Did not care for the tone of the article in general. Felt a little cork sniffy if that makes sense.
It does concern me a little bit the way it comes across. Assumes a little much about the journeys playgroups go through I think.
My old playgroup had a lot of discussions about how Ramp becomes the default winner if no resource denial is allowed for example, and we went through many iterations over the years of what was acceptable.
The biggest thing that concerns me is that the RC group's tastes in general seem to explain why they took so long to ban stuff like Leovold and Prophet of Kruphix (and Paradox engine which kinda sits in the same space as Prophet for me). Like they've got some real blinders on (with respect to the type of things even "optimized" but not competitive ramp/combo decks can pull off).
Did not care for the tone of the article in general. Felt a little cork sniffy if that makes sense.
It does concern me a little bit the way it comes across. Assumes a little much about the journeys playgroups go through I think.
My old playgroup had a lot of discussions about how Ramp becomes the default winner if no resource denial is allowed for example, and we went through many iterations over the years of what was acceptable.
The biggest thing that concerns me is that the RC group's tastes in general seem to explain why they took so long to ban stuff like Leovold and Prophet of Kruphix (and Paradox engine which kinda sits in the same space as Prophet for me). Like they've got some real blinders on.
Generally I can agree with most of this - the article did come off a little pretentious, whether intentional or not. That being said I recognise that as a single person I would struggle to come up with a reasonable banlist myself, and I'd be lying if I didn't admit to being rude to people over the table before - I think it's happened once or twice where undisclosed MLD has come out, or someone comboed out when we stipulated prior to starting that wasn't wanted. Generally I think this format is designed so that you can make it the game you want to play, though. The only hard and fast rules are the actual game mechanics. Everything else is up for discussion, so long as that discussion is amenable.
EDIT - fwiw, I run Paradox Engine in Dralnu, and it's disgusting. I'll play it until it hits the ban list, but I recognise how gross it can be. It doesn't go infinite, but it damn well seems that way.
I have issues with the argument you, and others, have made here. It's based on the idea that the strategies are allowed within the rules and that the game is inherently competitive. Both of these arguments are not relevant as the issue is a social one. To the greater community the game is not inherently competitive. No one, whether it be Wizards, the Rules committee, or the average players, would call EDH "competitive." You may view it that way, and you have every right to do so, but the greater community does not.
com·pe·ti·tion
noun
1) the activity or condition of competing.
2) an event or contest in which people compete.
Magic, as designed, is a competitive game. EDH, as designed, is a social game. Those two aspects conflict but are not mutually exclusive. I can't put it any simpler.
Same goes for the "stax" is part of the game argument, it is known to be looked upon by the majority with distaste. Evidence for this can be seen in modern card design, relative popularity on EDHRec of MLD and Stax pieces, and anecdotal evidence from the community at-large. Once again, you may hold this belief that Stax is reasonable and should be fine, and you have every right to believe that. However, you are at odds with the majority of players with-in the community in that respect.
Personally, I dislike playing against stax because it hoses my primary deck pretty hard and due to stax being a rarity around my parts I'm not equipped to deal with it.
I don't play stax, though I guess some people would argue that mono-black control is just as bad. Where do people draw the line between control strategies and stax strategies?
The argument here is a social one. Is it socially acceptable to ambush people with strategies that are known to be widely disliked? That seems to be antagonistic to sociable practices of the greater EDH community, and that's literally the definition of "anti-social." In my view, people who want to play these less popular strategies owe a simple warning to the people they intend to play with. Not providing any warning, given how common knowledge the distaste for the strategies is, seems to just be disrespectful of those at the table.
That is just my opinion. Be social, friendly, and courteous to others. The game is more fun when everyone is on the same page.
I don't disagree and haven't argued otherwise. Why did you quote me, again?
If you don't like their recommended banlist, don't use it, or make your own.
This is completely impossible to do for a player without a set playgroup, though. It's the ideal solution, of course, but for pick up games at the local shop it just ain't happening. It's my opinion that the banlist should be used to police those games so that there is no need for communicating that you might be playing an anti-social deck. The situations that many people complain about, like the guy who Armageddons then scoops, the stax guy, the t3 combo guy, are all symptoms of a permissive banlist. If those strategies are the exception rather than the rule, then banning the cards that enable those strategies so that individual playgroups can green light them is a more effective course of action than passive-aggressively judging the player and discouraging those strategies via social pressure.
Pick up games need to be more regulated than private games because the expectations are more open-ended in pick up games. If you have a set group that meets every week, then great, make your own banlist. But for a significant percentage of the EDH playing population that's not an option and creating an environment in which those players have a more homogeneous experience from shop to shop is more important than some cold, dead philosophy.
This is completely impossible to do for a player without a set playgroup, though. It's the ideal solution, of course, but for pick up games at the local shop it just ain't happening. It's my opinion that the banlist should be used to police those games so that there is no need for communicating that you might be playing an anti-social deck. The situations that many people complain about, like the guy who Armageddons then scoops, the stax guy, the t3 combo guy, are all symptoms of a permissive banlist. If those strategies are the exception rather than the rule, then banning the cards that enable those strategies so that individual playgroups can green light them is a more effective course of action than passive-aggressively judging the player and discouraging those strategies via social pressure.
Pick up games need to be more regulated than private games because the expectations are more open-ended in pick up games. If you have a set group that meets every week, then great, make your own banlist. But for a significant percentage of the EDH playing population that's not an option and creating an environment in which those players have a more homogeneous experience from shop to shop is more important than some cold, dead philosophy.
Believe me, I'm in a similar boat. I visit my LGS once a month at present, and I won't get a game in every time. Most of my gaming at the moment is online, and it's an entirely different beast. Rife with trolls who will ignore the sort of game you want, won't communicate, or just straight up leave the game at the drop of a hat. It's a truly frustrating experience. And if anything it's taught me that communicating precisely what you want prior to the games weeds out most of the jerks. And believe me, there's no way I'd ever condone passive-agressive judgement of a player after the fact, or based on the type of deck they want to play - everyone loses their temper once in a while but that doesn't make it ok.
I still think for a pick up game, saying 'hey, was thinking about playing my derevi stax, are you guys down with that?' goes a lot further than 'cast Winter Orb, cast Derevi, tap down your land - oh didn't I mention this was stax?' {I should also clarify, I despair of people who cast Armageddon because they have nothing else to do - it's just nonsensical and frustrating). Knowing what you're getting into goes a long way to making the experience better. I won't say no outright to a competitive combo build or a stax build - you never know, I might manage it - but I definitely won't unless I know what to expect prior, and I'll be a lot happier about it.
1. The first thing a lot of us do, before breaking out our decks, is to ask about what power level people are playing. If it is agreed to be a low power game, it is probably a good idea to not break out the stax deck. However, the higher the power level goes, the more reasonable it is to break out the stax deck. On that note, players, as soon as it is feasible to do so, should have decks of differing power levels. Most players keep a tuned deck (usually competitive) to break out as needed and 1-2 75% decks and then decks of lesser power levels for more fun/casual playgroups. It isn't fun to be at a table with one deck that is significantly more powerful that the rest and it feels terrible to be the very underpowered deck as well. This would solve some of his issues, as opposed to shame players who like higher power level games.
2. There needs to be the difference between stax decks and stax cards. The former is more reserved for decks that use stax cards as the main theme of the deck with the plan of grinding and locking opponents out, while stax cards are cards, that while may be found in stax and resource taxing/denial strategies, are not used to promote that sort of deck. I used to play the former style of deck, but now play stax cards to either complement my strategy or to cover up my deck's weaknesses. In my The Scarab God deck, I run Overburden and Noetic Scales to weaken aggro decks and Sunder and Land Equilibrium to keep ramp heavy decks under control. Likewise, running a Hall of Gemstone in a mono green deck lets you play the game without fear of most counterspells or instant speed interaction (there are a few that can be cast for free or via artifact mana), while not hindering you at all.
3. Stax pieces are proactive, virtual card advantage, which is a way of being able to pay a one time cost for a recurring benefit and not have to leave up resources to deal with the problem later, especially if you are not running blue, so the deck would have negligible interaction on the stack. There was an a SCG article about this involving Blood Moon a few months back. Weakening cards that would hose your deck allows you to play your game as well. For example, having a Gaddock Teeg in play, although a resource denial card, greatly reduces the chances of a wrath effect, protecting your board. In a 4 player game, your opponents start out by drawing 3 cards to your 1, so if you can weaken more than 3 cards with a card you played, then you are generating card advantage, which is one of the major resources in MTG.
4. Sheldon specifically brought up Winter Orb. This is a card, while not for a very casual meta, is sometimes needed to help deal with green ramp shenanigans. Resolving an orb after an opponent casts Boundless Realms can be the difference between managing to cobble together a response before the inevitable combo/Genesis Wave and losing. It is also fun to catch a pact player tapped out with one, which causes them to lose the game. Im not advocating of running it in every deck, but ultimately, there needs to be a fair way of interacting with land ramp short of Armageddon other than Natural Balance (in green and really only run in decks that want to sacrifice lands) and Keldon Firebombers. If a player ramps with artifact mana, no one has an issue when they are all blown up, and the same with mana dorks being wrathed.
5. While EDH may have started out as "Battlecruiser" magic, it has since evolved into a variety of strategies. In Starcraft, while a Terran player can race to build Battlecruisers, they can also turtle up with missile turrets and bunkers (pillow fort), marine/firebat rush (weenie aggro), vulture/wraith harassment (resource denial), siege tanks/goliaths (midrange), among others. One of the reasons I play the format is due to the sheer diversity of tactics that can be used when you play and have played and played against almost all of them.
6. Personalities and play styles are not the same thing. People are not better or worse because they like certain strategies, but people like playing the play styles that come naturally to them. Just because someone likes playing stax/control cards, does not mean they are a sociopath/liked burning ants under a magnifying glass as a kid. For me, it takes more thought and mental gymnastics to pilot and play against decks like that, not to mention the politicking that usually occurs, since multiple people are being harmed by the same effect and who should expend their resources to deal with the threat. I have built some battlecruiser style decks, and learned that they are not my playstyle, not because I "hate fun", but because I find being able to control and interact with the board, proactively and reactively to be a lot more fun for me, as it turns the game into a puzzle.
7. As far as full board wipes go, they are typically 5+ mana and require some set up and usually running up to 7-8 mana. For that mana investment, you expect to win the game should the card resolve as planned. If casing the Obliterate in this situation means that you won the game, is it really different that casting Insurrection with lethal on board, or Tooth and Nailing into a game winning combo? At that point, the game should end, and a new one should be started, assuming the wipe was played correctly. The issue for these wipes is when players do not know how to use them or use them for "spite plays", which does create less than pleasant game states for no real reason.
And just letting Battlecruiser and combo decks just do whatever they want is a "good time"?
What a lovely straw-man. No one is saying answers should not be played, or are frowned upon even. Allowing people to play, while not doing "whatever they want" is exactly the types of games I like. Answering threats and getting around other people's answers is all fine. Having to grind out minuscule advantage under the thumb of Smokestack and Winter Orb really isnt my cup of tea. I have no issue with people playing like that in a like-minded group, lots of people can find it interesting and fun, but its not the sort of thing that should be out in 'the wild' IMO.
What nature is that? Why should it be that way? Aren't you attempting to force your viewpoint on others with such an attitude?
No its playing what most people generally want to do. Groups can of course do their own thing, but you just packing this sort of thing into an LGS is specifically anti-social.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
You can't say you shouldn't do a thing based on a majority you cannot confirm exists.
What I have been trying to do is look at Magic the game and not anecdotal evidence based on the twmperature of only people who choose to post about this online.
I think that some stax and mod hate us related to combo hate, some people just hate wins that come out of nowhere, and effective stax plays like a combo in that it quickly creates a winning gamestate for the stax player with a limited window for other players to stop them, it's just that once the winning gamestate is achieved it takes longer to actually officially win. Same with using MLD to lock in a board that will result in your victory if it doesn't change.
Stax and MLD draw additional hate because they can also be played ineffectively and verge into chaos territory. Someone who builds a stax deck that is effective at the stax part but not effective at actually turning that into a winning gamestate (not being able to close out the game or not being able to take advantage of the situation they create) ends up not playing a deck that leverages resource denial into victory, but a deck that merely denies resources and ****s up the game. The result is that, like a chaos deck, achieving their goal doesn't make them likely to win, but instead makes the game a drag where nobody is able to do what their deck is supposed to do and even the eventual winner doesn't have fun.
The issue is that it's tough to build stax for less competitive play without risking that trap. A stax deck that can consistently lock the board and consistently leverage that for a win will generally be too competitive for casual tables, and the hate it will receive will be driven by people who feel blindsided by a deck that's just a higher power level than what they are playing. They'd feel as salty getting ambushed by Prossh or blood pod. Meanwhile, a stax deck that isn't competitive but tends to lock the game down and then muddle along without winning is just an unfun grind. I have a friend that built a stax deck around the legendary spirit that has the winter orb ability. He never won a game with it. Whenever he played it, it just made the games a grind that nobody enjoyed, and he took it apart because of this. I also play online and run into well built stax from time to time, and if I'm running a good deck i have much more fun against those than I ever did against his, even though they are more likely to win.
I also run more casual staxy decks that don't get hated, because the key is building them where you worry less about the stax and more about creating a winning gamestate. This let's them be a bit less powerful, and I don't lock down the board without being able to win. Instead, I'm more likely to be able to take advantage of a lock without the lock manifesting. One is tribal vampires and the other is Mogis group slug. in both, the stax exists to slow down my opponents while I kill them, rather than to lock them down so I can kill them.
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!
No its playing what most people generally want to do. Groups can of course do their own thing, but you just packing this sort of thing into an LGS is specifically anti-social.
You don't think applying social pressure to cause people to not play certain decks is anti-social? It's a two-way street, and the tyranny of the majority can be just as oppressive as a stax deck. Your opinions and feelings are not more important than someone else's just because they happen to be popular.
I also run more casual staxy decks that don't get hated, because the key is building them where you worry less about the stax and more about creating a winning gamestate. This let's them be a bit less powerful, and I don't lock down the board without being able to win. Instead, I'm more likely to be able to take advantage of a lock without the lock manifesting. One is tribal vampires and the other is Mogis group slug. in both, the stax exists to slow down my opponents while I kill them, rather than to lock them down so I can kill them.
I pretty much agree with your entire post, but I quoted this excerpt because it is exactly what my primary deck does. It's not about locking opponents out of the game, it's about slowing the game down so that I can win because of my deck's superior inevitability. I play stax-y cards like Oppression, Tainted Aether, and Torpor Orb, but rather than lock someone out of the game they simply make it harder for them to advance their strategy. Okay, I run Infernal Darkness as well, and it's caused a few greedy non-black ramp decks to scoop, but maybe they shouldn't expect to resolve Boundless Realms unhindered. I treat Darkness as a pseudo-Time Walk that lasts for 3-4 turns, not a lock piece. Does this make my deck a stax deck?
After reading the article, really I'm just curious who his target audience is at this point.
Someone that is fairly dedicated to the format with some history/experiance can easily see how disconnected he is. People like us, posting in a forum here, won't take the article very seriously.
What worries me are those players that are newer to the game or format and don't know any better. They may read that article as gospel, and when they see someone playing edh in any way Sheldon doesn't agree with, how are they going to react?
This is the same reason I can't tolerate a few edh related podcasts. I used to follow a massive # of channels and people but recently I've been just questioning who everyones' target audience is.
There really is a bunch of bad I formation out there, and people not giving enough of an emphasis that edh is, for the most part, friends and play-group specific.
[quote from="MRHblue »" url="/forums/the-game/commander-edh/803496-what-scg-con-taught-sheldon-about-commander-and?comment=84"]No its playing what most people generally want to do. Groups can of course do their own thing, but you just packing this sort of thing into an LGS is specifically anti-social.
You don't think applying social pressure to cause people to not play certain decks is anti-social? It's a two-way street, and the tyranny of the majority can be just as oppressive as a stax deck. Your opinions and feelings are not more important than someone else's just because they happen to be popular.
You are very, very, very wrong here in your interpretation. Maybe it’s that you aren’t understanding the overarching point, but you’ve been at this for a bit, so you’re either oblivious to it, or are just ignoring it.
Nobody is here saying Stax isn’t welcomed in the EDH community. That’s not the point of this thread, nor was it the point of the article.
So, to clarify your stance, you find it perfectly acceptable to sit down at an unknown table and bust out a grief-y deck? No warning? No conversation prior? That is your go-to?
That would put you so far out of touch with reality, that it is a bit scary to be honest. So, the guys invite you over for back-yard football, you going to tackle the dude right off the bat? Or hit the only ball over the fence? That’s just against social norms, be it in MTG or real life. It also just furthers the premise that people who participate in hobbies such as this, D&D or whatever else are socially awkward, because they have no idea how to approach that type of setting.
...EDH is, for the most part, friends and play-group specific.
I’d give you +1 but I don’t 100% agree with anything else in your post, except this. This is the most important point of EDH. It’s really no different that anything else in life. With a group of familiar faces, anything goes because expectations are well known throughout said group. When in the wild, though, one should mind their P’s and Q’s until you are familiar with your surroundings.
I usually greet my friends with a fist bump, and maybe a “what’s up d***head”. Should I think that is acceptable in all settings? Hell No..
I would like Sheldon to comment on the feedback we have given his article. His logic was insulting.
People can play stax and land destruction - it is part of the game, and different people like different cards - and you can't make people feel ashamed to play the cards they like because you don't find it sociable.
You can't get into random games at an SCG Con and expect everyone's idea of social Magic to conform to your own. I have lost a considerable amount of respect for Sheldon and I think he needs to rethink what it means to be inclusive and casual. Shaming people for playing things like combo or stax is deplorable.
No its playing what most people generally want to do. Groups can of course do their own thing, but you just packing this sort of thing into an LGS is specifically anti-social.
You don't think applying social pressure to cause people to not play certain decks is anti-social? It's a two-way street, and the tyranny of the majority can be just as oppressive as a stax deck. Your opinions and feelings are not more important than someone else's just because they happen to be popular.
I also run more casual staxy decks that don't get hated, because the key is building them where you worry less about the stax and more about creating a winning gamestate. This let's them be a bit less powerful, and I don't lock down the board without being able to win. Instead, I'm more likely to be able to take advantage of a lock without the lock manifesting. One is tribal vampires and the other is Mogis group slug. in both, the stax exists to slow down my opponents while I kill them, rather than to lock them down so I can kill them.
I pretty much agree with your entire post, but I quoted this excerpt because it is exactly what my primary deck does. It's not about locking opponents out of the game, it's about slowing the game down so that I can win because of my deck's superior inevitability. I play stax-y cards like Oppression, Tainted Aether, and Torpor Orb, but rather than lock someone out of the game they simply make it harder for them to advance their strategy. Okay, I run Infernal Darkness as well, and it's caused a few greedy non-black ramp decks to scoop, but maybe they shouldn't expect to resolve Boundless Realms unhindered. I treat Darkness as a pseudo-Time Walk that lasts for 3-4 turns, not a lock piece. Does this make my deck a stax deck?
EDIT: I'm at 400 posts.
Yes, by a broader definition. I think for certain archetypes, like stax, group hug, and chaos, many people tend to have excessively narrow definitions for them that view anything that isn't all in on the strategy as not of the archtype (I actually think this contributes a bit to the hate of those archetypes as people only associate them with their most extreme versions). A stax deck can be all in on the strategy, or it can be a deck that uses the strategy in a supportive role. The latter is easier to build casually in a way that simply doesn't piss as many people off. Group hug can be all in, or it can be a deck that seeks to win by better leveraging all the resources it hands out. People who hate group hug tend to be much more accepting of hug decks that have a plan for victory and choose hug cards based on how they can break the symmetry and benefit. Chaos decks can be all in on the "lol look how wacky this is" shaking up the game, or they can use chaos effects to shake up the game when it's opportune to them as well as others that they can break the symmetry of, while supporting a strategy like aggro or combo that let's them win.
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!
So, to clarify your stance, you find it perfectly acceptable to sit down at an unknown table and bust out a grief-y deck? No warning? No conversation prior? That is your go-to?
I'm interested in how you think the text supports this conclusion, considering I've been advocating for common grief cards and strategies to be banned so that such communications don't have to happen.
I'm interested in how you think the text supports this conclusion, considering I've been advocating for common grief cards and strategies to be banned so that such communications don't have to happen.
The reason they have never banned said cards is the scope of cards that would have to be banned to support that as well as all of the considerations of cards that flirt with that concept. They primarily rely on groups to self regulate what is and isn't ok which is part of why when someone new comes in or you all fly somewhere to play commander it can really get kind of fumbled up and this can get so ugly.
I still stand by that communication is your friend. Talk to people before making assumptions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
I still stand by that communication is your friend. Talk to people before making assumptions.
I don't want to have a conversation about what is or isn't acceptable in a given group of veritable strangers. I want to play Magic. I want a banlist that promotes balanced play so that gaps in power level aren't as large so that enjoyment is more homogeneous. The EDH banlist is currently at 38 cards; Vintage has 46 restricted cards. I'm not saying that we should ban all powerful cards because they're part of the charm of EDH and Eternal formats in general but there are certain cards that are format warping. I think fast mana, cheap combo enablers, efficient lock pieces, and disproportionately powerful card draw do more harm to the format than good. The question, then, is where do you draw the line? If, say, Sol Ring is too good, what about Mana Vault? Grim Monolith? Worn Powerstone? I'm not denying that it's a difficult discussion with lots of complex, controversial decisions, but I think it will ultimately make the format healthier in the long run. Competitive EDH players will adapt to a new meta and still enjoy the game. Casual EDH players will have to worry less about being pubstomped by some jerk and enjoy the game. Of course, none of this will happen anytime soon, and I don't think that banning 30+ cards in one fell swoop is a good idea, but a slow, winding down of power in the format would solve a lot of issues, I think.
I mean....it's a really, really slippery slope. If you ban letters A-C, you're opening a case for banning D-Z. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want an endless list. Besides, I have no essential problem with people playing the strongest cards ever printed, that's part of why this format exists. Using them responsibly, well that's on the individual - a card is only as broken as the deck builder allows it to be, and I think a lot of people excuse themselves and blame the cards they use, when it's 100% clear that the intention was to break the card in question.
Ultimately, my thoughts are that it's not worth going down that route. It's an incredibly murky route to navigate, and it won't ever be without controversy, complaints and criticism. Besides which, it's an arbitrary line in the sand - what works for the RC doesn't need to be gospel, and they've always said this; doing a turnabout would be a drastic change of position. I honestly think the best way to move forward with navigating satisfactory gaming is to communicate your wishes prior to starting the game, during the game, and following up afterwards. It's already necessary in order to make it clear what you're trying to achieve anyway - any stack discussions, rulings queries or decisions need to be made verbally, so why do we not start with this and save everyone a ton of grief? I get that people are shy or introverted, not every group is welcoming, and people online can be absolute douches, but communication is not something we should be looking to divert a course around, it's something we should be improving on.
After reading the article, really I'm just curious who his target audience is at this point.
Someone that is fairly dedicated to the format with some history/experiance can easily see how disconnected he is. People like us, posting in a forum here, won't take the article very seriously.
What worries me are those players that are newer to the game or format and don't know any better. They may read that article as gospel, and when they see someone playing edh in any way Sheldon doesn't agree with, how are they going to react?
This is the same reason I can't tolerate a few edh related podcasts. I used to follow a massive # of channels and people but recently I've been just questioning who everyones' target audience is.
There really is a bunch of bad I formation out there, and people not giving enough of an emphasis that edh is, for the most part, friends and play-group specific.
I suspect that some random person reading an article that doesn't have anything to do with deck tech and was mostly just a rehash of some games will be the same person reading a forum and has some vested interest in the format, and not a new player looking to learn how to play EDH.
I would like Sheldon to comment on the feedback we have given his article. His logic was insulting.
People can play stax and land destruction - it is part of the game, and different people like different cards - and you can't make people feel ashamed to play the cards they like because you don't find it sociable.
You can't get into random games at an SCG Con and expect everyone's idea of social Magic to conform to your own. I have lost a considerable amount of respect for Sheldon and I think he needs to rethink what it means to be inclusive and casual. Shaming people for playing things like combo or stax is deplorable.
Well if you're going to open with calling his logic insulting and going on to explain how you lost respect for him and tell him he is approaching the format wrong, I doubt you're going to give him much reason to want to participate in this thread. He doesn't owe you anything, and frankly a number of people have been insulting towards him.
Agreed. Sheldon isn’t perfect, and maybe at times shows he may not be capable of being the face of a format, but I think too many people are blowing this wayyyy out of proportion. I still remember “and we don’t care” comment from a few years back. This had a more tounge in cheek vibe to me.
Half a week ago, I decided to play Commander at a different store from my normal one. Before selecting a deck, I asked what type of power level they were running and got the response "Casual, but pretty good." So I pulled out my Animar deck - it's nearly all creatures (only about 6 noncreatures, and I have not included Primal Surge, Vorinclex, etc.). It plays like a battlecruiser with ramp, which in my normal playgroup is a fair but challenging deck. Turn 2, I drop a tapped land and pass. Another guy plays Collective Voyage and everyone pays into it so we each get six basics. turn 3, I drop a land, bringing me up to nine mana; I cast Animar, Forgotten Ancient, and a morph. The turn comes all the way around to me, and amazingly, no one has touched a piece of my board, but they have put seven or eight counters on the Ancient, so of course I move them to Animar. I drop Beast Whisperer and Soul of the Harvest and a couple other creatures, and they all start complaining "Hey, we said casual; this is just turn four." I had to point out that it was his group hug spell that ramped me and my deck would have taken twice as long to get there without it. They kept complaining, not even attempting to remove any of my stuff for a while. One person finally tried to wrath, but I countered it with a morph. They kept complaining, so I held back, not dropping Purphoros or a couple Eldrazi in hand. One guy started tapping me down turn after turn by recurring a Cryptic Command, and then someone succeeded with a board wipe, so I flipped up a Brine Elemental to prevent a third Cryptic Command. I opted for Plan B and dropped Purphoros and then proceeded to win. They still complained about it being casual, so game two I dumbed it down with a budget deck. Game three I dumbed it down even further with a suicide deck. Long story short, I won every game but didn't have much fun, and I probably won't play Commander there again.
The moral of the story is that it takes a lot more than a quick question like "Are you the type of guy we want to play with?" or even "What power level are your decks?" to know if you're a good fit in a group. Given that the whole point of playing is to have fun, isn't it worth the time to have that conversation? A three minute conversation can make the next three hours significantly more enjoyable for all involved.
I would like Sheldon to comment on the feedback we have given his article. His logic was insulting.
People can play stax and land destruction - it is part of the game, and different people like different cards - and you can't make people feel ashamed to play the cards they like because you don't find it sociable.
You can't get into random games at an SCG Con and expect everyone's idea of social Magic to conform to your own. I have lost a considerable amount of respect for Sheldon and I think he needs to rethink what it means to be inclusive and casual. Shaming people for playing things like combo or stax is deplorable.
Well if you're going to open with calling his logic insulting and going on to explain how you lost respect for him and tell him he is approaching the format wrong, I doubt you're going to give him much reason to want to participate in this thread. He doesn't owe you anything, and frankly a number of people have been insulting towards him.
I didn't think my post would be offensive to him. I really cannot grok his notion that a good person would not play combo and land destruction. I understand that the article itself addressed this prejudice and he is working through it... but I also find he just abandoned the most important part of the article without a conclusion. Am I wrong to say that his logic was insulting to me? The first deck I built 8 years ago was a Karador deck playing Kami of False Hope and Fleshbag Marauder. My first EDH game I had Acidic Slime getting flickered by Conjurer's Closet. I don't think that I was being unfun. It was a casual deck where the most expensive card was Karador.
As far as losing respect... I mean, that's why I want him to expand on this article. Is he saying that people should respect people who want to play Stax? Is he saying that people should not play stax because most people would not call it fun. I do not understand his message in the end, beyond "people who play degenerate decks are people too", which is by no means a revelation to any person who has ever played in a LGS.
I have always liked Sheldon, but it seems like his expectations of what kinds of decks commander players use do not leave room for people who like a different experience. Commander isn't about 4 people slugging at each other with Ruhan of the Fomori any more than it is about 4 people playing crazy interactions to win the game. I accept that not every playgroup will be happy to see me cast Jokulhaups or recur Fulminator Mage 8 times, but the focus should be on identifying the kind of play the group wants, not shaming people for playing Apocalypse after suspending a few cards.
I have 17 decks. Some are Tier 1/2. Most are 75% decks. Some are 50% decks. I am ready to sit with any playgroup, because I am social and enjoy any type of commander game.
I also know that I do not want to play too many games with my friends who play cEDH, because I find it exhausting.
I have never sat down with someone I didn't know and not asked them the power level of their deck. I try to be inclusive. I don't want to run people over and sour their taste for commander. I also don't want to play my Arjun, the Shifting Flame deck where no card is worth more than 2$ against someone running a tuned tier 1 deck. I recognize that people like playing Magic differently and I try to adapt.
It just boggles my mind that Sheldon had this attitude going into SCG con, and I am waiting for him to tell us how he feels about it now.
I read it and my only hope is that Costas is the Kostas I know, who is a fantastic gentleman with some killer EDH decks, because that would be super amazing.
Overall I think all the issues are solved by just asking about deck power level and going from there. My only comp decks are Duel Commander decks, but I do have one friend that plays cEDH so I'll be building something to play with him.
It sounds like a lot of the issues in the games mentioned are solved with more spot removal and disruption, though.
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.
My takeaway is: Good that Sheldon is starting to wake-up and realize that the game has progressed since its infancy and isn't the same as what it started as. That he and the rest of the RCs should consider fully updating their view of the format so they can be better at tending to it.
My takeaway is: Good that Sheldon is starting to wake-up and realize that the game has progressed since its infancy and isn't the same as what it started as. That he and the rest of the RCs should consider fully updating their view of the format so they can be better at tending to it.
Because they've done such a bad job tending it that it's gone from some dudes in a single playgroup to the most popular (and successful) casual format? People tend to gloss over the amount of time and effort it took to get the format where it is today and would rather armchair coach with half-baked ideas.
People are been really negative towards the comitee. Just because Sheldon has a diferent point of view in some decks, and yet those decks are still around unbanned. I can see where hes coming from, the format is supsoe to be a social game and be fun everyone and suddenlly with no warning somene comes with a more spikey type of deck. i understand that some grfoup likes Stax and other type of decks but i think if you are going to a ne group would ahve been better to start with a 75% type of deck just to get the vibe what to expect in this new group so you can tune your deck acordinglly. Stax and hyper combo decks aren't exactly a casual's favourite and they are the majority so expect some backlash towards your prefered type of deck. But if you group is fine with it, cool and there won't be no problem. Theres so many diferent type of people that would be incredibly dificult to create a perfect ban list that would make everyone happy, and tbh, they did a solid job with it, atleast within my group.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It does concern me a little bit the way it comes across. Assumes a little much about the journeys playgroups go through I think.
My old playgroup had a lot of discussions about how Ramp becomes the default winner if no resource denial is allowed for example, and we went through many iterations over the years of what was acceptable.
The biggest thing that concerns me is that the RC group's tastes in general seem to explain why they took so long to ban stuff like Leovold and Prophet of Kruphix (and Paradox engine which kinda sits in the same space as Prophet for me). Like they've got some real blinders on (with respect to the type of things even "optimized" but not competitive ramp/combo decks can pull off).
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
Generally I can agree with most of this - the article did come off a little pretentious, whether intentional or not. That being said I recognise that as a single person I would struggle to come up with a reasonable banlist myself, and I'd be lying if I didn't admit to being rude to people over the table before - I think it's happened once or twice where undisclosed MLD has come out, or someone comboed out when we stipulated prior to starting that wasn't wanted. Generally I think this format is designed so that you can make it the game you want to play, though. The only hard and fast rules are the actual game mechanics. Everything else is up for discussion, so long as that discussion is amenable.
EDIT - fwiw, I run Paradox Engine in Dralnu, and it's disgusting. I'll play it until it hits the ban list, but I recognise how gross it can be. It doesn't go infinite, but it damn well seems that way.
noun
1) the activity or condition of competing.
2) an event or contest in which people compete.
Magic, as designed, is a competitive game. EDH, as designed, is a social game. Those two aspects conflict but are not mutually exclusive. I can't put it any simpler.
I don't play stax, though I guess some people would argue that mono-black control is just as bad. Where do people draw the line between control strategies and stax strategies?
I don't disagree and haven't argued otherwise. Why did you quote me, again?
This is completely impossible to do for a player without a set playgroup, though. It's the ideal solution, of course, but for pick up games at the local shop it just ain't happening. It's my opinion that the banlist should be used to police those games so that there is no need for communicating that you might be playing an anti-social deck. The situations that many people complain about, like the guy who Armageddons then scoops, the stax guy, the t3 combo guy, are all symptoms of a permissive banlist. If those strategies are the exception rather than the rule, then banning the cards that enable those strategies so that individual playgroups can green light them is a more effective course of action than passive-aggressively judging the player and discouraging those strategies via social pressure.
Pick up games need to be more regulated than private games because the expectations are more open-ended in pick up games. If you have a set group that meets every week, then great, make your own banlist. But for a significant percentage of the EDH playing population that's not an option and creating an environment in which those players have a more homogeneous experience from shop to shop is more important than some cold, dead philosophy.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
Believe me, I'm in a similar boat. I visit my LGS once a month at present, and I won't get a game in every time. Most of my gaming at the moment is online, and it's an entirely different beast. Rife with trolls who will ignore the sort of game you want, won't communicate, or just straight up leave the game at the drop of a hat. It's a truly frustrating experience. And if anything it's taught me that communicating precisely what you want prior to the games weeds out most of the jerks. And believe me, there's no way I'd ever condone passive-agressive judgement of a player after the fact, or based on the type of deck they want to play - everyone loses their temper once in a while but that doesn't make it ok.
I still think for a pick up game, saying 'hey, was thinking about playing my derevi stax, are you guys down with that?' goes a lot further than 'cast Winter Orb, cast Derevi, tap down your land - oh didn't I mention this was stax?' {I should also clarify, I despair of people who cast Armageddon because they have nothing else to do - it's just nonsensical and frustrating). Knowing what you're getting into goes a long way to making the experience better. I won't say no outright to a competitive combo build or a stax build - you never know, I might manage it - but I definitely won't unless I know what to expect prior, and I'll be a lot happier about it.
1. The first thing a lot of us do, before breaking out our decks, is to ask about what power level people are playing. If it is agreed to be a low power game, it is probably a good idea to not break out the stax deck. However, the higher the power level goes, the more reasonable it is to break out the stax deck. On that note, players, as soon as it is feasible to do so, should have decks of differing power levels. Most players keep a tuned deck (usually competitive) to break out as needed and 1-2 75% decks and then decks of lesser power levels for more fun/casual playgroups. It isn't fun to be at a table with one deck that is significantly more powerful that the rest and it feels terrible to be the very underpowered deck as well. This would solve some of his issues, as opposed to shame players who like higher power level games.
2. There needs to be the difference between stax decks and stax cards. The former is more reserved for decks that use stax cards as the main theme of the deck with the plan of grinding and locking opponents out, while stax cards are cards, that while may be found in stax and resource taxing/denial strategies, are not used to promote that sort of deck. I used to play the former style of deck, but now play stax cards to either complement my strategy or to cover up my deck's weaknesses. In my The Scarab God deck, I run Overburden and Noetic Scales to weaken aggro decks and Sunder and Land Equilibrium to keep ramp heavy decks under control. Likewise, running a Hall of Gemstone in a mono green deck lets you play the game without fear of most counterspells or instant speed interaction (there are a few that can be cast for free or via artifact mana), while not hindering you at all.
3. Stax pieces are proactive, virtual card advantage, which is a way of being able to pay a one time cost for a recurring benefit and not have to leave up resources to deal with the problem later, especially if you are not running blue, so the deck would have negligible interaction on the stack. There was an a SCG article about this involving Blood Moon a few months back. Weakening cards that would hose your deck allows you to play your game as well. For example, having a Gaddock Teeg in play, although a resource denial card, greatly reduces the chances of a wrath effect, protecting your board. In a 4 player game, your opponents start out by drawing 3 cards to your 1, so if you can weaken more than 3 cards with a card you played, then you are generating card advantage, which is one of the major resources in MTG.
4. Sheldon specifically brought up Winter Orb. This is a card, while not for a very casual meta, is sometimes needed to help deal with green ramp shenanigans. Resolving an orb after an opponent casts Boundless Realms can be the difference between managing to cobble together a response before the inevitable combo/Genesis Wave and losing. It is also fun to catch a pact player tapped out with one, which causes them to lose the game. Im not advocating of running it in every deck, but ultimately, there needs to be a fair way of interacting with land ramp short of Armageddon other than Natural Balance (in green and really only run in decks that want to sacrifice lands) and Keldon Firebombers. If a player ramps with artifact mana, no one has an issue when they are all blown up, and the same with mana dorks being wrathed.
5. While EDH may have started out as "Battlecruiser" magic, it has since evolved into a variety of strategies. In Starcraft, while a Terran player can race to build Battlecruisers, they can also turtle up with missile turrets and bunkers (pillow fort), marine/firebat rush (weenie aggro), vulture/wraith harassment (resource denial), siege tanks/goliaths (midrange), among others. One of the reasons I play the format is due to the sheer diversity of tactics that can be used when you play and have played and played against almost all of them.
6. Personalities and play styles are not the same thing. People are not better or worse because they like certain strategies, but people like playing the play styles that come naturally to them. Just because someone likes playing stax/control cards, does not mean they are a sociopath/liked burning ants under a magnifying glass as a kid. For me, it takes more thought and mental gymnastics to pilot and play against decks like that, not to mention the politicking that usually occurs, since multiple people are being harmed by the same effect and who should expend their resources to deal with the threat. I have built some battlecruiser style decks, and learned that they are not my playstyle, not because I "hate fun", but because I find being able to control and interact with the board, proactively and reactively to be a lot more fun for me, as it turns the game into a puzzle.
7. As far as full board wipes go, they are typically 5+ mana and require some set up and usually running up to 7-8 mana. For that mana investment, you expect to win the game should the card resolve as planned. If casing the Obliterate in this situation means that you won the game, is it really different that casting Insurrection with lethal on board, or Tooth and Nailing into a game winning combo? At that point, the game should end, and a new one should be started, assuming the wipe was played correctly. The issue for these wipes is when players do not know how to use them or use them for "spite plays", which does create less than pleasant game states for no real reason.
No its playing what most people generally want to do. Groups can of course do their own thing, but you just packing this sort of thing into an LGS is specifically anti-social.
What I have been trying to do is look at Magic the game and not anecdotal evidence based on the twmperature of only people who choose to post about this online.
Stax and MLD draw additional hate because they can also be played ineffectively and verge into chaos territory. Someone who builds a stax deck that is effective at the stax part but not effective at actually turning that into a winning gamestate (not being able to close out the game or not being able to take advantage of the situation they create) ends up not playing a deck that leverages resource denial into victory, but a deck that merely denies resources and ****s up the game. The result is that, like a chaos deck, achieving their goal doesn't make them likely to win, but instead makes the game a drag where nobody is able to do what their deck is supposed to do and even the eventual winner doesn't have fun.
The issue is that it's tough to build stax for less competitive play without risking that trap. A stax deck that can consistently lock the board and consistently leverage that for a win will generally be too competitive for casual tables, and the hate it will receive will be driven by people who feel blindsided by a deck that's just a higher power level than what they are playing. They'd feel as salty getting ambushed by Prossh or blood pod. Meanwhile, a stax deck that isn't competitive but tends to lock the game down and then muddle along without winning is just an unfun grind. I have a friend that built a stax deck around the legendary spirit that has the winter orb ability. He never won a game with it. Whenever he played it, it just made the games a grind that nobody enjoyed, and he took it apart because of this. I also play online and run into well built stax from time to time, and if I'm running a good deck i have much more fun against those than I ever did against his, even though they are more likely to win.
I also run more casual staxy decks that don't get hated, because the key is building them where you worry less about the stax and more about creating a winning gamestate. This let's them be a bit less powerful, and I don't lock down the board without being able to win. Instead, I'm more likely to be able to take advantage of a lock without the lock manifesting. One is tribal vampires and the other is Mogis group slug. in both, the stax exists to slow down my opponents while I kill them, rather than to lock them down so I can kill them.
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!
You don't think applying social pressure to cause people to not play certain decks is anti-social? It's a two-way street, and the tyranny of the majority can be just as oppressive as a stax deck. Your opinions and feelings are not more important than someone else's just because they happen to be popular.
I pretty much agree with your entire post, but I quoted this excerpt because it is exactly what my primary deck does. It's not about locking opponents out of the game, it's about slowing the game down so that I can win because of my deck's superior inevitability. I play stax-y cards like Oppression, Tainted Aether, and Torpor Orb, but rather than lock someone out of the game they simply make it harder for them to advance their strategy. Okay, I run Infernal Darkness as well, and it's caused a few greedy non-black ramp decks to scoop, but maybe they shouldn't expect to resolve Boundless Realms unhindered. I treat Darkness as a pseudo-Time Walk that lasts for 3-4 turns, not a lock piece. Does this make my deck a stax deck?
EDIT: I'm at 400 posts.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
Someone that is fairly dedicated to the format with some history/experiance can easily see how disconnected he is. People like us, posting in a forum here, won't take the article very seriously.
What worries me are those players that are newer to the game or format and don't know any better. They may read that article as gospel, and when they see someone playing edh in any way Sheldon doesn't agree with, how are they going to react?
This is the same reason I can't tolerate a few edh related podcasts. I used to follow a massive # of channels and people but recently I've been just questioning who everyones' target audience is.
There really is a bunch of bad I formation out there, and people not giving enough of an emphasis that edh is, for the most part, friends and play-group specific.
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
You are very, very, very wrong here in your interpretation. Maybe it’s that you aren’t understanding the overarching point, but you’ve been at this for a bit, so you’re either oblivious to it, or are just ignoring it.
Nobody is here saying Stax isn’t welcomed in the EDH community. That’s not the point of this thread, nor was it the point of the article.
So, to clarify your stance, you find it perfectly acceptable to sit down at an unknown table and bust out a grief-y deck? No warning? No conversation prior? That is your go-to?
That would put you so far out of touch with reality, that it is a bit scary to be honest. So, the guys invite you over for back-yard football, you going to tackle the dude right off the bat? Or hit the only ball over the fence? That’s just against social norms, be it in MTG or real life. It also just furthers the premise that people who participate in hobbies such as this, D&D or whatever else are socially awkward, because they have no idea how to approach that type of setting.
I’d give you +1 but I don’t 100% agree with anything else in your post, except this. This is the most important point of EDH. It’s really no different that anything else in life. With a group of familiar faces, anything goes because expectations are well known throughout said group. When in the wild, though, one should mind their P’s and Q’s until you are familiar with your surroundings.
I usually greet my friends with a fist bump, and maybe a “what’s up d***head”. Should I think that is acceptable in all settings? Hell No..
People can play stax and land destruction - it is part of the game, and different people like different cards - and you can't make people feel ashamed to play the cards they like because you don't find it sociable.
You can't get into random games at an SCG Con and expect everyone's idea of social Magic to conform to your own. I have lost a considerable amount of respect for Sheldon and I think he needs to rethink what it means to be inclusive and casual. Shaming people for playing things like combo or stax is deplorable.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
Yes, by a broader definition. I think for certain archetypes, like stax, group hug, and chaos, many people tend to have excessively narrow definitions for them that view anything that isn't all in on the strategy as not of the archtype (I actually think this contributes a bit to the hate of those archetypes as people only associate them with their most extreme versions). A stax deck can be all in on the strategy, or it can be a deck that uses the strategy in a supportive role. The latter is easier to build casually in a way that simply doesn't piss as many people off. Group hug can be all in, or it can be a deck that seeks to win by better leveraging all the resources it hands out. People who hate group hug tend to be much more accepting of hug decks that have a plan for victory and choose hug cards based on how they can break the symmetry and benefit. Chaos decks can be all in on the "lol look how wacky this is" shaking up the game, or they can use chaos effects to shake up the game when it's opportune to them as well as others that they can break the symmetry of, while supporting a strategy like aggro or combo that let's them win.
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'm interested in how you think the text supports this conclusion, considering I've been advocating for common grief cards and strategies to be banned so that such communications don't have to happen.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
The reason they have never banned said cards is the scope of cards that would have to be banned to support that as well as all of the considerations of cards that flirt with that concept. They primarily rely on groups to self regulate what is and isn't ok which is part of why when someone new comes in or you all fly somewhere to play commander it can really get kind of fumbled up and this can get so ugly.
I still stand by that communication is your friend. Talk to people before making assumptions.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
Ultimately, my thoughts are that it's not worth going down that route. It's an incredibly murky route to navigate, and it won't ever be without controversy, complaints and criticism. Besides which, it's an arbitrary line in the sand - what works for the RC doesn't need to be gospel, and they've always said this; doing a turnabout would be a drastic change of position. I honestly think the best way to move forward with navigating satisfactory gaming is to communicate your wishes prior to starting the game, during the game, and following up afterwards. It's already necessary in order to make it clear what you're trying to achieve anyway - any stack discussions, rulings queries or decisions need to be made verbally, so why do we not start with this and save everyone a ton of grief? I get that people are shy or introverted, not every group is welcoming, and people online can be absolute douches, but communication is not something we should be looking to divert a course around, it's something we should be improving on.
I suspect that some random person reading an article that doesn't have anything to do with deck tech and was mostly just a rehash of some games will be the same person reading a forum and has some vested interest in the format, and not a new player looking to learn how to play EDH.
Well if you're going to open with calling his logic insulting and going on to explain how you lost respect for him and tell him he is approaching the format wrong, I doubt you're going to give him much reason to want to participate in this thread. He doesn't owe you anything, and frankly a number of people have been insulting towards him.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
The moral of the story is that it takes a lot more than a quick question like "Are you the type of guy we want to play with?" or even "What power level are your decks?" to know if you're a good fit in a group. Given that the whole point of playing is to have fun, isn't it worth the time to have that conversation? A three minute conversation can make the next three hours significantly more enjoyable for all involved.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
I didn't think my post would be offensive to him. I really cannot grok his notion that a good person would not play combo and land destruction. I understand that the article itself addressed this prejudice and he is working through it... but I also find he just abandoned the most important part of the article without a conclusion. Am I wrong to say that his logic was insulting to me? The first deck I built 8 years ago was a Karador deck playing Kami of False Hope and Fleshbag Marauder. My first EDH game I had Acidic Slime getting flickered by Conjurer's Closet. I don't think that I was being unfun. It was a casual deck where the most expensive card was Karador.
As far as losing respect... I mean, that's why I want him to expand on this article. Is he saying that people should respect people who want to play Stax? Is he saying that people should not play stax because most people would not call it fun. I do not understand his message in the end, beyond "people who play degenerate decks are people too", which is by no means a revelation to any person who has ever played in a LGS.
I have always liked Sheldon, but it seems like his expectations of what kinds of decks commander players use do not leave room for people who like a different experience. Commander isn't about 4 people slugging at each other with Ruhan of the Fomori any more than it is about 4 people playing crazy interactions to win the game. I accept that not every playgroup will be happy to see me cast Jokulhaups or recur Fulminator Mage 8 times, but the focus should be on identifying the kind of play the group wants, not shaming people for playing Apocalypse after suspending a few cards.
I have 17 decks. Some are Tier 1/2. Most are 75% decks. Some are 50% decks. I am ready to sit with any playgroup, because I am social and enjoy any type of commander game.
I also know that I do not want to play too many games with my friends who play cEDH, because I find it exhausting.
I have never sat down with someone I didn't know and not asked them the power level of their deck. I try to be inclusive. I don't want to run people over and sour their taste for commander. I also don't want to play my Arjun, the Shifting Flame deck where no card is worth more than 2$ against someone running a tuned tier 1 deck. I recognize that people like playing Magic differently and I try to adapt.
It just boggles my mind that Sheldon had this attitude going into SCG con, and I am waiting for him to tell us how he feels about it now.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
Overall I think all the issues are solved by just asking about deck power level and going from there. My only comp decks are Duel Commander decks, but I do have one friend that plays cEDH so I'll be building something to play with him.
It sounds like a lot of the issues in the games mentioned are solved with more spot removal and disruption, though.
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.
Because they've done such a bad job tending it that it's gone from some dudes in a single playgroup to the most popular (and successful) casual format? People tend to gloss over the amount of time and effort it took to get the format where it is today and would rather armchair coach with half-baked ideas.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg