I don't understand why a LGS is being criticized for adopting variant rules. The RC encourages you to make house rules as a way to keep games fun.
I'm shocked at how many posts in this thread advocate being as cutthroat and anti-social in your deckbuilding as possible without breaking the rules as a way to stick it to them. This is not an attitude that is going to earn you long term friends and skilled opponents, you're relying only on the store owner (or MTGO) putting you into paired games to find opponents and it's a terrible idea to intentionally provoke someone who can ask you to leave and not come back.
There is in fact a difference between competitive and anti-social, and it's a big one. My friends and I are very skilled at this game, and we all strive to build the best decks we can and play to win. This gives us something to bond over, something to play together as a group, and we have a great time hanging out and talking to each other while we play.
Compare that with this so-called "social" lgs. If someone comes in striving to become better at this game by adopting Rock (I like the rock-paper-scissors analogy, fits very well with the 3 pillars of magic, combo-aggro-control), that player will literally not be allowed to join in. How does that seem like a social thing to do? I just feel like the RC has it wrong here. Remember that the RC is not hired by Wizards, they're not professional rule-makers, they're just a couple of guys who thought of a cool idea for a Magic variant but paired it with their personal philosophy and then paired that with a banlist so inconsistent and broken it seems like it was made with the exact opposite philosophy in mind. You have to take what those guys have to say with a grain of salt. Take a step back and consider what it actually means to be social. Hint: the answer is not to ostracize players. See Phil's comment in my sig.
This page details the rules common to most play groups. Locally players often play with house rules, and are encouraged to, but this consensus version exists so that players know what to expect if they join a game outside their local play area.
Commander is designed to promote social games of magic.
It is played in a variety of ways, depending on player preference, but a common vision ties together the global community to help them enjoy a different kind of magic. That vision is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to includes a degree of interactivity between players. Players should aim to interact both during the game and before it begins, discussing with other players what they expect/want from the game.
House rules or "fair play" exceptions are always encouraged if they result in more fun for the local community.
Commander is designed first and foremost for social players. It cannot be all things to all people.
Nevertheless, many people like to play for prizes or other non-social incentives. Those incentives can help build communities and playgroups, but they can also undermine the social contract which keeps the format balanced.
When running a competitive commander event, the recommended list of cards to avoid (under the primary deckbuilding rules) is one place to start. It is not however, nor is it intended to be, comprehensive. There are a great many uninteresting uses for the cards not listed there, and additional structure is required to keep degeneracy 1 in check.To that end, a selection of optional rules are provided here for prospective TOs or players who find their playgroup can't find a balance.
Degenerate: adj Having fallen below a normal or desireable state, especially functionally, morally, or socially. Having atrophied or declined to a state of sameness.
Since one of the primary features of commander is the variety of games, and the variable nature of the problem each game presents, degenerate plays are those which take away from the variety and unpredictable nature of the games
I don't understand why a LGS is being criticized for adopting variant rules. The RC encourages you to make house rules as a way to keep games fun.
I'm shocked at how many posts in this thread advocate being as cutthroat and anti-social in your deckbuilding as possible without breaking the rules as a way to stick it to them. This is not an attitude that is going to earn you long term friends and skilled opponents, you're relying only on the store owner (or MTGO) putting you into paired games to find opponents and it's a terrible idea to intentionally provoke someone who can ask you to leave and not come back.
It's a problem. It kills two archetypes and makes turbo-ramp decks way more deadly.
It's interesting in the RC statements quoted above that degeneracy is defined (partly) as "Having atrophied or declined to a state of sameness". As this is exactly what banning entire archetypes will do. Playing with and against a wide variety of archetypes and decks styles is variety. Placing restrictions forcing everyone to play nothing but "ramp and turn dudes sideways" is, by the definition given by the RC, degenerate.
Anyway, I've always (well, since I started playing EDH) held the opinion that overall, other than the banlist (which is more for convenience and consistency), no individual cards or playstyles should be banned by groups. Instead, players should tune their decks to fit their playgroups, particularly when it comes to power level. So, if everyone else is playing decks that win on turn 3-4, it's fine to do so. If the rest of the players have decks that win on turns 10-12, then do go in with something that reliably wins T5. The actual way you win shouldn't really be that important. Also, back this up by having multiple decks, and be prepared to switch around - so, if your Azami combo wins the first game, maybe take out a different deck for the second one. Losing to combo once is not really an issue (and if people do get bothered by it, they are taking magic far far far to seriously to be called "casual"). On the other hand, I can understand if people get tired of it happening every game.
The thing about this kind of thing, which is pretty much the "social contract", is that it does depend on the playgroup working together and being reasonable about these things. Which I guess is why I really think EDH is best played with friends, not people you occasionally meet at your LGS. If one of your friends does something "obnoxious" in a game of magic, you jokingly call him a dick, tell him to go get the next round of beers and ask that he play a different deck next game. When someone you barely know does a play like that, it's much harder to know how to react. Which leads to the sort of restrictions seen in the OP.
Giving prizes just makes this worse, particularly if you're going to but on restrictions on what people can and can't play. From my experience (not just in Magic), all this will lead to is playing decks that are completely within the rules, but but just as "broken" and "obnoxious" (by the standards of the playgroup) as the decks they're attempting to stop. Worse if anything - as this thread shows, if someone has put quite a bit of time and money into a deck, only to be told "Nope. You can't pay that", a lot of people would react by building a far more effective deck that sticks to the rules purely out of spite and to demonstrate how "stupid" the rules are.
My suggestions for the OP would be as follows:
First off, don't be a spiteful arse. A lot of the decks suggested in this thread will probably result in you winning the tournament while not breaking the restrictions, but they'll further alienate you from the players. And this is not really what you want, is it? Ultimately, you want to play EDH and making the rest of the players hate you isn't going to help you do that.
Then, most importantly, talk to the other players and the organiser. Try and reach some kind of middle ground - particularly regarding not playing "that" kind of deck every game. So have some other decks for when people get tired of combo, but have them let you go infinite with Azami sometimes. Alternatively, mix up you Azami deck. Make if more wizard beats, but leave in a couple of combos. Basically, so that it doesn't always win by combo. See if they'll accept that. Basically, you're looking for a compromise. They allow some combo/alt. wins etc. You don't try to do it every game.
If this isn't working, if they're absolutely adamant that no combos are allowed in their playgroup, then sadly, you're either going to have to suck it up and play by their standards (and by that I mean the implied limitations on deck building, not just those literally stated in their rules), or you're going to have to leave.
It's a problem. It kills two archetypes and makes turbo-ramp decks way more deadly.
I read the thread again as well. When it come sto MLD, wile i hate it, i just focus that guy. Like really focus him, aggro him. Doens't stop him, but...
But yea shutting down archtypes and getting rid of strategies makes it impossible to really see variety. Sure you may see some different strategies.
They need to very carefully define what is and isn't an infinite combo.
One of my most recent builds is selvala, explorer returned made solely for infinite-banned environments. To make sure were on the same page, I make them define what they consider infinite combo - and selvala + umbral mantle usually fall outside that scope (as each iteration is unique and it's possible for the combo to end prematurely if too many lands are revealed at once).
When successful, it might feel like an infinite combo, it clearly (mathematically, at least) falls outside the scope of most groups definition.
I don't see why people are so up in arms about how bad they think OP's playgroup's house rules are. If the majority of that playgroup likes playing under those house rules (prizes on the line or not), then why are we being critical of them?
i think mostly because its a LGS thats advocating taking out rock (using the rock-paper-scissors analogy) while simultaneously offering prizes for a league game.
in other words, any player who ISN'T playing scissors are severely disadvantaged (leading to everyone in that LGS league to play nearly identical decks/archetype, very linear meta).
i'm assuming the LGS tournament in question has already come and gone. any news on how it went?
I don't see why people are so up in arms about how bad they think OP's playgroup's house rules are. If the majority of that playgroup likes playing under those house rules (prizes on the line or not), then why are we being critical of them?
I think it has more to do with the fact that prizes are in fact on the line. If it was just playing for fun house rules by any means. But when you get to the point of playing for prizes, then things change.
I don;t want to go to a game, and not be able to play my deck (Or play a lesser version of my deck) when i could win something.
Prizes=Competition.
competition=competaive
competetive=good decks.
Infinite combo, like it or not, if often a win con (Unless it is an infinite mana combo in which case either do something with it that phase or go away, my decks seldom gain infnite mana. Its more like infinite damage. or infinite attack phases)
MLD is a way red can have control.
Winning without other player interaction. While Laboratory Manic may be an okay ban in some cases, the deck has to be build right to utilize him. Test of endurance, Mortal Combat, Phage the untouchable, Felidar Sovereign. all these are win cons of some sort. If a deck can utilize it perfect, but they are also not the only win con. You have to realize cards that say "you win teh game" are a win con. By removing them you are saying the only way to win is by beatdown. Green and red, there you go.
I think it has more to do with the fact that prizes are in fact on the line. If it was just playing for fun house rules by any means. But when you get to the point of playing for prizes, then things change.
I don;t want to go to a game, and not be able to play my deck (Or play a lesser version of my deck) when i could win something.
Prizes=Competition.
competition=competaive
competetive=good decks.
Infinite combo, like it or not, if often a win con (Unless it is an infinite mana combo in which case either do something with it that phase or go away, my decks seldom gain infnite mana. Its more like infinite damage. or infinite attack phases)
MLD is a way red can have control.
Winning without other player interaction. While Laboratory Manic may be an okay ban in some cases, the deck has to be build right to utilize him. Test of endurance, Mortal Combat, Phage the untouchable, Felidar Sovereign. all these are win cons of some sort. If a deck can utilize it perfect, but they are also not the only win con. You have to realize cards that say "you win teh game" are a win con. By removing them you are saying the only way to win is by beatdown. Green and red, there you go.
The store can make up whatever rules they want. If they want to get get rid of Laboratory Maniac and half of the playable card pool, they can go ahead and do that, prize support or not. If the majority of players don't like those rules, they're not going to play and the rules won't last. It'll work itself out. As I've said before, they're obviously trying to make a certain play environment. Unfortunately for the store, the types of decks they're trying to phase out can still be made within the rules. The problem with that is all that's going to come of it will be frustrating games while people keep pushing the envelope, more things get banned, and it just gets silly until people just don't want to play it anymore. Then there won't be any EDH tournament for anyone. This is part of the reason I stay far away from multiplayer EDH tournaments.
I think it has more to do with the fact that prizes are in fact on the line. If it was just playing for fun house rules by any means. But when you get to the point of playing for prizes, then things change.
I don;t want to go to a game, and not be able to play my deck (Or play a lesser version of my deck) when i could win something.
Prizes=Competition.
competition=competaive
competetive=good decks.
Infinite combo, like it or not, if often a win con (Unless it is an infinite mana combo in which case either do something with it that phase or go away, my decks seldom gain infnite mana. Its more like infinite damage. or infinite attack phases)
MLD is a way red can have control.
Winning without other player interaction. While Laboratory Manic may be an okay ban in some cases, the deck has to be build right to utilize him. Test of endurance, Mortal Combat, Phage the untouchable, Felidar Sovereign. all these are win cons of some sort. If a deck can utilize it perfect, but they are also not the only win con. You have to realize cards that say "you win teh game" are a win con. By removing them you are saying the only way to win is by beatdown. Green and red, there you go.
The store can make up whatever rules they want. If they want to get get rid of Laboratory Maniac and half of the playable card pool, they can go ahead and do that, prize support or not. If the majority of players don't like those rules, they're not going to play and the rules won't last. It'll work itself out. As I've said before, they're obviously trying to make a certain play environment. Unfortunately for the store, the types of decks they're trying to phase out can still be made within the rules. The problem with that is all that's going to come of it will be frustrating games while people keep pushing the envelope, more things get banned, and it just gets silly until people just don't want to play it anymore. Then there won't be any EDH tournament for anyone. This is part of the reason I stay far away from multiplayer EDH tournaments.
I stay away from EDH tournaments because they're all 1 step away from banning Island.
I think it has more to do with the fact that prizes are in fact on the line. If it was just playing for fun house rules by any means. But when you get to the point of playing for prizes, then things change.
I don;t want to go to a game, and not be able to play my deck (Or play a lesser version of my deck) when i could win something.
Prizes=Competition.
competition=competaive
competetive=good decks.
Infinite combo, like it or not, if often a win con (Unless it is an infinite mana combo in which case either do something with it that phase or go away, my decks seldom gain infnite mana. Its more like infinite damage. or infinite attack phases)
MLD is a way red can have control.
Winning without other player interaction. While Laboratory Manic may be an okay ban in some cases, the deck has to be build right to utilize him. Test of endurance, Mortal Combat, Phage the untouchable, Felidar Sovereign. all these are win cons of some sort. If a deck can utilize it perfect, but they are also not the only win con. You have to realize cards that say "you win teh game" are a win con. By removing them you are saying the only way to win is by beatdown. Green and red, there you go.
The store can make up whatever rules they want. If they want to get get rid of Laboratory Maniac and half of the playable card pool, they can go ahead and do that, prize support or not. If the majority of players don't like those rules, they're not going to play and the rules won't last. It'll work itself out. As I've said before, they're obviously trying to make a certain play environment. Unfortunately for the store, the types of decks they're trying to phase out can still be made within the rules. The problem with that is all that's going to come of it will be frustrating games while people keep pushing the envelope, more things get banned, and it just gets silly until people just don't want to play it anymore. Then there won't be any EDH tournament for anyone. This is part of the reason I stay far away from multiplayer EDH tournaments.
I stay away from EDH tournaments because they're all 1 step away from banning Island.
And even then We could probably build a mono-blue deck without islands...
I don't see why people are so up in arms about how bad they think OP's playgroup's house rules are. If the majority of that playgroup likes playing under those house rules (prizes on the line or not), then why are we being critical of them?
Because the rules they established don't in fact make the majority happy they attempt too. You want to bad labman fine but when you lose to the exact same shell using a differnt wincon than Labman they have no right to complain. The op could easily do this based on the rules I see. The issue is these rules are restricting thier gameplay but not fixing the problem my old league did find a good solution to me and my decks it was to give prizes not for winning but by gaining points by having the coolest deck. If you make prizes for winning expect players to do the most degenerate strategy available to them in this case the rules don't really change the power level of these decks at all thus they are bad and should be changed.
Because most alternate win cons don't interact with opponents - they want players to interact with opponents to win
Every card interacts with the opponent on some level. There is no such thing as a non-interactive card, anyone who suggests that is probably not interacting as a player.
well, i played my Chainer Dementia master Re animator shell. I won the first round with an awesome rise of the dark realms getting a bunch of angels from a avacyn deck, and a keiga the tide star and a few other good creatures from from a black rose dethrone deck - the mayel player got mana screwed and only had white mana. the second round i was playing against an old esper dude whose P/T was the number of lands he controlled, ( forgot his name) mayel, and cromat. i had put a artisan of kozilek in the yard and passed the turn, when the cromat player beacon of unrest'd it. since i had some obvious removal up, i was not attacked by it, but since it got out so early, it made the mayel player sac all of their permanents. eventually i got it back, but the cromat player played pandemonium and everyone was hitting me for five or six a turn when their creatures entered. eventually, i had a sweet board position and had played whip of erebos so i got back to 35 life, when the cromat player ( who had a merari's wake out) one shotted me for 21 commander damage in the air.
There is in fact a difference between competitive and anti-social, and it's a big one. My friends and I are very skilled at this game, and we all strive to build the best decks we can and play to win. This gives us something to bond over, something to play together as a group, and we have a great time hanging out and talking to each other while we play.
Compare that with this so-called "social" lgs. If someone comes in striving to become better at this game by adopting Rock (I like the rock-paper-scissors analogy, fits very well with the 3 pillars of magic, combo-aggro-control), that player will literally not be allowed to join in. How does that seem like a social thing to do? I just feel like the RC has it wrong here. Remember that the RC is not hired by Wizards, they're not professional rule-makers, they're just a couple of guys who thought of a cool idea for a Magic variant but paired it with their personal philosophy and then paired that with a banlist so inconsistent and broken it seems like it was made with the exact opposite philosophy in mind. You have to take what those guys have to say with a grain of salt. Take a step back and consider what it actually means to be social. Hint: the answer is not to ostracize players. See Phil's comment in my sig.
That's a really easy position to take when you have an established group who obviously share a philosophy. Like I said before, I don't condone the banning of archetypes, but just expecting everyone in any group to 'get better or lose' is not the definition of social either. The RC is promoting exactly what you have done: Find a group of people who share a philosophy and play with them. For people relegated to playing at LGS the water gets a lot more murky, prizes or no.
Believe it or not some people want to run mid-power decks that are fun to pilot against the same. That's a lot harder to find at an LGS than high powered goodstuff, and can be an issue that's often ignored.
This LGS took a run at a custom ban list, and a lot of us think it failed. If 80% of the people THERE are having more fun, the other 20% are out of luck. It cuts both ways.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
There is in fact a difference between competitive and anti-social, and it's a big one. My friends and I are very skilled at this game, and we all strive to build the best decks we can and play to win. This gives us something to bond over, something to play together as a group, and we have a great time hanging out and talking to each other while we play.
Compare that with this so-called "social" lgs. If someone comes in striving to become better at this game by adopting Rock (I like the rock-paper-scissors analogy, fits very well with the 3 pillars of magic, combo-aggro-control), that player will literally not be allowed to join in. How does that seem like a social thing to do? I just feel like the RC has it wrong here. Remember that the RC is not hired by Wizards, they're not professional rule-makers, they're just a couple of guys who thought of a cool idea for a Magic variant but paired it with their personal philosophy and then paired that with a banlist so inconsistent and broken it seems like it was made with the exact opposite philosophy in mind. You have to take what those guys have to say with a grain of salt. Take a step back and consider what it actually means to be social. Hint: the answer is not to ostracize players. See Phil's comment in my sig.
That's a really easy position to take when you have an established group who obviously share a philosophy. Like I said before, I don't condone the banning of archetypes, but just expecting everyone in any group to 'get better or lose' is not the definition of social either. The RC is promoting exactly what you have done: Find a group of people who share a philosophy and play with them. For people relegated to playing at LGS the water gets a lot more murky, prizes or no.
Believe it or not some people want to run mid-power decks that are fun to pilot against the same. That's a lot harder to find at an LGS than high powered goodstuff, and can be an issue that's often ignored.
This LGS took a run at a custom ban list, and a lot of us think it failed. If 80% of the people THERE are having more fun, the other 20% are out of luck. It cuts both ways.
thats a nice way of putting it actually.
i'd kinda wanna hear if there are peeps from that LGS that feels that it has made the games there more fun. i think if those rules were applied here, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference (though people here occasionally do 'whoops-combo-out', but then take out/replace a combo piece thereafter.. we don't really enjoy combos here.. but we don't ban them either).
I don't understand why a LGS is being criticized for adopting variant rules. The RC encourages you to make house rules as a way to keep games fun.
I'm shocked at how many posts in this thread advocate being as cutthroat and anti-social in your deckbuilding as possible without breaking the rules as a way to stick it to them. This is not an attitude that is going to earn you long term friends and skilled opponents, you're relying only on the store owner (or MTGO) putting you into paired games to find opponents and it's a terrible idea to intentionally provoke someone who can ask you to leave and not come back.
welcome to salvation! in this thread you can see our fine examples of EDH spikes: they despise green and creatures and praise, combo, stax, land destruction, everything that's mean and overused as hell in the other real competitive format. you can clearly see here their belief that the fun of one people (the OP) is superior to the fun of a whole LGS, just because the OP label himself as a "pro" and netdecks combos. so yeah, make the meanest deck possible, try to screw every game for everyone, this surely will make them take their bans back and start to like combo!
really OP play a mean deck and they will probably ban island next. they are probably tired to see always the same combo/stax strategy and wanted something more casual and relaxed.
I don't want to interrupt your ranting but what other format "despise green and creatures and praise, combo, stax, land destruction, everything that's mean and overused as hell"?
I know it's easy to bash people you don't like but maybe you should try to make a realistic argument next time.
I don't understand why a LGS is being criticized for adopting variant rules. The RC encourages you to make house rules as a way to keep games fun.
I'm shocked at how many posts in this thread advocate being as cutthroat and anti-social in your deckbuilding as possible without breaking the rules as a way to stick it to them. This is not an attitude that is going to earn you long term friends and skilled opponents, you're relying only on the store owner (or MTGO) putting you into paired games to find opponents and it's a terrible idea to intentionally provoke someone who can ask you to leave and not come back.
welcome to salvation! in this thread you can see our fine examples of EDH spikes: they despise green and creatures and praise, combo, stax, land destruction, everything that's mean and overused as hell in the other real competitive format. you can clearly see here their belief that the fun of one people (the OP) is superior to the fun of a whole LGS, just because the OP label himself as a "pro" and netdecks combos. so yeah, make the meanest deck possible, try to screw every game for everyone, this surely will make them take their bans back and start to like combo!
really OP play a mean deck and they will probably ban island next. they are probably tired to see always the same combo/stax strategy and wanted something more casual and relaxed.
Considering I run Green/Blue Beatdown in my Vorel deck, constantly play in 12 person Battle Royal Pods, and typically bring a different deck every weekend to my FLGS, I hardly consider myself a spike.
That said, saying that it is right to ban a particular type of playstyle alienates the type of people who enjoy that playstyle, which is hardly social. It also stunts the growth of the players in that group.
And I'M SICK AND BLOODY TIRED OF PEOPLE COMING TO MY AFTER HAVING EXPERIANCED THESE CAREBEAR GROUPS. Yes, we play with Combo, yes you will get over it, or yes, we can show you the door.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
I don't understand why a LGS is being criticized for adopting variant rules. The RC encourages you to make house rules as a way to keep games fun.
I'm shocked at how many posts in this thread advocate being as cutthroat and anti-social in your deckbuilding as possible without breaking the rules as a way to stick it to them. This is not an attitude that is going to earn you long term friends and skilled opponents, you're relying only on the store owner (or MTGO) putting you into paired games to find opponents and it's a terrible idea to intentionally provoke someone who can ask you to leave and not come back.
welcome to salvation! in this thread you can see our fine examples of EDH spikes: they despise green and creatures and praise, combo, stax, land destruction, everything that's mean and overused as hell in the other real competitive format. you can clearly see here their belief that the fun of one people (the OP) is superior to the fun of a whole LGS, just because the OP label himself as a "pro" and netdecks combos. so yeah, make the meanest deck possible, try to screw every game for everyone, this surely will make them take their bans back and start to like combo!
really OP play a mean deck and they will probably ban island next. they are probably tired to see always the same combo/stax strategy and wanted something more casual and relaxed.
Wait, so you literally think EDH should amount to nothing but turning creatures sideways? I'm surprised you didn't throw wraths and counters in there too so ramping into aggro would be all that remained.
If my LGS did that I would honestly find a new one.
Commander already has a ban list (One I don't frankly agree with) so that's what people should play with. Banning every combo/alternate win doesn't make a format better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey guys so I've actually moved on from commander on to 60 card decks so I don't have any commander decks.
Anyway I've started my own gameplay channel in which I play games (Magic also)
There is in fact a difference between competitive and anti-social, and it's a big one. My friends and I are very skilled at this game, and we all strive to build the best decks we can and play to win. This gives us something to bond over, something to play together as a group, and we have a great time hanging out and talking to each other while we play.
Compare that with this so-called "social" lgs. If someone comes in striving to become better at this game by adopting Rock (I like the rock-paper-scissors analogy, fits very well with the 3 pillars of magic, combo-aggro-control), that player will literally not be allowed to join in. How does that seem like a social thing to do? I just feel like the RC has it wrong here. Remember that the RC is not hired by Wizards, they're not professional rule-makers, they're just a couple of guys who thought of a cool idea for a Magic variant but paired it with their personal philosophy and then paired that with a banlist so inconsistent and broken it seems like it was made with the exact opposite philosophy in mind. You have to take what those guys have to say with a grain of salt. Take a step back and consider what it actually means to be social. Hint: the answer is not to ostracize players. See Phil's comment in my sig.
cEDH: [G(U/R) Animar] - [(U/B)(G/W) Redless Wheels] - [(G/U)(W/B) Redless Pod] - [(B/G)W Ghave Metapod]
So let me get this straight - they banned mass LD, Any prison/stax win cons, and infinite combos?
So... How many people are playing Mono Green?
It's a problem. It kills two archetypes and makes turbo-ramp decks way more deadly.
Current
RGWMarath, Will of the WildRGW
GWUPheldagriff Group HugGWU
RGRRuric Thar, the UnbowedGRG
UXBOona ControlUXB
Retired
RGWMayael, the AnimaRGW
XGXGlissa Sunseeker ComboXGX
Anyway, I've always (well, since I started playing EDH) held the opinion that overall, other than the banlist (which is more for convenience and consistency), no individual cards or playstyles should be banned by groups. Instead, players should tune their decks to fit their playgroups, particularly when it comes to power level. So, if everyone else is playing decks that win on turn 3-4, it's fine to do so. If the rest of the players have decks that win on turns 10-12, then do go in with something that reliably wins T5. The actual way you win shouldn't really be that important. Also, back this up by having multiple decks, and be prepared to switch around - so, if your Azami combo wins the first game, maybe take out a different deck for the second one. Losing to combo once is not really an issue (and if people do get bothered by it, they are taking magic far far far to seriously to be called "casual"). On the other hand, I can understand if people get tired of it happening every game.
The thing about this kind of thing, which is pretty much the "social contract", is that it does depend on the playgroup working together and being reasonable about these things. Which I guess is why I really think EDH is best played with friends, not people you occasionally meet at your LGS. If one of your friends does something "obnoxious" in a game of magic, you jokingly call him a dick, tell him to go get the next round of beers and ask that he play a different deck next game. When someone you barely know does a play like that, it's much harder to know how to react. Which leads to the sort of restrictions seen in the OP.
Giving prizes just makes this worse, particularly if you're going to but on restrictions on what people can and can't play. From my experience (not just in Magic), all this will lead to is playing decks that are completely within the rules, but but just as "broken" and "obnoxious" (by the standards of the playgroup) as the decks they're attempting to stop. Worse if anything - as this thread shows, if someone has put quite a bit of time and money into a deck, only to be told "Nope. You can't pay that", a lot of people would react by building a far more effective deck that sticks to the rules purely out of spite and to demonstrate how "stupid" the rules are.
My suggestions for the OP would be as follows:
First off, don't be a spiteful arse. A lot of the decks suggested in this thread will probably result in you winning the tournament while not breaking the restrictions, but they'll further alienate you from the players. And this is not really what you want, is it? Ultimately, you want to play EDH and making the rest of the players hate you isn't going to help you do that.
Then, most importantly, talk to the other players and the organiser. Try and reach some kind of middle ground - particularly regarding not playing "that" kind of deck every game. So have some other decks for when people get tired of combo, but have them let you go infinite with Azami sometimes. Alternatively, mix up you Azami deck. Make if more wizard beats, but leave in a couple of combos. Basically, so that it doesn't always win by combo. See if they'll accept that. Basically, you're looking for a compromise. They allow some combo/alt. wins etc. You don't try to do it every game.
If this isn't working, if they're absolutely adamant that no combos are allowed in their playgroup, then sadly, you're either going to have to suck it up and play by their standards (and by that I mean the implied limitations on deck building, not just those literally stated in their rules), or you're going to have to leave.
I read the thread again as well. When it come sto MLD, wile i hate it, i just focus that guy. Like really focus him, aggro him. Doens't stop him, but...
But yea shutting down archtypes and getting rid of strategies makes it impossible to really see variety. Sure you may see some different strategies.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
One of my most recent builds is selvala, explorer returned made solely for infinite-banned environments. To make sure were on the same page, I make them define what they consider infinite combo - and selvala + umbral mantle usually fall outside that scope (as each iteration is unique and it's possible for the combo to end prematurely if too many lands are revealed at once).
When successful, it might feel like an infinite combo, it clearly (mathematically, at least) falls outside the scope of most groups definition.
in other words, any player who ISN'T playing scissors are severely disadvantaged (leading to everyone in that LGS league to play nearly identical decks/archetype, very linear meta).
i'm assuming the LGS tournament in question has already come and gone. any news on how it went?
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
I think it has more to do with the fact that prizes are in fact on the line. If it was just playing for fun house rules by any means. But when you get to the point of playing for prizes, then things change.
I don;t want to go to a game, and not be able to play my deck (Or play a lesser version of my deck) when i could win something.
Prizes=Competition.
competition=competaive
competetive=good decks.
Infinite combo, like it or not, if often a win con (Unless it is an infinite mana combo in which case either do something with it that phase or go away, my decks seldom gain infnite mana. Its more like infinite damage. or infinite attack phases)
MLD is a way red can have control.
Winning without other player interaction. While Laboratory Manic may be an okay ban in some cases, the deck has to be build right to utilize him. Test of endurance, Mortal Combat, Phage the untouchable, Felidar Sovereign. all these are win cons of some sort. If a deck can utilize it perfect, but they are also not the only win con. You have to realize cards that say "you win teh game" are a win con. By removing them you are saying the only way to win is by beatdown. Green and red, there you go.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
The store can make up whatever rules they want. If they want to get get rid of Laboratory Maniac and half of the playable card pool, they can go ahead and do that, prize support or not. If the majority of players don't like those rules, they're not going to play and the rules won't last. It'll work itself out. As I've said before, they're obviously trying to make a certain play environment. Unfortunately for the store, the types of decks they're trying to phase out can still be made within the rules. The problem with that is all that's going to come of it will be frustrating games while people keep pushing the envelope, more things get banned, and it just gets silly until people just don't want to play it anymore. Then there won't be any EDH tournament for anyone. This is part of the reason I stay far away from multiplayer EDH tournaments.
I stay away from EDH tournaments because they're all 1 step away from banning Island.
And even then We could probably build a mono-blue deck without islands...
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Because the rules they established don't in fact make the majority happy they attempt too. You want to bad labman fine but when you lose to the exact same shell using a differnt wincon than Labman they have no right to complain. The op could easily do this based on the rules I see. The issue is these rules are restricting thier gameplay but not fixing the problem my old league did find a good solution to me and my decks it was to give prizes not for winning but by gaining points by having the coolest deck. If you make prizes for winning expect players to do the most degenerate strategy available to them in this case the rules don't really change the power level of these decks at all thus they are bad and should be changed.
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
Every card interacts with the opponent on some level. There is no such thing as a non-interactive card, anyone who suggests that is probably not interacting as a player.
a) as well as you'd expect it?
b) better than you'd expect?
c) rubbish experience?
a little surprised that the cromat was a voltron dude... though thinking about it, combo was out, right?
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
Believe it or not some people want to run mid-power decks that are fun to pilot against the same. That's a lot harder to find at an LGS than high powered goodstuff, and can be an issue that's often ignored.
This LGS took a run at a custom ban list, and a lot of us think it failed. If 80% of the people THERE are having more fun, the other 20% are out of luck. It cuts both ways.
thats a nice way of putting it actually.
i'd kinda wanna hear if there are peeps from that LGS that feels that it has made the games there more fun. i think if those rules were applied here, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference (though people here occasionally do 'whoops-combo-out', but then take out/replace a combo piece thereafter.. we don't really enjoy combos here.. but we don't ban them either).
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
I don't want to interrupt your ranting but what other format "despise green and creatures and praise, combo, stax, land destruction, everything that's mean and overused as hell"?
I know it's easy to bash people you don't like but maybe you should try to make a realistic argument next time.
Considering I run Green/Blue Beatdown in my Vorel deck, constantly play in 12 person Battle Royal Pods, and typically bring a different deck every weekend to my FLGS, I hardly consider myself a spike.
That said, saying that it is right to ban a particular type of playstyle alienates the type of people who enjoy that playstyle, which is hardly social. It also stunts the growth of the players in that group.
And I'M SICK AND BLOODY TIRED OF PEOPLE COMING TO MY AFTER HAVING EXPERIANCED THESE CAREBEAR GROUPS. Yes, we play with Combo, yes you will get over it, or yes, we can show you the door.
Wait, so you literally think EDH should amount to nothing but turning creatures sideways? I'm surprised you didn't throw wraths and counters in there too so ramping into aggro would be all that remained.
Commander already has a ban list (One I don't frankly agree with) so that's what people should play with. Banning every combo/alternate win doesn't make a format better.
Anyway I've started my own gameplay channel in which I play games (Magic also)
Twitch:
https://www.twitch.tv/dies_to_doom_blade
Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/user/UpsidedownHandshake