If a creature is detained and then the opponent who controlled the detain ability dies is that creature permanently detained? It reads as though it is.
I want to play a game, have no intention of improving, and want to demonize those that do improve. I should win every time, and if I don't, my opponent is being too competitive. Cards from their deck should be banned until I can win. Until this happens, I will continue to push my psuedo intellect on others on this board.
This is the attitude that we are left with. Why can't players just play the game for what it is? Why is there a need to try to bend the format to something it's not?
Why do you have to take every comment to the extreme in order to understand it? You're being very lazy here setting up straw-men so your argument looks more reasonable.
If a combo doesn't allow sorcery speed answers then it's far more likely to happen over and over each time you play. Eventually it just gets boring. It's not a hard concept to grasp, except you seem to equate the unavailability of instant speed answers with stagnant metagames. You are stretching it and this discussion is poorer because of that.
It is quite a frightening notion that people can in 1 statement claim that EDH is an amazing format built upon social interaction and in another talk about how lame mechanics they personally don't like and then justify kicking people from games and utterly ruining their experience because they are personally offended arbitrarily.
Maybe people need to start believing in the "social format" instead of just pretending to in order to justify their selfishness.
It's not arbitrary at all though. It's a pretty common practice for obvious infinite combo and mass land destruction to be looked down upon. I can see where you are coming from otherwise, it's definitely a bit cliquey. Just not arbitrary, I don't see why you think it's arbitrary. Following the rules, even though unwritten, isn't exactly hard.
The point is to kick someone out of the game because the had mana is so ridiculous I can't even begin to explan. It is not competitive verus casual that is tearing EDH apart, it is closed minded people. There is not right and wrong way to play magic. People are not shaped like a box so stop trying to put everybody in one.
1. EDH isn't being teared apart, at least not from my perspective, so I don't think you're justified in claiming it is.
2. You might be correct about there being a threat of it being teared apart by closed minded people (but as per point 1, it's not happening right now).
3. As per my multiple replies in this thread, I believe I have an open mind, considering I changed it. I won't be kicking people like this again.
You had a good point and I think you brought it up in the wrong fashion, i.e. without reading all the discussion and without considering the overall situation. That's a bit lazy.
Let's pretend that the anti-infinite-combo people convince the pro-combo-people to stop running any and all combos. What happens then? If people build decks with any semblance of a strong lategame plan, games will still end way before the 10th turn. For Pete's sake, you can play Rite of Replication on turn nine if you just make a land drops every turn! Craterhoof even sooner. Don't tell me these things are nicer than combos.
They are definitely nicer than combos. I think you should read some game theory and what makes games fun. It's when the game state changes often, and who is winning changes. Infinite combos don't create these effects. You just win out of nowhere, and are to a lot of people unfun. It's just behavioral science, just because you or maybe many others on these forums finds something fun doesn't change the population statistics. To put it bluntly, I'm okay with any infinite combo once. It's just boring the second time. That's why I dislike obvious infinite combos, it's a waste of time playing the game.
@ everyone:
This page of this thread (page 68 for me) is a very sad sight. How can anyone come to a compromise with the absolute extremism that is being typed up here? It's easier to be extreme, it means you don't have to think too hard. What I'm asking for those that can, please approach this with some thought and some understanding of the other side. You never have to agree with it, but definitely please stop being so extreme and deal with what was actually presented.
It's fair to say that long games can be frustrating, but that's just what can happen in this format. If you want to play EDH in under an hour, make a game where infinite combos are okay. Otherwise if you're going to play EDH you really should be expecting 2 hours of gaming. There are plenty of ways to win the game without infinite. Rite of Replication, Craterhoof Behemoth, Exsanguinate, commander damage.
I'm glad I made my first post anyway. I think I should at the very least be mindful that people play infinite combos sometimes and make sure they are aware.
I mean, if you roll it out alongside Monolith, your intentions are pretty clear. That said, I think it's petty to kick someone for that. Suck it up, interrupt his combo if you can, lose if you can't, and move on. Kicking someone because they're not playing according to some unwritten code of conduct that apparently everyone should know about somehow seems childish to me.
Yes, you are correct in a sense. It is childish for me to kick someone like that. You are spot on the money too with regards to the unwritten code of conduct. However the real world operates on unwritten codes on conduct and it's not an alien concept.
I agree that it's rude to kick someone, I do it because I feel like the player is being rude by not considering the fun of the other players in the game. No one should be safe to assume their opponents find infinite combos fun. And by this I mean obvious infinite combos that I've seen many times before.
Of course, I don't assume everyone wants to play by the same code as I do. I just think I'm on the majority side of the fence with regards to this, and that the combo player should ask before entering a non-specific game if it's okay to use it. If everyone says yes, then no problem.
I am playing 4 player on cockatrice and I kicked a player who pulled out rings and basalt monolith in a game. They private messages me saying "really are you like 12?" then put me on ignore.
I might be making myself open for flame bait here, but this is what I believe. If I create an EDH game, the default should be what it is in real life. If someone wants to play combo, they should ask beforehand. If a creator is playing combo, they should create the game called "EDH competitive".
I don't see why this is hard to deal with. I figure it's reasonable. EDH is casual by default.
Please word your responses clearer next time. I know the rules I only post threads like this because others don't. A simple "they don't get the enchantment" without your first ambiguous sentence will suffice.
I created a tournament based on a subjective system to encourage players to bring socially acceptable decklists instead of searching for loopholes to find the most broken combination.
What is critical here is that the two players that turned up with the 10 and 12 decklists both generally play extremely broken decklists with infinite combos and extra turns. Both of these decklists had made significant concessions for this tournament and therefore this system had the effect that their opponents had somewhat more fun than they would have otherwise.
As a side note, not a single extra turn was taken throughout the whole tournament, even though the penalty is quite small (at -1 point). Why ban extra turns when you can create a disincentive for them?
As another side note, a player did show up with worldslayer. He did have an opportunity once to hit with worldslayer. He chose not to.
The player that brought the decklist I gave 12 points (Ghave) ended up winning all 3 of his matches, however it wasn't a walk in the park for him. He's actually a really good player. The players that brought decklists I gave 10 and 14 points only won 1 of their matches each.
A player that brought a decklist I gave 21 points (Avacyn) ended up winning twice and coming second once, and he won the tournament. The player with 12 decklist points came second. Third place was the player with 24 decklist points (Linvala), and fourth was the player with 26 decklist points (Jenara).
Seeding was complicated. I placed the most importance on players not facing the same opponents. Basically everyone had one other player they faced twice, but all their other opponents only once. Second round was easy as I grouped the winners together and second place together. Third round I deliberately sat the players on the second round winner's table of 4 different tables. Basically I had given up trying to swiss-seed.
Overall the variance in the game points was very high compared to the decklist points. The decklist points did switch the standings around somewhat, but not by a large amount. Doing well in game was still the most important thing to do to get into the top 4. The top 4 had 6 wins and 6 seconds between them, in other words none of them ended outside the top 2 for all 3 matches.
I prefer centaur healer over loxodon smiter. I haven't had a need for a 4/4 beater with all the pillar of flames running around. The 3 life is great against aggro decks. I am running both centaur healer and wolfir avenger, but if I had to choose then I prefer the centaur.
I may have been lucky so far as I've only played a dozen games and I haven't run into mana issues. I will have to play more to see how it goes.
From these games, farseek is amazing, and it hasn't yet hurt when I lose a pilgrim to pillar of flame.
The deck steals wins from control with thragtusk and resto angel. Maybe it can't win without them? More testing is required.
It's been a breeze to win against aggro. There is too much lifegain for them and Detention sphere hits 2 guys a lot. Also I can trade out really well.
Fair comment on cathedral sanctifier vs hero's reunion. However I can emancipation angel it so it is at least "better" than the admittedly bad card reunion. It's centaur healer 5-6. And emancipation angel has won me a game with the detention sphere trick. This isn't to criticise your comments, I'm just making sure you saw the interaction.
Why do you have to take every comment to the extreme in order to understand it? You're being very lazy here setting up straw-men so your argument looks more reasonable.
If a combo doesn't allow sorcery speed answers then it's far more likely to happen over and over each time you play. Eventually it just gets boring. It's not a hard concept to grasp, except you seem to equate the unavailability of instant speed answers with stagnant metagames. You are stretching it and this discussion is poorer because of that.
It's not arbitrary at all though. It's a pretty common practice for obvious infinite combo and mass land destruction to be looked down upon. I can see where you are coming from otherwise, it's definitely a bit cliquey. Just not arbitrary, I don't see why you think it's arbitrary. Following the rules, even though unwritten, isn't exactly hard.
1. EDH isn't being teared apart, at least not from my perspective, so I don't think you're justified in claiming it is.
2. You might be correct about there being a threat of it being teared apart by closed minded people (but as per point 1, it's not happening right now).
3. As per my multiple replies in this thread, I believe I have an open mind, considering I changed it. I won't be kicking people like this again.
You had a good point and I think you brought it up in the wrong fashion, i.e. without reading all the discussion and without considering the overall situation. That's a bit lazy.
They are definitely nicer than combos. I think you should read some game theory and what makes games fun. It's when the game state changes often, and who is winning changes. Infinite combos don't create these effects. You just win out of nowhere, and are to a lot of people unfun. It's just behavioral science, just because you or maybe many others on these forums finds something fun doesn't change the population statistics. To put it bluntly, I'm okay with any infinite combo once. It's just boring the second time. That's why I dislike obvious infinite combos, it's a waste of time playing the game.
@ everyone:
This page of this thread (page 68 for me) is a very sad sight. How can anyone come to a compromise with the absolute extremism that is being typed up here? It's easier to be extreme, it means you don't have to think too hard. What I'm asking for those that can, please approach this with some thought and some understanding of the other side. You never have to agree with it, but definitely please stop being so extreme and deal with what was actually presented.
I'm glad I made my first post anyway. I think I should at the very least be mindful that people play infinite combos sometimes and make sure they are aware.
No sorry, I mean common knowledge.
Easy. Obvious infinite combos and mass land destruction. Line drawn.
It would be nice to not have the solution to write that before each game. I would hope these two were given.
Anything outside of this would need "casual" in the game title I believe.
Yes, you are correct in a sense. It is childish for me to kick someone like that. You are spot on the money too with regards to the unwritten code of conduct. However the real world operates on unwritten codes on conduct and it's not an alien concept.
I agree that it's rude to kick someone, I do it because I feel like the player is being rude by not considering the fun of the other players in the game. No one should be safe to assume their opponents find infinite combos fun. And by this I mean obvious infinite combos that I've seen many times before.
Of course, I don't assume everyone wants to play by the same code as I do. I just think I'm on the majority side of the fence with regards to this, and that the combo player should ask before entering a non-specific game if it's okay to use it. If everyone says yes, then no problem.
I might be making myself open for flame bait here, but this is what I believe. If I create an EDH game, the default should be what it is in real life. If someone wants to play combo, they should ask beforehand. If a creator is playing combo, they should create the game called "EDH competitive".
I don't see why this is hard to deal with. I figure it's reasonable. EDH is casual by default.
I created a tournament based on a subjective system to encourage players to bring socially acceptable decklists instead of searching for loopholes to find the most broken combination.
The tournament design was discussed at length here: http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12346
The tournament details are here: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?9u1yk5m7nsg53nr
The tournament system was highly praised by the players on the day. It went very well.
I had 14 players all up, I was very unlucky as there was a GP Trial on the same day. I split the players into four tables, 2x4 and 2x3.
Firstly, the system was extremely successful in modifying decklists before the tournament even began.
The 14 decklists points were:
The Mimeoplasm: 10
Ghave: 12
Riku: 14
Sharuum: 16
Isperia: 18
Mayael: 19
Jarad: 19
Teneb: 19
Kresh: 20
Avacyn: 21
Darien: 22
Linvala: 24
Norin: 25
Jenara: 26
What is critical here is that the two players that turned up with the 10 and 12 decklists both generally play extremely broken decklists with infinite combos and extra turns. Both of these decklists had made significant concessions for this tournament and therefore this system had the effect that their opponents had somewhat more fun than they would have otherwise.
As a side note, not a single extra turn was taken throughout the whole tournament, even though the penalty is quite small (at -1 point). Why ban extra turns when you can create a disincentive for them?
As another side note, a player did show up with worldslayer. He did have an opportunity once to hit with worldslayer. He chose not to.
The player that brought the decklist I gave 12 points (Ghave) ended up winning all 3 of his matches, however it wasn't a walk in the park for him. He's actually a really good player. The players that brought decklists I gave 10 and 14 points only won 1 of their matches each.
A player that brought a decklist I gave 21 points (Avacyn) ended up winning twice and coming second once, and he won the tournament. The player with 12 decklist points came second. Third place was the player with 24 decklist points (Linvala), and fourth was the player with 26 decklist points (Jenara).
Seeding was complicated. I placed the most importance on players not facing the same opponents. Basically everyone had one other player they faced twice, but all their other opponents only once. Second round was easy as I grouped the winners together and second place together. Third round I deliberately sat the players on the second round winner's table of 4 different tables. Basically I had given up trying to swiss-seed.
Overall the variance in the game points was very high compared to the decklist points. The decklist points did switch the standings around somewhat, but not by a large amount. Doing well in game was still the most important thing to do to get into the top 4. The top 4 had 6 wins and 6 seconds between them, in other words none of them ended outside the top 2 for all 3 matches.
Happy to answer questions, please ask them.
From these games, farseek is amazing, and it hasn't yet hurt when I lose a pilgrim to pillar of flame.
The deck steals wins from control with thragtusk and resto angel. Maybe it can't win without them? More testing is required.
It's been a breeze to win against aggro. There is too much lifegain for them and Detention sphere hits 2 guys a lot. Also I can trade out really well.
Fair comment on cathedral sanctifier vs hero's reunion. However I can emancipation angel it so it is at least "better" than the admittedly bad card reunion. It's centaur healer 5-6. And emancipation angel has won me a game with the detention sphere trick. This isn't to criticise your comments, I'm just making sure you saw the interaction.