My point was more about teaching and fostering a relationship with newer players.
I fostered those relationships and my store benefitted when some of those kids were in high school and had jobs.
I personally would bet on the strong player with the weak deck though. Umm... Some old saying to make me sound wise about a master with a stick will always beat a novice with a sword.
There is no reason to assume they are lacking in playskill or deck construction ability. One of the core ideas of the format is build casually play competitively.
the thing is,magic is more about deckbuilding than piloting,even the Maker himself,god Garfield has said so in the past. yeah there are some baits and some outplays, but really there are not that much you can do while playing, you're quite limited by your cards/deck contruction . we arent talking about super noobs that dont time their spells well etc, people knowing the rules/their decks and playing the game without mistakes, the better deck will win.
i myself have played with a bad deck, vs noob players on many occassions-i think of myself as an experienced mtg player- and i didnt have a chance.i was steamrolled, because of bad mana base, no answers,or just better quality of the cards my opponent had(my deck most of the time :P) . id love to believe that the master with the bad deck can win a ok player with a good deck, but i dont think it works that way.
the best play/on curve most of the time is obvious if you look on the board, and then at your hand (i dont count "keep some threats to not be wiped,or bait counterspells as smart play, that's just how everybody should play vs some matchups,it's like saying hold a counter/removal for the combo deck,it's not smart,it's what you must do to not lose..)
mtg is a great game, but if you venture into other games, you can clearly see it's weaknesses. Deck contruction is a key, piloting your deck -or better, let it pilot you the most efficient way, it's how you win "it runs like a well oiled engine"
on thread, i think bringing low powered but well oiled decks works great,with clever interactions that make new players/bad players surprised so they dig into interactions and building efficient decks,with a little help..
bringing high powered decks will turn the players off you, and maybe off the game.
lending decks can work, but still it feels like playing vs dummy opponents, since they dont know the decks/havent built it themselves and dont know the interactions/how to play, so you have to teach each deck to each guy.. i used to do that a lot.. wears you out
edit : about budget, some years ago ,you could build great decks with low budget, but now that commander is well known and supported, most of the cards have spiked(cards that didnt worth anything few yars ago).. so if you "budget" you play a much worse version most of the time..
As far as skill vs deck power, I think it depends a lot on what kind of deck you have. If it has no interaction and a bad gameplan, then even a good player probably can't save it. As long as you have good interaction, though, especially in multiplayer I think the good player will be able to win much more often than the bad player, even if the bad player's deck is much better.
i.e. if they're both playing control decks and the worse player's deck is StPs, paths, and FoWs, and the good players is afterlifes, mana leaks, and condemns, I think the good player can still win that game a high percentage of the time. I think that's much more true in multiplayer than in 1v1 because of the balancing factors.
Train them. Offer them tips to improve and help them understand why their builds maybe aren't so good. You're likely not the only one whom will have a stronger deck than what they have to offer. If they refuse the help...well, that's on them.
You can only lead a horse to water...can't make 'em drink.
train them? like everyone has the same acess to the cardpool, or is willing to spend as much money to a hobby
magic is less about skill, and more about your deckbuilding and choice of cards
ill train you, buy 400$ of cards to improve your deck, that is.
Deck building is a skill. Knowing how to play, how to bait, how to read the board, when to fold'em, when to show'em. blah blah etc you might disagree but not the point im going for.
There are plenty of budget options, most newer players play stompy decks and there are plenty of 1$ rare/mythic decent big creatures.
If they cant afford path to exile then condem is an acceptable budget choice.
You can train them to be better players by showing then card interactions in your better decks. Like in a Meren deck they run naturalize but caustic catapiller offers real synergy.
You can show them how to choose cards for a deck Rampant Growth is fine in most decks but you'd rather run farseek in a multicolored deck (this was during return to ravinca, most kids I taught had enough allowence to buy a pack or 2 a week and had 1-2 shocks).
If they had a few bucks I'd show them a plethera of good playable 25 cent commons and uncommons and 1$ rares in the boxes.
Train them. Offer them tips to improve and help them understand why their builds maybe aren't so good. You're likely not the only one whom will have a stronger deck than what they have to offer. If they refuse the help...well, that's on them.
You can only lead a horse to water...can't make 'em drink.
train them? like everyone has the same acess to the cardpool, or is willing to spend as much money to a hobby
magic is less about skill, and more about your deckbuilding and choice of cards
ill train you, buy 400$ of cards to improve your deck, that is.
Deck building is a skill. Knowing how to play, how to bait, how to read the board, when to fold'em, when to show'em. blah blah etc you might disagree but not the point im going for.
There are plenty of budget options, most newer players play stompy decks and there are plenty of 1$ rare/mythic decent big creatures.
If they cant afford path to exile then condem is an acceptable budget choice.
You can train them to be better players by showing then card interactions in your better decks. Like in a Meren deck they run naturalize but caustic catapiller offers real synergy.
You can show them how to choose cards for a deck Rampant Growth is fine in most decks but you'd rather run farseek in a multicolored deck (this was during return to ravinca, most kids I taught had enough allowence to buy a pack or 2 a week and had 1-2 shocks).
If they had a few bucks I'd show them a plethera of good playable 25 cent commons and uncommons and 1$ rares in the boxes.
This is exactly what I was going for.
except that doesnt work, because some commanders/playstyles needs some specific cards, if you dont have them you cant play them or you are much inferior, and some cards dont have replacements at all because they are unique effects (budget kaalia? lol )
not to mention again,that deckbuilding is like 70-80% of mtg experience/gameplay, it's like clicking run on your code most of the time,it's not that tactical/skill demanding or brainy game as people make it to be ..
except that doesnt work, because some commanders/playstyles needs some specific cards, if you dont have them you cant play them or you are much inferior, and some cards dont have replacements at all because they are unique effects (budget kaalia? lol )
You know it's funny you mention that because one of the points I touched on in THE Kaalia Primer was from a SilverBlack "baseline" deck - meaning if all you had was Kaalia herself and just commons and uncommons to build with. Obviously, you'd be lacking the signature pieces (i.e. MoC/Rakdos), but the deck itself, especially thanks to the work KTK block did, could reasonably function under such circumstances. Of course, it's going to be clearly mismatched versus that guy - you know the one, that guy whom brought Zur Ad Naus "just to dick around with" - just because there's a certain power level mismatch involved there. But the deck itself could function just fine, reasonably even, to do what the deck is designed to do - which is deploy cool angels, demons, and dragons without paying their full retail cost.
That is, of course, assuming one built the deck to be able to handle the pressure and not just stuffed it full of 30+ high costed creatures. But when built with care? When one maintains tight play and seizes opportunities as they come up? There's no reason why they couldn't at least have fun and reasonably keep up, maybe even steal a game or two through cunning opportunistic play.
not to mention again,that deckbuilding is like 70-80% of mtg experience/gameplay, it's like clicking run on your code most of the time,it's not that tactical/skill demanding or brainy game as people make it to be ..
Tell that to limited and the pro tour, respectively.
Personally I think commander, and multiplayer in general, has more unplumbed depths of strategy than any other format, by a LOT.
Typically, I'll pick a middle of the road deck to sit down with. Something synergistic or Battlecrusier. I don't really mind losing a game, so just throwing myself into it to see how they play as an experiment doesn't bother me, even if they all turn out to be Stax decks in disguise. If they're newer/less knowledgeable players, I make an effort to help them in improving their decks and playing 'correctly'.
To me, a weak playgroup typically means weak, cheap cards. Not necessarily weak players. I'll bet on the weak player with a good deck over a strong player with a bad deck any day.
I personally would bet on the strong player with the weak deck though. Umm... Some old saying to make me sound wise about a master with a stick will always beat a novice with a sword.
I think the good player can still win that game a high percentage of the time. I think that's much more true in multiplayer than in 1v1 because of the balancing factors.
If edh was a 1v1 format I would be inclined to agree with you but in multiplayer you can play a "weak" deck and have an advantage over stronger decks.
A lot of fair points have been made, and I completely have to agree that the variance of deck/card quality is mitigated in multiplayer, where player quality becomes ever more important. This conversation seems to be rather binary, with all its (strong player/weak player) and (strong deck/weak deck) talk. But the truth is that player skill, deckbuilding skill, card quality, and budget level all exist within their own spectrums. It's not like the only options are a pro-player and a complete noob or Swords to Plowshares vs. Neck Snap.
Even in a duel, I'd often bet on a strong player with a moderate deck over a weak player that was handed an amazing deck that they don't have the skill to pilot. In multiplayer, though, it's much more about how you play the deck. Unless you're going for a non-interactive combo win, you will have to work with and against your opponents, and if you tick all of them off, you need a dramatically stronger deck than all of them put together. Lots of people (mostly Spikes, I believe) seem to disdain multi-player politics, but you really have to play the table as much as you play your deck.
You need to make sure that everyone is aiming for approximately the same style of game. It's not a matter of "cutthroat is better" and players will all embrace the most cutthroat if they're "good enough."
This. Not everyone playing with a low powered deck is doing it because they can't make a better one. My group consists almost entirely of former competitive players, most of whom are well employed with decent collections. Sometimes you just want to use Bazaar of Baghdad to turn on Hazoret the Pervert instead of playing a nasty dredge deck with it. If you show up to my group's EDH night and follow my T3 Markov Blademaster with EOT Ad Nauseam into combo kill, you're probably not getting a second invite. We're careful about avoiding an arms race because we like the power level we're at, not because we can't build stronger decks.
The reason I type all that isn't to call out competitive players - if that's the way you like to play, go for it. It's to point out the importance of communication. I suspect it's less common than groups that are lower powered due to lack of experience or resources, but there are definitely groups that have made a conscious choice to reign in power level. You can avoid a lot of power level related headaches with 30 seconds of conversation.
I remember back before EDH was a thing getting into an arms race with friends because I just happened to start playing standard and improved a significant amount doing so.
I've been attempting to do my part to prevent this from happening in my group, however with my penchant for optimizing lists kind of gets in the way of doing this.
Here is where I resort to doing silly stuff like playing a Noyan Dar, Roil Shaper deck where I try to kill you with Sorrow's Path. I try my very hardest to do it, but considering that the premise of the deck is to punch people with lands, I can't take it TOO seriously.
When I run into you, if I realize who you are, I'm bringing that out.
Mark Rosewater often says magic is not one game but many different games. I agree with him here. More cassual commander I really like. Conpetetive commander I dislike a lot. The banlist is very random, and the format from a competetive standpoint is all mannets of bad from bad regulation. If you are aproaching commamder in the same way you are making legacy or modern decks you are aproaching it from a very different perspective then other more numerus cassual commander players. There is a big divide there even though it technically is the same game.
What I do not understand is why don't you play legacy or modern instead if playing competetive commander? As an explorer type player I really don't understand this. There are no 'big puzzels' to solve, it is to easy. It does not apeal to achievers because it's to easy. Social players don't care much about winning. That just leaves assassin type players who thrive on beating others. But doing so in commander, I don't understand why they do not play in a format where they are playing against players who fight back, like modern and legacy. I just don't understand it and I guess I never will.
A good example of this dynamic at work is the mtggoldfish commander videoes. Usually they have fun. But the one time they played competetive commander they instead played many quick games with little interactiom between them, and it was not very fun.
Edit: With competetive commander I mean decks that winn around turn 5 or earlier a big persentage of their games, when not interupted. Interupting one of 3 oponents is often less inpactfull then just winning yourself. I know playing a good Stax deck don't win turn 5 but by that time they start to have their lock pieces in play.
I am using richard bartles player types. While others exist like the MDA framework or magics timmy, jhonny, spike I think bartles 4 types (achiever, assassin, explorer, soscial) are more suitable for this discussion
I try to keep 4-5 decks in a roughshod state of playable at any given time. My strongest, most politically hated deck is my Animar deck which, while it has only 1 infinite, can spit itself out in a turn and sweep the board. Every deck I build after that is at a lower and lower power level so I can choose a deck appropriate for the meta. Next comes a Sidisi, Brood Tyrant deck which is strong, but much less explosive. Then I have an Ayli deck that's mostly about sacrificing stuff for life and maybe wins once in awhile.
I do this because I play with people ranging from brand new to MTG to seasoned vets, and I don't have any desire to taint the fun that the newbs are having learning the game by crushing them.
What I do not understand is why don't you play legacy or modern instead if playing competetive commander? As an explorer type player I really don't understand this. There are no 'big puzzels' to solve, it is to easy. It does not apeal to achievers because it's to easy. Social players don't care much about winning. That just leaves assassin type players who thrive on beating others. But doing so in commander, I don't understand why they do not play in a format where they are playing against players who fight back, like modern and legacy. I just don't understand it and I guess I never will.
I think you're very wrong about there not being anything "big puzzles" to solve in commander. I think commander has a ton of strategy that doesn't exist in non-multiplayer formats. Finding a way to win politically is super fun and requires quite a bit of skill. Personally I don't think those sorts of dimensions are much present in "competitive" commander, though. People just want to play legacy against worse opponents, I think
I am using richard bartles player types. While others exist like the MDA framework or magics timmy, jhonny, spike I think bartles 4 types (achiever, assassin, explorer, soscial) are more suitable for this discussion
I hadn't heard of that taxonomy, but man they've really got 3drinks pegged with the "killer" type
Personally I think I'm more of an achiever, but probably some killer in there too. Definitely on the far "acting" side of the spectrum, though.
I don't consider myself a griefer by any means. Just an experienced player that knows what to expect. However, based on the presented definition, that does help explain why I play heavy removal in my decks...
Very proactive, force you to adapt to me, then disrupt your disruption and continue pushing my game plan.
What I do not understand is why don't you play legacy or modern instead if playing competetive commander? As an explorer type player I really don't understand this. There are no 'big puzzels' to solve, it is to easy. It does not apeal to achievers because it's to easy. Social players don't care much about winning. That just leaves assassin type players who thrive on beating others. But doing so in commander, I don't understand why they do not play in a format where they are playing against players who fight back, like modern and legacy. I just don't understand it and I guess I never will.
I am surprised this question comes up so frequently from people who play magic because there are countless reasons including:
1. I like only needing one of each card
2. I like the concept of having a Commander
3. I like building intricate Commander decks
4. Commander Games with friends at a LC/GS are fun
5. Winning is also fun and playing to win with those aforementioned people is fun.
This idea that competition is somehow not fun is the most foreign thing I hear when talking about a game that ends with one person winning.
I don't consider myself a griefer by any means. Just an experienced player that knows what to expect. However, based on the presented definition, that does help explain why I play heavy removal in my decks...
Very proactive, force you to adapt to me, then disrupt your disruption and continue pushing my game plan.
I don't get why this is weird because that is what Magic the Gathering is at a fine enough level.
I am surprised this question comes up so frequently from people who play magic because there are countless reasons including:
1. I like only needing one of each card
2. I like the concept of having a Commander
3. I like building intricate Commander decks
4. Commander Games with friends at a LC/GS are fun
5. Winning is also fun and playing to win with those aforementioned people is fun.
This idea that competition is somehow not fun is the most foreign thing I hear when talking about a game that ends with one person winning.
I do not think you have thought out your arguments very well for 'competetive multiplayer commander'.
1. You like only needing one of each card. I do not see this argument as very strong. It might be cheaper then a competetive legacy deck, but you stil run a lot of staples that are expensive to get from a financial stanpoint. And you need to cram 40 ekstra cards of them into your deck. I also d not see much argumentation of wariation in cards, as most competetive commander decks runs almost every possible tutor available, making most games look very alike.
2. You like the concept of having a Commander. This is a good point, it is fun to have a commander. However it completly contradicts your first point about having many different cards. It is like cutting any combo you run down with one card. A 3 card combo now becomes a 2 card combo if your commander is involved.
3. You like building intricate Commander decks. In 2014 Mtg had 21.87 million magic players world wide. Some of them play competetive commander, some of them use webpages like this. Often this means that building an 'intricate' commander deck is not so much innovation as data gathering from all the other players out there. The topp known competetive commanders decks are well established. Any 'intricate building' is in fact just a matter of follow established forumulas. There is always room for innovation. But any innovation you feel you make somebody else has probably already done before.
4. Commander Games with friends at a LC/GS are fun. I am glad your feel this way. Note though that we are discussing competetive commander decks vs non-competetive commander decks hetre. So I asume when you say you like commander games with friends at a LC/GS as fun you are talking about comptetive commander. I do not find this fun. Most competetive commander decks tend to winn around turn 5, if not earlier. (Again, stacks will often take longer.) The decks have very little interaction with each other. They are often hard to interact with. Policing 3 players in a 4 player game is a far sup-par strategy then just winning yourself. Instead of policing them, just tune your deck to winn faster as an optimal strategy. If your competetive commander deck is not winning around turn 5 I should think your deck is not that competetive. Instead I like my commander games to go on for a while with a lot of back and forth.
5. Winning is also fun and playing to win with those aforementioned people is fun. Is winning fun? I would say that dependent on the context. If I asked you to choose a number between 1 to 10, and I should choose a number between 1 and 15 and whoever chose the hiest number wins, that does not sound like a fun game. While banal, this is what happens when Jhonny who wants to play his dragon deck in commander and sits down vs Spike who has his turn 5 gitrog deck. Jhonny is limiting his chances of winning because he wants to remain within certain parameters. Spike wants to winn.
Most games have arbetrary rules. It is within thos roles that we get a game. Football (soccer for you americans) is a game about getting the ball into the goal. To make it more interesting they add another team, and limits the amount of people on the field. To further test the skills they make it so you have to kick the ball, you can not use your hands. These two rules make the game far more interesting. If you did not have any oponents it would not be hard to winn. But it would stil be even more easy if you could just carry the ball to the goal, at least you have to use your feet.
In other magic formats there are more limitations in play to make more of an even playing field. Modern is the most healthy the format has been in years. I encurage you to walk into modern and innovate, come up with a new deck. Zac Elsik has done so several times. The limitations pressentet in modern makes being comptetive more fun. Thise same limitation do not excist for commander. It is very badly maintained. The people holding the banlist for the most part encurage people to self monitor. I like that, I encuarge that. That makes people be able to do what they wanne do. But that same frame also makes the game horrible for competetive play. Much like my example with the number game mentioned above.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have dyslexia, no I am not going to spell check for you, yes you have to live with the horrors of it.
I think you are describing a very narrow definition of competitive and I think in doing so you make a lot of assumptions about the decks that can run, the length of the games the card choices and more and more. It is part of why I very much dislike the binary that people create between Casual and Competitive because it paints false pictures in the minds of people based on how games go. It also relies a framework for Competitive Commander being solely a Maximum Budget / Minimum Turns affair which is a faulty premise in reality.
Not to say that I don't lose games on turn 3, 4 or 5 to Tasigur's, Narsets and Selvala's or that my decks can also be that fast, however that doesn't remove or lessen the interaction in the games of magic that I play.
If you think I am making asuption about the word competetive is a big indicator that you are using the word competetive wrongly when you use the word competetive.
This idea that competition is somehow not fun is the most foreign thing I hear when talking about a game that ends with one person winning.
It sounds like you are refring to a cassual game that you think of as competetive. Perhaps what you are thinking about is commander is fun when you play with good decks. Mind you 'a good deck' is many steps down from a competetive deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have dyslexia, no I am not going to spell check for you, yes you have to live with the horrors of it.
I've held off getting into this debate, but somebody said something that I agree with. My group IS that low power group that is the subject of the OP. We can all mostly afford about any type of deck we want to budget for, being all in our late 30's or early 40's with good jobs. But we just choose to play at a lower level. Most of us also make balanced decks, albeit not optimized. Some competitve folks have wandered in over the years and then departed. We are fairly open to decks and do allow infinites as long as that's not all they have to offer to the group.
I think to make things work, a bit of willingness to bend has to be on both sides. An open and accepting group mind, but also a willingness of the better or more competitive player to have some less-powerful options, both help that situation to work. We do enjoy a challenge against higher power decks, but we also love our jank commanders like Varolz, Xenagod, Scion of the Ur-Drago, Vish Kal, and Zurgo as representative examples. I don't know how you can possibly bridge that divide without both sides being willing to compromise.
There are 2 definitions of competitive being used here:
1 - competing, i.e. playing to win. I think almost everyone is playing competitively to some degree or another, even in casual games, except maybe the guy playing group hug zero wincons or whatever. They are GAMES, after all, if people aren't trying to win in some capacity then we're all just blowing spit bubbles. Sure, some people aren't trying super hard to win but they're not using removal spells on their own creatures for no reason. They're not tapping their lands and passing the turn. They're not trying to attack themselves. Just because something isn't cutthroat doesn't mean it isn't competitive - just because a driveway game of "HORSE" isn't the same level of competition as the NBA playoffs doesn't mean it isn't competitive.
2 - competitive tier, i.e. commander at the top of this list with tuned decklists. Whether or not these sorts of decks ought, or ought not, to be played at less-competitive tables is sort of the crux of the disagreement. Anyone disagreeing that commander is competitive by the first definition is making a ridiculous argument.
You may notice that this matches the mantra of "build casually, play competitively". A game can be both competitive AND casual.
DirkGently is not your first definition of competetive implied just by playing the game? Unless you are teaching new players, playing with children or not interested in participating in the game. This distinction of competetivness (playing to winn vs playing a competetive game) does not come up in other mtg formats like legacy, modern, standar, draft or sealed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have dyslexia, no I am not going to spell check for you, yes you have to live with the horrors of it.
That is because in those other formats the way you show off your deck working is defined by it winning the event.
People take Commander as a Casual game and their decks 'working' to mean a whole bevy of different things beyond purely winning the game they are a part of and sometimes can bring an air of disappointment if your deck is too focused on only winning or whatever.
DirkGently is not your first definition of competetive implied just by playing the game? Unless you are teaching new players, playing with children or not interested in participating in the game. This distinction of competetivness (playing to winn vs playing a competetive game) does not come up in other mtg formats like legacy, modern, standar, draft or sealed.
This idea that competition is somehow not fun is the most foreign thing I hear when talking about a game that ends with one person winning.
is confusing the different definitions of competition.
Competition being fun is a cornerstone of what makes EDH, and all magic, fun.
Whether or not playing competitive-tier decks (whether against each other, or against the unsuspecting) is fun is obviously up for debate.
Saying "How you can say competition isn't fun?", when implying definition #1 as a way to defend definition #2, is obfuscating the argument. Competition (#1) is fun for presumably all EDH players. Competitive-tier decks (#2) are only fun for some. The statement is intentionally misleading to conflate playing a competitive game, like all magic games are, with playing competitive-tier decks.
And then on the other side, you seem to have taken the bait with your response, and thus gotten us further into the weeds.
All games (of EDH) are competitive. All decks are not.
DirkGently is not your first definition of competetive implied just by playing the game? Unless you are teaching new players, playing with children or not interested in participating in the game. This distinction of competetivness (playing to winn vs playing a competetive game) does not come up in other mtg formats like legacy, modern, standar, draft or sealed.
This idea that competition is somehow not fun is the most foreign thing I hear when talking about a game that ends with one person winning.
is confusing the different definitions of competition.
Competition being fun is a cornerstone of what makes EDH, and all magic, fun.
Whether or not playing competitive-tier decks (whether against each other, or against the unsuspecting) is fun is obviously up for debate.
Saying "How you can say competition isn't fun?", when implying definition #1 as a way to defend definition #2, is obfuscating the argument. Competition (#1) is fun for presumably all EDH players. Competitive-tier decks (#2) are only fun for some. The statement is intentionally misleading to conflate playing a competitive game, like all magic games are, with playing competitive-tier decks.
And then on the other side, you seem to have taken the bait with your response, and thus gotten us further into the weeds.
All games (of EDH) are competitive. All decks are not.
You are very much reading in a lot more than I put into that, also I don't really appreciate being called a troll as that is what I take meaning from someone calling something I posted as 'bait'.
EDIT: However I am willing to bet that I am the one in error here in that I typically see the word Competitive bandied around here as an opposite to Casual and not as a descriptor for a highest level of Commander deck, so I responded to it as the former and not the latter, my bad.
The weeds is a good way to describe these discussions.
There is no reason to assume they are lacking in playskill or deck construction ability. One of the core ideas of the format is build casually play competitively.
i myself have played with a bad deck, vs noob players on many occassions-i think of myself as an experienced mtg player- and i didnt have a chance.i was steamrolled, because of bad mana base, no answers,or just better quality of the cards my opponent had(my deck most of the time :P) . id love to believe that the master with the bad deck can win a ok player with a good deck, but i dont think it works that way.
the best play/on curve most of the time is obvious if you look on the board, and then at your hand (i dont count "keep some threats to not be wiped,or bait counterspells as smart play, that's just how everybody should play vs some matchups,it's like saying hold a counter/removal for the combo deck,it's not smart,it's what you must do to not lose..)
mtg is a great game, but if you venture into other games, you can clearly see it's weaknesses. Deck contruction is a key, piloting your deck -or better, let it pilot you the most efficient way, it's how you win "it runs like a well oiled engine"
on thread, i think bringing low powered but well oiled decks works great,with clever interactions that make new players/bad players surprised so they dig into interactions and building efficient decks,with a little help..
bringing high powered decks will turn the players off you, and maybe off the game.
lending decks can work, but still it feels like playing vs dummy opponents, since they dont know the decks/havent built it themselves and dont know the interactions/how to play, so you have to teach each deck to each guy.. i used to do that a lot.. wears you out
edit : about budget, some years ago ,you could build great decks with low budget, but now that commander is well known and supported, most of the cards have spiked(cards that didnt worth anything few yars ago).. so if you "budget" you play a much worse version most of the time..
Δε φοβάμαι τίποτα...
Είμαι Άνεργος.
Grimstringer on Cockatrice, add me if you wanna
i.e. if they're both playing control decks and the worse player's deck is StPs, paths, and FoWs, and the good players is afterlifes, mana leaks, and condemns, I think the good player can still win that game a high percentage of the time. I think that's much more true in multiplayer than in 1v1 because of the balancing factors.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
This is exactly what I was going for.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
except that doesnt work, because some commanders/playstyles needs some specific cards, if you dont have them you cant play them or you are much inferior, and some cards dont have replacements at all because they are unique effects (budget kaalia? lol )
not to mention again,that deckbuilding is like 70-80% of mtg experience/gameplay, it's like clicking run on your code most of the time,it's not that tactical/skill demanding or brainy game as people make it to be ..
Δε φοβάμαι τίποτα...
Είμαι Άνεργος.
Grimstringer on Cockatrice, add me if you wanna
You know it's funny you mention that because one of the points I touched on in THE Kaalia Primer was from a SilverBlack "baseline" deck - meaning if all you had was Kaalia herself and just commons and uncommons to build with. Obviously, you'd be lacking the signature pieces (i.e. MoC/Rakdos), but the deck itself, especially thanks to the work KTK block did, could reasonably function under such circumstances. Of course, it's going to be clearly mismatched versus that guy - you know the one, that guy whom brought Zur Ad Naus "just to dick around with" - just because there's a certain power level mismatch involved there. But the deck itself could function just fine, reasonably even, to do what the deck is designed to do - which is deploy cool angels, demons, and dragons without paying their full retail cost.
That is, of course, assuming one built the deck to be able to handle the pressure and not just stuffed it full of 30+ high costed creatures. But when built with care? When one maintains tight play and seizes opportunities as they come up? There's no reason why they couldn't at least have fun and reasonably keep up, maybe even steal a game or two through cunning opportunistic play.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
Personally I think commander, and multiplayer in general, has more unplumbed depths of strategy than any other format, by a LOT.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
If edh was a 1v1 format I would be inclined to agree with you but in multiplayer you can play a "weak" deck and have an advantage over stronger decks.
A lot of fair points have been made, and I completely have to agree that the variance of deck/card quality is mitigated in multiplayer, where player quality becomes ever more important. This conversation seems to be rather binary, with all its (strong player/weak player) and (strong deck/weak deck) talk. But the truth is that player skill, deckbuilding skill, card quality, and budget level all exist within their own spectrums. It's not like the only options are a pro-player and a complete noob or Swords to Plowshares vs. Neck Snap.
Even in a duel, I'd often bet on a strong player with a moderate deck over a weak player that was handed an amazing deck that they don't have the skill to pilot. In multiplayer, though, it's much more about how you play the deck. Unless you're going for a non-interactive combo win, you will have to work with and against your opponents, and if you tick all of them off, you need a dramatically stronger deck than all of them put together. Lots of people (mostly Spikes, I believe) seem to disdain multi-player politics, but you really have to play the table as much as you play your deck.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
I remember back before EDH was a thing getting into an arms race with friends because I just happened to start playing standard and improved a significant amount doing so.
I've been attempting to do my part to prevent this from happening in my group, however with my penchant for optimizing lists kind of gets in the way of doing this.
Here is where I resort to doing silly stuff like playing a Noyan Dar, Roil Shaper deck where I try to kill you with Sorrow's Path. I try my very hardest to do it, but considering that the premise of the deck is to punch people with lands, I can't take it TOO seriously.
When I run into you, if I realize who you are, I'm bringing that out.
The Unidentified Fantastic Flying Girl.
EDH
Xenagos, the God of Stompy
The Gitrog Monster: Oppressive Value.
Marchesa, Marionette Master - Undying Robots
Yuriko, the Hydra Omnivore
I make dolls as a hobby.
What I do not understand is why don't you play legacy or modern instead if playing competetive commander? As an explorer type player I really don't understand this. There are no 'big puzzels' to solve, it is to easy. It does not apeal to achievers because it's to easy. Social players don't care much about winning. That just leaves assassin type players who thrive on beating others. But doing so in commander, I don't understand why they do not play in a format where they are playing against players who fight back, like modern and legacy. I just don't understand it and I guess I never will.
A good example of this dynamic at work is the mtggoldfish commander videoes. Usually they have fun. But the one time they played competetive commander they instead played many quick games with little interactiom between them, and it was not very fun.
Edit: With competetive commander I mean decks that winn around turn 5 or earlier a big persentage of their games, when not interupted. Interupting one of 3 oponents is often less inpactfull then just winning yourself. I know playing a good Stax deck don't win turn 5 but by that time they start to have their lock pieces in play.
I am using richard bartles player types. While others exist like the MDA framework or magics timmy, jhonny, spike I think bartles 4 types (achiever, assassin, explorer, soscial) are more suitable for this discussion
I do this because I play with people ranging from brand new to MTG to seasoned vets, and I don't have any desire to taint the fun that the newbs are having learning the game by crushing them.
Padeem, Consul of Innovation - Artifact value/combo.
Sidisi, Brood Tyrant - Sultai zombie reanimator.
Personally I think I'm more of an achiever, but probably some killer in there too. Definitely on the far "acting" side of the spectrum, though.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Very proactive, force you to adapt to me, then disrupt your disruption and continue pushing my game plan.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
I am surprised this question comes up so frequently from people who play magic because there are countless reasons including:
1. I like only needing one of each card
2. I like the concept of having a Commander
3. I like building intricate Commander decks
4. Commander Games with friends at a LC/GS are fun
5. Winning is also fun and playing to win with those aforementioned people is fun.
This idea that competition is somehow not fun is the most foreign thing I hear when talking about a game that ends with one person winning.
I don't get why this is weird because that is what Magic the Gathering is at a fine enough level.
I do not think you have thought out your arguments very well for 'competetive multiplayer commander'.
1. You like only needing one of each card. I do not see this argument as very strong. It might be cheaper then a competetive legacy deck, but you stil run a lot of staples that are expensive to get from a financial stanpoint. And you need to cram 40 ekstra cards of them into your deck. I also d not see much argumentation of wariation in cards, as most competetive commander decks runs almost every possible tutor available, making most games look very alike.
2. You like the concept of having a Commander. This is a good point, it is fun to have a commander. However it completly contradicts your first point about having many different cards. It is like cutting any combo you run down with one card. A 3 card combo now becomes a 2 card combo if your commander is involved.
3. You like building intricate Commander decks. In 2014 Mtg had 21.87 million magic players world wide. Some of them play competetive commander, some of them use webpages like this. Often this means that building an 'intricate' commander deck is not so much innovation as data gathering from all the other players out there. The topp known competetive commanders decks are well established. Any 'intricate building' is in fact just a matter of follow established forumulas. There is always room for innovation. But any innovation you feel you make somebody else has probably already done before.
4. Commander Games with friends at a LC/GS are fun. I am glad your feel this way. Note though that we are discussing competetive commander decks vs non-competetive commander decks hetre. So I asume when you say you like commander games with friends at a LC/GS as fun you are talking about comptetive commander. I do not find this fun. Most competetive commander decks tend to winn around turn 5, if not earlier. (Again, stacks will often take longer.) The decks have very little interaction with each other. They are often hard to interact with. Policing 3 players in a 4 player game is a far sup-par strategy then just winning yourself. Instead of policing them, just tune your deck to winn faster as an optimal strategy. If your competetive commander deck is not winning around turn 5 I should think your deck is not that competetive. Instead I like my commander games to go on for a while with a lot of back and forth.
5. Winning is also fun and playing to win with those aforementioned people is fun. Is winning fun? I would say that dependent on the context. If I asked you to choose a number between 1 to 10, and I should choose a number between 1 and 15 and whoever chose the hiest number wins, that does not sound like a fun game. While banal, this is what happens when Jhonny who wants to play his dragon deck in commander and sits down vs Spike who has his turn 5 gitrog deck. Jhonny is limiting his chances of winning because he wants to remain within certain parameters. Spike wants to winn.
Most games have arbetrary rules. It is within thos roles that we get a game. Football (soccer for you americans) is a game about getting the ball into the goal. To make it more interesting they add another team, and limits the amount of people on the field. To further test the skills they make it so you have to kick the ball, you can not use your hands. These two rules make the game far more interesting. If you did not have any oponents it would not be hard to winn. But it would stil be even more easy if you could just carry the ball to the goal, at least you have to use your feet.
In other magic formats there are more limitations in play to make more of an even playing field. Modern is the most healthy the format has been in years. I encurage you to walk into modern and innovate, come up with a new deck. Zac Elsik has done so several times. The limitations pressentet in modern makes being comptetive more fun. Thise same limitation do not excist for commander. It is very badly maintained. The people holding the banlist for the most part encurage people to self monitor. I like that, I encuarge that. That makes people be able to do what they wanne do. But that same frame also makes the game horrible for competetive play. Much like my example with the number game mentioned above.
Not to say that I don't lose games on turn 3, 4 or 5 to Tasigur's, Narsets and Selvala's or that my decks can also be that fast, however that doesn't remove or lessen the interaction in the games of magic that I play.
It sounds like you are refring to a cassual game that you think of as competetive. Perhaps what you are thinking about is commander is fun when you play with good decks. Mind you 'a good deck' is many steps down from a competetive deck.
I think to make things work, a bit of willingness to bend has to be on both sides. An open and accepting group mind, but also a willingness of the better or more competitive player to have some less-powerful options, both help that situation to work. We do enjoy a challenge against higher power decks, but we also love our jank commanders like Varolz, Xenagod, Scion of the Ur-Drago, Vish Kal, and Zurgo as representative examples. I don't know how you can possibly bridge that divide without both sides being willing to compromise.
There are 2 definitions of competitive being used here:
1 - competing, i.e. playing to win. I think almost everyone is playing competitively to some degree or another, even in casual games, except maybe the guy playing group hug zero wincons or whatever. They are GAMES, after all, if people aren't trying to win in some capacity then we're all just blowing spit bubbles. Sure, some people aren't trying super hard to win but they're not using removal spells on their own creatures for no reason. They're not tapping their lands and passing the turn. They're not trying to attack themselves. Just because something isn't cutthroat doesn't mean it isn't competitive - just because a driveway game of "HORSE" isn't the same level of competition as the NBA playoffs doesn't mean it isn't competitive.
2 - competitive tier, i.e. commander at the top of this list with tuned decklists. Whether or not these sorts of decks ought, or ought not, to be played at less-competitive tables is sort of the crux of the disagreement. Anyone disagreeing that commander is competitive by the first definition is making a ridiculous argument.
You may notice that this matches the mantra of "build casually, play competitively". A game can be both competitive AND casual.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
People take Commander as a Casual game and their decks 'working' to mean a whole bevy of different things beyond purely winning the game they are a part of and sometimes can bring an air of disappointment if your deck is too focused on only winning or whatever.
Competition being fun is a cornerstone of what makes EDH, and all magic, fun.
Whether or not playing competitive-tier decks (whether against each other, or against the unsuspecting) is fun is obviously up for debate.
Saying "How you can say competition isn't fun?", when implying definition #1 as a way to defend definition #2, is obfuscating the argument. Competition (#1) is fun for presumably all EDH players. Competitive-tier decks (#2) are only fun for some. The statement is intentionally misleading to conflate playing a competitive game, like all magic games are, with playing competitive-tier decks.
And then on the other side, you seem to have taken the bait with your response, and thus gotten us further into the weeds.
All games (of EDH) are competitive. All decks are not.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
You are very much reading in a lot more than I put into that, also I don't really appreciate being called a troll as that is what I take meaning from someone calling something I posted as 'bait'.
EDIT: However I am willing to bet that I am the one in error here in that I typically see the word Competitive bandied around here as an opposite to Casual and not as a descriptor for a highest level of Commander deck, so I responded to it as the former and not the latter, my bad.
The weeds is a good way to describe these discussions.