No, it doesn't, but it is an interesting topic I'd like to discuss, which is why I'm on an online forum in the first place. This thread was posted in response to my buddy and I discussing a discard themed Nath stax deck he wants to build, and my response of overt disgust that someone would want to ruin MTG for everyone else. I fully intend on countering it with hardcore Arcum combo or a Grand Arbiter tax build, but that's not the point of this thread. I want to peek into the brain of people who actually like this type of build.
Padeem, Consul of Innovation - Artifact value/combo.
Sidisi, Brood Tyrant - Sultai zombie reanimator.
Of course some people just prefer that playstyle too. When I've played stax-esque decks, though, it's usually because I want to play a grindy value game rather than an explosive one, though, and I want my opponents to do the same.
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
You seem to be answering all the questions you are asking pretty well right here.
There's no accounting for taste, after all.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
Vintage Cube Cards Explained
Here are some other articles I've written about fine tuning your cube:
1. Minimum Archetype Support
2. Improving Green Archetypes
3. Improving White Archetypes
4. Matchup Analysis
5. Cube Combos (Work in Progress)
Draft my Cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/d8i
Currently Playing:
Multiplayer EDH Lists (click italics for a link to the thread!)
[Primer] Lord of Tresserhorn - Don't Tell Me What I Can't Do[Primer] Roon of the Hidden Realm - Rhino Blink
5 Color Tribal Guide (Slivers, Atogs, Allies, Spirits)
Also Playing (most decklists can be found on my profile)
MarathGeistKamahlGrenzoBolasThassaGitrog
PiratesZurVial Smasher&ThrasiosYennettJhoira(cEDH)Strix(Pauper)
Legacy: Maverick
Modern:
Melira PodRIP 1/19/15GWHatebearsNot a thread directly about stax, but a thread with one person complaining about another person's choice in deck. My Nath deck is also a stax build, I love it.
What always bothers me are these statements: "my response of overt disgust that someone would want to ruin MTG for everyone else." Sorry you feel that way? That's just your opinion. I have always loved playing against stax. That is what drew me to the archetype years and years ago. Which, of course, is my opinion. I understand not everyone likes everything.
But I remember back in the day a friend of mine had a black and red stax deck with cards like Smokestack, Winter Orb, Sinkhole, and Mishra's Helix. Games with a turn one Dark Ritual into Duress and Sinkhole were crazy. It was fascinating (and frustrating, but mostly fascinating) to see those explosive, aggressive early plays, and then watch someone skillfully balance cards like Smokestack and Tangle Wire to their advantage, while I praying on top decks like Uktabi Orangutan to possibly get me out of the situation. It's sort of like a balancing act. I love making sure I am properly managing my resources and watching my opponent's board and hand shrink, so I can set up my win.
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
So you might as well ask "why do people play control?"
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
That said, there is a point where stax goes from "effective resource management" to actively ruining the game for 3+ other people. There is a reason Braids was banned.
Padeem, Consul of Innovation - Artifact value/combo.
Sidisi, Brood Tyrant - Sultai zombie reanimator.
While I applaud you for seemingly putting forth an effort to understand, you are implying that someone who enjoys this cannot be 'well adjusted, relatively social person'. This is incredibly biased, and indicative of a mindset of 'people not like me are wrong'.
I do not think there can be a reasonable discussion unless you can recognize that bias.
Resource denial & attrition strategies are enjoyable to play with, and interesting to play against.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
Playing against stax is an entierly different landscape then most decks. Akin to playing against old school draw go decks. How do you bait out those counterspells is a fun little sub game.
Player 2 wants to make player 1 squirm for wanting to win so badly. The enjoyment gained for player 2 is ideologically different.
Player 1 is happiest if they're winning, player 2 is happiest when they're just playing out a game, albeit at the expense of player 1 due to the difference in playstyle.
You could say that "winning" is as subjective of a concept as the playstyle enjoyed from one person or another
Edit: I love control, I do like exposing decks with a linear nature and find it funny how hard they are shut down by poking the proverbial "stick" into their spokes
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/334931-what-is-the-most-pimp-card-deck-youve-seen-or?comment=5361
Commander
RGOmnath, Locus of Rage Grenades! EDHGR
UWSygg's Defense, EDH - Voltron & ControlWU
BUGMimeoplasm EDH ft. Ifnir Cycling-discard comboBUG
WBTeysa, Connoisseur of CullingBW
BWSelenia & Recruiter of the Guard suicice combo EDHWB
UBRWGO-Kagachi - 5 Color Enchantments - EDHUBRWG
In my post, I'm directly linking renowned cards that rapidly shut down the game in a way that is antifun. I agree after some of the replies in this thread that stax isn't inherently bad and can actually be strategically interesting. I do not, however, think that cards like Possessed Portal can ever be justified as necessary.
Padeem, Consul of Innovation - Artifact value/combo.
Sidisi, Brood Tyrant - Sultai zombie reanimator.
So... Only cards that are necessary can be justified? May I ask justified to whom exactly?
If I am for example playing Unesh, Criosphinx Sovereign as my commander the Portal seems like a pretty good card to assist in going on a Sphinx beatdown plan.
Magic was designed with a number of particulars involved in the playing field – artifacts/enchantments, creatures, lands. There are spells and effects that affect those cards. From the beginning, none of these were thought of as “off limits” for interaction. Cards for destroying lands (see Sinkhole and Armageddon) were roughly equal mana cost as cards destroying creatures (see Terror and Wrath of God), and non-creatures (see Disenchant).
This is how the game was designed. Development modified the balance of these spells and effects that destroy cards, but it is a stretch to even say that game balance requires that one permanent type be harder to kill than another. Take Violent Impact as the most recent removal to kill lands. That is considered very inefficient by historical standards, but it also goes hand in hand with the trend over the same recent period to also make creature removal more inefficient. Also consider what effects development sees fit to put on a creature. Desolation Angel was reprinted recently as mass land destruction on a body, but unconditional mass creature removal on a body is very hard to find, with Reiver Demon and similar coming to mind as examples.
Point is, it’s just you that don’t like your mana messed with. If that’s true, maybe you should consider a TCG that doesn’t have the “mana” type resource on a card that you have to draw from your deck and put in play. There are lots of them like that. Play Magic though, and players will blow up your lands now and then. If you want to be prepared for a discussion within your group about house-ruling that out, be prepared to discuss the house-ban of the more powerful land ramp and single lands like Gaea’s Cradle.
I don't see where I am surprised, I posed the question exactly as such because I wanted people to explain to me why my view is wrong.
I view Stax as a playstyle that attempts to deny other players the ability to engage with and play the game. Given that EDH is a multiplayer designed, casually balanced format, and is based on encouraging socializing and interaction between players, Stax is then, by definition, antisocial.
Padeem, Consul of Innovation - Artifact value/combo.
Sidisi, Brood Tyrant - Sultai zombie reanimator.
Playing the game is not social or antisocial, how you behave and interact with the group of people you are playing with is what defines that.