I didn'y say or implied that "all" competitive players care about is winning. I said I haven't met one who doesn't care about winning (because they don't exist). You are the first person who claims to be a competitive player who doesn't care about winning. Frankly, I doubt the truth of either claim, because you're replying with an attitude that raises my inner bull**** alarm. This is ignoring that you can't be playing competitively and not care about winning.
The root word of competitive isn't the point of the description. Casuals and competitives compete. The point is that competitive decks and the players who label themselves as competitive play in a manner which promotes winning, when they're "playing competitively." It's both a deck and a mindset.
Frankly, I don't give a damn whether some bad attitude forum poster believes me or not. It doesn't change anything.
I care more about competition than I do about winning. If I play someone with a sub par deck and I crush them, sure I won, but it doesn't matter to me. I didn't get any competition out of it. Some competitive players care about being challenged.
Competitive players who build decks to stomp people are bullies, not competitive players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 1 Judge-
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane for the awesome Sig.
Frankly, I don't give a damn whether some bad attitude forum poster believes me or not. It doesn't change anything.
I care more about competition than I do about winning. If I play someone with a sub par deck and I crush them, sure I won, but it doesn't matter to me. I didn't get any competition out of it. Some competitive players care about being challenged.
Competitive players who build decks to stomp people are bullies, not competitive players.
You're going off on a tangent that's not relevant to what I said. Correct your attitude, correct your thinking, then get back to me.
The point is that competitive decks and the players who label themselves as competitive play in a manner which promotes winning, when they're "playing competitively."
When you build a deck you promote winning. What's your point?
"Some of the other guys dared me to go out, but I knew it weren't no ordinary giant giga-blasting blaze of unending flames that would scorch the whole world."
—Norin the Wary
So, I was perusing the forums this morning, looking at various attempts to create a competitive multiplayer banlist, and it struck me that many of them were either locked prematurely, or shunted to the 'Discussion of the Official Banlist' thread or this thread, where they proceeded to be buried with irrelevant conversation. Since the topic doesn't really fit into either of these threads, I'm posting it here (the less popular of the two) with the hope that it isn't immediately overrun by other discussion.
The idea of competitive multiplayer has got a lot of flack on these forums, especially so when discussed from a tournament perspective. This is, of course, due to the element of collusion in 'austere' games - those that are played between strangers with little thought given to everyone's enjoyment of the game. While I agree that collusion makes competitive multiplayer a silly notion where it exists, I believe that competitive multiplayer games can and do exist without it. Unfortunately, the playgroups that experience these types of games have very little data outside of their own with which to adjust their rules. (primarily, their banlist) I think it would be enormously beneficial to these players if they had a forum to discuss the topic without being crowded out by other discussions. Would anyone be interested in some kind of official thread regarding this idea?
It'd be interesting to have a thread for competitive multiplayer tournament EDH, sure AFAIK, at all major events, scg etc., the EDH side events still use the regular EDH banlist and rules (not french 1v1) so there should be a niche for that. It probably only appeals to the minority though so not sure if it would really take off.
I apologize for being late to the party, but my playgroups have had extensive discussions, debates and sometimes arguements on this topic, and it boils down to a few things:
1) Everyone had a different definition of what is fun and what is competitive, and they are not the same things to everyone.
Some in the group equate fun to a game or match-win. Some in the group equate fun to experiencing unique things happen in-game. Some people equate fun to imposing their will upon others with whatever deck they sleeve.
2) Some equate competitive to some of these same elements mentioned. However, that is not true of all players. You need to understand whom in your group sees them as one and the same, and who does not, and play accordingly.
I consider myself a competitor, and winning is a goal. However, it is not my primary goal. My primary goal is to play a technically perfect game of magic, where every decision made, from deck construction, to in-game decision making, to side boarding and execution has been the most optimal line of play with all given and derived information. Of the tens of thousands of games I've played, I can recall it happening all of two matches in my MTG career (which spans about 20 years).
Playing an excellent technical game is my primary goal. It so happens that winning usually comes from such tight play.
I have a friend, Matt, who enjoys getting the win most, regardless of how he got there. He enjoys the jockeying of power as well, but wins are his greatest enjoyment. Anything that is of great hinderance to his ability to win a table (Land Equilibrium lock on 0 lands plus an opposing GAA IV, being put on tilt, etc.) is seen as a reason to scoop them up.
I derive my enjoyment in the game from creating sound decks with unique interactions. My goal is to excessive flawless play. I gain the greatest enjoyment in magic from being able to test my abilities against competent opponents and successfully execute my goal while experiencing what I consider fun.
When I play commander, I am the player that keeps track of all graveyards, life totals, hand sizes, and between turns analyzes all the possible lines of play on the table. I exercise a tremendous amount of discipline in chunking all that information, because constantly doing so helps me analyze board states faster and more efficiently find solutions to in-game problems, which in turn translates to greater technical play in 60 card formats. That's the benefit of playing commander for me: it gives me 4x the difficulty in getting it right, which makes it all the sweeter when I have that perfect commander game.
On the contrary, it irritates me to play with a playgroup and come across a rules interaction upon which the outcome of the game greatly hinges, and despite knowing you're right, you get voted down on that interaction only to find out days later you were right and, because you weren't allowed to make that optimal decision, you did not at to your fullest ability. In a vintage esque format where everything is legal and everything has a chance of seeing play, I run greater risk of my opponents not being knowledgeable enough of interactions (and my not being best able to explain the interaction) that I will, more often than 60 card formats, have to decide to concede my goal of perfect play for the good of that individual game to cater to its participants (my game opponents and friends) or rules lawyer the table and leave a sour taste in everyone's mouth for the night just to try to achieve my goals.
At more "casual" tables, it is harder to find opponents who both can hold you to that standard of play and enjoy you holding them to that same standard, so although winning isn't my greatest goal, those who hold winning to be their greatest goal exhibit those traits, standards, and philosophies I look to test myself against. Sometimes I want an EDH table to throw the kitchen sink at me just to see if I can survive the onslaught with my 99, and my opponents at the LGS just want to assemble Kaldra. Those games usually aren't going to be enjoyable for me.
Granted, while an infinite-combo win in EDH is generally frowned upon by the community at large, there are means by which is it more than acceptable in my group. Those that have been earned (worked for, fought against, and still become successful) are much more acceptable than infinites that someone stumbles upon and ruin the gamestate that was challenging everyone at the table to jockey with and solve for that earned win.
The worst thing about the "oops, I win" infinites is that once they are discovered, most play beyond that is meaningless because it is now irrelevant: you know who realistically should have won, and the cat's out the bag, devaluing the win for anyone else who winds up picking it up.
I have no problem with EDH being an arms race, as long as everyone is on equal footing. Infinites exist in this format, and as cards keep getting printed, more and more interactions will break. I do however take issue with those interactions being used as a crutch to replace strategy and skill while playing games where they are likely to come up.
As long as everyone understands what everyone else's expectations are, you wont't find the casual/ competitive arguements in your playgroup.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blue: teaching Magic players manners since 1995
Shops: Teaching blue players manners since 2009
You know why unglued was not successful? Because it is silly and not competitive. One of the greatest misconceptions of EDH is that it is closer to unglued than Legacy. For that reason alone I don't see EDH as casual, nor do I think it is a good perspective for people who have not played EDH to assume it is unglued'esk.
A guy on reddit posted about a regular EDH tournament he participates in. There were basically 5 decks played by ~25 players:
hermit druid
ad nauseam
arcum
sharuum
azami
and maybe one zur deck
the whole thing sounded like a freaking nightmare.
A local LGS had mp tourney's for a while. I played in one and that was enough for me. I'm an extremely competitive player, that's not the issue. Mp is the issue. MP is silly when it comes to tournament play. The best player doesn't win. The highest ranking decks after round one just get hated out in round two. People who know each other help each other. It's just a royal cluster****. And Hermit Druid won the three tournaments they did before stopping them because it's too fast to even get hated out by a whole table ganging up on it. Hence I only play 1v1. In Duel Commander there are no mitigating factors other than you and your opponent.
Me and the group that play 1v1 have been trying to get the owner to start Duel tournaments but he says people think the ban list is too restrictive or the format is too expensive. Both silly statements given the ban lists are fairly similar outside of broken cards like HD and the Duel ban list allows for more commanders. The expensive part is silly because the majority of people that play at the store are in their 30s or up, have been playing forever, have all the most expensive cards already and blow my collection out of the water yet I can still put together good 1v1 decks.
.
Me and the group that play 1v1 have been trying to get the owner to start Duel tournaments but he says people think the ban list is too restrictive or the format is too expensive. Both silly statements given the ban lists are fairly similar outside of broken cards like HD and the Duel ban list allows for more commanders. The expensive part is silly because the majority of people that play at the store are in their 30s or up, have been playing forever, have all the most expensive cards already and blow my collection out of the water yet I can still put together good 1v1 decks.
I'm pretty sure that you don't need $1000 to have a good duelcommander deck. Mine is around $100-$200 and it's still pretty good.
On topic, I don't mind either. If you're competitive and are looking to win, it's totally fine, just don't play any degenerate combos like Hermit druid, please. MLD is fine, locking me down is fine, just don't "herp derp hermit druid I win".
It's just that if you're competitive, try to win or try to get an interesting game going. If you're casual, try to have fun.
actually, when i build a deck is to make something. my token deck's point is to make a lot of tokens and use them for value, that's when i have fun. if then i win thanks to my tokens, it's only a bonus
I do the same often. I had a Mimeoplasm deck thats goal was to win with Laboratory guy. I also had a Krenko deck churn out 3400+ Goblins, without a technically infinite combo, Breath of Fury fun. I still lost that game, no haste, but mission accomplished!
So this is mostly a rant, although It is based on deductive reasoning, and I would like some constructive feedback rather then flaming and or simply disagree/agree.
EDH logic...a competitive deck is any deck that is better then mine, and casual deck is any deck that is worse then mine.
Every time I have joined a game labeled "casual" and play combo I get yelled and dissed at it, and usually kicked. Talk about rude right, so much for a casual mentality :-/. If someone enjoys having fun by playing competitively while still being polite and civil, it doesn't seem to matter they are still treated like jerks. I think asking for a casual game is moronic, hypocritical, and rude. Asking for chill people and to have fun in whatever way they deem fit is another thing, but that is rarely the case. So what if someone has a bad hand or a good hand, or a quick and devastating win. There is always another game assuming you didn't just kick the person for doing well.
The common argument of this is something along the lines of one sided games are not fun, or casual means you cant be competitive. So what your expected to just play to loose if your not playing competitive...that's just hypocritical. You play your best and are civil and what type of deck you have shouldn't matter.
A casual game should not be about how good or bad peoples decks are, it should be a game about having fun, free mulls, letting misplays go, and being civil and decent to people. It should not be this oh mur god you better play something ****ty and not creative or your not casual, and we the people asking for a casual game are gona turn into big dicks and kick you for winning.
Asking for a casual game is rather unfair, as peoples definition of casual differs.
It is only slightly better then simply asking for casual when someone mentions personal things to ban for example "Casual, no infinite/no mld". Why is there so much hate on the Johnny player, yet not on spike or Timmy. Half the time combos are not even that competitive, why not let the person enjoy assembling there instant win condition and win big, despite that alot of the time they will also be loosing big to.
As for no infinite I think that is incredibly unfair, why is a combo a bad thing, at least they are creative and not just some herp derp aggro/tempo deck. Its not like infinite is the end all of be all anyways, there are combos and tactics even within aggro that are just as good and generally more stable so I'm not sure why its ok to just outright ban not only entire deck archetypes but effectively people who enjoy certain play styles, regardless of how decent of a human being and or how competitive they are. I would prefer to see for once people making games banning aggro/tempo/ other herp derp stuff, and have creative only games! But again that's not really fair, because variety is the spice of life and whatever your playing should be prepared to face just about anything.
While I agree with hating the mld, and its quite easily the most hated deck archetype, and would love to never see it again. Some people like it so I still think its pretty unfair to ban it as if you want to play Rakdos in edh Its rather hard to do something else, and again its something that you need to be able to adapt to so as aggravating as it is, you need to know how to deal with it.
Banning an entire archetype should never be ok, however it is ok to ban specific cards. Everyone knows there are some very degenerate cards. (im looking at you hermit druid...ironically casuals don't tend to cry out for him to be banned and instead whine about infinite combos which are not nearly as degenerate) Banning certain things can go to stabilize some certain degenerate archetypes that may not be liked without completely crippling important aspects of the game.
A casual game by the widely accepted definition is the definition of hypocrisy as it links back to my first comment about "EDH logic" Now this may be coming off as opinionated or rage filled, but I would disagree with that, however this next comment is an opinion. I wouldn't really say all of this thread is just my opinion or my definition, it has been a logical deduction about how the majority of players think. just the concept of a casual game has really irked me and thus my mission to try and stop people asking for them, or at least get people to refine and change the meaning of casual to something appropriate.
Merged into Casual vs. Competitive thread. - cryogen
Welcome to EDH, the place where casuals act competitive and competitive players act casual.
I don't see my friends whine for shignizzles.
But oh lord when I go watch some casual groups play and someone touches timmy's lands that person might as well be kicking babies instead for the reaction he'll recieve.
I don't like the mentality that EDH has created and will, as always, promote tolerance when facing such people. I think everyone used to hate land destruction once in their life, learning to deal with it however, should be a given.
I don't understand how people can defend infinite combos but malign Hermit Druid, both can be instant wins but Druid at least offers some utility when not intended for degenerate use. I love combo and play combo and feel it's a little hypocritical to claim one is more acceptable than another, otherwise I agree with most of what you've stated.
Infinites don't typically have utility, are fragile, and are usually tough to set up. Hermit druid decks are the most degenerate things i have ever seen winning consistently on turn three and you cant stop it. If your not familar with the hermit druid deck Ill find the thread for you that explains it in detail, thus why it got banned in the french format.
That point aside, I did not defend any particular combo archetypes over another, I hate mld, and I still advocated that it shouldent be banned. I was advocating banning of specific cards as the classic edh ban list does not get regular updates, and if you want casual hitting very specific cards is much better then shutting down archetypes.
I went through the same thing when getting into EDH. There are plenty of things I could say on this matter, but I will instead sum up my thoughts in a few short, general bullet points.
People don't like to lose. When they do, they don't wish to adapt.
Casual playgroups never act casually.
Quit whining about them and find a real playgroup whose limits are the official rules.
As for your last point, it is rarely a possibility to just find another play group, as there only tends to be one game shop in a reasonable distance.
And two, I mostly play on cockatrice, and I'm just really upset with the "casual" game tag, and or getting kicked because I win.
Lastly...yea I guess my post was pretty whiny, but that aside I am trying to make some very real points, and actually accomplish something good for the community. I know its unlikely that this thread could start a movement, but hey everything needs to start somewhere.
Both casual and competitive players have their share of jerks. No one side has a monopoly on poor behavior. Claiming otherwise is self-serving bull****.
Some things to note:
1) You joined a "casual" game knowing full well that your combo deck would be frowned upon. Bad on you.
2) "...why is a combo a bad thing, at least they are creative and not just some herp derp aggro/tempo deck."
No, combo decks are not inherently any more creative than aggro/tempo/etc. Your bias is showing, and clearly you just have an axe to grind. You are not special for comboing. They are not special for slamming fatties. Get over it.
3) "...it has been a logical deduction about how the majority of players think."
No, your post has been opinionated whining flamebait.
4) "...peoples definition of casual differs."
True.
Personally? I like Sheldon's vision for EDH, which I believe is "Build casually, play competitively." In other words, don't put stuff that will make the game miserable or end it too quickly in your deck, but do try to win to the best of your ability.
I took Food Chain out of Prossh because it felt dirty. I will still swing with Wood Elves at the strongest deck on turn 4 or tutor for Avenger/Craterhoof when the coast is clear. If you restrain yourself in the deckbuilding stage you can go hogwild in game.
Combos as a whole can't reasonably be hated. Sanguine Bond/Exquisite Blood isn't exactly terrorizing the format. Quick, compact, consistent combos? That isn't fun for anyone and you know it. Moderation is key.
Infinites don't typically have utility, are fragile, and are usually tough to set up. Hermit druid decks are the most degenerate things i have ever seen winning consistently on turn three and you cant stop it. If your not familar with the hermit druid deck Ill find the thread for you that explains it in detail, thus why it got banned in the french format.
That point aside, I did not defend any particular combo archetypes over another, I hate mld, and I still advocated that it shouldent be banned. I was advocating banning of specific cards as the classic edh ban list does not get regular updates, and if you want casual hitting very specific cards is much better then shutting down archetypes.
A combo that relies on a weak creature sticking for a turn and the graveyard isn't fragile? I know which Druid deck you're talking about, how many times has anyone actually ever played against that deck irl? I use the Hermit and Lab Maniac/Living Death in Mimeoplasm and it is far from unstoppable. But I'm not here to derail your thread and argue over Hermit Druids power.
I'd just like to point out that it sounds like you are basing your experience with players on an online interface (Cockatrice is my guess). Based on what I've heard from numerous people, this is the worst way to play Commander for the exact reasons you've described. Commander is a social game, and players who kick other players out of their games simply for playing a very narrow-minded and one-sided version of what they want are not playing a social game.
My suggestion to you is that you play more in an LGS or other live playgroup, and see if your experiences improve.
or tutor for Avenger/Craterhoof when the coast is clear. If you restrain yourself in the deckbuilding stage you can go hogwild in game.
There are people/casuals who frown upon these two combined as well, you know. Where do you draw the line?
I personally had my experiences with people calling themselves casual, which is basically them not acting casual. But, off-course, as you said, each end probably has it's fair share of jerks.
I've heard it being said here before, "the cards are not the problem, we are."
There are people/casuals who frown upon these two combined as well, you know. Where do you draw the line?
I personally had my experiences with people calling themselves casual, which is basically them not acting casual. But, off-course, as you said, each end probably has it's fair share of jerks.
I've heard it being said here before, "the cards are not the problem, we are."
The line is wherever your playgroup draws it. And indeed, people are the problem.
@Cryogen: Absolutely. Online EDH is an abomination in all of its forms. I've never heard of anyone having fun with it, and every 4-man video I've seen is painful just to watch.
Both casual and competitive players have their share of jerks. No one side has a monopoly on poor behavior.
That's true, but the type of jerk that is very rampant amongst the casual players are whiny, passive-aggressive *****. You can defend one group all you want, but saying something like that is a lot like claiming that both religious and scientific people have irrational thinkers; one inherently spawns them while the other just happens to have them.
/wentthere
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Frankly, I don't give a damn whether some bad attitude forum poster believes me or not. It doesn't change anything.
I care more about competition than I do about winning. If I play someone with a sub par deck and I crush them, sure I won, but it doesn't matter to me. I didn't get any competition out of it. Some competitive players care about being challenged.
Competitive players who build decks to stomp people are bullies, not competitive players.
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane for the awesome Sig.
Currently Playing- EDH
GGGOmnath, Locus of the LifestreamGGG
BBBShirei, Lord of PoniesBBB
UWRasputin Dreamweaver, Russia's Greatest Love MachineUW
UBWZur, Killer of FunUBW
UGWTreva, Princess of CanterlotUGW
RWTajic, Master of the Reverse BladeRW
RRRZirilan, How to Train Your DragonRRR
PDH Decks
Gelectrode
Ascended Lawmage
Blaze Commando
You're going off on a tangent that's not relevant to what I said. Correct your attitude, correct your thinking, then get back to me.
When you build a deck you promote winning. What's your point?
Cockatrice Username: seriph0
The idea of competitive multiplayer has got a lot of flack on these forums, especially so when discussed from a tournament perspective. This is, of course, due to the element of collusion in 'austere' games - those that are played between strangers with little thought given to everyone's enjoyment of the game. While I agree that collusion makes competitive multiplayer a silly notion where it exists, I believe that competitive multiplayer games can and do exist without it. Unfortunately, the playgroups that experience these types of games have very little data outside of their own with which to adjust their rules. (primarily, their banlist) I think it would be enormously beneficial to these players if they had a forum to discuss the topic without being crowded out by other discussions. Would anyone be interested in some kind of official thread regarding this idea?
hermit druid
ad nauseam
arcum
sharuum
azami
and maybe one zur deck
the whole thing sounded like a freaking nightmare.
UBRThe MindrazerRBU
UUUSpymaster of TrestGGG
GGGThe South TreeGGG
RRRHuman AscendantRRR
Yikes. That sounds like an excellent reason for people to develop a healthier metagame through a banlist designed for that kind of play.
1) Everyone had a different definition of what is fun and what is competitive, and they are not the same things to everyone.
Some in the group equate fun to a game or match-win. Some in the group equate fun to experiencing unique things happen in-game. Some people equate fun to imposing their will upon others with whatever deck they sleeve.
2) Some equate competitive to some of these same elements mentioned. However, that is not true of all players. You need to understand whom in your group sees them as one and the same, and who does not, and play accordingly.
I consider myself a competitor, and winning is a goal. However, it is not my primary goal. My primary goal is to play a technically perfect game of magic, where every decision made, from deck construction, to in-game decision making, to side boarding and execution has been the most optimal line of play with all given and derived information. Of the tens of thousands of games I've played, I can recall it happening all of two matches in my MTG career (which spans about 20 years).
Playing an excellent technical game is my primary goal. It so happens that winning usually comes from such tight play.
I have a friend, Matt, who enjoys getting the win most, regardless of how he got there. He enjoys the jockeying of power as well, but wins are his greatest enjoyment. Anything that is of great hinderance to his ability to win a table (Land Equilibrium lock on 0 lands plus an opposing GAA IV, being put on tilt, etc.) is seen as a reason to scoop them up.
I derive my enjoyment in the game from creating sound decks with unique interactions. My goal is to excessive flawless play. I gain the greatest enjoyment in magic from being able to test my abilities against competent opponents and successfully execute my goal while experiencing what I consider fun.
When I play commander, I am the player that keeps track of all graveyards, life totals, hand sizes, and between turns analyzes all the possible lines of play on the table. I exercise a tremendous amount of discipline in chunking all that information, because constantly doing so helps me analyze board states faster and more efficiently find solutions to in-game problems, which in turn translates to greater technical play in 60 card formats. That's the benefit of playing commander for me: it gives me 4x the difficulty in getting it right, which makes it all the sweeter when I have that perfect commander game.
On the contrary, it irritates me to play with a playgroup and come across a rules interaction upon which the outcome of the game greatly hinges, and despite knowing you're right, you get voted down on that interaction only to find out days later you were right and, because you weren't allowed to make that optimal decision, you did not at to your fullest ability. In a vintage esque format where everything is legal and everything has a chance of seeing play, I run greater risk of my opponents not being knowledgeable enough of interactions (and my not being best able to explain the interaction) that I will, more often than 60 card formats, have to decide to concede my goal of perfect play for the good of that individual game to cater to its participants (my game opponents and friends) or rules lawyer the table and leave a sour taste in everyone's mouth for the night just to try to achieve my goals.
At more "casual" tables, it is harder to find opponents who both can hold you to that standard of play and enjoy you holding them to that same standard, so although winning isn't my greatest goal, those who hold winning to be their greatest goal exhibit those traits, standards, and philosophies I look to test myself against. Sometimes I want an EDH table to throw the kitchen sink at me just to see if I can survive the onslaught with my 99, and my opponents at the LGS just want to assemble Kaldra. Those games usually aren't going to be enjoyable for me.
Granted, while an infinite-combo win in EDH is generally frowned upon by the community at large, there are means by which is it more than acceptable in my group. Those that have been earned (worked for, fought against, and still become successful) are much more acceptable than infinites that someone stumbles upon and ruin the gamestate that was challenging everyone at the table to jockey with and solve for that earned win.
The worst thing about the "oops, I win" infinites is that once they are discovered, most play beyond that is meaningless because it is now irrelevant: you know who realistically should have won, and the cat's out the bag, devaluing the win for anyone else who winds up picking it up.
I have no problem with EDH being an arms race, as long as everyone is on equal footing. Infinites exist in this format, and as cards keep getting printed, more and more interactions will break. I do however take issue with those interactions being used as a crutch to replace strategy and skill while playing games where they are likely to come up.
As long as everyone understands what everyone else's expectations are, you wont't find the casual/ competitive arguements in your playgroup.
Blue: teaching Magic players manners since 1995Shops: Teaching blue players manners since 2009
A local LGS had mp tourney's for a while. I played in one and that was enough for me. I'm an extremely competitive player, that's not the issue. Mp is the issue. MP is silly when it comes to tournament play. The best player doesn't win. The highest ranking decks after round one just get hated out in round two. People who know each other help each other. It's just a royal cluster****. And Hermit Druid won the three tournaments they did before stopping them because it's too fast to even get hated out by a whole table ganging up on it. Hence I only play 1v1. In Duel Commander there are no mitigating factors other than you and your opponent.
Me and the group that play 1v1 have been trying to get the owner to start Duel tournaments but he says people think the ban list is too restrictive or the format is too expensive. Both silly statements given the ban lists are fairly similar outside of broken cards like HD and the Duel ban list allows for more commanders. The expensive part is silly because the majority of people that play at the store are in their 30s or up, have been playing forever, have all the most expensive cards already and blow my collection out of the water yet I can still put together good 1v1 decks.
I'm pretty sure that you don't need $1000 to have a good duelcommander deck. Mine is around $100-$200 and it's still pretty good.
On topic, I don't mind either. If you're competitive and are looking to win, it's totally fine, just don't play any degenerate combos like Hermit druid, please. MLD is fine, locking me down is fine, just don't "herp derp hermit druid I win".
It's just that if you're competitive, try to win or try to get an interesting game going. If you're casual, try to have fun.
Thanks Argentleman;)
WB Teysa token aggroBW (retired)
MAKING (Onmath, Numot, maybe something in Esper)
I do the same often. I had a Mimeoplasm deck thats goal was to win with Laboratory guy. I also had a Krenko deck churn out 3400+ Goblins, without a technically infinite combo, Breath of Fury fun. I still lost that game, no haste, but mission accomplished!
EDH Decks:
B Toshiro Umezawa B
W Mikaeus, the Lunarch W
G Azusa, Lost but Seeking G
UB Grimgrin, Corpse-Born BU
BGU The Mimeoplasm UGB
GUW Rubinia Soulsinger WUG
GRB Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper BRG
EDH logic...a competitive deck is any deck that is better then mine, and casual deck is any deck that is worse then mine.
Every time I have joined a game labeled "casual" and play combo I get yelled and dissed at it, and usually kicked. Talk about rude right, so much for a casual mentality :-/. If someone enjoys having fun by playing competitively while still being polite and civil, it doesn't seem to matter they are still treated like jerks. I think asking for a casual game is moronic, hypocritical, and rude. Asking for chill people and to have fun in whatever way they deem fit is another thing, but that is rarely the case. So what if someone has a bad hand or a good hand, or a quick and devastating win. There is always another game assuming you didn't just kick the person for doing well.
The common argument of this is something along the lines of one sided games are not fun, or casual means you cant be competitive. So what your expected to just play to loose if your not playing competitive...that's just hypocritical. You play your best and are civil and what type of deck you have shouldn't matter.
A casual game should not be about how good or bad peoples decks are, it should be a game about having fun, free mulls, letting misplays go, and being civil and decent to people. It should not be this oh mur god you better play something ****ty and not creative or your not casual, and we the people asking for a casual game are gona turn into big dicks and kick you for winning.
Asking for a casual game is rather unfair, as peoples definition of casual differs.
It is only slightly better then simply asking for casual when someone mentions personal things to ban for example "Casual, no infinite/no mld". Why is there so much hate on the Johnny player, yet not on spike or Timmy. Half the time combos are not even that competitive, why not let the person enjoy assembling there instant win condition and win big, despite that alot of the time they will also be loosing big to.
As for no infinite I think that is incredibly unfair, why is a combo a bad thing, at least they are creative and not just some herp derp aggro/tempo deck. Its not like infinite is the end all of be all anyways, there are combos and tactics even within aggro that are just as good and generally more stable so I'm not sure why its ok to just outright ban not only entire deck archetypes but effectively people who enjoy certain play styles, regardless of how decent of a human being and or how competitive they are. I would prefer to see for once people making games banning aggro/tempo/ other herp derp stuff, and have creative only games! But again that's not really fair, because variety is the spice of life and whatever your playing should be prepared to face just about anything.
While I agree with hating the mld, and its quite easily the most hated deck archetype, and would love to never see it again. Some people like it so I still think its pretty unfair to ban it as if you want to play Rakdos in edh Its rather hard to do something else, and again its something that you need to be able to adapt to so as aggravating as it is, you need to know how to deal with it.
Banning an entire archetype should never be ok, however it is ok to ban specific cards. Everyone knows there are some very degenerate cards. (im looking at you hermit druid...ironically casuals don't tend to cry out for him to be banned and instead whine about infinite combos which are not nearly as degenerate) Banning certain things can go to stabilize some certain degenerate archetypes that may not be liked without completely crippling important aspects of the game.
A casual game by the widely accepted definition is the definition of hypocrisy as it links back to my first comment about "EDH logic" Now this may be coming off as opinionated or rage filled, but I would disagree with that, however this next comment is an opinion. I wouldn't really say all of this thread is just my opinion or my definition, it has been a logical deduction about how the majority of players think. just the concept of a casual game has really irked me and thus my mission to try and stop people asking for them, or at least get people to refine and change the meaning of casual to something appropriate.
Merged into Casual vs. Competitive thread. - cryogen
Decks:
Grenzo
Jalira
Talrasha's Doom
Lazav's not here
Eldrazi Bookkeeper
"I shall pass."
Doom Warden
Jalira
I don't see my friends whine for shignizzles.
But oh lord when I go watch some casual groups play and someone touches timmy's lands that person might as well be kicking babies instead for the reaction he'll recieve.
I don't like the mentality that EDH has created and will, as always, promote tolerance when facing such people. I think everyone used to hate land destruction once in their life, learning to deal with it however, should be a given.
[Primer] Kozilek, Butcher with Juice.
That point aside, I did not defend any particular combo archetypes over another, I hate mld, and I still advocated that it shouldent be banned. I was advocating banning of specific cards as the classic edh ban list does not get regular updates, and if you want casual hitting very specific cards is much better then shutting down archetypes.
Decks:
Grenzo
Jalira
Talrasha's Doom
Lazav's not here
Eldrazi Bookkeeper
"I shall pass."
Doom Warden
Jalira
And two, I mostly play on cockatrice, and I'm just really upset with the "casual" game tag, and or getting kicked because I win.
Lastly...yea I guess my post was pretty whiny, but that aside I am trying to make some very real points, and actually accomplish something good for the community. I know its unlikely that this thread could start a movement, but hey everything needs to start somewhere.
Decks:
Grenzo
Jalira
Talrasha's Doom
Lazav's not here
Eldrazi Bookkeeper
"I shall pass."
Doom Warden
Jalira
Some things to note:
1) You joined a "casual" game knowing full well that your combo deck would be frowned upon. Bad on you.
2) "...why is a combo a bad thing, at least they are creative and not just some herp derp aggro/tempo deck."
No, combo decks are not inherently any more creative than aggro/tempo/etc. Your bias is showing, and clearly you just have an axe to grind. You are not special for comboing. They are not special for slamming fatties. Get over it.
3) "...it has been a logical deduction about how the majority of players think."
No, your post has been opinionated whining flamebait.
4) "...peoples definition of casual differs."
True.
Personally? I like Sheldon's vision for EDH, which I believe is "Build casually, play competitively." In other words, don't put stuff that will make the game miserable or end it too quickly in your deck, but do try to win to the best of your ability.
I took Food Chain out of Prossh because it felt dirty. I will still swing with Wood Elves at the strongest deck on turn 4 or tutor for Avenger/Craterhoof when the coast is clear. If you restrain yourself in the deckbuilding stage you can go hogwild in game.
Combos as a whole can't reasonably be hated. Sanguine Bond/Exquisite Blood isn't exactly terrorizing the format. Quick, compact, consistent combos? That isn't fun for anyone and you know it. Moderation is key.
---
BRG Prossh, Skyraider of Kher
WUB Sharuum, the Hegemon
UGEdric, Spymaster of Trest
A combo that relies on a weak creature sticking for a turn and the graveyard isn't fragile? I know which Druid deck you're talking about, how many times has anyone actually ever played against that deck irl? I use the Hermit and Lab Maniac/Living Death in Mimeoplasm and it is far from unstoppable. But I'm not here to derail your thread and argue over Hermit Druids power.
My suggestion to you is that you play more in an LGS or other live playgroup, and see if your experiences improve.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
There are people/casuals who frown upon these two combined as well, you know. Where do you draw the line?
I personally had my experiences with people calling themselves casual, which is basically them not acting casual. But, off-course, as you said, each end probably has it's fair share of jerks.
I've heard it being said here before, "the cards are not the problem, we are."
[Primer] Kozilek, Butcher with Juice.
The line is wherever your playgroup draws it. And indeed, people are the problem.
@Cryogen: Absolutely. Online EDH is an abomination in all of its forms. I've never heard of anyone having fun with it, and every 4-man video I've seen is painful just to watch.
---
BRG Prossh, Skyraider of Kher
WUB Sharuum, the Hegemon
UGEdric, Spymaster of Trest
That's true, but the type of jerk that is very rampant amongst the casual players are whiny, passive-aggressive *****. You can defend one group all you want, but saying something like that is a lot like claiming that both religious and scientific people have irrational thinkers; one inherently spawns them while the other just happens to have them.
/wentthere