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.
Not to mention you deliberately give the finger to the other half that makes this game. I swear if Spikes had their way, we'd all be just playing with blank cardboard squares that just have the numbers on them.
Not to mention you deliberately give the finger to the other half that makes this game. I swear if Spikes had their way, we'd all be just playing with blank cardboard squares that just have the numbers on them.
I wasn't aware Dungeons and Dragons was competitive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tantarus: It didn't make the gaka greifer level, so it should be fine
This "Casual" mindset does nothing to further a players abilities.
Further my abilities? If there were any abilities that I wanted to further, it'd be those that take me closer to my career goal. I'm sorry if it breaks your heart to know that M:tG isn't one of them.
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?
Can I add some of my own?
Could Spikes, creatively, explain to me what a Hellkite Charger really looks like with a Bear Umbra on without me imagining something stupid?
Do you really think that putting a creepy Eldrazi Conscription on a pretty angel like Bruna sounds right?
I wasn't aware Dungeons and Dragons was competitive.
You, my good sir, are unfamiliar with the D&D Championship series and Living Forgotten Realms. D&D can be very competitive. Though it's less fun in a competitive play style for many players.
Joke aside, not all spikes are that bad. Some though might as well just play Poker so they don't have to deal with any new information, different strategies, or anything being added into the mix. They'd feel far more comfortable. Thankfully there's still a few spikes out there who actually get the concept of fun beyond "I won so I had fun, I lost so I didn't".
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.
Maybe I'm just lost here. I don't consider myself a "Spike", but I also don't play games to lose. I figure if I'm going to put the effort into building an EDH deck and take the time to play it, I'd like to win. I'm not upset if I lose, but I'm going to try and have fun and win the game. Now, I can understand a group getting upset at a player if he constantly is comboing the table on turn 3 or repeatedly playing boardwipes and just grinding the game to a halt. What I don't understand is a mentality to want to take away an entire portion of strategy from the game, just because you don't like playing against it. If I'm playing mono-red, why wouldn't I run Jokaulhaups or Obliterate? They are some of red's best and only answers to things that have already come into play. I mean really, what's red do against anything that's hyped up on enchantments like Uril, or stuff with Hexproof? I don't see how others can fault a player for playing answers. I love seeing huge spells and big creatures in this format as much as the next guy. I honestly feel that's what EDH is all about. Ask youself this though, what other format could you play Obliterate or Jokaulhaups in if your playing red? The same format that people play huge creatures and other really big spells...Commander.
But Commander is not "1 unified format". Like regular-60 casual, it completely depends on the playgroup. Some love more intricate games and you can play Jokulhaups with them. Others don't. That's the social aspect.
Those casual players, they don't see it as a loss when taking away an entire portion of strategy from the game. If something isn't liked by anyone (from that group) and disliked by everyone, banning it is a net positive.
Don't get me wrong, I have casual decks too, btw, I looked at yours and think they are rather good. I just don't see the harm in a red deck running a mass board wipe as Obliterate so long as it is not repetitive. I have a competitve Numot deck that runs multiple board wipes and yes, I understand that is not everyone's cup of tea to play against. I rarley play it in my group. I just don't like the idea of hammering a player and telling them they can't play with you because of a combo or card they may have. Agreed, if they become degenerate, it's the group's right to ask them to play something different. But you shouldn't take away the ability to run 1 or 2 cards of a certain type just because your deck can't recover from them. I'm a believer of play first and request changes after.
Maybe I'm just lost here. I don't consider myself a "Spike", but I also don't play games to lose. I figure if I'm going to put the effort into building an EDH deck and take the time to play it, I'd like to win. I'm not upset if I lose, but I'm going to try and have fun and win the game. Now, I can understand a group getting upset at a player if he constantly is comboing the table on turn 3 or repeatedly playing boardwipes and just grinding the game to a halt. What I don't understand is a mentality to want to take away an entire portion of strategy from the game, just because you don't like playing against it. If I'm playing mono-red, why wouldn't I run Jokaulhaups or Obliterate? They are some of red's best and only answers to things that have already come into play. I mean really, what's red do against anything that's hyped up on enchantments like Uril, or stuff with Hexproof? I don't see how others can fault a player for playing answers. I love seeing huge spells and big creatures in this format as much as the next guy. I honestly feel that's what EDH is all about. Ask youself this though, what other format could you play Obliterate or Jokaulhaups in if your playing red? The same format that people play huge creatures and other really big spells...Commander.
There is a big difference between "Not Playing to Win" and "Playing to Lose." I don't ever play to lose, and a good portion of the time, I come out with a win. The difference is that I don't go all gung ho "I have to win every freaking game ever and that is all that is important." The game is about having fun AS A GROUP. I have an instant win combo in my Zombie deck. Does that mean I use it all the time? No. No, I don't. It is an answer to a problem player. I'd MUCH rather win with the silly alternate condition using Undead Alchemist. It is just there if I need it. Should you drop that Obliterate just because you can? No, you shouldn't. Especially if there is someone at the table that has next to nothing on the board. (Though we'd ban it out right because it is mass land removal. That is just douchetastic for the sake of being douchetastic.) Part of the game is politics, and part of politics is holding back when it is appropriate.
There is a big difference between "Not Playing to Win" and "Playing to Lose." I don't ever play to lose, and a good portion of the time, I come out with a win. The difference is that I don't go all gung ho "I have to win every freaking game ever and that is all that is important." The game is about having fun AS A GROUP. I have an instant win combo in my Zombie deck. Does that mean I use it all the time? No. No, I don't. It is an answer to a problem player. I'd MUCH rather win with the silly alternate condition using Undead Alchemist. It is just there if I need it. Should you drop that Obliterate just because you can? No, you shouldn't. Especially if there is someone at the table that has next to nothing on the board. (Though we'd ban it out right because it is mass land removal. That is just douchetastic for the sake of being douchetastic.) Part of the game is politics, and part of politics is holding back when it is appropriate.
No, I think people run Obliterate so others can't answer their Greater Gargadon with..... Tooth and Nail, Decree of Pain, or some improbable combo like Scourge of Kher Ridges + Basilisk Collar. Not quite just for the sake of being a douche.
Better than handling 3 players with 12+ mana each, all of whom are pointing their fingers at the guy with the same 9/7 vanilla, saying "OH LOOK, He's about to win!!!", when it's going to take a good 8 turns to end the game that way.
Which is bad play, which is good play - that can really only be decided by who wins, can it not? Obliterator is not that hard of a strategy to beat. It's not nearly in the same league as Cascade/Hermit Druid combo, Arcum, Sharuum, Mikaeus, etc. People only whine about it because it can be so decisive so much of the time against these "play nothing but ramp and draw until turn 6" type of decks, not because it's degenerate. Because it's not. Time to start running land recursion and small removal like Innocent Blood and Swords to Plowshares. If you don't want to, fine. But if you're failing to reconsider things in light of how to beat a certain strategy, you're choosing to lose to it. If you know how to beat a certain strategy and don't implement it, then you're choosing to lose to it. So, why are you so surprised when you... lose to it?
That's the real deal. Everyone can play what they want. But 99/100 people complaining about "competitives" ruining their playgroup want more. They want to play what they want, and they want it to win too. And if it doesn't, they want to force ban what everyone else is playing, no matter how straightforward and fair that thing is, so that what they're playing starts to win again. No counter, no stasis, no LD, no combo, no winning before turn 10, no anyone else winning but me, and I don't have to work for it like everyone else.
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'm in a similar boat. I don't really consider myself one type of player or another. I like creatures, but I also like really big spells and multi-card synergies that take a while to assemble. I've thankfully never encountered a group that is so wholly against certain cards or strategies that I've ever been asked to leave games, and I think such a scenario would be completely ridiculous. It's a game, I just want to play, and if Jokulhaups is the card I need to restabilize, then that's what is; there is really no use in getting so worked up because everyone's board state is gone, if it's really that dreadful just start another game and no one wins. I've done that plenty of times and it's never seemed to cause issues.
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.
I can't say you're wrong, I feel that EDH can be a casual format, but that shouldn't exclude anyone from participating. I've met several "Spike" players that are a blast to play with because even though they're clearly intent on winning, they don't scoff at other players, or groan when things don't go their way. On the flip side, I've seen more than my fair share of "casual" players that are simply bad sports. I've been targeted for trying to Gravepact away a board in Ghave when that's my only removal. I've been given more than my fair share of dirty looks for combo-ing off, even though I didn't try to assemble the combo. I've been scoffed at by these "social gentlemen/women" for having poor foresight, or making a move that only favors me, and all the while, I like to think that I'm a relatively polite player.
I am a casual player. I love playing huge spells, and in general I dislike the overuse of tutors. Decree of Annihilation is also one of my favorite cards, and you're damn certain I'll play it when I get the chance, and I need to. I hardly think that justifies exiling me from a playgroup. This game does not belong to any one subset of people. It's a social interaction shared by a variety of different personae, and it's a shame that so many people are so willing to shut out strangers just because a game might not be entirely to their liking. I'd really hope that people would start becoming more tolerant or just including something for safety purposes. I run tectonic edge and ghost quarter in several of my decks. It's not because I intend on destroying lands, but if I need to get rid of Urborg, than I'm better off with something that can deal with it in my deck, that sulking and telling it's owner to shove off because I don't like infinite mana combos.
Well we sometimes also use this option of 'cycling' away cards. There this person with a Jhoira deck that uses Obliterate and friends, and if the group makeup of that day is more competitive, he will play his deck as is, and if its more casual, he will exile them whenever he draws them and draw a new card.
There's this other thread about free mulligans atm. Banning Obliterate is kinda like that. As long as its not abused, it helps smooth games and enhance the experience, even though it deviates from the normal rules.
Congratulations! You seem to have an extremely well established group, and I'm so happy that you have the luxury of consistently playing games that suit the taste of you and your companions. I know we've done this before, but consider yourself in the opposite situation. If all you had was the randoms that you see every two or three weeks, and they told you that you could either play their way or hit the highway, would you really just not play because you feel like you're wasting time as soon as mass LD hits the board? I try to appreciate each playstyle I come across, and it doesn't always end well, but I try to remain polite because I'd rather have someone to play with than not play at all.
A small anecdote, before I part for now. I dislike Kaalia, quite a bit more than I probably should. I have some form or another of early game removal in every deck I build in case I should come across a Kaalia player because I want to be prepared. Several times, it's saved me from extremely vicious decks that become that much more tame when Kaalia costs 6 or 8. But just once, I played against a Kaalia deck, and I crippled her as soon as she hit the board time after time. I've since played about 5 or so games with it's owner, each of us using different decks, and there's no hard feelings. He understands that, put simply, Kaalia's a ***** and its reasonable to kill her on the spot, the same way I never expect doubling season to stick around for my next turn, so I try to do as much as possible as soon as it hits the board, and the same way I've run Second Sunrise just as a failsafe against Armageddon etc. It's just a game, they're just cards, and it's just a few moments of your time considering the life expectancy isn't 20-30 anymore. It might be fruitful to just roll with the punches from time to time, and who knows, you might meet someone that you genuinely enjoy that you would have otherwise shirked.
Or, you could have a well established group. It really is your time and if you can always spend it your way, why not, right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
I can't say you're wrong, I feel that EDH can be a casual format, but that shouldn't exclude anyone from participating. I've met several "Spike" players that are a blast to play with because even though they're clearly intent on winning, they don't scoff at other players, or groan when things don't go their way. On the flip side, I've seen more than my fair share of "casual" players that are simply bad sports. I've been targeted for trying to Gravepact away a board in Ghave when that's my only removal. I've been given more than my fair share of dirty looks for combo-ing off, even though I didn't try to assemble the combo. I've been scoffed at by these "social gentlemen/women" for having poor foresight, or making a move that only favors me, and all the while, I like to think that I'm a relatively polite player.
I am a casual player. I love playing huge spells, and in general I dislike the overuse of tutors. Decree of Annihilation is also one of my favorite cards, and you're damn certain I'll play it when I get the chance, and I need to. I hardly think that justifies exiling me from a playgroup. This game does not belong to any one subset of people. It's a social interaction shared by a variety of different personae, and it's a shame that so many people are so willing to shut out strangers just because a game might not be entirely to their liking. I'd really hope that people would start becoming more tolerant or just including something for safety purposes. I run tectonic edge and ghost quarter in several of my decks. It's not because I intend on destroying lands, but if I need to get rid of Urborg, than I'm better off with something that can deal with it in my deck, that sulking and telling it's owner to shove off because I don't like infinite mana combos.
How could we exclude strangers? Without a basis on how or what they play, it is impossible to figure out whether they make a good addition to the gaming group. It is a single established person that we exclude. A person who refuses to abide by the meta and house rules, and who acts like a child when they don't win. We have plenty of other spikish players, but they don't cause problems, and though they don't like losing, they don't sulk like children or complain that we spent the whole game hating on them, when the remainder of us are in the single digits in life. This is all after he plays Tooth and Nail 4 times with stupid spell recursion, and craps out 3 eldrazi, a consecrated sphinx, 2 titans, a Sigarda and an Avacyn, all unstoppable, because we don't play blue. Every. Damn. Game.
There is nothing wrong with spot land removal for problems. Board wide land removal is a dick move, no matter what your excuse, If for no other reason than it makes the game take 5+ hours.
How could we exclude strangers? Without a basis on how or what they play, it is impossible to figure out whether they make a good addition to the gaming group. It is a single established person that we exclude. A person who refuses to abide by the meta and house rules, and who acts like a child when they don't win. We have plenty of other spikish players, but they don't cause problems, and though they don't like losing, they don't sulk like children or complain that we spent the whole game hating on them, when the remainder of us are in the single digits in life. This is all after he plays Tooth and Nail 4 times with stupid spell recursion, and craps out 3 eldrazi, a consecrated sphinx, 2 titans, a Sigarda and an Avacyn, all unstoppable, because we don't play blue. Every. Damn. Game.
There is nothing wrong with spot land removal for problems. Board wide land removal is a dick move, no matter what your excuse, If for no other reason than it makes the game take 5+ hours.
I tried to say that I should hope if a stranger comes along, you don't dismiss him/her for the cards he/she plays, but rather how he or she plays them. If you have a player who consistently acts against the majority, yet continues to demand satisfaction, I can only hope that you've told him/her your issues. If that doesn't suffice, you've tried. I never said that a well-established group should append itself with faulty cogs, but rather that you shouldn't just exclude people for their card choices. It sounds like this player that you exclude fits the bill of the sour-sport I was describing, and chances are I'd avoid him/her as well.
I will agree that mass LD is exceedingly risky, but I've seen it happen several times where the game simply ended; it was the game winning spell and it was appropriate and not some terrible act, or at least no more terrible than Insurrection or Time Stretch. There are spells that win games, mass LD is just not always the most efficient.
On a slightly different note, why does no one in your group play blue? I hope it's not because blue isn't a "casual" color.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
I know someone who isn't an outspoken type either (when he did the test, the outcome was the spike/timmy/johnny ...tribid?).
The most annoying aspect of such people is that because it's our human nature to reflect ourself onto others, think others are like how we are, they can dismiss the types as being bullcrap. "That Timmy is a whiner for not being able to man up and play like a Spike for once. I mean I can do it, so why can't he?"
This is really the crux of the matter. Or, as Jack Sparrow likes to say, "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do." An individual has to conform to the group, because the group can play without him, but the individual can't play without the group.
I play maybe 2 games of commander a week, on average. So yeah, I do want them to count. And everything you say, "it's just a game", "just roll with the punches" etc, I can turn around as reasons for you not to play that Decree of Annihilation.
It's not about being anomalous as a player type, it's that really most of the time, in one game, I play all three. I like having big splashy creatures, most of my decks include some sort of wacky combo, and when I have a winning board position, I definitely try to go in for the kill. I don't think any one person is so rigid that they maintain just one persona all the time.
And like I said, I'm happy you have something that works well for you, but I was hoping you'd consider the opposite scenario. I get to play, when I have the time, which right now is about once or twice a month, so of course I like my games to "count," the difference is, my games always count because I just enjoy playing the game with people that at least smell decent and won't blow a gasket when the game takes a turn they're not keen to. It's enough for me that I can play the game I love, and I'm not going to ruin that experience by limiting the types of cards I play with or against.
As for Decree of Annihilation, I did not that I would play it, should I have the chance, and it's needed. Would you really be that much more upset if I won immediately after Decree over something like immediately after Insurrection, or Wrath with Avacyn on the Board, etc? I'm sorry you've have experiences with players that apparently drop armageddon turn 4 with no game plan, but I don't think you should generalize those feelings.
But we've done this before, you and I, so I'll reiterate. You clearly have something that works for you, and I can't besmirch it because of that. I just wouldn't be so quick to match cards with people who play them.
On a similar note, I consider myself a very casual player, because I pretty much let anything go. I'll allow any banned card, so long as you'll do me the same favor, and I'm not one to gripe about things aside from my own deck performly poorly. So, as I said, I consider myself casual, but does my allowance of such things say otherwise?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
How could we exclude strangers? Without a basis on how or what they play, it is impossible to figure out whether they make a good addition to the gaming group. It is a single established person that we exclude. A person who refuses to abide by the meta and house rules, and who acts like a child when they don't win. We have plenty of other spikish players, but they don't cause problems, and though they don't like losing, they don't sulk like children or complain that we spent the whole game hating on them, when the remainder of us are in the single digits in life. This is all after he plays Tooth and Nail 4 times with stupid spell recursion, and craps out 3 eldrazi, a consecrated sphinx, 2 titans, a Sigarda and an Avacyn, all unstoppable, because we don't play blue. Every. Damn. Game.
There is nothing wrong with spot land removal for problems. Board wide land removal is a dick move, no matter what your excuse, If for no other reason than it makes the game take 5+ hours.
So, this is Spike behavior to you? Getting to 30 mana, Tooth and Nail, Regrowth, Sigarda, Avacyn.... Playing Blue???
I'm still trying to absorb this.
What do the more Timmy decks look like? Tribal? 60 cards of one theme? Is including a card in your deck just because it's good "Spike" behavior?
Because in my group, that deathball is answered by Sarkhan Vol on Avacyn, Jokukhaups, GG. In my mind, that's classic Spike v Timmy. Timmy plays stuff that he thinks is good, Spike plays stuff that is better and wins, Timmy frowns. But now that including cards in your deck because you think they're good is Spike behavior, maybe this is Spike v. Spike?
Thinking on it now, maybe that's not far off. In fact, a lot of the whining I get online might just be from Spikes, not Timmies. Spike who is really, really bad at being a Spike gets blown out, and he complains because the only reason he joined up was to beat everyone with Avacyn. What to do against this kind of player? Ignore them? If the only reason they're playing is to win and they're really bad at it, they will certainly stop playing. And if you're under the impression that Mass LD is annoying because it prolongs the game, then what you have is indeed a case of Spikes who are really, really bad at doing what Spikes do - try to win. Winning with Jokulhaups is about the easiest thing to figure out for someone who is remotely good and who is remotely trying.
So, what to do when these really bad Spikes start leaving the game because they can't win, then they try to pass themselves off as "casual" for no reason other than they can't figure out how to win with LD? How do you identify and separate the sheep from the goats here? Distinguish the honest casual who is just bored from the chiefly unskilled Competitive who just wants to win, but can't?
Related question - who would a casual rather play against, a Spike who knows what he's doing or a Spike who can't figure it out and just runs Mimeo good stuff with the cliche 6-drops? Would casuals rather have little chance to win, or deal with the whining of an unskilled Spike when his Avacyn doesn't get there? And if they'd rather just have a chance to win, what does that say about how casual they really are?
You see, I agree whole-heartedly that players are different degrees of these things at different times. I play to win, but I detest game ending combos that bastardize the true purpose of the cards used. I won't beat a table over the head with a deck that they're clearly unprepared to deal with, but I don't like it either when someone shows no willingness or ability to get better at the game, but they still whine over and over about not winning. I think most people stand with me on those issues.
So rather than competitive or casual play, how about just make distinctions between good and bad manners? Unskilled Spikes can stop wearing sheep's clothing, people can stop playing LD against people who can't or won't deal with it, and everyone's happy.
In my playgroup, you would never, ever, EVER hear the words, "I'm not going to run this because it's kind of a douche-y card." Everyone would just laugh at you and wonder why you don't like winning. The same applies to, "I know this is a bad card, but it fits the flavor of my deck so well!"
We have lots of fun in our games, and we don't try to play janky thematic, flavorlicious decks. That's not fun at all. What's fun, what's really fun, is trying to optimize your deck, to run the perfect combination of cards of all archetypes, such that you can maximize your chances of winning. If someone else plays a "douche-y" card, and says, "Oops, I win," well, it's the rest of the table's fault for judging the wrong people as threats and not having enough disruption available.
It's an all out political mind game. Threat evaluation, knowing who's the closest to being able to combo off or blow us all out, knowing which pieces are highest priority to destroy or disrupt--it's the most fun I ever have playing magic. There's so much thinking involved in every game.
My playgroup consists of any combination of the following:
Saffi Eriksdotter combo (me)
Ulasht, the Hate Seed combo/aggro (me)
Child of Alara lands/combo
Rubinia Soulsinger combo/control
Niv Mizzet combo
Zur lock/control
Uril aggro
Momir Vig combo/lock
Heartless Hidetsugu combo
Jhoira bombs/control
Karn combo/lock
Karador combo
Azami combo/control
We have new people show up every now and then, and we proceed to watch them get torn apart, then we give lessons on what non-optimal cards they're running and how to improve their decks. It's a learning experience.
If someone's deck is too powerful, we wouldn't even think of excluding them from games for it. I can hardly comprehend how ANYONE would go to such lengths. Just re-tool your own deck with more answers to theirs. That's how the game WORKS. You make meta-calls on what cards to run. If you don't run enough grave-hate or artifact/enchantment-hate because you'd have to cut some flavorful cards for it, you're making a poor choice. Your deck should be the best it can be; why put limits on yourself?
In my playgroup, you would never, ever, EVER hear the words, "I'm not going to run this because it's kind of a douche-y card." Everyone would just laugh at you and wonder why you don't like winning. The same applies to, "I know this is a bad card, but it fits the flavor of my deck so well!"
We have lots of fun in our games, and we don't try to play janky thematic, flavorlicious decks. That's not fun at all. What's fun, what's really fun, is trying to optimize your deck, to run the perfect combination of cards of all archetypes, such that you can maximize your chances of winning. If someone else plays a "douche-y" card, and says, "Oops, I win," well, it's the rest of the table's fault for judging the wrong people as threats and not having enough disruption available.
It's an all out political mind game. Threat evaluation, knowing who's the closest to being able to combo off or blow us all out, knowing which pieces are highest priority to destroy or disrupt--it's the most fun I ever have playing magic. There's so much thinking involved in every game.
My playgroup consists of any combination of the following:
Saffi Eriksdotter combo (me)
Ulasht, the Hate Seed combo/aggro (me)
Child of Alara lands/combo
Rubinia Soulsinger combo/control
Niv Mizzet combo
Zur lock/control
Uril aggro
Momir Vig combo/lock
Heartless Hidetsugu combo
Jhoira bombs/control
Karn combo/lock
Karador combo
Azami combo/control
We have new people show up every now and then, and we proceed to watch them get torn apart, then we give lessons on what non-optimal cards they're running and how to improve their decks. It's a learning experience.
If someone's deck is too powerful, we wouldn't even think of excluding them from games for it. I can hardly comprehend how ANYONE would go to such lengths. Just re-tool your own deck with more answers to theirs. That's how the game WORKS. You make meta-calls on what cards to run. If you don't run enough grave-hate or artifact/enchantment-hate because you'd have to cut some flavorful cards for it, you're making a poor choice. Your deck should be the best it can be; why put limits on yourself?
No offense but your meta looks incredibly boring and predictable to me. You might find your group and your playstyle fun, but I personally do not, (Based on your comments and your list of decks being played with no view of actual decklists). Multiple lock decks, just about everything dedicated combo deck, players who play by the "Win at any cost" principal of play? Yeah no thanks. Douchy cards exist. Just because you don't think they're douchy doesn't mean other people don't.
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.
No offense but your meta looks incredibly boring and predictable to me. You might find your group and your playstyle fun, but I personally do not, (Based on your comments and your list of decks being played with no view of actual decklists). Multiple lock decks, just about everything dedicated combo deck, players who play by the "Win at any cost" principal of play? Yeah no thanks. Douchy cards exist. Just because you don't think they're douchy doesn't mean other people don't.
Well, it's predictable in the sense that each deck usually wins in the same way as it always does when it wins. The fun is in knowing which decks are in each game, what cards from each need to be dealt with, and how to stop them from winning. It's very interactive. You have to assess whether or not you should risk attempting to go off, or wait for a more opportune time. You have to assess the risks of playing cards that help you out over stopping your opponents, depending on how close you can assume they are to winning.
It's about thinking, and every game is intellectually stimulating. I find it a LOT more fun than just "hurr durr, I turn my guys sideways," or "I'm playing a Cleric deck!"
I'm not saying the cards aren't douchey. I'm saying you should be able to answer them, or anticipate them and plan accordingly, or come back with your own douchey card and ruin their plans.
I don't see what people have against the "win at all costs" mentality. If everyone is playing to win, there isn't a problem to begin with. We have people in our groups who play decks that can't win every once in a while, but they KNOW that they're going to lose, and are playing it for the sake of the fun of playing it. My friend's Rubinia deck has no win conditions in it, but it's great at staying alive, and can potentially lock the whole game down by bouncing Mystic Snake / Venser / Draining Whelk until he kills you with weenies. We've had others put together more "fun" or "flavorful" decks, but they don't expect to win. They build them for the sake of playing.
If you're not playing to win, you should build your deck under the assumption that other people ARE. Telling your opponents, "Hey, don't build the best deck, I don't want you to be playing to win," is the same thing as telling them, "Hey, let me win."
In my playgroup, you would never, ever, EVER hear the words, "I'm not going to run this because it's kind of a douche-y card." Everyone would just laugh at you and wonder why you don't like winning. The same applies to, "I know this is a bad card, but it fits the flavor of my deck so well!"
We have lots of fun in our games, and we don't try to play janky thematic, flavorlicious decks. That's not fun at all. What's fun, what's really fun, is trying to optimize your deck, to run the perfect combination of cards of all archetypes, such that you can maximize your chances of winning. If someone else plays a "douche-y" card, and says, "Oops, I win," well, it's the rest of the table's fault for judging the wrong people as threats and not having enough disruption available.
It's an all out political mind game. Threat evaluation, knowing who's the closest to being able to combo off or blow us all out, knowing which pieces are highest priority to destroy or disrupt--it's the most fun I ever have playing magic. There's so much thinking involved in every game.
My playgroup consists of any combination of the following:
Saffi Eriksdotter combo (me)
Ulasht, the Hate Seed combo/aggro (me)
Child of Alara lands/combo
Rubinia Soulsinger combo/control
Niv Mizzet combo
Zur lock/control
Uril aggro
Momir Vig combo/lock
Heartless Hidetsugu combo
Jhoira bombs/control
Karn combo/lock
Karador combo
Azami combo/control
We have new people show up every now and then, and we proceed to watch them get torn apart, then we give lessons on what non-optimal cards they're running and how to improve their decks. It's a learning experience.
If someone's deck is too powerful, we wouldn't even think of excluding them from games for it. I can hardly comprehend how ANYONE would go to such lengths. Just re-tool your own deck with more answers to theirs. That's how the game WORKS. You make meta-calls on what cards to run. If you don't run enough grave-hate or artifact/enchantment-hate because you'd have to cut some flavorful cards for it, you're making a poor choice. Your deck should be the best it can be; why put limits on yourself?
I'm happy that your happy iwth your play enviroment,but I don't think either one of my decks would feel welcomed there nor do I think I would be. One of my decks is relentless rats and the other a RW deck whos main wincon is barren glory
Here in our gorup,we do go the "not going to play this cuz it is douchey card" atleast when it comes to cards that can shut down one persons whole deck
Well, it's predictable in the sense that each deck usually wins in the same way as it always does when it wins. The fun is in knowing which decks are in each game, what cards from each need to be dealt with, and how to stop them from winning. It's very interactive. You have to assess whether or not you should risk attempting to go off, or wait for a more opportune time. You have to assess the risks of playing cards that help you out over stopping your opponents, depending on how close you can assume they are to winning.
It's about thinking, and every game is intellectually stimulating. I find it a LOT more fun than just "hurr durr, I turn my guys sideways," or "I'm playing a Cleric deck!"
I'm not saying the cards aren't douchey. I'm saying you should be able to answer them, or anticipate them and plan accordingly, or come back with your own douchey card and ruin their plans.
I don't see what people have against the "win at all costs" mentality. If everyone is playing to win, there isn't a problem to begin with. We have people in our groups who play decks that can't win every once in a while, but they KNOW that they're going to lose, and are playing it for the sake of the fun of playing it. My friend's Rubinia deck has no win conditions in it, but it's great at staying alive, and can potentially lock the whole game down by bouncing Mystic Snake / Venser / Draining Whelk until he kills you with weenies. We've had others put together more "fun" or "flavorful" decks, but they don't expect to win. They build them for the sake of playing.
If you're not playing to win, you should build your deck under the assumption that other people ARE. Telling your opponents, "Hey, don't build the best deck, I don't want you to be playing to win," is the same thing as telling them, "Hey, let me win."
That predictability is why I despise standard as a format. It's so incredibly dull and boring when you know exactly what's going to happen every game. I've actually had people scoop at FNM when I called every single play they made from turn 1 to them losing both rounds. Why? Because it's just the same 3-4 decks with almost no variance. I'm sorry but if I want to see the same game over and over I'll go to youtube or FNM. I play EDH for the unpredictability and the interesting games, not the "Hurr durr combo i winz again just like last game" moments.
Also the claim of interactivity only works so far. Lock down decks are by their very nature the antithesis of interactivity. They actively seek and strive to prevent the game from being played.
On to your "build the best decks" stand point, that's all well and good, for you people who have disposable incomes the size of small 3rd world nation's economies. Not everyone can afford to go out and buy the best of everything. In fact the vast majority of MTG players can't. To use an appropriate analog, Pay to Win MMO games are routinely despised by all, except those who have the money to sink into it to buy the best perks and literally say "I win cause I have money and you don't." That's not something EDH is based on unlike formats like Legacy and Vintage. Which is where alot of the "Take your money decks and go play Legacy" comments are coming from. I build my decks to be the best they can be with what I have, and maintaining the fun of them. Why is it so difficult for others to not run things like Decree of Annihilation, Armageddon, Hermit Druid, ect? I can build without them and still win. See that argument goes both ways.
And as a final point, yes let's all respond to douchy plays with even more douchy plays. Just like let's respond to someone calling us names by hitting them with a bat. That logic is quite flawed, and shouldn't be promoted as appropriate in a format that's built on it's social aspect more than anything else.
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.
In my playgroup, you would never, ever, EVER hear the words, "I'm not going to run this because it's kind of a douche-y card." Everyone would just laugh at you and wonder why you don't like winning. The same applies to, "I know this is a bad card, but it fits the flavor of my deck so well!"
We have lots of fun in our games, and we don't try to play janky thematic, flavorlicious decks. That's not fun at all. What's fun, what's really fun, is trying to optimize your deck, to run the perfect combination of cards of all archetypes, such that you can maximize your chances of winning. If someone else plays a "douche-y" card, and says, "Oops, I win," well, it's the rest of the table's fault for judging the wrong people as threats and not having enough disruption available.
It's an all out political mind game. Threat evaluation, knowing who's the closest to being able to combo off or blow us all out, knowing which pieces are highest priority to destroy or disrupt--it's the most fun I ever have playing magic. There's so much thinking involved in every game.
My playgroup consists of any combination of the following:
Saffi Eriksdotter combo (me)
Ulasht, the Hate Seed combo/aggro (me)
Child of Alara lands/combo
Rubinia Soulsinger combo/control
Niv Mizzet combo
Zur lock/control
Uril aggro
Momir Vig combo/lock
Heartless Hidetsugu combo
Jhoira bombs/control
Karn combo/lock
Karador combo
Azami combo/control
We have new people show up every now and then, and we proceed to watch them get torn apart, then we give lessons on what non-optimal cards they're running and how to improve their decks. It's a learning experience.
If someone's deck is too powerful, we wouldn't even think of excluding them from games for it. I can hardly comprehend how ANYONE would go to such lengths. Just re-tool your own deck with more answers to theirs. That's how the game WORKS. You make meta-calls on what cards to run. If you don't run enough grave-hate or artifact/enchantment-hate because you'd have to cut some flavorful cards for it, you're making a poor choice. Your deck should be the best it can be; why put limits on yourself?
I will say that there are definitely more douchey ways to optimize a deck than there are non-douchey ways to optimize a deck. Although I'm certain there are probably cards in there that I just don't argee with, this is a good sample of variety.
Under the constraints of "no mass LD, no infinite combo, no drawing more than 7 in a single turn, no Stasis, no more than 2 turns in a row, etc," how many decks do we have once we start optimizing? Mimeoplasm GoodStuff, Bant GoodStuff, Edric, Slivers... anything else? Jund GoodStuff, Thrax, basically everything else will just go BUG, UGW or UG once they realize they can fit in more cliche 6-drops that way. If you ask me, that's the really boring way to play.
So, people are forcing players to either play Tribal Garbage, boring cliche decks, or find a different play group?
That predictability is why I despise standard as a format. It's so incredibly dull and boring when you know exactly what's going to happen every game. I've actually had people scoop at FNM when I called every single play they made from turn 1 to them losing both rounds. Why? Because it's just the same 3-4 decks with almost no variance. I'm sorry but if I want to see the same game over and over I'll go to youtube or FNM. I play EDH for the unpredictability and the interesting games, not the "Hurr durr combo i winz again just like last game" moments.
The thing is, it isn't at all like standard. There are dozens more viable builds than one would expect to find in a standard format, and--simply by nature of being a singleton, multiplayer format--you can't even begin to make every call for how the game is going to play out. Sure, you might be able to name most of a deck's win-conditions, but it's how they get there that matters.
I would compare FNM to 1v1 French EDH, which is an entirely different beast. I can't stand playing standard, myself, and I can't stand 1v1 French EDH for being pretty much the same thing, except in my favourite format.
Also the claim of interactivity only works so far. Lock down decks are by their very nature the antithesis of interactivity. They actively seek and strive to prevent the game from being played.
Your goal is to know what lock decks are playing, what locks they run, how to play around the locks, and what cards to tutor for to disrupt the locks. In general, if someone gets a hard lock off with no responses, I see it as the same thing as an aggro deck having swung for game with no responses. It's just another win-condition, why treat it as if it's somehow "dirtier" than another?
We have a guy who plays Teferi, and everyone knows that he runs Knowledge Pool. Every player on the table allots resources to prevent that from happening when he's in a game.
On to your "build the best decks" stand point, that's all well and good, for you people who have disposable incomes the size of small 3rd world nation's economies. Not everyone can afford to go out and buy the best of everything. In fact the vast majority of MTG players can't. To use an appropriate analog, Pay to Win MMO games are routinely despised by all, except those who have the money to sink into it to buy the best perks and literally say "I win cause I have money and you don't." That's not something EDH is based on unlike formats like Legacy and Vintage. Which is where alot of the "Take your money decks and go play Legacy" comments are coming from. I build my decks to be the best they can be with what I have, and maintaining the fun of them. Why is it so difficult for others to not run things like Decree of Annihilation, Armageddon, Hermit Druid, ect? I can build without them and still win. See that argument goes both ways.
Most decks can be built for cheap and still be very good. My Saffi deck is quite powerful, and only contains two cards worth $20 or more, Survival of the Fittest and Temple Garden. I don't have a Savannah yet, but it's on my list eventually, and the deck functions fine without it.
Obviously, the more colors you're running, the more it's going to cost to optimize the deck (I wouldn't dare play a five color deck unless I owned all ten duals and fetches), but you should be able to make a fairly decent deck on ANY budget. Plus, you can always slowly improve the deck as you find yourself with the occasional extra funds, or by trading over time.
And as a final point, yes let's all respond to douchy plays with even more douchy plays. Just like let's respond to someone calling us names by hitting them with a bat. That logic is quite flawed, and shouldn't be promoted as appropriate in a format that's built on it's social aspect more than anything else.
I played a game online the other day where an Azusa player (who had gone first and dropped Azusa off of Ancient Tomb on turn two) hit me with a turn three Plow Under for the hell of it. I didn't complain, or snap at him for running a mean card, I just played it out, and laughed when I eventually got off three Time Stretchs in one span of turns and they all quit because they got bored of watching me play with myself.
The thing is, it isn't at all like standard. There are dozens more viable builds than one would expect to find in a standard format, and--simply by nature of being a singleton, multiplayer format--you can't even begin to make every call for how the game is going to play out. Sure, you might be able to name most of a deck's win-conditions, but it's how they get there that matters.
I would compare FNM to 1v1 French EDH, which is an entirely different beast. I can't stand playing standard, myself, and I can't stand 1v1 French EDH for being pretty much the same thing, except in my favourite format.
Your goal is to know what lock decks are playing, what locks they run, how to play around the locks, and what cards to tutor for to disrupt the locks. In general, if someone gets a hard lock off with no responses, I see it as the same thing as an aggro deck having swung for game with no responses. It's just another win-condition, why treat it as if it's somehow "dirtier" than another?
We have a guy who plays Teferi, and everyone knows that he runs Knowledge Pool. Every player on the table allots resources to prevent that from happening when he's in a game.
No the thing is EDH is rapidly becoming more and more like standard. With acceptable "Good" decks and "Bad" jank decks being the norm instead of just having interesting decks. It's becoming more like standard to the point of "Oh you can't reliably play that you don't have X card in it." And other such comments, including the "I won't run 5 color without a full suite of $20+ lands" one to paraphrase.
The goal with a lock deck is to shut down ALL interaction. The goal of a lock deck is to outright stop people from playing so that the lock deck can goldfish till it wins. I'm sorry, but you cannot justify that as anything but unfun to me. You may enjoy sitting there watching others goldfish but I don't. I'll treat it as a dirtier win condition because it forces me to not do what I sat down at the table to do, which is play a game. I consider it dirtier because it turn the game into "archenemy or he can't lose". I don't mind losing, it's part of the game, what I do mind is losing because I was locked out of even playing the game to begin with. It defeats the entire point of playing the game to me.
EDH as a format is very much centered on casual play, and always has been. The gentleman's agreement invoked in the actual rules of the format is there to prevent players from feeling ostracized and bored. If only one person at the table is having fun and you've got 4 people seated, someone is doing it wrong, and chances are it's not the 3 guys who just started ignoring your plays as if you weren't at the table when you go to combo off into an infinite turn loop.
If your playgroup is ok with degenerate board states, infinite combos, mass LD, and so forth that's all well and good. You enjoy it with them and know that not everyone is the same and some people find it to be droll boring and unfun. Trying to say everyone should play the same way you do is a very closed minded stand point.
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.
The goal with a lock deck is to shut down ALL interaction. The goal of a lock deck is to outright stop people from playing so that the lock deck can goldfish till it wins. I'm sorry, but you cannot justify that as anything but unfun to me. You may enjoy sitting there watching others goldfish but I don't. I'll treat it as a dirtier win condition because it forces me to not do what I sat down at the table to do, which is play a game. I consider it dirtier because it turn the game into "archenemy or he can't lose". I don't mind losing, it's part of the game, what I do mind is losing because I was locked out of even playing the game to begin with. It defeats the entire point of playing the game to me.
EDH as a format is very much centered on casual play, and always has been. The gentleman's agreement invoked in the actual rules of the format is there to prevent players from feeling ostracized and bored. If only one person at the table is having fun and you've got 4 people seated, someone is doing it wrong, and chances are it's not the 3 guys who just started ignoring your plays as if you weren't at the table when you go to combo off into an infinite turn loop.
If your playgroup is ok with degenerate board states, infinite combos, mass LD, and so forth that's all well and good. You enjoy it with them and know that not everyone is the same and some people find it to be droll boring and unfun. Trying to say everyone should play the same way you do is a very closed minded stand point.
The goal with Sigarda, Host of Herons is to shut down ALL interaction. The goal of a Sigarda deck is to outright stop people from killing or blocking her so that the Sigarda deck can goldfish till it wins. I'm sorry, but you cannot justify that as anything but unfun to me. You may enjoy sitting there watching others goldfish but I don't. I'll treat it as a dirtier win condition because it forces me to not do what I sat down at the table to do, which is block or kill creatures. I consider it dirtier because it turns the game into "archenemy or he can't lose". I don't mind losing, it's part of the game, what I do mind is losing because I was killed before even playing the game to begin with. It defeats the entire point of playing the game to me.
EDH as a format is very much centered on casual play, and always has been. The gentleman's agreement invoked in the actual rules of the format is there to prevent players from feeling ostracized and bored. If only one person at the table is having fun and you've got 4 people seated, someone is doing it wrong, and chances are it's not the 3 guys who just started ignoring your plays as if you weren't at the table when you attack me with a creature I can't kill or block.
If your playgroup is ok with flying, shroud, hexproof, prevent sac effects, and so forth that's all well and good. You enjoy it with them and know that not everyone is the same and some people find it to be droll, boring and unfun. Trying to say everyone should play the same way you do is a very closed minded stand point.
U see wut I did thur???
This "gentleman's agreement" to interact is not serviceable as an excuse to make other people stop interacting with you in ways you don't like.
Along with LD, Stasis, Stax, counter, extra turns, and a bunch of stuff people complain of all the time, Shroud, hexproof, prevent sac, basically most of the stuff you will do in the game is to limit the ways that your opponent has to interact with you. You see, when your opponent interacts with you it's for the very purpose of limiting the ways that you can interact with him. What do you make of the word "interaction"? Am I going to Giant Growth your Commander to see what will happen? No, I'm going to try my best to prevent you from winning the game and enabling me to win the game.
It's competition. I cast Jokulhaups so you can't Doom Blade my Greater Gargadon. You play Sigarda instead of Jasmine Boreal so I can't Edict it, Doom Blade it, or block it. You play Primeval Titan so that you get to keep lands when I Doom Blade it.
I use this as an example because it seems in many circles that everything is sacrosanct except dumb creatues. Don't kill my lands, don't mess with my untap, don't touch my spells while they're still on the stack, don't kill me unless it's with a creature.
It's not that they want to keep interaction up, it's that they don't want to do anything or think about anything except playing 6/6's for 6 and turning them sideways. There's nothing holy about that kind of play. It's bad, unadaptive, lazy and unsuited to multiplayer FFA.
The goal with Sigarda, Host of Herons is to shut down ALL interaction. The goal of a Sigarda deck is to outright stop people from killing or blocking her so that the Sigarda deck can goldfish till it wins. I'm sorry, but you cannot justify that as anything but unfun to me. You may enjoy sitting there watching others goldfish but I don't. I'll treat it as a dirtier win condition because it forces me to not do what I sat down at the table to do, which is block or kill creatures. I consider it dirtier because it turns the game into "archenemy or he can't lose". I don't mind losing, it's part of the game, what I do mind is losing because I was killed before even playing the game to begin with. It defeats the entire point of playing the game to me.
EDH as a format is very much centered on casual play, and always has been. The gentleman's agreement invoked in the actual rules of the format is there to prevent players from feeling ostracized and bored. If only one person at the table is having fun and you've got 4 people seated, someone is doing it wrong, and chances are it's not the 3 guys who just started ignoring your plays as if you weren't at the table when you attack me with a creature I can't kill or block.
If your playgroup is ok with flying, shroud, hexproof, prevent sac effects, and so forth that's all well and good. You enjoy it with them and know that not everyone is the same and some people find it to be droll, boring and unfun. Trying to say everyone should play the same way you do is a very closed minded stand point.
U see wut I did thur???
This "gentleman's agreement" to interact is not serviceable as an excuse to make other people stop interacting with you in ways you don't like.
Along with LD, Stasis, Stax, counter, extra turns, and a bunch of stuff people complain of all the time, Shroud, hexproof, prevent sac, basically most of the stuff you will do in the game is to limit the ways that your opponent has to interact with you. You see, when your opponent interacts with you it's for the very purpose of limiting the ways that you can interact with him. What do you make of the word "interaction"? Am I going to Giant Growth your Commander to see what will happen? No, I'm going to try my best to prevent you from winning the game and enabling me to win the game.
It's competition. I cast Jokulhaups so you can't Doom Blade my Greater Gargadon. You play Sigarda instead of Jasmine Boreal so I can't Edict it, Doom Blade it, or block it. You play Primeval Titan so that you get to keep lands when I Doom Blade it.
I use this as an example because it seems in many circles that everything is sacrosanct except dumb creatues. Don't kill my lands, don't mess with my untap, don't touch my spells while they're still on the stack, don't kill me unless it's with a creature.
It's not that they want to keep interaction up, it's that they don't want to do anything or think about anything except playing 6/6's for 6 and turning them sideways. There's nothing holy about that kind of play. It's bad, unadaptive, lazy and unsuited to multiplayer FFA.
I see you falling back on the exact same argument you've used quite a few times, that is once again completely inapplicable to the situation at hand. Nice try, but try harder next time. Unless you really have never seen a dedicated lock down deck and legitimately don't know how they work anyway. In which case try playing against one. They're incredibly annoying. Sigarda doesn't completely prevent a game from continuing.
Literally preventing another player from interacting with the game state in any way shape or form is the goal of a dedicated lock down deck. Sigarda as an individual card is answerable once on board, a true board lock is not answerable once it's on board. If you want to seriously make the argument that Sigarda = Lockdown deck then you have a very poor grasp of the English language and how decks work.
You also seem to be under the mistaken mindset that EDH is a purely 100% tourney competitive format. It isn't. To fall back on another flawed argument since you seem fond of them "Take your legacy stax and go play legacy" if you want a strictly competitive environment.
I personally don't have a problem with LD, I have a problem with Mass LD. If you're goal is to prevent me from playing so you can masturbate your deck then just stay home and goldfish. I have no interest in you or wasting my time watching you. Nor am I'm interested in watching you go off on a turn loop because you can't win in a creative manner.
Commander is designed to promote social games of magic.
It is played in a variety of ways, depending on player preference, but a common vision ties together the global community to help them enjoy a different kind of magic. That vision is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to includes a degree of interactivity between players. Players should aim to interact both during the game and before it begins, discussing with other players what they expect/want from the game.
House rules or "fair play" exceptions are always encouraged if they result in more fun for the local community.
Please do read the actual statement on the "gentleman's agreement" before you proclaim to be the definer of it. So yes, if you're playing at my house, and you know that neither me nor the rest of the people playing enjoy seeing Mass LD, and you pull out Numot the LD Monster don't have your feelings hurt when we tell you to pick another deck or leave. We're under no requirement to include you in our games. The mindset of "Everyone has to play my way, everyone" is what drives people out of communities. People have different preferences and unless you can accept that you'll likely find yourself with fewer and fewer people to play with until you're limited to just gold fishing every game.
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.
Stop using the Craw Wurm argument, it's so silly. It's like saying everyone who isn't a right-wing voter want to live in a communist country or whatever.
Thank you. I still find it funny though. I'm the one who was pointing out how bad the idea of Craw-wurm.dec really is recently. Showing that exact list to some of the most hardcore casual players I know. The most positive response I got was "I would play it I guess, if I had to." the least positive being along the lines of "Wow, that's literally the worst EDH decklist I've ever seen, and I run a 5c Wall tribal deck."
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not to mention you deliberately give the finger to the other half that makes this game. I swear if Spikes had their way, we'd all be just playing with blank cardboard squares that just have the numbers on them.
I wasn't aware Dungeons and Dragons was competitive.
EDH:
RNorin the WaryR <-Link! (Primer - Mono Red Control)
GUEdric, Spymaster of TrestUG <- Link! (Mini-Primer - Dredge)
Duel Commander:
WUGeist of Saint TraftUW <- Link! (Aggro-Control)
BGSkullbriar, the Walking GraveGB <- Link! (Aggro)
BUGDamia, Sage of StoneGUB <- Link! (Extinction Control)
Church of the Wary
Here's the difference: Dungeons & Dragons relies on story, lore, and a bit of imagination when certain resources are lacking.
Spikes don't need any to toss down cardboard. Just give a plain old rule book that looks like a math reviewer.
Further my abilities? If there were any abilities that I wanted to further, it'd be those that take me closer to my career goal. I'm sorry if it breaks your heart to know that M:tG isn't one of them.
Nice. Way to assume every player who doesn't play to win automatically just wants to play like that.
Can I add some of my own?
Could Spikes, creatively, explain to me what a Hellkite Charger really looks like with a Bear Umbra on without me imagining something stupid?
Do you really think that putting a creepy Eldrazi Conscription on a pretty angel like Bruna sounds right?
How the heck do you fit Lightning Greaves on a gargantuan?
You, my good sir, are unfamiliar with the D&D Championship series and Living Forgotten Realms. D&D can be very competitive. Though it's less fun in a competitive play style for many players.
Joke aside, not all spikes are that bad. Some though might as well just play Poker so they don't have to deal with any new information, different strategies, or anything being added into the mix. They'd feel far more comfortable. Thankfully there's still a few spikes out there who actually get the concept of fun beyond "I won so I had fun, I lost so I didn't".
Don't get me wrong, I have casual decks too, btw, I looked at yours and think they are rather good. I just don't see the harm in a red deck running a mass board wipe as Obliterate so long as it is not repetitive. I have a competitve Numot deck that runs multiple board wipes and yes, I understand that is not everyone's cup of tea to play against. I rarley play it in my group. I just don't like the idea of hammering a player and telling them they can't play with you because of a combo or card they may have. Agreed, if they become degenerate, it's the group's right to ask them to play something different. But you shouldn't take away the ability to run 1 or 2 cards of a certain type just because your deck can't recover from them. I'm a believer of play first and request changes after.
There is a big difference between "Not Playing to Win" and "Playing to Lose." I don't ever play to lose, and a good portion of the time, I come out with a win. The difference is that I don't go all gung ho "I have to win every freaking game ever and that is all that is important." The game is about having fun AS A GROUP. I have an instant win combo in my Zombie deck. Does that mean I use it all the time? No. No, I don't. It is an answer to a problem player. I'd MUCH rather win with the silly alternate condition using Undead Alchemist. It is just there if I need it. Should you drop that Obliterate just because you can? No, you shouldn't. Especially if there is someone at the table that has next to nothing on the board. (Though we'd ban it out right because it is mass land removal. That is just douchetastic for the sake of being douchetastic.) Part of the game is politics, and part of politics is holding back when it is appropriate.
EDH is a CASUAL format. Get with the program, or GTFO.
No, I think people run Obliterate so others can't answer their Greater Gargadon with..... Tooth and Nail, Decree of Pain, or some improbable combo like Scourge of Kher Ridges + Basilisk Collar. Not quite just for the sake of being a douche.
Better than handling 3 players with 12+ mana each, all of whom are pointing their fingers at the guy with the same 9/7 vanilla, saying "OH LOOK, He's about to win!!!", when it's going to take a good 8 turns to end the game that way.
Which is bad play, which is good play - that can really only be decided by who wins, can it not? Obliterator is not that hard of a strategy to beat. It's not nearly in the same league as Cascade/Hermit Druid combo, Arcum, Sharuum, Mikaeus, etc. People only whine about it because it can be so decisive so much of the time against these "play nothing but ramp and draw until turn 6" type of decks, not because it's degenerate. Because it's not. Time to start running land recursion and small removal like Innocent Blood and Swords to Plowshares. If you don't want to, fine. But if you're failing to reconsider things in light of how to beat a certain strategy, you're choosing to lose to it. If you know how to beat a certain strategy and don't implement it, then you're choosing to lose to it. So, why are you so surprised when you... lose to it?
That's the real deal. Everyone can play what they want. But 99/100 people complaining about "competitives" ruining their playgroup want more. They want to play what they want, and they want it to win too. And if it doesn't, they want to force ban what everyone else is playing, no matter how straightforward and fair that thing is, so that what they're playing starts to win again. No counter, no stasis, no LD, no combo, no winning before turn 10, no anyone else winning but me, and I don't have to work for it like everyone else.
I'm in a similar boat. I don't really consider myself one type of player or another. I like creatures, but I also like really big spells and multi-card synergies that take a while to assemble. I've thankfully never encountered a group that is so wholly against certain cards or strategies that I've ever been asked to leave games, and I think such a scenario would be completely ridiculous. It's a game, I just want to play, and if Jokulhaups is the card I need to restabilize, then that's what is; there is really no use in getting so worked up because everyone's board state is gone, if it's really that dreadful just start another game and no one wins. I've done that plenty of times and it's never seemed to cause issues.
I can't say you're wrong, I feel that EDH can be a casual format, but that shouldn't exclude anyone from participating. I've met several "Spike" players that are a blast to play with because even though they're clearly intent on winning, they don't scoff at other players, or groan when things don't go their way. On the flip side, I've seen more than my fair share of "casual" players that are simply bad sports. I've been targeted for trying to Gravepact away a board in Ghave when that's my only removal. I've been given more than my fair share of dirty looks for combo-ing off, even though I didn't try to assemble the combo. I've been scoffed at by these "social gentlemen/women" for having poor foresight, or making a move that only favors me, and all the while, I like to think that I'm a relatively polite player.
I am a casual player. I love playing huge spells, and in general I dislike the overuse of tutors. Decree of Annihilation is also one of my favorite cards, and you're damn certain I'll play it when I get the chance, and I need to. I hardly think that justifies exiling me from a playgroup. This game does not belong to any one subset of people. It's a social interaction shared by a variety of different personae, and it's a shame that so many people are so willing to shut out strangers just because a game might not be entirely to their liking. I'd really hope that people would start becoming more tolerant or just including something for safety purposes. I run tectonic edge and ghost quarter in several of my decks. It's not because I intend on destroying lands, but if I need to get rid of Urborg, than I'm better off with something that can deal with it in my deck, that sulking and telling it's owner to shove off because I don't like infinite mana combos.
Congratulations! You seem to have an extremely well established group, and I'm so happy that you have the luxury of consistently playing games that suit the taste of you and your companions. I know we've done this before, but consider yourself in the opposite situation. If all you had was the randoms that you see every two or three weeks, and they told you that you could either play their way or hit the highway, would you really just not play because you feel like you're wasting time as soon as mass LD hits the board? I try to appreciate each playstyle I come across, and it doesn't always end well, but I try to remain polite because I'd rather have someone to play with than not play at all.
A small anecdote, before I part for now. I dislike Kaalia, quite a bit more than I probably should. I have some form or another of early game removal in every deck I build in case I should come across a Kaalia player because I want to be prepared. Several times, it's saved me from extremely vicious decks that become that much more tame when Kaalia costs 6 or 8. But just once, I played against a Kaalia deck, and I crippled her as soon as she hit the board time after time. I've since played about 5 or so games with it's owner, each of us using different decks, and there's no hard feelings. He understands that, put simply, Kaalia's a ***** and its reasonable to kill her on the spot, the same way I never expect doubling season to stick around for my next turn, so I try to do as much as possible as soon as it hits the board, and the same way I've run Second Sunrise just as a failsafe against Armageddon etc. It's just a game, they're just cards, and it's just a few moments of your time considering the life expectancy isn't 20-30 anymore. It might be fruitful to just roll with the punches from time to time, and who knows, you might meet someone that you genuinely enjoy that you would have otherwise shirked.
Or, you could have a well established group. It really is your time and if you can always spend it your way, why not, right?
How could we exclude strangers? Without a basis on how or what they play, it is impossible to figure out whether they make a good addition to the gaming group. It is a single established person that we exclude. A person who refuses to abide by the meta and house rules, and who acts like a child when they don't win. We have plenty of other spikish players, but they don't cause problems, and though they don't like losing, they don't sulk like children or complain that we spent the whole game hating on them, when the remainder of us are in the single digits in life. This is all after he plays Tooth and Nail 4 times with stupid spell recursion, and craps out 3 eldrazi, a consecrated sphinx, 2 titans, a Sigarda and an Avacyn, all unstoppable, because we don't play blue. Every. Damn. Game.
There is nothing wrong with spot land removal for problems. Board wide land removal is a dick move, no matter what your excuse, If for no other reason than it makes the game take 5+ hours.
EDH is a CASUAL format. Get with the program, or GTFO.
I tried to say that I should hope if a stranger comes along, you don't dismiss him/her for the cards he/she plays, but rather how he or she plays them. If you have a player who consistently acts against the majority, yet continues to demand satisfaction, I can only hope that you've told him/her your issues. If that doesn't suffice, you've tried. I never said that a well-established group should append itself with faulty cogs, but rather that you shouldn't just exclude people for their card choices. It sounds like this player that you exclude fits the bill of the sour-sport I was describing, and chances are I'd avoid him/her as well.
I will agree that mass LD is exceedingly risky, but I've seen it happen several times where the game simply ended; it was the game winning spell and it was appropriate and not some terrible act, or at least no more terrible than Insurrection or Time Stretch. There are spells that win games, mass LD is just not always the most efficient.
On a slightly different note, why does no one in your group play blue? I hope it's not because blue isn't a "casual" color.
Whether or not you're being sarcastic, you got a chuckle outta me. Hehe.
It's not about being anomalous as a player type, it's that really most of the time, in one game, I play all three. I like having big splashy creatures, most of my decks include some sort of wacky combo, and when I have a winning board position, I definitely try to go in for the kill. I don't think any one person is so rigid that they maintain just one persona all the time.
And like I said, I'm happy you have something that works well for you, but I was hoping you'd consider the opposite scenario. I get to play, when I have the time, which right now is about once or twice a month, so of course I like my games to "count," the difference is, my games always count because I just enjoy playing the game with people that at least smell decent and won't blow a gasket when the game takes a turn they're not keen to. It's enough for me that I can play the game I love, and I'm not going to ruin that experience by limiting the types of cards I play with or against.
As for Decree of Annihilation, I did not that I would play it, should I have the chance, and it's needed. Would you really be that much more upset if I won immediately after Decree over something like immediately after Insurrection, or Wrath with Avacyn on the Board, etc? I'm sorry you've have experiences with players that apparently drop armageddon turn 4 with no game plan, but I don't think you should generalize those feelings.
But we've done this before, you and I, so I'll reiterate. You clearly have something that works for you, and I can't besmirch it because of that. I just wouldn't be so quick to match cards with people who play them.
On a similar note, I consider myself a very casual player, because I pretty much let anything go. I'll allow any banned card, so long as you'll do me the same favor, and I'm not one to gripe about things aside from my own deck performly poorly. So, as I said, I consider myself casual, but does my allowance of such things say otherwise?
So, this is Spike behavior to you? Getting to 30 mana, Tooth and Nail, Regrowth, Sigarda, Avacyn.... Playing Blue???
I'm still trying to absorb this.
What do the more Timmy decks look like? Tribal? 60 cards of one theme? Is including a card in your deck just because it's good "Spike" behavior?
Because in my group, that deathball is answered by Sarkhan Vol on Avacyn, Jokukhaups, GG. In my mind, that's classic Spike v Timmy. Timmy plays stuff that he thinks is good, Spike plays stuff that is better and wins, Timmy frowns. But now that including cards in your deck because you think they're good is Spike behavior, maybe this is Spike v. Spike?
Thinking on it now, maybe that's not far off. In fact, a lot of the whining I get online might just be from Spikes, not Timmies. Spike who is really, really bad at being a Spike gets blown out, and he complains because the only reason he joined up was to beat everyone with Avacyn. What to do against this kind of player? Ignore them? If the only reason they're playing is to win and they're really bad at it, they will certainly stop playing. And if you're under the impression that Mass LD is annoying because it prolongs the game, then what you have is indeed a case of Spikes who are really, really bad at doing what Spikes do - try to win. Winning with Jokulhaups is about the easiest thing to figure out for someone who is remotely good and who is remotely trying.
So, what to do when these really bad Spikes start leaving the game because they can't win, then they try to pass themselves off as "casual" for no reason other than they can't figure out how to win with LD? How do you identify and separate the sheep from the goats here? Distinguish the honest casual who is just bored from the chiefly unskilled Competitive who just wants to win, but can't?
Related question - who would a casual rather play against, a Spike who knows what he's doing or a Spike who can't figure it out and just runs Mimeo good stuff with the cliche 6-drops? Would casuals rather have little chance to win, or deal with the whining of an unskilled Spike when his Avacyn doesn't get there? And if they'd rather just have a chance to win, what does that say about how casual they really are?
You see, I agree whole-heartedly that players are different degrees of these things at different times. I play to win, but I detest game ending combos that bastardize the true purpose of the cards used. I won't beat a table over the head with a deck that they're clearly unprepared to deal with, but I don't like it either when someone shows no willingness or ability to get better at the game, but they still whine over and over about not winning. I think most people stand with me on those issues.
So rather than competitive or casual play, how about just make distinctions between good and bad manners? Unskilled Spikes can stop wearing sheep's clothing, people can stop playing LD against people who can't or won't deal with it, and everyone's happy.
We have lots of fun in our games, and we don't try to play janky thematic, flavorlicious decks. That's not fun at all. What's fun, what's really fun, is trying to optimize your deck, to run the perfect combination of cards of all archetypes, such that you can maximize your chances of winning. If someone else plays a "douche-y" card, and says, "Oops, I win," well, it's the rest of the table's fault for judging the wrong people as threats and not having enough disruption available.
It's an all out political mind game. Threat evaluation, knowing who's the closest to being able to combo off or blow us all out, knowing which pieces are highest priority to destroy or disrupt--it's the most fun I ever have playing magic. There's so much thinking involved in every game.
My playgroup consists of any combination of the following:
Saffi Eriksdotter combo (me)
Ulasht, the Hate Seed combo/aggro (me)
Child of Alara lands/combo
Rubinia Soulsinger combo/control
Niv Mizzet combo
Zur lock/control
Uril aggro
Momir Vig combo/lock
Heartless Hidetsugu combo
Jhoira bombs/control
Karn combo/lock
Karador combo
Azami combo/control
We have new people show up every now and then, and we proceed to watch them get torn apart, then we give lessons on what non-optimal cards they're running and how to improve their decks. It's a learning experience.
If someone's deck is too powerful, we wouldn't even think of excluding them from games for it. I can hardly comprehend how ANYONE would go to such lengths. Just re-tool your own deck with more answers to theirs. That's how the game WORKS. You make meta-calls on what cards to run. If you don't run enough grave-hate or artifact/enchantment-hate because you'd have to cut some flavorful cards for it, you're making a poor choice. Your deck should be the best it can be; why put limits on yourself?
WG Saffi Eriksdotter Combo GW
WU Rasputin Dreamweaver Storm UW
UGLorescale CoatlGU (Pauper)
No offense but your meta looks incredibly boring and predictable to me. You might find your group and your playstyle fun, but I personally do not, (Based on your comments and your list of decks being played with no view of actual decklists). Multiple lock decks, just about everything dedicated combo deck, players who play by the "Win at any cost" principal of play? Yeah no thanks. Douchy cards exist. Just because you don't think they're douchy doesn't mean other people don't.
Well, it's predictable in the sense that each deck usually wins in the same way as it always does when it wins. The fun is in knowing which decks are in each game, what cards from each need to be dealt with, and how to stop them from winning. It's very interactive. You have to assess whether or not you should risk attempting to go off, or wait for a more opportune time. You have to assess the risks of playing cards that help you out over stopping your opponents, depending on how close you can assume they are to winning.
It's about thinking, and every game is intellectually stimulating. I find it a LOT more fun than just "hurr durr, I turn my guys sideways," or "I'm playing a Cleric deck!"
I'm not saying the cards aren't douchey. I'm saying you should be able to answer them, or anticipate them and plan accordingly, or come back with your own douchey card and ruin their plans.
I don't see what people have against the "win at all costs" mentality. If everyone is playing to win, there isn't a problem to begin with. We have people in our groups who play decks that can't win every once in a while, but they KNOW that they're going to lose, and are playing it for the sake of the fun of playing it. My friend's Rubinia deck has no win conditions in it, but it's great at staying alive, and can potentially lock the whole game down by bouncing Mystic Snake / Venser / Draining Whelk until he kills you with weenies. We've had others put together more "fun" or "flavorful" decks, but they don't expect to win. They build them for the sake of playing.
If you're not playing to win, you should build your deck under the assumption that other people ARE. Telling your opponents, "Hey, don't build the best deck, I don't want you to be playing to win," is the same thing as telling them, "Hey, let me win."
WG Saffi Eriksdotter Combo GW
WU Rasputin Dreamweaver Storm UW
UGLorescale CoatlGU (Pauper)
I'm happy that your happy iwth your play enviroment,but I don't think either one of my decks would feel welcomed there nor do I think I would be. One of my decks is relentless rats and the other a RW deck whos main wincon is barren glory
Here in our gorup,we do go the "not going to play this cuz it is douchey card" atleast when it comes to cards that can shut down one persons whole deck
But different strokes for different folks
That predictability is why I despise standard as a format. It's so incredibly dull and boring when you know exactly what's going to happen every game. I've actually had people scoop at FNM when I called every single play they made from turn 1 to them losing both rounds. Why? Because it's just the same 3-4 decks with almost no variance. I'm sorry but if I want to see the same game over and over I'll go to youtube or FNM. I play EDH for the unpredictability and the interesting games, not the "Hurr durr combo i winz again just like last game" moments.
Also the claim of interactivity only works so far. Lock down decks are by their very nature the antithesis of interactivity. They actively seek and strive to prevent the game from being played.
On to your "build the best decks" stand point, that's all well and good, for you people who have disposable incomes the size of small 3rd world nation's economies. Not everyone can afford to go out and buy the best of everything. In fact the vast majority of MTG players can't. To use an appropriate analog, Pay to Win MMO games are routinely despised by all, except those who have the money to sink into it to buy the best perks and literally say "I win cause I have money and you don't." That's not something EDH is based on unlike formats like Legacy and Vintage. Which is where alot of the "Take your money decks and go play Legacy" comments are coming from. I build my decks to be the best they can be with what I have, and maintaining the fun of them. Why is it so difficult for others to not run things like Decree of Annihilation, Armageddon, Hermit Druid, ect? I can build without them and still win. See that argument goes both ways.
And as a final point, yes let's all respond to douchy plays with even more douchy plays. Just like let's respond to someone calling us names by hitting them with a bat. That logic is quite flawed, and shouldn't be promoted as appropriate in a format that's built on it's social aspect more than anything else.
I will say that there are definitely more douchey ways to optimize a deck than there are non-douchey ways to optimize a deck. Although I'm certain there are probably cards in there that I just don't argee with, this is a good sample of variety.
Under the constraints of "no mass LD, no infinite combo, no drawing more than 7 in a single turn, no Stasis, no more than 2 turns in a row, etc," how many decks do we have once we start optimizing? Mimeoplasm GoodStuff, Bant GoodStuff, Edric, Slivers... anything else? Jund GoodStuff, Thrax, basically everything else will just go BUG, UGW or UG once they realize they can fit in more cliche 6-drops that way. If you ask me, that's the really boring way to play.
So, people are forcing players to either play Tribal Garbage, boring cliche decks, or find a different play group?
The thing is, it isn't at all like standard. There are dozens more viable builds than one would expect to find in a standard format, and--simply by nature of being a singleton, multiplayer format--you can't even begin to make every call for how the game is going to play out. Sure, you might be able to name most of a deck's win-conditions, but it's how they get there that matters.
I would compare FNM to 1v1 French EDH, which is an entirely different beast. I can't stand playing standard, myself, and I can't stand 1v1 French EDH for being pretty much the same thing, except in my favourite format.
Your goal is to know what lock decks are playing, what locks they run, how to play around the locks, and what cards to tutor for to disrupt the locks. In general, if someone gets a hard lock off with no responses, I see it as the same thing as an aggro deck having swung for game with no responses. It's just another win-condition, why treat it as if it's somehow "dirtier" than another?
We have a guy who plays Teferi, and everyone knows that he runs Knowledge Pool. Every player on the table allots resources to prevent that from happening when he's in a game.
Most decks can be built for cheap and still be very good. My Saffi deck is quite powerful, and only contains two cards worth $20 or more, Survival of the Fittest and Temple Garden. I don't have a Savannah yet, but it's on my list eventually, and the deck functions fine without it.
My friend's Niv Mizzet deck runs Volcanic Island and Timetwister, and people run Mishra's Workshop, Imperial Seal, Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, and their ilk, but that doesn't make those decks automatically better than others. I sure as hell can't afford those kinds of cards, but I can compete in the meta.
Obviously, the more colors you're running, the more it's going to cost to optimize the deck (I wouldn't dare play a five color deck unless I owned all ten duals and fetches), but you should be able to make a fairly decent deck on ANY budget. Plus, you can always slowly improve the deck as you find yourself with the occasional extra funds, or by trading over time.
I played a game online the other day where an Azusa player (who had gone first and dropped Azusa off of Ancient Tomb on turn two) hit me with a turn three Plow Under for the hell of it. I didn't complain, or snap at him for running a mean card, I just played it out, and laughed when I eventually got off three Time Stretchs in one span of turns and they all quit because they got bored of watching me play with myself.
WG Saffi Eriksdotter Combo GW
WU Rasputin Dreamweaver Storm UW
UGLorescale CoatlGU (Pauper)
No the thing is EDH is rapidly becoming more and more like standard. With acceptable "Good" decks and "Bad" jank decks being the norm instead of just having interesting decks. It's becoming more like standard to the point of "Oh you can't reliably play that you don't have X card in it." And other such comments, including the "I won't run 5 color without a full suite of $20+ lands" one to paraphrase.
The goal with a lock deck is to shut down ALL interaction. The goal of a lock deck is to outright stop people from playing so that the lock deck can goldfish till it wins. I'm sorry, but you cannot justify that as anything but unfun to me. You may enjoy sitting there watching others goldfish but I don't. I'll treat it as a dirtier win condition because it forces me to not do what I sat down at the table to do, which is play a game. I consider it dirtier because it turn the game into "archenemy or he can't lose". I don't mind losing, it's part of the game, what I do mind is losing because I was locked out of even playing the game to begin with. It defeats the entire point of playing the game to me.
EDH as a format is very much centered on casual play, and always has been. The gentleman's agreement invoked in the actual rules of the format is there to prevent players from feeling ostracized and bored. If only one person at the table is having fun and you've got 4 people seated, someone is doing it wrong, and chances are it's not the 3 guys who just started ignoring your plays as if you weren't at the table when you go to combo off into an infinite turn loop.
If your playgroup is ok with degenerate board states, infinite combos, mass LD, and so forth that's all well and good. You enjoy it with them and know that not everyone is the same and some people find it to be droll boring and unfun. Trying to say everyone should play the same way you do is a very closed minded stand point.
The goal with Sigarda, Host of Herons is to shut down ALL interaction. The goal of a Sigarda deck is to outright stop people from killing or blocking her so that the Sigarda deck can goldfish till it wins. I'm sorry, but you cannot justify that as anything but unfun to me. You may enjoy sitting there watching others goldfish but I don't. I'll treat it as a dirtier win condition because it forces me to not do what I sat down at the table to do, which is block or kill creatures. I consider it dirtier because it turns the game into "archenemy or he can't lose". I don't mind losing, it's part of the game, what I do mind is losing because I was killed before even playing the game to begin with. It defeats the entire point of playing the game to me.
EDH as a format is very much centered on casual play, and always has been. The gentleman's agreement invoked in the actual rules of the format is there to prevent players from feeling ostracized and bored. If only one person at the table is having fun and you've got 4 people seated, someone is doing it wrong, and chances are it's not the 3 guys who just started ignoring your plays as if you weren't at the table when you attack me with a creature I can't kill or block.
If your playgroup is ok with flying, shroud, hexproof, prevent sac effects, and so forth that's all well and good. You enjoy it with them and know that not everyone is the same and some people find it to be droll, boring and unfun. Trying to say everyone should play the same way you do is a very closed minded stand point.
U see wut I did thur???
This "gentleman's agreement" to interact is not serviceable as an excuse to make other people stop interacting with you in ways you don't like.
Along with LD, Stasis, Stax, counter, extra turns, and a bunch of stuff people complain of all the time, Shroud, hexproof, prevent sac, basically most of the stuff you will do in the game is to limit the ways that your opponent has to interact with you. You see, when your opponent interacts with you it's for the very purpose of limiting the ways that you can interact with him. What do you make of the word "interaction"? Am I going to Giant Growth your Commander to see what will happen? No, I'm going to try my best to prevent you from winning the game and enabling me to win the game.
It's competition. I cast Jokulhaups so you can't Doom Blade my Greater Gargadon. You play Sigarda instead of Jasmine Boreal so I can't Edict it, Doom Blade it, or block it. You play Primeval Titan so that you get to keep lands when I Doom Blade it.
I use this as an example because it seems in many circles that everything is sacrosanct except dumb creatues. Don't kill my lands, don't mess with my untap, don't touch my spells while they're still on the stack, don't kill me unless it's with a creature.
It's not that they want to keep interaction up, it's that they don't want to do anything or think about anything except playing 6/6's for 6 and turning them sideways. There's nothing holy about that kind of play. It's bad, unadaptive, lazy and unsuited to multiplayer FFA.
I see you falling back on the exact same argument you've used quite a few times, that is once again completely inapplicable to the situation at hand. Nice try, but try harder next time. Unless you really have never seen a dedicated lock down deck and legitimately don't know how they work anyway. In which case try playing against one. They're incredibly annoying. Sigarda doesn't completely prevent a game from continuing.
Literally preventing another player from interacting with the game state in any way shape or form is the goal of a dedicated lock down deck. Sigarda as an individual card is answerable once on board, a true board lock is not answerable once it's on board. If you want to seriously make the argument that Sigarda = Lockdown deck then you have a very poor grasp of the English language and how decks work.
You also seem to be under the mistaken mindset that EDH is a purely 100% tourney competitive format. It isn't. To fall back on another flawed argument since you seem fond of them "Take your legacy stax and go play legacy" if you want a strictly competitive environment.
I personally don't have a problem with LD, I have a problem with Mass LD. If you're goal is to prevent me from playing so you can masturbate your deck then just stay home and goldfish. I have no interest in you or wasting my time watching you. Nor am I'm interested in watching you go off on a turn loop because you can't win in a creative manner.
Please do read the actual statement on the "gentleman's agreement" before you proclaim to be the definer of it. So yes, if you're playing at my house, and you know that neither me nor the rest of the people playing enjoy seeing Mass LD, and you pull out Numot the LD Monster don't have your feelings hurt when we tell you to pick another deck or leave. We're under no requirement to include you in our games. The mindset of "Everyone has to play my way, everyone" is what drives people out of communities. People have different preferences and unless you can accept that you'll likely find yourself with fewer and fewer people to play with until you're limited to just gold fishing every game.
Thank you. I still find it funny though. I'm the one who was pointing out how bad the idea of Craw-wurm.dec really is recently. Showing that exact list to some of the most hardcore casual players I know. The most positive response I got was "I would play it I guess, if I had to." the least positive being along the lines of "Wow, that's literally the worst EDH decklist I've ever seen, and I run a 5c Wall tribal deck."