I too find the sorin thing confusing - I guess it maybe has more to do with being overly harsh to a single player than it does being a powerful play? It’s definitely a weird thing to find particularly egregious.
It does seem like a bad play to me. I’d wait until a threat had better been established, or better, wait until it’s 1:1.
The life total should not change, but even if it did, that won't stop combo;
[...]
Not only is there no way to stop combo from being the best way to kill a table...
Hard to say if 30 life would change much - likely it wouldn't imo - but it's not like changing life totals couldn't stop combo in principle. Change life totals to, say, 3, and combo is immediately dead (and burn is the new king).
Obviously that's an extreme example but there's presumably some happy medium for competitive play. A life total that low would likely drastically change casual play, though, probably more than is healthy.
We can argue how valid their numbers are or how much stock you want to put into their findings, however, it does give us some interesting information to work with.
To me, the #1 red flag about their data is that they're pulling only from games they can watch. People making videos of commander games are probably savvy enough to realize that combo is not generally compelling television. If "telling a story" is only kind of the goal for regular games of commander, it's EXACTLY the goal when you're putting it on youtube. If the game has gotten so long that it's boring, it's not going to be compelling to watch, nor will it be compelling to deflate the tension with a sudden infinite combo. Who's going to sit down and watch an hour+ game that ends with someone T&Ning kiki+conscripts out of nowhere? Major yawn. So the data they're using is extremely suspect imo.
Also worth mentioning - combat damage from combo is combo, but things like, say, a 30-point rain of hailfire is not considered combo, a secure the wastes into craterhoof is not considered combo, a thrice-copied expropriate is not considered combo. Personally I put those things in roughly the same bucket as combo because they cause roughly the same result - everything that happened before is basically irrelevant and there's very little opportunity to interact with them. That is, of course, a subjective opinion.
So those would be my two main concerns about the data.
If WotC printed more tutoring hosers, would it help?
We have 2 white creatures, 1 red enchantment, 1 blue artifact, and 2 Dimir Hybrid cards. Seems to me that if there were more of these available, it could help.
There is also Ob Nixilis, Unshackled.
Honestly? No, not really, no. I don't think I've ever played any of those cards and I'm not likely to do so.
1) anything that inhibits people's ability to play is generally going to be a terrible political move. Sure, it stops vamp tutor into a fast combo - it also stops fetch lands, land ramp, and lots of relatively innocuous stuff. Which means everyone is going to want to either kill me, or kill my enchantment. It's not even going to be clear that it's preventing someone from tutoring a combo, up until they actually play the tutor after the enchantment is gone.
2) Most of the cards do basically nothing except hose. Which means they aren't ever going to be core to my strategy or fit with what I'm trying to do, and I'm never going to have much desire to play them. They're not interesting.
3) Most of them cost too much to stop the best tutors anyway.
4) Before I sit down, I don't know what I'm going to be playing against. If I knew I was going to be playing against turns.dec or a medium-speed combo deck, sure, I'd throw in strangehold, but I don't know that and I'm frequently not. I don't like having dead(ish) cards in my deck.
If WotC wanted me to actually play these things and have them actually be useful, I'd say something like:
Avatar of Whoah 1W
Creature - Avatar
Flash
If an opponent would search a library, that player searches the top eight cards of that library instead.
You may activate equip abilities any time you could cast an instant.
1/1
Or something like that. Give me a reason to want to play it outside of hosing tutors, make sure it doesn't hurt opponents doing relatively fair things, make it cost little enough that it actually matters vs good combo decks. I really doubt this will ever happen, though.
I thought that putting "accidental" in front of kingmaking would make it clear that it wasn't by design on the aggro player's part, but please continue language policing, it's fun for me. Just don't send me an invoice for editing services because I'm not paying that unless someone starts paying me $$$ to play against Edgar.
I was unclear that I mean metaphorically I see 3 aggro decks for every tryhard combo deck perhaps. But that was my intended meaning there. I suspect that aggro-ish decks (aggro-ramp or true aggro) are probably about twice as common as dedicated combo if not more. But among the casual crowd I think you'll see more aggro with lower life totals.
And honesty I don't enjoy aggro games very much; it's again not about what I want, but I will say anecdotally most players don't love getting aggro'd. I used to play a very aggressive Skullbriar deck that would typically kill someone on turn 4 or so and then lose. Nothing but complaints about that.
It's not about language policing - I'm genuinely asking, what definition are you using for kingmaking? Because I can't think of any definition that would include the circumstance you're talking about. Is everyone "accidentally kingmaking" unless they win or do absolutely nothing? Seriously, what do you even mean?
Definitions for aggro are a little hard to nail down in commander imo, but I would describe my own meta as having very few truly aggressive decks, and a lot of midrangy decks. There are few dedicated combo decks either...although I'm not sure how dedicated is "dedicated". But none of that's super helpful - I think the more relevant question is how many games end via combo? And in the games I've played locally, I'd say it's something like:
45% I win (non-combo, usually non-bursty)
30% someone else wins (combo)
15% someone else wins (noncombo but bursty wincons like expropriate or rain of hailfire)
10% someone else wins (noncombo, non-bursty)
This is obviously pretty speculative on my part, but I think it illustrates the problem I have with the direction the game has gone - it's pretty rare for someone to try to win except by a dedicated "I win" button, which I personally find very unsatisfying. Rarely is incremental damage relevant when other players are trying to win. Which is supposed to be most of the game. 30 life brings that incremental damage into sharper focus (not as much as 20 life, but baby steps).
Yes, I stand by the obvious meaning of the statement. Sorry for using a commonly understood idiom. But good use of everyone's time being the language police.
You're backsliding into just trying to score internet points again.
*Someone* is down on life regardless. I think the likelihood exists that the game would be less fun if there were more games that were decided by an early aggro explosion accidentally kingmaking someone. Maybe it's good, maybe not. I think possibly not at least.
It's definitely different than playing against combo players for me even now, and it would be much different with lower life totals.
edit: Re: tryhard decks - there are a lot more aggro decks than tryhard decks. I see about 3 Edgars for every Gitrog.
That's why I also responded to the figurative meaning of the sentence.
I dislike the term "kingmaking", and I don't think it applies to this circumstance. Using the google definition:
In broad terms kingmaking is defined as a game situation in which a player that has no chance to win will nonetheless choose which player does win through his actions - usually knowingly.
The aggro player doesn't have "no chance to win" (well, maybe at 40 life that's kind of true, but ideally that wouldn't be the case). They're playing to win, and the actions they take to accomplish that win - regardless of whether or not they win - will have an impact on which player DOES win. Which is as it should be, no? If a player had no impact whatsoever on which deck won, I'd say that's not a good game. What definition of kingmaking are you using?
Edgar is a recent precon commander with casual appeal, so I'm not shocked you're seeing a lot of him. A comparison of 2 random commanders from the different archetypes probably isn't the fairest way to determine which more popular. And really, I consider the problem less to be that combo is the best archetype, and more than even "noncombo" decks are being pushed to include combos just as a way to finish the game because of the ridiculous life totals. At least in my playgroup, even the aggro decks are secret combo decks, and combos end an obnoxious number of games.
I'm not going to get sidetracked into a how your friend builds or plays his deck discussion but I stand by my statement Aggro decks are somewhat different than combo decks in the texture of the games, at least for me personally.
The most basic element of it is that when I stop a combo I'm down a card or two and the game goes on. When I stop an aggro deck I'm down 30 life (or 20, heh) and a card or two, and the game goes on. I'm much closer to death after stopping the aggro player.
Not all the time of course, but perhaps because I've got a punchable face, or because I try to be an uncommonly good sport about being focused on, I am the target of aggro players at a higher rate than you would expect in a 4 player game
Weird statement to stand by, considering it doesn't even really make sense. You wouldn't play a game that you normally play recreationally, for ANY amount of cash, with a relatively minor rules tweak (that would, at worst, make the game shorter and thus a better $ per hour rate)? Somehow I doubt you'd actually be so true to your principles if someone was actually offering that hot, hot cash.
I know, it's just a saying but...it's a stupid saying. All you really mean, presumably, is "I'd rather not play against Edgar markov in 30 life rules". Which I think is totally fine. I'd rather not play against Gitfrog with ANY rules, but I still do it, because it's part of the game and people can be tryhards if they want. There SHOULD be aggro commanders you don't want to play against, just like there are so, so many combo ones.
You're only down on life if they've been targeting you. If you've been successfully politicking you'll be down an opponent or two, then you board wipe and you're way ahead. You know - hold up your removal for edgar turns and use it unless they promise not to attack you? Hold back threats so you aren't their biggest concern? Y'know, good politics? Can't help you with a punchable face, though. Maybe try plastic surgery?
I mean, edgar also is a 4/4 hasted anthem that pumps himself to 5 when he attacks too so not like they're gonna be unable to finish someone off after a wrath. You couldn't pay me to play against an edgar deck with 30 life.
You realize it's still multiplayer, right?
One of my friends plays edgar and he's had a few explosive games...and a lot more total duds where he was basically inconsequential past the first few turns, and maybe one or two swingy turns where he played edgar before getting wrecked by a board wipe or whatever.
He's not on a budget either - I think he's got ABU duals and the like in there. I think it's even largely foiled out. I do think his deck could be built better, but there's nothing obviously wrong with it, and he's getting absolutely creamed most of the time. And I'm not even playing anything close to my most powerful decks.
Edgar is an aggro commander so good he's banned in 1v1. He SHOULD be scary to play against. You should have roughly the same feeling playing against Edgar, a premier aggro commander, as against one of the premier combo commanders - thrasios/tymna, gitfrog, urza, zur, yisan, etc. But even at 30 life I'd happily play against Edgar instead of one of those. Hell, in multiplayer I'd rather play against edgar at 15 life.
Oh, so we can’t compare to 60 card, but let’s throw in some home-brew format. Makes sense. Then, let’s compare to Duel, which is 1v1. To top it off, we’re only going to talk about 2 competent players at a 4 man table.
Or, with all things being equal, combo will still reign supreme. Threat assessment has nothing to do with it. So many combos blow up out of nothing that it’s “anybody have stack interaction? No? GG.” How about the guy at the table playing life-gain? That Aggro player needs to eliminate that player first, otherwise they will be out of reach.
You’re focusing too much on Aggro vs. Combo. Other players and decks exist at the table. It’s an irrelevant point. Life totals will do absolutely nothing to curb what we are talking about here. Will Aggro be more viable? Well duh, yeah. But, that doesn’t immediately make combo worse off.
-----------------
Ugh, this whole thing bothers me. Let’s take your example of 2 good decks and 2 schmucks. What makes you think the 2 schmucks won’t see the aggro player punching the somehow-known combo player in the face and think “Well geeze, I’m next”.
You can’t sit there and say Aggro reigns in combo, and if you don’t recognize the fact that the Aggro player is doing the table a favor, you’re dense. All the while expecting the other players to be OK watching one player cobble another without thinking, “yeah, I don’t want this to happen to me”.
The point of the mythical 10,000 card format was not direct comparison, the point was to refute your claim that "number of cards doesn't matter to combo", because obviously it does. Vintage combo is much more consistent than edh combo, thanks to deck size and being singleton. I'm not trying to draw a wider comparison. I'm just pointing out that your single point there is patently wrong by way of reductio ad absurdum.
Will combo still be superior? Probably, short of cutting life totals very low it's hard to avoid in multiplayer without some fairly heavy bans. I still think it's worth putting their superiority at some contention. But even outside of the cEDH aggro vs cEDH combo scenario - having lower life totals makes it more feasible for players to collaborate and kill someone who's clearly setting up some nonsense. I've had many games where one player has ramped to 15 mana on turn 6 or whatever, and even though everyone agrees they're the threat, it's hard to put a dent in that massive life total. Partly this is the fault of decks in general ignoring early board development because in a 40-life format it's not very important, and partly it's the fault of their life total being so high that most early drops won't have much of an effect. Both of these problems are reduced by lowering the starting life totals.
Not particularly important, but the lifegain comment is totally dependent on what kind of aggro deck you're talking about. Krenko, for example, doesn't give much of a crap about lifegain. At most it delays him...one turn? You seem to be assuming some sort of lightning-bolt-burn-based aggro deck, which is just never going to happen without lowering life totals absurdly low. Aggro decks in commander will always, of necessity, scale to the midgame.
RE: 2 schmucks vs aggro vs combo: the correct play in that scenario is to let aggro kill combo, then unleash whatever tools you have to stop the aggro player killing you. I don't particularly care what bad players are likely to do - I care about whether the metagame is balanced when players are playing intelligently. I have no idea what you mean about "doing the table a favor". Sure, it's good for the table - it's also good for the aggro player to eliminate the greatest threat first. It's for the latter reason that he should be doing it, not philanthropy.
When talking about, say, a cEDH game where there are 2 combo and 2 aggro players, or 3 combo and 1 aggro player - it's not as though the combo players get to go off unopposed. More competitive decks means more interaction, means a greater risk of going off early. The aggro player has a reasonable chance to win, so long as the combo/control players are keeping each other from going off long enough for him to deal enough damage - presumably with some interaction of his own. Lowering life totals makes that a lot more feasible.
Anyone saying "combo is unaffected" has a very poor understanding of multiplayer. Combo has THREE TIMES as many players who could be running answers to fend off. There's a reason cEDH games frequently don't involve a lot of successful comboing off - it's hard to fight through those odds. It's unaffected when playing a combo deck against casual decks not running interaction, I'll give you that one, but it's a problem of disparate power levels, not a problem of combo having an inherent advantage in multiplayer (it does have an advantage, granted, but it's certainly not "unaffected").
As far as combo > aggro > control > combo truism - that would still be true, because even if aggro can outrace one combo it is still overall weaker in the format because of needing to eliminate all players individually. We aren't talking about simple, one-category decks here, though. most cedh decks are combo + control. And most aggro decks run disruption. So the lines break down a bit.
Well, pretty sick of this retort. “Can’t compare to 60 card formats.” Fact is, 60 card formats, as a whole, are far more consistent than a singleton format. So my point was, aggro decks in that environment would struggle to deal 60 points of damage when fully optimized, therefore it is infinitely harder to do so in EDH. Who cares how many cards you have to dig through when you have access to Dig Spells, Super draw spells, all of the tutors, etc. This isn’t a great argument here.
Aggro decks in 60 card are built with the goal of dealing 20 damage as efficiently as possible to a single opponent. Of course they aren't going to scale well to 60 life.
But if you lower the life total enough that a fast aggro can deal lethal to at least one person reliably before a combo can reasonably be assembled, that takes a significant amount of the luster away from combo, because you'll always be at the mercy of the aggro player, and if he sniffs you out, you're in trouble.
Both aggro and combo are less consistent with 100 cards - which to a greater degree is hard to say, but I think duel commander shows us that combo takes the bigger hit (although they do ban a couple tutors...but they also ban some aggro cards).
And come on, you can't be serious with "who cares how many cards you have to dig through". Obviously number of cards matters. You want to try to put together a combo deck in my new format? It's 10,000 card decks, no duplicates. But don't worry, you have one copy of dig through time. That should make it easy.
How, exactly, do you know which player is which? Another not so great argument here. Is all it takes is for one of the “scrubs” to Murder a threat from the aggro player, and this goes completely out the window.
Good threat assessment? I rarely have any trouble figuring out who the tryhard is at my table after a couple turns, and most of the time commander choice alone gives it away.
Sure, other players could murder some random aggro creature attacking another player if they're especially thick. They could also kill the critical combo piece at the right time and totally dismantle the combo player. Outside interference could go either way - except at least the aggro player has the better argument to leave him alone until he's finished off the combo player.
And sure, maybe people will have crappy threat assessment and kill the aggro player's stuff while someone else combos off. Kinda hard to stop that. But hopefully they'll remember their mistake in the next game. Making it even harder on the aggro player by having outrageous life totals isn't improving anything.
Anyways, the topic of life totals came up, and one individual who I hadn’t met yet before brought up a good point. Combo became the “boogeyman” of the format in response to the initial “boogeyman”, big creatures that were hard to interact with. In doing so, players realized that combo wasn’t just a good answer to that, but ultimately, the most efficient way to kill the table in one go. So the point was this, it wouldn’t matter what life-totals were, because combo would still reign supreme by virtue of being the most efficient tool to wipe out the table. If anything, lowering life totals would have the opposite effect, and drive people further into combo decks. Even at 20 life, the aggro or “non-combo” deck still has to get through ~60 points of damage. That’s not even feasible in 60-card formats.
"Big creatures that are hard to interact with" were the boogeyman of the format? I certainly don't remember that ever really being true. And I've been playing since '09. I remember people used to think that simic sky swallower was a good card, but they were just wrong. It sucks now, and it sucked back then too.
You don't need to deal 60 damage to stop the combo player if life totals start at 20. You only need to deal 20. And even if they assemble their combo first, they don't have the luxury of sitting on it until everyone is tapped out - they're dead next turn, they've gotta just go, and hope no one has answers.
And you can't really directly compare to 60 card formats. After all, combo has 1.6x as many cards to look through for their combo, AND they're all singleton. That's a huge disadvantage compared to vintage. I'd argue aggro takes a much lesser hit in power from deck size and consistency than combo does. Which is borne out in competitive 1v1, where the life totals are over 20 but aggro is consistently a menace, to the point that seemingly innocuous cards are banned in an effort to diminish its effectiveness.
What that tells you is - if you sit down at a table with 2 scrubs, a competitive combo deck, and a competitive aggro deck, the aggro deck can kill the combo deck first most of the time, if you fix the life totals so it's not as outrageous as it is now. At 25 life, that combo player is going to be feeling some serious pressure if the aggro player is gunning for him. And sure, the aggro player still has to kill the other 2 players if he wins, whereas the combo player just wins...but that seems a reasonable tradeoff in strategies to me. Aggro gets to control the flow of the game by choosing who gets eliminated first but has to make sure they have the resources to finish the job, whereas combo is slower but doesn't have to worry about the other players.
Instead we have a format where aggro has no advantages and combo is the only viable competitive archetype. Which is kind of terrible.
I dont think the difference between 90 and 120 makes this happen. And anything under 30 is going to be to low to me in EDH. YMMV
Why?
I feel like 40 life started as a way to make games long and epic, and now it's rotting away at our foundations because it pushes people who aren't deliberately avoiding them into more and more efficient wincons, which are less and less interesting. A good idea in theory, ruined by human nature.
The thing you do to fix combos is lower the starting life total. When winning via damage is more feasible, combo will cease to be the only option to compete at powerful tables, and groups can "degenerate" without all becoming combo focused out of necessity.
Right now the easiest way to win a game of commander - by far - is to doing something extremely high-impact in a single turn, to reduce your opponents ability to interact with you and win before they can recover - whether combo, craterhoof, or expropriate. That's because any incremental damage strategy is going to fail frequently against 120 enemy life. Make life totals smaller, make incremental damage matter again, and explosive plays will be less important, and a greater diversity of strategy can thrive.
People don't understand politics at all. You go for it and you don't get it and you're likely public enemy #1. And you exhausted resources you could have used developing your board or creating engines.
Going for the combo is not always the best line, especially if it leaves you exposed.
Hell, in most groups I've played in they remember that you combo'd out the next game and it almost always carries a little aggro over So if I think I can win without comboing I'll usually try, just because it's usually safer. or if I can delay and do it when it's safer, etc.
I'm certainly not arguing that someone should go for their combo if they think doing so will make them less likely to win the game. You should make the play that will result in the highest possible chance for you to win. Usually that'll be the combo, but not necessarily.
My feelings on playing differently for the benefit of subsequent games is a little more complicated. I'm in favor of keeping your word in terms of dealmaking, but I wouldn't intentionally hold back good plays otherwise. I'd say, if you think a play is going to annoy the other people to the point that they'll target you in subsequent games, I wouldn't run that play in the deck. And if it's just some lucky coincidence that it comes together quickly, then I'd make it clear to the other players that I got lucky.
i hear this a lot from less experienced aggro players, i don't hear it from ones that are prepared with ways to protect the monster they've created, their swarm, or ways to disrupt combopants over there.
I win a pretty high percentage of my games regardless of what I play. My latest aggressive decks were both boros (feather and sylvia + khorvath). Both went nearly undefeated in multiplayer, and I took the S+K deck to a 1v1 tournament where it won. The animar guy in the last round seemed rather put out that I killed his commander every time it hit the board, pro-white notwithstanding.
But I have an extensive collection and a lot of deckbuilding experience, so I try to differentiate my experience from the experience of the man on the street. When I see other people in my LGS/playgroup playing anything remotely close to aggro, they're winning a very low percentage of games because of the natural disadvantages the strategy has in a multiplayer format, in addition to the high life totals. Properly aggressive decks (i.e. decks where goblin guide is a powerful card) are basically nonexistent in any meta. The decks that are winning are either playing a combo, or some other win-the-game-right-now spell or synergy.
Let's take this to it's logical conclusion and say this ends up at straight cedh. Everyone trying to win with every card at their disposal.
CEDH has very limited strategies that actually work, because it's competitive. In the same way every other format has there best decks, edh is no exception.
It is not only possible, but very likely that none of these strategies are appealing.
What then? If the solution is to stop playing, obviously there is a problem with the format if people would rather quit than play it.
I think you've taken the wrong idea from my post. My point is that, if you don't want to combo win, then you shouldn't put those cards in your deck. If you're tutoring for something besides your combo because it's "too early" then you're doing it wrong.
But I think if people play against each other long enough and follow the "combo when it's been long enough" philosophy, it will naturally pull towards cEDH as people are motivated to combo earlier and earlier. Which is one of many reasons why I think that philosophy sucks. If you don't think combo winning is a fun way to end a game, then don't put it in your deck. Duh.
And I'll reiterate my point from earlier - a big problem at the core of EDH isn't just that combo is effective, it's that that combo in essentially the only effective way to win in a highly competitive setting. The variety of strategies in cEDH sucks. Reducing the life total could do major work to help to change that.
It does seem like a bad play to me. I’d wait until a threat had better been established, or better, wait until it’s 1:1.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Obviously that's an extreme example but there's presumably some happy medium for competitive play. A life total that low would likely drastically change casual play, though, probably more than is healthy.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Also worth mentioning - combat damage from combo is combo, but things like, say, a 30-point rain of hailfire is not considered combo, a secure the wastes into craterhoof is not considered combo, a thrice-copied expropriate is not considered combo. Personally I put those things in roughly the same bucket as combo because they cause roughly the same result - everything that happened before is basically irrelevant and there's very little opportunity to interact with them. That is, of course, a subjective opinion.
So those would be my two main concerns about the data.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
1) anything that inhibits people's ability to play is generally going to be a terrible political move. Sure, it stops vamp tutor into a fast combo - it also stops fetch lands, land ramp, and lots of relatively innocuous stuff. Which means everyone is going to want to either kill me, or kill my enchantment. It's not even going to be clear that it's preventing someone from tutoring a combo, up until they actually play the tutor after the enchantment is gone.
2) Most of the cards do basically nothing except hose. Which means they aren't ever going to be core to my strategy or fit with what I'm trying to do, and I'm never going to have much desire to play them. They're not interesting.
3) Most of them cost too much to stop the best tutors anyway.
4) Before I sit down, I don't know what I'm going to be playing against. If I knew I was going to be playing against turns.dec or a medium-speed combo deck, sure, I'd throw in strangehold, but I don't know that and I'm frequently not. I don't like having dead(ish) cards in my deck.
If WotC wanted me to actually play these things and have them actually be useful, I'd say something like:
Avatar of Whoah 1W
Creature - Avatar
Flash
If an opponent would search a library, that player searches the top eight cards of that library instead.
You may activate equip abilities any time you could cast an instant.
1/1
Or something like that. Give me a reason to want to play it outside of hosing tutors, make sure it doesn't hurt opponents doing relatively fair things, make it cost little enough that it actually matters vs good combo decks. I really doubt this will ever happen, though.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Definitions for aggro are a little hard to nail down in commander imo, but I would describe my own meta as having very few truly aggressive decks, and a lot of midrangy decks. There are few dedicated combo decks either...although I'm not sure how dedicated is "dedicated". But none of that's super helpful - I think the more relevant question is how many games end via combo? And in the games I've played locally, I'd say it's something like:
45% I win (non-combo, usually non-bursty)
30% someone else wins (combo)
15% someone else wins (noncombo but bursty wincons like expropriate or rain of hailfire)
10% someone else wins (noncombo, non-bursty)
This is obviously pretty speculative on my part, but I think it illustrates the problem I have with the direction the game has gone - it's pretty rare for someone to try to win except by a dedicated "I win" button, which I personally find very unsatisfying. Rarely is incremental damage relevant when other players are trying to win. Which is supposed to be most of the game. 30 life brings that incremental damage into sharper focus (not as much as 20 life, but baby steps).
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I dislike the term "kingmaking", and I don't think it applies to this circumstance. Using the google definition:
The aggro player doesn't have "no chance to win" (well, maybe at 40 life that's kind of true, but ideally that wouldn't be the case). They're playing to win, and the actions they take to accomplish that win - regardless of whether or not they win - will have an impact on which player DOES win. Which is as it should be, no? If a player had no impact whatsoever on which deck won, I'd say that's not a good game. What definition of kingmaking are you using?
Edgar is a recent precon commander with casual appeal, so I'm not shocked you're seeing a lot of him. A comparison of 2 random commanders from the different archetypes probably isn't the fairest way to determine which more popular. And really, I consider the problem less to be that combo is the best archetype, and more than even "noncombo" decks are being pushed to include combos just as a way to finish the game because of the ridiculous life totals. At least in my playgroup, even the aggro decks are secret combo decks, and combos end an obnoxious number of games.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I know, it's just a saying but...it's a stupid saying. All you really mean, presumably, is "I'd rather not play against Edgar markov in 30 life rules". Which I think is totally fine. I'd rather not play against Gitfrog with ANY rules, but I still do it, because it's part of the game and people can be tryhards if they want. There SHOULD be aggro commanders you don't want to play against, just like there are so, so many combo ones.
You're only down on life if they've been targeting you. If you've been successfully politicking you'll be down an opponent or two, then you board wipe and you're way ahead. You know - hold up your removal for edgar turns and use it unless they promise not to attack you? Hold back threats so you aren't their biggest concern? Y'know, good politics? Can't help you with a punchable face, though. Maybe try plastic surgery?
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
One of my friends plays edgar and he's had a few explosive games...and a lot more total duds where he was basically inconsequential past the first few turns, and maybe one or two swingy turns where he played edgar before getting wrecked by a board wipe or whatever.
He's not on a budget either - I think he's got ABU duals and the like in there. I think it's even largely foiled out. I do think his deck could be built better, but there's nothing obviously wrong with it, and he's getting absolutely creamed most of the time. And I'm not even playing anything close to my most powerful decks.
Edgar is an aggro commander so good he's banned in 1v1. He SHOULD be scary to play against. You should have roughly the same feeling playing against Edgar, a premier aggro commander, as against one of the premier combo commanders - thrasios/tymna, gitfrog, urza, zur, yisan, etc. But even at 30 life I'd happily play against Edgar instead of one of those. Hell, in multiplayer I'd rather play against edgar at 15 life.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Will combo still be superior? Probably, short of cutting life totals very low it's hard to avoid in multiplayer without some fairly heavy bans. I still think it's worth putting their superiority at some contention. But even outside of the cEDH aggro vs cEDH combo scenario - having lower life totals makes it more feasible for players to collaborate and kill someone who's clearly setting up some nonsense. I've had many games where one player has ramped to 15 mana on turn 6 or whatever, and even though everyone agrees they're the threat, it's hard to put a dent in that massive life total. Partly this is the fault of decks in general ignoring early board development because in a 40-life format it's not very important, and partly it's the fault of their life total being so high that most early drops won't have much of an effect. Both of these problems are reduced by lowering the starting life totals.
Not particularly important, but the lifegain comment is totally dependent on what kind of aggro deck you're talking about. Krenko, for example, doesn't give much of a crap about lifegain. At most it delays him...one turn? You seem to be assuming some sort of lightning-bolt-burn-based aggro deck, which is just never going to happen without lowering life totals absurdly low. Aggro decks in commander will always, of necessity, scale to the midgame.
RE: 2 schmucks vs aggro vs combo: the correct play in that scenario is to let aggro kill combo, then unleash whatever tools you have to stop the aggro player killing you. I don't particularly care what bad players are likely to do - I care about whether the metagame is balanced when players are playing intelligently. I have no idea what you mean about "doing the table a favor". Sure, it's good for the table - it's also good for the aggro player to eliminate the greatest threat first. It's for the latter reason that he should be doing it, not philanthropy.
When talking about, say, a cEDH game where there are 2 combo and 2 aggro players, or 3 combo and 1 aggro player - it's not as though the combo players get to go off unopposed. More competitive decks means more interaction, means a greater risk of going off early. The aggro player has a reasonable chance to win, so long as the combo/control players are keeping each other from going off long enough for him to deal enough damage - presumably with some interaction of his own. Lowering life totals makes that a lot more feasible.
Anyone saying "combo is unaffected" has a very poor understanding of multiplayer. Combo has THREE TIMES as many players who could be running answers to fend off. There's a reason cEDH games frequently don't involve a lot of successful comboing off - it's hard to fight through those odds. It's unaffected when playing a combo deck against casual decks not running interaction, I'll give you that one, but it's a problem of disparate power levels, not a problem of combo having an inherent advantage in multiplayer (it does have an advantage, granted, but it's certainly not "unaffected").
As far as combo > aggro > control > combo truism - that would still be true, because even if aggro can outrace one combo it is still overall weaker in the format because of needing to eliminate all players individually. We aren't talking about simple, one-category decks here, though. most cedh decks are combo + control. And most aggro decks run disruption. So the lines break down a bit.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
But if you lower the life total enough that a fast aggro can deal lethal to at least one person reliably before a combo can reasonably be assembled, that takes a significant amount of the luster away from combo, because you'll always be at the mercy of the aggro player, and if he sniffs you out, you're in trouble.
Both aggro and combo are less consistent with 100 cards - which to a greater degree is hard to say, but I think duel commander shows us that combo takes the bigger hit (although they do ban a couple tutors...but they also ban some aggro cards).
And come on, you can't be serious with "who cares how many cards you have to dig through". Obviously number of cards matters. You want to try to put together a combo deck in my new format? It's 10,000 card decks, no duplicates. But don't worry, you have one copy of dig through time. That should make it easy. Good threat assessment? I rarely have any trouble figuring out who the tryhard is at my table after a couple turns, and most of the time commander choice alone gives it away.
Sure, other players could murder some random aggro creature attacking another player if they're especially thick. They could also kill the critical combo piece at the right time and totally dismantle the combo player. Outside interference could go either way - except at least the aggro player has the better argument to leave him alone until he's finished off the combo player.
And sure, maybe people will have crappy threat assessment and kill the aggro player's stuff while someone else combos off. Kinda hard to stop that. But hopefully they'll remember their mistake in the next game. Making it even harder on the aggro player by having outrageous life totals isn't improving anything.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
You don't need to deal 60 damage to stop the combo player if life totals start at 20. You only need to deal 20. And even if they assemble their combo first, they don't have the luxury of sitting on it until everyone is tapped out - they're dead next turn, they've gotta just go, and hope no one has answers.
And you can't really directly compare to 60 card formats. After all, combo has 1.6x as many cards to look through for their combo, AND they're all singleton. That's a huge disadvantage compared to vintage. I'd argue aggro takes a much lesser hit in power from deck size and consistency than combo does. Which is borne out in competitive 1v1, where the life totals are over 20 but aggro is consistently a menace, to the point that seemingly innocuous cards are banned in an effort to diminish its effectiveness.
What that tells you is - if you sit down at a table with 2 scrubs, a competitive combo deck, and a competitive aggro deck, the aggro deck can kill the combo deck first most of the time, if you fix the life totals so it's not as outrageous as it is now. At 25 life, that combo player is going to be feeling some serious pressure if the aggro player is gunning for him. And sure, the aggro player still has to kill the other 2 players if he wins, whereas the combo player just wins...but that seems a reasonable tradeoff in strategies to me. Aggro gets to control the flow of the game by choosing who gets eliminated first but has to make sure they have the resources to finish the job, whereas combo is slower but doesn't have to worry about the other players.
Instead we have a format where aggro has no advantages and combo is the only viable competitive archetype. Which is kind of terrible. Why?
I feel like 40 life started as a way to make games long and epic, and now it's rotting away at our foundations because it pushes people who aren't deliberately avoiding them into more and more efficient wincons, which are less and less interesting. A good idea in theory, ruined by human nature.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Right now the easiest way to win a game of commander - by far - is to doing something extremely high-impact in a single turn, to reduce your opponents ability to interact with you and win before they can recover - whether combo, craterhoof, or expropriate. That's because any incremental damage strategy is going to fail frequently against 120 enemy life. Make life totals smaller, make incremental damage matter again, and explosive plays will be less important, and a greater diversity of strategy can thrive.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
My feelings on playing differently for the benefit of subsequent games is a little more complicated. I'm in favor of keeping your word in terms of dealmaking, but I wouldn't intentionally hold back good plays otherwise. I'd say, if you think a play is going to annoy the other people to the point that they'll target you in subsequent games, I wouldn't run that play in the deck. And if it's just some lucky coincidence that it comes together quickly, then I'd make it clear to the other players that I got lucky.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
But I have an extensive collection and a lot of deckbuilding experience, so I try to differentiate my experience from the experience of the man on the street. When I see other people in my LGS/playgroup playing anything remotely close to aggro, they're winning a very low percentage of games because of the natural disadvantages the strategy has in a multiplayer format, in addition to the high life totals. Properly aggressive decks (i.e. decks where goblin guide is a powerful card) are basically nonexistent in any meta. The decks that are winning are either playing a combo, or some other win-the-game-right-now spell or synergy.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
But I think if people play against each other long enough and follow the "combo when it's been long enough" philosophy, it will naturally pull towards cEDH as people are motivated to combo earlier and earlier. Which is one of many reasons why I think that philosophy sucks. If you don't think combo winning is a fun way to end a game, then don't put it in your deck. Duh.
And I'll reiterate my point from earlier - a big problem at the core of EDH isn't just that combo is effective, it's that that combo in essentially the only effective way to win in a highly competitive setting. The variety of strategies in cEDH sucks. Reducing the life total could do major work to help to change that.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6