If your strategy doesn't include ramping up in mana, drawing a bunch of cards and using the broken tutors to fetch up the mistakes in magic's history, chances are you are going to lose to the decks that do.
They do to a certain extend and always be what I want to know is where you would draw the line to what that extent should be and what that would accomplish.
And Rosy also raised a point I'd like to add to and that is if you remove the "Autoincludes" other cards will just take their spot leaving you exactly where you started.
There are cards that are way, way to good at what they do that overcentralize the game.
Every blue deck I make has the same ramp package, the same draw package, the same tutor package.
If these cards weren't so standalone broken, I would have to start looking for different versions of the effects and other synergies instead of just mindlessly throwing in the busted cards. Like if my choice is diabolic tutor or another threat, suddenly I have options. Deck building becomes interesting again.
If your strategy doesn't include ramping up in mana, drawing a bunch of cards and using the broken tutors to fetch up the mistakes in magic's history, chances are you are going to lose to the decks that do.
They do to a certain extend and always be what I want to know is where you would draw the line to what that extent should be and what that would accomplish.
And Rosy also raised a point I'd like to add to and that is if you remove the "Autoincludes" other cards will just take their spot leaving you exactly where you started.
There are cards that are way, way to good at what they do that overcentralize the game.
Every blue deck I make has the same ramp package, the same draw package, the same tutor package.
If these cards weren't so standalone broken, I would have to start looking for different versions of the effects and other synergies instead of just mindlessly throwing in the busted cards. Like if my choice is diabolic tutor or another threat, suddenly I have options. Deck building becomes interesting again.
So... from what I'm gathering... you want every piece of interaction, card filtering, card advantage, and mana advantage to be so grossly inefficient and/or niche that which one you use (or whether you even use them) doesn't make a meaningful impact on your win/loss record. Am I finally getting this right?
If your strategy doesn't include ramping up in mana, drawing a bunch of cards and using the broken tutors to fetch up the mistakes in magic's history, chances are you are going to lose to the decks that do.
Since Magic is a resource game every strategy falls into either increasing your resources , decreasing your oponents resources or using ones resources more effectively. Thats why I want a specific strategy that doesn't fall under that, and that is a strategy that really gets irellevant but not because of card choices but the way the game works.
Every blue deck I make has the same ramp package, the same draw package, the same tutor package.
Then don't and yes you can still be competetive to an extend with weaker cards or different cards (does not neccesarily apply to CEDH).
If these cards weren't so standalone broken
As I said earlier there aren't that many Standalone broken cards most are synergistic broken.
Sure there are some standalone broken cards but even they do not neccesarily fit in every deck. Like the example you gave earlier with enlighted tutor I don't run any in my paper decks (Budgetary reasons), and only in one of my 3 white decks in Modo as thats the only one that really needs it.
And the win records of all those are the same.
Like if my choice is diabolic tutor or another threat, suddenly I have options.
You do have that choice with demonic tutor as well. Sure demonic tutor is generally better because it can get you anything (Nothing beats sad dem tutor for a land :D) but if you are fetching a threat most of the time you can just play a threat instead of the tutor, and your chances of winning dont go down significantly. If you however look for many different types of cards then you are in a playgroup where you need that utility and there you should probably take the diabolic tutor over the threat as well irregardles of the high mana cost.
So... from what I'm gathering... you want every piece of interaction, card filtering, card advantage, and mana advantage to be so grossly inefficient and/or niche that which one you use (or whether you even use them) doesn't make a meaningful impact on your win/loss record. Am I finally getting this right?
Don't use stupid hyperbole. We don't need sol ring or mana crypt or mana vault in this format. We don't need one mana tutors. We don't need cards like mystic remora or necropotence drawing cards at rates that have clearly been dubbed obscene.
Cutting these cards can suddenly open up room for synergy to actually compete, but no synergy will ever outclass a sol ring level card.
So... from what I'm gathering... you want every piece of interaction, card filtering, card advantage, and mana advantage to be so grossly inefficient and/or niche that which one you use (or whether you even use them) doesn't make a meaningful impact on your win/loss record. Am I finally getting this right?
Don't use stupid hyperbole. We don't need sol ring or mana crypt or mana vault in this format. We don't need one mana tutors. We don't need cards like mystic remora or necropotence drawing cards at rates that have clearly been dubbed obscene.
Cutting these cards can suddenly open up room for synergy to actually compete, but no synergy will ever outclass a sol ring level card.
No, it wouldn't. Getting rid of those card will just have other cards who do the exact same things take their place.
Really, the only effect I could see happening is killing the diversity of the game. A lot of people like the fact that EDH can be super casual, super competitive or something in between. That they can build decks that are meant for certain levels of play and have the card pools to do that.
Honestly, man, not come off as hostile, but it really just sounds like you want everyone to play at a certain level because you think it's fun. You want everyone to conform to your definition of a good time under the guise that it will make the game better. Not too mention, your stance basically treats it like everyone plays at the cEDH level when that couldn't be further from the truth.
Not too mention that the measures you talk about would kill deck development. I pretty sure there are people out there who love upgrading their decks over time. Slowly but steadily phasing old cards and replacing them with better ones. The thrill of getting to play a deck that gets better and more efficient with time, tweaking and, yes, straight upgrades.
So... from what I'm gathering... you want every piece of interaction, card filtering, card advantage, and mana advantage to be so grossly inefficient and/or niche that which one you use (or whether you even use them) doesn't make a meaningful impact on your win/loss record. Am I finally getting this right?
Don't use stupid hyperbole. We don't need sol ring or mana crypt or mana vault in this format. We don't need one mana tutors. We don't need cards like mystic remora or necropotence drawing cards at rates that have clearly been dubbed obscene.
Cutting these cards can suddenly open up room for synergy to actually compete, but no synergy will ever outclass a sol ring level card.
No, it wouldn't. Getting rid of those card will just have other cards who do the exact same things take their place.
Really, the only effect I could see happening is killing the diversity of the game. A lot of people like the fact that EDH can be super casual, super competitive or something in between. That they can build decks that are meant for certain levels of play and have the card pools to do that.
Honestly, man, not come off as hostile, but it really just sounds like you want everyone to play at a certain level because you think it's fun. You want everyone to conform to your definition of a good time under the guise that it will make the game better. Not too mention, your stance basically treats it like everyone plays at the cEDH level when that couldn't be further from the truth.
Not too mention that the measures you talk about would kill deck development. I pretty sure there are people out there who love upgrading their decks over time. Slowly but steadily phasing old cards and replacing them with better ones. The thrill of getting to play a deck that gets better and more efficient with time, tweaking and, yes, straight upgrades.
The diversity of the game is already dead. That's the whole point of this topic. It's not interesting for me to make a deck anymore because of how many slots are already taken by broken standalone cards that outclass everything and will forever outclass everything. When do you think we're going to see a better set of mana rocks at 0 and 1 mana? That's mana crypt, sol ring, mox diamond, mana vault, chrome mox. If you aren't running green, you are running these before you know what your general is, and in at least 99% of cases you are correct to do so because you'll win more. How is that diversity?
I can make a blue or green or black deck without even knowing the general anymore, and aside from a couple exceptions it will be pretty close to the optimal build. There is no diversity left to maintain in an eternal format that let's you run all the old mistakes.
What cards do what sol ring does?
What cards do what the one mana tutors do?
You can't just replace demonic tutor with diabolic tutor. You can't just replace necropotence with read the bones. You can't just replace sol ring with worn powerstone. These cards are substantially worse and promote possible alternatives. You will never cut demonic tutor because it's broken as hell, you can certainly cut diabolic tutor in favor of other cards. THAT is diversity. That is what makes deck construction interesting to me. I can weigh the pros and cons of two spells with no clear winner because they have actual risks associated with running them.
I talk about cedh level because that's where every single playgroup I've played with ends up going. Everyone hates losing, upgrades a few more cards, a few more cards, suddenly 3 months later everyone is playing the most competitive version of their deck that they can afford. I'm tired of looking for new playgroups. I'm tired of trying to convince people to play weaker cards. I want to make interesting decks then test them out a few times then go back to making more interesting decks, but edh no longer provides that. I have no canvas left to work with.
The diversity isn't dead, it's just that the groups you described created competitive environments that are not compatible with what you want to do. That speaks to the people you play with, not the game itself. Everyone makes their choice on how to approach the game.
Chronic misanthropic contrarian yells at cloud, the thread, part 27: "knowing how to build decks ruins the game" edition.
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!
Take them back. Have the gumption to play the cards you want. Stop asking for others to fix the problems you perceive.
The diversity of the game is already dead. That's the whole point of this topic. It's not interesting for me to make a deck anymore because of how many slots are already taken by broken standalone cards that outclass everything and will forever outclass everything.
Its not. My group, and tons more, actually practice restraint. You should try playing at less than 100% efficiency.
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.
I have a prime speaker zegana combo deck that runs very little interaction and just combos out. It runs a lot of the so called staples.
At certain tables people cant keep up with it. Its a combo monster. Even without counterspells they just seem to leave it unchecked and it dominates.
But you know what stops it? The tiniest bit of disruption.
Last week it went 2-1, the first two games were full of people not running anything to slow it down at all. Nothing. Not one card got removed from the table, not one spell cast stopped. Zero interaction from my opponents and i exploited that. The last game though? The last game had a guy playing queen marchesa akido-style. He had an answer for everything. I had to actually think. It was the best game ive had in months. It used a bunch of cards you wouldnt see in your typical staples build.
The point of my anecdote is no one forces you to play staples, and creativity coupled with smart plays can beat a honed deck.
People try so hard to jam all these things into their decks because theyre good or the internet tells them to. They forget that something as simple as deflecting palm, or red elemental blast, can ruin an entire deck's gameplan, and steal victory.
The only one forcing you to play things you feel are staples, or upfront powerful cards, is you.
I have a prime speaker zegana combo deck that runs very little interaction and just combos out. It runs a lot of the so called staples.
At certain tables people cant keep up with it. Its a combo monster. Even without counterspells they just seem to leave it unchecked and it dominates.
But you know what stops it? The tiniest bit of disruption.
Last week it went 2-1, the first two games were full of people not running anything to slow it down at all. Nothing. Not one card got removed from the table, not one spell cast stopped. Zero interaction from my opponents and i exploited that. The last game though? The last game had a guy playing queen marchesa akido-style. He had an answer for everything. I had to actually think. It was the best game ive had in months. It used a bunch of cards you wouldnt see in your typical staples build.
The point of my anecdote is no one forces you to play staples, and creativity coupled with smart plays can beat a honed deck.
People try so hard to jam all these things into their decks because theyre good or the internet tells them to. They forget that something as simple as deflecting palm, or red elemental blast, can ruin an entire deck's gameplan, and steal victory.
The only one forcing you to play things you feel are staples, or upfront powerful cards, is you.
Nothing you described makes me think you were actually playing against honed decks.
Mana Crypt, Mana Vault, Sol Ring, Chrome Mox, Mox Diamond, arcane signet, The ten signets, the ten talismans, darksteel ingot, chromatic lantern, Trinket Mage, Seething Song, Caged Sun, Gauntlet of Might, Gauntlet of Power, Kodama’s Reach, Cultivate, Harrow, Circuitous Route, Explosive Vegetation, Sakura-Tribe Elder, Nature’s Lore, Farseek, Three Visita, Boreal Druid, Llanowar Elves, Elvish Mystic, Fyndhorn Elves, Birds of Paradise, Noble Hierarch, Land Tax, Tithe, High Tide, Bubbling Muck, Cabal Coffers, Nykthos, Ancient Tomb, City of Traitors, Expedition Map, Thaumatic Compass, Exploration, Mul Daya Oracle, Azusa, Coiling Oracle, Gitaxian Probe, Preordain, Ponder, Serum Visions, Brainstorm, Time Spiral, Timetwister, Wheel of Fate, Rhystic Study, Consecrated Sphinx, Sylvan Library, Smothering Tithe, Windfall, Necropotence, Phyrexian Arena, Yawgmoth’s Will, Toxic Deluge, Cyclonic Rift, Wrath of God, Damnation, Chaos Warp, Generous Gift, Beast Within, Harmonize, Blasphemous Act, Skullclamp, Grasp of Fate, Swan Song, Force of Will, Force of Negation, Cryptic Command, Pongify, Rapid Hybridization, dreamstone hedron, Hedron Archive, Brainstone, carpet of Flowers, Perilous Vault, Nevinyrral’s Disk, Sylvan Scrying, Crop Rotation, Enlightened Tutor, Idyllic Tutor, Sterling Grove, Open the Armory, Steelshaper’s Gift, Mystical Tutor, Merchant’s Scroll, Worldly Tutor, Tooth and Nail, Chord of Calling, Eldritch Evolution, bloom tender, Natural Order, Vampiric Tutor, Demonic Tutor, Beseech the Queen, Mastermind’s Acquisition, Diabolic Tutor, Increasing Ambition, Gamble, Imperial Recruiter, Curse of Swine, diabolic intern, Recruiter of the Guard...
That is over a hundred cards I just listed and that is likely the tip of the iceberg. While some of them aren’t competitive right now, you need to nuke almost everything to get rid of the auto-picks. Even if all of the top rate tutors in black were banned, for example, it would still be better to run Diabolic Tutor rather than running yet another token creator in your Endrik deck.
This is why I don’t get the complaint. You want to get those deck slots “back” but the simple fact is that you likely never had them to begin with. What most likely happened is that you (and/or your gaming group) gained more knowledge of the card game and got better cards. The game didn’t magically change overnight.
Beyond that, the request doesn’t make sense when you get down to it. When I’m crafting Toshiro Umezawa, he wants me to use kill spells. If any of those kill spells are decent, however, I will feel pressured to use them in my Endrek deck to interact and follow the template. If there are enough awesome token makers for Endrek that it’s worth not using that kill spell, however, then Toshiro is pressured to use those token spells. I don’t know what sort of artificial silos you want between commanders but that is fundamentally not how this game works.
I guess that I should ask what type of cards you actually want. It seems that you oppose generic good cards and cards that are so great for the archetype that they are obvious. When building an Orzhov Enchantment Deck, you would be against Land Tax and necropotence (which are generically powerful) along with cards like Enlightened Tutor (which is an auto-include for enchantment decks). That just seems to leave us with middle-ground cards like Extinguish Hope or Three Dreams. If you banned tutor/necro/tax, however, we would be having this exact same conversation about how cards like Extinguish Hopes, by being the best available tier of enchantment support, forces you to include it and robs you of your deck slots.
I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong. Could you give me an example of the sort of synergy cards you wish could be played that would not risk becoming autoincludes if all of the better cards were banned? That just seems like a problem of infinite regression from where I’m standing.
I don’t disagree with Carthage core premise; too many decks I have seen I felt always are same variation of cards; in my current meta, artifacts and ramp. Lesser extent unrelenting graveyard recursion, always via very similar methods.
Some of this is meta specific, and I have my thoughts on other reasons for this. But you know of those 100 cards you just listed; I’ll be blunt 70%-80% of those I am just fine getting dodo’d. Only ones I don’t, I can basically list as; 1 CMC Manadorks, Wrath of God, Chord of Calling, Diabolic Tutor, Wrath of God, I am indifferent to Kodoma’s Clone (if not the biggest fan of their existence), Ingot and Archive, Toxic Deluge and lesser extent Damnation.
If your list was meant to prove how many cards are ubitigous and everyone play those not removed from the cardpool, from me it did the exact opposite.
every commander deck is beginning to follow the same patterns. You pick a commander and 7/10 decks will be pretty much the same list, then you have 2 budget variants and 1 oddball deck.
but that is still 70% exactly the same.
as for you, i think you are looking too much into interaction and accelartion. (Maybe even a bit too much card draw)
I run 37 lands in a 5-color deck. (I am very certain mono color can run 33-35 and still fare well)
My rocks consist of only 6 cards. I have a bit of interaction. Granted the bulk of my deck (28 dragons) allows me to use them for most interaction, but the fact is you are piling to much into the list. It is the death of deck building, but only because people are looking at it in too broad of a way. Take a step back, build the deck you want, then tweak it. I often have cards i will fit in to the side, and then build the deck, afterwards I take any empty sleeves and fill them with the extra cards (like sol ring) and then check to see if there is anything else i need to look into. Then i begin to cut cards. See if a card is really doing what i want it to do or if it is more of a niche card.
Carthage may i ask you what do you think the solution is?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
If you play somewhat competitive, you play competitive.
That will by itself ensure you play the best cards available and you gimp yourself not doing so.
----
If you and your people want more fun, you can simply get rid of the "auto-includes" and build decks purely on flavor, which feel more in-line with the commanders identity and flavor.
So if you play a "vampire" theme, Vampiric Tutor is fine, but Demonic is not.
If you go that way to build decks, you get much more flavor and explore cards that otherwise would not end up in your pile at all.
----
At this point in time, Magic got so many cards and reprints almost nothing that you end up with way too many cards to include and lots of them do similar stuff, but only the "best" of them get chosen, so all the bad ones dont matter.
In the beginning of magic Wrath of God was pretty much the only viable mass removal spell for white, sure Balance, Armageddon and the like, but with time you got more and more Mass removal and you simply dont want to play most of them as other choices are simply superior.
So even with all the extra new cards, almost non of them are better than the old good ones you already played, so they dont matter ; unless you further increase the restrictions beyond just color identity and add a flavor restriction (in which case lots of the worse new versions get a reason to see play, as the other option simply couldnt be played).
----
Lots of really "good" cards would also cost a lot of money (Power 9 and all that) , so casual decks usually simply did not use them.
If you allow proxy cards people always opt to play the more competitive cards ; that hurts the casual spirit.
So the "budget" constraint is much lower in lots of cases, while some cards are still very expensive, you can get away playing strong options that are way cheaper.
----
If you want to push more casual decks you can also simply increase the minimum deck size by a lot.
300 cards minimum for example is something that works kinda well, as people by default dont want to play crazy amounts of tutor/shuffling effects if it takes them that much effort every time.
Chronic misanthropic contrarian yells at cloud, the thread, part 27: "knowing how to build decks ruins the game" edition.
Indeed. I feel like this thread should be exhibit A on adding downvotes to the forum.
The forums has an ignore function if you care, I have had onering on it for years.
This is pretty funny. Until the post describing this thread, I haven't done anything to this guy. I've disagreed with him, but that probably describes 90% of this forum. I think that about sums him up.
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!
After reviewing the contents of the thread, I wanted to pose a couple questions to Carthage (OP).
1. How many decks are you running?
2. Do you have a tried and true regular play group?
3. Of all the decks you have, how much variance do you see across the colors you're using with regard to card choice?
I ask from a point of trying to understand where you're coming from and relate as best I can. So I suppose I'll go first:
1. I have ~15 decks, some of which are more tuned than the others
2. I am fortunate to have a regular play group locally and one about an hour away from college that gets together every 1-2 months. I also have a LGS nearby to scratch the itch if need be.
3. I have some "staples" I go to, if I can, in color - Krosan Grip for the split second removal, Heroic Intervention for the anti-removal or boardwipe tech. Beast Within for unrestricted permanent removal. Often a Cultivate or Kodama's Reach variant or both. Sure, but I'm not running the exact same suite of cards in every deck. Some cards see more play than others, but what the deck is trying to do is really where everything starts for me.
I recently had a friend complain about my Chulane, Teller of Tales deck, saying it's the same as all my other decks. I specifically powered this one down though. Tribal golems... let that sink in. There are some generic staples for the colors, enablers like Parallel Lives, Anointed Procession, Doubling Season, Mirari's Wake... sure. But I'm playing a less than optimal way to play the commander, and it's something I had fun building and I know no one will expect. That "suite" of cards I mentioned? Those are there to prevent the deck from getting trounced by the more easily focused/tuned decks. I'm playing with a crutch, but I imposed that on myself.
I played 3 games friday night with the deck.
Game 1: 1v1, barely won versus Kumena. It came down to a turn.
Game 2: 3 player game. Went ham, 100%. wasn't even close. Talking Precursor Golem + Garruk's Packleader + Parallel Lives + Rite of Replication = "I draw over 50 cards in a turn between that and the rest of my board" crazy.
Game 3: 4 player game. The Yarok and Korvold players ran away with the game and my deck and the Elsha ones barely got off the ground.
TL;DR - Impose some limitations on yourself. Budget, CMC average, No cards over a certain CMC in deck, Color restrictions, Less popular theme, Play bigger games with more people and opportunity for interaction, etc.
These are the restrictions I have for myself:
Chulane = Golem tribal(for the most part) Golos = Colorless combo/value (With only a few ways to make colored mana for his ability) Balan = Mono-white voltron Kalemne = Boros voltron + Sunforger package Feather = Boros spellslinging Mina and Denn = Gruul Landfall Karlov = Orzhov lifegain (also no spell is over 6cmc, and there's only 1 6cmc card) Ezuri 1.0 = Elf tribal + elf warrior tokens (concessions were made to allow for that synergy) Odric 1.0 = Soldier tribal (everything is either a soldier, make soldiers, or supports/pumps them) Syr Gwen = Knight tribal Sliver Overlord = Sliver tribal/combo (toolbox) Selvala 2.0 = Big green beats/mana combo (knowingly isn't the most optimized build for it) Captain Sisay = Legendary.deck (toolbox) Valduk = Mono-red equipments/auras (biggest value, lowest cmc equipments and synergistic red stuff) Marath = Naya token combo + planeswalkers (Not quite Breya levels of "Oops, this falls into combos without trying", but it's not too far off)
** Additional note, there's probably 7 or so boardwipes total between all of the decks. Because I would rather play the game, and let others worry about it. It works out for me most of the time and serves 2 purposes:
1. Lets me run more single-target responses
2. Lets me run more of the cards I like, but would have to cut for mass removal.
It’s an “issue” built into the very game itself. There are better and worse cards, objectively. Deliberately so. Making for a kind of “mini-game” for those in the know, in fact.
So, there will always be superior choices for a given deck type, strategy, build, whatever. Always have been.
If you didn’t want that to be the case, you would have to look at different games, or make one.
After reviewing the contents of the thread, I wanted to pose a couple questions to Carthage (OP).
1. How many decks are you running?
2. Do you have a tried and true regular play group?
3. Of all the decks you have, how much variance do you see across the colors you're using with regard to card choice?
I run between 6 and 12 decks at any given time, but overall I've probably made more than 30 commander decks.
Not really, I've had a store group that is not fixed, and groups of friends that eventually stop meeting up over the years. Right now I have a sort of stable group but they have one deck each and the power level is very out of balance.
For the first few years of edh, pretty substantial. Lately? Almost no variance. Broken cards are stronger than general synergy, so the list rarely changes.
I run between 6 and 12 decks at any given time, but overall I've probably made more than 30 commander decks.
Not really, I've had a store group that is not fixed, and groups of friends that eventually stop meeting up over the years. Right now I have a sort of stable group but they have one deck each and the power level is very out of balance.
For the first few years of edh, pretty substantial. Lately? Almost no variance. Broken cards are stronger than general synergy, so the list rarely changes.
It sounds like we have a similar enough experience to compare notes.
~14-15 decks currently, Built/co-built a ton more for friends and ended up retiring ~10 of my own decks along the way to get where I am.
As others have mentioned, unfortunately, the nature of the game is such that stronger cards or functional reprints of worthwhile ones (ex. Cultivate and Kodama's Reach) need to occur to incentivize people purchasing the new products. Sometimes people chase new arts, foils, promos, alt. languages, etc. But the act itself of "Upgrading" one's deck, whether it's strictly on a power level basis or for the sake of a theme, it's a completely natural part of the game and the deckbuilding process.
Some people happen to have more disposable income than others and it allows them to circumnavigate the trials of saving up, trading, cracking, etc. It's unfortunate when it allows for a larger power jump than a playgroup is ready for, because the arms race often follows.
I won't claim to know what the financial circumstances are like for you or those around in your current group, but I'd like to try to recommend a few things.
Try to get the group to be on board with a different deck idea with a budget of $30-50 ($100 if everyone's down) and see what they say. Obviously exclude foil costs if people have them and cut the cost for basic lands out entirely.
Try to get your LGS to run a Commander League with points. They often have merits/demerits for playing fast mana early, knocking people out before a certain turn, looping a combo more than a few times in a turn, etc.
Maybe offer up one of your other decks for them to run instead of the one they have. They might be curious about running a different archetype (ex. Voltron, tribal, lifegain, etc.), but lack the funds or card collection to make one they think would have a shot in the current meta there. This goes back to the TL;DR I mentioned - Budget, CMC average, No cards over a certain CMC in deck, Color restrictions, Less popular theme, Play bigger games with more people and opportunity for interaction, etc. Get them to give something like that a shot?
Try a game type variant. Planechase, Star Magic, Cowboy/Bang, King (whatever you want to call it), something.
Rules
The game needs 5-7 people total.
Cards to denote the given roles are sleeved and shuffled face down and picked at random.
Plains = Sheriff/King (There's only ever 1)
Island = Deputy (starts at quantity 1 and then gets another at odd player intervals - 5, 7, 9, etc.)
Swamp = Outlaw/Assassin
Mountain = Renegade/Usurper (There's only ever 1)
The Sheriff is the only role to be revealed at the start of the game.
Sheriff starts with 20 life + 10 for each other player. Everyone else is at 40.
Sheriff goes first (and draws)
If anyone kills an outlaw, they get to draw 3 cards as a bounty.
If the Sheriff kills their Deputy, they discard their hand.
The Renegade often plays the fence.
Everyone is trying to convince the Sheriff that they are the Deputy, until they aren't.
Win conditions:
Sheriff and Deputy(s) win when the Outlaws and the Renegade are dead.
Outlaws win when the Sheriff dies.
Renegade wins when they and the Sheriff are the last 2 standing and the Sheriff dies.
**Alternate win conditions don't function at all**
It adds a very political element to the game, and it helps muddy the waters for power levels.
The King variant just has the Usurper take the King's place as King if they manage to kill them.
We play the Bang variant probably 75% of the time with the other 25% being a mix of free-for-all and 2-headed giant.
I suggest these things because I have had to do the same at the request of my play group. I have some 8-9's in my collection that positively go nuts, but I only break them out every once in a while, because of how degenerate they can get. Maybe get a couple lower power games in before breaking out the haymakers for a quick game at the end of the night?
I run between 6 and 12 decks at any given time, but overall I've probably made more than 30 commander decks.
Not really, I've had a store group that is not fixed, and groups of friends that eventually stop meeting up over the years. Right now I have a sort of stable group but they have one deck each and the power level is very out of balance.
For the first few years of edh, pretty substantial. Lately? Almost no variance. Broken cards are stronger than general synergy, so the list rarely changes.
It sounds like we have a similar enough experience to compare notes.
~14-15 decks currently, Built/co-built a ton more for friends and ended up retiring ~10 of my own decks along the way to get where I am.
As others have mentioned, unfortunately, the nature of the game is such that stronger cards or functional reprints of worthwhile ones (ex. Cultivate and Kodama's Reach) need to occur to incentivize people purchasing the new products. Sometimes people chase new arts, foils, promos, alt. languages, etc. But the act itself of "Upgrading" one's deck, whether it's strictly on a power level basis or for the sake of a theme, it's a completely natural part of the game and the deckbuilding process.
Some people happen to have more disposable income than others and it allows them to circumnavigate the trials of saving up, trading, cracking, etc. It's unfortunate when it allows for a larger power jump than a playgroup is ready for, because the arms race often follows.
I won't claim to know what the financial circumstances are like for you or those around in your current group, but I'd like to try to recommend a few things.
Try to get the group to be on board with a different deck idea with a budget of $30-50 ($100 if everyone's down) and see what they say. Obviously exclude foil costs if people have them and cut the cost for basic lands out entirely.
Try to get your LGS to run a Commander League with points. They often have merits/demerits for playing fast mana early, knocking people out before a certain turn, looping a combo more than a few times in a turn, etc.
Maybe offer up one of your other decks for them to run instead of the one they have. They might be curious about running a different archetype (ex. Voltron, tribal, lifegain, etc.), but lack the funds or card collection to make one they think would have a shot in the current meta there. This goes back to the TL;DR I mentioned - Budget, CMC average, No cards over a certain CMC in deck, Color restrictions, Less popular theme, Play bigger games with more people and opportunity for interaction, etc. Get them to give something like that a shot?
Try a game type variant. Planechase, Star Magic, Cowboy/Bang, King (whatever you want to call it), something.
Rules
The game needs 5-7 people total.
Cards to denote the given roles are sleeved and shuffled face down and picked at random.
Plains = Sheriff/King (There's only ever 1)
Island = Deputy (starts at quantity 1 and then gets another at odd player intervals - 5, 7, 9, etc.)
Swamp = Outlaw/Assassin
Mountain = Renegade/Usurper (There's only ever 1)
The Sheriff is the only role to be revealed at the start of the game.
Sheriff starts with 20 life + 10 for each other player. Everyone else is at 40.
Sheriff goes first (and draws)
If anyone kills an outlaw, they get to draw 3 cards as a bounty.
If the Sheriff kills their Deputy, they discard their hand.
The Renegade often plays the fence.
Everyone is trying to convince the Sheriff that they are the Deputy, until they aren't.
Win conditions:
Sheriff and Deputy(s) win when the Outlaws and the Renegade are dead.
Outlaws win when the Sheriff dies.
Renegade wins when they and the Sheriff are the last 2 standing and the Sheriff dies.
**Alternate win conditions don't function at all**
It adds a very political element to the game, and it helps muddy the waters for power levels.
The King variant just has the Usurper take the King's place as King if they manage to kill them.
We play the Bang variant probably 75% of the time with the other 25% being a mix of free-for-all and 2-headed giant.
I suggest these things because I have had to do the same at the request of my play group. I have some 8-9's in my collection that positively go nuts, but I only break them out every once in a while, because of how degenerate they can get. Maybe get a couple lower power games in before breaking out the haymakers for a quick game at the end of the night?
I really, really like option 3 and have used it to great effect. I've actually taken it a step further in the past, where each member of the playgroup builds enough decks for each other member to use, and builds them the way they like. Then each night the group uses a different members decks. The member that built them explains the concept of each deck and everyone gets a chance to look through the deck they get to familiarize themselves with it before playing. The only rule is that each deck built by the same member should be around the same power level as the others, so they are evenly matched. Once you don't have to worry about the arms race, you feel comfortable building wonkier decks with sub optimal choices, because you can ensure its going up against decks built the same way. Some players will build a set of 75% decks of different archetypes, some will build upgraded precons, some will build theme decks, some tribal, some a mix, some will build niche archetypes, some will build a battlecruiser meta, some will build a cut throat meta, some will build an intentionally jank meta. Everyone gets a chance at their preferred meta having it's day in the sun, and the card and deck variety goes way up. The downside is you need a consistent playgroup, and most of the players need some disposable income (though slightly upgraded precons, intentionally jank, and battlecruiser metas can be built on the cheap).
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!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If your strategy doesn't include ramping up in mana, drawing a bunch of cards and using the broken tutors to fetch up the mistakes in magic's history, chances are you are going to lose to the decks that do.
There are cards that are way, way to good at what they do that overcentralize the game.
Every blue deck I make has the same ramp package, the same draw package, the same tutor package.
If these cards weren't so standalone broken, I would have to start looking for different versions of the effects and other synergies instead of just mindlessly throwing in the busted cards. Like if my choice is diabolic tutor or another threat, suddenly I have options. Deck building becomes interesting again.
So... from what I'm gathering... you want every piece of interaction, card filtering, card advantage, and mana advantage to be so grossly inefficient and/or niche that which one you use (or whether you even use them) doesn't make a meaningful impact on your win/loss record. Am I finally getting this right?
Since Magic is a resource game every strategy falls into either increasing your resources , decreasing your oponents resources or using ones resources more effectively. Thats why I want a specific strategy that doesn't fall under that, and that is a strategy that really gets irellevant but not because of card choices but the way the game works.
Then don't and yes you can still be competetive to an extend with weaker cards or different cards (does not neccesarily apply to CEDH).
As I said earlier there aren't that many Standalone broken cards most are synergistic broken.
Sure there are some standalone broken cards but even they do not neccesarily fit in every deck. Like the example you gave earlier with enlighted tutor I don't run any in my paper decks (Budgetary reasons), and only in one of my 3 white decks in Modo as thats the only one that really needs it.
And the win records of all those are the same.
You do have that choice with demonic tutor as well. Sure demonic tutor is generally better because it can get you anything (Nothing beats sad dem tutor for a land :D) but if you are fetching a threat most of the time you can just play a threat instead of the tutor, and your chances of winning dont go down significantly. If you however look for many different types of cards then you are in a playgroup where you need that utility and there you should probably take the diabolic tutor over the threat as well irregardles of the high mana cost.
Don't use stupid hyperbole. We don't need sol ring or mana crypt or mana vault in this format. We don't need one mana tutors. We don't need cards like mystic remora or necropotence drawing cards at rates that have clearly been dubbed obscene.
Cutting these cards can suddenly open up room for synergy to actually compete, but no synergy will ever outclass a sol ring level card.
No, it wouldn't. Getting rid of those card will just have other cards who do the exact same things take their place.
Really, the only effect I could see happening is killing the diversity of the game. A lot of people like the fact that EDH can be super casual, super competitive or something in between. That they can build decks that are meant for certain levels of play and have the card pools to do that.
Honestly, man, not come off as hostile, but it really just sounds like you want everyone to play at a certain level because you think it's fun. You want everyone to conform to your definition of a good time under the guise that it will make the game better. Not too mention, your stance basically treats it like everyone plays at the cEDH level when that couldn't be further from the truth.
Not too mention that the measures you talk about would kill deck development. I pretty sure there are people out there who love upgrading their decks over time. Slowly but steadily phasing old cards and replacing them with better ones. The thrill of getting to play a deck that gets better and more efficient with time, tweaking and, yes, straight upgrades.
BK'rrik Goodstuff
GWSythis Enchantress
URYusri Coin Flip
BRGKorvold Tokens
BGUYarok Lands Matter
WUBRaffine Looter
The diversity of the game is already dead. That's the whole point of this topic. It's not interesting for me to make a deck anymore because of how many slots are already taken by broken standalone cards that outclass everything and will forever outclass everything. When do you think we're going to see a better set of mana rocks at 0 and 1 mana? That's mana crypt, sol ring, mox diamond, mana vault, chrome mox. If you aren't running green, you are running these before you know what your general is, and in at least 99% of cases you are correct to do so because you'll win more. How is that diversity?
I can make a blue or green or black deck without even knowing the general anymore, and aside from a couple exceptions it will be pretty close to the optimal build. There is no diversity left to maintain in an eternal format that let's you run all the old mistakes.
What cards do what sol ring does?
What cards do what the one mana tutors do?
You can't just replace demonic tutor with diabolic tutor. You can't just replace necropotence with read the bones. You can't just replace sol ring with worn powerstone. These cards are substantially worse and promote possible alternatives. You will never cut demonic tutor because it's broken as hell, you can certainly cut diabolic tutor in favor of other cards. THAT is diversity. That is what makes deck construction interesting to me. I can weigh the pros and cons of two spells with no clear winner because they have actual risks associated with running them.
I talk about cedh level because that's where every single playgroup I've played with ends up going. Everyone hates losing, upgrades a few more cards, a few more cards, suddenly 3 months later everyone is playing the most competitive version of their deck that they can afford. I'm tired of looking for new playgroups. I'm tired of trying to convince people to play weaker cards. I want to make interesting decks then test them out a few times then go back to making more interesting decks, but edh no longer provides that. I have no canvas left to work with.
BK'rrik Goodstuff
GWSythis Enchantress
URYusri Coin Flip
BRGKorvold Tokens
BGUYarok Lands Matter
WUBRaffine Looter
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!
Its not. My group, and tons more, actually practice restraint. You should try playing at less than 100% efficiency.
I have a prime speaker zegana combo deck that runs very little interaction and just combos out. It runs a lot of the so called staples.
At certain tables people cant keep up with it. Its a combo monster. Even without counterspells they just seem to leave it unchecked and it dominates.
But you know what stops it? The tiniest bit of disruption.
Last week it went 2-1, the first two games were full of people not running anything to slow it down at all. Nothing. Not one card got removed from the table, not one spell cast stopped. Zero interaction from my opponents and i exploited that. The last game though? The last game had a guy playing queen marchesa akido-style. He had an answer for everything. I had to actually think. It was the best game ive had in months. It used a bunch of cards you wouldnt see in your typical staples build.
The point of my anecdote is no one forces you to play staples, and creativity coupled with smart plays can beat a honed deck.
People try so hard to jam all these things into their decks because theyre good or the internet tells them to. They forget that something as simple as deflecting palm, or red elemental blast, can ruin an entire deck's gameplan, and steal victory.
The only one forcing you to play things you feel are staples, or upfront powerful cards, is you.
Nothing you described makes me think you were actually playing against honed decks.
I don’t disagree with Carthage core premise; too many decks I have seen I felt always are same variation of cards; in my current meta, artifacts and ramp. Lesser extent unrelenting graveyard recursion, always via very similar methods.
Some of this is meta specific, and I have my thoughts on other reasons for this. But you know of those 100 cards you just listed; I’ll be blunt 70%-80% of those I am just fine getting dodo’d. Only ones I don’t, I can basically list as; 1 CMC Manadorks, Wrath of God, Chord of Calling, Diabolic Tutor, Wrath of God, I am indifferent to Kodoma’s Clone (if not the biggest fan of their existence), Ingot and Archive, Toxic Deluge and lesser extent Damnation.
If your list was meant to prove how many cards are ubitigous and everyone play those not removed from the cardpool, from me it did the exact opposite.
CerberusJund (Modern)GRB
Sidisi, Brood Tyrant Morphentress (Commander) GUB
I also play YGO (DragunFusion) and Hearthstone (Dragon Control Warrior)
but that is still 70% exactly the same.
as for you, i think you are looking too much into interaction and accelartion. (Maybe even a bit too much card draw)
I run 37 lands in a 5-color deck. (I am very certain mono color can run 33-35 and still fare well)
My rocks consist of only 6 cards. I have a bit of interaction. Granted the bulk of my deck (28 dragons) allows me to use them for most interaction, but the fact is you are piling to much into the list. It is the death of deck building, but only because people are looking at it in too broad of a way. Take a step back, build the deck you want, then tweak it. I often have cards i will fit in to the side, and then build the deck, afterwards I take any empty sleeves and fill them with the extra cards (like sol ring) and then check to see if there is anything else i need to look into. Then i begin to cut cards. See if a card is really doing what i want it to do or if it is more of a niche card.
This way I get to build a deck i have fun with.
That will by itself ensure you play the best cards available and you gimp yourself not doing so.
----
If you and your people want more fun, you can simply get rid of the "auto-includes" and build decks purely on flavor, which feel more in-line with the commanders identity and flavor.
So if you play a "vampire" theme, Vampiric Tutor is fine, but Demonic is not.
If you go that way to build decks, you get much more flavor and explore cards that otherwise would not end up in your pile at all.
----
At this point in time, Magic got so many cards and reprints almost nothing that you end up with way too many cards to include and lots of them do similar stuff, but only the "best" of them get chosen, so all the bad ones dont matter.
In the beginning of magic Wrath of God was pretty much the only viable mass removal spell for white, sure Balance, Armageddon and the like, but with time you got more and more Mass removal and you simply dont want to play most of them as other choices are simply superior.
So even with all the extra new cards, almost non of them are better than the old good ones you already played, so they dont matter ; unless you further increase the restrictions beyond just color identity and add a flavor restriction (in which case lots of the worse new versions get a reason to see play, as the other option simply couldnt be played).
----
Lots of really "good" cards would also cost a lot of money (Power 9 and all that) , so casual decks usually simply did not use them.
If you allow proxy cards people always opt to play the more competitive cards ; that hurts the casual spirit.
So the "budget" constraint is much lower in lots of cases, while some cards are still very expensive, you can get away playing strong options that are way cheaper.
----
If you want to push more casual decks you can also simply increase the minimum deck size by a lot.
300 cards minimum for example is something that works kinda well, as people by default dont want to play crazy amounts of tutor/shuffling effects if it takes them that much effort every time.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
That way, choosing which powerful cards becomes another important choice to make and you don't need to outright ban a huge array of cards.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
The forums has an ignore function if you care, I have had onering on it for years.
This is pretty funny. Until the post describing this thread, I haven't done anything to this guy. I've disagreed with him, but that probably describes 90% of this forum. I think that about sums him up.
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 concur.
1. How many decks are you running?
2. Do you have a tried and true regular play group?
3. Of all the decks you have, how much variance do you see across the colors you're using with regard to card choice?
I ask from a point of trying to understand where you're coming from and relate as best I can. So I suppose I'll go first:
1. I have ~15 decks, some of which are more tuned than the others
2. I am fortunate to have a regular play group locally and one about an hour away from college that gets together every 1-2 months. I also have a LGS nearby to scratch the itch if need be.
3. I have some "staples" I go to, if I can, in color - Krosan Grip for the split second removal, Heroic Intervention for the anti-removal or boardwipe tech. Beast Within for unrestricted permanent removal. Often a Cultivate or Kodama's Reach variant or both. Sure, but I'm not running the exact same suite of cards in every deck. Some cards see more play than others, but what the deck is trying to do is really where everything starts for me.
I recently had a friend complain about my Chulane, Teller of Tales deck, saying it's the same as all my other decks. I specifically powered this one down though. Tribal golems... let that sink in. There are some generic staples for the colors, enablers like Parallel Lives, Anointed Procession, Doubling Season, Mirari's Wake... sure. But I'm playing a less than optimal way to play the commander, and it's something I had fun building and I know no one will expect. That "suite" of cards I mentioned? Those are there to prevent the deck from getting trounced by the more easily focused/tuned decks. I'm playing with a crutch, but I imposed that on myself.
I played 3 games friday night with the deck.
Game 1: 1v1, barely won versus Kumena. It came down to a turn.
Game 2: 3 player game. Went ham, 100%. wasn't even close. Talking Precursor Golem + Garruk's Packleader + Parallel Lives + Rite of Replication = "I draw over 50 cards in a turn between that and the rest of my board" crazy.
Game 3: 4 player game. The Yarok and Korvold players ran away with the game and my deck and the Elsha ones barely got off the ground.
TL;DR - Impose some limitations on yourself. Budget, CMC average, No cards over a certain CMC in deck, Color restrictions, Less popular theme, Play bigger games with more people and opportunity for interaction, etc.
These are the restrictions I have for myself:
Chulane = Golem tribal(for the most part)
Golos = Colorless combo/value (With only a few ways to make colored mana for his ability)
Balan = Mono-white voltron
Kalemne = Boros voltron + Sunforger package
Feather = Boros spellslinging
Mina and Denn = Gruul Landfall
Karlov = Orzhov lifegain (also no spell is over 6cmc, and there's only 1 6cmc card)
Ezuri 1.0 = Elf tribal + elf warrior tokens (concessions were made to allow for that synergy)
Odric 1.0 = Soldier tribal (everything is either a soldier, make soldiers, or supports/pumps them)
Syr Gwen = Knight tribal
Sliver Overlord = Sliver tribal/combo (toolbox)
Selvala 2.0 = Big green beats/mana combo (knowingly isn't the most optimized build for it)
Captain Sisay = Legendary.deck (toolbox)
Valduk = Mono-red equipments/auras (biggest value, lowest cmc equipments and synergistic red stuff)
Marath = Naya token combo + planeswalkers (Not quite Breya levels of "Oops, this falls into combos without trying", but it's not too far off)
** Additional note, there's probably 7 or so boardwipes total between all of the decks. Because I would rather play the game, and let others worry about it. It works out for me most of the time and serves 2 purposes:
1. Lets me run more single-target responses
2. Lets me run more of the cards I like, but would have to cut for mass removal.
So, there will always be superior choices for a given deck type, strategy, build, whatever. Always have been.
If you didn’t want that to be the case, you would have to look at different games, or make one.
I run between 6 and 12 decks at any given time, but overall I've probably made more than 30 commander decks.
Not really, I've had a store group that is not fixed, and groups of friends that eventually stop meeting up over the years. Right now I have a sort of stable group but they have one deck each and the power level is very out of balance.
For the first few years of edh, pretty substantial. Lately? Almost no variance. Broken cards are stronger than general synergy, so the list rarely changes.
It sounds like we have a similar enough experience to compare notes.
~14-15 decks currently, Built/co-built a ton more for friends and ended up retiring ~10 of my own decks along the way to get where I am.
As others have mentioned, unfortunately, the nature of the game is such that stronger cards or functional reprints of worthwhile ones (ex. Cultivate and Kodama's Reach) need to occur to incentivize people purchasing the new products. Sometimes people chase new arts, foils, promos, alt. languages, etc. But the act itself of "Upgrading" one's deck, whether it's strictly on a power level basis or for the sake of a theme, it's a completely natural part of the game and the deckbuilding process.
Some people happen to have more disposable income than others and it allows them to circumnavigate the trials of saving up, trading, cracking, etc. It's unfortunate when it allows for a larger power jump than a playgroup is ready for, because the arms race often follows.
I won't claim to know what the financial circumstances are like for you or those around in your current group, but I'd like to try to recommend a few things.
Rules
The game needs 5-7 people total.
Cards to denote the given roles are sleeved and shuffled face down and picked at random.
Plains = Sheriff/King (There's only ever 1)
Island = Deputy (starts at quantity 1 and then gets another at odd player intervals - 5, 7, 9, etc.)
Swamp = Outlaw/Assassin
Mountain = Renegade/Usurper (There's only ever 1)
The Sheriff is the only role to be revealed at the start of the game.
Sheriff starts with 20 life + 10 for each other player. Everyone else is at 40.
Sheriff goes first (and draws)
If anyone kills an outlaw, they get to draw 3 cards as a bounty.
If the Sheriff kills their Deputy, they discard their hand.
The Renegade often plays the fence.
Everyone is trying to convince the Sheriff that they are the Deputy, until they aren't.
Win conditions:
Sheriff and Deputy(s) win when the Outlaws and the Renegade are dead.
Outlaws win when the Sheriff dies.
Renegade wins when they and the Sheriff are the last 2 standing and the Sheriff dies.
**Alternate win conditions don't function at all**
It adds a very political element to the game, and it helps muddy the waters for power levels.
The King variant just has the Usurper take the King's place as King if they manage to kill them.
We play the Bang variant probably 75% of the time with the other 25% being a mix of free-for-all and 2-headed giant.
I suggest these things because I have had to do the same at the request of my play group. I have some 8-9's in my collection that positively go nuts, but I only break them out every once in a while, because of how degenerate they can get. Maybe get a couple lower power games in before breaking out the haymakers for a quick game at the end of the night?
I really, really like option 3 and have used it to great effect. I've actually taken it a step further in the past, where each member of the playgroup builds enough decks for each other member to use, and builds them the way they like. Then each night the group uses a different members decks. The member that built them explains the concept of each deck and everyone gets a chance to look through the deck they get to familiarize themselves with it before playing. The only rule is that each deck built by the same member should be around the same power level as the others, so they are evenly matched. Once you don't have to worry about the arms race, you feel comfortable building wonkier decks with sub optimal choices, because you can ensure its going up against decks built the same way. Some players will build a set of 75% decks of different archetypes, some will build upgraded precons, some will build theme decks, some tribal, some a mix, some will build niche archetypes, some will build a battlecruiser meta, some will build a cut throat meta, some will build an intentionally jank meta. Everyone gets a chance at their preferred meta having it's day in the sun, and the card and deck variety goes way up. The downside is you need a consistent playgroup, and most of the players need some disposable income (though slightly upgraded precons, intentionally jank, and battlecruiser metas can be built on the cheap).
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!