Yeah, Hokori, Dust Drinker would be really annoying. I have a monowhite right now with Isamaru, but i'm really thinking about trying Hokori or rune-tail there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Team Blitzkrieg, the Vintage/Legacy Lightning War
Decks: 1.x <StRonG>UW</tRonG> No-Stick G Tooth and Nail
Yeah I think the list for most broken for me goes:
Zur
Momir
Experiment Kraj
Kraj can be absoloutly amazing.
Yeah I second this as well, the other day my Kraj was a Morphling/Arcanis/Elvish Piper which is ridiculous on it's own. My OPs scooped when i dropped the ever-so-amazing Seedborn Muse. Kraj can be a bit slow and clunky at first, but if left alone long enough he gets to be absurd.
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
This thread is really just pathetic. Just because you enjoy playing this format and magic in general one way, does not mean that there are not other ways to enjoy it too. I love EDH, it is my favorite format by far, however I like playing competitive duels, and despise multiplayer. The deck building process is my favorite part of the game, and nothing rewards superior deck building more than EDH. However, it really takes no skill to build a "fun" deck, because you can play whatever you want because it is fun for you to play. So therefore I only play competitive duels, because that is the best way to test my ideas. To be the best you have to beat the best.
I understand that other people do you think this way, and I have no problem with people playing multiplayer, but just as I don't whine about how terrible your deck is in a duel, don't whine when your deck full of grip of chaos and insurrections loses to a more stream lined deck. If your multiplayer Thraximunder deck is always losing to a competitive Zur deck designed for duels, why is this lame, the Zur player's deck was designed for a competitve 1 on 1 game, and yours was not, he should be winnning every time.
How about instead of whining about things being cheap, or unoriginal, etc. you just stick to your nice safe playgroup, and leave the competitive players alone if you can't compete with their decks. Or if you are challenged by a competitive player, just say "Sorry man, my deck can't handle yours, do you have something more casual." If you insist on playing a Zur/Erayo/Rofellos/etc. with your multiplayer deck, or more casually designed deck for duels, don't cry when you lose, just congratulate them on the victory and ask for another deck, or work on improving your own. Be a gentleman, it's a lot more satisfying than being a whiny little girl.
This thread is really just pathetic. Just because you enjoy playing this format and magic in general one way, does not mean that there are not other ways to enjoy it too. I love EDH, it is my favorite format by far, however I like playing competitive duels, and despise multiplayer. The deck building process is my favorite part of the game, and nothing rewards superior deck building more than EDH. However, it really takes no skill to build a "fun" deck, because you can play whatever you want because it is fun for you to play. So therefore I only play competitive duels, because that is the best way to test my ideas. To be the best you have to beat the best.
I understand that other people do you think this way, and I have no problem with people playing multiplayer, but just as I don't whine about how terrible your deck is in a duel, don't whine when your deck full of grip of chaos and insurrections loses to a more stream lined deck. If your multiplayer Thraximunder deck is always losing to a competitive Zur deck designed for duels, why is this lame, the Zur player's deck was designed for a competitve 1 on 1 game, and yours was not, he should be winnning every time.
How about instead of whining about things being cheap, or unoriginal, etc. you just stick to your nice safe playgroup, and leave the competitive players alone if you can't compete with their decks. Or if you are challenged by a competitive player, just say "Sorry man, my deck can't handle yours, do you have something more casual." If you insist on playing a Zur/Erayo/Rofellos/etc. with your multiplayer deck, or more casually designed deck for duels, don't cry when you lose, just congratulate them on the victory and ask for another deck, or work on improving your own. Be a gentleman, it's a lot more satisfying than being a whiny little girl.
I would agree with you... if EDH was a sanctioned format. There's something to be said with using casual decks in a casual format. It's like.. let's say you go to an FNM, and you know that everyone there is just running whatever they pulled out of booster packs (casual setting). If you come in with a finely tuned Faeries deck, do you have a right to win? Yes. Do your opponents have a right for being angry and perhaps not play with you for ruining what they originally thought was a fun format (note: I didn't say whining)? Probably. EDH was originally designed to be a fun format to do in your spare time, not a bloodthirsty all-out war. If EDH was truly sanctioned, I have a feeling there would be many more cards banned than there are right now. In fact, one of the things that keeps EDH's power level "in check" lies in that your group can ban/legalize cards at their discretion. And face it, having a deck that wins literally 100% of the time is just asking for a groupban.
EDIT: This is purely for the sake of arguing against "casually competitive duels." If you have a multiplayer deck, then you should realize you're going to lose duels fairly often if you're too lazy to change it up.
Why is the OP complaining about good 1-on-1 decks beating his multiplayer deck? Why is he playing it in 1-on-1 games if it's going to be decidedly weaker than a good general?
Just because you like EDH multiplayer doesn't make it a primarily "5 player plus" sort of format.
This thread is really just pathetic. Just because you enjoy playing this format and magic in general one way, does not mean that there are not other ways to enjoy it too. I love EDH, it is my favorite format by far, however I like playing competitive duels, and despise multiplayer. The deck building process is my favorite part of the game, and nothing rewards superior deck building more than EDH. However, it really takes no skill to build a "fun" deck, because you can play whatever you want because it is fun for you to play. So therefore I only play competitive duels, because that is the best way to test my ideas. To be the best you have to beat the best.
I understand that other people do you think this way, and I have no problem with people playing multiplayer, but just as I don't whine about how terrible your deck is in a duel, don't whine when your deck full of grip of chaos and insurrections loses to a more stream lined deck. If your multiplayer Thraximunder deck is always losing to a competitive Zur deck designed for duels, why is this lame, the Zur player's deck was designed for a competitve 1 on 1 game, and yours was not, he should be winnning every time.
How about instead of whining about things being cheap, or unoriginal, etc. you just stick to your nice safe playgroup, and leave the competitive players alone if you can't compete with their decks. Or if you are challenged by a competitive player, just say "Sorry man, my deck can't handle yours, do you have something more casual." If you insist on playing a Zur/Erayo/Rofellos/etc. with your multiplayer deck, or more casually designed deck for duels, don't cry when you lose, just congratulate them on the victory and ask for another deck, or work on improving your own. Be a gentleman, it's a lot more satisfying than being a whiny little girl.
I may have missed it but I don't think anyone was complaining about any of the generals being cheap or unoriginal. From what I was reading it seemed the discussion is bordering more on awe of what they can do then disgust at having to play against them. I don't know about you but I was introduced into EDH as the format that you pull off the crazy card combos that wouldn't stand up in any other format. Winning is fun and all but whats a win when no one wants to play against your t5 roffellos deck or t6 zur win.
Now of course if theres money on the line, by all means break out your kick ass Zur deck. Just hope no the other players arn't going to be gunning for your loss for bringing perhaps a more streamlined engine.
could leveler be used with thran foundry? The effect of thran foundry is : remove thran foundry from the game target player shuffles his graveyard into his library
WHAT
Last edited by Kijin : 07-09-2010 at 03:50 PM.
The deck building process is my favorite part of the game, and nothing rewards superior deck building more than EDH. However, it really takes no skill to build a "fun" deck, because you can play whatever you want because it is fun for you to play.
"fun" decks also need to be fun for the opponent. I know people who have banned mass-LD and such from their playgroups because of this.
If your multiplayer Thraximunder deck is always losing to a competitive Zur deck designed for duels, why is this lame, the Zur player's deck was designed for a competitve 1 on 1 game, and yours was not, he should be winning every time.
Wrong, he should be winning most of the time. MtG is still a game with a lot of random elements, and as long as you aren't deckstacking, you can't eliminate those. In EDH even more so.
How about instead of whining about things being cheap, or unoriginal, etc. you just stick to your nice safe playgroup, and leave the competitive players alone if you can't compete with their decks.
Because everyone gets bored playing the same old deck against another same old deck for the 88th time.
If you insist on playing a Zur/Erayo/Rofellos/etc. with your multiplayer deck, or more casually designed deck for duels, don't cry when you lose, just congratulate them on the victory and ask for another deck, or work on improving your own. Be a gentleman, it's a lot more satisfying than being a whiny little girl.
If the opponent is a gentleman about it, sure, but if they are an idiotic elitist jerk who is like "lol n000b ur dex iz t3h suxx0rz", no, I am not going to. I'll probably whine about it just to make him nerdrage.
Also, OP is the best troll of MTGSalvation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Well one way to tell if a player is competitive is the general they are using, if they are using Erayo, chances are they are not a casual player. Another way is, oh I don't know, asking them. If you are playing with a new player you can just say "hey my deck is more geared for a casual playgroup, me and my friends kind of frown on infinite combos, dedicated land destruction decks, etc. so if you playing competitively than you will want to find another game." You will be saving each other a lot of time.
As far as EDH being a non sanctioned format and thus 100% casual, I completely disagree. While the format was designed as a multiplayer casual format, that does not mean there are not other ways to enjoy it. Magic itself was designed to be a casual way to pass the time between role playing sessions and look how that turned out. I understand that many of you enjoy EDH because of the casual environment, but just try to realize that that is but one way to enjoy this incredible format. Some of us love the rules of the format (generals, the highlander aspect and color restrictions), and the infinite deck building possibilities available to the clever designer, but also feel that there is no point in playing or building a deck if you can just throw anything in because it's "fun."
I have no problem with the people that want to play casually and don't like combo or land destruction etc., that's fine, it would be completely arrogant of me to tell you how to enjoy this great format. I don't want to "ruin your fun," like I said it is just going to be a waste of both our time. It is just when I post a game on mws saying "EDH competitive only" and someone joins with Treva, the Renewer, then cries when I combo them out, it's a little upsetting. I am not alone in my enjoyment of competitive EDH, hell there is a tournament in progress on this very site, just remember that just because you feel one way about something, does not mean there is not another equally valid way of looking at it.
I don't understand the argument about EDH being a "casual" format. You're going to whine because somebody is playing with a deck that is "too good"?? This is part of playing magic. Of course you're going to lose some games because you play vs a better opponent/deck. Shouldn't the objective of playing magic be to win? And if you're objective isn't such, why would you complain when you don't? Just because you didn't get to smash face with your huge green beasts because your opponent has removal doesn't mean that the game should be less fun... Yes you should be having fun, but there is always going to be a loser in a match and losing isn't fun (most of the time)...
I don't understand the argument about EDH being a "casual" format. You're going to whine because somebody is playing with a deck that is "too good"?? This is part of playing magic. Of course you're going to lose some games because you play vs a better opponent/deck. Shouldn't the objective of playing magic be to win? And if you're objective isn't such, why would you complain when you don't? Just because you didn't get to smash face with your huge green beasts because your opponent has removal doesn't mean that the game should be less fun... Yes you should be having fun, but there is always going to be a loser in a match and losing isn't fun (most of the time)...
There is a difference between a challenging game and a game that you can't ever win. Watching your opponent combo off is basically looking at them jerking off in front of you, and personally I would rather avoid that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
There is a difference between a challenging game and a game that you can't ever win. Watching your opponent combo off is basically looking at them jerking off in front of you, and personally I would rather avoid that.
Then adapt. They're not going to get their turn 2 braids lock ever time (and braids is a bad example, seeing as he's been banned). If you can't deal with it, then start playing answers. There are plenty of ways to deal.
Those are just off the top of my head, and yes my examples only gives options for those playing black, white and green, and yes they are unlikely, but so is the (almost) perfect start you gave as an example. I would expect any competitive general to beat any deck given a similar insane opening, this one is more hopeless than most but Braids is also banned. Your post is not an example of why there is something wrong with playing competitively, just pointing out that nut draws sometimes happen in magic, a fact of which we are all aware.
I don't understand the argument about EDH being a "casual" format. You're going to whine because somebody is playing with a deck that is "too good"?? This is part of playing magic. Of course you're going to lose some games because you play vs a better opponent/deck. Shouldn't the objective of playing magic be to win? And if you're objective isn't such, why would you complain when you don't? Just because you didn't get to smash face with your huge green beasts because your opponent has removal doesn't mean that the game should be less fun... Yes you should be having fun, but there is always going to be a loser in a match and losing isn't fun (most of the time)...
Umm... the point of Magic isn't just to win. If that was true, Wizards wouldn't make cards with art, names, flavortext, or flavor itself. We'd be playing with playtest cards. Braids would be 2BB sac guy, or Arcanis would be 3UU draw guy, etc. I'd guess just as many, if not more people play Magic for the fantasy element. If you just want to win, then there are plenty of other games than Magic that will cost less and do the same.
Also, I disagree with the statement "losing isn't fun." Some of the most fun games I've had were close wins or close losses - if I was playing green ramp, if someone Reverse the Sands's me after I'm beating him down with creatures, I'll say "what a fun game - I almost won." If I beat someone with a turn 2 Braids, I'd go "kind of boring - that really wasn't that fun of a game in retrospect." If there was a card printed that read
Win the game 0
Artifact
T, Sac Win the game: You win the game
Almost no one would play the game.
Those are just off the top of my head, and yes my examples only gives options for those playing black, white and green, and yes they are unlikely, but so is the (almost) perfect start you gave as an example. I would expect any competitive general to beat any deck given a similar insane opening, this one is more hopeless than most but Braids is also banned. Your post is not an example of why there is something wrong with playing competitively, just pointing out that nut draws sometimes happen in magic, a fact of which we are all aware.
You have to realize though, with Zur, it looks more like
Turn 3/4 Zur
Attack with Zur, Steel of the Godhead
Attack with Zur, lockdown through Pillory, Pacifism, Oblivion Ring, etc.
Or fetch the card that lets you take extra turns at less than 5 life.
Or Flickerform to dodge mass removal
Or Daybreak Coronet to rack damage
With Rofellos, it looks like
-Before Game-
Builds deck with bunch of heavy mana cards
Turn 2 play Rofellos
Turn 3 play something insane for 6+ mana
Turn 4 play something insane for 8+ mana
...win
Rafiq or Niv-Mizzet: tutor for combo pieces, win.
Erayo: If you flip, your opponent loses to counters.
In casual formats, when I play games, I don't care whether I win or lose every single game. I like to win at least 1 out of every 3-4 games, and have the ones I lose be relatively close. What casual formats don't like are games where it's just complete beatdown every single game.
You have to realize though, with Zur, it looks more like
Turn 3/4 Zur
Attack with Zur, Steel of the Godhead
Attack with Zur, lockdown through Pillory, Pacifism, Oblivion Ring, etc.
Or fetch the card that lets you take extra turns at less than 5 life.
Or Flickerform to dodge mass removal
Or Daybreak Coronet to rack damage
With Rofellos, it looks like
-Before Game-
Builds deck with bunch of heavy mana cards
Turn 2 play Rofellos
Turn 3 play something insane for 6+ mana
Turn 4 play something insane for 8+ mana
...win
Rafiq or Niv-Mizzet: tutor for combo pieces, win.
Erayo: If you flip, your opponent loses to counters.
In casual formats, when I play games, I don't care whether I win or lose every single game. I like to win at least 1 out of every 3-4 games, and have the ones I lose be relatively close. What casual formats don't like are games where it's just complete beatdown every single game.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but this demonstrates very little knowledge of how games of competitive EDH actually play out, all of these assume little to no interaction from the opponent. I would consider this similar to saying something like, "arn't all games of vintage decided on turn 2." If your deck, which you consider competitive cannot handle your opponent tapping out to play Zur on turn 3/4, then giving you a turn to deal with it, then you should be losing. The same would apply to Rofellos, Rafiq, Erayo, and Niv Mizzet, you need to have plans to deal with other competitive generals, and there are a lot of answers to all of them in magic's 10,000+ cards. If you feel that you are soft to a particular match-up, then switch a few slots around in your deck to address those problem areas, you have 99 of them. Proper deck construction and meta-gaming is an essential component of any competitive format, I do not play any of the generals you mentioned, and I am confident I could go at least 50-50 against well built versions of all the above.
Again, I appreciate that you do not care if you win of lose every game. Most people do enjoy this format more casually than I do, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I do not want to play against an opponent who feels this way, because we are basically playing two different formats. All I am saying, and I can't stress this point enough is that:
There is more than one way to enjoy the format, we both have differing views on EDH but that does not mean that the other is wrong, nor does it mean that either one is what EDH "should be."
Ah, I was wondering how long it would take before a post like this surfaced.
In the 5 months I've been playing EDH, I have seen a consistent and tremendous divide between 2 polarized perspectives on the format, and have had numerous, very long discussions with each side.
On one hand, there are the casual EDH players. They are the ones that have told me, vehemently, that 1v1 is not 'real' EDH. They are the ones that tell me it is a casual ONLY format, and that it must be played as such. They complain that combos with certain generals, LD, counterspells, or certain generals like Rofellos, Erayo, and Braids are 'unfun' and not 'in the spirit' of the format. They are very, very protective of their idea of what EDH should be.
On the other hand, there are the players that enjoy the challenge of beating these 'annoying' strategies, and view such decks not as 'unfun' but as an opportunity to test how good a deck builder and/or player they are. These are the players that recognize that there is a small window of opportunity to get out of an Erayo lock and know when to scoop, without crying, and move on to the next game. These are the players that view EDH just like any other format, with it's own unique limits and rules, and appreciate it for what it could be.
When players from the first camp lose, they take that opportunity to complain, to find a reason to acredit their loss, to displace the blame, to make excuses, to say things like "I can't ever beat your general," and the like. When players from the second camp lose, they take that opportunity to evaluate their decks, and make changes so that they have not only answers, but a better chance to find those answers. Only members of one of these groups is experiencing growth as a magic player. And these are not just EDH players. All magic players fall into one of these groups. But I have seen a much higher concentration of the first group in EDH than in any other format.
And face it, having a deck that wins literally 100% of the time is just asking for a groupban.
I guarantee the majority of that group, if not all of them, were members of the first camp. Any player from the second camp would adapt. If a deck is winning 100% of the time, either something degenerate is happening, or players aren't trying hard enough. I don't even think Braids was degenerate enough to warrant banning.
I have found [to a shocking degree of accuracy] that members of the first camp view EDH as a 'safe' format where they don't have to worry about being a good player, or a good deck builder. They love the luck of the game, and haphazardly win with high casting cost cards and awkward, convoluted combos. I loved my infinite Rukh Egg/Enduring Renewal/Ashnod's Altar/Earthcraft/Wild Growth deck, but that was 12 years ago. I know better, now. I see, in this first camp of players, a strong desire to recapture those innocent days again.
But why go back to that place, and regress? You don't need to. EDH offers, more than any other format, a greater variety of viable cards and strategies. You have 99 cards to find answers for a deck you're having problems with. And while not all strategies are going to be viable, at least you have more to choose from here than in any other. There should be no reason to complain at all. If everyone who's spent time on this thread complaining about 'annoying generals' had put half that time into trying to make their decks unfavourable matchups better, I guarantee they'd notice a difference in results, and be happier with themselves as magic players.
The constant default to complaining and refusal to adapt leads to a stagnant format and playerbase. That is, in fact, bad for any game. There is no growth, no deeper understanding, no evolution. Losses should be viewed as opportunities to make your deck better, or make you a better player, not as a cue to complain and displace the blame.
To all members of the first camp:
Instead of saying, "!%$@^%$, I can't EVER beat Braids! This general is unfun and should be banned" you should be saying "How many different ways CAN I beat Braids?" and start doing your homework. Do research. Use MWS filters. Use Google. Use forums. See what other people are doing. Grow as a player. And, please, stop making people in the second group feel guilty, or like they're doing something wrong, for breaking out of the safety bubble and evolving.
Ah, I was wondering how long it would take before a post like this surfaced.
In the 5 months I've been playing EDH, I have seen a consistent and tremendous divide between 2 polarized perspectives on the format, and have had numerous, very long discussions with each side.
On one hand, there are the casual EDH players. They are the ones that have told me, vehemently, that 1v1 is not 'real' EDH. They are the ones that tell me it is a casual ONLY format, and that it must be played as such. They complain that combos with certain generals, LD, counterspells, or certain generals like Rofellos, Erayo, and Braids are 'unfun' and not 'in the spirit' of the format. They are very, very protective of their idea of what EDH should be.
On the other hand, there are the players that enjoy the challenge of beating these 'annoying' strategies, and view such decks not as 'unfun' but as an opportunity to test how good a deck builder and/or player they are. These are the players that recognize that there is a small window of opportunity to get out of an Erayo lock and know when to scoop, without crying, and move on to the next game. These are the players that view EDH just like any other format, with it's own unique limits and rules, and appreciate it for what it could be.
When players from the first camp lose, they take that opportunity to complain, to find a reason to acredit their loss, to displace the blame, to make excuses, to say things like "I can't ever beat your general," and the like. When players from the second camp lose, they take that opportunity to evaluate their decks, and make changes so that they have not only answers, but a better chance to find those answers. Only members of one of these groups is experiencing growth as a magic player. And these are not just EDH players. All magic players fall into one of these groups. But I have seen a much higher concentration of the first group in EDH than in any other format.
This quote sums things up perfectly:
I guarantee the majority of that group, if not all of them, were members of the first camp. Any player from the second camp would adapt. If a deck is winning 100% of the time, either something degenerate is happening, or players aren't trying hard enough. I don't even think Braids was degenerate enough to warrant banning.
I have found [to a shocking degree of accuracy] that members of the first camp view EDH as a 'safe' format where they don't have to worry about being a good player, or a good deck builder. They love the luck of the game, and haphazardly win with high casting cost cards and awkward, convoluted combos. I loved my infinite Rukh Egg/Enduring Renewal/Ashnod's Altar/Earthcraft/Wild Growth deck, but that was 12 years ago. I know better, now. I see, in this first camp of players, a strong desire to recapture those innocent days again.
But why go back to that place, and regress? You don't need to. EDH offers, more than any other format, a greater variety of viable cards and strategies. You have 99 cards to find answers for a deck you're having problems with. And while not all strategies are going to be viable, at least you have more to choose from here than in any other. There should be no reason to complain at all. If everyone who's spent time on this thread complaining about 'annoying generals' had put half that time into trying to make their decks unfavourable matchups better, I guarantee they'd notice a difference in results, and be happier with themselves as magic players.
The constant default to complaining and refusal to adapt leads to a stagnant format and playerbase. That is, in fact, bad for any game. There is no growth, no deeper understanding, no evolution. Losses should be viewed as opportunities to make your deck better, or make you a better player, not as a cue to complain and displace the blame.
To all members of the first camp:
Instead of saying, "!%$@^%$, I can't EVER beat Braids! This general is unfun and should be banned" you should be saying "How many different ways CAN I beat Braids?" and start doing your homework. Do research. Use MWS filters. Use Google. Use forums. See what other people are doing. Grow as a player. And, please, stop making people in the second group feel guilty, or like they're doing something wrong, for breaking out of the safety bubble and evolving.
haha well said. Magic is all about adaptation. Sure you could stick w/ playing one decks for years, but it will not perform with the same results due to change. If you want to win, do ur research and brainstorm some new ways to win. Dont complain about losing when u havent even attempted to change....group bans are pretty dumb imo because someone decides they will play a different style of deck, then everyone bans it??? really?? My group has everything and it is fun..combo/control/aggro/annoying decks that cant win but mess everyone up lol...anyways if u cant beat it, adapt to it..
EDH imo is meant to be fun for all involved, and is best enjoyed in a group (in my experiences). If you want to build a hyper competitive 1 on 1 deck by all means you can. But I sure as hell wouldn't want to play with you. Why not just build a vintage or legacy deck if you want to play competitive 1 on 1 games? Making a cutthroat EDH deck is like pimping out a honda civic. For reals if you can't win in a sanctioned format that's on you; but don't bring your "competitive" deck to a format where over half the people are playing casual decks just so you can feel what it's like to win.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I have seen the true path. I will not warm myself by the fire—I will become the flame."
—Lim-Dûl, the Necromancer
EDH imo is meant to be fun for all involved, and is best enjoyed in a group (in my experiences). If you want to build a hyper competitive 1 on 1 deck by all means you can. But I sure as hell wouldn't want to play with you.
Which is perfectly fine. That's the beauty of games, you can pick it up and leave it whenever you want. No one is saying you're required to play competitive players. But I see a lot of EDH players coming from the perspective of, "I want to make a [insert deck idea or strategy here] deck, and any other deck that seriously challenges my idea/strategy is thus unfun and annoying." That perspective of thinking is fallacious, because it never considers that the deck itself might be misbuilt, they might not be a great player, or the strategy itself is convoluted. It always starts with looking to place blame, and that's wrong.
Why not just build a vintage or legacy deck if you want to play competitive 1 on 1 games?
I do. And Cube. And sometimes Type 2. And those are all beside the point. You're labeling formats as inherently 'competitive' and 'casual' [with the exception of perhaps Type 4] and that is a disservice to the game. You're limiting your perspective by attributing these labels.
Making a cutthroat EDH deck is like pimping out a honda civic. For reals if you can't win in a sanctioned format that's on you; but don't bring your "competitive" deck to a format where over half the people are playing casual decks just so you can feel what it's like to win.
I couldn't disagree with that analogy more, actually. You cannot assume that people who play competitive 1v1 EDH aren't players who have won sanctioned events, or don't know what it feels like to win. I've won sanctioned events before, and also knew what winning felt like long before I got into EDH.
I'd be willing to listen to a retort that was actually well thought out. Using fallacious logic is a great way to discredit your point and be looked upon as a fool, though.
I'd be willing to listen to a retort that was actually well thought out. Using fallacious logic is a great way to discredit your point and be looked upon as a fool, though.
I think you'd listen to any retort, well thought out or not. This one's not well thought out so you don't have to listen if you don't want to. Please skip ahead now if you will. How's that for fallacious logic?
I'm glad you can make competitive decks in every format, and thrilled you do so well. You must be a superior magic player than I, so good that you build even casual decks to a level high enough to prove that, indeed, you are the deckmaster.
But, seriously, we agree on something:
Which is perfectly fine. That's the beauty of games, you can pick it up and leave it whenever you want. No one is saying you're required to play competitive players.
It's Magic. People can make whatever deck they want. If I constantly lose to a deck, which is unfun, I can walk away or decide not to play this person(you). Or if someone pulls out Erayo and locks me out or someone goes infinite on me I can decide to flip the table in their face, too. (only jokingly, of course)
Limiting perspective. Man the more competitive your deck becomes I think the more limits you place on yourself. A casual EDH isn't always just a mish-mosh. By making a super-duper EDH deck I think YOU might limiting your perspective.
To conclude: It's perfectly fine by me that we can all have fun in different ways, and that Magic is a great enough game to be capable. That's why I love Magic, casual or competitive, whatever format, it can still be fun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I have seen the true path. I will not warm myself by the fire—I will become the flame."
—Lim-Dûl, the Necromancer
Contrary to the popular belief that competitive EDH players are just Spikes preying on a bunch of Timmies, it's actually the Johnny in me that makes me love this format.
I remember when I was young, staying awake at night in bed thinking of all the many possibilities that I hadn't tried yet in the search to find some combination of cards as yet undiscovered. I remember the time in my life when I knew what every card did [and most of their artists and flavour texts]. That was the time in Magic when I had the most fun, when I was young. Deck design and deck theory have always been my favourite aspects of the game. And what better way to validate whether those ideas are worth a damn than to playtest them? Usually, almost always, the determining factor is whether you win. We all like to win. No, it isn't everything. Some of my best games have been lost, but were lost epically and are still as memorable as the epic games that I happened to win. And those were the games that were with other Johnnys such as myself, evenly matched, and they were truly a battle of mind and skill. That is when Magic is most epic and enjoyable for me. It is that game that I want to be playing, every time, if I can.
So, it should come as no surprise that I have put a stagnant Type 1 on the back burner and come to EDH where the deck building possibilities are virtually endless. Those long nights of thinking of cards all night have come back again, and EDH has made that possible. That is why MTG continues to be the best game I have ever played, because it constantly evolves and changes. It is an ever changing puzzle that we [Johnnys, at least, I can speak for] want to solve.
Limiting perspective. Man the more competitive your deck becomes I think the more limits you place on yourself. A casual EDH isn't always just a mish-mosh. By making a super-duper EDH deck I think YOU might limiting your perspective.
I beg to differ, but it's a good point worth addressing. As stated above, I want to play a deep, rich game, where everything is out in the open. Magic is as much a psychological game to me as it is a game about building decks. That is when I have the most fun, when I'm up against clever deck builders and keen observers, knowing that I have to be at my best. Isn't that why people play games with other people, after all? This article [ http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html ] sums up how I feel about games for the most part, re: whining, and where I am coming from in the 'limiting perspective' point. I believe that to take a game to it's furthest limits is to truly experience that game to it's fullest. It is okay if others don't share my perspective, because we wouldn't be playing the same game if we sat across the table from each other anyway. My problem comes from casual players coming over to 1v1, competitive players, and complaining about them playing a different game than the casual players.
To say that EDH is only a casual format is as ridiculous as me saying your casual decks mean crap because they can't be Erayo. It's all a matter of what you define as 'fun.' To me, 'Fun' is playing against other players like me, deck building, testing it out, and playing the psychological game. To you, 'fun' may be more of a social aspect, where you play multiplayer, and everything is up in the air. One definition is not more valid than the other, because it is subjective. But it IS wrong to judge another person by their definition of 'fun' not matching up with your own, re: 'These generals are annoying, wahhh,' '1v1 isn't REAL EDH,' 'Competitive EDH isn't REAL EDH.'
Decks:
1.x
<StRonG>UW</tRonG> No-Stick
G Tooth and Nail
Legacy:
UGB Breakfast
EDH
<StRonG>UWG</tRonG> Tokens Combo
<StRonG>W</tRonG> Beatdown at its Finest
GWR Big Beatz
<StRonG>B</tRonG> The one you hate
Yeah I second this as well, the other day my Kraj was a Morphling/Arcanis/Elvish Piper which is ridiculous on it's own. My OPs scooped when i dropped the ever-so-amazing Seedborn Muse. Kraj can be a bit slow and clunky at first, but if left alone long enough he gets to be absurd.
Current EDH Decks:
G Multani, Maro-Sorcerer
B Xiahou Dun, the One-Eyed
GU Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
BSkithiryx, the Blight DragonB
GAzusa, Lost but SeekingG
Here's a list of the tutors, not including the worst ones.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
I understand that other people do you think this way, and I have no problem with people playing multiplayer, but just as I don't whine about how terrible your deck is in a duel, don't whine when your deck full of grip of chaos and insurrections loses to a more stream lined deck. If your multiplayer Thraximunder deck is always losing to a competitive Zur deck designed for duels, why is this lame, the Zur player's deck was designed for a competitve 1 on 1 game, and yours was not, he should be winnning every time.
How about instead of whining about things being cheap, or unoriginal, etc. you just stick to your nice safe playgroup, and leave the competitive players alone if you can't compete with their decks. Or if you are challenged by a competitive player, just say "Sorry man, my deck can't handle yours, do you have something more casual." If you insist on playing a Zur/Erayo/Rofellos/etc. with your multiplayer deck, or more casually designed deck for duels, don't cry when you lose, just congratulate them on the victory and ask for another deck, or work on improving your own. Be a gentleman, it's a lot more satisfying than being a whiny little girl.
I would agree with you... if EDH was a sanctioned format. There's something to be said with using casual decks in a casual format. It's like.. let's say you go to an FNM, and you know that everyone there is just running whatever they pulled out of booster packs (casual setting). If you come in with a finely tuned Faeries deck, do you have a right to win? Yes. Do your opponents have a right for being angry and perhaps not play with you for ruining what they originally thought was a fun format (note: I didn't say whining)? Probably. EDH was originally designed to be a fun format to do in your spare time, not a bloodthirsty all-out war. If EDH was truly sanctioned, I have a feeling there would be many more cards banned than there are right now. In fact, one of the things that keeps EDH's power level "in check" lies in that your group can ban/legalize cards at their discretion. And face it, having a deck that wins literally 100% of the time is just asking for a groupban.
EDIT: This is purely for the sake of arguing against "casually competitive duels." If you have a multiplayer deck, then you should realize you're going to lose duels fairly often if you're too lazy to change it up.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
Just because you like EDH multiplayer doesn't make it a primarily "5 player plus" sort of format.
That deck is just bonkers.
I may have missed it but I don't think anyone was complaining about any of the generals being cheap or unoriginal. From what I was reading it seemed the discussion is bordering more on awe of what they can do then disgust at having to play against them. I don't know about you but I was introduced into EDH as the format that you pull off the crazy card combos that wouldn't stand up in any other format. Winning is fun and all but whats a win when no one wants to play against your t5 roffellos deck or t6 zur win.
Now of course if theres money on the line, by all means break out your kick ass Zur deck. Just hope no the other players arn't going to be gunning for your loss for bringing perhaps a more streamlined engine.
"fun" decks also need to be fun for the opponent. I know people who have banned mass-LD and such from their playgroups because of this.
Wrong, he should be winning most of the time. MtG is still a game with a lot of random elements, and as long as you aren't deckstacking, you can't eliminate those. In EDH even more so.
Because everyone gets bored playing the same old deck against another same old deck for the 88th time.
How the hell am I supposed to know if the player is competitive or not before I play against him?
If the opponent is a gentleman about it, sure, but if they are an idiotic elitist jerk who is like "lol n000b ur dex iz t3h suxx0rz", no, I am not going to. I'll probably whine about it just to make him nerdrage.
Also, OP is the best troll of MTGSalvation.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
As far as EDH being a non sanctioned format and thus 100% casual, I completely disagree. While the format was designed as a multiplayer casual format, that does not mean there are not other ways to enjoy it. Magic itself was designed to be a casual way to pass the time between role playing sessions and look how that turned out. I understand that many of you enjoy EDH because of the casual environment, but just try to realize that that is but one way to enjoy this incredible format. Some of us love the rules of the format (generals, the highlander aspect and color restrictions), and the infinite deck building possibilities available to the clever designer, but also feel that there is no point in playing or building a deck if you can just throw anything in because it's "fun."
I have no problem with the people that want to play casually and don't like combo or land destruction etc., that's fine, it would be completely arrogant of me to tell you how to enjoy this great format. I don't want to "ruin your fun," like I said it is just going to be a waste of both our time. It is just when I post a game on mws saying "EDH competitive only" and someone joins with Treva, the Renewer, then cries when I combo them out, it's a little upsetting. I am not alone in my enjoyment of competitive EDH, hell there is a tournament in progress on this very site, just remember that just because you feel one way about something, does not mean there is not another equally valid way of looking at it.
Because:
Turn 1: Swamp, Mana Crypt, Bitterblossom.
Turn 2: Swamp, Braids, Cabal Minion
There is a difference between a challenging game and a game that you can't ever win. Watching your opponent combo off is basically looking at them jerking off in front of you, and personally I would rather avoid that.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Then adapt. They're not going to get their turn 2 braids lock ever time (and braids is a bad example, seeing as he's been banned). If you can't deal with it, then start playing answers. There are plenty of ways to deal.
1. Land, Mana Crypt/Lotus Petal/Mox Diamond/Chrome Mox, Bitterblossom of our own
2. Land, Mana Crypt/Lotus Petal/Mox Diamond/Chrome Mox, Sacred Ground
3. Play Flagstones of Trokair as our first land into either Bitterblossom or Sacred Ground
4. Or just play land and have a one drop to sacrifice into Bitterblossom, Sacred Ground or Lignify.
5. Land, Mana Crypt/Lotus Petal/Mox Diamond/Chrome Mox/Elvish Spirit Guide, Lignify Braids
Those are just off the top of my head, and yes my examples only gives options for those playing black, white and green, and yes they are unlikely, but so is the (almost) perfect start you gave as an example. I would expect any competitive general to beat any deck given a similar insane opening, this one is more hopeless than most but Braids is also banned. Your post is not an example of why there is something wrong with playing competitively, just pointing out that nut draws sometimes happen in magic, a fact of which we are all aware.
Umm... the point of Magic isn't just to win. If that was true, Wizards wouldn't make cards with art, names, flavortext, or flavor itself. We'd be playing with playtest cards. Braids would be 2BB sac guy, or Arcanis would be 3UU draw guy, etc. I'd guess just as many, if not more people play Magic for the fantasy element. If you just want to win, then there are plenty of other games than Magic that will cost less and do the same.
Also, I disagree with the statement "losing isn't fun." Some of the most fun games I've had were close wins or close losses - if I was playing green ramp, if someone Reverse the Sands's me after I'm beating him down with creatures, I'll say "what a fun game - I almost won." If I beat someone with a turn 2 Braids, I'd go "kind of boring - that really wasn't that fun of a game in retrospect." If there was a card printed that read
Win the game 0
Artifact
T, Sac Win the game: You win the game
Almost no one would play the game.
You have to realize though, with Zur, it looks more like
Turn 3/4 Zur
Attack with Zur, Steel of the Godhead
Attack with Zur, lockdown through Pillory, Pacifism, Oblivion Ring, etc.
Or fetch the card that lets you take extra turns at less than 5 life.
Or Flickerform to dodge mass removal
Or Daybreak Coronet to rack damage
With Rofellos, it looks like
-Before Game-
Builds deck with bunch of heavy mana cards
Turn 2 play Rofellos
Turn 3 play something insane for 6+ mana
Turn 4 play something insane for 8+ mana
...win
Rafiq or Niv-Mizzet: tutor for combo pieces, win.
Erayo: If you flip, your opponent loses to counters.
In casual formats, when I play games, I don't care whether I win or lose every single game. I like to win at least 1 out of every 3-4 games, and have the ones I lose be relatively close. What casual formats don't like are games where it's just complete beatdown every single game.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
Please don't take this the wrong way, but this demonstrates very little knowledge of how games of competitive EDH actually play out, all of these assume little to no interaction from the opponent. I would consider this similar to saying something like, "arn't all games of vintage decided on turn 2." If your deck, which you consider competitive cannot handle your opponent tapping out to play Zur on turn 3/4, then giving you a turn to deal with it, then you should be losing. The same would apply to Rofellos, Rafiq, Erayo, and Niv Mizzet, you need to have plans to deal with other competitive generals, and there are a lot of answers to all of them in magic's 10,000+ cards. If you feel that you are soft to a particular match-up, then switch a few slots around in your deck to address those problem areas, you have 99 of them. Proper deck construction and meta-gaming is an essential component of any competitive format, I do not play any of the generals you mentioned, and I am confident I could go at least 50-50 against well built versions of all the above.
Again, I appreciate that you do not care if you win of lose every game. Most people do enjoy this format more casually than I do, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I do not want to play against an opponent who feels this way, because we are basically playing two different formats. All I am saying, and I can't stress this point enough is that:
There is more than one way to enjoy the format, we both have differing views on EDH but that does not mean that the other is wrong, nor does it mean that either one is what EDH "should be."
In the 5 months I've been playing EDH, I have seen a consistent and tremendous divide between 2 polarized perspectives on the format, and have had numerous, very long discussions with each side.
On one hand, there are the casual EDH players. They are the ones that have told me, vehemently, that 1v1 is not 'real' EDH. They are the ones that tell me it is a casual ONLY format, and that it must be played as such. They complain that combos with certain generals, LD, counterspells, or certain generals like Rofellos, Erayo, and Braids are 'unfun' and not 'in the spirit' of the format. They are very, very protective of their idea of what EDH should be.
On the other hand, there are the players that enjoy the challenge of beating these 'annoying' strategies, and view such decks not as 'unfun' but as an opportunity to test how good a deck builder and/or player they are. These are the players that recognize that there is a small window of opportunity to get out of an Erayo lock and know when to scoop, without crying, and move on to the next game. These are the players that view EDH just like any other format, with it's own unique limits and rules, and appreciate it for what it could be.
When players from the first camp lose, they take that opportunity to complain, to find a reason to acredit their loss, to displace the blame, to make excuses, to say things like "I can't ever beat your general," and the like. When players from the second camp lose, they take that opportunity to evaluate their decks, and make changes so that they have not only answers, but a better chance to find those answers. Only members of one of these groups is experiencing growth as a magic player. And these are not just EDH players. All magic players fall into one of these groups. But I have seen a much higher concentration of the first group in EDH than in any other format.
This quote sums things up perfectly:
I guarantee the majority of that group, if not all of them, were members of the first camp. Any player from the second camp would adapt. If a deck is winning 100% of the time, either something degenerate is happening, or players aren't trying hard enough. I don't even think Braids was degenerate enough to warrant banning.
I have found [to a shocking degree of accuracy] that members of the first camp view EDH as a 'safe' format where they don't have to worry about being a good player, or a good deck builder. They love the luck of the game, and haphazardly win with high casting cost cards and awkward, convoluted combos. I loved my infinite Rukh Egg/Enduring Renewal/Ashnod's Altar/Earthcraft/Wild Growth deck, but that was 12 years ago. I know better, now. I see, in this first camp of players, a strong desire to recapture those innocent days again.
But why go back to that place, and regress? You don't need to. EDH offers, more than any other format, a greater variety of viable cards and strategies. You have 99 cards to find answers for a deck you're having problems with. And while not all strategies are going to be viable, at least you have more to choose from here than in any other. There should be no reason to complain at all. If everyone who's spent time on this thread complaining about 'annoying generals' had put half that time into trying to make their decks unfavourable matchups better, I guarantee they'd notice a difference in results, and be happier with themselves as magic players.
The constant default to complaining and refusal to adapt leads to a stagnant format and playerbase. That is, in fact, bad for any game. There is no growth, no deeper understanding, no evolution. Losses should be viewed as opportunities to make your deck better, or make you a better player, not as a cue to complain and displace the blame.
To all members of the first camp:
Instead of saying, "!%$@^%$, I can't EVER beat Braids! This general is unfun and should be banned" you should be saying "How many different ways CAN I beat Braids?" and start doing your homework. Do research. Use MWS filters. Use Google. Use forums. See what other people are doing. Grow as a player. And, please, stop making people in the second group feel guilty, or like they're doing something wrong, for breaking out of the safety bubble and evolving.
haha well said. Magic is all about adaptation. Sure you could stick w/ playing one decks for years, but it will not perform with the same results due to change. If you want to win, do ur research and brainstorm some new ways to win. Dont complain about losing when u havent even attempted to change....group bans are pretty dumb imo because someone decides they will play a different style of deck, then everyone bans it??? really?? My group has everything and it is fun..combo/control/aggro/annoying decks that cant win but mess everyone up lol...anyways if u cant beat it, adapt to it..
—Lim-Dûl, the Necromancer
Which is perfectly fine. That's the beauty of games, you can pick it up and leave it whenever you want. No one is saying you're required to play competitive players. But I see a lot of EDH players coming from the perspective of, "I want to make a [insert deck idea or strategy here] deck, and any other deck that seriously challenges my idea/strategy is thus unfun and annoying." That perspective of thinking is fallacious, because it never considers that the deck itself might be misbuilt, they might not be a great player, or the strategy itself is convoluted. It always starts with looking to place blame, and that's wrong.
I do. And Cube. And sometimes Type 2. And those are all beside the point. You're labeling formats as inherently 'competitive' and 'casual' [with the exception of perhaps Type 4] and that is a disservice to the game. You're limiting your perspective by attributing these labels.
I couldn't disagree with that analogy more, actually. You cannot assume that people who play competitive 1v1 EDH aren't players who have won sanctioned events, or don't know what it feels like to win. I've won sanctioned events before, and also knew what winning felt like long before I got into EDH.
I'd be willing to listen to a retort that was actually well thought out. Using fallacious logic is a great way to discredit your point and be looked upon as a fool, though.
I think you'd listen to any retort, well thought out or not. This one's not well thought out so you don't have to listen if you don't want to. Please skip ahead now if you will. How's that for fallacious logic?
I'm glad you can make competitive decks in every format, and thrilled you do so well. You must be a superior magic player than I, so good that you build even casual decks to a level high enough to prove that, indeed, you are the deckmaster.
But, seriously, we agree on something:
It's Magic. People can make whatever deck they want. If I constantly lose to a deck, which is unfun, I can walk away or decide not to play this person(you). Or if someone pulls out Erayo and locks me out or someone goes infinite on me I can decide to flip the table in their face, too. (only jokingly, of course)
Limiting perspective. Man the more competitive your deck becomes I think the more limits you place on yourself. A casual EDH isn't always just a mish-mosh. By making a super-duper EDH deck I think YOU might limiting your perspective.
To conclude: It's perfectly fine by me that we can all have fun in different ways, and that Magic is a great enough game to be capable. That's why I love Magic, casual or competitive, whatever format, it can still be fun.
—Lim-Dûl, the Necromancer
I remember when I was young, staying awake at night in bed thinking of all the many possibilities that I hadn't tried yet in the search to find some combination of cards as yet undiscovered. I remember the time in my life when I knew what every card did [and most of their artists and flavour texts]. That was the time in Magic when I had the most fun, when I was young. Deck design and deck theory have always been my favourite aspects of the game. And what better way to validate whether those ideas are worth a damn than to playtest them? Usually, almost always, the determining factor is whether you win. We all like to win. No, it isn't everything. Some of my best games have been lost, but were lost epically and are still as memorable as the epic games that I happened to win. And those were the games that were with other Johnnys such as myself, evenly matched, and they were truly a battle of mind and skill. That is when Magic is most epic and enjoyable for me. It is that game that I want to be playing, every time, if I can.
So, it should come as no surprise that I have put a stagnant Type 1 on the back burner and come to EDH where the deck building possibilities are virtually endless. Those long nights of thinking of cards all night have come back again, and EDH has made that possible. That is why MTG continues to be the best game I have ever played, because it constantly evolves and changes. It is an ever changing puzzle that we [Johnnys, at least, I can speak for] want to solve.
In regards to this,
I beg to differ, but it's a good point worth addressing. As stated above, I want to play a deep, rich game, where everything is out in the open. Magic is as much a psychological game to me as it is a game about building decks. That is when I have the most fun, when I'm up against clever deck builders and keen observers, knowing that I have to be at my best. Isn't that why people play games with other people, after all? This article [ http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html ] sums up how I feel about games for the most part, re: whining, and where I am coming from in the 'limiting perspective' point. I believe that to take a game to it's furthest limits is to truly experience that game to it's fullest. It is okay if others don't share my perspective, because we wouldn't be playing the same game if we sat across the table from each other anyway. My problem comes from casual players coming over to 1v1, competitive players, and complaining about them playing a different game than the casual players.
To say that EDH is only a casual format is as ridiculous as me saying your casual decks mean crap because they can't be Erayo. It's all a matter of what you define as 'fun.' To me, 'Fun' is playing against other players like me, deck building, testing it out, and playing the psychological game. To you, 'fun' may be more of a social aspect, where you play multiplayer, and everything is up in the air. One definition is not more valid than the other, because it is subjective. But it IS wrong to judge another person by their definition of 'fun' not matching up with your own, re: 'These generals are annoying, wahhh,' '1v1 isn't REAL EDH,' 'Competitive EDH isn't REAL EDH.'
Can't we all just get along? Really?