Help me out with a discussion that has arise in my playgroup.
Some players are "pointing each other" that the other one is "playing commander the wrong way" because of their respective playstyles.
These are their oppinions
Player 1: He thinks that in a table of 4, the damage has to be dealt evenly among each player, so there is a balance in the life totals and no one gets deleted early.
He likes playing midrange/tempo decks that normally wins with combat damage, He likes this strategy because is his way to win, when everyone is at lethal range he can "combo out" with a surprise attack and finish the game in 1-2 turns.
He is a god player, normally he has a big impact on the game
Player 2: He likes control decks, he likes politics and always tries to be the last man standing to be able to 1v1 the last player, he does that because he says that for a control deck is easier to win the 1v1 late game against almost any other non control deck, so he tries to survive to be the last.
Unless he has very bad draws he is always a finalist
Player 3: He likes aggro decks, his playstile is picking a victim and go for the thoath, he wins by combat damage only, sometimes he uses politics to get one player ignore him while he atacks one or two. He likes deleting playars one at a time or if his army is huge everyone at a time.
Normally if he dont win he does a pretty good job being a finalist
What do you think? wich one of this ways is "the right way"? is there a right way to play?
If everyone's deck is constructed according to format rules and is at an appropriate power level for the group, they're all good. There's no "right" strategy for an EDH game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
If everyone's deck is constructed according to format rules and is at an appropriate power level for the group, they're all good. There's no "right" strategy for an EDH game.
Actually that is precisely my point of view, MTG is a strategy game, everyone is his own straegyst and the "right way" for me is the way you feel is worth you more fun/wins/etc
For sure, player personality decides which deck one builds, but i always find it akward if it dictates too much of how it is build and played.
A close friend of mine becomes a victim of his own stubbornness on a regular. Over the course of a few years he built Skullbriar, the Walking Grave, Najeela, the Blade-Blossom, Uril, the Miststalker and others only to disassemble them shortly after because he didn't like knocking out players early in the game, wanted to get close to lethal commander damage for every single opponent first, wondering why he usually fell short of even killing a single opponent.
As long as you aren't sharking your playgroup there's no shame in being a control/aggro/combo/voltron/vorthos/... player and only building decks of said archetype. But for the love of god, don't judge others by what they built and how they play! It's only a game after all.
Edit: There's a misconception i stumble into regularly when it comes to deck speed and (un)deserved wins:
Aggro and Voltron decks not only want to be fast and sleek, they usually have to be. There's no cheap wins, if your deck folds to board wipes and the likes easily. If they can outpace on par midrange/late game decks, they deserve the W, either because they outmaneuvered you or you lacked appropriate answers.
Non-aggro decks don't win on a free either. If they do, you're not putting enough pressure on them. At the same time they deserve to be punished/preyed upon, if they are as ignorant to not run enough early disruption and/or blockers.
You may be a sunny boy, but it's not the rains fault if you get wet when you didn't bring a jacket, just in case.
Unfortunately Player 1 philosophy want's the other players to come along with him/her, in essence to better suit their deck.
At least Player 2 and Player 3 are making no bones about their plans and are being realistic and self contained in what they are trying to achieve.
Pretty much Player 1 has no business trying to tell what the others "should be doing". Because Player 2 is not asking anything of other players, and Player 3 is also not asking for a "philosophical" approach either, he/she actually can use real game actions to determine what is happening.
To me, the only "wrong" way to play the game is expecting to win with style all the time and that your opponents will comply with that expectation because they shouldn't have the same expectations as you for themselves.
Or to simplify that, there is not "right" or "wrong" to have expectations of your own decks, but it's almost always "wrong" to have expectations of your opponents, especially if there was no discussion prior. The problem is it's actually really hard to place expectations on one's own decks without taking into account of the opponents' decks (since the format is just that wide), people like to just blur the line and assume "goldfish" opponents instead and put unrealistic expectations on their own decks as a result of that "imbalance in expectations".
EDH isn't actually about just putting your own strategies/vanity ideas into a deck and ramming it into the meta, it's about observing the meta and fine-tuning the strategies/ideas to fit into the mold. People have the misconception that "the format is so wide, therefore my idea should work at the first try" when reality is pretty much the opposite - the format is so wide few plans actually work the first time round, and once you filter out the fluke-cases, the numbers that can perform consistently without change are even lower.
EDH is partially a social game, but even that social game actually means the rule of "You're supposed to be tuning your deck to improve it so that you motivate your opponent to do the same" and not "social game means my vocal berating of opponents is justified". There are groups that manage to consolidate themselves through nonstop conforming, while others choose to consolidate via "fight for the alpha" by constantly uptuning their decks instead and under the rule I mentioned both are legit methods, whereas in vocal terms, only the former (conforming through cultured discussion) would work (and it's honestly fine). It's only when people "fight for the alpha" via "vocal terms" then you start to deviate from the game altogether. Statistics probably might prove there's a group out there who actually does that and still get along, but I'll be blunt and say that would likely require the group to probably be friends of other avenues as well and distinctly divide their MTG-time separately from their relationships and therefore is a big no-no "strategy" for approaching the game if you're the walk-in-LGS-group player.
Agreeing with other posters here, there isn't a right way to play. If an entire group has issues with a player, it's time to have a conversation. But even then, it's not that anyone is wrong, it's just that playstyles don't necessarily mesh.
I will say, however, as someone who plays a lot of "Combat Deck Wins (sometimes)", player 3 is playing the way they need to in order to have a chance. You don't really have the luxury of bringing everyone's life totals down together. The longer you have multiple people alive, the less likely you are to be able to actually get in to a winning position in the face of removal. Or life gain. Or any of the other dozen ways to shut down aggressive decks in multiplayer.
If everyone's deck is constructed according to format rules and is at an appropriate power level for the group, they're all good. There's no "right" strategy for an EDH game.
The part about appropriate power level for the group is key. The only right way to play EDH is to make sure all players are on the same page as far as power level. Beyond that, any strategy should be viable. If you’re playing with friends and certain players in your group really really hate a certain tactic or combo, it might be worth avoiding that but it’s a personal judgment call.
I'll cast my stone with the "no right or wrong way to play" pile. And TBH, Magic is, yes, you've built a deck, now you have to improvise, both for what your opponents are playing and for how Lady Luck is feeling today. It's less classical, more jazz.
You should worry about power level and annoyance factor. Like, I'm not going to play full Mycosynth Lattice/Null Rod u mad bro Stax against a more casual table, and while I do play land destruction against such a table, I avoid Frustrationgeddons. (And I privately read "target land" as "target nonbasic land" in such a setting.) Similarly, I know I'm not going be running Mayael the Anima "more calories than the food court" in a competitive setting. But beyond that, it's pretty much "Is this card legal?"
In fact, sometimes I switch up between styles.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Player 1 who says that damage should be spread out really goes against the most basic ideas of combat math you learn in RPGs like D&D.
If a player is mana screwed, I do not mind ignoring them for a little while. Not only is it good sportsmanship, as opposed to stepping on their throat or kick them when they are down, but it is also bad threat assessment.
On the other hand, I have no problem ganging up on and taking out a threat. They should be prepared for that and otherwise not paint such a target on their back.
==========
I often agree with the control player, where I find it useful to interact with the table and play to survive the long game, stopping combos dead in their tracks, and being the cop at the table while players get knocked out one by one until I can hopefully out advantage my final opponent.
When I am not playing like that, then I am likely the Edgar Markov beaatdown deck or the all-in combo deck.
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
In my opinion, player number is playing wrong.
It's mostly a meta thing, however, since everyone who followed that strategy in our group ended up making a terrible and detrimental deck. Aggroing 100% since the earliest turn to kill a player asap always ended up this way:
- aggro player kills a player at random.
- maybe he kills another player, but then the deck finishes its gas
- eliminated player sit down bored while the game go on for at least other 20 minutes
- aggro player lose
of course there are deck capable of realizing this strategy efficiently, however i didn't see many of them during my games.
This. If you're aggro or Voltron, make sure that you build your deck so that you can kill the table. If you build it so that you can quickly take out one guy, but then have trouble finishing, you are indeed "playing wrong". Player 3 as described is playing right, because he's often a "finalist", meaning he isn't just blowing out one guy then being a non factor while another player wins.
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!
People told me I was playing the wrong way with my latest deck. I couldn't believe how close-minded they were.
It's 99 mountain axelrod gunnarson. It's main win condition is for one player to kill everyone else and then draw themselves to death on accident. It can also win if they use painlands to death on accident, but that's more of an auxiliary wincon.
They said I should at least put some swamps in it, but I'm worried it'll be too OP.
People told me I was playing the wrong way with my latest deck. I couldn't believe how close-minded they were.
It's 99 mountain axelrod gunnarson. It's main win condition is for one player to kill everyone else and then draw themselves to death on accident. It can also win if they use painlands to death on accident, but that's more of an auxiliary wincon.
They said I should at least put some swamps in it, but I'm worried it'll be too OP.
please tell me this is a joke. I get that there are 90+ land decks. But at least the commander can be used as a wkn con. Ashling for example.
I would not play with you. I only play with people are capable of summoninv their general. They never have to. But the ability to do so must be in the deck.
People told me I was playing the wrong way with my latest deck. I couldn't believe how close-minded they were.
It's 99 mountain axelrod gunnarson. It's main win condition is for one player to kill everyone else and then draw themselves to death on accident. It can also win if they use painlands to death on accident, but that's more of an auxiliary wincon.
They said I should at least put some swamps in it, but I'm worried it'll be too OP.
please tell me this is a joke. I get that there are 90+ land decks. But at least the commander can be used as a wkn con. Ashling for example.
I would not play with you. I only play with people are capable of summoninv their general. They never have to. But the ability to do so must be in the deck.
Oh come on, of course I can cast my general. Don't be absurd. I wouldn't make a deck that couldn't cast my general.
I just need the other players to use two spectral searchlights on me at the same time.
Always assume anyone named after a Douglas Adams character is posting with tongue firmly in cheek.
But from what I've seen on this forum, there might be metas where swamps (or especially islands) are too OP.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I have thought about this a lot recently, and I am wondering if there is a dominant strategy among the three strategies mentioned by OP irrespective of the decks present at the table. Do you have a default attack pattern in EDH? What are your experiences?
Riku of Two Reflections - Copy, then copy again | Shattergang Brothers - Token Sac&Recur | Gahiji, Honored One - Multiple attack steps | Karametra, God of Harvests - Landfall, Creaturefall, Shroud | Ruhan of the Fomori - Stop hitting yourself | Zurgo Helmsmasher - Equipment&Wraths | Crosis, the Purger - Dragon Tribal Reanimator | Derevi, Empyrial Tactician - No stax, just tap and untap fun | Anafenza, the Foremost - Enduring Ideal Enchantress | Sharuum, the Hegemon - Sphinx Tribal Control | Noyan Dar - Spellslinger | The Mimeoplasm - Counterpalooza
Lists can be found here.
Still convinced the guy on Beseech the Queen is wearing a Mitra-type hat. Wake up sheeple!
I have thought about this a lot recently, and I am wondering if there is a dominant strategy among the three strategies mentioned by OP irrespective of the decks present at the table. Do you have a default attack pattern in EDH? What are your experiences?
I think it meta dependant, My playgroup does not like infinite combos very much, so while I do play some combos in my control decks, I do not play the "good ones" or the more competitive or solid ones, but I guess in other playgroups with no problem with those tings early combos can be the most played.
In my meta/pg we normally have a lot of tempo/midrange things abusing sinergies, Atraxa PW, Atraxa counters, Breya full artifacts and control (no combo), Sidisi tokens, Oloro full pillowfort, Markov full vampires/aggro, clerics tribal aggro, mono green animate lands, Marchesa in her both falovours including the stealing dudes one, Alesha, Narset (without extra turns) and a long etcetera.
Most of the decks are midrange/tempo with some doses of control (blue)
My default atack pattern depends on wich deck I am playing
Oloro: I dont attack, I jst sit and see what happends, if some one annoys me I will help someone to kill that player or commit resources to annoy the player back. My goal/strat is to survive to be the last or comboing out.
Markov: I pick one player ang go for it, then a second, then the third, I have lost just 1 game with this strat so far (but to be fair I have play just a few games with edgar)
i think there's a tendency for players to forget that EDH has no 'balance' or 'correct' game style. It's all about the social interactions that the game is trying to support. If players in a group can't agree to what is acceptable/unacceptable, then they're ALL playing the wrong way.
There was a time when i was playing with some folks who had trouble accepting my lands/control deck, and since we couldn't come to an understanding where archetypes like control or tactics like MLD as a wincon are accepted, and i strongly believe that they are ok, i stopped playing with them and played with some other folks. I understand that not everyone has that luxury, and i really feel for those folks who don't have a good game group. But at the end of the day, it's a social format, meaning we have to take these social things seriously and not just the mechanical in-game rules seriously.
This isn't standard or legacy where there's a clear and semi-balanced IN-GAME MECHANICAL aim/goal that defines the format. I don't take out my tier 3 deck to a legacy tournament and then whinge about how i got beaten by a turn 2 ANT combo, because everyone approaches legacy with the game-defined mechanical balance and aim of that format. EDH is a social format, where the social rules dictate the vast majority of the aim and goals, not the mechanical in-game rules.
But yea, one weird thing i've noticed in the OP's description is about players being finalists. in a 4 player pod, the average is that 1 wins, 3 loses. So if anyone's win % is higher than 25%, that's good. I'm not saying that EDH is a balanced game (it's not), but the fact that some players are always a finalist seems a bit off to me.
But yea, one weird thing i've noticed in the OP's description is about players being finalists. in a 4 player pod, the average is that 1 wins, 3 loses. So if anyone's win % is higher than 25%, that's good. I'm not saying that EDH is a balanced game (it's not), but the fact that some players are always a finalist seems a bit off to me.
In a 4 man pod, 1 win, 3 losses, but in my pod, normally the game ends in a 1v1 fight, so I call a finalist to the last one to die
Some players are "pointing each other" that the other one is "playing commander the wrong way" because of their respective playstyles.
These are their oppinions
Player 1: He thinks that in a table of 4, the damage has to be dealt evenly among each player, so there is a balance in the life totals and no one gets deleted early.
He likes playing midrange/tempo decks that normally wins with combat damage, He likes this strategy because is his way to win, when everyone is at lethal range he can "combo out" with a surprise attack and finish the game in 1-2 turns.
He is a god player, normally he has a big impact on the game
Player 2: He likes control decks, he likes politics and always tries to be the last man standing to be able to 1v1 the last player, he does that because he says that for a control deck is easier to win the 1v1 late game against almost any other non control deck, so he tries to survive to be the last.
Unless he has very bad draws he is always a finalist
Player 3: He likes aggro decks, his playstile is picking a victim and go for the thoath, he wins by combat damage only, sometimes he uses politics to get one player ignore him while he atacks one or two. He likes deleting playars one at a time or if his army is huge everyone at a time.
Normally if he dont win he does a pretty good job being a finalist
What do you think? wich one of this ways is "the right way"? is there a right way to play?
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
Actually that is precisely my point of view, MTG is a strategy game, everyone is his own straegyst and the "right way" for me is the way you feel is worth you more fun/wins/etc
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
I never fully understood said discussion but had to sit through hours listening to them.
The #1 deciding factor how i approach a game of EDH is my deck/commander choice:
- Gonti, Lord of Luxury mono-B theft shenanigans into Gray Merchant of Asphodel/Exsanguinate/Torment of Hailfire wins? -> Route 1/Balance approach.
- Talrand, Sky Summoner or Brago, King Eternal denial control? -> Route 2/Last Man Standing against the most favourable matchup.
- Traxos, Scourge of Kroog colorless Voltron or Zada, Hedron Grinder all-in aggro? -> Route 3/Only dead opponents are good opponents.
For sure, player personality decides which deck one builds, but i always find it akward if it dictates too much of how it is build and played.
A close friend of mine becomes a victim of his own stubbornness on a regular. Over the course of a few years he built Skullbriar, the Walking Grave, Najeela, the Blade-Blossom, Uril, the Miststalker and others only to disassemble them shortly after because he didn't like knocking out players early in the game, wanted to get close to lethal commander damage for every single opponent first, wondering why he usually fell short of even killing a single opponent.
As long as you aren't sharking your playgroup there's no shame in being a control/aggro/combo/voltron/vorthos/... player and only building decks of said archetype. But for the love of god, don't judge others by what they built and how they play! It's only a game after all.
Edit: There's a misconception i stumble into regularly when it comes to deck speed and (un)deserved wins:
Aggro and Voltron decks not only want to be fast and sleek, they usually have to be. There's no cheap wins, if your deck folds to board wipes and the likes easily. If they can outpace on par midrange/late game decks, they deserve the W, either because they outmaneuvered you or you lacked appropriate answers.
Non-aggro decks don't win on a free either. If they do, you're not putting enough pressure on them. At the same time they deserve to be punished/preyed upon, if they are as ignorant to not run enough early disruption and/or blockers.
You may be a sunny boy, but it's not the rains fault if you get wet when you didn't bring a jacket, just in case.
At least Player 2 and Player 3 are making no bones about their plans and are being realistic and self contained in what they are trying to achieve.
Pretty much Player 1 has no business trying to tell what the others "should be doing". Because Player 2 is not asking anything of other players, and Player 3 is also not asking for a "philosophical" approach either, he/she actually can use real game actions to determine what is happening.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
Or to simplify that, there is not "right" or "wrong" to have expectations of your own decks, but it's almost always "wrong" to have expectations of your opponents, especially if there was no discussion prior. The problem is it's actually really hard to place expectations on one's own decks without taking into account of the opponents' decks (since the format is just that wide), people like to just blur the line and assume "goldfish" opponents instead and put unrealistic expectations on their own decks as a result of that "imbalance in expectations".
EDH isn't actually about just putting your own strategies/vanity ideas into a deck and ramming it into the meta, it's about observing the meta and fine-tuning the strategies/ideas to fit into the mold. People have the misconception that "the format is so wide, therefore my idea should work at the first try" when reality is pretty much the opposite - the format is so wide few plans actually work the first time round, and once you filter out the fluke-cases, the numbers that can perform consistently without change are even lower.
EDH is partially a social game, but even that social game actually means the rule of "You're supposed to be tuning your deck to improve it so that you motivate your opponent to do the same" and not "social game means my vocal berating of opponents is justified". There are groups that manage to consolidate themselves through nonstop conforming, while others choose to consolidate via "fight for the alpha" by constantly uptuning their decks instead and under the rule I mentioned both are legit methods, whereas in vocal terms, only the former (conforming through cultured discussion) would work (and it's honestly fine). It's only when people "fight for the alpha" via "vocal terms" then you start to deviate from the game altogether. Statistics probably might prove there's a group out there who actually does that and still get along, but I'll be blunt and say that would likely require the group to probably be friends of other avenues as well and distinctly divide their MTG-time separately from their relationships and therefore is a big no-no "strategy" for approaching the game if you're the walk-in-LGS-group player.
I will say, however, as someone who plays a lot of "Combat Deck Wins (sometimes)", player 3 is playing the way they need to in order to have a chance. You don't really have the luxury of bringing everyone's life totals down together. The longer you have multiple people alive, the less likely you are to be able to actually get in to a winning position in the face of removal. Or life gain. Or any of the other dozen ways to shut down aggressive decks in multiplayer.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
The part about appropriate power level for the group is key. The only right way to play EDH is to make sure all players are on the same page as far as power level. Beyond that, any strategy should be viable. If you’re playing with friends and certain players in your group really really hate a certain tactic or combo, it might be worth avoiding that but it’s a personal judgment call.
You should worry about power level and annoyance factor. Like, I'm not going to play full Mycosynth Lattice/Null Rod u mad bro Stax against a more casual table, and while I do play land destruction against such a table, I avoid Frustrationgeddons. (And I privately read "target land" as "target nonbasic land" in such a setting.) Similarly, I know I'm not going be running Mayael the Anima "more calories than the food court" in a competitive setting. But beyond that, it's pretty much "Is this card legal?"
In fact, sometimes I switch up between styles.
On phasing:
If a player is mana screwed, I do not mind ignoring them for a little while. Not only is it good sportsmanship, as opposed to stepping on their throat or kick them when they are down, but it is also bad threat assessment.
On the other hand, I have no problem ganging up on and taking out a threat. They should be prepared for that and otherwise not paint such a target on their back.
==========
I often agree with the control player, where I find it useful to interact with the table and play to survive the long game, stopping combos dead in their tracks, and being the cop at the table while players get knocked out one by one until I can hopefully out advantage my final opponent.
When I am not playing like that, then I am likely the Edgar Markov beaatdown deck or the all-in combo deck.
This. If you're aggro or Voltron, make sure that you build your deck so that you can kill the table. If you build it so that you can quickly take out one guy, but then have trouble finishing, you are indeed "playing wrong". Player 3 as described is playing right, because he's often a "finalist", meaning he isn't just blowing out one guy then being a non factor while another player wins.
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!
If you are not casting Possessed Portal on turn 2, you are doing it wrong.
A Dying Wish
To Rise Again
Chainer, Dementia Master
Muldrotha, the Gravetide
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
It's 99 mountain axelrod gunnarson. It's main win condition is for one player to kill everyone else and then draw themselves to death on accident. It can also win if they use painlands to death on accident, but that's more of an auxiliary wincon.
They said I should at least put some swamps in it, but I'm worried it'll be too OP.
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
I would not play with you. I only play with people are capable of summoninv their general. They never have to. But the ability to do so must be in the deck.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Turn 1 - Swamp, Mana Crypt, Sol Ring, Bob
Turn 2 - Ancient Tomb, Grim Monolith, Possessed Portal
You need to "draw" a lot more cards than a single one during upkeep. Portal triggers each end step so by turn 4 you are down to 3 cards/permanents
I just need the other players to use two spectral searchlights on me at the same time.
The only thing saving you from /r/woosh.
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
But from what I've seen on this forum, there might be metas where swamps (or especially islands) are too OP.
On phasing:
Tamanoa - Welcome to the Jungle
Lists can be found here.
I think it meta dependant, My playgroup does not like infinite combos very much, so while I do play some combos in my control decks, I do not play the "good ones" or the more competitive or solid ones, but I guess in other playgroups with no problem with those tings early combos can be the most played.
In my meta/pg we normally have a lot of tempo/midrange things abusing sinergies, Atraxa PW, Atraxa counters, Breya full artifacts and control (no combo), Sidisi tokens, Oloro full pillowfort, Markov full vampires/aggro, clerics tribal aggro, mono green animate lands, Marchesa in her both falovours including the stealing dudes one, Alesha, Narset (without extra turns) and a long etcetera.
Most of the decks are midrange/tempo with some doses of control (blue)
A few aggro decks normally tribal
A very few control decks
And a variety of weird things sometimes, chaos, Mairsil, the pretender, etc
My default atack pattern depends on wich deck I am playing
Oloro: I dont attack, I jst sit and see what happends, if some one annoys me I will help someone to kill that player or commit resources to annoy the player back. My goal/strat is to survive to be the last or comboing out.
Markov: I pick one player ang go for it, then a second, then the third, I have lost just 1 game with this strat so far (but to be fair I have play just a few games with edgar)
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
There was a time when i was playing with some folks who had trouble accepting my lands/control deck, and since we couldn't come to an understanding where archetypes like control or tactics like MLD as a wincon are accepted, and i strongly believe that they are ok, i stopped playing with them and played with some other folks. I understand that not everyone has that luxury, and i really feel for those folks who don't have a good game group. But at the end of the day, it's a social format, meaning we have to take these social things seriously and not just the mechanical in-game rules seriously.
This isn't standard or legacy where there's a clear and semi-balanced IN-GAME MECHANICAL aim/goal that defines the format. I don't take out my tier 3 deck to a legacy tournament and then whinge about how i got beaten by a turn 2 ANT combo, because everyone approaches legacy with the game-defined mechanical balance and aim of that format. EDH is a social format, where the social rules dictate the vast majority of the aim and goals, not the mechanical in-game rules.
But yea, one weird thing i've noticed in the OP's description is about players being finalists. in a 4 player pod, the average is that 1 wins, 3 loses. So if anyone's win % is higher than 25%, that's good. I'm not saying that EDH is a balanced game (it's not), but the fact that some players are always a finalist seems a bit off to me.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
In a 4 man pod, 1 win, 3 losses, but in my pod, normally the game ends in a 1v1 fight, so I call a finalist to the last one to die
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here