Just for the interest of summing up what has been said thus far:
-Commander has substantially changed how many players play the game
-it has structural elements that are fundamentally different from 60 card constructed formats
-there is disagreement over whether Magic would still fundamentally be Magic if the way it is predominantly played permanently changes from the 60 card 4 of limit decks to the 99 card singleton plus one commander (or 98 + 2 partners) format.
-many have said that they now play commander to the exclusion of other constructed formats, both casual and competitive
-this seems to effect kitchen table 60 card more
-this does not seem to effect limited as those saying the quit other formats for commander mostly say they draft or cube
- several alternative reasons for quitting competitive play have been cited
- some say they quit other formats in favor of commander, others say they would have quit altogether if not for commander. It is thus difficult to determine if the effect commander has on drawing players away from other formats is larger or smaller than the effect it has on keeping players who would have otherwise quit altogether
-Commander has contributed positively to sales
-is this sustainable is an open question. 60 card grew and maintained the brand for almost 20 years as the sole focus. Whether commander will just supplement that or replace it is still unclear, as is whether if it did supplant 60 card if it can sustain interest and sales over a similarly long period or taper off, and whether it would outperform or underperform in driving sales and interest compared to 60 card being dominant. There probably isn't enough to go on to make a prediction,
- posters contribute sales to commanders popularity, but also note dissatisfaction with tournaments. Would a better standard environment or modern environment with more support increase sales even more, or would it just draw players away from commander? Could it do both? Neither? Open questions, but dissatisfaction with tournaments has been heavily cited in the thread.
-Another topic mentioned is the prevelance of buying singles as well as how needing only one copy of a card for your deck and commander making greater use of older cards. Would commander be able to support booster sales enough to make up for the loss of 60 card, or would it still need 60 card to drive booster sales, even reduced booster sales, and make up for it with an increased reliance on precons? Also note that posters talked about drafting and edh, so maybe the popularity of draft could sell enough packs on its own.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
- posters contribute sales to commanders popularity, but also note dissatisfaction with tournaments. Would a better standard environment or modern environment with more support increase sales even more, or would it just draw players away from commander? Could it do both? Neither? Open questions, but dissatisfaction with tournaments has been heavily cited in the thread.
Realistically I think it's practically impossible to make a standard (or modern, or legacy, or any competitive constructed format) environment that appeals to the same thing that commander does.
I think when RG created magic, the idea was that collecting would be a part of the game - sort of like an RPG irl, except that instead of getting more xp you'd get more, better cards, and then you'd also have a strategy layer of what to take out of your deck. In essence, the sort of casual, build-with-what-you-have kitchen table magic I played back in HS when I first started playing. Sort of a less structured draft. That idea is what's often cited as the reasoning behind printing obviously busted cards like the moxen or ancestral recall. If they're super hard to get, they SHOULD be really good.
In practice, people are tryhards. If you ever tried to build a standard deck from whatever you happen to have lying around, you are going to get obliterated by all the netdeckers. The idea that scarcity would function as a method of preventing homogenization failed on 2 fronts: first, people WILL find a way to get those cards, even if they cost tons of money. Second, if people can't get those cards (see vintage) rather than playing with what they have, they just won't play, because someone else will have those cards and will obliterate them. Not only does scarcity not work, if it DID work, everyone would hate it (see the reserved list for proof).
Without scarcity to limit peoples' deck construction, and with the rise of the internet as a means of communication to share decklists, RG's dream that TCGs would work as an "unstructured draft" is unfortunately dead. TCGs aren't about getting cards, they're about getting decks. The theoretically near-infinite variety that 60 cards chosen from hundreds or thousands of possibilities provide is outmoded - instead there's only a few deck options to choose from, with minor permutations.
This is why commander is great. Between the community generally rejecting competitive play and tuned decklists, the general spirit of brewing, and the enormously large variety of cards and decks, commander still retains that spark of what TCGs were supposed to be about. How can standard ever capture that spirit again? Simple: it cannot. Where there is competition and communcation, there will be tryhards, there will be netdecking. Variety and invention will die and homogeny and repetition will thrive. It doesn't matter how much support standard is given. It doesn't matter how "great" the format is. Standard is the equivalent of a fighting game: strategic, yes, fun, maybe, but there's little innovation or variety, just a honing of skill. Commander is the TCG dream. If it dies, as far as I'm concerned, so does collectible magic.
Addendum: As far as the question of whether commander killed 60 card casual: yes, but not without reason. 60 card casual was a blast back when I was in HS, but it's a brittle format that only gets more brittle as fewer magic players live in the naïveté that's almost required to enjoy it. 1v1 is inherently much more unstable because it lacks multiplayer's ability to balance via ganging up, and also the fact that any deck - from a vintage competitive combo deck to draft chaff is legal to play. And sure, commander also has a wide variety of power, but nothing nearly as powerful and consistent as a vintage deck (and thanks to precons, not many super weak decks either), and more importantly people have no reason to build competitive decks for it, so they simply don't exist - whereas decks that have rotated, or simply become less than tier 1, in other formats can easily be considered "60 card casual" while being much more competitive than other, built-for-casual decks. In a good group, 60 card casual can be great fun, but at least in my experience, commander provides a much more stable, reliable environment that produces much less frustration and power level disparity.
Some interesting perspectives have been shared here. I like the review of the 'discussion thus far', presented by onering, and the point of DirkGently that Commander captures best the aspect of brewing and innovation that was suppose to be inherent to TCGs.
Just to reiterate - my initial argument started with the premise that Commander removed 60-card casual from the scene. That had two consequences:
1) it made people who played casual less interest in constructed formats by virtue of
(i) the fact that it was harder to port into 60-card constructed (a singleton collection makes it harder to go to 4-card each collection) and
(ii) 60-card is, essentially, a different game from 99 singleton + commander, even if you play commander 1v1
2) it created a feedback loop wherein people who play commander want newcomers to the game to also play commander, essentially 'stealing' players that could otherwise play 60-card magic.
I'm not saying that any of this above is a statement of fact, it is just a hypothesis.
People here countered my arguments by saying that Commander has positives effects by acting as a safety net that keeps people interested in Magic when they would otherwise leave. These same people also buy cards and they may call other people to play with them. Overall then, it becomes difficult to determine if the sales of new sets and the number of new players is being negatively or positively impacted by the existence of Commander.
I will add now a new consequence to my premise that only now just occurred to me:
Commander may be damaging Magic by lessening the pressure that players make on 60-card constructed formats.
I will explain:
If and when standard gets bad, people move to commander to play instead of abandoning the game or heavily criticizing WoTC. That might be problematic. The fact that frustrated players with the flagship format of Magic have a escape valve in commander means they won't try to pressure and criticize WoTC to make the company change things for the better. It is easier to just shrug at standard and play commander. However, since you didn't LEAVE the game, WoTC thinks its doing everything alright, even though their main format might be failing.
You may argue that "but wouldn't modern and legacy have the same effect?" Yes, but only to a certain extent, because the barrier to buy into these formats is huge. You can build a very cheap commander deck and still have fun with your friends. Very few budget decks in modern and legacy can compete at a local level, and basically none can compete at greater levels of play. Therefore, Commander is a cheap escape valve, which is important. On the long run though, this might be damaging: the lesser pressure applied to have a standard of greater quality might be compounding over the years, to the point where WoTC gets so off the mark with what 60-card constructed should be that people just don't wanna play it anymore, and the game collapses. Note, for instance, that the problem of netdecking that DirkGently pointed out is much smaller if you have a diverse meta, where people can brew to try to brawl with some decks and pray to ignore the others, but they can't ignore the main decks if there are just 2 or 3 of them.
So, what do you guys think of this possibility?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
This is why commander is great. Between the community generally rejecting competitive play and tuned decklists, the general spirit of brewing, and the enormously large variety of cards and decks, commander still retains that spark of what TCGs were supposed to be about. How can standard ever capture that spirit again? Simple: it cannot. Where there is competition and communcation, there will be tryhards, there will be netdecking. Variety and invention will die and homogeny and repetition will thrive. It doesn't matter how much support standard is given. It doesn't matter how "great" the format is. Standard is the equivalent of a fighting game: strategic, yes, fun, maybe, but there's little innovation or variety, just a honing of skill. Commander is the TCG dream. If it dies, as far as I'm concerned, so does collectible magic.
Oh sweet summer child, that is extremely flawed.
First of all, people getting socially shunned for actually playing to win a game, even if its a game-like activity, is really rude behavior. I heard it before on the internet of "Oh we just eventually decided to keep playing after he won, eventually he just stopped showing up". Commander has THAT sort of stigma attached to it because of people with that mentality.
Tryhards? Oh so you mean people who actually took time out of the day and paid more out of their wallet to build something that they want to enjoy? That even if they netdecked are actually wanting to be invested in the community? People playing at 110% is apparently bad behavior in your eyes.
That last point I bolded in the quote is why I think your mentality is laughable and uninformed. Apparently having a roster of characters is not "variety" in your eyes and apparently you don't pay attention to the fact there is plenty of decks to play in standard. Innovation comes from learning new ways to use the game at a higher skill level, even something like frame cancelling in the original street fighter is the innovation that helped fighting games get a jump start.
You want to know what is killing magic with commander? People with your backwards logic and mentality. Commander is its own worst enemy with people with such mentalities. As speaking about the fighting game community, it gets criticized for its exclusive nature which is something commander has a problem with when competitive minded people want to join in. Commander stopped being a casual-only format a long time ago and only people deluding themselves still believe its just a casual format.
2) it created a feedback loop wherein people who play commander want newcomers to the game to also play commander, essentially 'stealing' players that could otherwise play 60-card magic.
This is actually not true for me. I do not recommend new players start with commander. Commander has an inordinate number of legal cards compared to standard - and a larger ratio of playable cards compared to standard. The added complexity of the games is also enormous. Playing optimally in standard is difficult. Playing optimally in commander is impossible. The degree of added complexity is really staggering. I think on average I make 1-2 (mostly minor) mistakes in a game of limited (I don't play standard), fewer if I'm in a competitive environment playing carefully. I'd bet I make dozens, if not hundreds, of mistakes in the average game of commander. And that's not even including all the politics that take place outside of the cards themselves. And I'm (imho) the best commander player in the places I play, by a lot. It's that vast of a gulf.
If I was giving someone a roadmap on how to have fun and get good at magic, here's what I'd say.
I think the best way to start playing magic is 60 card casual against other noobs, with the newest set. Do this as long as it's fun.
After that gets a little boring, start playing sealed at prereleases and the like to get better, and start adding older cards to your casual decks to get more enfranchised, but keep playing against the same people.
Once you're comfortable-ish with sealed, start playing drafts to improve your game, while continuing to develop your casual decks.
At this point you may want to dip your toe into standard at an FNM level. If you enjoy it, great, keep doing it, and maybe even branch into modern or legacy. If you don't enjoy, stick to other formats, because it doesn't get better.
From there, you can choose any number of:
-limited - start listening to limited resources and other resources, draft frequently, learn from better drafters, go to many prereleases, considering going to competitive limited tournaments if you feel comfortable.
-constructed competitive - build towards a competitive standard/modern/etc deck that you enjoy. Don't feel like you need to get more competitive, but if you feel like it, go for it.
-casual - keep playing 60 card casual as long as you can. Dig deep for fun old cards, play against your friends, try to make sure the power levels don't get too diverse. Start doing multiplayer 60 card casual if you aren't already. Once the format starts to get a little stale, or you're finding it difficult to keep balanced while doing what you want to do, or you're looking for a more diverse meta with more players, or you just like the idea of playing with a commander - that's when you should come play commander.
First of all, people getting socially shunned for actually playing to win a game, even if its a game-like activity, is really rude behavior. I heard it before on the internet of "Oh we just eventually decided to keep playing after he won, eventually he just stopped showing up". Commander has THAT sort of stigma attached to it because of people with that mentality.
Tryhards? Oh so you mean people who actually took time out of the day and paid more out of their wallet to build something that they want to enjoy? That even if they netdecked are actually wanting to be invested in the community? People playing at 110% is apparently bad behavior in your eyes.
That last point I bolded in the quote is why I think your mentality is laughable and uninformed. Apparently having a roster of characters is not "variety" in your eyes and apparently you don't pay attention to the fact there is plenty of decks to play in standard. Innovation comes from learning new ways to use the game at a higher skill level, even something like frame cancelling in the original street fighter is the innovation that helped fighting games get a jump start.
You want to know what is killing magic with commander? People with your backwards logic and mentality. Commander is its own worst enemy with people with such mentalities. As speaking about the fighting game community, it gets criticized for its exclusive nature which is something commander has a problem with when competitive minded people want to join in. Commander stopped being a casual-only format a long time ago and only people deluding themselves still believe its just a casual format.
Oh man, I love being condescended to. It's my favorite. You're calling a grown man on the internet "sweet summer child"? Are you serious?
Hang on, swallowing some bile...pushing down my rage...ok, here we go.
I should correct/clarify slightly - I meant that the community tends to be disinterested in building the highest powered decklists, not that they kick anyone out or that they prefer to play the game poorly once we're all sitting down at the table. The mantra of EDH is, after all, build casually, play competitively. I've run into very few competitive EDH decks in the variety of places I've played. It's mostly a nonissue, at least in my experience.
I can understand the impulse to build a powerful commander deck, so I have sympathy for someone who brings a deck that's too powerful for a new meta. That said, if you want to play the highest powered deck you can - why don't you go play standard, where everyone else thinks like you, and you can actually win something? Why are you playing commander? And if you notice that your decks are too strong, then the correct response is to borrow a deck, or tone down your own, or find other people to play with who also play high powered decks. It's not to force other people to play the same type of decks. They probably don't want to. If you're persisting, what exactly is your goal? Are you really having fun? Wouldn't you rather play like-minded people?
Man I knew some fighting game snob was going to complain about that comparison. Finding a trick or loophole or whatever in a game isn't creative. I guess it technically qualifies as innovative(?) but it's not creative. Perhaps that would have been a better word for me to use. As far as variety, yes, a small roster of character is some small variety. Most of them have, what, like 15-100 or something? Although really, the real comparison is standard, which usually has a couple top-tier decks, with some others on lower tiers, but basically anything remotely playable is known. Where's the innovation in choosing 1 of some small, countable, known number of choices? Compare that to the total potential variation available in the structure of a TCG. Let's say you're only looking at mono-red, and you're also running 24 mountains. With 36 slots and (according to scryfall) 5212 red and colorless cards available...so that's ~5212^36...ok, I'm getting roughly 64887143148483500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible decklists. Now that's what I call variety! And how many synergies do you think exist between all the cards ever printed? The vast vast majority have probably never even happened. These numbers are enormous. You think the occasional trick in a fighting game compares to the number of possible innovations that exist in a TCG? TCGs are practically built to allow for as many innovations as possible. Sure, most of them aren't important, but they're there. And with a little time and creativity, you can go discover them. That's the promise of TCGs that I talk about. Having a few potential decks to choose from, and play against, is ok - I mean, it's better than only one deck - but the real excitement is being able to constantly play against things you've never seen before, combinations that have never been played, board states that will only exist once. TCGs are about exploration, man! We're astronauts floating in the space of near-infinite possibility!
I have no problem with high-tier decklist commander players playing each other. I can't really relate, but as long as everyone's having fun, hey, keep doing it I'd say. And of course, wherever there is a format, someone will find a way to optimize it. That's fine, doesn't bother me. From what I've seen, for the vast majority, commander continues to be a casual format, but competitive players should do what they enjoy, as long as it's not bothering anyone. But personally, I prefer to explore the vastness of this space.
Just because you play one format doesn't mean that you don't play others. The playgroup that I belong to plays Commander, Modern and Standard. Some of us even play Legacy and Vintage.
Commander is a format where competitive play is also seen and encouraged. You could similarly build casual decks for any other format to play kitchen-table Magic with. I have competitive decks, janky decks, and casual decks. The decks I build are for any kind of environment and I enjoy each one. Playing in a competitive environment can be very challenging. Similarly, I like seeing the occasional convoluted combo actually go off without incessant tutoring.
My playgroup doesn't have competitive players so I don't use my competitive decks with them. Likewise, I test all my decks online on Cockatrice whether its casual or competitive. Simply assuming that, because Commander is a format played mostly in a casual setting, it's only casual and shouldn't be competitive, is quite honestly deluded thinking. Whenever you're playing any kind of game, you will find competitive people. Games are inherently played for fun. Some people like winning, some like playing, and some both.
My YouTube Channel: The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
I don't think so.
Take me for example, I started buying a few starters and odd boosters, then I built with whatever I had. Back then we had SCRYE magazine with a few price points, but we traded things fairly in our group.
My friend Dave was a card whale, he spent his salary on workshops, big ticket stuff like that. But his decks were still pretty janky and we had fun.
Commander is just dealing with a corner section of the market. Sol Rings, Strip Mines, and edging on Modern and Legacy playable stuff too, like Snapcasters, Cliques, etc. Basically, if it's aggressively costed and good it's going to see some COmmander play. So Commander helps drive prices a bit, but not a ton.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The "Crazy One", playing casual magic and occasionally dipping his toes into regular play since 1994.
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
I enjoy lurking these forums and contributing here and there. I even replied a couple times in this thread, but man oh man does this non-stop conversation loop give me a headache after a while.
It seems like the same talking points get brought up again and again every few months or so for the last 10 years or however long it has been. We have really hit it all. Complaints about competitive play vs casual, what each individual sees at thier LGS or the places they travel to compared to what other people see, complaining about net decking and so on.
I don't even know where to begin, and part of me thinks I will delete this whole response or close my tab before hitting "post reply" because I know I am wasting my time in the first place, but I want to get a few things off my chest.
People here show that they do not really know the history of magic and make up their own history. Look, the article are out there. The youtube videos, the interviews, and so forth. There are opinions, and there are facts straight from the horse's mouth.
When Richard Garfield invented Magic: the Gathering, his target audience was D&D players who wanted something to do while waiting for the rest of the party to arrive or when they otherwise had some down time to kill. He has gone on record many times saying that they knew in play testing how good Ancestral Recall was and that is why it was the only card in the "3 for 1" cycle to be moved from common to rare (the other 4 being Lightning Bolt, Dark Ritual, Giant Growth, and Healing Salve). he said that they also knew black Lotus was too powerful. He said that they were okay with printing them though because they anticipated that a play group (not an individual, a whole group of friends) would likely buy a few starter decks and some packs and that was it. They figured that play groups were unlikely to open multiple copies, if any at all, and that how few that were opened would be its own restriction. He then went on to say that in the worst case scenario, the game was popular and there were tournaments and they could just ban the cards... and in that case they would all be rich, so who cares? Either way, there is always a solution.
They wanted the set list to be a secret (impossible) and for people to discover cards as a collective mystery, which is why they did NOT have collector numbers or early lists of the set run.
They wanted to have each expansion to be its own unique form of the game that stood alone, and it was a late night last minute phone call that convinced Richard and the team to NOT use a different back for Arabian Nights (look it up, it was supposed to be pink in color), and instead designed a last minute set symbol that could be faxed (yes, faxed to the office) to indicate the cards were separate from "limited" (alpha/beta). Heck, Magic: "the Gathering" was supposed ot be the first set and each expansion would be named "Magic: Arabian Nights," "Magic: ice Age" and so forth.
What the game was intended to be, and what it has become are very different, and that is not a bad thing.
In terms of netdecking, it has been existent in one form or another since the very start, and every single competitive thing is subject to the same "copycat" mentality. From games to war, if you are not the best, then you copy them or innovate to counteract them.. and likely do both.
In war, they say he biggest folly is when generals and armies try to fight the last war.
In sports, and I will use the NFL and American football as the best example I know about, it is said that there are really only 3 different offensive schemes, and even those bleed together. The real difference is the terminology used. The difference between good an bad teams is how well they are coached and how well they execute their plays.
I watched a video about an AI company who made a bot that could beat the worlds best DotA2 players in 1v1 games. The AI had learned so much in 6 months time that none of the worlds best players could beat it, and they all were willing to pay for access to the bot so that they could practice against it and learn to adapt and improve their play. They said it was using tactics they had never thought of, and upon talking about it, asked themselves "Why are we not doing this?!"
It also existed in the very start of magic. When this game came out, decks only had to be 40 cards and there was no 4x card limit. The best deck was something like 19 Black Lotus, 18 or 19 Wheel of Fortune, and 2 or 3 Feldon's Cane. you play your free mana rocks, wheel a bunch of times, shuffle your graveyard back into your library and keep doing that until your opponent loses. It has something like a 99% win chance or something crazy like that. You just see who goes first, draw 7 and likely win off of that.
Something had to change. Okay, 4x copies of cards except basic lands! Okay, 8 of the power 9 + Wheel and Feldon's Cane. All 5 mox + 5 lotus is still enough explosive free mana, along with extra turns, recall to force your opponent to draw their final cards, and the cane to shuffle the lotus, wheels and extra turns back into your deck. Thanks for playing. We need a restricted list. Oh, and ChannelFireball is a thing too.
The list goes on and on of players finding the best decks and the game being broken into pieces from the very start. Have you ever heard of Brian Wiseman? he literally wrote the book, or I guess article, on card advantage and built the first Esper control deck with fast free mana, Mind Twist and a single copy of Serra Angel to smash face in 5 turns. it was literally called "The Deck." Stop pretending that net dekcing is a new problem, or even a problem at all. It isn't.
============================
This takes me to my next point. If you play casually, then great. I am happy for you. I play casually too. I quit playing competitive magic a long time ago. the stress isn't worth it to me anymore, and I could not care less about the prizes offered. However, you have no right to complain, criticize or condemn players who do play competitively and how they choose to play... unless they are literally cheating, which is a whole other topic.
If you play competitively and still like to complain about how others build their decks and how hard they try to win with consistency, then you have a lot of reading to catch up on. Well, even before I give you a single link on what to read, you need a heart felt message from Herman Edwards on games and playing to win.
Now that Herm Edwards has helped you to better understand the finer points of higher level competition, I suggest you read David Sirlin's "Playing to Win," which is availble online on his website to read for free. Seriously, bookmark it and read it front to back. Read it several times.
Once you have woken up to the way competitive games are played and how to be a better player, but you still want to brew your own decks and prove to the world how amazing and original you are, then take the time to read Patrick Chapin's "Next Level Magic" and "Next Level Deck Building." Those are not free, but they are well worth the money for either a digital or printed copy. If you finished David Sirlin's "Playing to win" and enjoyed it, you will enjoy Chapin's books as well.
You see, I used to play competitive magic. Not just magic, I played other games competitively too. The individual tactics change, but the mentality to succeed does not. Losers think like losers. They complain and make excuses. Winners learn and adapt and compete.
Finally, not everyone has the skills to create innovative decks. However, that does not make them bad player. In fact, if you cannot beat those players with your home brew, then clearly you are not either... because if you were, then you would learn the meta game and create a home brew that can beat the field. I know because have done it a few times in my short lived competitive career. So rather than being salty, do something about it.
===============================
And this continues the circle of this conversation.
I quit competitive magic back in 2008. I got tired of the stress that comes with staying on top of competitive play. I was no longer enjoying myself. I was grinding and competing and playing way too seriously. I discovered EDH in December 2007 long before these sub forums existed and never looked back. As with other magic players, I wouldn't even be playing magic anymore if it were not for Commander.
As I said before, casual 60 card magic is a mess, and commander is the perfect solution. It can be competitive for those who want to be competitive. It can be causal for those who want it to be casual. It can be budget for those who want it to be budget.
From my personal play experience, to watching Youtube videos, following forums, and my friends on Facebook who live in other states, I have seen it all. Commander is NOT broken, but your playgroup might be. Yes, there are powerful decks that can win on turn 0 or turn 1, but more consistently and commonly on turn 4. that doesn't mean the format is broken. It simply means people have found optimal ways to play, and good for them. For the rest of us, we enjoy playing slower games with a theme and certain style. You play a role in cultivating the play group and play style you want.
For me, the sweet spot of commander is when players use turn 1 to put lands into play tapped or drop utility like Relic of Progenitus or Top. They tend to follow up turn 2 with ramp or more utility. Turn 3 might start to see threats and card draw. Turn 4 tends to see removal and the stage being set. It is turn 5 when game truly begin, not end. If games end of turn 8, 12, 20 or later all depends on how many players there are, what styles and responses there are, and so forth. The most enjoyable games don't have to be the ones you win. They can easily be the ones where cool things happened that you want to tell stories about, or at least you had a great back-and-forth resource war and battle of wits.
================================================
Commander appeals to players on so many levels.
In my 13+ years of experience, I have seen patterns and stories retell themselves from all over. many old school players started with no idea how ot play, just a starter deck and a rule book they didn't understand. Countless newbies make the same mistake. I cannot tell you how often i have seen someone with a 73 card three color deck with 16 or 17 lands. They began with some theme deck, bought boosters, added cards they liked and "made room for them" by cutting lands, then continued to pack more cool stuff in until it became the dumpster fire in front of them.
I cannot tell you how many times someone has seen my Magic: the Gathering pin on my bag at work or on the street and told me how they play magic too and that the beat all their friends with the samurai deck or red burn deck... and we are not talking about an optimized sly deck. We are talking something that has Volcanic Hammer and Lava Axe or whatever some 5-15 year old burn spell is from when they started playing.
Not everyone who plays this game is a fanatic who lurks forums, reads article, watches youtube videos and strives to improve their play. Many of them just like to play a card game with their friends.
Commander appeals to Timmy who loves to cast big creatures and finaly has a format where games realsitically get to turns where they can actually cast them.
Commander appeals to Vorthos, who loves to tell a story with their deck.
Commander appeal to Spike who likes to break it in half and pretend they are the biggest fish in their little bowl.
Commander appeals to Johnny, who is forced to only have one of each cards and tries to assemble their crazy combo.
Commander is where the guy who wants to use skull clamp can without it being over powered.
Commander is where someone like my wife can get a pre-con deck and build it on a budget over time and watch it grow into something all her own and be proud of it every step of the way.
Commander is perfect just the way it is, and if you or your playgroup have a problem, then you might need to take a look in the mirror and ask who is doing something wrong, because it isn't the format itself.
===========================
Oh, and before I go, there is nothing wrong with the cards WotC designs for Commander. True Name Nemesis was a mistake to design put in a commander product because it made one deck impossible to find on the shelves, but that is the only meaningful mistake.
Players want to complain about Oloro, Animar, Kaalia, and Derevi, yet some of the best commanders are apparently narset, Arcum Dagson, and Zur. not just them, but the point is that normal legendary creatures before Commander was a product have remained some of the best commanders right up there with the pre-con commanders.
The Professor from Tolarian Community College and many others like to complain and pretend that the commander product makes cards which change this format from "99+ your commander" into "98 + your commander, command tower." not only is that the logical fallacy of a "Slippery Slope," but it is demonstrably untrue. Mono colored decks don't want command tower. Mono brown decks do not want command tower. That alone is proof that not every deck wants or uses it. This argument ignores that commander deck lists are already dominated by Sol Ring, Lightning Grieves, Skullclamp, and that each color has their own must have spells like Blue with Cyclonic Rift. None of those are commander products, yet are staples. Additionally, any deck that really wants command tower also wants City of Brass and Mana Confluence, neither of which are commander product cards, and City of Brass was an auto include back when our format was called EDH. It is a hollow argument, and it becomes more difficult to take their other points seriously as well.
The same people (the professor and others) who made that argument went on to complain in 2015 about the Confluence cycle, and specifically Mystic Confluence. yet here we are in 2018, and EDH rec has only 7,794 decks with that card registered. By comparison, there are 181,443 decks with sol ring. Yeah... Mystic Confluence really took over the format.
The same is true about the pre-con Commanders. They are at least two hundered thousand commander decks registered online for EDHrec, and only about 1,600 are Animar, a well known turn 4 combo deck. That is literally 0.8% of the meta at best, but if you see it all the time at your local shop (and my good friend who runs Elder Dragon Society in Las Vegas uses it as his best deck), it can feel like it ruins the format. (Whisper voice: and you can pretty much swap put animar for whichever commander boils your butt at the moment, the stats all tell the same story).
So stop it. Just stop it with that argument. You are demonstrably wrong.
============================
We haven't even talked about the Aaron Forsythe "Between Ravnicas" talk from 2012 on the Magic Cruise. That is a seriously amazing video. It tells us so much about how WotC thinks, learns from mistakes, and confirms what a lot of us felt in our guts but never had access to the numbers to prove.
Really, do yourself a favor and go to youtube and search "magic tv: extra magic cruise 2012" there is so much gold in there. More from Patrick Chapin, Richard Garfield talking about luck vs skill and a Q&A where he answers magic questions, a sit down interview with Aaron Forsythe, Kenneth Negal and so many others. They just drop knowledge on us left and right.
So many wrong "opinions" can be put to rest with facts. It is so funny to read what people feel and think and are just so sure is the truth when it isn't. WotC is not 100% transparent, but they are BY FAR the most transparent game company I have ever interacted with in my life. They don't publish lies to make you feel good like other companies. They are raw and real with us. They sell up the good but are also honest in retrospect about the bad. They make mistakes and they own them like a company should, but far too few do.
There are countless resources out there for you if you care to look. I have shared enough for one evening. I have given all of you enough homework and links to read and watch. What you do with it is up to you. Enjoy.
You know, what, that is the main point... enjoy the darned game. It is nit perfect, but it is so much fun. That is why we are here.
There is nothing wrong with complaining about a problem you want fixed, but you have to be open minded enough to see that what you precive as a problem might not actually be one... and the problem is YOU. Sometimes you need to step back and reevaluate your perspective.
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
Toning your deck down or swapping to a less powered deck is usually something to do for new players or those on a budget. Even then, you can always loam a player a spare deck that is high power deck. Also yea I do enjoy high power decks just like how I enjoy low power decks but usally low powered decks are gimmick deck that uses a very niche area for "lols".
Unless someone plays Divine Intervention and gets it to go off, Commander at the end of the day is about being the last man/woman standing. You can form all the social contracts with the table that are taller than a skyscraper that you want, but the game has to end eventually. But just because a game might end earlier than expected doesn't mean you can't go for more rounds. See that is where I never understand people who get upset about a quick victory, its poor sportsmanship to gripe about another person's fair earned victory.
Oh you're calling me a snob? Are you projecting towards me?
Hmm that is a lot of deck results you have, but lets be honest: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
As you know just as well as I do that you're not going to play the majority of those red cards. You may want to shave a thousand or two off that for good measure.
Each fighter in a fighting game is tuned in specific ways to give them uniqueness from their animations they can cancel, their hit boxes, their hurt boxes, their combos, how they deal with other fighters such as with frame trapping, etc. I'm not a fighting game pro, casual in fact, but even I know these sort of things.
Finding a trick/loophole isn't innovative? Good thing Commander players never rely on such things... OH WAIT! How many times a new card comes out and suddenly there is some previously unheard of trick or loophole to exploit? Its like clockwork at this point.
Possibilities are not as infinite as you believe. We also cut off the chaff and unimportant resources in exchange for more refined resources that are more useful to us. You are rarely if never going to see a Needle Drop played unless its an extremely budget and/or gimmick deck.
Toning your deck down or swapping to a less powered deck is usually something to do for new players or those on a budget. Even then, you can always loam a player a spare deck that is high power deck. Also yea I do enjoy high power decks just like how I enjoy low power decks but usally low powered decks are gimmick deck that uses a very niche area for "lols".
Unless someone plays Divine Intervention and gets it to go off, Commander at the end of the day is about being the last man/woman standing. You can form all the social contracts with the table that are taller than a skyscraper that you want, but the game has to end eventually. But just because a game might end earlier than expected doesn't mean you can't go for more rounds. See that is where I never understand people who get upset about a quick victory, its poor sportsmanship to gripe about another person's fair earned victory.
Oh you're calling me a snob? Are you projecting towards me?
Hmm that is a lot of deck results you have, but lets be honest: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
As you know just as well as I do that you're not going to play the majority of those red cards. You may want to shave a thousand or two off that for good measure.
Each fighter in a fighting game is tuned in specific ways to give them uniqueness from their animations they can cancel, their hit boxes, their hurt boxes, their combos, how they deal with other fighters such as with frame trapping, etc. I'm not a fighting game pro, casual in fact, but even I know these sort of things.
Finding a trick/loophole isn't innovative? Good thing Commander players never rely on such things... OH WAIT! How many times a new card comes out and suddenly there is some previously unheard of trick or loophole to exploit? Its like clockwork at this point.
Possibilities are not as infinite as you believe. We also cut off the chaff and unimportant resources in exchange for more refined resources that are more useful to us. You are rarely if never going to see a Needle Drop played unless its an extremely budget and/or gimmick deck.
Yeah I've read game of thrones. Still insulting and unnecessary.
I never said you couldn't play high powered decks in commander, obviously you can. I said that most people choose not to (certainly relative to other formats). The number of top-tier decklists I've seen played against me across 9 years has been...like...definitely at least one (some dude had a fully-proxied scion druid netdeck that he sucked at playing, 4-5 years ago when those were popular)...maybe two (guy had a high tide flip jace deck a few months back, not sure if that's considered top-tier but it's pretty good at least)...maybe a few azami decks back in the day, but idk if they were really optimal. Anyway, point is, very few. That's out of playing hundreds of people, with many hundreds of decks. When it comes up, maybe I'm slightly salty if I wasn't forewarned, but then it's usually just a laugh. As I said, mostly it's a nonissue. I'm not actually defensive of commander as a casual format because I'm not actually worried about it becoming a competitive one. At least in my experience, the numbers just don't line up. It's like being terrified of lightning strikes or shark attacks.
Loaning out a competitive commander deck is like loaning out a vintage deck to a standard player. They're not going to be good at using it, and they might not want to play it at all because they liked the format they were playing. But if they do want to, go nuts I guess. At the end of the day, as long as everyone is happy, then I see no problems. I just don't know that I think that's very likely. And it still seems like it favors the person with the competitive decks, since he knows them.
Snob was really the only word I could think of to make the sentence work. Maybe there's another word that would be less negatively connoted, but I'm not sure it would make as much sense. I guess I am a bit of an EDH snob, sure, that isn't why I used the word, though. Mostly I just think it's funny that you'd feel the need to defend fighting games in a forum that's not about fighting games, to someone who obviously doesn't play or care about them, and was only using them as an analogy.
Shave a few thousand off, go nuts. Even trimming it down to only standard-legal red cards (which is in the low hundreds), the number is still 91 digits long (iirc). So you're not making much headway. And that's still only mono-red all-basics decks.
I actually explicitly said that finding a fighting game trick WAS innovative. I said it wasn't CREATIVE, which I think is fair. Doesn't make it bad, lots of good things aren't creative. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's creative too. That's still a relatively rare innovation to gameplay, that only one person gets to make. How many total innovations are made in fighting games? Or to an established standard format? Compare that to finding synergies in the tens of thousands of magic cards. Possible innovations exist by the millions, great and small. I wouldn't describe finding new synergies as a loophole, maybe a trick. Whether it's creative is arguable. When I'm talking about creativity though, it's more in the scope of the entire deck - what your plan is, finding the best cards to do it, etc. Some decks are more creative than others, ofc, but I think most decks require some degree of creativity if it's not a c/p.
Needle drop could totally be played. Say, in chandra, fire of kaladesh. Or Jori en, ruin diver. Or Tibor and Lumia. Maybe it's not optimal, but who knows, maybe it is, seems pretty reasonable in T&L especially. There are cards that are very unlikely to ever be reasonably playable in commander - i.e. squire - but many are, at least in "75% decks". I've got a collection of every card I think is playable in commander, and so far it's 6775 cards (needle drop isn't even in there, either!). I'm not going to do the math, but rest assured, it's a lot of potential permutations. And building it has made me think of a lot of interesting synergies - some good, some bad, some I've used, lots I'd be curious to try out, if I have the time. The game has so much depth, when you aren't constrained by being able to compete against tuned decklists.
I'm not actually trying to stand in the way of "competitive" EDH players, as long as they aren't being a jerk about it and understand that most people prefer to keep their decks at below-optimal power because they prefer the more flexible, open-ended, complex experience. It's just a different (and, in my by-no-means-objective opinion, better) game.
Commander stopped being a casual-only format a long time ago and only people deluding themselves still believe its just a casual format.
On that note we need to stop deluding ourselves that Commander can survive without a healthy Standard format because it can't. If Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro stops printing new Magic product entirely that means less new cards for each format with less players going to local game stores. Why play Commander If the only venue ends up being at somebody's house instead of a local game store?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
America Bless Christ Jesus
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
About Needle Drop: I can easily play this in a Zada, Hedron Grinder deck. If my creatures received damage beforehand, say from cards like Flare, Spawning Breath, Zap, Make Mischief, or Rile, I get another cantrip similar to Zap or Flare for R. The reason I don't play Needle Drop is my Zada deck is because better cards have come along. My deck isn't a gimmick deck either. It is budget though because it makes good use of "bad cards". Bad cards just need something to help them not be awful.
I think that every card could have a possibility of being included somewhere - gimmick or not, and that's one of the reasons I like commander. I'm poor so I tend to go with strategies that aren't too expensive so that I can build as many decks as I can. I do try and build decks that can consistently win, though. Whatever's expensive I try and trade for it from my collection of cards (been playing on/off since Fallen Empires).
Since I like being unique I try and make kooky decks that think outside the box or with strategies or jank that I came up with myself. Granted, that didn't stop me from building the classic Edric, Spymaster of Trest with evasive weenies or similarly amazing decks that are budget. However, I think the casual spirit comes from what to do within those 100 cards that's fun. Some people's idea of fun is playing with and playing against decks that are very cutthroat and evil. And that goes for everything. For example, some people like playing and designing ridiculously trollish levels in Mario Maker and there are many who enjoy playing those types of levels; they find a high level of satisfaction in beating them - even if it takes them hours or days to do it.
Paradoxically, given all the back in forth in this conversational infinite loop equivalent to attacking an opponent with Abyssal Persecutor while having Sanguine Bond and Exquisite Blood in play (for the lols), I feel that an underlying consensus does exist. Those who want to play and build casually do and those who want to play and build competitively do. Whether you get salty or indignant when a competitive player sits down at your EDH table with a competitive deck is unfortunately on you. Sure, there are "rules of etiquette" for some people and their pods, but your particular style is not what's in the format rules per the Rules Committee. So if you get angry at someone casting an Armageddon after you spent 5 straight turns ramping out all your lands, I'm sorry but that play was completely legal; try not to be a sore player about it. If someone locks you out of the beginning of the turn due to consistently blinking Clocknapper, I'm sorry but that play was completely legal (at least until 01/15/2018). Did someone beat the entire table in Turn 0 by a play that could only be achieved by a god hand? I would stand up and clap slowly because the odds of that occurring isn't that probable. And it's just easy to literally start a new game.
Ultimately though, as far as playstyles are concerned, people would have to agree to disagree. I have no qualms playing with casual or competitive player in whichever setting. Of course, I'm not going to want to whip out my janky deck against Kaalia or Derevi but if I lose that match then you can bet I'm going to whip out BUG Sidisi or Edric next game. Likewise, if I play with my Zada deck in a casual pod, I may switch out the deck to a more casual and janky one afterwards. However, I don't think strictly casual players should be up in arms when competitive players play commander. You can't enforce your philosophy of fun onto others just as you don't want them to do the same to you.
As far as Commander killing Magic, I don't think it is. If anything, eternal formats help Magic by keeping rotating cards alive plus breathing new life into older cards that don't normally see play anywhere. Does a high a mount of cards become worthless after Standard? Sure they do. However, during their tenure in Standard they have worth. If it weren't for Modern or eternal formats, then they'd never recover any kind of value. Even cards from ancient sets that are utterly worthless are resurrected due to commander. Anybody remember Wood Elemental? That steaming pile of garbage? Useless until Titania, Protector of Argoth came around. Now it's at least playable if you like the jank. Before Titania I wouldn't've never considered getting my hands on Wood Elemental. But, if I were to build her, then I would honestly consider adding it to the deck. I can cast it with mana dorks and have all my forests untapped. Sacrifice them all, get a bunch of elemental tokens, and then possibly return all those forests to play with cards like Splendid Reclamation or World Shaper. I've played Standard in many blocks in the past and I definitively quit Standard when Innistrad block rotated and Theros block entered. The format became stagnant and I quit. Luckily I was starting to play commander. In all my years playing Magic, almost all of my purchased cards have been to build commander decks. That's money for LGSs, money for online stores, money for other players, money for sellers on eBay, etc. which eventually means money for Wizards. I have never spent so much money on Magic as when I started playing Commander.
In summary, my vote is no; Commander is not killing Magic.
My YouTube Channel: The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
Unless someone plays Divine Intervention and gets it to go off, Commander at the end of the day is about being the last man/woman standing. You can form all the social contracts with the table that are taller than a skyscraper that you want, but the game has to end eventually. But just because a game might end earlier than expected doesn't mean you can't go for more rounds. See that is where I never understand people who get upset about a quick victory, its poor sportsmanship to gripe about another person's fair earned victory.
Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you here, but I think you misunderstand what Commander is fundamentally about. Games of Commander aren't about winning. That's what the competitive formats — standard, legacy — are about. Games of Commander are about telling stories together.
Perhaps the biggest reason people get upset after a game ends quickly isn't because they're poor sports. It's because they feel slighted. When players sit down to enjoy a game of Commander, they usually have an idea about what kind of a game they would like to create. For some players, it's a ruthless, combo-infested environment. For others, it's a grinding five-hour escapade. Regardless of what someone's looking for, when the interests of one player don't align with the interests of their opponents, people tend to get salty. People tend to feel as though they've had their time wasted because the game they sat down to play was not the kind of game they thought they signed up for. This is especially evident when one person ends the game as quickly as possible. It isn't that quick victories are wrong. It's that Commander isn't advertised as a competitive format. It's intended to be a beer and pretzels format. As such, players typically don't expect to walk into those sorts of games without warning, and those who do are frequently miffed as a result. It isn't that they're upset the game ended. They know all games must come to an end sometime. It's just they're upset about how the game ended.
Toning your deck down or swapping to a less powered deck is usually something to do for new players or those on a budget. Even then, you can always loam a player a spare deck that is high power deck. Also yea I do enjoy high power decks just like how I enjoy low power decks but usally low powered decks are gimmick deck that uses a very niche area for "lols".
Again, I think you're really misunderstanding the point of Commander as a format.
I consider myself to be a competent Magic player, but I deliberately play with a low-powered deck. That isn't something I do because of new players, and it certainly isn't something I do because I'm on a budget. Hell, my deck probably totals to about one and a half grand. The reason I play with a low-powered deck is because the games of Commander I'm trying to create don't involve mega powerful cards. The games I find most enjoyable are the ones where players are engaged in a boxing match instead of a shootout. That's the norm for Commander, the sort of games the Commander Rules Committee encourage, and the sort of games players expect out of playing Commander.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Commander at the end of the day is about being the last man/woman standing. You can form all the social contracts with the table that are taller than a skyscraper that you want, but the game has to end eventually. But just because a game might end earlier than expected doesn't mean you can't go for more rounds.
Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you here, but I think you misunderstand what Commander is fundamentally about. Games of Commander aren't about winning. That's what the competitive formats — standard, legacy — are about. Games of Commander are about telling stories together.
Perhaps the biggest reason people get upset after a game ends quickly isn't because they're poor sports. It's because they feel slighted. When players sit down to enjoy a game of Commander, they usually have an idea about what kind of a game they would like to create. For some players, it's a ruthless, combo-infested environment. For others, it's a grinding five-hour escapade. Regardless of what someone's looking for, when the interests of one player don't align with the interests of their opponents, people tend to get salty. People tend to feel as though they've had their time wasted because the game they sat down to play was not the kind of game they thought they signed up for. This is especially evident when one person ends the game as quickly as possible. It isn't that quick victories are wrong.
This is symbolic for a ton of players that seem to be divided by their personal understanding of what the format's supposed to be about - and i don't get why.
Yes, EDH is a social and casual format. Does that mean you're not supposed to be in it for the win? No, why should it.
Do EDH games create rememberable moments and stories even if you're in it for the win? Holy sh*t, yes.
A clear misunderstanding for me is, that lots of people categorize by player personality instead of deck.
It doesn't need a competitive combo deck to look for a fast kill. Zada, Hedron Grinder literally isn't built for dragged out rounds. So when maneuvering that deck i am looking for a fast kill.
On the other hand, do i expect my Gonti, Lord of Luxury deck to be anything near fast? It would be akward and dumb to do that. I want to cherry-pick from my opponents decks and see where it takes me.
Deck tech defines strategy and speed, personality influences choice of commander, pod mixture and social contract(s).
As a consequence EDH isn't this or that, it is as someone else rightfully wrote "what you want it to be".
What's very important is, that all sides of the table agree on the limitations they set themselves. They have to be clear enough to have everyone on board but open enough for everyone to explore different decks and playstyles. See my above comparison.
OT: I don't think EDH interferes in any way with the competitive formats, as it (usually) attracts players for different reasons. It is obvious, that it killed of large proportions of 60 card kitchen table MTG. But rightly so, since players found a home in EDH where they can express and enjoy themselves at the same time.
Whenever i meet newcomers to MTG i'd really love to see them end up in EDH somewhen, but realistically that is too much to ask for. Generally speaking every EDH deck has about 65 cards that are tailored around the commander or his colors. Sitting in a 4 player pod that's about 200 unknown cards in front of yourself you have to be able to evaluate and react to on the spot. Plus another 65 cards if you're playing a loaner deck or any other deck you don't know (too well) yet.
As long as experienced players keep that in mind offering support to new players outside of EDH or about to dip into EDH there's a good chance beginners keep coming. If people stick around in EDH instead of leaving MTG and others keep joining (any format of) the game MTG will continue to thrive.
I think in large part the expectations people have about Commander as taken from a philosophy document on a webpage that a minuscule % of the people who play Commander have read is laughable and the fact that these same threads circle forever and ever all the more so.
I think what is best is to look at what the company that is publishing Commander product has to say about it and has done everything but take it over in name over the course of the last 4-5 years. This is from WHAT IS COMMANDER as part of C17
They don't attempt to make any pronouncements on what people will do with the format because as an entity that has dealt in Magic players for a LONG time they are well aware that everyone will read that description and the end result will be different based on what they like.
Sometimes thrilling games end very quickly with a lot of removal and baiting and then it is over and the people play again, and sometimes a game with those same 4 decks takes a hour longer to finish and is also exiting and explosive and all the things a good game of something where 4 people are trying to achieve an objective that only one can have.
It comes down to the people you play with the attitudes of the group not any individual because you have to play this game as a group, and if you can't seem to find a group that feels the same way about this game and the ways you build decks than I am sorry because even at a level that most people would deem Competitive the game is still explosive and engaging and fun and no the combo player doesn't always win.
Oh and to go all the way back to the opening question I don't think Commander can kill magic because people playing Commander is still people playing magic, sure there will always be people like myself who only play Commander and no other forms of magic but that is inevitable with any offshoot format (I typically see commander people filter not into standard but Modern and Legacy)
Honestly I think you may be overestimating the number of people that would actually be interested in competitive Magic. I've tried it. I did a PTQ back when thats all there was in that vein, ive done a GP. And I legitimately hated both. It's mostly because I just always have less fun doing these sort of things without friends. But I would imagine that sort of thing would hold true for lots of people the number of kitchen table players will always VASTLY outnumber the number of people at GPs and opens etc. As long as people are buying cards magic will go on.
This my thoughts. My friends and I would mostly only play rerelease or themed nights when I used to go to tournaments since it costed money (we'd have to drive about 40 minutes plus entry fee) and while most the people where decent, a lot of toxic people would show up since it the only store in our area where you could play and after awhile it was just easier to stay in and only invite people where knew we get along with while playing. Even if commander wasn't a thing this won't fix why my friends and I don't like to play competitively.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
I do think that EDH/Commander has failed to invoke the kind of nostalgia that most players felt about the game circa 1993/1994 while it was still in it's infancy because back then everyone was on a level playing field with no race toward the bottom. Everything about MTG nowadays has become too formulaic with illustrations becoming too "politically correct" where the "Magic" that a lot of players and collectors felt 25 years ago is dead and gone. Yeah it sucks when you play against Brian Weissman's "The Deck" or Turbo Stasis but that's the price you pay for that nostalgic feeling that isn't present in EDH/Commander. To some former Magic players it's the only desire to play anymore, EDH/Commander doesn't even come close.
I'm sure Sheldon Menery had good intentions to revive whatever creative spark was left from MTG in order to help cure the monotony of netdeckers ruining creative thinking when it comes to deck building but at the end of the day his format isn't as widely respected as some people like to believe. It's becoming too competitive to the point for all the reasons why nobody wants to break into Legacy and Vintage. Old School 1993/1994 Magic may be too expensive due to how scarce the cards are with all the Reserved List staples but it still beats the kind of high variance you'd get from EDH/Commander where the low variance aspect isn't as toxic as the current environment for Standard, Modern, and Legacy.
You also have to factor in the amount of playtesting that went into Old School 1993/1994 Magic compared to the lack of playtesting in current Standard, Modern, and Legacy. There's an argument as to whether or not If Old School 1993/1994 Magic is the best place to put your time, money, and effort into compared to EDH/Commander. At the very least it gives collectors an excuse to actually play with their Reserved List collections because their rewards come back much better than it would in EDH/Commander where most of their collections are banned. Even If you're a newcomer that missed the boat on Old School Magic back when it was played 25 years ago you can still print off proxies with an ink jet printer.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
I don't understand why things change and I don't like it.
Don't get me wrong, wotc could afford to do more playtesting of standard. Certainly the recent bans show that. But think about how many more cards were banned in the original game, just from alpha alone. You think that's evidence that they playtested MORE? Not to mention the horribly unbalanced power level of the early sets i.e. antiquities vs fallen empires, awful mechanics like banding and (shudder) ante, color imbalances, ludicrous bannings like dingus egg, awful understatted vanilla legendaries from legends, etc. The old cards have a charm to them, certainly, but it's definitely not from extensive playtesting. If anything it's the total opposite.
I think if there's anything the history of wotc shows us, it's not that they were so much smarter in any particular era, it's that they simply don't fully understand what makes a good set. They put a set out there, and sometimes they get lucky and it creates a great limited format and a great standard, and sometimes it sucks.
What's really changed since 93/94, moreso than the cards, are the players. Communcation has improved, netdecking has become the norm, pros will work to find the best decks and hordes of tryhards will follow after. If alpha was released today it would be every bit as miserable as any standard format ever was.
As far as EDH becoming too competitive, I can't say I've seen that problem at all outside of the internet, but of course YMMV. Granted, the power level floor is a lot higher since most people start with a precon instead of total jank, but that's probably for the best.
I think it's frankly bizarre and paranoid that you think "politically correct illustrations" are somehow related to the problems you're encountering, but I guess that's just par for the course with these sorts of nostalgia-fueled rants.
I think it's frankly bizarre and paranoid that you think "politically correct illustrations" are somehow related to the problems you're encountering, but I guess that's just par for the course with these sorts of nostalgia-fueled rants.
Not necessarily, these "politically correct illustrations" are views from Magic players who in their mind have seen a dramatic change from the way card illustrations were made back then compared to how it is now where it's all computer generated over the course of the game's 25 year history.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
America Bless Christ Jesus
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
I find it more inclusive. EDH is a multiplayer format, where when I used to play 60 card casual, it was more of a 1v1 style, which for me, naturally becomes more competitive. I think that EDH has definitely overtaken 60 card casual, however I think 60cc is the best way for new players to learn the foundation of the game.
I find it more inclusive. EDH is a multiplayer format, where when I used to play 60 card casual, it was more of a 1v1 style, which for me, naturally becomes more competitive. I think that EDH has definitely overtaken 60 card casual, however I think 60cc is the best way for new players to learn the foundation of the game.
I can agree with that based on two points you see primarily in multiplayer: politics, and threat assessment.
In 1v1, you know who your enemy is. You know who you have to beat, and you know EXACTLY how and/or if you can counter his strategy(ies). Throw in two others, and it gets overwhelming. Sometimes, people pick it right up; but not always, and there's so much to give examples of that it's something new players have to usually learn on the fly.
I do think that EDH/Commander has failed to invoke the kind of nostalgia that most players felt about the game circa 1993/1994 while it was still in it's infancy because back then everyone was on a level playing field with no race toward the bottom.
What nostalgia are you talking about? As I illustrated earlier, at the competitive level, the best players found the best decks really fast. The rest of the casual players were sitting around having no idea what they were doing and making terrible decks out of garbage cards. How is that any different today? There are plenty of garbage decks and inexperienced casual new players who have no idea what they are doing either today.
Yeah it sucks when you play against Brian Weissman's "The Deck" or Turbo Stasis but that's the price you pay for that nostalgic feeling that isn't present in EDH/Commander. To some former Magic players it's the only desire to play anymore, EDH/Commander doesn't even come close.
Again, how is that any different today? You can still make a terrible deck to play with your friends, and then take it to a store and get dominated by good decks. What nostalgic feeling are you talking about? You sure are vague here. No real examples.
Everything about MTG nowadays has become too formulaic (...)
Again, it always has been with Inquest magazine, but shared knowledge and article took longer to spread the information around. A perfect example is the Sly deck which established the basic ratio of lands, spells and creatures for a fast aggressive burn deck that is still copied to this day.
The game is always evolving. When I started laying, "Draw-go" control was the only real way to play control for years. only in more recent times has that style completely died and been replaced with "tap out control," which is thanks to better cards being made. Cards with can take an active role in control instead of just a passive one. Blue Black Faeries was the start, but it certainly set the new standard of that style of play, where you can cast game changing creatures and take active control of games. Before faeiries, Sea Stompy was toying with the idea, but never took over Standard. The seed had been planted though and it grew from there. The game is always evolving and generally getting better. Are you nostalgic for the days of Ebony Rhino? I don't get it.
(...)with illustrations becoming too "politically correct"(...)
I can ONLY assume you mean cards like from alpha showing a pentagram, with its bondage faerie, and how magic got rid of demons and replaced them with horrors oops demons were brought back over 15 years ago. Maybe you are talking about how there are finally gay and transgender characters? If so, then you are coming off as bigoted, which I will happily assume you are not, as that would be the dumbest thing to complain about and make everything else you say irrelevant.
(...)where the "Magic" that a lot of players and collectors felt 25 years ago is dead and gone.
You really had ought to read more about resonance and the design philosophy from Magic 2010 onward. In a nutshell, when the first sets came out, they had a ot of resonance. Then over the years, with the creation of brand specific intellectual property (IP), that resonance was lost. Everyone knows what an angel, vampire, demon, dragon, elf, goblin, lightning bolt, fireball, and so forth are. When you hold one of those iconic cards, without even knowing the rules, you have certain expectations as to what they will do in game. Howeve,r what is a new player to the game going to think when they open a pack of New Phyrexia going to think? What is a Phyrexian? I have never heard of one of those outside of magic.
You see, they can get away with it with Eldrazi as cosmic eldritch horrors stolen from HP Lovecraft, Unicron fro transformers, Galactus from Marvel Comics, and so forth. Even the Titans from Greek myth. Old gods who have returned and you are but an insignificant ant to them.
The point being, that magic over the last 9 years or so has made a big push to return resonance to the game, and that you couldn't be further from the truth. Be it Innistrad and out return, Ahmanket's Egypt theme, Khans/Dragons of Tarkir, and so forth. The sets ooze story and resonance more than any sets since maybe Arabian Knights.
I'm sure Sheldon Menery had good intentions to revive whatever creative spark was left from MTG in order to help cure the monotony of netdeckers ruining creative thinking when it comes to deck building but at the end of the day his format isn't as widely respected as some people like to believe. It's becoming too competitive to the point for all the reasons why nobody wants to break into Legacy and Vintage. Old School 1993/1994 Magic may be too expensive due to how scarce the cards are with all the Reserved List staples but it still beats the kind of high variance you'd get from EDH/Commander where the low variance aspect isn't as toxic as the current environment for Standard, Modern, and Legacy.
You are no longer complaining about commander. You have become the "Old man yells at cloud" joke in the Simpsons at this point. You are just complaining about how you see magic as a whole,and you are demonstrably wrong. Comically wrong. "I can write a 10 page essay showing you how wrong you are but don't want to waste my time because it isn't worth it" kind of wrong.
There's an argument as to whether or not If Old School 1993/1994 Magic is the best place to put your time, money, and effort into compared to EDH/Commander. (...) Even If you're a newcomer that missed the boat on Old School Magic back when it was played 25 years ago you can still print off proxies with an ink jet printer.
No, there isn't. If I cared enough, i would ask to meet you on Magic Workstation to play old school 40 card 1993 magic with you and just win turn one all the time while you can play lands and Savannah lions or what ever casual jank you want to play and then you can run away with some excuse or complaint. Otherwise, you will also play a competitive turn 1 win combo deck and it comes down to who wins the coin flip, and we really might as well not even play magic... or we can use a ban list. oops, now we are going down the slippery slope that real magic went down that led us to today.
Maybe you want to play 60 card 4x copy magic? I will still beat you turn one every game with power 9 + Demonic tutor, channel, fireball, and so forth. Maybe we still need a ban or restricted list.
Shall I continue? Magic was far more broken back then that it is today.
You are tugging at the heart strings of nostalgia for a day when you and your friends played with bad cards and didn't know any better. That has nothing to do with the era of magic, but your own ignorance. Once you open Pandora's box of knowledge, there is no closing it.
==============================================
When it comes to commander, the lack of variance is the result of tutors. the ability to consistently get what you want from your deck is what makes games repetitive and streamlined. If you want to play commander with higher variance, then just start a group where the best tutors are frowned upon and everyone agrees to play without them. After all, when you can't go find anything you want in a 99 card singleton deck and are at the mercy of what you draw, then redundancy becomes king, and still some of the variance vanishes because you have percentages of similar effects with different names, and some being more powerful than others.
That is the nature of this game. You cannot change that, no matter how much fist waving at the sky you want to do about these darned kids and their elder dragons and their highlanders.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-Commander has substantially changed how many players play the game
-it has structural elements that are fundamentally different from 60 card constructed formats
-there is disagreement over whether Magic would still fundamentally be Magic if the way it is predominantly played permanently changes from the 60 card 4 of limit decks to the 99 card singleton plus one commander (or 98 + 2 partners) format.
-many have said that they now play commander to the exclusion of other constructed formats, both casual and competitive
-this seems to effect kitchen table 60 card more
-this does not seem to effect limited as those saying the quit other formats for commander mostly say they draft or cube
- several alternative reasons for quitting competitive play have been cited
- some say they quit other formats in favor of commander, others say they would have quit altogether if not for commander. It is thus difficult to determine if the effect commander has on drawing players away from other formats is larger or smaller than the effect it has on keeping players who would have otherwise quit altogether
-Commander has contributed positively to sales
-is this sustainable is an open question. 60 card grew and maintained the brand for almost 20 years as the sole focus. Whether commander will just supplement that or replace it is still unclear, as is whether if it did supplant 60 card if it can sustain interest and sales over a similarly long period or taper off, and whether it would outperform or underperform in driving sales and interest compared to 60 card being dominant. There probably isn't enough to go on to make a prediction,
- posters contribute sales to commanders popularity, but also note dissatisfaction with tournaments. Would a better standard environment or modern environment with more support increase sales even more, or would it just draw players away from commander? Could it do both? Neither? Open questions, but dissatisfaction with tournaments has been heavily cited in the thread.
-Another topic mentioned is the prevelance of buying singles as well as how needing only one copy of a card for your deck and commander making greater use of older cards. Would commander be able to support booster sales enough to make up for the loss of 60 card, or would it still need 60 card to drive booster sales, even reduced booster sales, and make up for it with an increased reliance on precons? Also note that posters talked about drafting and edh, so maybe the popularity of draft could sell enough packs on its own.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I think when RG created magic, the idea was that collecting would be a part of the game - sort of like an RPG irl, except that instead of getting more xp you'd get more, better cards, and then you'd also have a strategy layer of what to take out of your deck. In essence, the sort of casual, build-with-what-you-have kitchen table magic I played back in HS when I first started playing. Sort of a less structured draft. That idea is what's often cited as the reasoning behind printing obviously busted cards like the moxen or ancestral recall. If they're super hard to get, they SHOULD be really good.
In practice, people are tryhards. If you ever tried to build a standard deck from whatever you happen to have lying around, you are going to get obliterated by all the netdeckers. The idea that scarcity would function as a method of preventing homogenization failed on 2 fronts: first, people WILL find a way to get those cards, even if they cost tons of money. Second, if people can't get those cards (see vintage) rather than playing with what they have, they just won't play, because someone else will have those cards and will obliterate them. Not only does scarcity not work, if it DID work, everyone would hate it (see the reserved list for proof).
Without scarcity to limit peoples' deck construction, and with the rise of the internet as a means of communication to share decklists, RG's dream that TCGs would work as an "unstructured draft" is unfortunately dead. TCGs aren't about getting cards, they're about getting decks. The theoretically near-infinite variety that 60 cards chosen from hundreds or thousands of possibilities provide is outmoded - instead there's only a few deck options to choose from, with minor permutations.
This is why commander is great. Between the community generally rejecting competitive play and tuned decklists, the general spirit of brewing, and the enormously large variety of cards and decks, commander still retains that spark of what TCGs were supposed to be about. How can standard ever capture that spirit again? Simple: it cannot. Where there is competition and communcation, there will be tryhards, there will be netdecking. Variety and invention will die and homogeny and repetition will thrive. It doesn't matter how much support standard is given. It doesn't matter how "great" the format is. Standard is the equivalent of a fighting game: strategic, yes, fun, maybe, but there's little innovation or variety, just a honing of skill. Commander is the TCG dream. If it dies, as far as I'm concerned, so does collectible magic.
Addendum: As far as the question of whether commander killed 60 card casual: yes, but not without reason. 60 card casual was a blast back when I was in HS, but it's a brittle format that only gets more brittle as fewer magic players live in the naïveté that's almost required to enjoy it. 1v1 is inherently much more unstable because it lacks multiplayer's ability to balance via ganging up, and also the fact that any deck - from a vintage competitive combo deck to draft chaff is legal to play. And sure, commander also has a wide variety of power, but nothing nearly as powerful and consistent as a vintage deck (and thanks to precons, not many super weak decks either), and more importantly people have no reason to build competitive decks for it, so they simply don't exist - whereas decks that have rotated, or simply become less than tier 1, in other formats can easily be considered "60 card casual" while being much more competitive than other, built-for-casual decks. In a good group, 60 card casual can be great fun, but at least in my experience, commander provides a much more stable, reliable environment that produces much less frustration and power level disparity.
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
Just to reiterate - my initial argument started with the premise that Commander removed 60-card casual from the scene. That had two consequences:
1) it made people who played casual less interest in constructed formats by virtue of
(i) the fact that it was harder to port into 60-card constructed (a singleton collection makes it harder to go to 4-card each collection) and
(ii) 60-card is, essentially, a different game from 99 singleton + commander, even if you play commander 1v1
2) it created a feedback loop wherein people who play commander want newcomers to the game to also play commander, essentially 'stealing' players that could otherwise play 60-card magic.
I'm not saying that any of this above is a statement of fact, it is just a hypothesis.
People here countered my arguments by saying that Commander has positives effects by acting as a safety net that keeps people interested in Magic when they would otherwise leave. These same people also buy cards and they may call other people to play with them. Overall then, it becomes difficult to determine if the sales of new sets and the number of new players is being negatively or positively impacted by the existence of Commander.
I will add now a new consequence to my premise that only now just occurred to me:
Commander may be damaging Magic by lessening the pressure that players make on 60-card constructed formats.
I will explain:
If and when standard gets bad, people move to commander to play instead of abandoning the game or heavily criticizing WoTC. That might be problematic. The fact that frustrated players with the flagship format of Magic have a escape valve in commander means they won't try to pressure and criticize WoTC to make the company change things for the better. It is easier to just shrug at standard and play commander. However, since you didn't LEAVE the game, WoTC thinks its doing everything alright, even though their main format might be failing.
You may argue that "but wouldn't modern and legacy have the same effect?" Yes, but only to a certain extent, because the barrier to buy into these formats is huge. You can build a very cheap commander deck and still have fun with your friends. Very few budget decks in modern and legacy can compete at a local level, and basically none can compete at greater levels of play. Therefore, Commander is a cheap escape valve, which is important. On the long run though, this might be damaging: the lesser pressure applied to have a standard of greater quality might be compounding over the years, to the point where WoTC gets so off the mark with what 60-card constructed should be that people just don't wanna play it anymore, and the game collapses. Note, for instance, that the problem of netdecking that DirkGently pointed out is much smaller if you have a diverse meta, where people can brew to try to brawl with some decks and pray to ignore the others, but they can't ignore the main decks if there are just 2 or 3 of them.
So, what do you guys think of this possibility?
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
First of all, people getting socially shunned for actually playing to win a game, even if its a game-like activity, is really rude behavior. I heard it before on the internet of "Oh we just eventually decided to keep playing after he won, eventually he just stopped showing up". Commander has THAT sort of stigma attached to it because of people with that mentality.
Tryhards? Oh so you mean people who actually took time out of the day and paid more out of their wallet to build something that they want to enjoy? That even if they netdecked are actually wanting to be invested in the community? People playing at 110% is apparently bad behavior in your eyes.
That last point I bolded in the quote is why I think your mentality is laughable and uninformed. Apparently having a roster of characters is not "variety" in your eyes and apparently you don't pay attention to the fact there is plenty of decks to play in standard. Innovation comes from learning new ways to use the game at a higher skill level, even something like frame cancelling in the original street fighter is the innovation that helped fighting games get a jump start.
You want to know what is killing magic with commander? People with your backwards logic and mentality. Commander is its own worst enemy with people with such mentalities. As speaking about the fighting game community, it gets criticized for its exclusive nature which is something commander has a problem with when competitive minded people want to join in. Commander stopped being a casual-only format a long time ago and only people deluding themselves still believe its just a casual format.
If I was giving someone a roadmap on how to have fun and get good at magic, here's what I'd say.
I think the best way to start playing magic is 60 card casual against other noobs, with the newest set. Do this as long as it's fun.
After that gets a little boring, start playing sealed at prereleases and the like to get better, and start adding older cards to your casual decks to get more enfranchised, but keep playing against the same people.
Once you're comfortable-ish with sealed, start playing drafts to improve your game, while continuing to develop your casual decks.
At this point you may want to dip your toe into standard at an FNM level. If you enjoy it, great, keep doing it, and maybe even branch into modern or legacy. If you don't enjoy, stick to other formats, because it doesn't get better.
From there, you can choose any number of:
-limited - start listening to limited resources and other resources, draft frequently, learn from better drafters, go to many prereleases, considering going to competitive limited tournaments if you feel comfortable.
-constructed competitive - build towards a competitive standard/modern/etc deck that you enjoy. Don't feel like you need to get more competitive, but if you feel like it, go for it.
-casual - keep playing 60 card casual as long as you can. Dig deep for fun old cards, play against your friends, try to make sure the power levels don't get too diverse. Start doing multiplayer 60 card casual if you aren't already. Once the format starts to get a little stale, or you're finding it difficult to keep balanced while doing what you want to do, or you're looking for a more diverse meta with more players, or you just like the idea of playing with a commander - that's when you should come play commander.
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
Hang on, swallowing some bile...pushing down my rage...ok, here we go.
I should correct/clarify slightly - I meant that the community tends to be disinterested in building the highest powered decklists, not that they kick anyone out or that they prefer to play the game poorly once we're all sitting down at the table. The mantra of EDH is, after all, build casually, play competitively. I've run into very few competitive EDH decks in the variety of places I've played. It's mostly a nonissue, at least in my experience.
I can understand the impulse to build a powerful commander deck, so I have sympathy for someone who brings a deck that's too powerful for a new meta. That said, if you want to play the highest powered deck you can - why don't you go play standard, where everyone else thinks like you, and you can actually win something? Why are you playing commander? And if you notice that your decks are too strong, then the correct response is to borrow a deck, or tone down your own, or find other people to play with who also play high powered decks. It's not to force other people to play the same type of decks. They probably don't want to. If you're persisting, what exactly is your goal? Are you really having fun? Wouldn't you rather play like-minded people?
Man I knew some fighting game snob was going to complain about that comparison. Finding a trick or loophole or whatever in a game isn't creative. I guess it technically qualifies as innovative(?) but it's not creative. Perhaps that would have been a better word for me to use. As far as variety, yes, a small roster of character is some small variety. Most of them have, what, like 15-100 or something? Although really, the real comparison is standard, which usually has a couple top-tier decks, with some others on lower tiers, but basically anything remotely playable is known. Where's the innovation in choosing 1 of some small, countable, known number of choices? Compare that to the total potential variation available in the structure of a TCG. Let's say you're only looking at mono-red, and you're also running 24 mountains. With 36 slots and (according to scryfall) 5212 red and colorless cards available...so that's ~5212^36...ok, I'm getting roughly 64887143148483500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible decklists. Now that's what I call variety! And how many synergies do you think exist between all the cards ever printed? The vast vast majority have probably never even happened. These numbers are enormous. You think the occasional trick in a fighting game compares to the number of possible innovations that exist in a TCG? TCGs are practically built to allow for as many innovations as possible. Sure, most of them aren't important, but they're there. And with a little time and creativity, you can go discover them. That's the promise of TCGs that I talk about. Having a few potential decks to choose from, and play against, is ok - I mean, it's better than only one deck - but the real excitement is being able to constantly play against things you've never seen before, combinations that have never been played, board states that will only exist once. TCGs are about exploration, man! We're astronauts floating in the space of near-infinite possibility!
I have no problem with high-tier decklist commander players playing each other. I can't really relate, but as long as everyone's having fun, hey, keep doing it I'd say. And of course, wherever there is a format, someone will find a way to optimize it. That's fine, doesn't bother me. From what I've seen, for the vast majority, commander continues to be a casual format, but competitive players should do what they enjoy, as long as it's not bothering anyone. But personally, I prefer to explore the vastness of this space.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
My playgroup doesn't have competitive players so I don't use my competitive decks with them. Likewise, I test all my decks online on Cockatrice whether its casual or competitive. Simply assuming that, because Commander is a format played mostly in a casual setting, it's only casual and shouldn't be competitive, is quite honestly deluded thinking. Whenever you're playing any kind of game, you will find competitive people. Games are inherently played for fun. Some people like winning, some like playing, and some both.
BGU [Primer] Sidisi, Brood Tyrant BGU | BG [Primer] Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG | G [Primer] Polukranos, World Eater G
My YouTube Channel:
The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
Take me for example, I started buying a few starters and odd boosters, then I built with whatever I had. Back then we had SCRYE magazine with a few price points, but we traded things fairly in our group.
My friend Dave was a card whale, he spent his salary on workshops, big ticket stuff like that. But his decks were still pretty janky and we had fun.
Commander is just dealing with a corner section of the market. Sol Rings, Strip Mines, and edging on Modern and Legacy playable stuff too, like Snapcasters, Cliques, etc. Basically, if it's aggressively costed and good it's going to see some COmmander play. So Commander helps drive prices a bit, but not a ton.
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
It seems like the same talking points get brought up again and again every few months or so for the last 10 years or however long it has been. We have really hit it all. Complaints about competitive play vs casual, what each individual sees at thier LGS or the places they travel to compared to what other people see, complaining about net decking and so on.
I don't even know where to begin, and part of me thinks I will delete this whole response or close my tab before hitting "post reply" because I know I am wasting my time in the first place, but I want to get a few things off my chest.
People here show that they do not really know the history of magic and make up their own history. Look, the article are out there. The youtube videos, the interviews, and so forth. There are opinions, and there are facts straight from the horse's mouth.
When Richard Garfield invented Magic: the Gathering, his target audience was D&D players who wanted something to do while waiting for the rest of the party to arrive or when they otherwise had some down time to kill. He has gone on record many times saying that they knew in play testing how good Ancestral Recall was and that is why it was the only card in the "3 for 1" cycle to be moved from common to rare (the other 4 being Lightning Bolt, Dark Ritual, Giant Growth, and Healing Salve). he said that they also knew black Lotus was too powerful. He said that they were okay with printing them though because they anticipated that a play group (not an individual, a whole group of friends) would likely buy a few starter decks and some packs and that was it. They figured that play groups were unlikely to open multiple copies, if any at all, and that how few that were opened would be its own restriction. He then went on to say that in the worst case scenario, the game was popular and there were tournaments and they could just ban the cards... and in that case they would all be rich, so who cares? Either way, there is always a solution.
They wanted the set list to be a secret (impossible) and for people to discover cards as a collective mystery, which is why they did NOT have collector numbers or early lists of the set run.
They wanted to have each expansion to be its own unique form of the game that stood alone, and it was a late night last minute phone call that convinced Richard and the team to NOT use a different back for Arabian Nights (look it up, it was supposed to be pink in color), and instead designed a last minute set symbol that could be faxed (yes, faxed to the office) to indicate the cards were separate from "limited" (alpha/beta). Heck, Magic: "the Gathering" was supposed ot be the first set and each expansion would be named "Magic: Arabian Nights," "Magic: ice Age" and so forth.
What the game was intended to be, and what it has become are very different, and that is not a bad thing.
=============================================================
In terms of netdecking, it has been existent in one form or another since the very start, and every single competitive thing is subject to the same "copycat" mentality. From games to war, if you are not the best, then you copy them or innovate to counteract them.. and likely do both.
In war, they say he biggest folly is when generals and armies try to fight the last war.
In sports, and I will use the NFL and American football as the best example I know about, it is said that there are really only 3 different offensive schemes, and even those bleed together. The real difference is the terminology used. The difference between good an bad teams is how well they are coached and how well they execute their plays.
I watched a video about an AI company who made a bot that could beat the worlds best DotA2 players in 1v1 games. The AI had learned so much in 6 months time that none of the worlds best players could beat it, and they all were willing to pay for access to the bot so that they could practice against it and learn to adapt and improve their play. They said it was using tactics they had never thought of, and upon talking about it, asked themselves "Why are we not doing this?!"
It also existed in the very start of magic. When this game came out, decks only had to be 40 cards and there was no 4x card limit. The best deck was something like 19 Black Lotus, 18 or 19 Wheel of Fortune, and 2 or 3 Feldon's Cane. you play your free mana rocks, wheel a bunch of times, shuffle your graveyard back into your library and keep doing that until your opponent loses. It has something like a 99% win chance or something crazy like that. You just see who goes first, draw 7 and likely win off of that.
Something had to change. Okay, 4x copies of cards except basic lands! Okay, 8 of the power 9 + Wheel and Feldon's Cane. All 5 mox + 5 lotus is still enough explosive free mana, along with extra turns, recall to force your opponent to draw their final cards, and the cane to shuffle the lotus, wheels and extra turns back into your deck. Thanks for playing. We need a restricted list. Oh, and Channel Fireball is a thing too.
The list goes on and on of players finding the best decks and the game being broken into pieces from the very start. Have you ever heard of Brian Wiseman? he literally wrote the book, or I guess article, on card advantage and built the first Esper control deck with fast free mana, Mind Twist and a single copy of Serra Angel to smash face in 5 turns. it was literally called "The Deck." Stop pretending that net dekcing is a new problem, or even a problem at all. It isn't.
============================
This takes me to my next point. If you play casually, then great. I am happy for you. I play casually too. I quit playing competitive magic a long time ago. the stress isn't worth it to me anymore, and I could not care less about the prizes offered. However, you have no right to complain, criticize or condemn players who do play competitively and how they choose to play... unless they are literally cheating, which is a whole other topic.
If you play competitively and still like to complain about how others build their decks and how hard they try to win with consistency, then you have a lot of reading to catch up on. Well, even before I give you a single link on what to read, you need a heart felt message from Herman Edwards on games and playing to win.
Now that Herm Edwards has helped you to better understand the finer points of higher level competition, I suggest you read David Sirlin's "Playing to Win," which is availble online on his website to read for free. Seriously, bookmark it and read it front to back. Read it several times.
Once you have woken up to the way competitive games are played and how to be a better player, but you still want to brew your own decks and prove to the world how amazing and original you are, then take the time to read Patrick Chapin's "Next Level Magic" and "Next Level Deck Building." Those are not free, but they are well worth the money for either a digital or printed copy. If you finished David Sirlin's "Playing to win" and enjoyed it, you will enjoy Chapin's books as well.
You see, I used to play competitive magic. Not just magic, I played other games competitively too. The individual tactics change, but the mentality to succeed does not. Losers think like losers. They complain and make excuses. Winners learn and adapt and compete.
Finally, not everyone has the skills to create innovative decks. However, that does not make them bad player. In fact, if you cannot beat those players with your home brew, then clearly you are not either... because if you were, then you would learn the meta game and create a home brew that can beat the field. I know because have done it a few times in my short lived competitive career. So rather than being salty, do something about it.
===============================
And this continues the circle of this conversation.
I quit competitive magic back in 2008. I got tired of the stress that comes with staying on top of competitive play. I was no longer enjoying myself. I was grinding and competing and playing way too seriously. I discovered EDH in December 2007 long before these sub forums existed and never looked back. As with other magic players, I wouldn't even be playing magic anymore if it were not for Commander.
As I said before, casual 60 card magic is a mess, and commander is the perfect solution. It can be competitive for those who want to be competitive. It can be causal for those who want it to be casual. It can be budget for those who want it to be budget.
From my personal play experience, to watching Youtube videos, following forums, and my friends on Facebook who live in other states, I have seen it all. Commander is NOT broken, but your playgroup might be. Yes, there are powerful decks that can win on turn 0 or turn 1, but more consistently and commonly on turn 4. that doesn't mean the format is broken. It simply means people have found optimal ways to play, and good for them. For the rest of us, we enjoy playing slower games with a theme and certain style. You play a role in cultivating the play group and play style you want.
For me, the sweet spot of commander is when players use turn 1 to put lands into play tapped or drop utility like Relic of Progenitus or Top. They tend to follow up turn 2 with ramp or more utility. Turn 3 might start to see threats and card draw. Turn 4 tends to see removal and the stage being set. It is turn 5 when game truly begin, not end. If games end of turn 8, 12, 20 or later all depends on how many players there are, what styles and responses there are, and so forth. The most enjoyable games don't have to be the ones you win. They can easily be the ones where cool things happened that you want to tell stories about, or at least you had a great back-and-forth resource war and battle of wits.
================================================
Commander appeals to players on so many levels.
In my 13+ years of experience, I have seen patterns and stories retell themselves from all over. many old school players started with no idea how ot play, just a starter deck and a rule book they didn't understand. Countless newbies make the same mistake. I cannot tell you how often i have seen someone with a 73 card three color deck with 16 or 17 lands. They began with some theme deck, bought boosters, added cards they liked and "made room for them" by cutting lands, then continued to pack more cool stuff in until it became the dumpster fire in front of them.
I cannot tell you how many times someone has seen my Magic: the Gathering pin on my bag at work or on the street and told me how they play magic too and that the beat all their friends with the samurai deck or red burn deck... and we are not talking about an optimized sly deck. We are talking something that has Volcanic Hammer and Lava Axe or whatever some 5-15 year old burn spell is from when they started playing.
Not everyone who plays this game is a fanatic who lurks forums, reads article, watches youtube videos and strives to improve their play. Many of them just like to play a card game with their friends.
Commander appeals to Timmy who loves to cast big creatures and finaly has a format where games realsitically get to turns where they can actually cast them.
Commander appeals to Vorthos, who loves to tell a story with their deck.
Commander appeal to Spike who likes to break it in half and pretend they are the biggest fish in their little bowl.
Commander appeals to Johnny, who is forced to only have one of each cards and tries to assemble their crazy combo.
Commander is where the guy who wants to use skull clamp can without it being over powered.
Commander is where someone like my wife can get a pre-con deck and build it on a budget over time and watch it grow into something all her own and be proud of it every step of the way.
Commander is perfect just the way it is, and if you or your playgroup have a problem, then you might need to take a look in the mirror and ask who is doing something wrong, because it isn't the format itself.
===========================
Oh, and before I go, there is nothing wrong with the cards WotC designs for Commander. True Name Nemesis was a mistake to design put in a commander product because it made one deck impossible to find on the shelves, but that is the only meaningful mistake.
Players want to complain about Oloro, Animar, Kaalia, and Derevi, yet some of the best commanders are apparently narset, Arcum Dagson, and Zur. not just them, but the point is that normal legendary creatures before Commander was a product have remained some of the best commanders right up there with the pre-con commanders.
The Professor from Tolarian Community College and many others like to complain and pretend that the commander product makes cards which change this format from "99+ your commander" into "98 + your commander, command tower." not only is that the logical fallacy of a "Slippery Slope," but it is demonstrably untrue. Mono colored decks don't want command tower. Mono brown decks do not want command tower. That alone is proof that not every deck wants or uses it. This argument ignores that commander deck lists are already dominated by Sol Ring, Lightning Grieves, Skullclamp, and that each color has their own must have spells like Blue with Cyclonic Rift. None of those are commander products, yet are staples. Additionally, any deck that really wants command tower also wants City of Brass and Mana Confluence, neither of which are commander product cards, and City of Brass was an auto include back when our format was called EDH. It is a hollow argument, and it becomes more difficult to take their other points seriously as well.
The same people (the professor and others) who made that argument went on to complain in 2015 about the Confluence cycle, and specifically Mystic Confluence. yet here we are in 2018, and EDH rec has only 7,794 decks with that card registered. By comparison, there are 181,443 decks with sol ring. Yeah... Mystic Confluence really took over the format.
The same is true about the pre-con Commanders. They are at least two hundered thousand commander decks registered online for EDHrec, and only about 1,600 are Animar, a well known turn 4 combo deck. That is literally 0.8% of the meta at best, but if you see it all the time at your local shop (and my good friend who runs Elder Dragon Society in Las Vegas uses it as his best deck), it can feel like it ruins the format. (Whisper voice: and you can pretty much swap put animar for whichever commander boils your butt at the moment, the stats all tell the same story).
So stop it. Just stop it with that argument. You are demonstrably wrong.
============================
We haven't even talked about the Aaron Forsythe "Between Ravnicas" talk from 2012 on the Magic Cruise. That is a seriously amazing video. It tells us so much about how WotC thinks, learns from mistakes, and confirms what a lot of us felt in our guts but never had access to the numbers to prove.
Really, do yourself a favor and go to youtube and search "magic tv: extra magic cruise 2012" there is so much gold in there. More from Patrick Chapin, Richard Garfield talking about luck vs skill and a Q&A where he answers magic questions, a sit down interview with Aaron Forsythe, Kenneth Negal and so many others. They just drop knowledge on us left and right.
So many wrong "opinions" can be put to rest with facts. It is so funny to read what people feel and think and are just so sure is the truth when it isn't. WotC is not 100% transparent, but they are BY FAR the most transparent game company I have ever interacted with in my life. They don't publish lies to make you feel good like other companies. They are raw and real with us. They sell up the good but are also honest in retrospect about the bad. They make mistakes and they own them like a company should, but far too few do.
There are countless resources out there for you if you care to look. I have shared enough for one evening. I have given all of you enough homework and links to read and watch. What you do with it is up to you. Enjoy.
You know, what, that is the main point... enjoy the darned game. It is nit perfect, but it is so much fun. That is why we are here.
There is nothing wrong with complaining about a problem you want fixed, but you have to be open minded enough to see that what you precive as a problem might not actually be one... and the problem is YOU. Sometimes you need to step back and reevaluate your perspective.
Yes I called you a "sweet summer child", a game of thrones reference that refers to someone who is naive, not necessarily a child.
If I wanted the highest powered deck, I can stay in Commander, there are plenty of guides on this board. Arcum Dagsson, Zur the Enchanter, Animar, Soul of Elements, Derevi, Empyrial Tactician, etc.
Toning your deck down or swapping to a less powered deck is usually something to do for new players or those on a budget. Even then, you can always loam a player a spare deck that is high power deck. Also yea I do enjoy high power decks just like how I enjoy low power decks but usally low powered decks are gimmick deck that uses a very niche area for "lols".
Unless someone plays Divine Intervention and gets it to go off, Commander at the end of the day is about being the last man/woman standing. You can form all the social contracts with the table that are taller than a skyscraper that you want, but the game has to end eventually. But just because a game might end earlier than expected doesn't mean you can't go for more rounds. See that is where I never understand people who get upset about a quick victory, its poor sportsmanship to gripe about another person's fair earned victory.
Oh you're calling me a snob? Are you projecting towards me?
Hmm that is a lot of deck results you have, but lets be honest: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
As you know just as well as I do that you're not going to play the majority of those red cards. You may want to shave a thousand or two off that for good measure.
Each fighter in a fighting game is tuned in specific ways to give them uniqueness from their animations they can cancel, their hit boxes, their hurt boxes, their combos, how they deal with other fighters such as with frame trapping, etc. I'm not a fighting game pro, casual in fact, but even I know these sort of things.
Finding a trick/loophole isn't innovative? Good thing Commander players never rely on such things... OH WAIT! How many times a new card comes out and suddenly there is some previously unheard of trick or loophole to exploit? Its like clockwork at this point.
Possibilities are not as infinite as you believe. We also cut off the chaff and unimportant resources in exchange for more refined resources that are more useful to us. You are rarely if never going to see a Needle Drop played unless its an extremely budget and/or gimmick deck.
I never said you couldn't play high powered decks in commander, obviously you can. I said that most people choose not to (certainly relative to other formats). The number of top-tier decklists I've seen played against me across 9 years has been...like...definitely at least one (some dude had a fully-proxied scion druid netdeck that he sucked at playing, 4-5 years ago when those were popular)...maybe two (guy had a high tide flip jace deck a few months back, not sure if that's considered top-tier but it's pretty good at least)...maybe a few azami decks back in the day, but idk if they were really optimal. Anyway, point is, very few. That's out of playing hundreds of people, with many hundreds of decks. When it comes up, maybe I'm slightly salty if I wasn't forewarned, but then it's usually just a laugh. As I said, mostly it's a nonissue. I'm not actually defensive of commander as a casual format because I'm not actually worried about it becoming a competitive one. At least in my experience, the numbers just don't line up. It's like being terrified of lightning strikes or shark attacks.
Loaning out a competitive commander deck is like loaning out a vintage deck to a standard player. They're not going to be good at using it, and they might not want to play it at all because they liked the format they were playing. But if they do want to, go nuts I guess. At the end of the day, as long as everyone is happy, then I see no problems. I just don't know that I think that's very likely. And it still seems like it favors the person with the competitive decks, since he knows them.
Snob was really the only word I could think of to make the sentence work. Maybe there's another word that would be less negatively connoted, but I'm not sure it would make as much sense. I guess I am a bit of an EDH snob, sure, that isn't why I used the word, though. Mostly I just think it's funny that you'd feel the need to defend fighting games in a forum that's not about fighting games, to someone who obviously doesn't play or care about them, and was only using them as an analogy.
Shave a few thousand off, go nuts. Even trimming it down to only standard-legal red cards (which is in the low hundreds), the number is still 91 digits long (iirc). So you're not making much headway. And that's still only mono-red all-basics decks.
I actually explicitly said that finding a fighting game trick WAS innovative. I said it wasn't CREATIVE, which I think is fair. Doesn't make it bad, lots of good things aren't creative. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's creative too. That's still a relatively rare innovation to gameplay, that only one person gets to make. How many total innovations are made in fighting games? Or to an established standard format? Compare that to finding synergies in the tens of thousands of magic cards. Possible innovations exist by the millions, great and small. I wouldn't describe finding new synergies as a loophole, maybe a trick. Whether it's creative is arguable. When I'm talking about creativity though, it's more in the scope of the entire deck - what your plan is, finding the best cards to do it, etc. Some decks are more creative than others, ofc, but I think most decks require some degree of creativity if it's not a c/p.
Needle drop could totally be played. Say, in chandra, fire of kaladesh. Or Jori en, ruin diver. Or Tibor and Lumia. Maybe it's not optimal, but who knows, maybe it is, seems pretty reasonable in T&L especially. There are cards that are very unlikely to ever be reasonably playable in commander - i.e. squire - but many are, at least in "75% decks". I've got a collection of every card I think is playable in commander, and so far it's 6775 cards (needle drop isn't even in there, either!). I'm not going to do the math, but rest assured, it's a lot of potential permutations. And building it has made me think of a lot of interesting synergies - some good, some bad, some I've used, lots I'd be curious to try out, if I have the time. The game has so much depth, when you aren't constrained by being able to compete against tuned decklists.
I'm not actually trying to stand in the way of "competitive" EDH players, as long as they aren't being a jerk about it and understand that most people prefer to keep their decks at below-optimal power because they prefer the more flexible, open-ended, complex experience. It's just a different (and, in my by-no-means-objective opinion, better) game.
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
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
I think that every card could have a possibility of being included somewhere - gimmick or not, and that's one of the reasons I like commander. I'm poor so I tend to go with strategies that aren't too expensive so that I can build as many decks as I can. I do try and build decks that can consistently win, though. Whatever's expensive I try and trade for it from my collection of cards (been playing on/off since Fallen Empires).
Since I like being unique I try and make kooky decks that think outside the box or with strategies or jank that I came up with myself. Granted, that didn't stop me from building the classic Edric, Spymaster of Trest with evasive weenies or similarly amazing decks that are budget. However, I think the casual spirit comes from what to do within those 100 cards that's fun. Some people's idea of fun is playing with and playing against decks that are very cutthroat and evil. And that goes for everything. For example, some people like playing and designing ridiculously trollish levels in Mario Maker and there are many who enjoy playing those types of levels; they find a high level of satisfaction in beating them - even if it takes them hours or days to do it.
Paradoxically, given all the back in forth in this conversational infinite loop equivalent to attacking an opponent with Abyssal Persecutor while having Sanguine Bond and Exquisite Blood in play (for the lols), I feel that an underlying consensus does exist. Those who want to play and build casually do and those who want to play and build competitively do. Whether you get salty or indignant when a competitive player sits down at your EDH table with a competitive deck is unfortunately on you. Sure, there are "rules of etiquette" for some people and their pods, but your particular style is not what's in the format rules per the Rules Committee. So if you get angry at someone casting an Armageddon after you spent 5 straight turns ramping out all your lands, I'm sorry but that play was completely legal; try not to be a sore player about it. If someone locks you out of the beginning of the turn due to consistently blinking Clocknapper, I'm sorry but that play was completely legal (at least until 01/15/2018). Did someone beat the entire table in Turn 0 by a play that could only be achieved by a god hand? I would stand up and clap slowly because the odds of that occurring isn't that probable. And it's just easy to literally start a new game.
Ultimately though, as far as playstyles are concerned, people would have to agree to disagree. I have no qualms playing with casual or competitive player in whichever setting. Of course, I'm not going to want to whip out my janky deck against Kaalia or Derevi but if I lose that match then you can bet I'm going to whip out BUG Sidisi or Edric next game. Likewise, if I play with my Zada deck in a casual pod, I may switch out the deck to a more casual and janky one afterwards. However, I don't think strictly casual players should be up in arms when competitive players play commander. You can't enforce your philosophy of fun onto others just as you don't want them to do the same to you.
As far as Commander killing Magic, I don't think it is. If anything, eternal formats help Magic by keeping rotating cards alive plus breathing new life into older cards that don't normally see play anywhere. Does a high a mount of cards become worthless after Standard? Sure they do. However, during their tenure in Standard they have worth. If it weren't for Modern or eternal formats, then they'd never recover any kind of value. Even cards from ancient sets that are utterly worthless are resurrected due to commander. Anybody remember Wood Elemental? That steaming pile of garbage? Useless until Titania, Protector of Argoth came around. Now it's at least playable if you like the jank. Before Titania I wouldn't've never considered getting my hands on Wood Elemental. But, if I were to build her, then I would honestly consider adding it to the deck. I can cast it with mana dorks and have all my forests untapped. Sacrifice them all, get a bunch of elemental tokens, and then possibly return all those forests to play with cards like Splendid Reclamation or World Shaper. I've played Standard in many blocks in the past and I definitively quit Standard when Innistrad block rotated and Theros block entered. The format became stagnant and I quit. Luckily I was starting to play commander. In all my years playing Magic, almost all of my purchased cards have been to build commander decks. That's money for LGSs, money for online stores, money for other players, money for sellers on eBay, etc. which eventually means money for Wizards. I have never spent so much money on Magic as when I started playing Commander.
In summary, my vote is no; Commander is not killing Magic.
BGU [Primer] Sidisi, Brood Tyrant BGU | BG [Primer] Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG | G [Primer] Polukranos, World Eater G
My YouTube Channel:
The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
Perhaps the biggest reason people get upset after a game ends quickly isn't because they're poor sports. It's because they feel slighted. When players sit down to enjoy a game of Commander, they usually have an idea about what kind of a game they would like to create. For some players, it's a ruthless, combo-infested environment. For others, it's a grinding five-hour escapade. Regardless of what someone's looking for, when the interests of one player don't align with the interests of their opponents, people tend to get salty. People tend to feel as though they've had their time wasted because the game they sat down to play was not the kind of game they thought they signed up for. This is especially evident when one person ends the game as quickly as possible. It isn't that quick victories are wrong. It's that Commander isn't advertised as a competitive format. It's intended to be a beer and pretzels format. As such, players typically don't expect to walk into those sorts of games without warning, and those who do are frequently miffed as a result. It isn't that they're upset the game ended. They know all games must come to an end sometime. It's just they're upset about how the game ended.
Again, I think you're really misunderstanding the point of Commander as a format.
I consider myself to be a competent Magic player, but I deliberately play with a low-powered deck. That isn't something I do because of new players, and it certainly isn't something I do because I'm on a budget. Hell, my deck probably totals to about one and a half grand. The reason I play with a low-powered deck is because the games of Commander I'm trying to create don't involve mega powerful cards. The games I find most enjoyable are the ones where players are engaged in a boxing match instead of a shootout. That's the norm for Commander, the sort of games the Commander Rules Committee encourage, and the sort of games players expect out of playing Commander.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Yes, EDH is a social and casual format. Does that mean you're not supposed to be in it for the win? No, why should it.
Do EDH games create rememberable moments and stories even if you're in it for the win? Holy sh*t, yes.
A clear misunderstanding for me is, that lots of people categorize by player personality instead of deck.
It doesn't need a competitive combo deck to look for a fast kill. Zada, Hedron Grinder literally isn't built for dragged out rounds. So when maneuvering that deck i am looking for a fast kill.
On the other hand, do i expect my Gonti, Lord of Luxury deck to be anything near fast? It would be akward and dumb to do that. I want to cherry-pick from my opponents decks and see where it takes me.
Deck tech defines strategy and speed, personality influences choice of commander, pod mixture and social contract(s).
As a consequence EDH isn't this or that, it is as someone else rightfully wrote "what you want it to be".
What's very important is, that all sides of the table agree on the limitations they set themselves. They have to be clear enough to have everyone on board but open enough for everyone to explore different decks and playstyles. See my above comparison.
OT: I don't think EDH interferes in any way with the competitive formats, as it (usually) attracts players for different reasons. It is obvious, that it killed of large proportions of 60 card kitchen table MTG. But rightly so, since players found a home in EDH where they can express and enjoy themselves at the same time.
Whenever i meet newcomers to MTG i'd really love to see them end up in EDH somewhen, but realistically that is too much to ask for. Generally speaking every EDH deck has about 65 cards that are tailored around the commander or his colors. Sitting in a 4 player pod that's about 200 unknown cards in front of yourself you have to be able to evaluate and react to on the spot. Plus another 65 cards if you're playing a loaner deck or any other deck you don't know (too well) yet.
As long as experienced players keep that in mind offering support to new players outside of EDH or about to dip into EDH there's a good chance beginners keep coming. If people stick around in EDH instead of leaving MTG and others keep joining (any format of) the game MTG will continue to thrive.
I think what is best is to look at what the company that is publishing Commander product has to say about it and has done everything but take it over in name over the course of the last 4-5 years. This is from WHAT IS COMMANDER as part of C17
They don't attempt to make any pronouncements on what people will do with the format because as an entity that has dealt in Magic players for a LONG time they are well aware that everyone will read that description and the end result will be different based on what they like.
Sometimes thrilling games end very quickly with a lot of removal and baiting and then it is over and the people play again, and sometimes a game with those same 4 decks takes a hour longer to finish and is also exiting and explosive and all the things a good game of something where 4 people are trying to achieve an objective that only one can have.
It comes down to the people you play with the attitudes of the group not any individual because you have to play this game as a group, and if you can't seem to find a group that feels the same way about this game and the ways you build decks than I am sorry because even at a level that most people would deem Competitive the game is still explosive and engaging and fun and no the combo player doesn't always win.
Oh and to go all the way back to the opening question I don't think Commander can kill magic because people playing Commander is still people playing magic, sure there will always be people like myself who only play Commander and no other forms of magic but that is inevitable with any offshoot format (I typically see commander people filter not into standard but Modern and Legacy)
This my thoughts. My friends and I would mostly only play rerelease or themed nights when I used to go to tournaments since it costed money (we'd have to drive about 40 minutes plus entry fee) and while most the people where decent, a lot of toxic people would show up since it the only store in our area where you could play and after awhile it was just easier to stay in and only invite people where knew we get along with while playing. Even if commander wasn't a thing this won't fix why my friends and I don't like to play competitively.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
I'm sure Sheldon Menery had good intentions to revive whatever creative spark was left from MTG in order to help cure the monotony of netdeckers ruining creative thinking when it comes to deck building but at the end of the day his format isn't as widely respected as some people like to believe. It's becoming too competitive to the point for all the reasons why nobody wants to break into Legacy and Vintage. Old School 1993/1994 Magic may be too expensive due to how scarce the cards are with all the Reserved List staples but it still beats the kind of high variance you'd get from EDH/Commander where the low variance aspect isn't as toxic as the current environment for Standard, Modern, and Legacy.
You also have to factor in the amount of playtesting that went into Old School 1993/1994 Magic compared to the lack of playtesting in current Standard, Modern, and Legacy. There's an argument as to whether or not If Old School 1993/1994 Magic is the best place to put your time, money, and effort into compared to EDH/Commander. At the very least it gives collectors an excuse to actually play with their Reserved List collections because their rewards come back much better than it would in EDH/Commander where most of their collections are banned. Even If you're a newcomer that missed the boat on Old School Magic back when it was played 25 years ago you can still print off proxies with an ink jet printer.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
I think if there's anything the history of wotc shows us, it's not that they were so much smarter in any particular era, it's that they simply don't fully understand what makes a good set. They put a set out there, and sometimes they get lucky and it creates a great limited format and a great standard, and sometimes it sucks.
What's really changed since 93/94, moreso than the cards, are the players. Communcation has improved, netdecking has become the norm, pros will work to find the best decks and hordes of tryhards will follow after. If alpha was released today it would be every bit as miserable as any standard format ever was.
As far as EDH becoming too competitive, I can't say I've seen that problem at all outside of the internet, but of course YMMV. Granted, the power level floor is a lot higher since most people start with a precon instead of total jank, but that's probably for the best.
I think it's frankly bizarre and paranoid that you think "politically correct illustrations" are somehow related to the problems you're encountering, but I guess that's just par for the course with these sorts of nostalgia-fueled rants.
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
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
(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 can agree with that based on two points you see primarily in multiplayer: politics, and threat assessment.
In 1v1, you know who your enemy is. You know who you have to beat, and you know EXACTLY how and/or if you can counter his strategy(ies). Throw in two others, and it gets overwhelming. Sometimes, people pick it right up; but not always, and there's so much to give examples of that it's something new players have to usually learn on the fly.
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
What nostalgia are you talking about? As I illustrated earlier, at the competitive level, the best players found the best decks really fast. The rest of the casual players were sitting around having no idea what they were doing and making terrible decks out of garbage cards. How is that any different today? There are plenty of garbage decks and inexperienced casual new players who have no idea what they are doing either today.
Again, how is that any different today? You can still make a terrible deck to play with your friends, and then take it to a store and get dominated by good decks. What nostalgic feeling are you talking about? You sure are vague here. No real examples.
Again, it always has been with Inquest magazine, but shared knowledge and article took longer to spread the information around. A perfect example is the Sly deck which established the basic ratio of lands, spells and creatures for a fast aggressive burn deck that is still copied to this day.
The game is always evolving. When I started laying, "Draw-go" control was the only real way to play control for years. only in more recent times has that style completely died and been replaced with "tap out control," which is thanks to better cards being made. Cards with can take an active role in control instead of just a passive one. Blue Black Faeries was the start, but it certainly set the new standard of that style of play, where you can cast game changing creatures and take active control of games. Before faeiries, Sea Stompy was toying with the idea, but never took over Standard. The seed had been planted though and it grew from there. The game is always evolving and generally getting better. Are you nostalgic for the days of Ebony Rhino? I don't get it.
I can ONLY assume you mean cards like from alpha showing a pentagram, with its bondage faerie, and how magic
got rid of demons and replaced them with horrorsoops demons were brought back over 15 years ago. Maybe you are talking about how there are finally gay and transgender characters? If so, then you are coming off as bigoted, which I will happily assume you are not, as that would be the dumbest thing to complain about and make everything else you say irrelevant.You really had ought to read more about resonance and the design philosophy from Magic 2010 onward. In a nutshell, when the first sets came out, they had a ot of resonance. Then over the years, with the creation of brand specific intellectual property (IP), that resonance was lost. Everyone knows what an angel, vampire, demon, dragon, elf, goblin, lightning bolt, fireball, and so forth are. When you hold one of those iconic cards, without even knowing the rules, you have certain expectations as to what they will do in game. Howeve,r what is a new player to the game going to think when they open a pack of New Phyrexia going to think? What is a Phyrexian? I have never heard of one of those outside of magic.
You see, they can get away with it with Eldrazi as cosmic eldritch horrors stolen from HP Lovecraft, Unicron fro transformers, Galactus from Marvel Comics, and so forth. Even the Titans from Greek myth. Old gods who have returned and you are but an insignificant ant to them.
The point being, that magic over the last 9 years or so has made a big push to return resonance to the game, and that you couldn't be further from the truth. Be it Innistrad and out return, Ahmanket's Egypt theme, Khans/Dragons of Tarkir, and so forth. The sets ooze story and resonance more than any sets since maybe Arabian Knights.
You are no longer complaining about commander. You have become the "Old man yells at cloud" joke in the Simpsons at this point. You are just complaining about how you see magic as a whole,and you are demonstrably wrong. Comically wrong. "I can write a 10 page essay showing you how wrong you are but don't want to waste my time because it isn't worth it" kind of wrong.
No, there isn't. If I cared enough, i would ask to meet you on Magic Workstation to play old school 40 card 1993 magic with you and just win turn one all the time while you can play lands and Savannah lions or what ever casual jank you want to play and then you can run away with some excuse or complaint. Otherwise, you will also play a competitive turn 1 win combo deck and it comes down to who wins the coin flip, and we really might as well not even play magic... or we can use a ban list. oops, now we are going down the slippery slope that real magic went down that led us to today.
Maybe you want to play 60 card 4x copy magic? I will still beat you turn one every game with power 9 + Demonic tutor, channel, fireball, and so forth. Maybe we still need a ban or restricted list.
Shall I continue? Magic was far more broken back then that it is today.
You are tugging at the heart strings of nostalgia for a day when you and your friends played with bad cards and didn't know any better. That has nothing to do with the era of magic, but your own ignorance. Once you open Pandora's box of knowledge, there is no closing it.
==============================================
When it comes to commander, the lack of variance is the result of tutors. the ability to consistently get what you want from your deck is what makes games repetitive and streamlined. If you want to play commander with higher variance, then just start a group where the best tutors are frowned upon and everyone agrees to play without them. After all, when you can't go find anything you want in a 99 card singleton deck and are at the mercy of what you draw, then redundancy becomes king, and still some of the variance vanishes because you have percentages of similar effects with different names, and some being more powerful than others.
That is the nature of this game. You cannot change that, no matter how much fist waving at the sky you want to do about these darned kids and their elder dragons and their highlanders.