MTG Salvation

Sheldon and the RC clearly think the format is about being able to play the big, expensive bombs that aren't economical enough to see play in other formats - looking through sheldon's decklists as updated from the recent set, the average CMC looks pretty high, probably at least 3.5 or so for most of them. For example, his pirates deck, which one would expect would be a lower-than-average curve, has a 3.85 according to deckstats.

I'm curious if this is the model of the community at large (not the MTGS represents the larger community, but we work with what we have). Do you generally try to win by slamming haymakers until something sticks? Do you have only a few, especially powerful methods to win? Do you have many smaller threats, to keep a lower curve?

Personally I do like that otherwise unplayable, expensive cards (kaervek the merciless, for example) are viable in commander, but I also rarely have more than a few in a given deck, and only if I have a strong reason to include them - for the most part I prefer to have smaller threats with plenty of answers.

When I started in commander my decks more resembled that, however they did not stay that way for long. Now it just varies based on game plan mostly and what fits in the style the deck is going for.

IMO somewhat agree, starting at a higher life total as well as playing with multiple people makes games go longer, so casting bigger, flasher card is more readily possible.

Of all Meta discussions, this is propably the one my playgroup keeps coming back to the most.

I don't think there's a simple yes or no to that question.

I for one love seeing big spells in the format you won't see to that extend in other formats. Huge Genesis Waves, Comet Storms, Epic Experiments, Villainous Wealths, Exsanguinates, Torment of Hailfires, Debt to the Deathless ... love it! Utilizing bombs like Vicious Shadows or Eldrazi Titans is entertaining and rewarding.
But i would never sacrifice deck structure and functionality for these bombs. The steps to bombs are just as vital as the bombs themselves. Ramp, a reasonable curve and cost efficent removal make bombs better, in fact. Stalling on the first few turns to drop anything is a worse game plan than fast forwarding there through "reasonable" play.

A while back someone linked to this article on here, and it allowed me to have terms for aspects of the format when explaining to others how i want to build and play decks. I stopped counting players with thin to minimal deck portions dedicated to quadrant 1 or 2 complaining about streamlined decks that beat them up before they are able to cast any of their own quadrant 3 or 4 cards.
Vice versa, if you're overloading on quadrant 1 and 2 cards you'll barely find a way to close out games.

Bottom line: One of the reasons why i love this format are these battlecruiser type of cards. But if you mean to tell me that including them has to come with suboptimal builds and sloppy plays, i'm not buying that excuse. Sleek decks and smart plays let your bombs shine! EDH is no battlecruiser format, but home for your battlecruisers.

What is battlecruiser?

Quote from blkh »

What is battlecruiser?

A large boat. In the context of mtg, big spells. i.e. elesh norn, grand cenobite or time stretch.

Yeah, multiplayer makes games go longer, giving the more casual of decks a chance to see their proverbial "magic christmas land". I've been trying to take a lighter approach to building in a couple of my playgroups. Mainly because I'm trying to have more fun with the format, instead of just straight winning. The format definitely makes cards like mind's dilation a reality instead of a limited bomb and later dust collector in a binder.

I dunno if I can call it a battle cruiser format. I have no idea what kind of format to even call it. Maybe the Silent Hill format where everyone sees EDH in their own way and EDH games are the most bizarre, horrifying, and yet intriguing experiences you'll have?

I slightly agree. It is to some, and not to others.

The singleton and multiplayer aspects lend to yes. Especially in my playgroup who play very few tutors.

Quote from NoNeedToBragoBoutIt »

Bottom line: One of the reasons why i love this format are these battlecruiser type of cards. But if you mean to tell me that including them has to come with suboptimal builds and sloppy plays, i'm not buying that excuse. Sleek decks and smart plays let your bombs shine! EDH is no battlecruiser format, but home for your battlecruisers.

This. Battlecruisers actually require a lot of finesse in setting up and EDH is one of the few, if not only format that permits that set-up without getting destroyed 99% of the time before completion, because of its structure.

A lot of people assume Battlecruisers have to be laying haymaker after haymaker, but that is not entirely true - it's more of a half-truth - both finesse setups and haymaker rushing are actually relevant techniques for the cards and I might even say in its earlier age, EDH could get by using the haymaker method, but we've developed to the point it is not often the most optimal path anymore (as compared to the finesse one).

Ironically in the other formats where both paths don't work at all, it might be better to gamble on the haymaker one because that method as a better chance of succeeding than the setup ones in environments that don't favor either. Which I suspect is something Standard as a format is turning into / has turned to in some degree (because of the creature-answer discrepancy in its bubble).

On the other hand, EDH is like Rise of the Eldrazi Drafts (the most battlecruiser Limited format I've experienced, I might even daresay the only true one in the history of the game) - you're going to lose if you only drafted the Eldrazi and no ramp - ROE Drafts were basically Finesse-Setup Battlecruiser Games of their own as well.

I think EDH is well suited to being a battlecruiser format if that's what the playgroup wants, but it doesn't have to be a battlecruiser format; there's plenty of flexibility in the rules for people to approach it in a different way if they so desire.

Somewhat agree. EDH gives you more opportunities to play the battlecruiser cards and they're unquestionably more prevalent at most levels of play in EDH than in constructed formats (omitting casual play). Playing them does not excuse terrible deckbuilding, nor is it the only way to play EDH.

I might still call it a battlecruiser format because they feel like a defining characteristic in most games that I play.

Battlecruiser, as in, don’t play anything but ramp and draw until 6+ mana, no. Battlecruiser, as in, play your 7-drop and win because nobody had an answer, sure.

To me, cards like Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite would not be $15-$20 unless EDH were this battlecruiser format. But, cards like Mana Reflection and Oracle of Mul Daya would not have their value either if EDH weren’t a thing, and they are setup cards.

Can you play your battlecruisers here? Yes, if they are good. Do you still need realistic resource management, yes. They can change the starting life and multiplayer aspect, but the game still has you starting with 7 cards and drawing mana sources from your deck. By that design, mathematically, you are only about 50-50 to make your 4th land by turn 4. The figure doesn’t veer very far from that, unless you change starting hand sizes or cards drawn per turn. So, your deck needs you to help it out if you plan on playing big cards.

Depends on the metas you play. If you're used to Winter Orbs, then no, your decks are going to be mana efficient, more like a tugboat, small but incredible robust.

I make a lot of combo decks, and turn 5 is about where most of them end, so that is normally too quick and fast for a battlecruiser to locate. These decks I'd say are more like stealth boats. Fast, but once they have been spotted, can be taken out easily.

I answered neutral because while it can be a battlecruiser format, you have to take out the combo and infect players first, as usual. And "battlecruiser" doesn't just mean "play big stompy things and not worry if opponents answer them": Control is still a thing, Stax is still a thing, counterspells and removal are still things, land destruction is still a thing. (Frankly, if they weren't, we'd be playing war.)

Don’t know about others, I play mine like Carriers where the general is relevant at helping the deck take off but also rely on the small planes to survive. In other words, I like having cheaper cards in deck and coexistence

Slightly disagree. It's the format for battlecruiser decks, but its not just for battlecruiser, or even mostly. So its really a varied format that can go from battlecruiser to singleton vintage and everything in between, but if you want to run battlecruiser its the only format that you can do it in with success.

Slightly agree. I think it started that way, and it definitely is in my group! That said, I think the format has evolved, and the "healthy" debates on various websites would seem to indicate that battlecruiser is only one of many ways to build and play.

Quote from ilovesaprolings »

We need to approach to format with Sheldon's spirit for it to be a battlecruiser format.
Otherwise you can easily combo on turn 5-6 and win.
Surely commander is more battlecruiser than modern, legacy or whatever, but still, with that banlist, there are plenty of strategies that are both more cheap and more efficient than playing battlecruiser

It'll be more like a vintage format while you have Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Mana Vault, etc. So I doubt that what the are aiming for "long games".

It's a bit of one, certainly. I rarely build a deck without a cmc 7 card unless I'm playing stax (can't afford blisteringly fast combo tutors).

I also rarely play a game where someone else doesn't resolve a cmc 7+ spell.

It's a bit of a battlecruiser format. Certainly.

The format is for whatever you and your playgroup want it to be. Sometimes I am battle-cruising with Eldrazi in Blue Braids or Rakdos...and sometimes I drop a turn three win in Meren. The great thing about EDH is that is gives the playgroups a format to play really powerful magic, be that bonkers combos or fun haymakers. That's what makes EDH unique. Taking away an entire segment of that so just battle-cruiser exists would make me want to abandon the format.

I think this discussion arises because most formats of Magic are identified by the Aggro-Midrange-Control dynamic, whereas EDH essentially is Combo-Midrange-Combo, with glasscannon aggro-style combo trying to sneak under disruption and control-combo being more willing to fight thru it. Two ways to combat interruption is to play redundancy and resiliency. While pure combo like Arcum Daggson seeks to play thru redundancy at low cmc, other decks might win thru midranging into increasingly "bigger" and harder to answer threats. But the cmc is deceiving. Is Bloodchief's Ascension a battleship? No, but as half of an infinite combo (once enabled) it may attract a lot of attention from the table. "Seeing what sticks" is part of MTG in any format. The diversity of threats in EDH is matched by the possibility that one of your multiple opponents has the answer, and the same goes for every player at the table. If combo doesn't win quickly, a midrange or control player might be better prepared to win the war of attrition. And whatever does stick has to win quickly before one of multiple players can draw or tutor the appropriate answer. But that "threat" may be as unassuming as a 1cmc Bloodchief's Ascension. Rise of the Dark Realms may be just as hard to answer at that point in the game, but what matters is whether its answered or not. How your playgroup deckbuilds is going to determine which threat is more likely to stick, but either play can threaten to win the game rather quickly depending on board states and hands. I'm more scared of Blood chiefs or Mana Echoes than Azor, the Lawbringer, even if he's a cool card. But maybe we've wasted all our disruption on "better"threats and I get beat by a big dumb flyer. But it's not likely that people play a deck full of sixdrops if they're worried about losing on the turn they tapped out for Kodama's Reach. Its only a Battle cruiser format in places where players want it to be.

Quote from Johnnyboy1of7 »

I think this discussion arises because most formats of Magic are identified by the Aggro-Midrange-Control dynamic, whereas EDH essentially is Combo-Midrange-Combo, with glasscannon aggro-style combo trying to sneak under disruption and control-combo being more willing to fight thru it. Two ways to combat interruption is to play redundancy and resiliency. While pure combo like Arcum Daggson seeks to play thru redundancy at low cmc, other decks might win thru midranging into increasingly "bigger" and harder to answer threats. But the cmc is deceiving. Is Bloodchief's Ascension a battleship? No, but as half of an infinite combo (once enabled) it may attract a lot of attention from the table. "Seeing what sticks" is part of MTG in any format. The diversity of threats in EDH is matched by the possibility that one of your multiple opponents has the answer, and the same goes for every player at the table. If combo doesn't win quickly, a midrange or control player might be better prepared to win the war of attrition. And whatever does stick has to win quickly before one of multiple players can draw or tutor the appropriate answer. But that "threat" may be as unassuming as a 1cmc Bloodchief's Ascension. Rise of the Dark Realms may be just as hard to answer at that point in the game, but what matters is whether its answered or not. How your playgroup deckbuilds is going to determine which threat is more likely to stick, but either play can threaten to win the game rather quickly depending on board states and hands. I'm more scared of Blood chiefs or Mana Echoes than Azor, the Lawbringer, even if he's a cool card. But maybe we've wasted all our disruption on "better"threats and I get beat by a big dumb flyer. But it's not likely that people play a deck full of sixdrops if they're worried about losing on the turn they tapped out for Kodama's Reach. Its only a Battle cruiser format in places where players want it to be.

Good points here, but using paragraphs would help.


The reality is that EDH is a normal format that allows battlecruiser to be played. I have a jund reanimator combo deck that also wins by slamming down a Hellkite Overlord sometimes. It's about a balance.

It is a bit..? Its a multiplayer format so should be expected to be slower. Added to that is the singleton nature of the format which makes decks less consistent and higher life totals making aggro not as playable means that decks with strong late games generally will do better in a low combo meta.

I play mono-blue so my entire group hates me for countering their "fatties" when they finally get the chance to play them, and keeping my hand stuffed to the brim with Consecrated Sphinx, Blue Sun's Zenith/Pull From Tomorrow et al. Then High Tide shenanigens ensue.
I then play mono-red gobbos which rush out 50 odd 1/1's and then sac them with Skirk Fire Marshal (even if this means I die too) or Goblin War Strike, so I'm the least battlecruiser player imaginable.

In my defence my playground plays cEDH. I feel no remorse countering narsetti four-card spaghetti or food chain nonsense.