How does your playgroup feel about Guile/Dovescape? It's one of my favorite combos, and whenever I can make it happen in my Gwafa deck, it makes me feel wonderful.
I ran dovescape for lolz in a 40 creature deck once. People did ask if I had guile, which I didn't. So I am not sure people would be fans of it. I don't mind it. It is not a lock, so many EtB creatures are around now it is not nearly as good as it could be. However I took dovescape out after it slowed games down to a grind. Or I died to birds as everyone attacked me till I died.
Again it come down to consistency imo. If it happens once a night I don't see an issue. If you aggressively tutor for it and play it every game. I would not be a fan.
On a side note. most people have 3+ decks so rarely do we play the same thing twice. I am lucky to play all my decks more then twice each in 3-4 weeks. But it keeps it fresh. I don't always switch out. Unless I win. Then I do to avoid being hated out.
On a side note. most people have 3+ decks so rarely do we play the same thing twice. I am lucky to play all my decks more then twice each in 3-4 weeks. But it keeps it fresh. I don't always switch out. Unless I win. Then I do to avoid being hated out.
I'm the same; to keep things fresh I have twenty decks that I rotate between. Some get less play than others, like Wort, or Uril, but I like to think that I have a super wide range of playstyles going from something as silly as Karona Allies to a dedicated Ghave-pact deck as I call it.
I forgot to discuss earlier, but I agree on Gaka's point about Moon effects. I feel that they're completely casual, and just aggravating enough to prove that they're good.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
I forgot to discuss earlier, but I agree on Gaka's point about Moon effects. I feel that they're completely casual, and just aggravating enough to prove that they're good.
I am not going to lie, I hate them. But I am in the minority on this one I think. Also I am a bit biased. I tend to play 3 color decks. And I hate it when something can come down and just stop me from playing the game for many turns in a row. That said I do play with people that use them, though I discourage them. And I build my decks to be resistant to them with at least 8 of each of the 3 basics of my colors. However it still sucks when you are not playing a tri deck with red and happen to get mostly non basics early. And I find games to be boring when 2-3 people are locked out of playing spells for several turns.
On another point touched on. I think multiple decks is a very good thing. Of varied power levels. That way if you are coming into a new group. You can cast how they roll and pull out a deck that seems like it will fit in, be it competitive or casual. And back to an even earlier topic, I think this is how a player entering a unknown group can make sure to have a good time while not effecting others good times. And then increase there chances of getting asked back to play. Where as if you sit down with your combo deck and the group does not roll that way you are unlikely to get asked back, and therefore have less variety and opinions in playing.
I think the biggest thing that is wrong with playing EDH competitively is when you are playing with cards that are obviously broken in EDH. The main one that springs to mind is Serra Ascendant. Earlier I was playing with some players outside of my usual playgroup. After taking a turn 3 Skullbriar, the Walking Grave a player began to dropped a Serra Ascendant as a defense.
Now while I guess it may have been annoying to take a point of damage early in the game, well early for edh, it still seemed like a complete overreaction on his part to me. Especially when in retaliation he kept hitting me with his 6/6 flying lifelink creature.
So while I honestly don't have much of a problem with "competitive" EDH because they often allow for fun but still competitive games, I do draw the line at things that break the format and obviously were not designed with it in mind.
Serra Ascendant isn't broken. It's the lack of spot removal in decks that is the problem. In a 4-player game, odds are someone is going to have the removal to deal with a particular permanent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tantarus: It didn't make the gaka greifer level, so it should be fine
I find the "it dies to removal" argument to be a rather weak one when it comes to discussing the power level of a 6/6 flying lifelink for W.
It's not to say that there aren't ways of dealing with it, but its a prime example of a card that abuses the rules of a format in a way that wouldn't be done unless someone was being cutthroat in their deckbuilding.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: UWUW TronUW
Legacy: WDeath N TaxesW CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
It doesn't make sense to be staunchly in favor of EDH always being casual, because if you want to play casual EDH, then you should just find others who would like to play as you do. Expecting others to play a certain way for an unsanctioned format runs the same mistake both ways: a competitive player shouldn't expect that all people should conform to their playstyle. Both groups should understand that there are avenues and paths for them to meet up with like-minded players in which they can all enjoy this format as they like. No one is forcing you to play casual against a competitive or vice versa.
Additionally, this idea of which is better and which is the truer form of EDH makes no sense for a format that has become so widely accepted and mainstream. It is a format with rules and banlists and a following. Deal with what the actual rules are. None of us are on the RC for EDH, so none of us can say that EDH is meant a certain way. I highly doubt that anyone on the RC has ever openly stated anything about this issue.
As for what constitutes competitive vs casual, I believe there are some competitive players who consider themselves casual because they don't take their competitive level as far as physically possible. However, none of these players compare their own decks and combos to classic casual ones. There's not a general rule of thumb on the issue, but as a casual player, I can just tell when something I might do with a card could seem dirtbaggy and I use self-restraint. I think if anything could tell you whether you whether you are casual or not, its thinking back on the last time you decided not to make a specific play or target because you could see how you wouldn't want that to happen to you, for the overall game fun aspect. Do unto other players as you would have done unto you. If you don't care whats done to you, its pretty safe to say you're competitive.
None of us are on the RC for EDH, so none of us can say that EDH is meant a certain way. I highly doubt that anyone on the RC has ever openly stated anything about this issue.
I think the story of "Jon Funwrecker" is pretty telling of how at least one member of the RC feel about how edh is meant to be played.
I think the story of "Jon Funwrecker" is pretty telling of how at least one member of the RC feel about how edh is meant to be played.
Yep, but that article also showed how much of an ******* he was/is. Whether people like it or not, the more people that join EDH, the more competitive it will become.
Yep, but that article also showed how much of an ******* he was/is. Whether people like it or not, the more people that join EDH, the more competitive it will become.
I agree with both statements. However, just because more people play edh does not mean it must become more competitive, but that is what people know from other formats so they tend to bring it with them.
That said, I don't think EDH can succeed as a competitive format in it's current incarnation. Multiplayer creates a ton of problems, collusion being the worst and hardest to deal with. The other is that the current banned list is woefully inadequate for a healthy tournament environment.
The problem with combos, from a casual perspective, if that they have little buildup, ebb and flow, interactions, tension arcs. The struggle they like is spread over multiple turns, with cards and targets coming and going. Combo is *POOF*. There's no journey, just an end.
This is only true if you have a low playskill level and no one bothered to play control. Combos are naturally vulnerable to disruption. Perhaps the casual hatred of counterspells is the real problem?
This is only true if you have a low playskill level and no one bothered to play control. Combos are naturally vulnerable to disruption. Perhaps the casual hatred of counterspells is the real problem?
This kind of insulting post is the reason we got a sticky thread. Though it is likely you are a troll with such a low post count. Perhaps an 2nd account by a someone else here.
Casual/competitive has nothing to do with playskill level. It is all about people are interested in seeing the game play out. Most the casual players I know save the cutthroat play for there 60 card format tournaments. They come to the edh table after that is done to relax and have some fun. If they wanted to have the game over as fast as possible they would just play more standard, vintage, etc, etc decks. I am going to quote Toby again as he summed it up so well:
The problem with combos, from a casual perspective, is that they have little buildup, ebb and flow, interactions, tension arcs. The struggle they like is spread over multiple turns, with cards and targets coming and going. Combo is *POOF*. There's no journey, just an end.
Casual players choose to play this way. It is not that they can't play more cutthroat or aggressive. They make a active choice not too.
Except that Vintage has all of those things and is the most interactive format, but most games will probably end in a combo finisher (even if its just yawg will tinker collosus).
The mistake is to not realize that everything leading up to them dropping the combo was the interaction. You not disrupting them is no different from you not having enough blocks against the green aggro deck.
I agree with both statements. However, just because more people play edh does not mean it must become more competitive, but that is what people know from other formats so they tend to bring it with them.
That said, I don't think EDH can succeed as a competitive format in it's current incarnation. Multiplayer creates a ton of problems, collusion being the worst and hardest to deal with. The other is that the current banned list is woefully inadequate for a healthy tournament environment.
The easiest way to deal with collusion is to play politics. It's a multiplayer FFA style game. If you've ever played any of those before you know the best route is to make alliances and backstab when it comes time to. Sit down and play a game of Risk with 4 other people and tell me it doesn't start happening sooner or later.
As for the banlist, I agree it is inadequate but I think for different reasons. Some cards need to be added and others need removing. Kokusho for example is no really that broken. It's only truly degenerate in a dedicated reanimation loop, which even without him things like Borgodan Hellkite, Angel of Despair, and the new Rune-Scarred Demon can all take his place to equal if not more game break results. Without Recurring Nightmare he's just a good, not brokenly good.
The other side of the coin, Cards like Sol Ring, Thran Dynamo, and the Monoliths provide insane mana ramp early for any color set, at little to no draw back. Should they be banned? Probably but it won't happen any time soon.
Then there's the edge of the coin with cards like Imperial Seal. They're incredibly expensive, but by themselves they're not that good. Imperial Seal is a $200 sorcery version of Vampiric Tutor. But by the admission of the RC they ban cards that are deemed to expensive. Why not ban everything over $200? It'd be more work than it's worth for one thing, and another some expensive cards just aren't good. Take 1996 World Champion (yeah I'm going far on this one) over $10,000 estimated value based on some google findings on it. Is it banned? Nope if you have it you can play it. What does it do? Not much honestly. It doesn't even assure you'll win if it hits play. You swing with it and if it isn't blocked you still aren't assured a win. Should it be banned? No not particularly. It's expensive sure, but it's not really degenerate.
But back to the topic at hand, there is no way to change everyone's mind to one mindset, all you can do is refuse to play against people who think you're mindset is wrong. The hyper competitives will always be hyper competitive, the hyper casuals will always be hyper casual. The middle ground will occasionally lean either way, but over all it comes down to personal preference. If you don't like sitting down for a game of EDH, and it being over in 5 minutes, suggest the person run something different. If they refuse to play something more your style then find a different group. Likewise if you're asked to play something different and you see no reason to then you find a different group.
It's been said over and over that Casual vs Competitive Fun vs Unfun is subjective, and it is. If comboing off turn 3 and winning is your definition of fun then I personally feel you're better off playing legacy or vintage where that's supposed to happen. Likewise if you think coming out of nowhere on turn 37 with a Rite of Replication kicked and Radiated taking over 5000 power in creatures is awesome even though the guy next to you Twincasted your Radiate so now he's got just as much as you, and the guy across from you just flashed in a Silent Arbiter with his Shimmer Myr and the other guy just started laughing maliciously like he knows something no one else does, welcome to EDH home of big flashy plays where even the biggest thing you do could be undone by something you never even knew existed. Coincidentally the the fourth player dropping a Repercussion followed by a Spontaneous Combustion on his last creature is a play no one sees coming.
Anyway point is competitive players and casual players are both right. The other is playing wrong, for them. Find a group of like minded people and play with them. Or keep complaining that Spike is killing the spirit of the game while Timmy is making it unfun cause he's not winning instantly and Johnny is just being a douchenozzle with his infinite combos everywhere. That's sure to solve something.
Serra Ascendant isn't broken. It's the lack of spot removal in decks that is the problem. In a 4-player game, odds are someone is going to have the removal to deal with a particular permanent.
This. Serra Ascendant is a bomb of a turn 1 play. Good luck seeing it turn 1 every game. I run 3 1 drops in my Tariel deck. Dragonmaster Outcast, Serra Ascendant, and Putrid Imp. I'm normally happier to see the Imp turn 1 because I know it won't draw hate early on. The Ascendant will not survive past 5 turns and if it does it'll have something scary to keep it from attacking more often than not.
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.
This actually happened with a niv-miz curiosity combo last Friday. It is simple. We play for 2nd place while you get to watch us finish. Next game you get to use another deck or sit out after your "epic win". Most of us get a small window of 4 hours or so a week to play edh. We don't enjoy that kinda play and are not shy about discouraging it. Our time is valuable to us. We are more then happy to have new players. If you have fun by comboing out and winning. Enjoy. We are going to finish our game and have our fun too. Sounds like win win, cept you get more downtime then we do between games. If you don't enjoy the wait then a more meta friendly deck will solve that easily enough.
This sounds like a really fair way to go about handling infinite combos. What about casual-combo ? I run an artifact Sharuum combo (see sig), and I'll be lucky to have it go off by turn 10....any of them. This is because I card draw towards my combos instead of tutoring towards them. Would you still have you view when it comes to a combo well deserved to win??
________________________________________________________
I am not going to lie, I hate them. But I am in the minority on this one I think. Also I am a bit biased. I tend to play 3 color decks. And I hate it when something can come down and just stop me from playing the game for many turns in a row. That said I do play with people that use them, though I discourage them. And I build my decks to be resistant to them with at least 8 of each of the 3 basics of my colors. However it still sucks when you are not playing a tri deck with red and happen to get mostly non basics early. And I find games to be boring when 2-3 people are locked out of playing spells for several turns.
Understandable that you would not like them, but that's the counter to playing three color. You want to have access to more solutions and a wider variety of cards, that's gotta come at a price. Part of the game imo.
________________________________________________________
Serra Ascendant isn't broken. It's the lack of spot removal in decks that is the problem. In a 4-player game, odds are someone is going to have the removal to deal with a particular permanent.
This. 100%. My meta plays with Serra Ascendant, even in 1vs1 games, and yes....it can be a beater in the early game...but never more than 3 turns as our meta plays with a great deal more spot removal. It's actually to the point where I'll try to flash in SA and use in defense. You get more use outta it that way.
________________________________________________________
In the end, the debate will never end.
One player may consider a cutthroat deck to be casual. Another might consider that same deck to be competitive. It totally depends on the meta.
One player may consider three card combo's fair, while another may consider them taboo.
I think what needs to be done is that every meta should have a standardized "yes/no" chart filled out, defining there meta. A player then joining the group can look at the chart and ensure that the deck they are playing with conforms to the style.
By standardized, I mean that someone official enough to make such a chart have one put together and made official so that old and new metas alike have something to benchmark against.
I agree with both statements. However, just because more people play edh does not mean it must become more competitive, but that is what people know from other formats so they tend to bring it with them.
That said, I don't think EDH can succeed as a competitive format in it's current incarnation. Multiplayer creates a ton of problems, collusion being the worst and hardest to deal with. The other is that the current banned list is woefully inadequate for a healthy tournament environment.
I also agree with both of these statements. Most players I know actively participate in FNM, where they attempt to win prizes. Usually, they jump right from limited into standard, typically playing in monthly tournaments at the LGS. When they joined EDH, it wasn't that they wanted to stomp all over people's faces, it was just natural for them to build efficient and powerful decks.
I also agree that the ban list is inadequate for a competitve environment, specifically a 1v1 environment. Unfortunately, it creates a bit of a divide by unbanning certain cards, while banning others. I have had people join cockatrice games, take a look at the ban list (I am currently following the french ban list) and get upset by the fact that sol ring, mana vault, and mana crypt were banned. In multiplayer, these cards aren't as strong as they are in a dual, as if you don't have an answer to the fast mana, or didn't draw your own, you're most likely going to be dominated. Keep in mind, this isn't a god hand scenario, just imagine turn 1 sol rin turn 2 GAAIV.
With unbans, kokusho, balance, painter's servant, and recurring nightmare are probably all cards that are no where near as degenerate in 1V1. MTGS has unbanned all these cards for dual.
If comboing off turn 3 and winning is your definition of fun then I personally feel you're better off playing legacy or vintage where that's supposed to happen. Likewise if you think coming out of nowhere on turn 37 with a Rite of Replication kicked and Radiated taking over 5000 power in creatures is awesome even though the guy next to you Twincasted your Radiate so now he's got just as much as you, and the guy across from you just flashed in a Silent Arbiter with his Shimmer Myr and the other guy just started laughing maliciously like he knows something no one else does, welcome to EDH home of big flashy plays where even the biggest thing you do could be undone by something you never even knew existed. Coincidentally the the fourth player dropping a Repercussion followed by a Spontaneous Combustion on his last creature is a play no one sees coming.
This is the attitude that I dislike, where someones definition of fun becomes what defines the format, and if you feel differently you should play a different format. I enjoy strong, challenging decks. I also enjoy the challenge that singleton and a commander brings. If you look at 1v1 lists, almost all the top tier lists (Edric, sygg, GAAIV, zur) are extremely synergistic with their general, playing styles you wouldn't find in other formats. Are there tempo decks in legacy?Yes, but how often do you see edric? Stax? Yep, but where is GAAIV? and forget about zur.
This is the attitude that I dislike, where someones definition of fun becomes what defines the format, and if you feel differently you should play a different format. I enjoy strong, challenging decks. I also enjoy the challenge that singleton and a commander brings. If you look at 1v1 lists, almost all the top tier lists (Edric, sygg, GAAIV, zur) are extremely synergistic with their general, playing styles you wouldn't find in other formats. Are there tempo decks in legacy?Yes, but how often do you see edric? Stax? Yep, but where is GAAIV? and forget about zur.
That's the thing, you can dislike it all day long it won't change my opinion. Would I play against you? Sure. If you run a deck I find to be unfun you won't be getting a second game and I'll tell you to your face you should be playing legacy and vintage if you want to combo off in the first 5 minutes of a game of EDH. That's my standpoint and I really don't care if people disagree with it.
But to a more debate worthy matter, EDH is more geared towards multiplayer environments. 1v1 arguments aren't valid for free for all arguments. I don't consider EDH to be a 1v1 environment. If you want to play it 1v1 I won't try to stop you or change your mind about it I just won't be joining you in it. Your example of "all the top teir decks" brings me to my original point. If you're just going to run the same top tier netdeck as everyone else you really aren't contributing to the format as a whole. You should build your own unique deck and try to strive against the norm in EDH. Building a deck that's sole purpose to to lock down everyone else till it can win isn't fun by my definition of the word. It's boring. Forcing me to sit here for 20 minutes while you take extra turn after extra turn isn't fun either. I play EDH to play. Likewise if you're entire theme is destroy mana base so others can't play. I have no fun when I sit and play draw go, it's a waste of my time. Same with any hard lock that doesn't end the game, which alot of the "top tier" decks tend to run.
Then there are the "top tier" decks that combo out and end the game on turn 2-3. Good on you. Now while you sit and goldfish the rest of us are going to continue to play for second while you watch or go somewhere else.
As for your "what about zur" argument, what about him? He's a terrible card outside of EDH. That's why no one runs him outside of EDH. It's possible to build a fun Zur deck, but most people just want to build a powerful Zur deck. Not saying they can't be the same deck, but often they aren't. But to expand on that, you don't see anyone running Norin the Wary in legacy either, guess where you do see him? *Points at Gaka*. Now I've never played against his Norin deck, but I can see not having much fun against it after the first game. Is Norin a top tier general? No, not at all. The point to that is, general alone doesn't determine how good/bad/competitive/casual a deck is. You can take the most aggressively competitive EDH deck you can find, and swap generals and it'll still be able to dominate games, even more so for as time till people figure out the swap was made and start targeting you again.
There in lies another point however, EDH is best in multiplayer. You have 1v1 and think it's better cause you have to focus on less that's all well and good. If you're only going to be playing 1v1 you might want to look into vintage and legacy where it's the norm. EDH is primarily about a multiplayer environment where you have to contend with multiple opponents who each in turn have more than one opponent to worry about. That's one of the things that makes the format more interesting to me than the sanctioned formats. I stopped playing Standard because I was just plain sick of seeing the same 2-3 decks every single time I sat down. The card pool being so limited it's understandable but still gets boring quickly. I stopped playing Extended for the same reason, it devolved to the point where everyone was running the same handful of decks with maybe 1 new idea once in a blue moon. I've never had the money to even consider starting in on Legacy or Vintage and even if I did I wouldn't spend it on cards frankly.
A deck doesn't have to combo off turn 3, or lock the board down turn 5 or even smash face with a beast of a general turn 4 to be strong and challenging. Those are just the most obvious ways to go about it. Likewise building something that isn't the biggest best fastest deck isn't always the most satisfying thing to do. With the size of the card pool in EDH it's kinda of ridiculous to even say that it's the only way to make strong decks, not saying you're implying that of course, but some do. Another thing to look at is the political implications. You sit down at a table with a deck everyone knows is geared to win in the first 10 minutes you'll be the primary target of everyone. Every single game. And it'll eventually lead to everyone building specifically to beat you or outright copying you, like it does in the sanctioned formats. While you may think that's fun, I do not. Being forced to build to cater to someone else's deck is not fun to me. Been there, done that, beat caw-blade into a bloody oblivion. It wasn't fun beating caw-blade that way, but it worked, then caw-blade ceased to be for the most part and my $20 invested in cards to demolish it seemed rather pointless. I'd much rather build my deck how I want to build it not how everyone else's decks insist I have to build it just to play. Which when it comes to EDH shouldn't be an issue, but the prevalence of people who insist "you just have to build top tier is all" is one of the driving reasons for me playing less and less online. I don't enjoy piloting a netdeck. Even if I modified it somewhat it's still not enjoyable to me.
But as I said originally, you can dislike my stance all day and all night, it won't change it. And as I said as well, I'll be more than happy to join in on a game with you and a few others, but if you play a deck I find boring and unfun I won't be joining another game with you until you build one that's more interesting. There's plenty of people out there who play EDH, there's groups for everyone, and everyone eventually finds a core group they know are like minded and fun to play with. If your like minded group is Hermit druid.dec, Zur.dec, and Stax.dec have fun with that, mine isn'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.
The easiest way to deal with collusion is to play politics. It's a multiplayer FFA style game. If you've ever played any of those before you know the best route is to make alliances and backstab when it comes time to. Sit down and play a game of Risk with 4 other people and tell me it doesn't start happening sooner or later.
I don't think you understand the level of collusion possible. This is a long read but really shows you how bad it can get. I present to you the EDH Mafia thread:
Well, GenCon ran three EDH events at 10 pm each night. Rules: 4-6 man pods, depending on the number of people in the event, top 2 from each pod advance. Having heard the second rule, my group of players formed the EDH mafia.
We have been playing EDH for upwards of two years, having been introduced to the format by judges Aaron Cutler and Chris (Sneak) Stagno. The mafia consisted of those two, playing Zur and Dralnu, myself, playing Momir Vig, Nick, playing Captain Sisay, Jason, playing Karn and Brain, playing Niv-Mizzet. There were a few other mafia members on certain nights.
The prize payout was about two boxes, split among top 4.
Night 1:
Round 1:
Pod 1: Myself and Brian are in a pod together. Ken Nagle is also playing. His Magus of the Vineyard accelerates me into an early Wood Elves, followed by a Yavimaya Dryad. Kami of the Cresent Moon is played, and every one has to sacrifice two lands, leaving me in the best position with two lands and a Zoetic cavern face down.
Ken plays a Heartbeat of Spring, and I forbid a Boldwyr HEavyweights, and Worldly tutor up my Palinchron. Having infinite mana, I drop Memnarch, take everybody's permanents, and pass the turn. Next turn, I Chord of Calling up a Body Double, copying Ken's Kamahl of Green, killing everyone except Brian.
Pod 2: Sneak comboes out with Dralnu. No other Mafia members are in his pod, so he takes someone random with him.
Pod 3: Nick and Jason are in this pod. Jason gets off to a slow start, but Nick is out the door with Sisay as usual. The game ends off of Sisay, Seedborn Muse, Horoki + Karakas, and a butt load of Nemata tokens.
Pod 4: No Mafia members.
Round 2:
Pod 1: Sneak and Brian are put in one pod. A different Karn deck goes totally aggro and starts bashing Sneak into the ground. Luckily a Poticullis kept no more that two creatures on board, while Brian kept Sneak alive with a Staff of Domination. Then, Sneak played Fact or Fiction, Brian of course giving him the 5-0 split. Brian Time Stretched Sneak, giving him two extra turns. On one turn, he Mind Slavered the person sitting between the two, and then set up the combo. He locked down the guy with Slaver.
On his own turn, he Time Stretched himself again, and proceeded to combo.
Pod 2: In my own pod was Jason, Nick and myself, with two others. Karn's Winter Orb locked down the early game, although I was doing OK with some extra lands via Wood Elves. Sisay got off to a slow start. The game slowly peedled along until a Cryptic Command countered one of Karn's spells and bounced Winter Orb. A few turns passed, and Nick played a Yosei. Yosei found a Rewind from the Jhoira player, and in response I Chorded up a Teferi, looking to combo, with Palinchron in hand.
Much to my demise, Nick already had a Gaea's Cradle in play. Nonetheless, I searched it up with Reap and Sow, and Witnessed it back to hand, played it, and tried to combo. Again, my Cradle hit the bin off of a Ghost Quarter. Luckily, my board was not swept, and on my own turn, I Sakashima'd my Witness, getting back Cradle, mad infinite mana, found Tidespout Tyrant, and bounced the board. Having already seen the outcome of the other pod, I killed the two non-mafia members, one of my buddies scooped, and we split five-ways.
Day 2:Sneak and I did not play, but Aaron, Nick, Jason, Brian, and Bowman (another stand-in Mafia member, playing Vorosh) locked it up the second day for the five-way split.
Day 3:
Round 1:
Pod 1: I find myself in an awkward situation with Jason and Sneak in my first game. I searched up some lands and played some morphs early. Karn went absolutely nuts and had metric tons of colorless mana by turns eight and nine (think, Planar Portal into anything, play it with mana left over). Turn ten or eleven I find Time Stretch, play top, and see Witness on top. I take two more turns, and on turn number 2 (with two left) I Memnarch, stealing Jason's Erratic Portal, granting me infinite extra turns. I take Jason with me into the next pod, since Sneak did little to nothing in that game.
Pod 2: Evan (playing Chainer) and Brian lock it up. Not sure exactly how it happened, but I think Chainer locked everybody out with Titan and Nether Void.
Round 2: I am sitting with Nick and Evan. I get an absolutely nutty hand (land, land, Sol Ring, Mana Drain, Gifts Ungiven+ others.) I lock the game out on turn five with the help of a Gilded Lotus (and a Gifts for Temple, Tooth and Nail, Time Stretch, Witness), and combo turn six.
Brian was knocked out of his pod, but we managed a six-way split with some non-mafia member friends from our area.
I don't think you understand the level of collusion possible. This is a long read but really shows you how bad it can get. I present to you the EDH Mafia thread:
All that really shows is making EDH competitive is a bad idea really. That level of collusion only existed because prizes were on the line. I see where you're coming from but in an environment without prizes on the line it never would have happened. If you introduce prizes to any thing it gets more competitive to the point that winning is all that matters. It's part of being a competition. When there's nothing on the line things just don't get to that extreme.
The only thing close I've ever seen in non-competitive play is a married couple who ALWAYS work together. Why? They're married. Neither one wants to turn on the other. It's annoying sure but not insurmountable, once they make it obvious they're helping each other everyone else teams up against them.
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.
The only thing close I've ever seen in non-competitive play is a married couple who ALWAYS work together. Why? They're married. Neither one wants to turn on the other. It's annoying sure but not insurmountable, once they make it obvious they're helping each other everyone else teams up against them.
This is a huge pet peeve of mine. When people join a multiplayer game and are a team. Regardless of the reasons, it sucks for the rest of us. If I played with someone like that regularly I would definitely demand 2HG games or something that levels the playing field. Or I would try and get others to just all kill one of them off every game as to make the game more balanced. It is really warping with unofficial teams in a game.
This is a huge pet peeve of mine. When people join a multiplayer game and are a team. Regardless of the reasons, it sucks for the rest of us. If I played with someone like that regularly I would definitely demand 2HG games or something that levels the playing field. Or I would try and get others to just all kill one of them off every game as to make the game more balanced. It is really warping with unofficial teams in a game.
They tend to win, if no one catches on that they're helping each other on purpose, though most people in the group know they're going to work together and break off into teams of their own to work against them. I've personally sacrificed board position to slightly weaken one of them, while putting another person into a board dominating position, just because it was the best way to make the two of them work against each other, and my best chance at not losing.
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.
But to expand on that, you don't see anyone running Norin the Wary in legacy either, guess where you do see him? *Points at Gaka*. Now I've never played against his Norin deck, but I can see not having much fun against it after the first game. Is Norin a top tier general? No, not at all.
Yes, yes it is.
On topic, I agree with a large bit of what you said, however, I might point out that there was never an implication that he believes stax/combo ect to be tier 1. In fact, the 1v1 metagame is going more towards tempo/aggro-control... but that's 1v1, something completely different from MP EDH.
Top tier MP EDH decks usually have some of these in common:
1. A way to win instantly
2. A consistant way to win
3. The ability to withstand hate
4. Card advantage
5. Protection
Decks like Sharuum or Azami fit into all 5 categories. They tend to be tier 1 decks. Of course, it is entirely possible to build Sharuum or Azami to fill only one of these, instead of all of them. My assumptions are based on tuned lists, casual or competitive. (it's up to the player)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tantarus: It didn't make the gaka greifer level, so it should be fine
That's the thing, you can dislike it all day long it won't change my opinion. Would I play against you? Sure. If you run a deck I find to be unfun you won't be getting a second game and I'll tell you to your face you should be playing legacy and vintage if you want to combo off in the first 5 minutes of a game of EDH. That's my standpoint and I really don't care if people disagree with it.
That's fine as long as you're prepared to get ostracized. If so, I guess more power to you for enjoying spending so much time alone.
But to a more debate worthy matter, EDH is more geared towards multiplayer environments. 1v1 arguments aren't valid for free for all arguments. I don't consider EDH to be a 1v1 environment.
Just because you don't consider it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
If you want to play it 1v1 I won't try to stop you or change your mind about it I just won't be joining you in it. Your example of "all the top teir decks" brings me to my original point. If you're just going to run the same top tier netdeck as everyone else you really aren't contributing to the format as a whole. You should build your own unique deck and try to strive against the norm in EDH.
I think you missed my point. I was pointing out that, only in EDH, do these cards see play. It was a supportive idea that competitive players may enjoy EDH more than vintage or legacy, as they get to play with cards normally not seen.
Building a deck that's sole purpose to to lock down everyone else till it can win isn't fun by my definition of the word.
Glad you put that in. It's subjective. The more people that join EDH, the more competitive it's going to become. Get used to it.
It's boring. Forcing me to sit here for 20 minutes while you take extra turn after extra turn isn't fun either. I play EDH to play. Likewise if you're entire theme is destroy mana base so others can't play. I have no fun when I sit and play draw go, it's a waste of my time. Same with any hard lock that doesn't end the game, which alot of the "top tier" decks tend to run.
And I have no fun watching some guy ramp up to a turn 3 primeval, or a turn 4 terrastodon. There are strategies out there that people don't like. Suck it up and play.
Then there are the "top tier" decks that combo out and end the game on turn 2-3. Good on you. Now while you sit and goldfish the rest of us are going to continue to play for second while you watch or go somewhere else.
If your meta is like then, then I highly encourage playing for second. I, and the people I play with, would rather shuffle up for another game, no har no foul. Why make a mountain out of a molehill? It's like "Take that! We could shuffle up for another game where we can all play, but I am going to be a dick and force you to watch me play an hour long game".
As for your "what about zur" argument, what about him? He's a terrible card outside of EDH. That's why no one runs him outside of EDH. It's possible to build a fun Zur deck, but most people just want to build a powerful Zur deck. Not saying they can't be the same deck, but often they aren't. But to expand on that, you don't see anyone running Norin the Wary in legacy either, guess where you do see him? *Points at Gaka*. Now I've never played against his Norin deck, but I can see not having much fun against it after the first game. Is Norin a top tier general? No, not at all. The point to that is, general alone doesn't determine how good/bad/competitive/casual a deck is. You can take the most aggressively competitive EDH deck you can find, and swap generals and it'll still be able to dominate games, even more so for as time till people figure out the swap was made and start targeting you again.
Again, I think you missed my point. Competitive players enjoy EDH for the same reason casual players do, they get to use cards that rarely get used.
There in lies another point however, EDH is best in multiplayer.
YOU think it's better in multiplayer. This is an opinion, please don't confuse it for a fact.
You have 1v1 and think it's better cause you have to focus on less that's all well and good. If you're only going to be playing 1v1 you might want to look into vintage and legacy where it's the norm.
Yet, as you pointed out, even with the variety of decks in legacy, there are tons of cards that never see play. In EDH, on the other hand, cards like zur and norin go from complete crap to amazing.
EDH is primarily about a multiplayer environment where you have to contend with multiple opponents who each in turn have more than one opponent to worry about. That's one of the things that makes the format more interesting to me than the sanctioned formats. I stopped playing Standard because I was just plain sick of seeing the same 2-3 decks every single time I sat down. The card pool being so limited it's understandable but still gets boring quickly. I stopped playing Extended for the same reason, it devolved to the point where everyone was running the same handful of decks with maybe 1 new idea once in a blue moon. I've never had the money to even consider starting in on Legacy or Vintage and even if I did I wouldn't spend it on cards frankly.
Which is unfortunate as legacy has one of the most diverse metas out of every format.
A deck doesn't have to combo off turn 3, or lock the board down turn 5 or even smash face with a beast of a general turn 4 to be strong and challenging. Those are just the most obvious ways to go about it. Likewise building something that isn't the biggest best fastest deck isn't always the most satisfying thing to do. With the size of the card pool in EDH it's kinda of ridiculous to even say that it's the only way to make strong decks, not saying you're implying that of course, but some do. Another thing to look at is the political implications. You sit down at a table with a deck everyone knows is geared to win in the first 10 minutes you'll be the primary target of everyone. Every single game. And it'll eventually lead to everyone building specifically to beat you or outright copying you, like it does in the sanctioned formats. While you may think that's fun, I do not.
Rather than specifically being meta-gamed against, I find that the decks improve their synergies and strategies. I, and many other people, find this ebb and flow, of decks and strategies changing, fun.
Being forced to build to cater to someone else's deck is not fun to me. Been there, done that, beat caw-blade into a bloody oblivion. It wasn't fun beating caw-blade that way, but it worked, then caw-blade ceased to be for the most part and my $20 invested in cards to demolish it seemed rather pointless. I'd much rather build my deck how I want to build it not how everyone else's decks insist I have to build it just to play. Which when it comes to EDH shouldn't be an issue, but the prevalence of people who insist "you just have to build top tier is all" is one of the driving reasons for me playing less and less online. I don't enjoy piloting a netdeck. Even if I modified it somewhat it's still not enjoyable to me.
Deckbuilding is part of the enjoyment. In this singleton format, I feel it's more difficult to netdeck, as you need to get a feel for the deck and card choices.
But as I said originally, you can dislike my stance all day and all night, it won't change it. And as I said as well, I'll be more than happy to join in on a game with you and a few others, but if you play a deck I find boring and unfun I won't be joining another game with you until you build one that's more interesting. There's plenty of people out there who play EDH, there's groups for everyone, and everyone eventually finds a core group they know are like minded and fun to play with. If your like minded group is Hermit druid.dec, Zur.dec, and Stax.dec have fun with that, mine isn't.
That's fine, I really am not expecting the stubborn to change. Over time, players will either adapt or find themselves in smaller and smaller playgroups. If you're not willing to change, don't be surprised if you get blown out the same time, week after week. You may resolve not to play that person again, but eventually you will have very few, if any, players to play with.
On topic, I agree with a large bit of what you said, however, I might point out that there was never an implication that he believes stax/combo ect to be tier 1. In fact, the 1v1 metagame is going more towards tempo/aggro-control... but that's 1v1, something completely different from MP EDH.
Top tier MP EDH decks usually have some of these in common:
1. A way to win instantly
2. A consistant way to win
3. The ability to withstand hate
4. Card advantage
5. Protection
Decks like Sharuum or Azami fit into all 5 categories. They tend to be tier 1 decks. Of course, it is entirely possible to build Sharuum or Azami to fill only one of these, instead of all of them. My assumptions are based on tuned lists, casual or competitive. (it's up to the player)
To be fair, most if not every EDH deck packs those 5 factors. The instant win is really the only one I can say I've not seen in every deck. Card advantage to a lesser extent.
Sharuum and Azami both tend to not only go off infinitely and win instantly, but both run enough draw and tutor to do so consistently, and their means of winning are very difficult to completely remove, and they're both in colors that pack tons of answers. So not really the best of examples. However I do agree wholeheartedly that Top Tier General does not equal Top Tier Deck. You can take the most power general in 1v1 EDH, and chose not to abuse it, just as easily as taking the most powerful general in MP EDH and chose not to abuse it. Or you can go the other way and take one of the least powerful generals, and find a way to make it one of the scariest things to see coming down on the board, just by building a very good deck to back it up.
Anyway, yeah in 1v1 EDH it's about winning fast or making your opponent not win fast. Which, honestly just reminds me of games won and lost on who had Force of Will in their opening hand. Not saying it's always the case but anyone who's seen or played vintage knows it happens. When you only have one person to worry about all you have to do is take him out fast to win. Stax can work, but generally doesn't just due to it taking to long to effectively take advantage of versus decks that are geared to end things fast. In multiplayer Stax is just plain annoying.
When you have 4 other people to contend with though, you can't always afford to go off as fast as possible. Especially if one of them happens to be packing an answer. Which with that many possible answers waiting on you it just makes sense to play a little slower. And even if you can go off and in on turn 3, it really isn't always the best thing to do. If you're playing to see challenging and strong decks, why win on turn 3 and never give any decks a chance but other early combo out into a win decks? You won't see anything interesting or unique just a few land drops and mana rocks. Now if it's hour 4 of a game that just won't end and you manage to pull off an infinite storm count Grapeshot despite everything going on, I don't see any fault in that. If you do it turn 5 and no one else has even really started playing then it becomes annoying. It's just not impressive or interesting after the first time to see a deck combo out that early especially not if it's doing it consistently. But it does win. And if you're playing competitively go for it, winning is all that matters in a competitive environment, just keep it out of my casual games.
That's fine, I really am not expecting the stubborn to change. Over time, players will either adapt or find themselves in smaller and smaller playgroups. If you're not willing to change, don't be surprised if you get blown out the same time, week after week. You may resolve not to play that person again, but eventually you will have very few, if any, players to play with.
See the problem with that theory is, not everyone insists on playing the kinds of decks that force that kind of play. It's rare that I come across people who don't have a more casually based deck as well as the competitive one, and it's even more rare that I find someone who refuses to swap to something more on pace if their competitive deck is unfun to other people playing. You say everyone should have to change how they have fun to meet with everyone else. I say people shouldn't be forced to build more and more expensive decks just to be able to have fun. Most of these top tier decks you insist everyone should adapt to, the only means of adapting is investing more and more money to do so. Every physical EDH deck I own I've invested a total of roughly $30 in new cards for. Everything else I already owned. I'm not dropping a paycheck just to beat someone's tuned and tweaked competitive deck they spent their paycheck to build. And yes, alot of people who build those top tier decks invested in buying most of the cards in it specifically for it. Not everyone of them or every card, but a disturbingly large majority.
And yes, EDH was originally designed with multiplayer in mind. As such it is better in a mutliplayer environment. Saying it isn't is like saying 2HG would be better if it was just 2 people each running 2 decks.
I'm also fine with competitive players playing EDH. Don't mistake my point. What I'm not ok with is the ones who insist that EDH needs to be competitive to be fun. The ones who think that the only way to have fun is to win. Those are the types of players I dislike.
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'll tell you to your face you should be playing legacy and vintage if you want to combo off in the first 5 minutes of a game of EDH.
[Citation Needed]
Name one deck that can consistently do that past disruption.
And not like "Well one time this guy", I mean consistently.
Because one time this guy killed an entire table of like 9 people with the general that lets everyone demonic tutor and Ad Nauseum, but that's only because no one saw it coming. It would literally never work a second time against the same group.
Certainly part of the problem. It's a whole other level of interactivity, but one that those casual players have little interest in. Adjusting their deck to combat it means they have a deck they don't enjoy anymore, which defeats the purpose of playing.
If tossing Forbid or Terror or Duress or whatever in your deck means you don't enjoy your deck anymore than you have far too narrow a view of Magic.
It's almost like saying you don't like combat tricks and someone playing Giant Growth is going to force you to do a form of interaction that will ruin your fun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I ran dovescape for lolz in a 40 creature deck once. People did ask if I had guile, which I didn't. So I am not sure people would be fans of it. I don't mind it. It is not a lock, so many EtB creatures are around now it is not nearly as good as it could be. However I took dovescape out after it slowed games down to a grind. Or I died to birds as everyone attacked me till I died.
Again it come down to consistency imo. If it happens once a night I don't see an issue. If you aggressively tutor for it and play it every game. I would not be a fan.
On a side note. most people have 3+ decks so rarely do we play the same thing twice. I am lucky to play all my decks more then twice each in 3-4 weeks. But it keeps it fresh. I don't always switch out. Unless I win. Then I do to avoid being hated out.
I'm the same; to keep things fresh I have twenty decks that I rotate between. Some get less play than others, like Wort, or Uril, but I like to think that I have a super wide range of playstyles going from something as silly as Karona Allies to a dedicated Ghave-pact deck as I call it.
I forgot to discuss earlier, but I agree on Gaka's point about Moon effects. I feel that they're completely casual, and just aggravating enough to prove that they're good.
I am not going to lie, I hate them. But I am in the minority on this one I think. Also I am a bit biased. I tend to play 3 color decks. And I hate it when something can come down and just stop me from playing the game for many turns in a row. That said I do play with people that use them, though I discourage them. And I build my decks to be resistant to them with at least 8 of each of the 3 basics of my colors. However it still sucks when you are not playing a tri deck with red and happen to get mostly non basics early. And I find games to be boring when 2-3 people are locked out of playing spells for several turns.
On another point touched on. I think multiple decks is a very good thing. Of varied power levels. That way if you are coming into a new group. You can cast how they roll and pull out a deck that seems like it will fit in, be it competitive or casual. And back to an even earlier topic, I think this is how a player entering a unknown group can make sure to have a good time while not effecting others good times. And then increase there chances of getting asked back to play. Where as if you sit down with your combo deck and the group does not roll that way you are unlikely to get asked back, and therefore have less variety and opinions in playing.
Now while I guess it may have been annoying to take a point of damage early in the game, well early for edh, it still seemed like a complete overreaction on his part to me. Especially when in retaliation he kept hitting me with his 6/6 flying lifelink creature.
So while I honestly don't have much of a problem with "competitive" EDH because they often allow for fun but still competitive games, I do draw the line at things that break the format and obviously were not designed with it in mind.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
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
It's not to say that there aren't ways of dealing with it, but its a prime example of a card that abuses the rules of a format in a way that wouldn't be done unless someone was being cutthroat in their deckbuilding.
Modern:
UWUW TronUW
Legacy:
WDeath N TaxesW
CEldrazi C
If you couldn't tell I hate greedy blue decks.
Vintage
WWhite Trash
Additionally, this idea of which is better and which is the truer form of EDH makes no sense for a format that has become so widely accepted and mainstream. It is a format with rules and banlists and a following. Deal with what the actual rules are. None of us are on the RC for EDH, so none of us can say that EDH is meant a certain way. I highly doubt that anyone on the RC has ever openly stated anything about this issue.
As for what constitutes competitive vs casual, I believe there are some competitive players who consider themselves casual because they don't take their competitive level as far as physically possible. However, none of these players compare their own decks and combos to classic casual ones. There's not a general rule of thumb on the issue, but as a casual player, I can just tell when something I might do with a card could seem dirtbaggy and I use self-restraint. I think if anything could tell you whether you whether you are casual or not, its thinking back on the last time you decided not to make a specific play or target because you could see how you wouldn't want that to happen to you, for the overall game fun aspect. Do unto other players as you would have done unto you. If you don't care whats done to you, its pretty safe to say you're competitive.
Tolsimir Wolfblood G/W
I think the story of "Jon Funwrecker" is pretty telling of how at least one member of the RC feel about how edh is meant to be played.
Yep, but that article also showed how much of an ******* he was/is. Whether people like it or not, the more people that join EDH, the more competitive it will become.
My H/W list
I agree with both statements. However, just because more people play edh does not mean it must become more competitive, but that is what people know from other formats so they tend to bring it with them.
That said, I don't think EDH can succeed as a competitive format in it's current incarnation. Multiplayer creates a ton of problems, collusion being the worst and hardest to deal with. The other is that the current banned list is woefully inadequate for a healthy tournament environment.
This is only true if you have a low playskill level and no one bothered to play control. Combos are naturally vulnerable to disruption. Perhaps the casual hatred of counterspells is the real problem?
This kind of insulting post is the reason we got a sticky thread. Though it is likely you are a troll with such a low post count. Perhaps an 2nd account by a someone else here.
Casual/competitive has nothing to do with playskill level. It is all about people are interested in seeing the game play out. Most the casual players I know save the cutthroat play for there 60 card format tournaments. They come to the edh table after that is done to relax and have some fun. If they wanted to have the game over as fast as possible they would just play more standard, vintage, etc, etc decks. I am going to quote Toby again as he summed it up so well:
Casual players choose to play this way. It is not that they can't play more cutthroat or aggressive. They make a active choice not too.
The mistake is to not realize that everything leading up to them dropping the combo was the interaction. You not disrupting them is no different from you not having enough blocks against the green aggro deck.
The easiest way to deal with collusion is to play politics. It's a multiplayer FFA style game. If you've ever played any of those before you know the best route is to make alliances and backstab when it comes time to. Sit down and play a game of Risk with 4 other people and tell me it doesn't start happening sooner or later.
As for the banlist, I agree it is inadequate but I think for different reasons. Some cards need to be added and others need removing. Kokusho for example is no really that broken. It's only truly degenerate in a dedicated reanimation loop, which even without him things like Borgodan Hellkite, Angel of Despair, and the new Rune-Scarred Demon can all take his place to equal if not more game break results. Without Recurring Nightmare he's just a good, not brokenly good.
The other side of the coin, Cards like Sol Ring, Thran Dynamo, and the Monoliths provide insane mana ramp early for any color set, at little to no draw back. Should they be banned? Probably but it won't happen any time soon.
Then there's the edge of the coin with cards like Imperial Seal. They're incredibly expensive, but by themselves they're not that good. Imperial Seal is a $200 sorcery version of Vampiric Tutor. But by the admission of the RC they ban cards that are deemed to expensive. Why not ban everything over $200? It'd be more work than it's worth for one thing, and another some expensive cards just aren't good. Take 1996 World Champion (yeah I'm going far on this one) over $10,000 estimated value based on some google findings on it. Is it banned? Nope if you have it you can play it. What does it do? Not much honestly. It doesn't even assure you'll win if it hits play. You swing with it and if it isn't blocked you still aren't assured a win. Should it be banned? No not particularly. It's expensive sure, but it's not really degenerate.
But back to the topic at hand, there is no way to change everyone's mind to one mindset, all you can do is refuse to play against people who think you're mindset is wrong. The hyper competitives will always be hyper competitive, the hyper casuals will always be hyper casual. The middle ground will occasionally lean either way, but over all it comes down to personal preference. If you don't like sitting down for a game of EDH, and it being over in 5 minutes, suggest the person run something different. If they refuse to play something more your style then find a different group. Likewise if you're asked to play something different and you see no reason to then you find a different group.
It's been said over and over that Casual vs Competitive Fun vs Unfun is subjective, and it is. If comboing off turn 3 and winning is your definition of fun then I personally feel you're better off playing legacy or vintage where that's supposed to happen. Likewise if you think coming out of nowhere on turn 37 with a Rite of Replication kicked and Radiated taking over 5000 power in creatures is awesome even though the guy next to you Twincasted your Radiate so now he's got just as much as you, and the guy across from you just flashed in a Silent Arbiter with his Shimmer Myr and the other guy just started laughing maliciously like he knows something no one else does, welcome to EDH home of big flashy plays where even the biggest thing you do could be undone by something you never even knew existed. Coincidentally the the fourth player dropping a Repercussion followed by a Spontaneous Combustion on his last creature is a play no one sees coming.
Anyway point is competitive players and casual players are both right. The other is playing wrong, for them. Find a group of like minded people and play with them. Or keep complaining that Spike is killing the spirit of the game while Timmy is making it unfun cause he's not winning instantly and Johnny is just being a douchenozzle with his infinite combos everywhere. That's sure to solve something.
This. Serra Ascendant is a bomb of a turn 1 play. Good luck seeing it turn 1 every game. I run 3 1 drops in my Tariel deck. Dragonmaster Outcast, Serra Ascendant, and Putrid Imp. I'm normally happier to see the Imp turn 1 because I know it won't draw hate early on. The Ascendant will not survive past 5 turns and if it does it'll have something scary to keep it from attacking more often than not.
This sounds like a really fair way to go about handling infinite combos. What about casual-combo ? I run an artifact Sharuum combo (see sig), and I'll be lucky to have it go off by turn 10....any of them. This is because I card draw towards my combos instead of tutoring towards them. Would you still have you view when it comes to a combo well deserved to win??
________________________________________________________
Understandable that you would not like them, but that's the counter to playing three color. You want to have access to more solutions and a wider variety of cards, that's gotta come at a price. Part of the game imo.
________________________________________________________
This. 100%. My meta plays with Serra Ascendant, even in 1vs1 games, and yes....it can be a beater in the early game...but never more than 3 turns as our meta plays with a great deal more spot removal. It's actually to the point where I'll try to flash in SA and use in defense. You get more use outta it that way.
________________________________________________________
In the end, the debate will never end.
One player may consider a cutthroat deck to be casual. Another might consider that same deck to be competitive. It totally depends on the meta.
One player may consider three card combo's fair, while another may consider them taboo.
I think what needs to be done is that every meta should have a standardized "yes/no" chart filled out, defining there meta. A player then joining the group can look at the chart and ensure that the deck they are playing with conforms to the style.
By standardized, I mean that someone official enough to make such a chart have one put together and made official so that old and new metas alike have something to benchmark against.
| 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
I also agree with both of these statements. Most players I know actively participate in FNM, where they attempt to win prizes. Usually, they jump right from limited into standard, typically playing in monthly tournaments at the LGS. When they joined EDH, it wasn't that they wanted to stomp all over people's faces, it was just natural for them to build efficient and powerful decks.
I also agree that the ban list is inadequate for a competitve environment, specifically a 1v1 environment. Unfortunately, it creates a bit of a divide by unbanning certain cards, while banning others. I have had people join cockatrice games, take a look at the ban list (I am currently following the french ban list) and get upset by the fact that sol ring, mana vault, and mana crypt were banned. In multiplayer, these cards aren't as strong as they are in a dual, as if you don't have an answer to the fast mana, or didn't draw your own, you're most likely going to be dominated. Keep in mind, this isn't a god hand scenario, just imagine turn 1 sol rin turn 2 GAAIV.
With unbans, kokusho, balance, painter's servant, and recurring nightmare are probably all cards that are no where near as degenerate in 1V1. MTGS has unbanned all these cards for dual.
This is the attitude that I dislike, where someones definition of fun becomes what defines the format, and if you feel differently you should play a different format. I enjoy strong, challenging decks. I also enjoy the challenge that singleton and a commander brings. If you look at 1v1 lists, almost all the top tier lists (Edric, sygg, GAAIV, zur) are extremely synergistic with their general, playing styles you wouldn't find in other formats. Are there tempo decks in legacy?Yes, but how often do you see edric? Stax? Yep, but where is GAAIV? and forget about zur.
My H/W list
That's the thing, you can dislike it all day long it won't change my opinion. Would I play against you? Sure. If you run a deck I find to be unfun you won't be getting a second game and I'll tell you to your face you should be playing legacy and vintage if you want to combo off in the first 5 minutes of a game of EDH. That's my standpoint and I really don't care if people disagree with it.
But to a more debate worthy matter, EDH is more geared towards multiplayer environments. 1v1 arguments aren't valid for free for all arguments. I don't consider EDH to be a 1v1 environment. If you want to play it 1v1 I won't try to stop you or change your mind about it I just won't be joining you in it. Your example of "all the top teir decks" brings me to my original point. If you're just going to run the same top tier netdeck as everyone else you really aren't contributing to the format as a whole. You should build your own unique deck and try to strive against the norm in EDH. Building a deck that's sole purpose to to lock down everyone else till it can win isn't fun by my definition of the word. It's boring. Forcing me to sit here for 20 minutes while you take extra turn after extra turn isn't fun either. I play EDH to play. Likewise if you're entire theme is destroy mana base so others can't play. I have no fun when I sit and play draw go, it's a waste of my time. Same with any hard lock that doesn't end the game, which alot of the "top tier" decks tend to run.
Then there are the "top tier" decks that combo out and end the game on turn 2-3. Good on you. Now while you sit and goldfish the rest of us are going to continue to play for second while you watch or go somewhere else.
As for your "what about zur" argument, what about him? He's a terrible card outside of EDH. That's why no one runs him outside of EDH. It's possible to build a fun Zur deck, but most people just want to build a powerful Zur deck. Not saying they can't be the same deck, but often they aren't. But to expand on that, you don't see anyone running Norin the Wary in legacy either, guess where you do see him? *Points at Gaka*. Now I've never played against his Norin deck, but I can see not having much fun against it after the first game. Is Norin a top tier general? No, not at all. The point to that is, general alone doesn't determine how good/bad/competitive/casual a deck is. You can take the most aggressively competitive EDH deck you can find, and swap generals and it'll still be able to dominate games, even more so for as time till people figure out the swap was made and start targeting you again.
There in lies another point however, EDH is best in multiplayer. You have 1v1 and think it's better cause you have to focus on less that's all well and good. If you're only going to be playing 1v1 you might want to look into vintage and legacy where it's the norm. EDH is primarily about a multiplayer environment where you have to contend with multiple opponents who each in turn have more than one opponent to worry about. That's one of the things that makes the format more interesting to me than the sanctioned formats. I stopped playing Standard because I was just plain sick of seeing the same 2-3 decks every single time I sat down. The card pool being so limited it's understandable but still gets boring quickly. I stopped playing Extended for the same reason, it devolved to the point where everyone was running the same handful of decks with maybe 1 new idea once in a blue moon. I've never had the money to even consider starting in on Legacy or Vintage and even if I did I wouldn't spend it on cards frankly.
A deck doesn't have to combo off turn 3, or lock the board down turn 5 or even smash face with a beast of a general turn 4 to be strong and challenging. Those are just the most obvious ways to go about it. Likewise building something that isn't the biggest best fastest deck isn't always the most satisfying thing to do. With the size of the card pool in EDH it's kinda of ridiculous to even say that it's the only way to make strong decks, not saying you're implying that of course, but some do. Another thing to look at is the political implications. You sit down at a table with a deck everyone knows is geared to win in the first 10 minutes you'll be the primary target of everyone. Every single game. And it'll eventually lead to everyone building specifically to beat you or outright copying you, like it does in the sanctioned formats. While you may think that's fun, I do not. Being forced to build to cater to someone else's deck is not fun to me. Been there, done that, beat caw-blade into a bloody oblivion. It wasn't fun beating caw-blade that way, but it worked, then caw-blade ceased to be for the most part and my $20 invested in cards to demolish it seemed rather pointless. I'd much rather build my deck how I want to build it not how everyone else's decks insist I have to build it just to play. Which when it comes to EDH shouldn't be an issue, but the prevalence of people who insist "you just have to build top tier is all" is one of the driving reasons for me playing less and less online. I don't enjoy piloting a netdeck. Even if I modified it somewhat it's still not enjoyable to me.
But as I said originally, you can dislike my stance all day and all night, it won't change it. And as I said as well, I'll be more than happy to join in on a game with you and a few others, but if you play a deck I find boring and unfun I won't be joining another game with you until you build one that's more interesting. There's plenty of people out there who play EDH, there's groups for everyone, and everyone eventually finds a core group they know are like minded and fun to play with. If your like minded group is Hermit druid.dec, Zur.dec, and Stax.dec have fun with that, mine isn't.
I don't think you understand the level of collusion possible. This is a long read but really shows you how bad it can get. I present to you the EDH Mafia thread:
http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=744
All that really shows is making EDH competitive is a bad idea really. That level of collusion only existed because prizes were on the line. I see where you're coming from but in an environment without prizes on the line it never would have happened. If you introduce prizes to any thing it gets more competitive to the point that winning is all that matters. It's part of being a competition. When there's nothing on the line things just don't get to that extreme.
The only thing close I've ever seen in non-competitive play is a married couple who ALWAYS work together. Why? They're married. Neither one wants to turn on the other. It's annoying sure but not insurmountable, once they make it obvious they're helping each other everyone else teams up against them.
This is a huge pet peeve of mine. When people join a multiplayer game and are a team. Regardless of the reasons, it sucks for the rest of us. If I played with someone like that regularly I would definitely demand 2HG games or something that levels the playing field. Or I would try and get others to just all kill one of them off every game as to make the game more balanced. It is really warping with unofficial teams in a game.
They tend to win, if no one catches on that they're helping each other on purpose, though most people in the group know they're going to work together and break off into teams of their own to work against them. I've personally sacrificed board position to slightly weaken one of them, while putting another person into a board dominating position, just because it was the best way to make the two of them work against each other, and my best chance at not losing.
Yes, yes it is.
On topic, I agree with a large bit of what you said, however, I might point out that there was never an implication that he believes stax/combo ect to be tier 1. In fact, the 1v1 metagame is going more towards tempo/aggro-control... but that's 1v1, something completely different from MP EDH.
Top tier MP EDH decks usually have some of these in common:
1. A way to win instantly
2. A consistant way to win
3. The ability to withstand hate
4. Card advantage
5. Protection
Decks like Sharuum or Azami fit into all 5 categories. They tend to be tier 1 decks. Of course, it is entirely possible to build Sharuum or Azami to fill only one of these, instead of all of them. My assumptions are based on tuned lists, casual or competitive. (it's up to the player)
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
That's fine as long as you're prepared to get ostracized. If so, I guess more power to you for enjoying spending so much time alone.
Just because you don't consider it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
I think you missed my point. I was pointing out that, only in EDH, do these cards see play. It was a supportive idea that competitive players may enjoy EDH more than vintage or legacy, as they get to play with cards normally not seen.
Glad you put that in. It's subjective. The more people that join EDH, the more competitive it's going to become. Get used to it.
And I have no fun watching some guy ramp up to a turn 3 primeval, or a turn 4 terrastodon. There are strategies out there that people don't like. Suck it up and play.
If your meta is like then, then I highly encourage playing for second. I, and the people I play with, would rather shuffle up for another game, no har no foul. Why make a mountain out of a molehill? It's like "Take that! We could shuffle up for another game where we can all play, but I am going to be a dick and force you to watch me play an hour long game".
Again, I think you missed my point. Competitive players enjoy EDH for the same reason casual players do, they get to use cards that rarely get used.
YOU think it's better in multiplayer. This is an opinion, please don't confuse it for a fact.
Yet, as you pointed out, even with the variety of decks in legacy, there are tons of cards that never see play. In EDH, on the other hand, cards like zur and norin go from complete crap to amazing.
Which is unfortunate as legacy has one of the most diverse metas out of every format.
Rather than specifically being meta-gamed against, I find that the decks improve their synergies and strategies. I, and many other people, find this ebb and flow, of decks and strategies changing, fun.
Deckbuilding is part of the enjoyment. In this singleton format, I feel it's more difficult to netdeck, as you need to get a feel for the deck and card choices.
That's fine, I really am not expecting the stubborn to change. Over time, players will either adapt or find themselves in smaller and smaller playgroups. If you're not willing to change, don't be surprised if you get blown out the same time, week after week. You may resolve not to play that person again, but eventually you will have very few, if any, players to play with.
My H/W list
To be fair, most if not every EDH deck packs those 5 factors. The instant win is really the only one I can say I've not seen in every deck. Card advantage to a lesser extent.
Sharuum and Azami both tend to not only go off infinitely and win instantly, but both run enough draw and tutor to do so consistently, and their means of winning are very difficult to completely remove, and they're both in colors that pack tons of answers. So not really the best of examples. However I do agree wholeheartedly that Top Tier General does not equal Top Tier Deck. You can take the most power general in 1v1 EDH, and chose not to abuse it, just as easily as taking the most powerful general in MP EDH and chose not to abuse it. Or you can go the other way and take one of the least powerful generals, and find a way to make it one of the scariest things to see coming down on the board, just by building a very good deck to back it up.
Anyway, yeah in 1v1 EDH it's about winning fast or making your opponent not win fast. Which, honestly just reminds me of games won and lost on who had Force of Will in their opening hand. Not saying it's always the case but anyone who's seen or played vintage knows it happens. When you only have one person to worry about all you have to do is take him out fast to win. Stax can work, but generally doesn't just due to it taking to long to effectively take advantage of versus decks that are geared to end things fast. In multiplayer Stax is just plain annoying.
When you have 4 other people to contend with though, you can't always afford to go off as fast as possible. Especially if one of them happens to be packing an answer. Which with that many possible answers waiting on you it just makes sense to play a little slower. And even if you can go off and in on turn 3, it really isn't always the best thing to do. If you're playing to see challenging and strong decks, why win on turn 3 and never give any decks a chance but other early combo out into a win decks? You won't see anything interesting or unique just a few land drops and mana rocks. Now if it's hour 4 of a game that just won't end and you manage to pull off an infinite storm count Grapeshot despite everything going on, I don't see any fault in that. If you do it turn 5 and no one else has even really started playing then it becomes annoying. It's just not impressive or interesting after the first time to see a deck combo out that early especially not if it's doing it consistently. But it does win. And if you're playing competitively go for it, winning is all that matters in a competitive environment, just keep it out of my casual games.
See the problem with that theory is, not everyone insists on playing the kinds of decks that force that kind of play. It's rare that I come across people who don't have a more casually based deck as well as the competitive one, and it's even more rare that I find someone who refuses to swap to something more on pace if their competitive deck is unfun to other people playing. You say everyone should have to change how they have fun to meet with everyone else. I say people shouldn't be forced to build more and more expensive decks just to be able to have fun. Most of these top tier decks you insist everyone should adapt to, the only means of adapting is investing more and more money to do so. Every physical EDH deck I own I've invested a total of roughly $30 in new cards for. Everything else I already owned. I'm not dropping a paycheck just to beat someone's tuned and tweaked competitive deck they spent their paycheck to build. And yes, alot of people who build those top tier decks invested in buying most of the cards in it specifically for it. Not everyone of them or every card, but a disturbingly large majority.
And yes, EDH was originally designed with multiplayer in mind. As such it is better in a mutliplayer environment. Saying it isn't is like saying 2HG would be better if it was just 2 people each running 2 decks.
I'm also fine with competitive players playing EDH. Don't mistake my point. What I'm not ok with is the ones who insist that EDH needs to be competitive to be fun. The ones who think that the only way to have fun is to win. Those are the types of players I dislike.
[Citation Needed]
Name one deck that can consistently do that past disruption.
And not like "Well one time this guy", I mean consistently.
Because one time this guy killed an entire table of like 9 people with the general that lets everyone demonic tutor and Ad Nauseum, but that's only because no one saw it coming. It would literally never work a second time against the same group.
If tossing Forbid or Terror or Duress or whatever in your deck means you don't enjoy your deck anymore than you have far too narrow a view of Magic.
It's almost like saying you don't like combat tricks and someone playing Giant Growth is going to force you to do a form of interaction that will ruin your fun.