No, I check my hand and board over and over again to find a way I can prevent the Arcum player from winning. I still try to win, and sometimes, this is actually the case. If I don't find a way, I scoop - but that doesn't mean that I think disk lock shouldn't be played. It just means that I accept that the game has come to an end. That is the moment when I start to think about how to defeat the Arcum player next time.
Exactly. I don't think people shouldn't play mass LD. I just won't entertain the idea of wasting my afternoon while they do it. My time is valuable to me, and so the 1 day a week I get to play and trade, I try to optimize.
Yes because all formats have to become competitive formats once they get popular. A good reason to keep it casual is to keep prices down on "staple" cards. Another good reason is to reduce the overall player dissatisfaction. Yet another good reason to keep it casual is to keep it friendly to new players. I've seen countless people attend FNM and then quit playing magic. I've seen people show up at a prerelease, get their packs, and leave. More often than not the reason I hear for why is "I'd rather have fun playing than deal with these jerks who think it's a job" or similar comments. (Not calling anyone a jerk, just stating that I've heard others address competitive players as such). Competitive play can be friendly, I won't say it can't, but it's far to often it turns what should be a fun game into a million dollar poker stare off with new players getting trounced and losing interest in the game all together. When I hear "competitive" players saying they're glad there are so many new people, because it's so many easy points and easy wins it makes me feel disgusted with the game. When I see people running netdecked T1 decks in an FNM because they know the people who are regulars there aren't running T1 they're running their own homebrew decks and trying to just have a good night it makes me feel like the average "competitive" player is just going to be a jerk to people for the sake of his/her ego. Fortunately I know some competitive players who aren't like that so I know it's not everyone, but it certainly is some.
Aside from that point, you're right. It isn't a purely casual or a purely competitive format. It's better suited to casual play than competitive play. It always has been and will be. It can certainly be either, and everyone should adapt to it the way they enjoy playing and find others who share their feelings on the game to play with.
No one is forcing mister $3000 deck to ruin everyone else's good time either. Not all events have to be Pro Tour finals. You can host an EDH event just for fun. Though you will always have Spike show up to bully the other players to his way of playing, it doesn't mean it's the only way or the right way.
I agree that there are many spike players that can be dicks. I think that more than anything casual players hate the attitude of the aggressor more than the way he won. I know some competitive people that I know from the beginning I'll lose to. I can have fun seeing how far I can get. This usually applies to actual real life friends/acquaintances. I really don't appeciate the attitude some player exhibit when they play "competitively".
When playing with strangers especially online tensions are usually higher. This is amplified when playing with competitive people. In sports, school, and even magic males especially have a subconsciousness need to show others that they are the alpha male or at least that they shouldn't be stepped on.
Get a bunch of homely nerds in a room and watch their "power struggle"(stereotype. Not always true). Some nerds I know have literally no life and hang out in card shops all day. They want to be good at something, to make themselves feel better for being a waste of life. They do this by stepping on other people to benefit themselves. Again this is a stereotype, but I have seen it.
If everyone was more evenly skilled, then there would be less "trolls" or "competitive players". Some people are only competitive because they win against people with "worse" decks. I guess I just can't stand overly competitive people unless they in a tournament, you know the appropriate place to be competitive unless you deck testing.
I believe some of the worst man children who care nothing but winning have some serious mental issues. Thankfully most people aren't this way. As I said way earlier I don't like attitudes more than decks. I would lose any day to a stable, respectable, calm guy with a sense of humor with a degenerate combo deck. Generally though I like the thrill of the hunt. Not like this-->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs5TlfXytzM
Sorry for rambling rant. I had a thought and went with it.
=I absolutely disagree that the format in its entirety should be "kept casual" though. That shuts half of the players out right there and only to protect the less hardcore ones.
Just like I absolutely disagree that Legacy and Vintage should be kept entirely competitive yet they are anyway. And before you try to say they aren't I invite you to look at some price lists before you even consider it. You're point is what exactly, that only competitive players deserve to be noticed? It might not be but that's that it looks like. It cuts no one out. If people want to play EDH competitively I really don't care if they do. Do so at a tournament. If you join in on a game I'm in with other people, and we specifically say we're playing casually, and combo out in the first 4 turns chances are good you're not suited to be playing that deck casually. And if you get upset when we don't invite you into the next game you definitely need to reevaluate why you're playing EDH.
Learning who to play with is as essential a process as learning how to play. We shouldn't be trying to define EDH, we should be trying to define playgroups.
This part I agree with up to the "Defining EDH" part, and everything after it 100% however. Without definition a thing is formless and without meaning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Through me the way to the suffering city; Through me the everlasting pain; Through me the way that runs among the Lost. Justice urged on my exalted Creator: Divine Power made me, The Supreme Wisdom and the Primal Love. Nothing was made before me but eternal things And I endure eternally. Abandon all hope - You Who Enter Here.
Just like I absolutely disagree that Legacy and Vintage should be kept entirely competitive yet they are anyway. And before you try to say they aren't I invite you to look at some price lists before you even consider it. You're point is what exactly, that only competitive players deserve to be noticed? It might not be but that's that it looks like. It cuts no one out. If people want to play EDH competitively I really don't care if they do. Do so at a tournament. If you join in on a game I'm in with other people, and we specifically say we're playing casually, and combo out in the first 4 turns chances are good you're not suited to be playing that deck casually. And if you get upset when we don't invite you into the next game you definitely need to reevaluate why you're playing EDH.
I do agree that Legacy and Vintage are ultra competitive formats, but that's at the high level. Many players' casual decks technically qualify as Legacy and Vintage-legal, it's just that they would never play in a tourney with them because of the power curve and the barriers to entry.
I agree completely with what you're saying and you seem to agree with what I'm saying: it's who you play with that's most important. EDH tourneys can be expected to be much like any other kind of event: the more competitive players will usually have the advantage over the casual ones. It's parallel to FNM. The ones that join in on casual games and mop the floor with everyone are just dicks. The key to stopping them from giving you trouble is to regulate the playgroups, not the entire format.
This part I agree with up to the "Defining EDH" part, and everything after it 100% however. Without definition a thing is formless and without meaning.
I mean to say that we shouldn't try to make EDH a rigid format by laying out restrictive banlists and whatnot. Rather than try to say the format should be casual or competitive, let it be both and allow players to pick what they want it to be on a personal level. Players should exercise control over their playgroups rather than try to exercise it over EDH as a whole.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epochalyptik from http://tappedout.net/ EDH isn't about what you play, it's about who you play with.
I agree that it seems we have a similar outlook, just some minor differences. Also when I say "you" in the above example I don't mean you specifically I just mean it as a generalization for people joining into games. I re-read it and it comes across a bit harsher than I meant for it to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Through me the way to the suffering city; Through me the everlasting pain; Through me the way that runs among the Lost. Justice urged on my exalted Creator: Divine Power made me, The Supreme Wisdom and the Primal Love. Nothing was made before me but eternal things And I endure eternally. Abandon all hope - You Who Enter Here.
As others have pointed out this is really a playgroup issue. You have to find people to play with who share your attitude about the game - be it casual or competitive.
What frustrates me as a casual player is that this makes the portability of the format pretty close to zero. I can't go to a store and join an EDH game because without fail some of the players there will be stomping the rest with competitive decks. I'd love it if people shared my principals on keeping the game friendly and fun, but not everyone shares my disdain for infinite comboes, 1-shot kills, and locks etc.
I don't play other constructed formats because I find competitive games are a race to the bottom. A handful of decks reign supreme and anything creative is doomed to be stomped by the netdecks. EDH is the same, each colour has about 35 "goodstuff" cards that "belong" in just about every deck of those colours if you want to optimize it. Personally I want to see different cards in my games, not sol ring and genesis and whatnot game after game after game.
So I think casual players have a legitimate grievance. I don't see how competitive players can complain though. Go play standard/legacy/limited/modern... those are exactly what you're looking for.
If you aren't playing EDH casually, you aren't playing it right. My group recently made the decision to stop playing with one of the players, because he is a complete spike, and refuses to listen to us about playing competitively in a casual meta. Even when 4 of us go all out against him, it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone but him to win.
The competitive formats are PRECISELY what competitive players should be playing, but they won't. These are the same kind of players who will go choose out the little kid in the room and stomp him using some ridiculous deck using the power 9 just because the kid doesn't know any better. It isn't the game itself that gives them satisfaction. It is the winning and rubbing it in your face. These are the same people who will sit and bad mouth people they kill in fps games. It is usually best just to avoid them.
I have to agree with TobyornotToby here, competitive EDH players don't have to fit the same mold that competitive modern/standard players do. They also don't all fit the same EDH spike mold either. There's a very good player at my LGS, heavy hitter in the Illinois tournament scene, and yeah, he's a spike. But he's good natured and you can really only see him getting upset right when it's clear he's lost. Even then he just moves on. I'd play any number of games with him before I play a game with some player who gets upset that there U/G tribal snake deck didn't win because I accidentally stumbled out some clunky combo with Mindmoil/Thought Reflection/Whirlpool cards etc. in Niv Mizzet.
People need to take themselves less seriously. Not to speak poorly of the casual crowd, but seeing posts on here about how upset people get because some other player cast Armageddon, it just seems so trivial. If you lost you lost. I'm assuming you weren't playing for ante or money so you didn't really lose anything. You also didn't lose or waste your time. You spent your time playing a diverse game, and it seems odd that you don't expect the expectable. Sure LD is unfortunate, but mana rocks didn't stop being important in EDH. Extra turns for one player are boring, but chances are the game's over so hurray you can play another one! I guess that's really the message, the game is over, Hurray, you can start another game.
It might become a different story if one player consistently plays a strategy that you don't enjoy, but neither of you are in the wrong. The optimal thing for you to do, if you're offended is approach the situation or default from those games involving that player. Whining anonymously on the internet won't solve your problems.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
If you aren't playing EDH casually, you aren't playing it right.
This is the kind of logic that closes off the game, though. You may enjoy casual EDH, but that is no reason to say that other players shouldn't enjoy it in their own way. Again, it's a playgroup problem. Some players are dicks and like to play against the casual players with their thousand-dollar decks, but that's a problem with that person, not the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epochalyptik from http://tappedout.net/ EDH isn't about what you play, it's about who you play with.
If you aren't playing EDH casually, you aren't playing it right. My group recently made the decision to stop playing with one of the players, because he is a complete spike, and refuses to listen to us about playing competitively in a casual meta. Even when 4 of us go all out against him, it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone but him to win.
The competitive formats are PRECISELY what competitive players should be playing, but they won't. These are the same kind of players who will go choose out the little kid in the room and stomp him using some ridiculous deck using the power 9 just because the kid doesn't know any better. It isn't the game itself that gives them satisfaction. It is the winning and rubbing it in your face. These are the same people who will sit and bad mouth people they kill in fps games. It is usually best just to avoid them.
This is extremely close minded. I play with a number of competitive players, including several who play primarily edh. Building a deck to be more competitive or playing to win the game doesn't mean you're going to stomp some little kid then laugh in his face, or sit and rub the groups nose into every loss, or that winning is the only way you get enjoyment out of the game.
Players in my group are just as likely to groan when AoZ gets played for the umpteenth time, go for ridiculous plays, and laugh it off then move on to the next game when someone wins in spectacular fashion. We're also running decks that try and lock people out with Hokori, Dust Drinker, drop a threat then play Armageddon, or go from zero board state to lethal in a turn. We're currently all a little annoyed at someone who showed up running Azami, then refused to combo out because he thought other people would enjoy the game more if he didn't. My newest deck joins a deck fronted by Jasmine Boreal (who is regularly cast and used as a wincon), a deck with no non-etb creature answers, and a mono-R control deck in my stable of decks, and I just built Karador stax.
Saying that the people I play with have less fun or a lesser understanding of the format because we don't play the same way that you do is entirely incorrect and a little insulting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
In our playgroup we are trying to find a balance between 'casual' and 'competetive'.
Ofcourse everyone wants to win the game.
But the question is: What are you willing to do, to win the game?
For example: Our Kaalia-player.
He is willing to throw in gigantic creatures to smash people in the face, he even loves to play tons of tutors to always get the answer he wants.
But stuff like Armageddon is where he draws the line.
He doesn't want to have a 'guaranteed win' on turn 4, stuff like that won't be fun for the group.
It will give him more wins, but those wins aren't valuable unless you are playing for prices.
I've noticed that some of the EDH players in my area can be almost as hostile as the "spikes" they rail against constantly. Granted, it feels like I maybe play ten EDH games a month on average, I tend to get worn down by the negative attitude of many EDH players.
I'll admit to in the past having some closed-minded opinions about the different sides of this debate. I've re-evaluated my stance quite a bit. In the end, I simply want people to enjoy themselves. The issue becomes difficult when two different groups who have radically different definitions of enjoyment come together. If we could be sure that Spikes would only play with Spikes and Timmies would only play with Timmies, there wouldn't be much difficulty--but obviously that's not the case.
I don't have a problem with either side saying "this is the style of game I want" and then arranging their environment to get it. There's a level of personal responsibility and investment here--shape the group you want, avoid the group you don't. I understand that that can be really difficult when the number of players available to you is small. If that's the case, open and open-minded discussion is the only resolution ("on even numbered days, let's be more casual, on odd no holds barred" or something--that's just me spit-balling).
I (and the RC) have a vision for the format, and will continue to reinforce and promote that vision, but I'm not going to try to invalidate the way others want to play. The RC is going to be clear about the style of play it would like to cater to, and the style of play it believes is best for the global version of the format, but that doesn't prevent local groups, regions, or even countries from doing what they want (so long as it's clear that they're deviating from the global vision). I think we can live in both worlds. Some folks will say that's idealistic, but I think it's achievable.
My new catchphrase is "Build casually, play competitively." Yes, it's a sound-bite, but I think it conveys the 10,000 foot view of how we feel about the format.
I always like hearing from the RC on these issues. Your voice goes a long way to determine what is going to be played competitively, and I enjoy when you exercise it.
But consider the following problems with the format, problems which all too often get absorbed in the competitive/casual discussion:
1) Play being justified as Casual which is in reality just bad play or poor sportsmanship. I enjoy playing with authentic Casuals. One of my favorite decks is a Sygg merfolk deck, and I don't mind that it has problems going against the whole table when I get into a good position. Tribal is fun to me. But I have been in games where, for example, a Zedruu player will stick Greater Auramancy and three Shrines, someone takes 2 with a Primus, and they complain about cutthroat play. If their deck is all about sitting on enchantmenta and hoping nothing will happen to them, that's bad design and bad play. People like to play tribal, or claim to, but then they make the token complaints about competitive play when they lose. I'm all for Casual, but if these players would rather win than play casual, they need to stop hiding behind this argument. Kids who want to have their cake and eat it too shouldnt be able to masquerade as fun-loving casuals, when all they really want to do is win their way.
2) Counter strategy being mislabeled as degeneracy. There are some absurd combos in this card pool, and I'm glad of the ones that are banned. We should not touch the ones that aren't. But I see mass LD, Stax, etc thrown in the same boat all the time. When you give casual players a haven, they'll exclude anything they lose to too much or dont want to prepare for, because losing is unfun to them. Certain thigs go unchecked, dominant strategies are 10x as obvious and less varied than they would be otherwise, and people stop interacting with each other in game. Which after all, causes the same problems that RC is trying to avoid.
3) The portability of the format is super low. One persons understanding of casual is no "I win" Commander combos, Hermit Druid, etc. Another player's is no LD, no counters, no extra turns, no Meekstone, no theft, no winning before T10, etc. Another player's understanding is nothing that beats him in any way is allowed, and whatever it is he'll be upset at it. These players all have faceless avatars on a lot of internet clients, multiple accounts, etc, and somehow they need to come together and have a mutual understanding of what is expected. You could say that EDH is not a format meant for online or anonymous play, but I think that's a mistake, and I personally would not be able to play if it weren't supported there. The casual argument used as a haven is an obstacle in the way of the anonymous community reaching a mutual understanding of what is expected.
4) Variety in the format lacks severely in certain circles. The more unwritten rules there are to be obeyed, the fewer strategies will be available to interact with opponents. And a certain contingent of players will always try to build the best, while staying within social boundaries. This very large group of players, the predominant group I would say, will do what a lot have already - build Mimeo foodstuff, get bored with it, get tired of the whining that the casual/competitive argument has enabled, then leave. All that there is left is the goodstuff tamp that they left behind. And if the question of what's best under those constraints is solved too decisively, there won't be enough to keep this group playing. You could say that EDH was not meant for this group, but I think that is a mistake. Excluding them needlessly while clearing things up a bit would keep most of them is needless.
I'd like to try to change folks' usage from "casual" to "social." I think it implies a great deal more. It becomes about creating a group good time as opposed to a stance of "Don't care about winning, I just want to do a thing."
I'd like to try to change folks' usage from "casual" to "social." I think it implies a great deal more. It becomes about creating a group good time as opposed to a stance of "Don't care about winning, I just want to do a thing."
I enjoy playing socially engaged EDH games. I play combo control. I expect that the politics of the table will target me a good bit. Removal and mana denial will aim for me. That is part of the fun for me. I play good cards that interact well with each other and interact with my opponents stuff.
However, if this were "casual" in the lets just play mediocre cards sense. I would not have nearly as much fun. I keep that style for Duels of the Planeswalkers.
Bad sportsmanship is wrong, but there's nothing wrong with bad play or bad design.
You keep mixing up player motivations.
Many players do not want to play against LD because they find it boring/unfun, NOT because they lose to it.
They do not want to prepare for LD because doing so would make their deck unfun (take out the expensive cool cards) and thus would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
This is also a problem with regular 60-card casual. It's inherent to the subjective nature of casual. Nothing you can do about it.
What exactly is meant with "clearing things up a bit" here?
I'm not mixing up player motivations. For every authentic casual that just gets bored when LD hits but is otherwise unoffended, there's a "have your cake and eat it too" player who made the best deck they could, get rolled over and over, and would rather look for ways to complain than change how he thinks about interactions in the game. Saying that the second doesn't exist is just as bad as saying the first doesn't. Maybe it's not you, but we've all seen that before. If the shoe fits, wear it.
And sure, there's nothing wrong with bad play or bad design. No one is going to write you a citation and fine you for it. It's when people knowingly play badly and expect everyone to change so that they can win, then blow up when it doesn't happen. That's the problem, and it's enabled by this casual/competitive debate that's become a crutch for a lot of people. Again, if the shoe fits, wear it.
What I mean by clearing things up is coming down with more bannnings, or possibly a different banlist for casuals. Even for-pay clients like MODO don't currently allow for the importation of house rules, and Wizards follows the RC pretty closely. If literally everyone I play against complains against Jokulhaups, I'll stop playing it as I realize that they're never, ever going to adapt to LD. But then I build a deck that no longer has any way to get my lands back and isn't adapted to LD, and next game I play against a Gisela deck and it artifact ramps into a Boom//Bust. Now I'm the one who just has to concede, and who has built their deck badly with no curve and no resilience to LD. Portability of the format is now a problem because the two camps can't agree.
I'd like to try to change folks' usage from "casual" to "social." I think it implies a great deal more. It becomes about creating a group good time as opposed to a stance of "Don't care about winning, I just want to do a thing."
They seem like significantly different things, at least from my own perspective. I certainly don't think you can replace 'casual' with 'social' in the context of this debate, because social and competitive are not mutually exclusive in the same way that casual and competitive are. It's possible to both build and play optimally, using strategies that the stereotypical casual player frowns upon, yet still prioritise a social experience.
Why should "casual" imply anything other than a non-tournament game? I've never understood why "Casual" players expect to play against less than optimal decks. If you scoop everytime somebody blows up a land you'll never learn to adapt or recover. This "Casual" mindset does nothing to further a players abilities. If all a player wants is attacking and blocking, I would think that checkers would be a better game for them rather than magic.
Why should "casual" imply anything other than a non-tournament game? I've never understood why "Casual" players expect to play against less than optimal decks. If you scoop everytime somebody blows up a land you'll never learn to adapt or recover. This "Casual" mindset does nothing to further a players abilities. If all a player wants is attacking and blocking, I would think that checkers would be a better game for them rather than magic.
And along that same mindset, competitive players can pick up Go instead of playing magic. Go is far more competitive and complex than magic will ever be.
There is nothing wrong with having a meta want to tap creatures sideways for an evening.
As for myself, I believe my decks to be very optimal...just optimal in a different way from what you would consider optimal. My decks are vorthos. They are fun. They win some and they lose some. I believe they bring out the best of my meta. They say "please sir, I want some more". That's what optimal means to me.
Having a deck that would just smash anything at my meta without a fight because it's competitively optimal would quickly find the decklist barred from the table. We're in it for a good time and don't want to have imbalance ruining that fun.
I can sympathize with Viperesque's desire in wanting to change 'casual' into 'social' because casual does trend to include a more social element. However, I don't believe that competitive and social are mutally exclusive. Competitive could be 'tounament level' play. It could also be 'sitting around the kitchen table' play. A barrel of laughs could happen at either. A good time can happen at either.
I still think casual vs competitive is the best spectrum to use.
And along that same mindset, competitive players can pick up Go instead of playing magic. Go is far more competitive and complex than magic will ever be.
There is nothing wrong with having a meta want to tap creatures sideways for an evening.
As for myself, I believe my decks to be very optimal...just optimal in a different way from what you would consider optimal. My decks are vorthos. They are fun. They win some and they lose some. I believe they bring out the best of my meta. They say "please sir, I want some more". That's what optimal means to me.
Having a deck that would just smash anything at my meta without a fight because it's competitively optimal would quickly find the decklist barred from the table. We're in it for a good time and don't want to have imbalance ruining that fun.
I can sympathize with Viperesque's desire in wanting to change 'casual' into 'social' because casual does trend to include a more social element. However, I don't believe that competitive and social are mutally exclusive. Competitive could be 'tounament level' play. It could also be 'sitting around the kitchen table' play. A barrel of laughs could happen at either. A good time can happen at either.
I still think casual vs competitive is the best spectrum to use.
In no way am I saying that people should quit the game. What I am saying is that there is so much more to magic than just turning things sideways. Who is anyone to tell another player what he or she cannot play so long as they are playing within the formats rules? The "Casual" minset seems to hinder creativity and looks to reward those who are less than successful at Magic. If someone shows up with LD on a consistant basis, or mono-blue combo, or the like, why not try and learn what makes those decks tick, learn how to beat them, and grow as a better player? Instead, if someone has a great deck that no one likes, the answer is to ban the deck from the table in the name of fun? I mean, yea if someone resovles several board wipping LD spells, that person is probably going to win. Solution...don't let several LD spells resolve, don't play a land just because you have one in your hand. Sorry, casual or not, if you banning someone's deck because they play by the rules, you're not playing Commander no matter how much you want to think you are.
In no way am I saying that people should quit the game. What I am saying is that there is so much more to magic than just turning things sideways. Who is anyone to tell another player what he or she cannot play so long as they are playing within the formats rules? The "Casual" minset seems to hinder creativity and looks to reward those who are less than successful at Magic. If someone shows up with LD on a consistant basis, or mono-blue combo, or the like, why not try and learn what makes those decks tick, learn how to beat them, and grow as a better player? Instead, if someone has a great deck that no one likes, the answer is to ban the deck from the table in the name of fun? I mean, yea if someone resovles several board wipping LD spells, that person is probably going to win. Solution...don't let several LD spells resolve, don't play a land just because you have one in your hand. Sorry, casual or not, if you banning someone's deck because they play by the rules, you're not playing Commander no matter how much you want to think you are.
You are really hurting your own argument. Where is the creativity in Urborg + Coffers? Where's the creativity in Mike + Trike? How about the creativity in Beacon of Tomorrows + Planar Portal? Or Palinchron + any Mana Doubler? Competitive play more so than casual play stifles creativity. With a competitive environment you either play the tried and true net decks or you lose every game without being able to actually do much of anything.
Edit: To clarify, what I'm saying is the highly tuned fully optimized decks quite literally prevent creative new ideas from happening. When you combo off consistently turn 5 and kill the whole board, no one else gets a chance to do anything but copy you or find something even more degenerate. And it's quite rare for increasingly degenerate things to be found since so many already have been. You can't honestly expect anyone to believe that competitive play fosters a more creative environment, especially when top 16 deck lists at PTQs and other tournaments tend to have between 3-5 different shells that are almost identical if not completely identical. When [insert color here] Goodstuff.dec is a valid strategy and anything that doesn't use most if not all of the top 50 best cards in a given color is just "Some jank crap that was built wrong" creativity is being stifled. Commander as a format does no promote creativity. EDH does.
To further clarify I view EDH as the term for the casual aspect of the format, and Commander as the competitive aspect. Both exist, both are separate entities, and both don't mix well together.
Through me the way to the suffering city; Through me the everlasting pain; Through me the way that runs among the Lost. Justice urged on my exalted Creator: Divine Power made me, The Supreme Wisdom and the Primal Love. Nothing was made before me but eternal things And I endure eternally. Abandon all hope - You Who Enter Here.
Sorry, casual or not, if you banning someone's deck because they play by the rules, you're not playing Commander no matter how much you want to think you are.
And how is what my meta plays not Commander?
First rule of Commander is that a gentleman's agreement is to exist between all players on what to expect out of the game. We follow that rule.
We rule that general damage doesn't exist. Check.
We rule that decks must be fun, interactive, and non-degenerate. Check.
We rule on a modified banlist. Check.
Game on.
We play Commander; just not with the same gentleman's agreement that you do.
Because these are Spike goals. Spike is motivated by adapting and growing as a player. Other people don't necessarily share those motivations and thus are not interested in them.
Because it's MY spare time that I want to spent how I wish. I'm not telling you what you cannot play. I'm telling you what you cannot play against me. It's your choice what to do with it (find someone else to play with, or not play certain things, that's your choice how you spent your free time).
Wow! That's all I can say. I've played since 94, in PTQs, LGS, Kitchen table, you name it, I've played in it. I can't believe the mentality. How someone can say their time is so precious that they would have a "take your ball and go home" attitude is just beyond me. These "Timmy, Johnny, and Spike" terms are over-used. I play and have played every type of archetype there is. I will not classify myself or fellow players under these terms. I am a Magic player. Just curious, do you look through a players deck before the game starts just to make sure there is nothing you don't like in it? If I ever ran into a group that played by rules like "No LD" or "Don't combo me", I'd play a Joukalhaups and laugh at them as they scooped or tried to play on as if the card was never played.
Wow! That's all I can say. I've played since 94, in PTQs, LGS, Kitchen table, you name it, I've played in it. I can't believe the mentality. How someone can say their time is so precious that they would have a "take your ball and go home" attitude is just beyond me. These "Timmy, Johnny, and Spike" terms are over-used. I play and have played every type of archetype there is. I will not classify myself or fellow players under these terms. I am a Magic player. Just curious, do you look through a players deck before the game starts just to make sure there is nothing you don't like in it? If I ever ran into a group that played by rules like "No LD" or "Don't combo me", I'd play a Joukalhaups and laugh at them as they scooped or tried to play on as if the card was never played.
I can. It is completely understandable. Spikes are NOT fun to play against, in a group, or solo. You are so hell bent on the win, you cannot see the interactivity of the game, or even observe the point of other players decks. CASUAL formats are NOT about winning. They are bout interactivity and fun. Commander IS and ALWAYS WILL BE a casual format. Spikes don't belong in casual. Stay in your competitive, have fun trouncing each other. Leave the Timmys and Johnnys alone with their game. If a group does not want to play against you, they are by no means obligated to do so, and you are going to do more to offend the group than anything else by refusing to abide by the house rules.
FYI, refusing to abide by house rules will also often get you kicked out of a store, and does nothing to make you friends. When you manage to offend your entire play community, what are you going to do then?
Exactly. I don't think people shouldn't play mass LD. I just won't entertain the idea of wasting my afternoon while they do it. My time is valuable to me, and so the 1 day a week I get to play and trade, I try to optimize.
EDH Decks:
B Toshiro Umezawa B
W Mikaeus, the Lunarch W
G Azusa, Lost but Seeking G
UB Grimgrin, Corpse-Born BU
BGU The Mimeoplasm UGB
GUW Rubinia Soulsinger WUG
GRB Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper BRG
I agree that there are many spike players that can be dicks. I think that more than anything casual players hate the attitude of the aggressor more than the way he won. I know some competitive people that I know from the beginning I'll lose to. I can have fun seeing how far I can get. This usually applies to actual real life friends/acquaintances. I really don't appeciate the attitude some player exhibit when they play "competitively".
When playing with strangers especially online tensions are usually higher. This is amplified when playing with competitive people. In sports, school, and even magic males especially have a subconsciousness need to show others that they are the alpha male or at least that they shouldn't be stepped on.
Get a bunch of homely nerds in a room and watch their "power struggle"(stereotype. Not always true). Some nerds I know have literally no life and hang out in card shops all day. They want to be good at something, to make themselves feel better for being a waste of life. They do this by stepping on other people to benefit themselves. Again this is a stereotype, but I have seen it.
If everyone was more evenly skilled, then there would be less "trolls" or "competitive players". Some people are only competitive because they win against people with "worse" decks. I guess I just can't stand overly competitive people unless they in a tournament, you know the appropriate place to be competitive unless you deck testing.
I believe some of the worst man children who care nothing but winning have some serious mental issues. Thankfully most people aren't this way. As I said way earlier I don't like attitudes more than decks. I would lose any day to a stable, respectable, calm guy with a sense of humor with a degenerate combo deck. Generally though I like the thrill of the hunt. Not like this-->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs5TlfXytzM
Sorry for rambling rant. I had a thought and went with it.
My Saffi deck
Just like I absolutely disagree that Legacy and Vintage should be kept entirely competitive yet they are anyway. And before you try to say they aren't I invite you to look at some price lists before you even consider it. You're point is what exactly, that only competitive players deserve to be noticed? It might not be but that's that it looks like. It cuts no one out. If people want to play EDH competitively I really don't care if they do. Do so at a tournament. If you join in on a game I'm in with other people, and we specifically say we're playing casually, and combo out in the first 4 turns chances are good you're not suited to be playing that deck casually. And if you get upset when we don't invite you into the next game you definitely need to reevaluate why you're playing EDH.
This part I agree with up to the "Defining EDH" part, and everything after it 100% however. Without definition a thing is formless and without meaning.
I do agree that Legacy and Vintage are ultra competitive formats, but that's at the high level. Many players' casual decks technically qualify as Legacy and Vintage-legal, it's just that they would never play in a tourney with them because of the power curve and the barriers to entry.
I agree completely with what you're saying and you seem to agree with what I'm saying: it's who you play with that's most important. EDH tourneys can be expected to be much like any other kind of event: the more competitive players will usually have the advantage over the casual ones. It's parallel to FNM. The ones that join in on casual games and mop the floor with everyone are just dicks. The key to stopping them from giving you trouble is to regulate the playgroups, not the entire format.
I mean to say that we shouldn't try to make EDH a rigid format by laying out restrictive banlists and whatnot. Rather than try to say the format should be casual or competitive, let it be both and allow players to pick what they want it to be on a personal level. Players should exercise control over their playgroups rather than try to exercise it over EDH as a whole.
EDH isn't about what you play, it's about who you play with.
[EDH]
BUG Combo/Control:
BUG Dominus - Dreamcrusher Edition GUB
What frustrates me as a casual player is that this makes the portability of the format pretty close to zero. I can't go to a store and join an EDH game because without fail some of the players there will be stomping the rest with competitive decks. I'd love it if people shared my principals on keeping the game friendly and fun, but not everyone shares my disdain for infinite comboes, 1-shot kills, and locks etc.
I don't play other constructed formats because I find competitive games are a race to the bottom. A handful of decks reign supreme and anything creative is doomed to be stomped by the netdecks. EDH is the same, each colour has about 35 "goodstuff" cards that "belong" in just about every deck of those colours if you want to optimize it. Personally I want to see different cards in my games, not sol ring and genesis and whatnot game after game after game.
So I think casual players have a legitimate grievance. I don't see how competitive players can complain though. Go play standard/legacy/limited/modern... those are exactly what you're looking for.
The competitive formats are PRECISELY what competitive players should be playing, but they won't. These are the same kind of players who will go choose out the little kid in the room and stomp him using some ridiculous deck using the power 9 just because the kid doesn't know any better. It isn't the game itself that gives them satisfaction. It is the winning and rubbing it in your face. These are the same people who will sit and bad mouth people they kill in fps games. It is usually best just to avoid them.
EDH is a CASUAL format. Get with the program, or GTFO.
People need to take themselves less seriously. Not to speak poorly of the casual crowd, but seeing posts on here about how upset people get because some other player cast Armageddon, it just seems so trivial. If you lost you lost. I'm assuming you weren't playing for ante or money so you didn't really lose anything. You also didn't lose or waste your time. You spent your time playing a diverse game, and it seems odd that you don't expect the expectable. Sure LD is unfortunate, but mana rocks didn't stop being important in EDH. Extra turns for one player are boring, but chances are the game's over so hurray you can play another one! I guess that's really the message, the game is over, Hurray, you can start another game.
It might become a different story if one player consistently plays a strategy that you don't enjoy, but neither of you are in the wrong. The optimal thing for you to do, if you're offended is approach the situation or default from those games involving that player. Whining anonymously on the internet won't solve your problems.
This is the kind of logic that closes off the game, though. You may enjoy casual EDH, but that is no reason to say that other players shouldn't enjoy it in their own way. Again, it's a playgroup problem. Some players are dicks and like to play against the casual players with their thousand-dollar decks, but that's a problem with that person, not the format.
EDH isn't about what you play, it's about who you play with.
[EDH]
BUG Combo/Control:
BUG Dominus - Dreamcrusher Edition GUB
This is extremely close minded. I play with a number of competitive players, including several who play primarily edh. Building a deck to be more competitive or playing to win the game doesn't mean you're going to stomp some little kid then laugh in his face, or sit and rub the groups nose into every loss, or that winning is the only way you get enjoyment out of the game.
Players in my group are just as likely to groan when AoZ gets played for the umpteenth time, go for ridiculous plays, and laugh it off then move on to the next game when someone wins in spectacular fashion. We're also running decks that try and lock people out with Hokori, Dust Drinker, drop a threat then play Armageddon, or go from zero board state to lethal in a turn. We're currently all a little annoyed at someone who showed up running Azami, then refused to combo out because he thought other people would enjoy the game more if he didn't. My newest deck joins a deck fronted by Jasmine Boreal (who is regularly cast and used as a wincon), a deck with no non-etb creature answers, and a mono-R control deck in my stable of decks, and I just built Karador stax.
Saying that the people I play with have less fun or a lesser understanding of the format because we don't play the same way that you do is entirely incorrect and a little insulting.
Ofcourse everyone wants to win the game.
But the question is: What are you willing to do, to win the game?
For example: Our Kaalia-player.
He is willing to throw in gigantic creatures to smash people in the face, he even loves to play tons of tutors to always get the answer he wants.
But stuff like Armageddon is where he draws the line.
He doesn't want to have a 'guaranteed win' on turn 4, stuff like that won't be fun for the group.
It will give him more wins, but those wins aren't valuable unless you are playing for prices.
Big Thanks to Xeno for sig art <3.
I don't have a problem with either side saying "this is the style of game I want" and then arranging their environment to get it. There's a level of personal responsibility and investment here--shape the group you want, avoid the group you don't. I understand that that can be really difficult when the number of players available to you is small. If that's the case, open and open-minded discussion is the only resolution ("on even numbered days, let's be more casual, on odd no holds barred" or something--that's just me spit-balling).
I (and the RC) have a vision for the format, and will continue to reinforce and promote that vision, but I'm not going to try to invalidate the way others want to play. The RC is going to be clear about the style of play it would like to cater to, and the style of play it believes is best for the global version of the format, but that doesn't prevent local groups, regions, or even countries from doing what they want (so long as it's clear that they're deviating from the global vision). I think we can live in both worlds. Some folks will say that's idealistic, but I think it's achievable.
My new catchphrase is "Build casually, play competitively." Yes, it's a sound-bite, but I think it conveys the 10,000 foot view of how we feel about the format.
But consider the following problems with the format, problems which all too often get absorbed in the competitive/casual discussion:
1) Play being justified as Casual which is in reality just bad play or poor sportsmanship. I enjoy playing with authentic Casuals. One of my favorite decks is a Sygg merfolk deck, and I don't mind that it has problems going against the whole table when I get into a good position. Tribal is fun to me. But I have been in games where, for example, a Zedruu player will stick Greater Auramancy and three Shrines, someone takes 2 with a Primus, and they complain about cutthroat play. If their deck is all about sitting on enchantmenta and hoping nothing will happen to them, that's bad design and bad play. People like to play tribal, or claim to, but then they make the token complaints about competitive play when they lose. I'm all for Casual, but if these players would rather win than play casual, they need to stop hiding behind this argument. Kids who want to have their cake and eat it too shouldnt be able to masquerade as fun-loving casuals, when all they really want to do is win their way.
2) Counter strategy being mislabeled as degeneracy. There are some absurd combos in this card pool, and I'm glad of the ones that are banned. We should not touch the ones that aren't. But I see mass LD, Stax, etc thrown in the same boat all the time. When you give casual players a haven, they'll exclude anything they lose to too much or dont want to prepare for, because losing is unfun to them. Certain thigs go unchecked, dominant strategies are 10x as obvious and less varied than they would be otherwise, and people stop interacting with each other in game. Which after all, causes the same problems that RC is trying to avoid.
3) The portability of the format is super low. One persons understanding of casual is no "I win" Commander combos, Hermit Druid, etc. Another player's is no LD, no counters, no extra turns, no Meekstone, no theft, no winning before T10, etc. Another player's understanding is nothing that beats him in any way is allowed, and whatever it is he'll be upset at it. These players all have faceless avatars on a lot of internet clients, multiple accounts, etc, and somehow they need to come together and have a mutual understanding of what is expected. You could say that EDH is not a format meant for online or anonymous play, but I think that's a mistake, and I personally would not be able to play if it weren't supported there. The casual argument used as a haven is an obstacle in the way of the anonymous community reaching a mutual understanding of what is expected.
4) Variety in the format lacks severely in certain circles. The more unwritten rules there are to be obeyed, the fewer strategies will be available to interact with opponents. And a certain contingent of players will always try to build the best, while staying within social boundaries. This very large group of players, the predominant group I would say, will do what a lot have already - build Mimeo foodstuff, get bored with it, get tired of the whining that the casual/competitive argument has enabled, then leave. All that there is left is the goodstuff tamp that they left behind. And if the question of what's best under those constraints is solved too decisively, there won't be enough to keep this group playing. You could say that EDH was not meant for this group, but I think that is a mistake. Excluding them needlessly while clearing things up a bit would keep most of them is needless.
I enjoy playing socially engaged EDH games. I play combo control. I expect that the politics of the table will target me a good bit. Removal and mana denial will aim for me. That is part of the fun for me. I play good cards that interact well with each other and interact with my opponents stuff.
However, if this were "casual" in the lets just play mediocre cards sense. I would not have nearly as much fun. I keep that style for Duels of the Planeswalkers.
My Trade List: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=449871
I'm not mixing up player motivations. For every authentic casual that just gets bored when LD hits but is otherwise unoffended, there's a "have your cake and eat it too" player who made the best deck they could, get rolled over and over, and would rather look for ways to complain than change how he thinks about interactions in the game. Saying that the second doesn't exist is just as bad as saying the first doesn't. Maybe it's not you, but we've all seen that before. If the shoe fits, wear it.
And sure, there's nothing wrong with bad play or bad design. No one is going to write you a citation and fine you for it. It's when people knowingly play badly and expect everyone to change so that they can win, then blow up when it doesn't happen. That's the problem, and it's enabled by this casual/competitive debate that's become a crutch for a lot of people. Again, if the shoe fits, wear it.
What I mean by clearing things up is coming down with more bannnings, or possibly a different banlist for casuals. Even for-pay clients like MODO don't currently allow for the importation of house rules, and Wizards follows the RC pretty closely. If literally everyone I play against complains against Jokulhaups, I'll stop playing it as I realize that they're never, ever going to adapt to LD. But then I build a deck that no longer has any way to get my lands back and isn't adapted to LD, and next game I play against a Gisela deck and it artifact ramps into a Boom//Bust. Now I'm the one who just has to concede, and who has built their deck badly with no curve and no resilience to LD. Portability of the format is now a problem because the two camps can't agree.
They seem like significantly different things, at least from my own perspective. I certainly don't think you can replace 'casual' with 'social' in the context of this debate, because social and competitive are not mutually exclusive in the same way that casual and competitive are. It's possible to both build and play optimally, using strategies that the stereotypical casual player frowns upon, yet still prioritise a social experience.
And along that same mindset, competitive players can pick up Go instead of playing magic. Go is far more competitive and complex than magic will ever be.
There is nothing wrong with having a meta want to tap creatures sideways for an evening.
As for myself, I believe my decks to be very optimal...just optimal in a different way from what you would consider optimal. My decks are vorthos. They are fun. They win some and they lose some. I believe they bring out the best of my meta. They say "please sir, I want some more". That's what optimal means to me.
Having a deck that would just smash anything at my meta without a fight because it's competitively optimal would quickly find the decklist barred from the table. We're in it for a good time and don't want to have imbalance ruining that fun.
I can sympathize with Viperesque's desire in wanting to change 'casual' into 'social' because casual does trend to include a more social element. However, I don't believe that competitive and social are mutally exclusive. Competitive could be 'tounament level' play. It could also be 'sitting around the kitchen table' play. A barrel of laughs could happen at either. A good time can happen at either.
I still think casual vs competitive is the best spectrum to use.
| B Erebos, God of VampiresB | GYeva SmashG | RBosh ArtifactsR | GURAnimar +1 BeatsGUR | RBVial's Secret Hot SauceRB | UBRNekusar, Draw if you DareUBR | RGBDarigaaz'z DragonsRGB | GBSlimeFEETGB | UBOn-Hit LazavUB | URBrudiclad's Artificer InventionsUR | GUBMuldrotha's ElementalsGUB | WUGKestia's EnchantmentsWUG | GUTatyova - Draw, Land, Go!GU | WGArahbo's EquipmentWG | BUWVarina's ZOMBIE HORDESBUW | WLyra's Angelic SalvationW | WBChurch of TeysaWB | UAzami...WizardsU
In no way am I saying that people should quit the game. What I am saying is that there is so much more to magic than just turning things sideways. Who is anyone to tell another player what he or she cannot play so long as they are playing within the formats rules? The "Casual" minset seems to hinder creativity and looks to reward those who are less than successful at Magic. If someone shows up with LD on a consistant basis, or mono-blue combo, or the like, why not try and learn what makes those decks tick, learn how to beat them, and grow as a better player? Instead, if someone has a great deck that no one likes, the answer is to ban the deck from the table in the name of fun? I mean, yea if someone resovles several board wipping LD spells, that person is probably going to win. Solution...don't let several LD spells resolve, don't play a land just because you have one in your hand. Sorry, casual or not, if you banning someone's deck because they play by the rules, you're not playing Commander no matter how much you want to think you are.
You are really hurting your own argument. Where is the creativity in Urborg + Coffers? Where's the creativity in Mike + Trike? How about the creativity in Beacon of Tomorrows + Planar Portal? Or Palinchron + any Mana Doubler? Competitive play more so than casual play stifles creativity. With a competitive environment you either play the tried and true net decks or you lose every game without being able to actually do much of anything.
Edit: To clarify, what I'm saying is the highly tuned fully optimized decks quite literally prevent creative new ideas from happening. When you combo off consistently turn 5 and kill the whole board, no one else gets a chance to do anything but copy you or find something even more degenerate. And it's quite rare for increasingly degenerate things to be found since so many already have been. You can't honestly expect anyone to believe that competitive play fosters a more creative environment, especially when top 16 deck lists at PTQs and other tournaments tend to have between 3-5 different shells that are almost identical if not completely identical. When [insert color here] Goodstuff.dec is a valid strategy and anything that doesn't use most if not all of the top 50 best cards in a given color is just "Some jank crap that was built wrong" creativity is being stifled. Commander as a format does no promote creativity. EDH does.
To further clarify I view EDH as the term for the casual aspect of the format, and Commander as the competitive aspect. Both exist, both are separate entities, and both don't mix well together.
And how is what my meta plays not Commander?
First rule of Commander is that a gentleman's agreement is to exist between all players on what to expect out of the game. We follow that rule.
We rule that general damage doesn't exist. Check.
We rule that decks must be fun, interactive, and non-degenerate. Check.
We rule on a modified banlist. Check.
Game on.
We play Commander; just not with the same gentleman's agreement that you do.
| B Erebos, God of VampiresB | GYeva SmashG | RBosh ArtifactsR | GURAnimar +1 BeatsGUR | RBVial's Secret Hot SauceRB | UBRNekusar, Draw if you DareUBR | RGBDarigaaz'z DragonsRGB | GBSlimeFEETGB | UBOn-Hit LazavUB | URBrudiclad's Artificer InventionsUR | GUBMuldrotha's ElementalsGUB | WUGKestia's EnchantmentsWUG | GUTatyova - Draw, Land, Go!GU | WGArahbo's EquipmentWG | BUWVarina's ZOMBIE HORDESBUW | WLyra's Angelic SalvationW | WBChurch of TeysaWB | UAzami...WizardsU
Wow! That's all I can say. I've played since 94, in PTQs, LGS, Kitchen table, you name it, I've played in it. I can't believe the mentality. How someone can say their time is so precious that they would have a "take your ball and go home" attitude is just beyond me. These "Timmy, Johnny, and Spike" terms are over-used. I play and have played every type of archetype there is. I will not classify myself or fellow players under these terms. I am a Magic player. Just curious, do you look through a players deck before the game starts just to make sure there is nothing you don't like in it? If I ever ran into a group that played by rules like "No LD" or "Don't combo me", I'd play a Joukalhaups and laugh at them as they scooped or tried to play on as if the card was never played.
I can. It is completely understandable. Spikes are NOT fun to play against, in a group, or solo. You are so hell bent on the win, you cannot see the interactivity of the game, or even observe the point of other players decks. CASUAL formats are NOT about winning. They are bout interactivity and fun. Commander IS and ALWAYS WILL BE a casual format. Spikes don't belong in casual. Stay in your competitive, have fun trouncing each other. Leave the Timmys and Johnnys alone with their game. If a group does not want to play against you, they are by no means obligated to do so, and you are going to do more to offend the group than anything else by refusing to abide by the house rules.
FYI, refusing to abide by house rules will also often get you kicked out of a store, and does nothing to make you friends. When you manage to offend your entire play community, what are you going to do then?
EDH is a CASUAL format. Get with the program, or GTFO.