SO I've been wondering for a short while, what the ideal meta of an EDH group should be (and whether or not it's even relevant). My group has some number of aggro and combo decks, but doesn't really sport that many control decks. It's making me suspect that my meta's surprisingly unhealthy, considering I kinda like it.
Does anyone else have any thoughts or comments? I'm also wondering what the general meta actually looks like as well. And also, does anyone really care if their meta suddenly became chock full of combo decks or aggro decks?
I don't think commander breaks along these lines in the same way other formats tend to.
Combo is pretty similar to its non-EDH counterparts when in cEDH, but outside of cEDH there are plenty of decks that are basically midrange with one or two combos that come together occasionally. Not sure where that would fall, archetypically.
Control tends to be a lot lighter on the "control" and lot heavier on the draw and wincons. Where a control deck in another format might dedicate most of its nonlands to interaction, most commander control decks do not (although some do).
Aggro, at least traditional aggro, is rare bordering on nonexistent, and tends to be replaced with a lot of what could be called midrange, although that's a bit broad. But basically anything that's trying to put together a big mass of synergistic stuff and win through some mixture of value and tempo. Usually starting with ramp.
Also, just generally, I think the lines are a lot blurrier here than in other formats. Often midrange decks will still have plenty of board wipes, for example, where that tends not to be the case in traditional formats. Mostly, I think, because in other formats you can plan to almost always be the aggressor as an aggro/midrange deck, whereas most commander games you'll have to play both offense and defense.
I'd say the average group I've been in looks like...
3% dedicated combo (cEDH)
22% control, to varying degrees
5% aggro
70% midrange synergistic decks, maybe with a combo or two thrown in
In my meta, Midrange is the dominant force, but control, combo and aggro all stand a chance. And I like it that way. It ensures that while you're pressurized to land relevant cards/threats early on, there are also enough answers available over the table, and games don't devolve into a late-game slog of 4 hours because every deck has tricks that can punch through any gamestall. The fastest combo decks (my Zacama is one of them) can fire off around turn 5 relatively easily but will be frail to disruption at that point, more stable combos go off by turn 7 but that can be outraced/prevented by removing key cards.
I like it this way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I would probably say more toward control, but only slightly. Mostly because if you weaken control too much (and the temptation is great), combo takes over.
I would like to see more aggro and midrange than currently exists, though.
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!
My ideal meta would be somewhere where all archetypes are equally viable, or at least a meta where there's enough people with enough variety to their decks that no archetypes just get hosed more often than not.
My current meta is mostly just combo to some extent. There are only a few people that don't just run dedicated combo for almost every deck, and I mean like 5 with 2 of us only able to make it once a month or so. Luckily, us few non-dedicated combo players play together enough that the combo decks don't just win every game. Enough interaction against the combo decks and it's a fairly balanced mini-meta we have going on. I don't know about anyone else in my group, but if it's just me and a ton of combo players, I tend to play a couple games and go home really early.
I think I would just like to see less combo, so it is hard to vote, since I can only vote for more of one thing or another.
I am fine with combo, I just find it boring and repetitive to have people tutor for combos game after game. I think combos that involve 6 pieces and just happen to come together sometimes are fun.
Sorry, I just find it hard to address this question. I would like my meta to have games that average 30-45 minutes, occasionally a bit longer, rarely shorter. I don't want wins that come out of nowhere - whether that be a 'I topdecked Food Chain so I win' or 'look, I drew Tooth and Nail'.
My meta is largely control and midrange. It's pretty nice.
Aggro can still get the job done but you need to have a focused deck and a good understanding of how to read a table. Most aggro players I run into in EDH have neither of these traits
I've always really liked Battlecruiser when I'm in an unknown meta; I just think it's more fun if you don't know who you're playing with to be able to ease in and wind up with one big haymaker after the other.
In my personal meta though, I want to see different archetypes at different levels of competitive, because there's a real difference between a tier one deck and a tier two or three deck in the same archetype, and I always want to have the opportunity to get my butt kicked if I'm not on my toes.
I say the ideal meta for EDH is simple. Regardless of whether you play aggro, control or combo, the game can be won by any player in the pod. (IE: all decks are even power)
The winner of said game should NOT be decided before the game starts.
lol, the poll is showing most meta is heavy on combo. The poll is still early of course, but I'm somehow unsurprised by the result, and a little disappointed.
yea, i suspected that combo would be the highest generally, 'cuz:
1. it's the easiest to diagnose as a deck archetype
2. Even if a deck isn't a dedicated combo deck, just having a combo finish means it becomes a combo deck (even if the main plan is to aggro people to death).
But yea, this is pretty interesting actually. when people voted that their actual playgroup leans heavier on an archetype that doesn't really fit the existing general types, what did they mean? is that midrange?
I want my meta to be shifting as people play with deck ideas. Walk into the shop for commander FNM and face at least one new deck in every pod. That Tasigur reanimator deck from last week is now a politics deck. The Kaalia player wanted something different and is now playing storm. I feel the community is healthy if people want to brew new decks frequently.
Sure, there is a chance of spending $4 on a booster and getting the Mythic Rare $30 super card. There is also a chance of surviving putting your tongue in a light socket.
2. Even if a deck isn't a dedicated combo deck, just having a combo finish means it becomes a combo deck (even if the main plan is to aggro people to death).
Yeah, this is part of why this gets really vague. Most, say, legacy decks are either explicitly going for a combo from which they win essentially every game, whereas most commander decks, in my experience, may have a combo or two but also have myriad other ways to win. I wouldn't really call it a "combo deck" unless it's something close to a dedicated combo deck - in which case, it's probably cEDH or close to.
So I think if people are rating decks as "combo decks" because they're either synergistic in a non-infinite way, or because have a few combos that they use occasionally...i would not call either of those combo decks.
I might be speculating a little too much, but I think this poll mostly asks "so, the run-of-the-mill value midrange ramp/draw/synergy/bomb decks...would you call those combo, aggro, midrange, or control?" Because they're kind of all of them, from a certain point of view.
So this poll seems like it might be more of a Rorschach test for how people see the average commander deck, more than anything about those actual metas.
I"m all in for Combo decks. Granted, I'm also a dedicated cEDH player, so I readily admit my bias here. I prefer a heavy combo meta because it dictates that you build your deck in a certain way (CMC and interaction considerations), opens up powerful and oft-maligned archetypes (bring on the Stax!), and generally raises the playskill of everyone involved; if you miss a single opportunity, it could cost you the game. I like those kind of stakes, personally.
Aaaaaand... you can get more games in a session if everyone is running a dedicated combo finish in their deck. That's a primary reason I prefer a cEDH play-style, actually. In my opinion, cEDH maximizes volume of games without sacrificing quality of games (from a technical gameplay perspective) and reduces the amount of ineffective politics that occurs in a normal EDH game. If everyone has the same mindset of cEDH style of play, then the table-talk is still present and enjoyable as well.
Combo decks [...] generally raises the playskill of everyone involved; if you miss a single opportunity, it could cost you the game.
I don't think I can let that one slide. I'd say playing cEDH drastically reduces the number of interactions to worry about because the pool of played cards is so much fewer, as are the number of decks and archetypes. It also drastically reduces the number of important decisions in a game because it's so much shorter. Granted, those decisions are much more likely to be life and death than any of the myriad mostly-irrelevant decisions made in a normal commander game, but I think being able to identify the critical junctures in a normal commander game from among all the unimportant ones - and to make the right choice in those decisions - can be a lot harder than making the right decisions in a fast combo game, because in the fast combo game it's mostly the same kinds of decisions every game. Whereas in the normal commander game, the kinds of decisions can be enormously diverse and require more critical thinking and less rote memorization.
Not that the play skill of most normal commander players is high - it is not. And the skill of cEDH players tends to be higher, partly because you have to be fairly invested and familiar with the game to buy in at that level. But there's way, way more room to perfect your gameplay in a normal game of commander than a cEDH one, at least imo.
How i feel about competitive players and casual players in EDH: The competitive are german tourists, the casual are italian tourists, both in a italian beach. The italians asking themselves "why are the germans here?" make a legitimate question, the answer is because the beach is beautiful, no matter the country you came from. The italians wanting to ban the germans are dumb, because if the germans pay for their stay and follow the rules like everyone else, they have the right to be in the beach. Hovewer, if the germans started to ask themselves "why are the italians here?"... they would be dumb as hell.
I'd prefer a meta with as little combo as possible and also a inky focused on big creature beats. This is because combo is not fun for me to play against as you have to tune your deck to combating it. Big durdly creature aggro with huge plays that seemingly come out of nowhere feels like the most fair meta to me. That said I think decks that have unintentional combos or that have 4+ specific piece combos as more or less fine. I think control is hard to build without combo so I think at a table:
I don't think I can let that one slide. I'd say playing cEDH drastically reduces the number of interactions to worry about because the pool of played cards is so much fewer, as are the number of decks and archetypes. #1. It also drastically reduces the number of important decisions in a game because it's so much shorter. Granted, those decisions are much more likely to be life and death than any of the myriad mostly-irrelevant decisions made in a normal commander game, but I think being able to #2. identify the critical junctures in a normal commander game from among all the unimportant ones - and to make the right choice in those decisions - can be a lot harder than making the right decisions in a fast combo game, because in #3. the fast combo game it's mostly the same kinds of decisions every game. Whereas in the normal commander game, the kinds of decisions can be enormously diverse and require more critical thinking and less rote memorization.
Not that the play skill of most normal commander players is high - it is not. And the skill of cEDH players tends to be higher, partly because you have to be fairly invested and familiar with the game to buy in at that level. But there's way, way more room to perfect your gameplay in a normal game of commander than a cEDH one, at least imo.
Alright, I'll bite. A healthy debate is fun to engage in. I've quoted you and added bold text and numbers around each of the primary points I'd like to debate. To set the ground rules, please know that I approach this topic and you with respect and a genuine desire to broaden your perspective, at the very least. I fully and wholeheartedly support the various ways to play Commander and I happily recognize that I'm a minority (being a cEDH player) - if part of a vocal one, heh. Regardless of the debate and the conclusions we draw, I hope that I will be able to at least respectfully showcase why I prefer to play cEDH over a regular "battlecruiser" Commander game.
I will be referencing both personal examples as well as videos from the excellent LabManiacs.com website. I personally believe that their cEDH content is representative of the way that my playgroup and I play cEDH games (as well as general cEDH games), the relative playskill of my playgroup (and other cEDH players), and a showcasing of the premier cEDH strategies and archetypes available. Their curated video content can be found here and a compendium of their decklists can be found here, as references.
I think it's also important to define a few things as well, since I'll be using them in the context of my arguments.
When I mention "battlecruiser" decks/Commander games, I mean to say that the propensity and focus on executing an infinite combo is much less pronounced than that of a cEDH deck/Commander game. That doesn't mean to say that battlecruiser Commander decks cannot be optimized nor streamlined to great efficiency, because many are, but it's more representative of a playstyle and philosophy; battlecruiser games are more concerned (generally) about the number of interactions, tempo swings, and emotional well-being of its players. Battlecruiser games are essentially decks and games that are all about maximizing the amount of cards that you can see from your deck within a given game.
I'll also reference a preface/introductory article that I wrote that's stickied in the cEDH forums. I think this document is important to read since it will help explain the general philosophy of the cEDH niche of Commander players (many cEDH players have read it and generally agreed with its points on Discord, Facebook, and reddit, to substantiate that document as being semi-official).
Alright, time to dig in.
For point #1, I both agree AND disagree with you here. You are correct in the perception that a cEDH game is usually played at a faster pace than a regular battlecruiser game. By necessity, this DOES limit the number of interactions that you experience within a game by virtue of it being shorter, so you are correct in this point.
But I disagree with you because a cEDH game makes a substantially higher number of the "regular" decisions you make substantially more impactful, thus also INCREASING the number of important decisions that you make. For example, in a battlecruiser game, it's reasonable to assume that I can spend the first few turns of a game deploying my ramp effects, accruing card advantage, or building a board presence without substantial cost because it's likely that the other battlecruiser players are employing a similar strategy. I'm not going to lose tempo or face dire consequences of tapping out on T3 to play a Dimir Signet into a Night's Whisper (as a generic example); indeed, making this kind of play in a battlecruiser Commander game is probably safe and will actively help me execute my primary strategy by developing my card advantage AND mana advantage.
However, doing a similar action in a cEDH game could have HUGE repercussions on your chances to win the game; I've seen some decks consistently assemble a game-winning combo on T3 and execute it (in fact, some of my own decks can reliably do this). By doing the same action that I would take in a battlecruiser game, and performing it within a cEDH game, I could lose the game as a consequence. This makes resource management even more crucial during a cEDH game because any actions I take to develop my board state or accrue card advantage has real consequences to it. It heightens the potential risks of making any in-game decision. As an example of this, if you look at the 48 minute mark of this recorded game, the Yidris player chose a correct moment to go for the win because the other players had spent their resources in addressing other issues. The other player's decisions of when to respond with interaction throughout the course of the game(of which there is a great deal of, by the way) allowed the Yidris player that window of opportunity to execute a win successfuly that he wouldn't have been able to do otherwise. The Tasigur player even admits that he chose the wrong moment to pay for a Rhystic Study trigger at the 54:00 mark. This is an example of how important it is to manage resources and discern whether or not a specific action is the correct one; paying for the Study trigger may not have seemed important during the previous slew of interaction, but it cost the Tasigur player the game. And while the actual recording is under an hour, and the volume of interactions therefore in comparison to a battlecruiser game is less, I think it showcases very well how important nearly EVERY decision is within a cEDH game. This kind of example is commonplace during cEDH games, so I feel comfortable saying that my example is representative of nearly every cEDH game that is played.
Point #2. I don't disagree with the first part of your point here at all, actually. I think the beauty of a cEDH game is that it compresses the number of important decisions that a player needs to make into a much more compact time frame. The same type of decisions of tempo generation, card advantage, and board development hold true whether playing a battlecruiser game or a cEDH game. In a battlecruiser game, the frequency of these important decisions is a little more spread out from a time standpoint and usually occur within the later turns of a game, generally from T5-T6 onwards. In a cEDH game, the frequency of these decisions occurs more often and within a faster timeframe, often starting around T2-T3.
I do disagree with you on the second half of it, that "making the right choices... can be a lot harder [than a] fast combo game". As my previous point alludes to, I think the complexity of decisions that any player makes within a cEDH game is actually INCREASED by playing against other cEDH decks. If you're sitting down at a cEDH game, it's likely that you'll be playing against 3-4 disparate and equally powerful combos, all utilizing different cards. These combos are built within the context of the player's specific Commander deck, meaning that the card advantage engines and board development cards that each player utilizes will be fairly varied; and even if they're the same across the table, this only adds to the complexity because you know precisely what kind of play your opponents COULD make, given their mana sources and card count. Because being able to play more cards in a turn cycle is more critical for a cEDH game than a normal battlecruiser game (generally speaking), CMC considerations are paramount when building a cEDH deck. Because each player's cards and their associated effects are able to be deployed at lower CMC's, and therefore at a faster pace than a battlecruiser game, the opportunity cost for doing a certain action is much higher for EVERY action taken. Because the opportunity cost is higher for each decision tree during a cEDH game, this adds depth and complexity to the game right out of the gates and forces a similar number of "critical junctures" that a battlecruiser game would experience at a faster pace.
This is primarily one of the reasons that cEDH players absolutely NEED to be clear about what type of game they're playing with the table; it's totally inappropriate for a cEDH player to pub-stomp a table of unaware battlecruiser decks and players because their deck is cEDH level and the rest of the table's decks are not. This kind of inappropriate disparity in deck construction and/or play-skill is what leads to feel-bads amongst the other players, who had different expectations of what that game was supposed to feel like. While I recognize that there are cEDH players that do actively look to curb-stomp others, the vast majority of our vocal minority respect the social contract of a playgroup and will play and build decks accordingly.
Point #3. I disagree. While the same type of combos that are in a deck are consistently executed as the primary way of how that deck wins the game (Flash Hulk is probably always going to want to Flash Hulk, Gitrog is always going to Dredge Dakmor Salvage, etc.), the decision trees and "critical junctures" that said player employs to get there are VASTLY different per game. If you want to binge watch the LabManiacs' video content, I encourage you to do so, as it demonstrates how variegated and complex cEDH games really are. Often, the phrase "cEDH games always end on T3 and combat damage doesn't matter" is used as a joke/meme phrase within a game because this is RARELY the case. Their most recent episode is a classic example of how this common perception is totally inaccurate.
Some decision points have to be the same (i.e. destroying an opponent's Rest in Peace to utilize your 'yard-based strategy) because they stop your primary win line, but that too adds complexity to the game. How will you remove it? What cards will you spend to do so? Will your opponent be able to protect their RIP? Can/will an OPPONENT protect the opponent's RIP in order to prevent you from executing your combo? These are common questions that come up during a game.
Hoo boy, I don't know that I'm really interested in a long debate about this. I'm flying to Germany in like...30 hours. And I'll not pretend to be super familiar with cEDH - I've played against cEDH decks occasionally, and with a cEDH deck a couple times, but not nearly enough to have a particularly educated opinion on it. So feel free to dismiss my opinion as ignorant because it mostly is.
My main point that I think I was a bit unclear on is that cEDH drastically reduces the number of cards people are likely to play, and reduces the commanders/lists you're likely to come up against. The number of things you need to expect is cut down considerably because as soon as you see the commander, you know a fairly high percentage of the cards in their decks, which makes it easier to expect and play around the right things. Whereas in a normal commander game, there are basically no limit to the sorts of things that could happen. People play some crazy stuff sometimes.
Granted, this doesn't really matter if you're playing edh in an insular meta and know what you expect from everyone, but I tend to play in big, public groups where there's almost always decks at the table I've never seen before, and I've always got to be on my toes. It could be cEDH level, or it could be draft chaff, and playing well means being able to figure out which it is, and how to handle it. In a sense, normal EDH encompasses all of cEDH, because playing against anything includes cEDH, as well as everything else.
This is basically the same reason I'm not a big fan of any competitive-level constructed magic - it's the same decks, over and over. Magic is still a very complex game, and cEDH is much more complex than, say, standard, but it's not as complex as normal commander because the possibilities are so cut down.
Another, unmentioned point is that cEDH generally involves using decks - or at least archetypes - from established lists, possibly with tweaks that usually won't broadly change the goal of the deck. That doesn't say anything about the gameplay that I haven't already said, but I prefer magic as a biathlon of deckbuilding and playing - hence why limited is my favorite competitive format, by far.
My meta has a bit much of 'tutor for 2-card combo and win' to my tastes, but I'll fully admit my bias towards semi-casual midrange and aggro-style 'duking it out'.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
X Hope of Ghirapur Swordpile W Ghosty Blinky Anafenza U Nezahal- Big, Blue and HERE! B Gonti Can Afford It R Etali, Primal 'Whatjusthappened?' G Polukranos Wants More Mana WU The Exalted Vizier Temmet WB Home, Athreos WR Basandra, Recursive Aggression WG Karametra, Momma of Lands UB Wrexial Eats Your Brains UR Arjun, the Mad Flame UG The Fable of Prime Speaker BR Hellbent, Malfegor Style BG Jarad, Death is Served RG Running Thromok WUB Varina and ALL the Zombies WUBYennett, the Odd Pain-Train WUR Zedruu the Furyhearted WUG Arcades' Strategy, Shmategy, Sausage and Spam WBR A Case of Mathas' Persistent F*ckery WBRLicia's League of Legendary Lifegain Layabouts WBG The Karador Advantage PackageWRG Gahiji Rattlesnake Collection UBR Jeleva... does... things UBG Damia's Just Deserts URG Yasova's Has More Power Than Sense BRG Wasitora, Bad Kitty WUBRBreya, Eggs, Breya'd Eggs WUBG Tymna and Kydele, Extended Borrowing WURG Kynaios and Tiro, Landfall Impersonations WBRG Saskia Pet Card EnchantressUBRG Yidris of the Chi-Ting Corporation WUBRG Tazri's Amazing Allies
I don't think I can let that one slide. I'd say playing cEDH drastically reduces the number of interactions to worry about because the pool of played cards is so much fewer, as are the number of decks and archetypes. #1. It also drastically reduces the number of important decisions in a game because it's so much shorter. Granted, those decisions are much more likely to be life and death than any of the myriad mostly-irrelevant decisions made in a normal commander game, but I think being able to #2. identify the critical junctures in a normal commander game from among all the unimportant ones - and to make the right choice in those decisions - can be a lot harder than making the right decisions in a fast combo game, because in #3. the fast combo game it's mostly the same kinds of decisions every game. Whereas in the normal commander game, the kinds of decisions can be enormously diverse and require more critical thinking and less rote memorization.
Not that the play skill of most normal commander players is high - it is not. And the skill of cEDH players tends to be higher, partly because you have to be fairly invested and familiar with the game to buy in at that level. But there's way, way more room to perfect your gameplay in a normal game of commander than a cEDH one, at least imo.
Alright, I'll bite. A healthy debate is fun to engage in. I've quoted you and added bold text and numbers around each of the primary points I'd like to debate. To set the ground rules, please know that I approach this topic and you with respect and a genuine desire to broaden your perspective, at the very least. I fully and wholeheartedly support the various ways to play Commander and I happily recognize that I'm a minority (being a cEDH player) - if part of a vocal one, heh. Regardless of the debate and the conclusions we draw, I hope that I will be able to at least respectfully showcase why I prefer to play cEDH over a regular "battlecruiser" Commander game.
I will be referencing both personal examples as well as videos from the excellent LabManiacs.com website. I personally believe that their cEDH content is representative of the way that my playgroup and I play cEDH games (as well as general cEDH games), the relative playskill of my playgroup (and other cEDH players), and a showcasing of the premier cEDH strategies and archetypes available. Their curated video content can be found here and a compendium of their decklists can be found here, as references.
I think it's also important to define a few things as well, since I'll be using them in the context of my arguments.
When I mention "battlecruiser" decks/Commander games, I mean to say that the propensity and focus on executing an infinite combo is much less pronounced than that of a cEDH deck/Commander game. That doesn't mean to say that battlecruiser Commander decks cannot be optimized nor streamlined to great efficiency, because many are, but it's more representative of a playstyle and philosophy; battlecruiser games are more concerned (generally) about the number of interactions, tempo swings, and emotional well-being of its players. Battlecruiser games are essentially decks and games that are all about maximizing the amount of cards that you can see from your deck within a given game.
I'll also reference a preface/introductory article that I wrote that's stickied in the cEDH forums. I think this document is important to read since it will help explain the general philosophy of the cEDH niche of Commander players (many cEDH players have read it and generally agreed with its points on Discord, Facebook, and reddit, to substantiate that document as being semi-official).
Alright, time to dig in.
For point #1, I both agree AND disagree with you here. You are correct in the perception that a cEDH game is usually played at a faster pace than a regular battlecruiser game. By necessity, this DOES limit the number of interactions that you experience within a game by virtue of it being shorter, so you are correct in this point.
But I disagree with you because a cEDH game makes a substantially higher number of the "regular" decisions you make substantially more impactful, thus also INCREASING the number of important decisions that you make. For example, in a battlecruiser game, it's reasonable to assume that I can spend the first few turns of a game deploying my ramp effects, accruing card advantage, or building a board presence without substantial cost because it's likely that the other battlecruiser players are employing a similar strategy. I'm not going to lose tempo or face dire consequences of tapping out on T3 to play a Dimir Signet into a Night's Whisper (as a generic example); indeed, making this kind of play in a battlecruiser Commander game is probably safe and will actively help me execute my primary strategy by developing my card advantage AND mana advantage.
However, doing a similar action in a cEDH game could have HUGE repercussions on your chances to win the game; I've seen some decks consistently assemble a game-winning combo on T3 and execute it (in fact, some of my own decks can reliably do this). By doing the same action that I would take in a battlecruiser game, and performing it within a cEDH game, I could lose the game as a consequence. This makes resource management even more crucial during a cEDH game because any actions I take to develop my board state or accrue card advantage has real consequences to it. It heightens the potential risks of making any in-game decision. As an example of this, if you look at the 48 minute mark of this recorded game, the Yidris player chose a correct moment to go for the win because the other players had spent their resources in addressing other issues. The other player's decisions of when to respond with interaction throughout the course of the game(of which there is a great deal of, by the way) allowed the Yidris player that window of opportunity to execute a win successfuly that he wouldn't have been able to do otherwise. The Tasigur player even admits that he chose the wrong moment to pay for a Rhystic Study trigger at the 54:00 mark. This is an example of how important it is to manage resources and discern whether or not a specific action is the correct one; paying for the Study trigger may not have seemed important during the previous slew of interaction, but it cost the Tasigur player the game. And while the actual recording is under an hour, and the volume of interactions therefore in comparison to a battlecruiser game is less, I think it showcases very well how important nearly EVERY decision is within a cEDH game. This kind of example is commonplace during cEDH games, so I feel comfortable saying that my example is representative of nearly every cEDH game that is played.
Point #2. I don't disagree with the first part of your point here at all, actually. I think the beauty of a cEDH game is that it compresses the number of important decisions that a player needs to make into a much more compact time frame. The same type of decisions of tempo generation, card advantage, and board development hold true whether playing a battlecruiser game or a cEDH game. In a battlecruiser game, the frequency of these important decisions is a little more spread out from a time standpoint and usually occur within the later turns of a game, generally from T5-T6 onwards. In a cEDH game, the frequency of these decisions occurs more often and within a faster timeframe, often starting around T2-T3.
I do disagree with you on the second half of it, that "making the right choices... can be a lot harder [than a] fast combo game". As my previous point alludes to, I think the complexity of decisions that any player makes within a cEDH game is actually INCREASED by playing against other cEDH decks. If you're sitting down at a cEDH game, it's likely that you'll be playing against 3-4 disparate and equally powerful combos, all utilizing different cards. These combos are built within the context of the player's specific Commander deck, meaning that the card advantage engines and board development cards that each player utilizes will be fairly varied; and even if they're the same across the table, this only adds to the complexity because you know precisely what kind of play your opponents COULD make, given their mana sources and card count. Because being able to play more cards in a turn cycle is more critical for a cEDH game than a normal battlecruiser game (generally speaking), CMC considerations are paramount when building a cEDH deck. Because each player's cards and their associated effects are able to be deployed at lower CMC's, and therefore at a faster pace than a battlecruiser game, the opportunity cost for doing a certain action is much higher for EVERY action taken. Because the opportunity cost is higher for each decision tree during a cEDH game, this adds depth and complexity to the game right out of the gates and forces a similar number of "critical junctures" that a battlecruiser game would experience at a faster pace.
This is primarily one of the reasons that cEDH players absolutely NEED to be clear about what type of game they're playing with the table; it's totally inappropriate for a cEDH player to pub-stomp a table of unaware battlecruiser decks and players because their deck is cEDH level and the rest of the table's decks are not. This kind of inappropriate disparity in deck construction and/or play-skill is what leads to feel-bads amongst the other players, who had different expectations of what that game was supposed to feel like. While I recognize that there are cEDH players that do actively look to curb-stomp others, the vast majority of our vocal minority respect the social contract of a playgroup and will play and build decks accordingly.
Point #3. I disagree. While the same type of combos that are in a deck are consistently executed as the primary way of how that deck wins the game (Flash Hulk is probably always going to want to Flash Hulk, Gitrog is always going to Dredge Dakmor Salvage, etc.), the decision trees and "critical junctures" that said player employs to get there are VASTLY different per game. If you want to binge watch the LabManiacs' video content, I encourage you to do so, as it demonstrates how variegated and complex cEDH games really are. Often, the phrase "cEDH games always end on T3 and combat damage doesn't matter" is used as a joke/meme phrase within a game because this is RARELY the case. Their most recent episode is a classic example of how this common perception is totally inaccurate.
Some decision points have to be the same (i.e. destroying an opponent's Rest in Peace to utilize your 'yard-based strategy) because they stop your primary win line, but that too adds complexity to the game. How will you remove it? What cards will you spend to do so? Will your opponent be able to protect their RIP? Can/will an OPPONENT protect the opponent's RIP in order to prevent you from executing your combo? These are common questions that come up during a game.
I generally agree with the both of y'all in most points too actually. My EDH decks are most decidedly NOT competitive, but i do run some number of competitive legacy decks, so i can chime in a bit with that:
1. Yes, competitive games of legacy at least can be pretty quick, and have more impactful decisions in a more compressed amount of time. Turn 1 when an opponent plays a wooded foothills then passes, I'm generally considering very carefully whether or not they have the stifle, so i'd play my non-fetch land if possible. It can also indicate some sort of lands control, so i should land the early threat if possible. or it could even be some rogue deck! I can imagine cEDH being somewhat similar. knowing the meta, knowing what can be brought against you, and working the probabilities is kinda a thing.
3. Playing against combo in legacy, it's always a bit of a light dance (sort of). Depending on what they're showing, you have to attack it differently. Sometimes, you counter the LED. sometimes, it's knowing when to disenchant their lotus petals. Sometimes, its hymning them and hoping for the best. Sometimes, you just gotta figure out a line for yourself that allows you to go off at instant speed in response to their kill. I can imagine it being more varied in EDH, since you can only run singletons of each combo piece.
Dunno, i think either way, it's interesting that so many people think that combo is rampant in their meta, but people generally don't like playing against them. Maybe it's this idea that it's non-interactive. But your deck is only not interacting with them because of how you've built it, right? I think having a tempo/aggro list, you're still interacting with combo players if you beat with aethersworn canonist, and when you pressure their life totals to a point where they have to actually take you seriously (which is why i've been a proponent for 30 life total instead of 40).
Hoo boy, I don't know that I'm really interested in a long debate about this. I'm flying to Germany in like...30 hours. And I'll not pretend to be super familiar with cEDH - I've played against cEDH decks occasionally, and with a cEDH deck a couple times, but not nearly enough to have a particularly educated opinion on it. So feel free to dismiss my opinion as ignorant because it mostly is.
My main point that I think I was a bit unclear on is that cEDH drastically reduces the number of cards people are likely to play, and reduces the commanders/lists you're likely to come up against. The number of things you need to expect is cut down considerably because as soon as you see the commander, you know a fairly high percentage of the cards in their decks, which makes it easier to expect and play around the right things. Whereas in a normal commander game, there are basically no limit to the sorts of things that could happen. People play some crazy stuff sometimes.
Granted, this doesn't really matter if you're playing edh in an insular meta and know what you expect from everyone, but I tend to play in big, public groups where there's almost always decks at the table I've never seen before, and I've always got to be on my toes. It could be cEDH level, or it could be draft chaff, and playing well means being able to figure out which it is, and how to handle it. In a sense, normal EDH encompasses all of cEDH, because playing against anything includes cEDH, as well as everything else.
This is basically the same reason I'm not a big fan of any competitive-level constructed magic - it's the same decks, over and over. Magic is still a very complex game, and cEDH is much more complex than, say, standard, but it's not as complex as normal commander because the possibilities are so cut down.
Another, unmentioned point is that cEDH generally involves using decks - or at least archetypes - from established lists, possibly with tweaks that usually won't broadly change the goal of the deck. That doesn't say anything about the gameplay that I haven't already said, but I prefer magic as a biathlon of deckbuilding and playing - hence why limited is my favorite competitive format, by far.
Fair enough. With your clarification, I think I now agree with your sentiment. Indeed, the card pool, archetypes, and potential decklists that you'd see at a cEDH table are much smaller than a battlecruiser meta.
It's evident that your experience with cEDH is much less than my own, and I think this simply becomes a matter of preference and a core decision of how to approach a game of Commander. I like approaching a game of being able to solve the puzzle of how I can execute a win over my other opponent's highly tuned strategies with a relatively known card pool. It sounds like you enjoy the same type of experience but prefer to have the puzzle pieces of the game be unknown. Both philosophies are appropriate and, in the grand scheme of things, only slightly nuanced.
I generally agree with the both of y'all in most points too actually. My EDH decks are most decidedly NOT competitive, but i do run some number of competitive legacy decks, so i can chime in a bit with that:
1. Yes, competitive games of legacy at least can be pretty quick, and have more impactful decisions in a more compressed amount of time. Turn 1 when an opponent plays a wooded foothills then passes, I'm generally considering very carefully whether or not they have the stifle, so i'd play my non-fetch land if possible. It can also indicate some sort of lands control, so i should land the early threat if possible. or it could even be some rogue deck! I can imagine cEDH being somewhat similar. knowing the meta, knowing what can be brought against you, and working the probabilities is kinda a thing.
3. Playing against combo in legacy, it's always a bit of a light dance (sort of). Depending on what they're showing, you have to attack it differently. Sometimes, you counter the LED. sometimes, it's knowing when to disenchant their lotus petals. Sometimes, its hymning them and hoping for the best. Sometimes, you just gotta figure out a line for yourself that allows you to go off at instant speed in response to their kill. I can imagine it being more varied in EDH, since you can only run singletons of each combo piece.
Dunno, i think either way, it's interesting that so many people think that combo is rampant in their meta, but people generally don't like playing against them. Maybe it's this idea that it's non-interactive. But your deck is only not interacting with them because of how you've built it, right? I think having a tempo/aggro list, you're still interacting with combo players if you beat with aethersworn canonist, and when you pressure their life totals to a point where they have to actually take you seriously (which is why i've been a proponent for 30 life total instead of 40).
I agree that setting the starting life total to 30 for cEDH games would actually make Aggro strategies fairly viable and open up some interesting lists. Cutting off 20-30 damage that you have to deal to the table is a big deal, and it would more effectively pressure the combo and Mid-Range decks to develop their boards in a more defensive way and provide real opportunity cost to playing certain cards (I'm looking at you, Ad Nauseam).
I agree wholeheartedly with the points that you bring up otherwise and I think that playing around known strategies actually carries more excitement for me, personally, then playing with an unknown playgroup.
Combo decks [...] generally raises the playskill of everyone involved; if you miss a single opportunity, it could cost you the game.
I don't think I can let that one slide. I'd say playing cEDH drastically reduces the number of interactions to worry about because the pool of played cards is so much fewer, as are the number of decks and archetypes. It also drastically reduces the number of important decisions in a game because it's so much shorter. Granted, those decisions are much more likely to be life and death than any of the myriad mostly-irrelevant decisions made in a normal commander game, but I think being able to identify the critical junctures in a normal commander game from among all the unimportant ones - and to make the right choice in those decisions - can be a lot harder than making the right decisions in a fast combo game, because in the fast combo game it's mostly the same kinds of decisions every game. Whereas in the normal commander game, the kinds of decisions can be enormously diverse and require more critical thinking and less rote memorization.
Not that the play skill of most normal commander players is high - it is not. And the skill of cEDH players tends to be higher, partly because you have to be fairly invested and familiar with the game to buy in at that level. But there's way, way more room to perfect your gameplay in a normal game of commander than a cEDH one, at least imo.
Yeah, you could just as easily say Stax raises the skill level because you never know what "fun" little rules I have in store for you.
A diverse meta is what I think raises the skill level more than anything.
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!
Does anyone else have any thoughts or comments? I'm also wondering what the general meta actually looks like as well. And also, does anyone really care if their meta suddenly became chock full of combo decks or aggro decks?
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
Combo is pretty similar to its non-EDH counterparts when in cEDH, but outside of cEDH there are plenty of decks that are basically midrange with one or two combos that come together occasionally. Not sure where that would fall, archetypically.
Control tends to be a lot lighter on the "control" and lot heavier on the draw and wincons. Where a control deck in another format might dedicate most of its nonlands to interaction, most commander control decks do not (although some do).
Aggro, at least traditional aggro, is rare bordering on nonexistent, and tends to be replaced with a lot of what could be called midrange, although that's a bit broad. But basically anything that's trying to put together a big mass of synergistic stuff and win through some mixture of value and tempo. Usually starting with ramp.
Also, just generally, I think the lines are a lot blurrier here than in other formats. Often midrange decks will still have plenty of board wipes, for example, where that tends not to be the case in traditional formats. Mostly, I think, because in other formats you can plan to almost always be the aggressor as an aggro/midrange deck, whereas most commander games you'll have to play both offense and defense.
I'd say the average group I've been in looks like...
3% dedicated combo (cEDH)
22% control, to varying degrees
5% aggro
70% midrange synergistic decks, maybe with a combo or two thrown in
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 like it this way.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I would like to see more aggro and midrange than currently exists, though.
On phasing:
My current meta is mostly just combo to some extent. There are only a few people that don't just run dedicated combo for almost every deck, and I mean like 5 with 2 of us only able to make it once a month or so. Luckily, us few non-dedicated combo players play together enough that the combo decks don't just win every game. Enough interaction against the combo decks and it's a fairly balanced mini-meta we have going on. I don't know about anyone else in my group, but if it's just me and a ton of combo players, I tend to play a couple games and go home really early.
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain
B Toshiro Umezawa
BG Pharika, God of Affliction - Necromancy and Politics
WWW The Church of Heliod
WBR Zurgo, Helmsmasher
RG Wort, the Raidmother
UBR Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge
UG Vorel of the Hull Clade
I am fine with combo, I just find it boring and repetitive to have people tutor for combos game after game. I think combos that involve 6 pieces and just happen to come together sometimes are fun.
Sorry, I just find it hard to address this question. I would like my meta to have games that average 30-45 minutes, occasionally a bit longer, rarely shorter. I don't want wins that come out of nowhere - whether that be a 'I topdecked Food Chain so I win' or 'look, I drew Tooth and Nail'.
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
Aggro can still get the job done but you need to have a focused deck and a good understanding of how to read a table. Most aggro players I run into in EDH have neither of these traits
In my personal meta though, I want to see different archetypes at different levels of competitive, because there's a real difference between a tier one deck and a tier two or three deck in the same archetype, and I always want to have the opportunity to get my butt kicked if I'm not on my toes.
The winner of said game should NOT be decided before the game starts.
Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest WUR Voltron Control
Temmet, Vizier of Naktamun WU Unblockable Mirror Trickery
Ra's al Ghul (Sidar Kondo) and Face-Down Ninjas
Brudiclad, Token Engineer
Vaevictis (VV2) the Dire Lantern
Rona, Disciple of Gix
Tiana the Auror
Hallar
Ulrich the Politician
Zur the Rebel
Scorpion, Locust, Scarab, Egyptian Gods
O-Kagachi, Mathas, Mairsil
"Non-Tribal" Tribal Generals, Eggs
1. it's the easiest to diagnose as a deck archetype
2. Even if a deck isn't a dedicated combo deck, just having a combo finish means it becomes a combo deck (even if the main plan is to aggro people to death).
But yea, this is pretty interesting actually. when people voted that their actual playgroup leans heavier on an archetype that doesn't really fit the existing general types, what did they mean? is that midrange?
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
So I think if people are rating decks as "combo decks" because they're either synergistic in a non-infinite way, or because have a few combos that they use occasionally...i would not call either of those combo decks.
I might be speculating a little too much, but I think this poll mostly asks "so, the run-of-the-mill value midrange ramp/draw/synergy/bomb decks...would you call those combo, aggro, midrange, or control?" Because they're kind of all of them, from a certain point of view.
So this poll seems like it might be more of a Rorschach test for how people see the average commander deck, more than anything about those actual metas.
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
Aaaaaand... you can get more games in a session if everyone is running a dedicated combo finish in their deck. That's a primary reason I prefer a cEDH play-style, actually. In my opinion, cEDH maximizes volume of games without sacrificing quality of games (from a technical gameplay perspective) and reduces the amount of ineffective politics that occurs in a normal EDH game. If everyone has the same mindset of cEDH style of play, then the table-talk is still present and enjoyable as well.
UB Dralnu, Lich Lord
RBW [Primer]-Kaalia of the Vast
BUG [Primer]-Tasigur, the Golden Fang
GWU [Primer]-Arcades, the Strategist
WUB Primer-Aminatou, the Fateshifter
UBR Nicol Bolas, the Ravager
Not that the play skill of most normal commander players is high - it is not. And the skill of cEDH players tends to be higher, partly because you have to be fairly invested and familiar with the game to buy in at that level. But there's way, way more room to perfect your gameplay in a normal game of commander than a cEDH one, at least imo.
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
55% aggro
40% control
5% combo
1 control
2/3 aggro
1/0 durdly combo
That is optimal for me.
Alright, I'll bite. A healthy debate is fun to engage in. I've quoted you and added bold text and numbers around each of the primary points I'd like to debate. To set the ground rules, please know that I approach this topic and you with respect and a genuine desire to broaden your perspective, at the very least. I fully and wholeheartedly support the various ways to play Commander and I happily recognize that I'm a minority (being a cEDH player) - if part of a vocal one, heh. Regardless of the debate and the conclusions we draw, I hope that I will be able to at least respectfully showcase why I prefer to play cEDH over a regular "battlecruiser" Commander game.
I will be referencing both personal examples as well as videos from the excellent LabManiacs.com website. I personally believe that their cEDH content is representative of the way that my playgroup and I play cEDH games (as well as general cEDH games), the relative playskill of my playgroup (and other cEDH players), and a showcasing of the premier cEDH strategies and archetypes available. Their curated video content can be found here and a compendium of their decklists can be found here, as references.
I think it's also important to define a few things as well, since I'll be using them in the context of my arguments.
Alright, time to dig in.
For point #1, I both agree AND disagree with you here. You are correct in the perception that a cEDH game is usually played at a faster pace than a regular battlecruiser game. By necessity, this DOES limit the number of interactions that you experience within a game by virtue of it being shorter, so you are correct in this point.
But I disagree with you because a cEDH game makes a substantially higher number of the "regular" decisions you make substantially more impactful, thus also INCREASING the number of important decisions that you make. For example, in a battlecruiser game, it's reasonable to assume that I can spend the first few turns of a game deploying my ramp effects, accruing card advantage, or building a board presence without substantial cost because it's likely that the other battlecruiser players are employing a similar strategy. I'm not going to lose tempo or face dire consequences of tapping out on T3 to play a Dimir Signet into a Night's Whisper (as a generic example); indeed, making this kind of play in a battlecruiser Commander game is probably safe and will actively help me execute my primary strategy by developing my card advantage AND mana advantage.
However, doing a similar action in a cEDH game could have HUGE repercussions on your chances to win the game; I've seen some decks consistently assemble a game-winning combo on T3 and execute it (in fact, some of my own decks can reliably do this). By doing the same action that I would take in a battlecruiser game, and performing it within a cEDH game, I could lose the game as a consequence. This makes resource management even more crucial during a cEDH game because any actions I take to develop my board state or accrue card advantage has real consequences to it. It heightens the potential risks of making any in-game decision. As an example of this, if you look at the 48 minute mark of this recorded game, the Yidris player chose a correct moment to go for the win because the other players had spent their resources in addressing other issues. The other player's decisions of when to respond with interaction throughout the course of the game(of which there is a great deal of, by the way) allowed the Yidris player that window of opportunity to execute a win successfuly that he wouldn't have been able to do otherwise. The Tasigur player even admits that he chose the wrong moment to pay for a Rhystic Study trigger at the 54:00 mark. This is an example of how important it is to manage resources and discern whether or not a specific action is the correct one; paying for the Study trigger may not have seemed important during the previous slew of interaction, but it cost the Tasigur player the game. And while the actual recording is under an hour, and the volume of interactions therefore in comparison to a battlecruiser game is less, I think it showcases very well how important nearly EVERY decision is within a cEDH game. This kind of example is commonplace during cEDH games, so I feel comfortable saying that my example is representative of nearly every cEDH game that is played.
Point #2. I don't disagree with the first part of your point here at all, actually. I think the beauty of a cEDH game is that it compresses the number of important decisions that a player needs to make into a much more compact time frame. The same type of decisions of tempo generation, card advantage, and board development hold true whether playing a battlecruiser game or a cEDH game. In a battlecruiser game, the frequency of these important decisions is a little more spread out from a time standpoint and usually occur within the later turns of a game, generally from T5-T6 onwards. In a cEDH game, the frequency of these decisions occurs more often and within a faster timeframe, often starting around T2-T3.
I do disagree with you on the second half of it, that "making the right choices... can be a lot harder [than a] fast combo game". As my previous point alludes to, I think the complexity of decisions that any player makes within a cEDH game is actually INCREASED by playing against other cEDH decks. If you're sitting down at a cEDH game, it's likely that you'll be playing against 3-4 disparate and equally powerful combos, all utilizing different cards. These combos are built within the context of the player's specific Commander deck, meaning that the card advantage engines and board development cards that each player utilizes will be fairly varied; and even if they're the same across the table, this only adds to the complexity because you know precisely what kind of play your opponents COULD make, given their mana sources and card count. Because being able to play more cards in a turn cycle is more critical for a cEDH game than a normal battlecruiser game (generally speaking), CMC considerations are paramount when building a cEDH deck. Because each player's cards and their associated effects are able to be deployed at lower CMC's, and therefore at a faster pace than a battlecruiser game, the opportunity cost for doing a certain action is much higher for EVERY action taken. Because the opportunity cost is higher for each decision tree during a cEDH game, this adds depth and complexity to the game right out of the gates and forces a similar number of "critical junctures" that a battlecruiser game would experience at a faster pace.
This is primarily one of the reasons that cEDH players absolutely NEED to be clear about what type of game they're playing with the table; it's totally inappropriate for a cEDH player to pub-stomp a table of unaware battlecruiser decks and players because their deck is cEDH level and the rest of the table's decks are not. This kind of inappropriate disparity in deck construction and/or play-skill is what leads to feel-bads amongst the other players, who had different expectations of what that game was supposed to feel like. While I recognize that there are cEDH players that do actively look to curb-stomp others, the vast majority of our vocal minority respect the social contract of a playgroup and will play and build decks accordingly.
Point #3. I disagree. While the same type of combos that are in a deck are consistently executed as the primary way of how that deck wins the game (Flash Hulk is probably always going to want to Flash Hulk, Gitrog is always going to Dredge Dakmor Salvage, etc.), the decision trees and "critical junctures" that said player employs to get there are VASTLY different per game. If you want to binge watch the LabManiacs' video content, I encourage you to do so, as it demonstrates how variegated and complex cEDH games really are. Often, the phrase "cEDH games always end on T3 and combat damage doesn't matter" is used as a joke/meme phrase within a game because this is RARELY the case. Their most recent episode is a classic example of how this common perception is totally inaccurate.
Some decision points have to be the same (i.e. destroying an opponent's Rest in Peace to utilize your 'yard-based strategy) because they stop your primary win line, but that too adds complexity to the game. How will you remove it? What cards will you spend to do so? Will your opponent be able to protect their RIP? Can/will an OPPONENT protect the opponent's RIP in order to prevent you from executing your combo? These are common questions that come up during a game.
UB Dralnu, Lich Lord
RBW [Primer]-Kaalia of the Vast
BUG [Primer]-Tasigur, the Golden Fang
GWU [Primer]-Arcades, the Strategist
WUB Primer-Aminatou, the Fateshifter
UBR Nicol Bolas, the Ravager
My main point that I think I was a bit unclear on is that cEDH drastically reduces the number of cards people are likely to play, and reduces the commanders/lists you're likely to come up against. The number of things you need to expect is cut down considerably because as soon as you see the commander, you know a fairly high percentage of the cards in their decks, which makes it easier to expect and play around the right things. Whereas in a normal commander game, there are basically no limit to the sorts of things that could happen. People play some crazy stuff sometimes.
Granted, this doesn't really matter if you're playing edh in an insular meta and know what you expect from everyone, but I tend to play in big, public groups where there's almost always decks at the table I've never seen before, and I've always got to be on my toes. It could be cEDH level, or it could be draft chaff, and playing well means being able to figure out which it is, and how to handle it. In a sense, normal EDH encompasses all of cEDH, because playing against anything includes cEDH, as well as everything else.
This is basically the same reason I'm not a big fan of any competitive-level constructed magic - it's the same decks, over and over. Magic is still a very complex game, and cEDH is much more complex than, say, standard, but it's not as complex as normal commander because the possibilities are so cut down.
Another, unmentioned point is that cEDH generally involves using decks - or at least archetypes - from established lists, possibly with tweaks that usually won't broadly change the goal of the deck. That doesn't say anything about the gameplay that I haven't already said, but I prefer magic as a biathlon of deckbuilding and playing - hence why limited is my favorite competitive format, by far.
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 generally agree with the both of y'all in most points too actually. My EDH decks are most decidedly NOT competitive, but i do run some number of competitive legacy decks, so i can chime in a bit with that:
1. Yes, competitive games of legacy at least can be pretty quick, and have more impactful decisions in a more compressed amount of time. Turn 1 when an opponent plays a wooded foothills then passes, I'm generally considering very carefully whether or not they have the stifle, so i'd play my non-fetch land if possible. It can also indicate some sort of lands control, so i should land the early threat if possible. or it could even be some rogue deck! I can imagine cEDH being somewhat similar. knowing the meta, knowing what can be brought against you, and working the probabilities is kinda a thing.
3. Playing against combo in legacy, it's always a bit of a light dance (sort of). Depending on what they're showing, you have to attack it differently. Sometimes, you counter the LED. sometimes, it's knowing when to disenchant their lotus petals. Sometimes, its hymning them and hoping for the best. Sometimes, you just gotta figure out a line for yourself that allows you to go off at instant speed in response to their kill. I can imagine it being more varied in EDH, since you can only run singletons of each combo piece.
Dunno, i think either way, it's interesting that so many people think that combo is rampant in their meta, but people generally don't like playing against them. Maybe it's this idea that it's non-interactive. But your deck is only not interacting with them because of how you've built it, right? I think having a tempo/aggro list, you're still interacting with combo players if you beat with aethersworn canonist, and when you pressure their life totals to a point where they have to actually take you seriously (which is why i've been a proponent for 30 life total instead of 40).
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
Fair enough. With your clarification, I think I now agree with your sentiment. Indeed, the card pool, archetypes, and potential decklists that you'd see at a cEDH table are much smaller than a battlecruiser meta.
It's evident that your experience with cEDH is much less than my own, and I think this simply becomes a matter of preference and a core decision of how to approach a game of Commander. I like approaching a game of being able to solve the puzzle of how I can execute a win over my other opponent's highly tuned strategies with a relatively known card pool. It sounds like you enjoy the same type of experience but prefer to have the puzzle pieces of the game be unknown. Both philosophies are appropriate and, in the grand scheme of things, only slightly nuanced.
I agree that setting the starting life total to 30 for cEDH games would actually make Aggro strategies fairly viable and open up some interesting lists. Cutting off 20-30 damage that you have to deal to the table is a big deal, and it would more effectively pressure the combo and Mid-Range decks to develop their boards in a more defensive way and provide real opportunity cost to playing certain cards (I'm looking at you, Ad Nauseam).
I agree wholeheartedly with the points that you bring up otherwise and I think that playing around known strategies actually carries more excitement for me, personally, then playing with an unknown playgroup.
UB Dralnu, Lich Lord
RBW [Primer]-Kaalia of the Vast
BUG [Primer]-Tasigur, the Golden Fang
GWU [Primer]-Arcades, the Strategist
WUB Primer-Aminatou, the Fateshifter
UBR Nicol Bolas, the Ravager
Yeah, you could just as easily say Stax raises the skill level because you never know what "fun" little rules I have in store for you.
A diverse meta is what I think raises the skill level more than anything.
On phasing: