People can say what they want about having fun and interacting, don't get me wrong, I'm all for that. However, at the end of the day, Magic is a game; in games there is a winner and a loser. I know several people on here have claimed that they are not competitive, but let them set and lose everytime, every game. I promise you that there is a small bit of them that wants to win. If not, why not play all 2/2 bears and basic land in your 99? Even if you're trying to be flavorful and build an off the wall cool tribal deck, you still don't want to lose every game. I can respect the opinion of those that don't want to play a super-tuned commander deck that wins on turn 3 or 4, if they are not playing tuned decks also. If everyone is playing tuned decks, all bets are off imo though. Commander is a competitive format, there is nothing that can be done about it. The question is, how competitive do you want to play it, not weather or not it is "casual" or "competitive".
In your opinion it's a competitive format. In the opinion of others it is not. Looking at it from only a competitive stand point is not the correct way to look at it. It has the ability to be either casual or competitive. Hence this entire discussion.
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 your opinion it's a competitive format. In the opinion of others it is not. Looking at it from only a competitive stand point is not the correct way to look at it. It has the ability to be either casual or competitive. Hence this entire discussion.
Say what you want, but at it's core Magic in any format is competitive. We're not sitting around a camp fire singing songs here. The fact that somebody wins and somebody losses makes Magic a competitive game. The only debate is how competitive you want it to be. Even in a casual game somebody wins and losses. I'm not looking at the game as only competitive and not casual. My point is that even though you may be playing a casual game, you're still competing.
Say what you want, but at it's core Magic in any format is competitive. We're not sitting around a camp fire singing songs here. The fact that somebody wins and somebody losses makes Magic a competitive game. The only debate is how competitive you want it to be. Even in a casual game somebody wins and losses. I'm not looking at the game as only competitive and not casual. My point is that even though you may be playing a casual game, you're still competing.
I get what you're saying, but you might need to explain it a bit further. Not that I'm particularly an expert on game theory, but the situation is actually pretty complicated. In other words, not every game is a competition and some games are cooperative. For example, if winning a game and losing a game essentially have the same result, that game is not competitive. In the context of the competitive game we are playing, though, you're right.
Basically, in Magic, there must be one ultimate result; one player must win and all other players must lose for a game to be complete and therefore, magic is a competitive game. There are, however, a very small number of exceptions; i.e., cards that modify the game rules so that all players draw the game instead of winning or losing (Divine Intervention).
My point is, unless you are actively seeking to draw the game with cards like the aforementioned Divine Intervention, when you sit down to play a game of magic, you are inherently buying into playing a game in which you compete to win. In the case that you are playing cards like DI, you're in an odd spot; you're competing to draw.
Perhaps I missed it in the previous pages, but perhaps instead of focusing on the competitive v. casual, we're missing out on the experience aspect of EDH?
We play for different reasons. We have a goal, a purpose.
Some people focus on the win. Others want to assemble the most outrageous Experiment Kraj possible.
Neither is wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have 15 EDH decks...sorta kills the 'I only need one of a card' aspect of the format.
I went and started a Commander/EDH blog! Come see it at http://wordofcommander.blogspot.com/ and it includes all 15 of my custom super-art generals!
If you're more into the finance section of the game, I write on Fridays for MTGPrice.com.
At my FLGS we used to have Sunday afternoon commander pods with a small entry and a booster and old promo for first and a booster for last. Small prizes just to encourage participation. We quit because of the group which played three had casual decks and one had competitive decks. It was not fun so we stopped.
Recently we restarted casual magic with no prizes. On the first day one player showed up and before we started playing said she had some printed off proxies because shelayed magic the gathering not magic the card collecting game. My two friends, one a level three judge who was I think head judge at a tournament the day before looked at each other and rolled our eyes, but we played anyway. Turn one she dumped four cards onto the table. Turn two she copied a lighthouse chronologist. Turn three she was able to level it to max and take a turn after everyone else. The owner of the original chronologist could only get his to level four. To put it in perspective I had a riku deck that is a copy what you have deck. Judge had a group hug deck instead of his competitive deck. None of us had fun. Also we learned that she had even printed off five cent signets that are easy to find. I refused to play a second game with her as did my two friends. We played with planchase planes after that just us three me and him with our more competitive decks and had a blast. Edh fun is contextual.
At my FLGS we used to have Sunday afternoon commander pods with a small entry and a booster and old promo for first and a booster for last. Small prizes just to encourage participation. We quit because of the group which played three had casual decks and one had competitive decks. It was not fun so we stopped.
Recently we restarted casual magic with no prizes. On the first day one player showed up and before we started playing said she had some printed off proxies because shelayed magic the gathering not magic the card collecting game. My two friends, one a level three judge who was I think head judge at a tournament the day before looked at each other and rolled our eyes, but we played anyway. Turn one she dumped four cards onto the table. Turn two she copied a lighthouse chronologist. Turn three she was able to level it to max and take a turn after everyone else. The owner of the original chronologist could only get his to level four. To put it in perspective I had a riku deck that is a copy what you have deck. Judge had a group hug deck instead of his competitive deck. None of us had fun. Also we learned that she had even printed off five cent signets that are easy to find. I refused to play a second game with her as did my two friends. We played with planchase planes after that just us three me and him with our more competitive decks and had a blast. Edh fun is contextual.
This! I have a friend who I've played with for a long while and now he's all over the proxie bandwagon. It has got to point where it's annoying. He's proxied up every fetchland and dual land for his deck. He has also proxied up things like Mana Crypt, Moat, and Mana Drain. These are things that no one in our play group even owns. His attitude now is we just don't have to play with him, but if he's playing, he's going to proxie stuff. What do you think we should do. I don't want to wreck our play group, but I'm also tired of the rediculous proxies.
This! I have a friend who I've played with for a long while and now he's all over the proxie bandwagon. It has got to point where it's annoying. He's proxied up every fetchland and dual land for his deck. He has also proxied up things like Mana Crypt, Moat, and Mana Drain. These are things that no one in our play group even owns. His attitude now is we just don't have to play with him, but if he's playing, he's going to proxie stuff. What do you think we should do. I don't want to wreck our play group, but I'm also tired of the rediculous proxies.
Sounds like your friend already made up his mind. He's playing with proxies.
The ball is in your court:
1) You stop playing with him, exluding him from the group
2) You stop playing with him, exluding yourself from the group
3) You play with him and get your butt kicked
4) You proxy and level the playing field.
Personally, I'd do it in that order. Everytime he pulls up a proxy just say "that's an illegal card. It's now a land" and treat it as such for all intensive purposes. The game will instantly fall apart and your 'friend' will be so annoyed that the ball will move to his court. He'll either:
Forgive me for skimming but yet even as a EDH game it still is competitive. But I will say it is more relaxed and there seems to be more conversation and just pure enjoyment and people are able to use cards they normally might now have.
Me and my son just finally started EDh with our LGS' group a couple weeks back after always kinda dismissing it. Now we have built our decks with wacky results and I have a couple of the sealed product ones on order. Really is an addicting format and a nice break from standard.
People can say what they want about having fun and interacting, don't get me wrong, I'm all for that. However, at the end of the day, Magic is a game; in games there is a winner and a loser. I know several people on here have claimed that they are not competitive, but let them set and lose everytime, every game. I promise you that there is a small bit of them that wants to win. If not, why not play all 2/2 bears and basic land in your 99? Even if you're trying to be flavorful and build an off the wall cool tribal deck, you still don't want to lose every game. I can respect the opinion of those that don't want to play a super-tuned commander deck that wins on turn 3 or 4, if they are not playing tuned decks also. If everyone is playing tuned decks, all bets are off imo though. Commander is a competitive format, there is nothing that can be done about it. The question is, how competitive do you want to play it, not weather or not it is "casual" or "competitive".
Maybe I'm just a different person, I will always have more fun playing and losing with my friends at their apartments than crushing strangers at an LGS. I play laid-back magic with my friends rather than competitive EDH at LGS for the same reason I play Mario Party with my friends and not SCII at tournaments.
Would I like to win all the time? That's a really loaded question, because I would like to win, if you don't play to win you aren't really playing a game. However, just like I play basketball with my brother at a -10 point deficit, my fun from playing is the experience and the challenge, not the result. So if I have over-optimized a deck, I will tone it down otherwise the deck is boring. My friend plays in PTQs all the time and is a great player, but has an absolute blast when he plays a significantly weaker EDH deck than ours and tries to outplay us with weaker cards. So when there is no challenge, it isn't really game either. So while all games are inherently competitive, like you said, you can play Magic competitively with a casual, laid-back mindset. So the real topic of discussion is the difference between 'competitive' (MTGS word for cutthroat) and 'casual' (MTGS word for not optimized).
Every Competitive vs Casual argument comes down to people saying that every Competitive vs Casual argument is about playing appropriately to your playgroup. Aka don't whine if everyone else is playing 1000 dollar decks and you are playing a 20 dollar deck, and don't ruin the fun of your friends by bringing your 1000 dollar deck to crush their 20 dollar decks.
I greatly enjoy 'casual' EDH, because a lot of the most flavorful, wacky cards are not the best cards. And in a semi-'casual' meta like I have, I can optimize one part of my deck and worsen another part to make it more fun. For example, my Blue-Green-White deck initially had Long-Term Plans and Muddle the Mixture. I made it better by dropping Muddle for Mystical Tutor, but then made it worse by dropping Long-Term Plans for Mirrorweave, a super fun card. So that's why I love my meta, you don't have to play the best cards but if you do optimize one part of your deck is gives you the freedom to customize it even more while still maintaining an acceptable power level to compete.
I don't think it's a competitive vs casual, I think it's more of how cut thoart are you? Are oyu playing the best of the best with honors deck? When you make a deck do you find yourself wondering how fast you can win with your deck,how can you abuse the hell out a car or combo and win?
For example I run a relentless rat deck I have coffers in it but not other cards,simply because I don't feel like running it, I have an infinte token combo. I don't think it's competitive or cut throat at all my other deck has a wincon of barren glory so thats not even remotely competitive,but it could be considered due to it's use of cards that blow up everything in sight.
Nither one of my decks have I honestly played to win. The rat deck is for the fun of see the reation if i can pull it,and the fun for me atleast with the RW deck is see how close or if i can even manage to set up the wincon.
I know I'm rehashing what has already been said. There is nothing wrong with casual and nothing wrong with competitive, but it's when the 2 merge is when it creates problems.
I just want to point out that magic seems to be the only game where this kind of discussion/behavior comes up. I mean if you are playing tennis with a friend/stranger and you're a good player and you know the other isn't as good as you, are you going to try as hard as you can to win? I don't see the point other than to look like an asshat. Well actually I think a better analogy would be if you are going on a run and see someone who is also running, do you try to race them even though they don't know they are in a race?
My point is if you like playing 10min games of magic then fine, but if you want to play against someone with a casual deck or someone who isn't trying to win and beat them what do you gain from that? Sounds like a bully to me.
Sure Newbs complain about things they don't yet know how to stop and feel helpless. But if you truly care about competitive games, you can just ignore the others and be the better player. You shouldn't let that get to you, besides you aren't going to be a better player trying to "teach the newbs a lesson". You might as well go race in the special olympics, sure you'll win but in the end you're still retarded.
Well there's also Smash Brosh where the competitives want "no items, final destination" and the casuals want otherwise.
In an MMO others didn't appreciate me for wearing the gear I thought looked nicest rather than the gear giving the best stats (but as I was a much-needed, little-played class they had to put up with it =D).
I actually can't stand most people who super smash brothers competitively. Maybe it's their attitude or my frustration. Or maybe it's the fact that they become really good by exploiting glitches in a game designed for screwing around.
That's really funny. They couldn't stand you, but couldn't get rid of you either. What were you a healer? or something similar?
I actually can't stand most people who super smash brothers competitively. Maybe it's their attitude or my frustration. Or maybe it's the fact that they become really good by exploiting glitches in a game designed for screwing around.
Just remember - Down + B. Pikachu power, Down + B.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tantarus: It didn't make the gaka greifer level, so it should be fine
Well there's also Smash Brosh where the competitives want "no items, final destination" and the casuals want otherwise.
In an MMO others didn't appreciate me for wearing the gear I thought looked nicest rather than the gear giving the best stats (but as I was a much-needed, little-played class they had to put up with it =D).
People hated me in WoW, but that's cause I'd camp out in Stormwind on my Troll Rogue and lead guilds on wild chases through the city with them unable to find me. Gotta love private servers that let you have cross faction chat. Nothing like seeing the best pvp guild on the server degenerate down to savage name calling and threats of violence against my pets because their hunter just got murdered outside the barbershop when he wandered off alone.
Side note, it wasn't an RP server, but I'd constant type with the Troll Accent just to further enrage the people chasing me.
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.
I apologize in advance if this has been asked before in this thread, but it was a question that I'd been wondering and was curious if any of the more competitive, experienced people have any experience on the matter. The question is basically the thread name in a more literal sense:
Can a "competitive" deck actually BEAT a "casual" deck in a game?
Now, with that said, let me qualify that question with some parameters: I'm not asking can a tuned, optimized Vendilion Clique beat a noob, semi-pauper Ib Halfheart, Goblin Tactician (or equally bad) deck. That's not even a question worth considering. The question I ask is far less obvious: in a developed, EDH, semi-competitive, multiplayer metagame where cards like Sol Ring, Necropotence, Mana Drain, and original dual lands etc. are both used and healthily respected, can a hyper-tuned, metagame defined deck like Edric, Spymaster of Trest or Geist of Saint Traft or Lyzolda the Bloodwitch have a favorable, or dare I doubt, plausible chance?
I ask because I was recently helping a friend who wanted to make a viable 1v1 deck for when my playgroup doesn't have the chance to get together into our big multiplayer formats (due to scheduling conflicts, family duties, work responsibilities, etc). I helped him tune up his Lyzolda deck with the cards he had available in an attempt to at least refine it in the right direction that would help make it a genuine threat. I took a cue from the 1v1 competitive Lyzolda primers and had him add some of the obviously good cards (i.e. Carnophage, Lightning Bolt, Anathemancer, Jackal Pup, etc), and we tested to see how it ran.
It was a disaster.
It could barely perform against my WORST deck, and against my better and best decks, it just rolled over and died. To put it bluntly, Seal of Fire and Smother does a whole lotta nothing when you're staring at a card as fat as Wickerbough Elder (hardly a tournament staple), and Inquisition of Kozilek stares helplessly at Damnation or even Akroma's Vengeance with nothing it can do. Even when we made some allowances for the variables of multiplayer EDH (i.e. Distress instead of the Inquisition, Victim of Night instead of Firebolt), it still just didn't work. It's opening was relatively solid, but after a while it just got steamrolled by the massive power that could be leveraged against it because it just. could. not. punch. through. 40. life.
I don't know if this is just a unique problem with Lyzolda in particular or whether it's a more endemic problem that wouldn't be solved with another general. Now there are probably some generals that would rofflestomp in either situation (do decently/well in a 1v1 french tourney or at the kitchen table), but I was just curious if anyone had any insights on that matter.
How does a French-rules, optimized, 30 life, 1v1 EDH deck fare against a power-built, multiplayer, casual rules built, 40 life EDH deck?
Can a "competitive" deck actually BEAT a "casual" deck in a game?
Now, with that said, let me qualify that question with some parameters: I'm not asking can a tuned, optimized Vendilion Clique beat a noob, semi-pauper Ib Halfheart, Goblin Tactician (or equally bad) deck. That's not even a question worth considering. The question I ask is far less obvious: in a developed, EDH, semi-competitive, multiplayer metagame where cards like Sol Ring, Necropotence, Mana Drain, and original dual lands etc. are both used and healthily respected, can a hyper-tuned, metagame defined deck like Edric, Spymaster of Trest or Geist of Saint Traft or Lyzolda the Bloodwitch have a favorable, or dare I doubt, plausible chance?
Most definitely, though this is often helped along by poor threat evaluation on the part of everyone else. We have a pretty harsh group and my (1v1 banned list legal) Edric deck is considered one of the scariest at the store.
I ask because I was recently helping a friend who wanted to make a viable 1v1 deck for when my playgroup doesn't have the chance to get together into our big multiplayer formats (due to scheduling conflicts, family duties, work responsibilities, etc). I helped him tune up his Lyzolda deck with the cards he had available in an attempt to at least refine it in the right direction that would help make it a genuine threat. I took a cue from the 1v1 competitive Lyzolda primers and had him add some of the obviously good cards (i.e. Carnophage, Lightning Bolt, Anathemancer, Jackal Pup, etc), and we tested to see how it ran.
It was a disaster.
Well... Yes, that would be. I'm not all that up on the 1v1 metagame but it sounds like you've jumped too far ahead on things. 1v1 EDH (with 30 life/different banned list) will develop into a different game where the efficient small stuff does matter. I'd imagine Lyzolda works by filling a niche that's really good at clearing out the small stuff while keeping economy, but that's a very meta-specific plan. You basically took a legacy Counterbalance deck with Spell Snares and Force of Will, then tried to play it against a T2 mono-green Dungrove Elder deck.
Edit: For a more general answer, yes, the 1v1 decks can do quite well, depending on which they are. Rafiq and Edric elves, as built for 1v1, will wipe out most well-built multiplayer decks in a 1v1 or multiplayer environment. Vendilion Clique... will be really annoying.
I was thinking that was the case, but I was curious if anyone had any insights. I guess Lyzolda was just a bad choice to begin with.
EDIT: You saying Counterbalance just reminded me of this one small, legacy tournament I won at a local card shop some years back. They were good decks for the time, make no mistake (Madness/Threshhold, Ichorid/Bridge, Countertop), but I managed to win it because my traditional white-blue control deck was... well, no one expected it. I distinctly remember the countertop guy staring blankly at my Return to Dust and asking aloud "do I even have anything in my deck that costs 4?" This edit was unimportant; I'm just old and like to reminisce.
Nice theory. But....what the heck defines "casual" or competitive?
Playing to win? Oh please. Even if winning isn't your only or major goal...you still want to win.
Card choice? Don't think so. I'm not particularly competitive, but if I could, I'd play Gaea's Cradle in my Ulasht deck cause it's a really good card.
Certain strategies? Possibly. Again, I'm not particularly competitive, but I'm going to blow up lands if I need to. I've got no problems using mill, discard, or control strategies to win. I won't use lock strategies, but that's only because I consider them duller than dirt.
Defining what makes something competitive is royal pain.
It's great that you said this *so* early in the thread because it's the Crux of what I think causes the biggest issues with this format.
How do you in fact define "casual"?
Whenever this topic comes up, casual always boils down to "having fun". But, now you have to define "fun" for each person. What's "fun" for you is probably not what is "fun" for someone else. A group of players may enjoy coming together 'casually' at someone's house and having 'fun' games of Vintage for hours on end... would anyone here dare say they wouldn't having 'casual fun'? I know that I wouldn't because you can't.
So the issues just resolves around what people consider "casual magic" as a true and defined term. So now how do we come up with a consistent set of "rules" that really define that? It's basically impossible, except saying it's "not competitive", or that casual is the anti or opposite of competitive, and that's really about it.
As a side note, I recently brought up a discussion over at mtgcommander.net about trying to create a more-defined and inclusive Banned list in order to make the format a lot more cohesive as a whole. I won't lie that it wasn't taken well with posters over there, but that's to be expected... however, I want to address this issue here about this specifically:
I wanted to see them create a more inclusive Banned List that actually stopped the ridiculous cards that exist in the game instead of skirting the issue by saying "if you don't like it, don't play it" because that line "if you don't like it, don't play it" is just an unwritten rule of gamers who want a non-competitive experience. In fact, if you're not playing competitively, the rules of the game don't really anything at all -- hence why playgroups ban cards, add or remove rules, and institute policies about play. That exists even in every format, including Standard, Modern, Legacy, Vitnage, etc... non-competitive play will always exist and is what is called 'casual', and casual play will always exist no matter how "competitive" a format becomes.
So, with that premise under way, what harm would it do to make a better and longer and more comprehensive Banned List for EDH? For the most part, the 'casual' would see no change *at all* because they would just continue on playing with the same rules or banned lists they were using... but for everyone else, it would allow them to make lists that fit better into what the original designers deemed "fun and casual" (or non-competitive).
I worked up a list myself and I may add it here later, but it was a lot of what the EDH list looks like, but it got rid of cards like Tooth and Nail, Defense of the Heart, Survival of the Fittest, Jokalhaups, Obliterate, Armageddon, Time Warp, Keldon Firebombers, and then some more banned generals, like Azami, Teferi, and other overly-powerful generals that warp the games so easily. The entire list was only like 40 cards, but it curbed what are just *broken* strategies that make the game less about two-card combos and ways to easily-setup two card combos.
So, that's what I've got to say on the matter... sorry for wall-o-text!
Don
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In response to your Brainstorm, I use Vedalken Orrery to play Chains of Mephistopheles as an instant."
-- Duncan McGregor, DCI L3 Judge, while playing his "judgebreaker" deck in an IRL EDH game
I'd prefer that we change the term "casual" to "social." I have played many quite social games where the gloves came off. Social mostly comes down to the deck building, not the play. Once the game starts, even in the most casual of environments, I wouldn't expect anyone to play intentionally poorly. I think it's reasonable for social decks to constrain themselves outside the Banned List.
The main problem I see is poor communication within groups/sub-groups of what's considered social ("yeah, we think infinite turns is bad, but we're OK with mass LD" or somesuch).
Without value judgment of either, I think both can described in somewhat simplistic terms. The competitive player cares if they have a good time, while the social player cares if everyone has a good time. Yes, it's a bit over-simplified, and I think that there is room for both--again, the key is communication. One of the deeper problems I think we have is that both sides are unwilling to see the validity of the other or even talk to (as opposed to talk at) each other.
I'd prefer that we change the term "casual" to "social." I have played many quite social games where the gloves came off. Social mostly comes down to the deck building, not the play. Once the game starts, even in the most casual of environments, I wouldn't expect anyone to play intentionally poorly. I think it's reasonable for social decks to constrain themselves outside the Banned List.
The main problem I see is poor communication within groups/sub-groups of what's considered social ("yeah, we think infinite turns is bad, but we're OK with mass LD" or somesuch).
Without value judgment of either, I think both can described in somewhat simplistic terms. The competitive player cares if they have a good time, while the social player cares if everyone has a good time. Yes, it's a bit over-simplified, and I think that there is room for both--again, the key is communication. One of the deeper problems I think we have is that both sides are unwilling to see the validity of the other or even talk to (as opposed to talk at) each other.
I like this idea. Because "casual" games of Commander can often turn quite competitive. But 'Social' makes much more sense. I'd almost prefer that we just call 1v1 or 2HG 'Competitive and multiplayer 'Social' because playing against 3-5 other people makes it hard to be anything but a social game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Amazing Avy & Sig by mchief111 @ Rising Studios [4/22/11]
I'd prefer that we change the term "casual" to "social." I have played many quite social games where the gloves came off. Social mostly comes down to the deck building, not the play. Once the game starts, even in the most casual of environments, I wouldn't expect anyone to play intentionally poorly. I think it's reasonable for social decks to constrain themselves outside the Banned List.
The main problem I see is poor communication within groups/sub-groups of what's considered social ("yeah, we think infinite turns is bad, but we're OK with mass LD" or somesuch).
Without value judgment of either, I think both can described in somewhat simplistic terms. The competitive player cares if they have a good time, while the social player cares if everyone has a good time. Yes, it's a bit over-simplified, and I think that there is room for both--again, the key is communication. One of the deeper problems I think we have is that both sides are unwilling to see the validity of the other or even talk to (as opposed to talk at) each other.
I definitely see what you are getting at, the term casual really isn't the right one for this differentiation. I'm not exactly sure social is the right word to use either, it is also quite vague and doesn't fit entirely. If I'm playing in a very competitive/cut-throat group there is quite a bit of social interaction to be had, there's been times where someone tried to combo off that led to an awesome counter war that got the group excited and talking, just as much as any big play in a less competitive group would.
I'm also not really sure competitive is the right term either. It is completely possible for a casual playgroup to be competitive amongst themselves without their decks being what are commonly considered competitive decks.
Like it or not, this format attracts about the widest variety of Magic players you can find, both in terms of style and of play skill, to an arena where their relative styles and play skills have no bearing on who plays who. To make matters worse, the card pool is exceptionally large and some very expensive and hard to find cards can make their way into decks; those players who have the benefit of having played for a long time and have a large collection have a massive advantage in card quality over players newer to the game. On top of all this, there’s little way to tell ahead of time which player is which and which deck is which — people don’t come with glowing neon signs saying “15-year Magic vet with $2500 Commander deck”. It’s a situation ripe for conflict, and will remain so unless the format is dramatically altered by changing the banned list.
I’m convinced that everyone reading this, whether you consider yourselves casual or competitive or a mix of both, has decks of varying power levels. I’m willing to bet most people have a favorite deck, a crown jewel, that they tinker with and treasure like I do my Arcum deck. I’m also willing to bet most people have a few stinkers. While most of Player X’s decks are better than most of Player Y’s, Player X still has decks that lose to player Y’s decks given average draws and generally equal play skill.
So, here is my suggestion. Designate your decks as Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. Do a self-analysis by comparing your deck’s success rate against your metagame and by considering how aggressively it was built. Once your playgroup has done that, the next time you start a game, you can either designate the game as a tier 1, tier 2, or tier 3 game, where players can only use decks from that tier, or merely use the tiers as a guideline to evaluate the metagame of that specific game. The first requires a little more planning a little more organization, and a little more formality, and a lot of people are allergic to that. Therefore, the second solution is simply to give people an idea of what they’re up against.
The article contains more on how to evaluate your decks and what the metagame might look like on such a system.
@Sheldon: Social really does not work either. If you want a name, just go with "Friendly". Friendly games when I played heavily were defined how you would want to define "casual" or "social", but the name implies "good, honest, fun". In friendly games, you're not trying to be cut throat, or win on turn two, you're looking for a casual, social experience with other gamers, and usually with 4+ people at a time (you did not want to keep anyone out).
Communication will always be an issue though. And its generally the communication beforehand that gave me the low down on areas I went to. They woyld lay down the local law, and it was accept or leave. Some were willing to make it work, but if a card X was played, they would not play again. I've sat in and lost games holding 4 nonland cards for these reasons before.
I've never had this much issue before with friendly games or a friendly format until EDH, and its because I've been quoted the philosophy and the section about not banning cards or everyhing in a certain category of cards. Groups use it as a crutch to say their way is perfect and right, but if the rules and a banned list functioned to make the format friendlier in general, there can be nothing wrong with that.
Groups that want to ban more cards or unban cards can still exist, but in general, this would opens up the format. areas being more similar without worrying about your decks being unplayable because of card X or strategy Y means more people playing and having fun.
By having group-defined rules and banned lists, you've segmented the community, not brought it together or unified it.
"In response to your Brainstorm, I use Vedalken Orrery to play Chains of Mephistopheles as an instant."
-- Duncan McGregor, DCI L3 Judge, while playing his "judgebreaker" deck in an IRL EDH game
I'd prefer that we change the term "casual" to "social." I have played many quite social games where the gloves came off. Social mostly comes down to the deck building, not the play. Once the game starts, even in the most casual of environments, I wouldn't expect anyone to play intentionally poorly. I think it's reasonable for social decks to constrain themselves outside the Banned List.
The main problem I see is poor communication within groups/sub-groups of what's considered social ("yeah, we think infinite turns is bad, but we're OK with mass LD" or somesuch).
Without value judgment of either, I think both can described in somewhat simplistic terms. The competitive player cares if they have a good time, while the social player cares if everyone has a good time. Yes, it's a bit over-simplified, and I think that there is room for both--again, the key is communication. One of the deeper problems I think we have is that both sides are unwilling to see the validity of the other or even talk to (as opposed to talk at) each other.
Given your recent comments about clarification, I expect/hope we will see some constructive insight on how a group should resolve the casual/competitive disparity, without ostracizing either party.
In the context of your comments on clarifying the target audience of EDH, and your comment that "EDH can't be everything for everyone," however, I can't say I'm entirely confident that one side isn't going to bear the brunt of the social discrimination.
The article contains more on how to evaluate your decks and what the metagame might look like on such a system.
What do you think? Do-able? Does it work?
It's less codified, but I do this to some extent and it mostly works out. There are a few tier 4 players but they're generally a good sport about things.
In your opinion it's a competitive format. In the opinion of others it is not. Looking at it from only a competitive stand point is not the correct way to look at it. It has the ability to be either casual or competitive. Hence this entire discussion.
Say what you want, but at it's core Magic in any format is competitive. We're not sitting around a camp fire singing songs here. The fact that somebody wins and somebody losses makes Magic a competitive game. The only debate is how competitive you want it to be. Even in a casual game somebody wins and losses. I'm not looking at the game as only competitive and not casual. My point is that even though you may be playing a casual game, you're still competing.
I get what you're saying, but you might need to explain it a bit further. Not that I'm particularly an expert on game theory, but the situation is actually pretty complicated. In other words, not every game is a competition and some games are cooperative. For example, if winning a game and losing a game essentially have the same result, that game is not competitive. In the context of the competitive game we are playing, though, you're right.
Basically, in Magic, there must be one ultimate result; one player must win and all other players must lose for a game to be complete and therefore, magic is a competitive game. There are, however, a very small number of exceptions; i.e., cards that modify the game rules so that all players draw the game instead of winning or losing (Divine Intervention).
My point is, unless you are actively seeking to draw the game with cards like the aforementioned Divine Intervention, when you sit down to play a game of magic, you are inherently buying into playing a game in which you compete to win. In the case that you are playing cards like DI, you're in an odd spot; you're competing to draw.
This is a weird game we play :cool:.
Isperia, Supreme Judge: Control
Malfegor: Control
Perhaps I missed it in the previous pages, but perhaps instead of focusing on the competitive v. casual, we're missing out on the experience aspect of EDH?
We play for different reasons. We have a goal, a purpose.
Some people focus on the win. Others want to assemble the most outrageous Experiment Kraj possible.
Neither is wrong.
I went and started a Commander/EDH blog! Come see it at http://wordofcommander.blogspot.com/ and it includes all 15 of my custom super-art generals!
If you're more into the finance section of the game, I write on Fridays for MTGPrice.com.
Recently we restarted casual magic with no prizes. On the first day one player showed up and before we started playing said she had some printed off proxies because shelayed magic the gathering not magic the card collecting game. My two friends, one a level three judge who was I think head judge at a tournament the day before looked at each other and rolled our eyes, but we played anyway. Turn one she dumped four cards onto the table. Turn two she copied a lighthouse chronologist. Turn three she was able to level it to max and take a turn after everyone else. The owner of the original chronologist could only get his to level four. To put it in perspective I had a riku deck that is a copy what you have deck. Judge had a group hug deck instead of his competitive deck. None of us had fun. Also we learned that she had even printed off five cent signets that are easy to find. I refused to play a second game with her as did my two friends. We played with planchase planes after that just us three me and him with our more competitive decks and had a blast. Edh fun is contextual.
This! I have a friend who I've played with for a long while and now he's all over the proxie bandwagon. It has got to point where it's annoying. He's proxied up every fetchland and dual land for his deck. He has also proxied up things like Mana Crypt, Moat, and Mana Drain. These are things that no one in our play group even owns. His attitude now is we just don't have to play with him, but if he's playing, he's going to proxie stuff. What do you think we should do. I don't want to wreck our play group, but I'm also tired of the rediculous proxies.
Sounds like your friend already made up his mind. He's playing with proxies.
The ball is in your court:
1) You stop playing with him, exluding him from the group
2) You stop playing with him, exluding yourself from the group
3) You play with him and get your butt kicked
4) You proxy and level the playing field.
Personally, I'd do it in that order. Everytime he pulls up a proxy just say "that's an illegal card. It's now a land" and treat it as such for all intensive purposes. The game will instantly fall apart and your 'friend' will be so annoyed that the ball will move to his court. He'll either:
1) Take out his proxies
2) Leave
Both allow you to keep playing.
Cheers.
| B Erebos, God of VampiresB | GYeva SmashG | RBosh ArtifactsR | GURAnimar +1 BeatsGUR | RBVial's Secret Hot SauceRB | UBRNekusar, Draw if you DareUBR | RGBDarigaaz'z DragonsRGB | GBSlimeFEETGB | UBOn-Hit LazavUB | URBrudiclad's Artificer InventionsUR | GUBMuldrotha's ElementalsGUB | WUGKestia's EnchantmentsWUG | GUTatyova - Draw, Land, Go!GU | WGArahbo's EquipmentWG | BUWVarina's ZOMBIE HORDESBUW | WLyra's Angelic SalvationW | WBChurch of TeysaWB | UAzami...WizardsU
Me and my son just finally started EDh with our LGS' group a couple weeks back after always kinda dismissing it. Now we have built our decks with wacky results and I have a couple of the sealed product ones on order. Really is an addicting format and a nice break from standard.
Standard
WBGWBGABZAN AGGROWBGWBG
Maybe I'm just a different person, I will always have more fun playing and losing with my friends at their apartments than crushing strangers at an LGS. I play laid-back magic with my friends rather than competitive EDH at LGS for the same reason I play Mario Party with my friends and not SCII at tournaments.
Would I like to win all the time? That's a really loaded question, because I would like to win, if you don't play to win you aren't really playing a game. However, just like I play basketball with my brother at a -10 point deficit, my fun from playing is the experience and the challenge, not the result. So if I have over-optimized a deck, I will tone it down otherwise the deck is boring. My friend plays in PTQs all the time and is a great player, but has an absolute blast when he plays a significantly weaker EDH deck than ours and tries to outplay us with weaker cards. So when there is no challenge, it isn't really game either. So while all games are inherently competitive, like you said, you can play Magic competitively with a casual, laid-back mindset. So the real topic of discussion is the difference between 'competitive' (MTGS word for cutthroat) and 'casual' (MTGS word for not optimized).
Every Competitive vs Casual argument comes down to people saying that every Competitive vs Casual argument is about playing appropriately to your playgroup. Aka don't whine if everyone else is playing 1000 dollar decks and you are playing a 20 dollar deck, and don't ruin the fun of your friends by bringing your 1000 dollar deck to crush their 20 dollar decks.
I greatly enjoy 'casual' EDH, because a lot of the most flavorful, wacky cards are not the best cards. And in a semi-'casual' meta like I have, I can optimize one part of my deck and worsen another part to make it more fun. For example, my Blue-Green-White deck initially had Long-Term Plans and Muddle the Mixture. I made it better by dropping Muddle for Mystical Tutor, but then made it worse by dropping Long-Term Plans for Mirrorweave, a super fun card. So that's why I love my meta, you don't have to play the best cards but if you do optimize one part of your deck is gives you the freedom to customize it even more while still maintaining an acceptable power level to compete.
For example I run a relentless rat deck I have coffers in it but not other cards,simply because I don't feel like running it, I have an infinte token combo. I don't think it's competitive or cut throat at all my other deck has a wincon of barren glory so thats not even remotely competitive,but it could be considered due to it's use of cards that blow up everything in sight.
Nither one of my decks have I honestly played to win. The rat deck is for the fun of see the reation if i can pull it,and the fun for me atleast with the RW deck is see how close or if i can even manage to set up the wincon.
I just want to point out that magic seems to be the only game where this kind of discussion/behavior comes up. I mean if you are playing tennis with a friend/stranger and you're a good player and you know the other isn't as good as you, are you going to try as hard as you can to win? I don't see the point other than to look like an asshat. Well actually I think a better analogy would be if you are going on a run and see someone who is also running, do you try to race them even though they don't know they are in a race?
My point is if you like playing 10min games of magic then fine, but if you want to play against someone with a casual deck or someone who isn't trying to win and beat them what do you gain from that? Sounds like a bully to me.
Sure Newbs complain about things they don't yet know how to stop and feel helpless. But if you truly care about competitive games, you can just ignore the others and be the better player. You shouldn't let that get to you, besides you aren't going to be a better player trying to "teach the newbs a lesson". You might as well go race in the special olympics, sure you'll win but in the end you're still retarded.
My Saffi deck
I actually can't stand most people who super smash brothers competitively. Maybe it's their attitude or my frustration. Or maybe it's the fact that they become really good by exploiting glitches in a game designed for screwing around.
That's really funny. They couldn't stand you, but couldn't get rid of you either. What were you a healer? or something similar?
My Saffi deck
Just remember - Down + B. Pikachu power, Down + B.
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
People hated me in WoW, but that's cause I'd camp out in Stormwind on my Troll Rogue and lead guilds on wild chases through the city with them unable to find me. Gotta love private servers that let you have cross faction chat. Nothing like seeing the best pvp guild on the server degenerate down to savage name calling and threats of violence against my pets because their hunter just got murdered outside the barbershop when he wandered off alone.
Side note, it wasn't an RP server, but I'd constant type with the Troll Accent just to further enrage the people chasing me.
Can a "competitive" deck actually BEAT a "casual" deck in a game?
Now, with that said, let me qualify that question with some parameters: I'm not asking can a tuned, optimized Vendilion Clique beat a noob, semi-pauper Ib Halfheart, Goblin Tactician (or equally bad) deck. That's not even a question worth considering. The question I ask is far less obvious: in a developed, EDH, semi-competitive, multiplayer metagame where cards like Sol Ring, Necropotence, Mana Drain, and original dual lands etc. are both used and healthily respected, can a hyper-tuned, metagame defined deck like Edric, Spymaster of Trest or Geist of Saint Traft or Lyzolda the Bloodwitch have a favorable, or dare I doubt, plausible chance?
I ask because I was recently helping a friend who wanted to make a viable 1v1 deck for when my playgroup doesn't have the chance to get together into our big multiplayer formats (due to scheduling conflicts, family duties, work responsibilities, etc). I helped him tune up his Lyzolda deck with the cards he had available in an attempt to at least refine it in the right direction that would help make it a genuine threat. I took a cue from the 1v1 competitive Lyzolda primers and had him add some of the obviously good cards (i.e. Carnophage, Lightning Bolt, Anathemancer, Jackal Pup, etc), and we tested to see how it ran.
It was a disaster.
It could barely perform against my WORST deck, and against my better and best decks, it just rolled over and died. To put it bluntly, Seal of Fire and Smother does a whole lotta nothing when you're staring at a card as fat as Wickerbough Elder (hardly a tournament staple), and Inquisition of Kozilek stares helplessly at Damnation or even Akroma's Vengeance with nothing it can do. Even when we made some allowances for the variables of multiplayer EDH (i.e. Distress instead of the Inquisition, Victim of Night instead of Firebolt), it still just didn't work. It's opening was relatively solid, but after a while it just got steamrolled by the massive power that could be leveraged against it because it just. could. not. punch. through. 40. life.
I don't know if this is just a unique problem with Lyzolda in particular or whether it's a more endemic problem that wouldn't be solved with another general. Now there are probably some generals that would rofflestomp in either situation (do decently/well in a 1v1 french tourney or at the kitchen table), but I was just curious if anyone had any insights on that matter.
How does a French-rules, optimized, 30 life, 1v1 EDH deck fare against a power-built, multiplayer, casual rules built, 40 life EDH deck?
Most definitely, though this is often helped along by poor threat evaluation on the part of everyone else. We have a pretty harsh group and my (1v1 banned list legal) Edric deck is considered one of the scariest at the store.
Well... Yes, that would be. I'm not all that up on the 1v1 metagame but it sounds like you've jumped too far ahead on things. 1v1 EDH (with 30 life/different banned list) will develop into a different game where the efficient small stuff does matter. I'd imagine Lyzolda works by filling a niche that's really good at clearing out the small stuff while keeping economy, but that's a very meta-specific plan. You basically took a legacy Counterbalance deck with Spell Snares and Force of Will, then tried to play it against a T2 mono-green Dungrove Elder deck.
Edit: For a more general answer, yes, the 1v1 decks can do quite well, depending on which they are. Rafiq and Edric elves, as built for 1v1, will wipe out most well-built multiplayer decks in a 1v1 or multiplayer environment. Vendilion Clique... will be really annoying.
EDIT: You saying Counterbalance just reminded me of this one small, legacy tournament I won at a local card shop some years back. They were good decks for the time, make no mistake (Madness/Threshhold, Ichorid/Bridge, Countertop), but I managed to win it because my traditional white-blue control deck was... well, no one expected it. I distinctly remember the countertop guy staring blankly at my Return to Dust and asking aloud "do I even have anything in my deck that costs 4?" This edit was unimportant; I'm just old and like to reminisce.
It's great that you said this *so* early in the thread because it's the Crux of what I think causes the biggest issues with this format.
How do you in fact define "casual"?
Whenever this topic comes up, casual always boils down to "having fun". But, now you have to define "fun" for each person. What's "fun" for you is probably not what is "fun" for someone else. A group of players may enjoy coming together 'casually' at someone's house and having 'fun' games of Vintage for hours on end... would anyone here dare say they wouldn't having 'casual fun'? I know that I wouldn't because you can't.
So the issues just resolves around what people consider "casual magic" as a true and defined term. So now how do we come up with a consistent set of "rules" that really define that? It's basically impossible, except saying it's "not competitive", or that casual is the anti or opposite of competitive, and that's really about it.
As a side note, I recently brought up a discussion over at mtgcommander.net about trying to create a more-defined and inclusive Banned list in order to make the format a lot more cohesive as a whole. I won't lie that it wasn't taken well with posters over there, but that's to be expected... however, I want to address this issue here about this specifically:
I wanted to see them create a more inclusive Banned List that actually stopped the ridiculous cards that exist in the game instead of skirting the issue by saying "if you don't like it, don't play it" because that line "if you don't like it, don't play it" is just an unwritten rule of gamers who want a non-competitive experience. In fact, if you're not playing competitively, the rules of the game don't really anything at all -- hence why playgroups ban cards, add or remove rules, and institute policies about play. That exists even in every format, including Standard, Modern, Legacy, Vitnage, etc... non-competitive play will always exist and is what is called 'casual', and casual play will always exist no matter how "competitive" a format becomes.
So, with that premise under way, what harm would it do to make a better and longer and more comprehensive Banned List for EDH? For the most part, the 'casual' would see no change *at all* because they would just continue on playing with the same rules or banned lists they were using... but for everyone else, it would allow them to make lists that fit better into what the original designers deemed "fun and casual" (or non-competitive).
I worked up a list myself and I may add it here later, but it was a lot of what the EDH list looks like, but it got rid of cards like Tooth and Nail, Defense of the Heart, Survival of the Fittest, Jokalhaups, Obliterate, Armageddon, Time Warp, Keldon Firebombers, and then some more banned generals, like Azami, Teferi, and other overly-powerful generals that warp the games so easily. The entire list was only like 40 cards, but it curbed what are just *broken* strategies that make the game less about two-card combos and ways to easily-setup two card combos.
So, that's what I've got to say on the matter... sorry for wall-o-text!
Don
-- Duncan McGregor, DCI L3 Judge, while playing his "judgebreaker" deck in an IRL EDH game
The main problem I see is poor communication within groups/sub-groups of what's considered social ("yeah, we think infinite turns is bad, but we're OK with mass LD" or somesuch).
Without value judgment of either, I think both can described in somewhat simplistic terms. The competitive player cares if they have a good time, while the social player cares if everyone has a good time. Yes, it's a bit over-simplified, and I think that there is room for both--again, the key is communication. One of the deeper problems I think we have is that both sides are unwilling to see the validity of the other or even talk to (as opposed to talk at) each other.
I like this idea. Because "casual" games of Commander can often turn quite competitive. But 'Social' makes much more sense. I'd almost prefer that we just call 1v1 or 2HG 'Competitive and multiplayer 'Social' because playing against 3-5 other people makes it hard to be anything but a social game.
I definitely see what you are getting at, the term casual really isn't the right one for this differentiation. I'm not exactly sure social is the right word to use either, it is also quite vague and doesn't fit entirely. If I'm playing in a very competitive/cut-throat group there is quite a bit of social interaction to be had, there's been times where someone tried to combo off that led to an awesome counter war that got the group excited and talking, just as much as any big play in a less competitive group would.
I'm also not really sure competitive is the right term either. It is completely possible for a casual playgroup to be competitive amongst themselves without their decks being what are commonly considered competitive decks.
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
http://nerdalert.thwomp.net/?p=505
The article contains more on how to evaluate your decks and what the metagame might look like on such a system.
What do you think? Do-able? Does it work?
EDH: U Arcum Dagsson (primer!) U
Communication will always be an issue though. And its generally the communication beforehand that gave me the low down on areas I went to. They woyld lay down the local law, and it was accept or leave. Some were willing to make it work, but if a card X was played, they would not play again. I've sat in and lost games holding 4 nonland cards for these reasons before.
I've never had this much issue before with friendly games or a friendly format until EDH, and its because I've been quoted the philosophy and the section about not banning cards or everyhing in a certain category of cards. Groups use it as a crutch to say their way is perfect and right, but if the rules and a banned list functioned to make the format friendlier in general, there can be nothing wrong with that.
Groups that want to ban more cards or unban cards can still exist, but in general, this would opens up the format. areas being more similar without worrying about your decks being unplayable because of card X or strategy Y means more people playing and having fun.
By having group-defined rules and banned lists, you've segmented the community, not brought it together or unified it.
-- Duncan McGregor, DCI L3 Judge, while playing his "judgebreaker" deck in an IRL EDH game
Given your recent comments about clarification, I expect/hope we will see some constructive insight on how a group should resolve the casual/competitive disparity, without ostracizing either party.
In the context of your comments on clarifying the target audience of EDH, and your comment that "EDH can't be everything for everyone," however, I can't say I'm entirely confident that one side isn't going to bear the brunt of the social discrimination.
Isperia, Supreme Judge: Control
Malfegor: Control
It's less codified, but I do this to some extent and it mostly works out. There are a few tier 4 players but they're generally a good sport about things.