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.
I'm referring to people who actively try to do it consistently. Including the people who "mysteriously" always seem to have a god hand every game. But as for ones capable of going off, look at the "top tier" decks. Most of them can go off in under 10 minutes of play. Not every game but more than a few games. I'm not talking about the people who got a lucky god draw and combo'd out spectacularly early on I'm talking about the Hermit Druids and the Sharuums.
Also, I agree spot removal has a place in EDH, Terror not so much as much as I love that card it's just not that great, you're better off with Doom Blade or Go For The Throat than Terror. But more to the point is forcing people to build entirely different decks just to be able to play is what the problem is. You have a casual deck you built out of what you have, and then someone drops a tuned and competitive Zur deck down and when you say it doesn't seem fair their only response is "lolz build better noob" then you have a problem. That is a rather extreme case I will admit but the point remains valid.
Or an environment that essentially forces infinite combos be added to your deck just so you have a chance at being able to win. Winning isn't everything but losing every game to infinite combos and lockdowns isn't either, and when it gets to where you're only way to win is to go infinite first. Yeah, that's when things are bad.
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.
I'm referring to people who actively try to do it consistently. Including the people who "mysteriously" always seem to have a god hand every game. But as for ones capable of going off, look at the "top tier" decks. Most of them can go off in under 10 minutes of play. Not every game but more than a few games. I'm not talking about the people who got a lucky god draw and combo'd out spectacularly early on I'm talking about the Hermit Druids and the Sharuums.
I have never seen Hermit Druid being played, but I have seen lists and, imho, know enough from playing Manaless Ichorid in Vintage to say that those kinds of decks are as fast as that only if you strip out almost all your protection. It's basically equivalent to going all in the first time you get a queen high straight. You might have a decent chance of winning, but if anyone has the answer you are done.
All it takes is one person having a counter for the Druid, graveyard removal for the Ooze, creature kill to keep you under the three creatures needed for Dread Return, Orim's Chant, etc.
I don't think the nature of EDH is somehow going to be ruined by asking the other 3-5 people at the table to dedicate 4-8 slots each out of their 60-something for those cards if you have someone playing a deck like that in your playgroup. You will probably self-correct the problem by doing so because the person playing it will get tired of every game being a coin flip where he wins or loses on turn 5.
Or an environment that essentially forces infinite combos be added to your deck just so you have a chance at being able to win. Winning isn't everything but losing every game to infinite combos and lockdowns isn't either, and when it gets to where you're only way to win is to go infinite first. Yeah, that's when things are bad.
That's the nature of magic. Spells are better than creatures as a general rule.
I have never seen Hermit Druid being played, but I have seen lists and, imho, know enough from playing Manaless Ichorid in Vintage to say that those kinds of decks are as fast as that only if you strip out almost all your protection. It's basically equivalent to going all in the first time you get a queen high straight. You might have a decent chance of winning, but if anyone has the answer you are done.
All it takes is one person having a counter for the Druid, graveyard removal for the Ooze, creature kill to keep you under the three creatures needed for Dread Return, Orim's Chant, etc.
I don't think the nature of EDH is somehow going to be ruined by asking the other 3-5 people at the table to dedicate 4-8 slots each out of their 60-something for those cards if you have someone playing a deck like that in your playgroup. You will probably self-correct the problem by doing so because the person playing it will get tired of every game being a coin flip where he wins or loses on turn 5.
That's the nature of magic. Spells are better than creatures as a general rule.
Adding 4-8 cards to counter one deck doesn't seem like much, but take into consideration those 4-8 cards don't get drawn. Take into consideration that the only time they're useful is against that one deck. Might as well just use the sideboard rule and expand it from 10-20 just so you can have the answers you need in case you come against those decks.
Which isn't to say everyone should build terrible decks then make everyone else conform to them. It's a delicate balance. If your deck list is 99 Mountains and an Ashling, and I drop a Meddling Mage or Pithing Needle naming Ashling, you've got no room to complain. If you're running a mono green deck and it's turn 4 and you have 12 lands out, you can't reasonably complain when someone wake of destructions your forests. But on the same coin if it's turn 28 and half the board is in top deck mode, then someone plays a Decree of Annihilation, just because it's all they had in hand? Yeah that's different. It's the "Good" play and the "Competitive" play but it's also the "everyone else is doing better than me so screw them" play. Even more so if you just outright scoop a turn or two later. But that's a different conversation for a different thread.
As for the spells are better part, yeah they are. That's something wizards has been actively trying to change over the past few years as well. Saying someone has to build their deck to go infinite instead of doing what they want with their deck is kind of like saying here build this deck and you can play. Infinite combo is all well and good, but it gets incredibly boring incredibly fast to a lot of players, myself included, to play "Who goes infinite first". If I want that kind of game play I'll just play rock paper scissors and save myself the time.
Everyone is going to play however they want to play. Telling me I'm wrong for thinking that a turn 2 Winter Orb is foul play is just as wrong as me telling you that you're wrong for playing Winter Orb to begin with. Both sides are right, both sides are wrong.
Telling someone that they have a narrow view shows just how narrow your own view is. Telling someone they need to build better because they don't run infinite combos is essentially insulting them. And telling someone they need to just not play at all because they aren't any good is about the worst thing you can do in any situation, yet every time I go to a FNM or a Prerelease or any sanctioned event I see or hear of that kind of thing happening. Yes it's usually a new person who's never played, or even someone who hasn't played in years. And next time around they're no where to be seen, or worse they just give up on creativity and copy whatever deck wins the most.
The only real solution is to just agree to disagree and have casuals play casually and competitives play competitively otherwise the "Casual vs Competitive" debate doesn't end. Which is to say, neither side will give, because both are to stubborn to do so.
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.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with beanman on part of his argument. As more and more people join the EDH crowd, we can expect it to become more "competitive." Tantarus already explained it well in that these newcomers are coming from tuned, consistent environments. In legacy and vintage, you combo off turn 5 or before, or so I've heard. In standard you run the best deck or one of the top tiers and you learn how to pilot it. Even in casual 60 count you run up to four copies of a card to allow for greater consistency. So it's only logical that players that migrate from various formats to EDH, or even just dip their toes in every now and again would bring the same mindset they use for their other games of Magic. Why shouldn't they; it's not like their playing a different game.
What irks me, and has since I joined the format, is that in a singleton format, you'd expect much less consistency. So I can understand that more people migrating into EDH means more people running tons of tutors to get the cards they want any time they want, but I'll throw in my hat and say I think it's unfortunate.
As for whether or not EDH was designed to be a multiplayer format, EDH was designed to be a lot things, to many of which it can no longer hold claim. EDH is a player's format more than anything nowadays, and if there are more and more players that play the format "competitively," that's what it will become. We can seek refuge in our playgroups that love the "casual" plays and the long games with twists and turns, but we shouldn't expect anything more really. Bummer :/
Another question: at what point do you assume a deck is competitive in a game? I've recently had a bit of fun, pulling out my Niv-Mizzet deck to hear them groan, and then I did what I do with it and they laughed and we had a good time, and then I pulled out Ruhan and wrecked the board. I don't really consider either of the decks more competitive, but I know they were certainly unhappy after that second game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
Adding 4-8 cards to counter one deck doesn't seem like much, but take into consideration those 4-8 cards don't get drawn.
I won't bother doing the exact odds but 4-8 cards over 3+ players should mean someone has it more often than not.
Take into consideration that the only time they're useful is against that one deck.
Except they aren't. Counterspells are always good. Graveyard hate is always going to be relevant in EDH, even if it's just one guy with Buried Ruin or something. And so forth. Anything that stops Hermit Druid (or whatever) is also going to be good against any number of other decks that use the same zones/methods/etc.
As for the spells are better part, yeah they are. That's something wizards has been actively trying to change over the past few years as well. Saying someone has to build their deck to go infinite instead of doing what they want with their deck is kind of like saying here build this deck and you can play. Infinite combo is all well and good, but it gets incredibly boring incredibly fast to a lot of players, myself included, to play "Who goes infinite first". If I want that kind of game play I'll just play rock paper scissors and save myself the time.
All games of Magic come down to "Who wins the game first". Infinite loops are one way to win the game. But they are not even the best way a lot of the time. Resolving an Eldrazi and then cycling Decree of Annihilation also wins the game.
Only the jankiest of hellbent combo actually comes down to a coin flip. Again, the formats heavy on control and combo are also the most interactive ones.
As a final note, the fundamental structure of Magic is that you have a collection of legal cards, and the goal is to build the best deck from those cards. You can limit that list, and it is often a good idea to do so, but that will never get rid of people playing good decks.
I won't bother doing the exact odds but 4-8 cards over 3+ players should mean someone has it more often than not.
Except they aren't. Counterspells are always good. Graveyard hate is always going to be relevant in EDH, even if it's just one guy with Buried Ruin or something. And so forth. Anything that stops Hermit Druid (or whatever) is also going to be good against any number of other decks that use the same zones/methods/etc.
All games of Magic come down to "Who wins the game first". Infinite loops are one way to win the game. But they are not even the best way a lot of the time. Resolving an Eldrazi and then cycling Decree of Annihilation also wins the game.
Only the jankiest of hellbent combo actually comes down to a coin flip. Again, the formats heavy on control and combo are also the most interactive ones.
As a final note, the fundamental structure of Magic is that you have a collection of legal cards, and the goal is to build the best deck from those cards. You can limit that list, and it is often a good idea to do so, but that will never get rid of people playing good decks.
You basically ignored my entire point. Not everyone wants to dedicate half their deck to stopping over powered decks. Some people want to build their own deck. The sad part is it takes more than 4-8 answers in every deck to reliably stop things like that. Otherwise it wouldn't be an issue as most decks do run 4-8 answers for that kind comboing. By your logic though everyone should just run 40 lands and 59 counterspells and a general if there's a deck being played that's to powerful. The average player shouldn't be forced to rebuild a good chunk of their deck just because someone else doesn't want to try something different. Which when broken down all top tier deck lists are roughly the same with only a very few cards not in common.
Heavy on control and combo "can" be the most interactive. They are not always. When your control is lock the board down so no one can play but you, it isn't interactive. When your combo is take 150 turns then win, it isnt interactive. When your deck is turn 3 GG next game? It isn't interactive.
And on your final note, only people with money can build good decks is all you said. That's what it boils down to. You can refute that claim but it'll take a very good argument to convince me otherwise as to your meaning. I for one see no reason that I should have to spend what little extra money I'm able to get just so I can buy the legacy staples that make up the "good" edh decks. Nor do I see why I should have to build my decks to cater to the "top tier" decks when EDH is supposed to be a format about creatively using the vast card pool. If you want to play competitive then do so at tournaments, and leave your competitive deck in the box when you sit down for a casual game. Good does not = competitive, bad does not = casual. That mindset is one of the things that makes casual formats unfun. The assumption that if a deck isn't fully optimized with the best of every possible card option then it must be a terrible deck is just plain wrong.
If you feel the only way to have fun is to build the kinds of decks people complain about maybe you should ask yourself why you enjoy that kind of deck. If your first thought is "because it wins" then you are most likely a competitively minded player and are better suited to playing with other competitively minded players. If your thought is more along the lines of "Because I want to try to do something different with it" then you're more likely a casually minded player.
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.
I think you may have gone a bit overboard analyzing his final note. He said that the basics of Magic include a player that has a collection of cards that are considered legal in a given format. Said player builds the best deck he or she can using what cards are available. There's some subjective nature in using the word "best," but otherwise, I'm pretty sure his statement stands. If you have a Squire and an Errant Knight and you can only run one, you'll probably run the latter because it has two power for the same price as Squire. The argument can be extended to a monetary issue, but I don't think that's what he wrote or intended. As far as money is concerned though, no one is forcing anyone to pay any amount of money to compete. I don't complain when someone doesn't play with Ravnica duals because they can't afford them, but I also don't complain when someone plays with Revised duals, even though they're way outside my budget. The amount you spend on a deck is a personal thing and judging someone for using expensive cards is just as bad as judging someone for using cheap cards. I'll refer again to his statement, we use what we have, and we try to make the best of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
I think you may have gone a bit overboard analyzing his final note. He said that the basics of Magic include a player that has a collection of cards that are considered legal in a given format. Said player builds the best deck he or she can using what cards are available. There's some subjective nature in using the word "best," but otherwise, I'm pretty sure his statement stands. If you have a Squire and an Errant Knight and you can only run one, you'll probably run the latter because it has two power for the same price as Squire. The argument can be extended to a monetary issue, but I don't think that's what he wrote or intended. As far as money is concerned though, no one is forcing anyone to pay any amount of money to compete. I don't complain when someone doesn't play with Ravnica duals because they can't afford them, but I also don't complain when someone plays with Revised duals, even though they're way outside my budget. The amount you spend on a deck is a personal thing and judging someone for using expensive cards is just as bad as judging someone for using cheap cards. I'll refer again to his statement, we use what we have, and we try to make the best of it.
If he meant a personal collection, and not the over all card pool as was implied then I retract the comment. But I was more really referring to the fact that the "best cards" have a tendency to become the most expensive cards fairly quickly.
Anyway he doesn't actually refer to a personal card pool. At all. Specifically the statements "of legal cards" implying all legal cards in a given format, and "limit that list" which implies a banned list. Both statements imply referring to the over all card pool more so than the personal card pool.
I do agree judging based solely on the value of a card is bad. However I can't say judging a card based on how it's used is bad. Sensei's Divining Top is a very popular card in EDH. It's used heavily to do exactly what it's printed to do. It's also used to go off and infinitely combo out to play your entire deck in one turn. It's also a very over priced card because in large part of how good it is. And you can debate and argue about the term over priced all day it's not on topic here and doesn't change it's price tag so it doesn't really matter. Point is it and other cards that shouldn't really be that expensive are because of EDH. This isn't really a bad thing, but when something becomes a staple card others look down on decks that don't run them. Returning to the original point though, not every deck builder wants to be forced to include every card in their deck. The sheer number of different possible decks out there for EDH should lead to a format with nearly endless possibilities, not a list a top tier decks that are the only things worth playing. Which in a casual environment that doesn't happen nearly as often as it does when competitive play is introduced. It does still happen on occasion but with nothing on the line it's not as common.
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.
I agree with you, a homogenized environment is the first step to a dull format, but I don't think it's quite as bad as you make it seem. As far as I'm concerned, Maze of Ith, Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, and Divining Top are really the worst culprits, but we can't deny that these cards were printed. If you really want to see what deckbuilders can do, try to put a soft ban in place. I don't think you should, but it's an interesting experiment nonetheless.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
I agree with you, a homogenized environment is the first step to a dull format, but I don't think it's quite as bad as you make it seem. As far as I'm concerned, Maze of Ith, Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, and Divining Top are really the worst culprits, but we can't deny that these cards were printed. If you really want to see what deckbuilders can do, try to put a soft ban in place. I don't think you should, but it's an interesting experiment nonetheless.
The thing is even with a soft ban on those it's only good for your group. Which brings me back around to my original statement of everyone should just play with people in their same mindset and the entire argument of casual vs competitive doesn't happen to begin with.
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 thing is even with a soft ban on those it's only good for your group. Which brings me back around to my original statement of everyone should just play with people in their same mindset and the entire argument of casual vs competitive doesn't happen to begin with.
But then how can you show those scrub casuals that they are bad at magic and need to learn to play?
But then how can you show those scrub casuals that they are bad at magic and need to learn to play?
By giving them your full playset of Alpha Dual lands obviously.
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.
Im wondering why people who are invested in EDH, ie, play on a regular basis, have access to a wide spectrum of edh players, don't just make different types of deck to diversify their experience.
I understand that some people don't have alot of free time, Im in that situation myself since I work 5 days a week paying for college. But on any given week, I do have 4-6 solid hours of edh time, and ive decided to build a 1v1 competitive deck (jhoira), a multiplayer competitive deck (animar) and 2 casual competitive decks (kaervek and Ulasht). Usually I'd bring out different decks in different play group; there are play groups that i'm only comfortable playing kaervek or ulasht in and there are others that I can't play anything but jhoira or animar, but there is a core group of 5-6 players that I play with that'll rotate through their whole pantheon of edh decks, playing through all the archetypes under the color wheel. I've really grown to like that experience. Competitive games are stressful, but highly engaging and challenging mentally. Stack interaction with multiple blue players at the table who are driven by their own politics and threat assessment is great experience. After a competitive game, we'd throw down our casual decks and just revel in the pure carnage of bashing each other's face in. We often talk about the edh experience within a game. What about the experience of the entire night when you add up all the games you've played?
It just seems to me that EDH players can benefit more from diversifying our palette.
I'm sure it's been said before (I did not read all 5 pages yet), but when you can't play your creatures because of massive ld or a general like memnarch is being used-that's when I consider it to be competitive. I don't have any competitive decks that wreck face because I like to see a battle and I want it to be a good one. I don't like winning with a 2/2 bear simply because they couldn't get a creature out or anything like that. EDH/Commander was made for intense battles and that's why I play.
But to be honest, anything that takes the entire fun out of the game just doesnt seem to be right. And by that, I pretty much mean them stealing EVERY SINGLE CREATURE, massive land destruction, or countering everything. I'm completely okay with some creature theft, some ld, and some counters. It is apart of magic and I respect that. But those strategies just make the game not fun to play and it's like watching one person play with themselves for upwards to 3 hours (yeah, that happened once. I stopped paying attention to the game and watched a movie/texted. But I was still sitting in the chair waiting for him to find a way to kill us.)
Remember this is only one perspective, and not universal. Johnny's goal is to build the most creative deck, whereas Timmy's goal is to build the most 'fun' deck.
So indeed cannon, I say it doesn't stand =p
I think if you reread my post on this, it stands pretty well. Johnny is going to build the best deck he can with the combo he wants, and Timmy isn't going to use that Squire instead of the Errant Knight. You're right so far as the words "best deck" become subjective when applied to different players, but I've yet to find a play who picks up two cards they own, and chooses the worse of the two, solely because its functionally inferior and not for some better reason. Hell, even Vorthos have a flavor they have to find right?
I suppose you are technically correct; I haven't met every Magic player so there's a high chance that there's someone out there who owns Squires and Errant Knights but runs Squires just because its worse. Not because the deck is based around with creatures with 1 power and 2 toughness. Not because the deck is based around some subservient theme that he cooked up. No, he runs Squires just because he found Errant Knight and said, "why pay 2 for a 2/2, when I can have a 1/2?" So yeah, again, I haven't met everyone, so there's probably a person out there who does this.
Another way you could look at this is say the person does own the "better card," but doesn't run it, for no explanation. When inquired on the subject, the player admits that he just didn't think about it when building the deck. This example falls into an unmentioned implication of the original quote. I can imagine that originally, the "best deck" assumed that we had the tools necessary to be a good deckbuilder, the knowhow to properly judge a card's worth in a deck, etc. Again, this is not true of every Magic player, but I believe the statement still stands in that even those without those skills aren't trying to be bad deckbuilders, they just are learning, and they've done the best with what they've got so far.
Maybe you've got the opposite case, where you've got an extremely seasoned player who has built hundreds of decks. One day, this player decides to build a garbage deck, highlander, with too many lands, and creatures with fatal flaws, etc. He or she builds the deck and just as he/she imagines, its awful, and wins maybe one game out of one hundred. Did this player build the "best deck" with the legal cards available? Technically no, but the player built the "best deck" to suit his or her needs. So I think even in this case, the original point stands.
We're playing a game, by rules that dictate a certain path that we should follow. We play creatures or spells, and we try to reduce our opponent's life to 0, or his deck to zero cards, etc. We don't have to build our decks to do so, and we don't have to pilot our decks to win, but when player X sits there playing lands or nothing for 10 turns whilst player Y whittles him away with a Thrumming Bird, one might call to question why player X was playing at all if he wasn't planning to try.
Generally though, we do try. "Fate" isn't always with us; sometimes we get bad hands, but we're trying our best, and I think that applies casually or otherwise. Whether or not your play is optimal, you've made the best play for what you want to do, even if it's to have notion of "fun" that someone else will never understand.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
Nope, although I prefer deck that are build suboptimally (see previous point), but then played optimally. Like Limited, this gives both a wide range of playable cards but still a skill-intensive game =)
That's fine, but for me, you then can't complain about people running the optimal cards and making the optimal play. When you play against someone else, they're not going to know you have Knight Errant, but chose to play Squire to challenge yourself, they're just going to think it's a little odd that you'd run Squire when Knight Errant is so clearly better.
Bottom line, if you choose to run worse cards to "challenge yourself" or whatever, that's fine; it's your choice and I can't force you otherwise. In my mind, we have a format for that, as you said its called Limited. EDH is a playground of all sorts of cards, choosing the worst version of an ability seems a little strange to me. Again, that's just my opinion.
This reminds me, I might have to change where I keep my Doubling Seasons, because I've always wanted to use it with Gilder Bairn and I can't when it's stuck in Kresh or Ghave :/... First world problem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
I've played EDH for a number of years. Over those years I have learned much about the format. I am a competitive person by nature, however, I have always been the type to try to do things my own way instead of follow the beaten path. What I am getting at is that it is possible to build a deck that is both casual and competitive AND fun and annoying. I find it a huge challenge to build a deck that doesn't play extra turns, infinites or mass land D and still win. That's why I do it. To be able to answer any deck and win. At the same time, at the end of the game, people still want to play with me because I follow the "code" of fun EDH playing. I am new to the forums and haven't quite figured out how to post a deck list, but when I do, I will post a few decks I have made that impress most.
I am a competitive person by nature, however, I have always been the type to try to do things my own way instead of follow the beaten path. What I am getting at is that it is possible to build a deck that is both casual and competitive AND fun and annoying.
I think we could get along quite well.
---------
A bit that i think distinguishes casual and competitive decks the most is the mana curve of a deck. (particularly in the 1v1 scene)
While this is not always true, it does have a good impact on how the game progresses. 1v1 decks i build tend to stay around the 2.25-2.5 curve range, while my more casual decks hover around 3, with the occasional 4dot. This means the 1v1 deck can do more with less, progressing it's gameplan faster.
At first, this was influenced by teeg quite a bit. He was nasty and locked down a lot of threats. Now, though, 95% of my deck is naturally teeg resistant. Teeg shuts down bombs, but not much else.
While playing yesterday against some junk decks, i noticed that they have a lot of bombs, and not a lot of cheap answers and disruption. My deck, on the other hand - was pretty much all disruption and answers, with a few potent threats.
So, i think a solid distriguishing factor between a casual and a competitive deck is really the mana curve.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tantarus: It didn't make the gaka greifer level, so it should be fine
The sad part is it takes more than 4-8 answers in every deck to reliably stop things like that.
Fine, you made me look it up.
Assuming 8 answers in a deck, and getting to see 8 cards (a conservative estimate since nothing really goes off turn 2 consistently), you will have the answer 38% of the time. That means that with only four players, the other three will have an answer almost all the time.
When your control is lock the board down so no one can play but you, it isn't interactive. When your combo is take 150 turns then win, it isnt interactive.
Again, this shows a failure to understand that the interaction occurred and allowed someone to achieve that game state.
And on your final note, only people with money can build good decks is all you said. That's what it boils down to. You can refute that claim but it'll take a very good argument to convince me otherwise as to your meaning. I for one see no reason that I should have to spend what little extra money I'm able to get just so I can buy the legacy staples that make up the "good" edh decks.
If you play Magic, you will be beaten by people simply because they have more money than you. That is how the game is designed. The only solutions are:
1) Proxies
2) Pauper (whether banning all cards over a certain cost or just a limit on total deck cost)
Attempting to play "casual" is not one of them.
Good does not = competitive, bad does not = casual. That mindset is one of the things that makes casual formats unfun. The assumption that if a deck isn't fully optimized with the best of every possible card option then it must be a terrible deck is just plain wrong.
Casual apparently just means "not having things I don't like!".
The important point then, is looking at what those 4-8 cards mean for the goal. For a Spike, they advance it, as the deck is better with them, so it's closer to 'the best deck'. For a Johnny or Timmy, they might detract from his goal. It's a direction they do not want to take.
Timmy's goal is to play big creatures, or whatever. These cards will enable him to do that without losing first. So obviously, they will advance his goal.
Johnny wants to actually play out whatever combos the deck is built around. Again, playing cards that prevent the game from ending before you get to do your thing clearly support your goal.
Being so single minded that you fail to support your game plan beyond the most linear and non-interactive of methods is not a player type, except maybe "bad".
Many casuals are not interested in that kind of game, so they won't build their decks like that. Their games of Magic do not come down to it.
So how do you decide when the game is over? Do you just all go home after a while?
Magic is a game. The rules define when someone wins the game.
Assuming 8 answers in a deck, and getting to see 8 cards (a conservative estimate since nothing really goes off turn 2 consistently), you will have the answer 38% of the time. That means that with only four players, the other three will have an answer almost all the time.
Again, this shows a failure to understand that the interaction occurred and allowed someone to achieve that game state.
If you play Magic, you will be beaten by people simply because they have more money than you. That is how the game is designed. The only solutions are:
1) Proxies
2) Pauper (whether banning all cards over a certain cost or just a limit on total deck cost)
Attempting to play "casual" is not one of them.
Casual apparently just means "not having things I don't like!".
Timmy's goal is to play big creatures, or whatever. These cards will enable him to do that without losing first. So obviously, they will advance his goal.
Johnny wants to actually play out whatever combos the deck is built around. Again, playing cards that prevent the game from ending before you get to do your thing clearly support your goal.
Being so single minded that you fail to support your game plan beyond the most linear and non-interactive of methods is not a player type, except maybe "bad".
So how do you decide when the game is over? Do you just all go home after a while?
Magic is a game. The rules define when someone wins the game.
38% is not "almost all the time" even split 4 ways. I also didn't "make" you do anything. Your own competitive nature forced you to go out of your way to "prove some guy on a forum I'm never gonna meet wrong". And you failed in doing so.
The combo itself prevents interaction is the point you're missing.
Or chose to not play against people who's only means of playing is throwing money around.
I'm not sure you even read what I wrote so not much to comment on here.
Again you're forcing a competitive mindset onto all players.
And finally, it's not all about the end result to everyone some people care about the trip getting there. If you don't like that get over it.
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.
Most recently I build a Rosheen deck as a Dragon themed idea. I wanted to have fun with yet another deck, but make it competitve at the same time. I have 24 dragons in it and only decimate/hull breach as "answers". It's pretty much ramp to dragons and rosheen some X burn spells. (I run 9 X burn spells) Initially, it was more a joke of a deck, but I found it to perform VERY well in both 1v1 and multiplayer format. I bring this up because the deck is nearly only beats and still wins. If you hit hard and fast enough, you dont need answers...
I am a competitive person by nature, however, I have always been the type to try to do things my own way instead of follow the beaten path. What I am getting at is that it is possible to build a deck that is both casual and competitive AND fun and annoying.
I think we could get along quite well.
+1 for me, though I add "that's within budget" to the end of the sentence.
38% is not "almost all the time" even split 4 ways.
Actually let me do this properly:
The odds of one person not having an answer with 8 cards drawn and 8 answers in their deck is 50%. Assuming three other players, that makes the odds of no one having an answer .5*.5*.5 or approximately 13%.
So yeah, almost all the time. Add another player and it drops to 6%.
The combo itself prevents interaction is the point you're missing.
Swinging at you for more than your life total prevents interaction because you're dead.
Or chose to not play against people who's only means of playing is throwing money around.
What does this even mean.
The Timmy player with Primeval Titan is going to win games against the Timmy player who can't afford Titans for that reason alone.
The Johnny player who can afford Big Jace is going to win games against the Johnny player who can't for that reason alone.
This doesn't even have anything to do with "Casual" and "Competitive". It's just a fact of Magic that good cards are expensive.
Certainly true to a certain extend; I'm sure some Timmies have tried out the all-fatties CMC6+ deck, but found out it didn't work. They will have to include answers and interactivity indeed.
However, let's say we make a scale between all-fatties and tuned. The point on that scale needed to compete with other competitive decks is too much on the right side for Timmies. In order for their deck to be 'good', nothing of the original vision will be left.
It's all about relative power. In a a playgroup full of Timmies, their decks will be evenly matched and they can all have their fun.
No they won't. Someone will have better creatures, probably, and basically anyone who packs even a couple of removal spells will start dominating. It's a naturally unstable equilibrium because it depends on willful ignorance. All it takes is TimmyA to lose one too many games and decide to start packing Dark Banishing to plunge the whole group into the inevitable race to the best deck.
People will play good cards. People will play the best legal cards. Trying to resist this is straight up old man yelling at clouds.
The odds of one person not having an answer with 8 cards drawn and 8 answers in their deck is 50%. Assuming three other players, that makes the odds of no one having an answer .5*.5*.5 or approximately 13%.
So yeah, almost all the time. Add another player and it drops to 6%.
Swinging at you for more than your life total prevents interaction because you're dead.
What does this even mean.
The Timmy player with Primeval Titan is going to win games against the Timmy player who can't afford Titans for that reason alone.
The Johnny player who can afford Big Jace is going to win games against the Johnny player who can't for that reason alone.
This doesn't even have anything to do with "Casual" and "Competitive". It's just a fact of Magic that good cards are expensive.
No they won't. Someone will have better creatures, probably, and basically anyone who packs even a couple of removal spells will start dominating. It's a naturally unstable equilibrium because it depends on willful ignorance. All it takes is TimmyA to lose one too many games and decide to start packing Dark Banishing to plunge the whole group into the inevitable race to the best deck.
People will play good cards. People will play the best legal cards. Trying to resist this is straight up old man yelling at clouds.
Factor percentages all you want it still will not equal out to your numbers due to human involvement. Everyone cuts and shuffles differently, which drastically alters any fixed numbers. 13% in a perfect environment with no variables is all well and good but it doesn't factor out that way every game.
Infinite turn combo is uninteractive. Especially if you screw up and can't win off of it which happens. Sitting there and watching someone take a 40 minute turn is not interesting play. You may enjoy it most people don't. It's a valid way of winning a game, so is giving your opponent $20 to scoop.
Again you ignore what's said and put forth the same tired "i has moneyz so i winz" (that was painful to type) argument that frankly is one of the worst aspects of magic and on top of that you glorify it as if it should be respected.
And again you assume everyone is/should have your mindset and play how you think is best which is not the case. And you even go so far as to insist that no group can ever possibly just build how they want and have fun they have to arms race to the fastest they possibly can go off and win, which in some groups certainly is the case, in a large number of them it isn't.
I personally can attest to the "I have money so I win" schtick not always being true. In fact I take great enjoyment in absolutely wrecking people with that mindset using cheap cards. For example the recent Caw-Blade deck. Seeing that it was the biggest most expensive (short of JTMS dedicated decks and even alot of Cawblades were running him) most played deck I set a goal of $40 or less to completely wreck it consistently and did so with a Black/Red deck that kept it's opponent's creatures useless and won primarily through infect. The most satisfying moment in that decks life was when a dedicated cawblade player outright flipped me off for daring to not run what he was prepared to deal with. Why? Because he spent 90% of the game bragging about how all the cards in his deck cost so much money and how as soon as he drew his foil JTMS I'd just be better of scooping and how my "janky little garbage deck" couldn't win. It won 2-0 in under 15 minutes. I "Got so lucky to top deck all those kill spells" and if I "was running a real deck I'd never have won".
But that's just standard. EDH is a completely different kind environment and a completely different way of deck building so It's not particularly relevant to the current conversation. That said, yes money cards tend to win, that's why they're money cards. They also tend to be boring, over saturate the game, and worst of all just plain uninteresting to see. A fairly large chunk of the player base doesn't play to see the same thing over and over, and there's no reason to. In general casual players are the ones willing to try different things and see if it's any good. Competitive players are more likely to just jump on the tried and true and play strictly for the win. That is of course a generalization and not true for 100% of either side, but it is for larger portions of the respective sides. If Player A is in it to experience something new or different he's more likely to run "jank" and "bad" cards to see for himself if they can have interesting things to do. If Player B on the other hand is only sitting down so he can win a game and move on to the next one he's more likely to sit down Hermit Druid.dec or Sharuum. They both have their own merits and neither is truly wrong or right. They both play to their own style and shouldn't be forced to play to someone else's style just because the other said so.
That said, it can't always be like that. Some people will always insist people who prefer different styles of play are wrong and should conform because they said so. Hence my comment of everyone should find their own group of like minded players and play with them. You have a FAR better time overall, you get to have the types of games you want consistently, and the best part, you don't have to listen to one side or the other complain endlessly that the other side is doing it wrong. Me personally I prefer casual play. There are some competitive players in my meta, most of them have casual decks. I'll play against either because I know my meta primarily does casual games, and saves the competitive decks for when someone at the table is being a douche. It happens sometimes, other times it doesn't. The games go on. That said even the competitive decks can be played casually and everyone in my meta is capable of doing either. I managed to find a group who can be either as the occasion calls for and hope more people can find the same. If they can't then I hope at least they can find like minded enough groups to have enjoyable game nights with.
Take that for what you will, attempt to deconstruct it and say my every word is blasphemy if you like, it won't change that I feel the best way of playing EDH is the way you enjoy. Whether it be casual, competitive, a mixture of the two, 98 Forests 1 Craw Wurm and 1 Baru, Fist of Krosa, or even Norin the Wary. If your local play group doesn't like it talk to them and find out why, and if there's a way for everyone to get along and have fun. If there isn't look for a new group to play EDH with. Don't try to force your play style on others and in return don't have others play style forced on you. There is more often than not a compromise that can be reached. And if not EDH as a format is growing faster than ever thanks to the new Commander decks, it won't be to hard to find more players, or even introduce new ones that do fit how you enjoy playing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Through me the way to the suffering city; Through me the everlasting pain; Through me the way that runs among the Lost. Justice urged on my exalted Creator: Divine Power made me, The Supreme Wisdom and the Primal Love. Nothing was made before me but eternal things And I endure eternally. Abandon all hope - You Who Enter Here.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm referring to people who actively try to do it consistently. Including the people who "mysteriously" always seem to have a god hand every game. But as for ones capable of going off, look at the "top tier" decks. Most of them can go off in under 10 minutes of play. Not every game but more than a few games. I'm not talking about the people who got a lucky god draw and combo'd out spectacularly early on I'm talking about the Hermit Druids and the Sharuums.
Also, I agree spot removal has a place in EDH, Terror not so much as much as I love that card it's just not that great, you're better off with Doom Blade or Go For The Throat than Terror. But more to the point is forcing people to build entirely different decks just to be able to play is what the problem is. You have a casual deck you built out of what you have, and then someone drops a tuned and competitive Zur deck down and when you say it doesn't seem fair their only response is "lolz build better noob" then you have a problem. That is a rather extreme case I will admit but the point remains valid.
Or an environment that essentially forces infinite combos be added to your deck just so you have a chance at being able to win. Winning isn't everything but losing every game to infinite combos and lockdowns isn't either, and when it gets to where you're only way to win is to go infinite first. Yeah, that's when things are bad.
I have never seen Hermit Druid being played, but I have seen lists and, imho, know enough from playing Manaless Ichorid in Vintage to say that those kinds of decks are as fast as that only if you strip out almost all your protection. It's basically equivalent to going all in the first time you get a queen high straight. You might have a decent chance of winning, but if anyone has the answer you are done.
All it takes is one person having a counter for the Druid, graveyard removal for the Ooze, creature kill to keep you under the three creatures needed for Dread Return, Orim's Chant, etc.
I don't think the nature of EDH is somehow going to be ruined by asking the other 3-5 people at the table to dedicate 4-8 slots each out of their 60-something for those cards if you have someone playing a deck like that in your playgroup. You will probably self-correct the problem by doing so because the person playing it will get tired of every game being a coin flip where he wins or loses on turn 5.
That's the nature of magic. Spells are better than creatures as a general rule.
Adding 4-8 cards to counter one deck doesn't seem like much, but take into consideration those 4-8 cards don't get drawn. Take into consideration that the only time they're useful is against that one deck. Might as well just use the sideboard rule and expand it from 10-20 just so you can have the answers you need in case you come against those decks.
Which isn't to say everyone should build terrible decks then make everyone else conform to them. It's a delicate balance. If your deck list is 99 Mountains and an Ashling, and I drop a Meddling Mage or Pithing Needle naming Ashling, you've got no room to complain. If you're running a mono green deck and it's turn 4 and you have 12 lands out, you can't reasonably complain when someone wake of destructions your forests. But on the same coin if it's turn 28 and half the board is in top deck mode, then someone plays a Decree of Annihilation, just because it's all they had in hand? Yeah that's different. It's the "Good" play and the "Competitive" play but it's also the "everyone else is doing better than me so screw them" play. Even more so if you just outright scoop a turn or two later. But that's a different conversation for a different thread.
As for the spells are better part, yeah they are. That's something wizards has been actively trying to change over the past few years as well. Saying someone has to build their deck to go infinite instead of doing what they want with their deck is kind of like saying here build this deck and you can play. Infinite combo is all well and good, but it gets incredibly boring incredibly fast to a lot of players, myself included, to play "Who goes infinite first". If I want that kind of game play I'll just play rock paper scissors and save myself the time.
Everyone is going to play however they want to play. Telling me I'm wrong for thinking that a turn 2 Winter Orb is foul play is just as wrong as me telling you that you're wrong for playing Winter Orb to begin with. Both sides are right, both sides are wrong.
Telling someone that they have a narrow view shows just how narrow your own view is. Telling someone they need to build better because they don't run infinite combos is essentially insulting them. And telling someone they need to just not play at all because they aren't any good is about the worst thing you can do in any situation, yet every time I go to a FNM or a Prerelease or any sanctioned event I see or hear of that kind of thing happening. Yes it's usually a new person who's never played, or even someone who hasn't played in years. And next time around they're no where to be seen, or worse they just give up on creativity and copy whatever deck wins the most.
The only real solution is to just agree to disagree and have casuals play casually and competitives play competitively otherwise the "Casual vs Competitive" debate doesn't end. Which is to say, neither side will give, because both are to stubborn to do so.
What irks me, and has since I joined the format, is that in a singleton format, you'd expect much less consistency. So I can understand that more people migrating into EDH means more people running tons of tutors to get the cards they want any time they want, but I'll throw in my hat and say I think it's unfortunate.
As for whether or not EDH was designed to be a multiplayer format, EDH was designed to be a lot things, to many of which it can no longer hold claim. EDH is a player's format more than anything nowadays, and if there are more and more players that play the format "competitively," that's what it will become. We can seek refuge in our playgroups that love the "casual" plays and the long games with twists and turns, but we shouldn't expect anything more really. Bummer :/
Another question: at what point do you assume a deck is competitive in a game? I've recently had a bit of fun, pulling out my Niv-Mizzet deck to hear them groan, and then I did what I do with it and they laughed and we had a good time, and then I pulled out Ruhan and wrecked the board. I don't really consider either of the decks more competitive, but I know they were certainly unhappy after that second game.
I won't bother doing the exact odds but 4-8 cards over 3+ players should mean someone has it more often than not.
Except they aren't. Counterspells are always good. Graveyard hate is always going to be relevant in EDH, even if it's just one guy with Buried Ruin or something. And so forth. Anything that stops Hermit Druid (or whatever) is also going to be good against any number of other decks that use the same zones/methods/etc.
All games of Magic come down to "Who wins the game first". Infinite loops are one way to win the game. But they are not even the best way a lot of the time. Resolving an Eldrazi and then cycling Decree of Annihilation also wins the game.
Only the jankiest of hellbent combo actually comes down to a coin flip. Again, the formats heavy on control and combo are also the most interactive ones.
As a final note, the fundamental structure of Magic is that you have a collection of legal cards, and the goal is to build the best deck from those cards. You can limit that list, and it is often a good idea to do so, but that will never get rid of people playing good decks.
You basically ignored my entire point. Not everyone wants to dedicate half their deck to stopping over powered decks. Some people want to build their own deck. The sad part is it takes more than 4-8 answers in every deck to reliably stop things like that. Otherwise it wouldn't be an issue as most decks do run 4-8 answers for that kind comboing. By your logic though everyone should just run 40 lands and 59 counterspells and a general if there's a deck being played that's to powerful. The average player shouldn't be forced to rebuild a good chunk of their deck just because someone else doesn't want to try something different. Which when broken down all top tier deck lists are roughly the same with only a very few cards not in common.
Heavy on control and combo "can" be the most interactive. They are not always. When your control is lock the board down so no one can play but you, it isn't interactive. When your combo is take 150 turns then win, it isnt interactive. When your deck is turn 3 GG next game? It isn't interactive.
And on your final note, only people with money can build good decks is all you said. That's what it boils down to. You can refute that claim but it'll take a very good argument to convince me otherwise as to your meaning. I for one see no reason that I should have to spend what little extra money I'm able to get just so I can buy the legacy staples that make up the "good" edh decks. Nor do I see why I should have to build my decks to cater to the "top tier" decks when EDH is supposed to be a format about creatively using the vast card pool. If you want to play competitive then do so at tournaments, and leave your competitive deck in the box when you sit down for a casual game. Good does not = competitive, bad does not = casual. That mindset is one of the things that makes casual formats unfun. The assumption that if a deck isn't fully optimized with the best of every possible card option then it must be a terrible deck is just plain wrong.
If you feel the only way to have fun is to build the kinds of decks people complain about maybe you should ask yourself why you enjoy that kind of deck. If your first thought is "because it wins" then you are most likely a competitively minded player and are better suited to playing with other competitively minded players. If your thought is more along the lines of "Because I want to try to do something different with it" then you're more likely a casually minded player.
If he meant a personal collection, and not the over all card pool as was implied then I retract the comment. But I was more really referring to the fact that the "best cards" have a tendency to become the most expensive cards fairly quickly.
Anyway he doesn't actually refer to a personal card pool. At all. Specifically the statements "of legal cards" implying all legal cards in a given format, and "limit that list" which implies a banned list. Both statements imply referring to the over all card pool more so than the personal card pool.
I do agree judging based solely on the value of a card is bad. However I can't say judging a card based on how it's used is bad. Sensei's Divining Top is a very popular card in EDH. It's used heavily to do exactly what it's printed to do. It's also used to go off and infinitely combo out to play your entire deck in one turn. It's also a very over priced card because in large part of how good it is. And you can debate and argue about the term over priced all day it's not on topic here and doesn't change it's price tag so it doesn't really matter. Point is it and other cards that shouldn't really be that expensive are because of EDH. This isn't really a bad thing, but when something becomes a staple card others look down on decks that don't run them. Returning to the original point though, not every deck builder wants to be forced to include every card in their deck. The sheer number of different possible decks out there for EDH should lead to a format with nearly endless possibilities, not a list a top tier decks that are the only things worth playing. Which in a casual environment that doesn't happen nearly as often as it does when competitive play is introduced. It does still happen on occasion but with nothing on the line it's not as common.
The thing is even with a soft ban on those it's only good for your group. Which brings me back around to my original statement of everyone should just play with people in their same mindset and the entire argument of casual vs competitive doesn't happen to begin with.
But then how can you show those scrub casuals that they are bad at magic and need to learn to play?
By giving them your full playset of Alpha Dual lands obviously.
Well played sir. Well played indeed.
I understand that some people don't have alot of free time, Im in that situation myself since I work 5 days a week paying for college. But on any given week, I do have 4-6 solid hours of edh time, and ive decided to build a 1v1 competitive deck (jhoira), a multiplayer competitive deck (animar) and 2 casual competitive decks (kaervek and Ulasht). Usually I'd bring out different decks in different play group; there are play groups that i'm only comfortable playing kaervek or ulasht in and there are others that I can't play anything but jhoira or animar, but there is a core group of 5-6 players that I play with that'll rotate through their whole pantheon of edh decks, playing through all the archetypes under the color wheel. I've really grown to like that experience. Competitive games are stressful, but highly engaging and challenging mentally. Stack interaction with multiple blue players at the table who are driven by their own politics and threat assessment is great experience. After a competitive game, we'd throw down our casual decks and just revel in the pure carnage of bashing each other's face in. We often talk about the edh experience within a game. What about the experience of the entire night when you add up all the games you've played?
It just seems to me that EDH players can benefit more from diversifying our palette.
But to be honest, anything that takes the entire fun out of the game just doesnt seem to be right. And by that, I pretty much mean them stealing EVERY SINGLE CREATURE, massive land destruction, or countering everything. I'm completely okay with some creature theft, some ld, and some counters. It is apart of magic and I respect that. But those strategies just make the game not fun to play and it's like watching one person play with themselves for upwards to 3 hours (yeah, that happened once. I stopped paying attention to the game and watched a movie/texted. But I was still sitting in the chair waiting for him to find a way to kill us.)
EDH
WB Teysa, Orzhov Scion
I think if you reread my post on this, it stands pretty well. Johnny is going to build the best deck he can with the combo he wants, and Timmy isn't going to use that Squire instead of the Errant Knight. You're right so far as the words "best deck" become subjective when applied to different players, but I've yet to find a play who picks up two cards they own, and chooses the worse of the two, solely because its functionally inferior and not for some better reason. Hell, even Vorthos have a flavor they have to find right?
I suppose you are technically correct; I haven't met every Magic player so there's a high chance that there's someone out there who owns Squires and Errant Knights but runs Squires just because its worse. Not because the deck is based around with creatures with 1 power and 2 toughness. Not because the deck is based around some subservient theme that he cooked up. No, he runs Squires just because he found Errant Knight and said, "why pay 2 for a 2/2, when I can have a 1/2?" So yeah, again, I haven't met everyone, so there's probably a person out there who does this.
Another way you could look at this is say the person does own the "better card," but doesn't run it, for no explanation. When inquired on the subject, the player admits that he just didn't think about it when building the deck. This example falls into an unmentioned implication of the original quote. I can imagine that originally, the "best deck" assumed that we had the tools necessary to be a good deckbuilder, the knowhow to properly judge a card's worth in a deck, etc. Again, this is not true of every Magic player, but I believe the statement still stands in that even those without those skills aren't trying to be bad deckbuilders, they just are learning, and they've done the best with what they've got so far.
Maybe you've got the opposite case, where you've got an extremely seasoned player who has built hundreds of decks. One day, this player decides to build a garbage deck, highlander, with too many lands, and creatures with fatal flaws, etc. He or she builds the deck and just as he/she imagines, its awful, and wins maybe one game out of one hundred. Did this player build the "best deck" with the legal cards available? Technically no, but the player built the "best deck" to suit his or her needs. So I think even in this case, the original point stands.
We're playing a game, by rules that dictate a certain path that we should follow. We play creatures or spells, and we try to reduce our opponent's life to 0, or his deck to zero cards, etc. We don't have to build our decks to do so, and we don't have to pilot our decks to win, but when player X sits there playing lands or nothing for 10 turns whilst player Y whittles him away with a Thrumming Bird, one might call to question why player X was playing at all if he wasn't planning to try.
Generally though, we do try. "Fate" isn't always with us; sometimes we get bad hands, but we're trying our best, and I think that applies casually or otherwise. Whether or not your play is optimal, you've made the best play for what you want to do, even if it's to have notion of "fun" that someone else will never understand.
That's fine, but for me, you then can't complain about people running the optimal cards and making the optimal play. When you play against someone else, they're not going to know you have Knight Errant, but chose to play Squire to challenge yourself, they're just going to think it's a little odd that you'd run Squire when Knight Errant is so clearly better.
Bottom line, if you choose to run worse cards to "challenge yourself" or whatever, that's fine; it's your choice and I can't force you otherwise. In my mind, we have a format for that, as you said its called Limited. EDH is a playground of all sorts of cards, choosing the worst version of an ability seems a little strange to me. Again, that's just my opinion.
This reminds me, I might have to change where I keep my Doubling Seasons, because I've always wanted to use it with Gilder Bairn and I can't when it's stuck in Kresh or Ghave :/... First world problem.
I think we could get along quite well.
---------
A bit that i think distinguishes casual and competitive decks the most is the mana curve of a deck. (particularly in the 1v1 scene)
While this is not always true, it does have a good impact on how the game progresses. 1v1 decks i build tend to stay around the 2.25-2.5 curve range, while my more casual decks hover around 3, with the occasional 4dot. This means the 1v1 deck can do more with less, progressing it's gameplan faster.
At first, this was influenced by teeg quite a bit. He was nasty and locked down a lot of threats. Now, though, 95% of my deck is naturally teeg resistant. Teeg shuts down bombs, but not much else.
While playing yesterday against some junk decks, i noticed that they have a lot of bombs, and not a lot of cheap answers and disruption. My deck, on the other hand - was pretty much all disruption and answers, with a few potent threats.
So, i think a solid distriguishing factor between a casual and a competitive deck is really the mana curve.
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
Fine, you made me look it up.
Assuming 8 answers in a deck, and getting to see 8 cards (a conservative estimate since nothing really goes off turn 2 consistently), you will have the answer 38% of the time. That means that with only four players, the other three will have an answer almost all the time.
Again, this shows a failure to understand that the interaction occurred and allowed someone to achieve that game state.
If you play Magic, you will be beaten by people simply because they have more money than you. That is how the game is designed. The only solutions are:
1) Proxies
2) Pauper (whether banning all cards over a certain cost or just a limit on total deck cost)
Attempting to play "casual" is not one of them.
Casual apparently just means "not having things I don't like!".
Timmy's goal is to play big creatures, or whatever. These cards will enable him to do that without losing first. So obviously, they will advance his goal.
Johnny wants to actually play out whatever combos the deck is built around. Again, playing cards that prevent the game from ending before you get to do your thing clearly support your goal.
Being so single minded that you fail to support your game plan beyond the most linear and non-interactive of methods is not a player type, except maybe "bad".
So how do you decide when the game is over? Do you just all go home after a while?
Magic is a game. The rules define when someone wins the game.
38% is not "almost all the time" even split 4 ways. I also didn't "make" you do anything. Your own competitive nature forced you to go out of your way to "prove some guy on a forum I'm never gonna meet wrong". And you failed in doing so.
The combo itself prevents interaction is the point you're missing.
Or chose to not play against people who's only means of playing is throwing money around.
I'm not sure you even read what I wrote so not much to comment on here.
Again you're forcing a competitive mindset onto all players.
And finally, it's not all about the end result to everyone some people care about the trip getting there. If you don't like that get over it.
+1 for me, though I add "that's within budget" to the end of the sentence.
| 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
Actually let me do this properly:
The odds of one person not having an answer with 8 cards drawn and 8 answers in their deck is 50%. Assuming three other players, that makes the odds of no one having an answer .5*.5*.5 or approximately 13%.
So yeah, almost all the time. Add another player and it drops to 6%.
Swinging at you for more than your life total prevents interaction because you're dead.
What does this even mean.
The Timmy player with Primeval Titan is going to win games against the Timmy player who can't afford Titans for that reason alone.
The Johnny player who can afford Big Jace is going to win games against the Johnny player who can't for that reason alone.
This doesn't even have anything to do with "Casual" and "Competitive". It's just a fact of Magic that good cards are expensive.
No they won't. Someone will have better creatures, probably, and basically anyone who packs even a couple of removal spells will start dominating. It's a naturally unstable equilibrium because it depends on willful ignorance. All it takes is TimmyA to lose one too many games and decide to start packing Dark Banishing to plunge the whole group into the inevitable race to the best deck.
People will play good cards. People will play the best legal cards. Trying to resist this is straight up old man yelling at clouds.
Factor percentages all you want it still will not equal out to your numbers due to human involvement. Everyone cuts and shuffles differently, which drastically alters any fixed numbers. 13% in a perfect environment with no variables is all well and good but it doesn't factor out that way every game.
Infinite turn combo is uninteractive. Especially if you screw up and can't win off of it which happens. Sitting there and watching someone take a 40 minute turn is not interesting play. You may enjoy it most people don't. It's a valid way of winning a game, so is giving your opponent $20 to scoop.
Again you ignore what's said and put forth the same tired "i has moneyz so i winz" (that was painful to type) argument that frankly is one of the worst aspects of magic and on top of that you glorify it as if it should be respected.
And again you assume everyone is/should have your mindset and play how you think is best which is not the case. And you even go so far as to insist that no group can ever possibly just build how they want and have fun they have to arms race to the fastest they possibly can go off and win, which in some groups certainly is the case, in a large number of them it isn't.
I personally can attest to the "I have money so I win" schtick not always being true. In fact I take great enjoyment in absolutely wrecking people with that mindset using cheap cards. For example the recent Caw-Blade deck. Seeing that it was the biggest most expensive (short of JTMS dedicated decks and even alot of Cawblades were running him) most played deck I set a goal of $40 or less to completely wreck it consistently and did so with a Black/Red deck that kept it's opponent's creatures useless and won primarily through infect. The most satisfying moment in that decks life was when a dedicated cawblade player outright flipped me off for daring to not run what he was prepared to deal with. Why? Because he spent 90% of the game bragging about how all the cards in his deck cost so much money and how as soon as he drew his foil JTMS I'd just be better of scooping and how my "janky little garbage deck" couldn't win. It won 2-0 in under 15 minutes. I "Got so lucky to top deck all those kill spells" and if I "was running a real deck I'd never have won".
But that's just standard. EDH is a completely different kind environment and a completely different way of deck building so It's not particularly relevant to the current conversation. That said, yes money cards tend to win, that's why they're money cards. They also tend to be boring, over saturate the game, and worst of all just plain uninteresting to see. A fairly large chunk of the player base doesn't play to see the same thing over and over, and there's no reason to. In general casual players are the ones willing to try different things and see if it's any good. Competitive players are more likely to just jump on the tried and true and play strictly for the win. That is of course a generalization and not true for 100% of either side, but it is for larger portions of the respective sides. If Player A is in it to experience something new or different he's more likely to run "jank" and "bad" cards to see for himself if they can have interesting things to do. If Player B on the other hand is only sitting down so he can win a game and move on to the next one he's more likely to sit down Hermit Druid.dec or Sharuum. They both have their own merits and neither is truly wrong or right. They both play to their own style and shouldn't be forced to play to someone else's style just because the other said so.
That said, it can't always be like that. Some people will always insist people who prefer different styles of play are wrong and should conform because they said so. Hence my comment of everyone should find their own group of like minded players and play with them. You have a FAR better time overall, you get to have the types of games you want consistently, and the best part, you don't have to listen to one side or the other complain endlessly that the other side is doing it wrong. Me personally I prefer casual play. There are some competitive players in my meta, most of them have casual decks. I'll play against either because I know my meta primarily does casual games, and saves the competitive decks for when someone at the table is being a douche. It happens sometimes, other times it doesn't. The games go on. That said even the competitive decks can be played casually and everyone in my meta is capable of doing either. I managed to find a group who can be either as the occasion calls for and hope more people can find the same. If they can't then I hope at least they can find like minded enough groups to have enjoyable game nights with.
Take that for what you will, attempt to deconstruct it and say my every word is blasphemy if you like, it won't change that I feel the best way of playing EDH is the way you enjoy. Whether it be casual, competitive, a mixture of the two, 98 Forests 1 Craw Wurm and 1 Baru, Fist of Krosa, or even Norin the Wary. If your local play group doesn't like it talk to them and find out why, and if there's a way for everyone to get along and have fun. If there isn't look for a new group to play EDH with. Don't try to force your play style on others and in return don't have others play style forced on you. There is more often than not a compromise that can be reached. And if not EDH as a format is growing faster than ever thanks to the new Commander decks, it won't be to hard to find more players, or even introduce new ones that do fit how you enjoy playing.