I can see how Sheldon could make a case for some of these cards. If we're all being completely honest, stax/MLD do fit some niche roles and not everyone is cool with seeing GAAIV at the table. I get that. But Wound Reflection and Vicious Shadows? Are you freaking kidding me?
I think everyone is taking this list too seriously.
Sheldon is allowed an opinion, and should be able to voice it without us thinking it foreshadows a change to EDH.
It is clear that he made the list based on different elements than effectiveness. So, he doesn't like playing against a different set of cards you would choose? Its really not a big deal.
This list was a terrible concept and every card on it is fine.
If someone's going to be unfun to play with they're going to be unfun for a lot more reasons than cards. Especially cards like Vicious Shadows.
I honestly wasn't expecting to see that card on the list. That's a Win Con in Ashling for me and it's a very reasonable answer to token/creature spam decks who might otherwise not care about a board wipe. I know I've forced Thromok to wait it out for awhile more than once and have stopped other combos like Ghave or anything with Nim Deathmantle. I find it funny that he mentioned VS, but made no mention of some of the infinite combos it stops (Teysa/Mike n Trike/Ghave/Ect).
He also failed to mention that it costs 7 mana.
I'm not talking down on Sheldon, but rather voicing my opinion on a card that was represented in the wrong light.
That being said, VS can be used WITH any of those cards to cause a game win, sure. However at that point, it's a 7 CMC combo piece that telegraphs itself.
I honestly wasn't expecting to see that card on the list. That's a Win Con in Ashling for me and it's a very reasonable answer to token/creature spam decks who might otherwise not care about a board wipe. I know I've forced Thromok to wait it out for awhile more than once and have stopped other combos like Ghave or anything with Nim Deathmantle. I find it funny that he mentioned VS, but made no mention of some of the infinite combos it stops (Teysa/Mike n Trike/Ghave/Ect).
He also failed to mention that it costs 7 mana.
I'm not talking down on Sheldon, but rather voicing my opinion on a card that was represented in the wrong light.
That being said, VS can be used WITH any of those cards to cause a game win, sure. However at that point, it's a 7 CMC combo piece that telegraphs itself.
I would bet he doesn't care for the card because it not only kills the token player, but pretty much everyone else at the table. It is still obviously a decent wincon, but there are funner things to lose to. Especially if you are in colors with poor enchantment removal.
Fair enough, but let's flip the coin over. What about Warstorm Surge and it's ilk? Obviously, it's more limited in that it only has an effect based on your own actions, but at the same time it is more immediate in it's actions.
For example, RWX McTokens has Warstorm Surge out. His turn comes around and Miracles Entreat the Angels for 10. That's 40 damage dived 10 ways between creatures and players with 40 power on the board.
If Vicious Shadows was on the board, that would be 40 power on the board with the threat of an undetermined amount of player damage should he lose his field.
The first is immediate and powerful, whereas the second is reactive and potential.
However, Shadows does have the advantage of A) Not being reliant on your own creatures and B) board wide interactivity. At the same time, that is a double edged sword. What if you draw VS and there are no creatures on the board? What if you drop it and someone entreats like above and swings them at you to kill you? What if you have 4 trillion triggers, but no opponents have any cards in their hand except the guy with Jin-Gitaxias, Core Auger holding his Library in his hand (That guy is dead, but you'd only need 1 trigger for it or just Sudden Impact).
Also, I like Sylvan Primordial. What's not to like? You don't have to abuse it to death. It's a strong effect and using it once or twice in a game is fine. I've even seen players (myself included) elect not to blow up lands with it. It's really only a problem if it's part of a dedicated resource destruction approach. And unlike 'Geddon, or GAAIV, it's not always.
Sylvan, unlike the other four Primoridals, forces you to target a non-creature permanent for each of your opponents. So if the only viable target is a land, you don't get a choice, you have to blow it up.
At the very least this list has shown to put no more stock into Sheldon's opinions than I would any other player's. If you find resource denial objectionable, but don't find the way Primordials, Tooth and Nail, and other autoruns have homogenized this format problematic, then our views on EDH are wholly incompatible.
I agree with about half of the cards. ESPECIALLY OMNISCIENCE. I hate the card, i don;t run it. I made a deck with it to show my friends just how evil it can be. Turn 3 it was out, and i then proceeded to lock them out by playing time warp, tamiyo and got her to 8 ultimate her and then recurred time warp playing it over and over. This was all by turn 4. i had infinite turns because of omniscience. (I will admit Academy rector is why i got it out so early, but rector can fetch other things and be fair, Omniscience is teh broken part of that combo)
then again i can confiscate it. (provided they don't have free counterseplls on hand.)
Omnisceince is not fun. And i make sure that when i have it on my field, I don't make the game fun. (on purpose)
I liked the article because it gave insight into his unique play style and preferences..... and I am now building a 5 color deck around the 21 cards he doesn't like :D.
I agree. We should all only play g/x decks because they are the most objectively fun and anyone who disagrees does not know the truth about EDH. Everyone should just play their decks because interaction beyond high fiving about how many land are in play is unfun and equivalent to casting Stasis while kicking puppies. I for one will never play with anyone who casts tutors, removal spells, blue cards, things I arbitrarily decide I don't like but will probably cast myself later.
I'm extremely upset that Sheldon would stoop to a Strawman argument against MLD. His argument is not only "inherently flawed," but it's also cowardly.
He says that MLD isn't a good counter to Ramp. The people who play MLD know this. We've never claimed that it was. No good Magic player would.
What we do claim is that the threat of MLD is a good counter to Ramp. When MLD can happen, the Ramp dude doesn't just go out of control. It's like what happens when you don't allow counterspells: Combo goes out of control (no pun intended). Wrath of God is fair because people should be smart and not overextend. The same is true for Armageddon.
No they are not few and far between. Every third card in your deck should be a land. Here's an idea: Don't derp every land you have onto the board. That's the same as overextending with creatures.
I made a Riku deck that wants to combo off with early harvest/rude awakening, the threat of mld would make it an actual decision between ramping every land out of my deck, and well... not doing so. As is, without the threat of mld, I have no real reason to hold back.
No, but it does add more damage to this player who is stalling on lands when the geddon dude does it to stop the rest of the table. He walks away from that game not being able to do a single thing worthwhile. Yeah, it happens, its just that geddon really makes it even more painful.
Look, we all know that if you're playing commander competitively then none of these cards on Sheldon's list should be removed. But for friendly games, I can see some of them coming out. Some of them leave a bad taste in your mouth, whether or not you're playing friendly or competitive. I mean, I get in the mood where I want to play around and not be bothered by things such as Geddon or Humility. Sometimes I do want to just have fun and not have to think to hard on the game. Just remember, I'm not advocating Menery's list at all, just playing devil's advocate (poorly :p).
It's funny, but I play Humility because I want to have fun and not be bothered by creatures.
There's a ton more creature recursion than there is land recursion, plus, that whole argument is flawed because lands are resources, creatures are not. You can keep playing cards even if your creatures have died, you can't if your lands have.
You can't compare the two. That's all.
Yes, I can compare the two, because creatures are resources, too. Just like cards in your hand, cards in your graveyard, your library, enchantments, planeswalkers, ramp rocks, and life. Everything is a resource you use to take away resources of the opponent. As soon as you start treating everything this way, you'll get a lot better at Magic.
Your argument is flawed because you ignore that mine is based around overextending. If you dump all your creatures onto the board but have recursion in hand, then you haven't overextended. Likewise, if you dump all your lands onto the board but have a LftL in your graveyard/hand, then you haven't overextended. You're comparing creatures with recursion to lands without recursion, and that is a massive flaw in logic.
If you dump all your creatures without a way to recover from a Wrath, then you've overextended. One Wrath will take you out of the game. Sure, maybe you draw into a creature or two and maybe make a comeback if no one takes you out while you're completely defenseless.
If you dump all your lands without a way to recover from a Geddon, then you've overextended. The difference here is that Geddon doesn't remove your board presence of creatures. Generally, this is a better situation to be in than the previous.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
Easily any of the honorable mentions could have replaced those two...
Overall though, the article was a good read. Really showed that different cards piss people off in different ways. Players should respect that in a social format. For example, I have a friend that really doesn't like Terdasterdon. Now, that doesn't mean I'm not going to play it...but I probably won't be comboing it with Deadeye Navigator anytime soon. That would just degenerate the game...
The most valuable thing I learned from this article was that if you like EDH and Dream Theater then your girlfriend/wife probably doesn't like Dream Theater.
Sheldon is mostly right here. There were some weird inclusions but, meh. I mostly agree with his sentiments and I think if I played a game with him it would be fun.
At the very least this list has shown to put no more stock into Sheldon's opinions than I would any other player's. If you find resource denial objectionable, but don't find the way Primordials, Tooth and Nail, and other autoruns have homogenized this format problematic, then our views on EDH are wholly incompatible.
You have to realize that this list was comprised from the same "people" (don't want another warning on how I decribe them) that post in the banlist thread and want cards like sol ring banned. He got screwed. His concept was ok, but his resources were the same that made Wikipedia not a worthy site to use as a source. Having said that I do disagree with his concept lol. Unfin cards are what make the format amazing !
I think Sheldon's points on group communication and finding a way to have your fun while showing regard to another person's play experience are the key takeaways. Forget the list. It will never be the same one between any two players. What is important is that social context.
I think Sheldon's points on group communication and finding a way to have your fun while showing regard to another person's play experience are the key takeaways. Forget the list. It will never be the same one between any two players. What is important is that social context.
I think Sheldon's points on group communication and finding a way to have your fun while showing regard to another person's play experience are the key takeaways. Forget the list. It will never be the same one between any two players. What is important is that social context.
I wish it were that easy. I simply cannot ignore the underhanded tactics he used to discredit and misrepresent certain groups of players. This article is going to be touted around by way too many people screaming "but Sheldon said you shouldn't use these, and if you do, you're a bully* and a bad player!**"
Misrepresentation number one:
the raw competitives ("I want to win as fast as possible or completely control the game until I do")
Real competitiveness isn't about winning fast or controlling the game. It's about winning reliably and getting better every time you play. The guys that just want to roflstomp a table are bullies and have nothing competitive about them.
Misrepresentation number two:
I believe the argument that Armageddon is a good response to excessive ramp strategies to be inherently flawed. Rampy McRamperson likely also has more other stuff than you do because he ramped into it.
I've written books on this in the thread already. Suffice to say he's lying about the argument MLD people use for why it counters ramp.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"[Screw] you and the green you ramped in on." - My EDH battle cry. If I had one. Which I don't.
meh, the only thing i'm seeing from this article is that he thinks games of magic should more or less amount to collecting all the mana and then doing something explosive and stupid, and if you run anything to try and stop that then you're a turd and he doesn't want to play with you, or the people he gathered information from don't want to play with you, and those people most likely have the same play style he does.
there are too many aspects to this game to try and quash certain ones that you don't personally like.
the whole thing reminds me of the kids we use to play with at school. eventually the play group split. those that adapted, those that used the tools and resources they had to beat each other, and those that whined every time you countered their skyshroud behemoth we called them the cabbage patch kids because they acted like children when it came to the game of magic... and they smelled like cabbage, anyway the point is all forms of play are valid forms of play and this article does nothing but glorify ramp strategies and combo.
I wish it were that easy. I simply cannot ignore the underhanded tactics he used to discredit and misrepresent certain groups of players. This article is going to be touted around by way too many people screaming "but Sheldon said you shouldn't use these, and if you do, you're a bully* and a bad player!**"
Misrepresentation number one: Real competitiveness isn't about winning fast or controlling the game. It's about winning reliably and getting better every time you play. The guys that just want to roflstomp a table are bullies and have nothing competitive about them.
Misrepresentation number two: I've written books on this in the thread already. Suffice to say he's lying about the argument MLD people use for why it counters ramp.
To those players touting Sheldon's list as gospel, I would say: Sheldon is not EDH. The people you play with is EDH. If your playgroup is competitive, that is EDH. If its about trying to win with your starfish themed deck, that's EDH as well. Talk to your friends to find out what is or isn't fun for the group as a whole, and don't let some guy who had an idea once tell you otherwise.
It is that easy. Who is Sheldon Menery? Forget the list.
To those players touting Sheldon's list as gospel, I would say: Sheldon is not EDH. The people you play with is EDH. If your playgroup is competitive, that is EDH. If its about trying to win with your starfish themed deck, that's EDH as well. Talk to your friends to find out what is or isn't fun for the group as a whole, and don't let some guy who had an idea once tell you otherwise.
It is that easy. Who is Sheldon Menery? Forget the list.
Pretty sure he's just saying that Sheldon (rules committee) is not a governing board and that you/we are all responsible for our definition and enjoyment of the game. Pretty straight forward I thought... unless I am wrong.
Pretty sure he's just saying that Sheldon (rules committee) is not a governing board and that you/we are all responsible for our definition and enjoyment of the game. Pretty straight forward I thought... unless I am wrong.
The end of the first paragraph, "better for the broadest group", is what I think some people may be missing out on. By taking out cards such as these that may violate an 'unspoken' social contract, you and other players who follow this line of thinking have a better chance of creating the games you would like to see before asking what cards and strategies are acceptable to play with. Playing these types of cards isn't wrong, but some players who are unfamiliar with your decks or playstyles might not be ok with them.
Of course, this doesn't apply to people who have single playgroups and speak with their peers in game and outside of it to create experiences that all will enjoy. Their spoken social contract will vary from the unspoken version, which is what I believe Sheldon was attempting to say. This short list of cards are suggestions, not guidelines, on taking precautionary steps when toting your deck around to unfamiliar (going blind) playgroups that you don't have previous experience with to allow the chance for all players to have fun.
What I took away from the article was that when going into a different playgroup blind, it's better to be safe than sorry and ask the players before you sit down what cards are seen as taboo. If the chance of asking that question doesn't or can't present itself then taking steps to changing your deck before you sit down and play, with the goal of creating an 'awesome' game in mind, will give you and the players around you a better chance of having those kinds of games. While the definition of "awesome" games will be different for every player, practicing steps of abiding to the unspoken social contract should give you more of the games you prefer to play.
All of this being said, if you get the chance to ask your playgroup what they do and don't like to see in games, just ask them!
I feel that there is a mentality in Sheldon that is inherently flawed. (Not Sheldon's mentality, for the record! Mad respect to Sir Sheldon!) That of the Epic Play. EDH as a format has grown in popularity, complexity, and resources to the point now that it is no longer the "pick up at your kitchen table and play" type format. It is at the point where almost half the players that I know of are packing an EDH deck. A lot of these players are legacy/modern hyper-competitive players. Many of them participate in the national tournament scene. All this goes to say, at least to me, that the Epic Play is being slowly replaced by ... the Winning Play.
With WoTC printing Commander products now, with the resources the community has available, and a 1v1 tournament scene emerging, EDH is fast becoming a format that has more of an "I Want To Win" than an "I Want An Epic Play" mentality. I won't speak to the emotional overtones of such a shift, but I firmly believe it is there, and growing stronger and stronger day by day. I know my playgroup specifically are all fiercely competitive. Even the "casual" nature of my LGS's EDH day is getting more to that point. And that's where I think the focal point of a lot of these discussions needs to ... shift.
EDH is not kitchen table any longer. It's far from casual. It's social to an extent, but even that is getting less and less value. There are French style 1v1 tournaments sprouting up everywhere. There are multiplayer side tournaments held at almost every event nationwide, and I even think worldwide. There is a massive amount of data and resources available now to make EDH decks faster, more efficient, more focused, more, dare I say it? Competitive. Competitive is the mentality that I see prevail more and more in my LGS Sunday EDH day, in my local playgroup, in tournament results, online, and even in these very forums.
I'd like to take a step back and clarify, though. Competitive doesn't mean necessarily playing for money, or prize. It also doesn't mean playing the "jerk" cards all the time, or playing straight ruthless, all the time, and doing everything in your power to win at all costs. If that were the case, I don't think there would be any decks other than hyperfast combo builds that win consistently T3. That's not the definition of competitive that I'm using.
Competitive means, to me, and in this format: You're trying to win, while also having a good time. But that's a little backwards from what dear Mr. Sheldon seems to be saying. He seems to come from a place of having a good time, while also trying to win. See the priority shift there? One set has having a good time as the priority, with winning as a slightly secondary objective. The other puts winning as the top priority, with having a good time as secondary.
The only reason I wanted to write this was to try to bring an awareness to this priority shift. Magic players, for the most part (at least from what I've seen) want to have a good time, but winning is the priority. With more and more competitive players of other formats coming over to EDH, I think this mentality swing will come more and more into focus. Players play this game to win. No-one likes losing! And that is not reserved to tournament play. It also holds true for EDH.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
Sheldon is allowed an opinion, and should be able to voice it without us thinking it foreshadows a change to EDH.
It is clear that he made the list based on different elements than effectiveness. So, he doesn't like playing against a different set of cards you would choose? Its really not a big deal.
Sig and Avatar Credit: Heroes of the Plane Studios
I honestly wasn't expecting to see that card on the list. That's a Win Con in Ashling for me and it's a very reasonable answer to token/creature spam decks who might otherwise not care about a board wipe. I know I've forced Thromok to wait it out for awhile more than once and have stopped other combos like Ghave or anything with Nim Deathmantle. I find it funny that he mentioned VS, but made no mention of some of the infinite combos it stops (Teysa/Mike n Trike/Ghave/Ect).
He also failed to mention that it costs 7 mana.
I'm not talking down on Sheldon, but rather voicing my opinion on a card that was represented in the wrong light.
That being said, VS can be used WITH any of those cards to cause a game win, sure. However at that point, it's a 7 CMC combo piece that telegraphs itself.
RRRAshling, the PilgrimRRR
UUUThadda Adel, AcquisitorUUU
I would bet he doesn't care for the card because it not only kills the token player, but pretty much everyone else at the table. It is still obviously a decent wincon, but there are funner things to lose to. Especially if you are in colors with poor enchantment removal.
For example, RWX McTokens has Warstorm Surge out. His turn comes around and Miracles Entreat the Angels for 10. That's 40 damage dived 10 ways between creatures and players with 40 power on the board.
If Vicious Shadows was on the board, that would be 40 power on the board with the threat of an undetermined amount of player damage should he lose his field.
The first is immediate and powerful, whereas the second is reactive and potential.
However, Shadows does have the advantage of A) Not being reliant on your own creatures and B) board wide interactivity. At the same time, that is a double edged sword. What if you draw VS and there are no creatures on the board? What if you drop it and someone entreats like above and swings them at you to kill you? What if you have 4 trillion triggers, but no opponents have any cards in their hand except the guy with Jin-Gitaxias, Core Auger holding his Library in his hand (That guy is dead, but you'd only need 1 trigger for it or just Sudden Impact).
RRRAshling, the PilgrimRRR
UUUThadda Adel, AcquisitorUUU
Sylvan, unlike the other four Primoridals, forces you to target a non-creature permanent for each of your opponents. So if the only viable target is a land, you don't get a choice, you have to blow it up.
EDH Decks
BGGlissa, the TraitorGB
URTibor and LumiaRU
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticBUW
UBSygg, River CutthroatBU
RGXenagos, God of RevelsGR
UGVorel of the Hull CladeGU
GBSavra, Queen of the GolgariBG
URGMaelstrom WandererGRU
then again i can confiscate it. (provided they don't have free counterseplls on hand.)
Omnisceince is not fun. And i make sure that when i have it on my field, I don't make the game fun. (on purpose)
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
I liked the article because it gave insight into his unique play style and preferences..... and I am now building a 5 color deck around the 21 cards he doesn't like :D.
I made a Riku deck that wants to combo off with early harvest/rude awakening, the threat of mld would make it an actual decision between ramping every land out of my deck, and well... not doing so. As is, without the threat of mld, I have no real reason to hold back.
It's funny, but I play Humility because I want to have fun and not be bothered by creatures.
Yes, I can compare the two, because creatures are resources, too. Just like cards in your hand, cards in your graveyard, your library, enchantments, planeswalkers, ramp rocks, and life. Everything is a resource you use to take away resources of the opponent. As soon as you start treating everything this way, you'll get a lot better at Magic.
Your argument is flawed because you ignore that mine is based around overextending. If you dump all your creatures onto the board but have recursion in hand, then you haven't overextended. Likewise, if you dump all your lands onto the board but have a LftL in your graveyard/hand, then you haven't overextended. You're comparing creatures with recursion to lands without recursion, and that is a massive flaw in logic.
If you dump all your creatures without a way to recover from a Wrath, then you've overextended. One Wrath will take you out of the game. Sure, maybe you draw into a creature or two and maybe make a comeback if no one takes you out while you're completely defenseless.
If you dump all your lands without a way to recover from a Geddon, then you've overextended. The difference here is that Geddon doesn't remove your board presence of creatures. Generally, this is a better situation to be in than the previous.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
but thankfully most of the article was done by then.
I was quite surprised to see Vicious Shadows and Wound Reflection on the list, two narrow to play strategies.
Easily any of the honorable mentions could have replaced those two...
Overall though, the article was a good read. Really showed that different cards piss people off in different ways. Players should respect that in a social format. For example, I have a friend that really doesn't like Terdasterdon. Now, that doesn't mean I'm not going to play it...but I probably won't be comboing it with Deadeye Navigator anytime soon. That would just degenerate the game...
| B Erebos, God of VampiresB | GYeva SmashG | RBosh ArtifactsR | GURAnimar +1 BeatsGUR | RBVial's Secret Hot SauceRB | UBRNekusar, Draw if you DareUBR | RGBDarigaaz'z DragonsRGB | GBSlimeFEETGB | UBOn-Hit LazavUB | URBrudiclad's Artificer InventionsUR | GUBMuldrotha's ElementalsGUB | WUGKestia's EnchantmentsWUG | GUTatyova - Draw, Land, Go!GU | WGArahbo's EquipmentWG | BUWVarina's ZOMBIE HORDESBUW | WLyra's Angelic SalvationW | WBChurch of TeysaWB | UAzami...WizardsU
Sheldon is mostly right here. There were some weird inclusions but, meh. I mostly agree with his sentiments and I think if I played a game with him it would be fun.
GWUBAtraxa, Praetor's Voice PrimerGWUB
GWURoon Bant Blink WhateverGWU
BRGLord Windgrace LandsBRG
You have to realize that this list was comprised from the same "people" (don't want another warning on how I decribe them) that post in the banlist thread and want cards like sol ring banned. He got screwed. His concept was ok, but his resources were the same that made Wikipedia not a worthy site to use as a source. Having said that I do disagree with his concept lol. Unfin cards are what make the format amazing !
WGU - Jenara, Asura of War - Bant Counters
WUB - Sen Triplets - Blink Control
RWU - Ruhan of the Fomori - Combat Control
WB - Teysa, Envoy of Ghosts - Orzhov Knights
UB - Grimgrin, Corpse-Born - Tribal Combo
G - Yeva, Nature's Herald - Yo-Yo Champion
Agreed.
I wish it were that easy. I simply cannot ignore the underhanded tactics he used to discredit and misrepresent certain groups of players. This article is going to be touted around by way too many people screaming "but Sheldon said you shouldn't use these, and if you do, you're a bully* and a bad player!**"
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
there are too many aspects to this game to try and quash certain ones that you don't personally like.
the whole thing reminds me of the kids we use to play with at school. eventually the play group split. those that adapted, those that used the tools and resources they had to beat each other, and those that whined every time you countered their skyshroud behemoth we called them the cabbage patch kids because they acted like children when it came to the game of magic... and they smelled like cabbage, anyway the point is all forms of play are valid forms of play and this article does nothing but glorify ramp strategies and combo.
To those players touting Sheldon's list as gospel, I would say: Sheldon is not EDH. The people you play with is EDH. If your playgroup is competitive, that is EDH. If its about trying to win with your starfish themed deck, that's EDH as well. Talk to your friends to find out what is or isn't fun for the group as a whole, and don't let some guy who had an idea once tell you otherwise.
It is that easy. Who is Sheldon Menery? Forget the list.
WGU - Jenara, Asura of War - Bant Counters
WUB - Sen Triplets - Blink Control
RWU - Ruhan of the Fomori - Combat Control
WB - Teysa, Envoy of Ghosts - Orzhov Knights
UB - Grimgrin, Corpse-Born - Tribal Combo
G - Yeva, Nature's Herald - Yo-Yo Champion
What did I just read?
Pretty sure he's just saying that Sheldon (rules committee) is not a governing board and that you/we are all responsible for our definition and enjoyment of the game. Pretty straight forward I thought... unless I am wrong.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Nope, that about sums it up, thank you.
WGU - Jenara, Asura of War - Bant Counters
WUB - Sen Triplets - Blink Control
RWU - Ruhan of the Fomori - Combat Control
WB - Teysa, Envoy of Ghosts - Orzhov Knights
UB - Grimgrin, Corpse-Born - Tribal Combo
G - Yeva, Nature's Herald - Yo-Yo Champion
Of course, this doesn't apply to people who have single playgroups and speak with their peers in game and outside of it to create experiences that all will enjoy. Their spoken social contract will vary from the unspoken version, which is what I believe Sheldon was attempting to say. This short list of cards are suggestions, not guidelines, on taking precautionary steps when toting your deck around to unfamiliar (going blind) playgroups that you don't have previous experience with to allow the chance for all players to have fun.
What I took away from the article was that when going into a different playgroup blind, it's better to be safe than sorry and ask the players before you sit down what cards are seen as taboo. If the chance of asking that question doesn't or can't present itself then taking steps to changing your deck before you sit down and play, with the goal of creating an 'awesome' game in mind, will give you and the players around you a better chance of having those kinds of games. While the definition of "awesome" games will be different for every player, practicing steps of abiding to the unspoken social contract should give you more of the games you prefer to play.
All of this being said, if you get the chance to ask your playgroup what they do and don't like to see in games, just ask them!
With WoTC printing Commander products now, with the resources the community has available, and a 1v1 tournament scene emerging, EDH is fast becoming a format that has more of an "I Want To Win" than an "I Want An Epic Play" mentality. I won't speak to the emotional overtones of such a shift, but I firmly believe it is there, and growing stronger and stronger day by day. I know my playgroup specifically are all fiercely competitive. Even the "casual" nature of my LGS's EDH day is getting more to that point. And that's where I think the focal point of a lot of these discussions needs to ... shift.
EDH is not kitchen table any longer. It's far from casual. It's social to an extent, but even that is getting less and less value. There are French style 1v1 tournaments sprouting up everywhere. There are multiplayer side tournaments held at almost every event nationwide, and I even think worldwide. There is a massive amount of data and resources available now to make EDH decks faster, more efficient, more focused, more, dare I say it? Competitive. Competitive is the mentality that I see prevail more and more in my LGS Sunday EDH day, in my local playgroup, in tournament results, online, and even in these very forums.
I'd like to take a step back and clarify, though. Competitive doesn't mean necessarily playing for money, or prize. It also doesn't mean playing the "jerk" cards all the time, or playing straight ruthless, all the time, and doing everything in your power to win at all costs. If that were the case, I don't think there would be any decks other than hyperfast combo builds that win consistently T3. That's not the definition of competitive that I'm using.
Competitive means, to me, and in this format: You're trying to win, while also having a good time. But that's a little backwards from what dear Mr. Sheldon seems to be saying. He seems to come from a place of having a good time, while also trying to win. See the priority shift there? One set has having a good time as the priority, with winning as a slightly secondary objective. The other puts winning as the top priority, with having a good time as secondary.
The only reason I wanted to write this was to try to bring an awareness to this priority shift. Magic players, for the most part (at least from what I've seen) want to have a good time, but winning is the priority. With more and more competitive players of other formats coming over to EDH, I think this mentality swing will come more and more into focus. Players play this game to win. No-one likes losing! And that is not reserved to tournament play. It also holds true for EDH.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics
[Primer]WIsamaru, the Howling BladeW[Primer]
[Primer]BGSkullbriar: From Life, Death Eternal (1v1)GB[Primer]
BGRbighaben and Feverous' Prossh, Skyraider of KherRGB
BGRProssh-Gro (1V1)RGB