So it is no mystery that I love to build thematic, Vorthos Commander decks. This has always been the case, and while most people didn't understand my card choices, it wasn't really an issue before.
But the other day, I was playing a Commander game with my Simic Sea Monster deck. And some people at the table were notably annoyed that I wasn't doing enough to set back a player who was clearly in the lead. Granted, I was occasionally washing the board with Scourge of Fleets or Crush of Tentacles, cards that thematically happened to interact with the board. At one point in the game, one of the players got visibly frustrated and goes: "Are you just going to play a bunch of draft chaff? Where is your Krosan Grip, Cyclonic Rift, or Counters to deal with player X?"
I already knew they weren't going to understand that I was playing a casual, thematic, slow and fun deck. In fact, often during the game I kept getting the classic "why do you play X instead of Y?" My answer was "because I didn't build my deck to Archenemy the player you want out."
So my question is, how many people also feel like EDH should be the format for thematic, fun, casual decks? My opinion is, why would I load up my deck with staples and stifle its creative and unique selections in a *casual* format? It's annoying when people expect Simic Goodstuff out of my deck, and even worse when I'm excpeted to dedicate my build to denying my opponent's certain plays. I'd rather build and play my way, and if a Kraken happens to wipe your board or I use my IDW Promo Wash Out to clear your colors, then that's great. But if you expect my deck to be Commander + Staples + Lands, go play Modern IMO. But overall, don't assume people need your advice.
Once I brought up my Azami deck that consistently won on turn 4-5, and asked which they'd prefer to see, I think they finally understood why everyone doesn't need to play Goodstuff Combo crap.
Did you announce your deck was not-cutthroat and mostly thematic? I try to let people know if I'm trying things out or not trying to be a worldbeater...just in case you run into dopes like the ones you mentioned.
Otherwise, yeah, they need to calm down. EDH is about GZF. Ramirez steal-y stuff theme? Get to it. Werewolves? Yes, now we're all paying attention to spells cast each turn. Everyone needs to calm down.
I personally think that it is both. Each player should be playing a deck that they find fun, whether that be some wacky theme, a mechanical theme, a tribal theme, or whatever, BUT... they should also be able to pull their share of the load with helping to keep other players in check by running at least a modest removal suite. If that removal is also on-theme (such as with Scourge of Fleets and Crush of Tentacles) then its even better, but you can't play solitaire on one side of the table and expect other players to do all the dirty work (not saying that you are; this is a general statement). There is a fine balance between the two and I definitely feel that the other people at your table were probably expecting a little too much from a Sea Monster themed deck, but there is a way to do both.
So the way I look at it, it shouldn't be an argument of "Casual, Fun, Cool Sea Monster Deck" vs. "Hyper Competitive Simic Goodstuff" as there are a lot of shades of grey in between. Only you can decide as to how much space your deck has for "goodstuff" or removal versus thematic cards, but I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to at least try to make an honest assessment of your deck and see if your fellow players have a point (however poorly they try and get that point across).
Looking at your Thrasios deck, I don't really see a problem with it. Yes, it doesn't have any of the "traditional" removal seen in a lot of UG decks, but there are no hard and fast rules about how you have to interact with your opponents. Could it use more cheap interaction? Sure. But you can probably say that about every deck (including all of mine). If you find that your deck has enough removal to get you to the late game where your Sea Monster Theme can get going and show what it can do then that should be all that matters. If you are finding that you can't survive long enough to get to the point where your Sea Monsters are relevant (or more to your opponent's point, can't survive without other players doing more than their share of keeping other players in check), then perhaps more removal is necessary.
Did you announce your deck was not-cutthroat and mostly thematic? I try to let people know if I'm trying things out or not trying to be a worldbeater...just in case you run into dopes like the ones you mentioned.
Otherwise, yeah, they need to calm down. EDH is about GZF. Ramirez steal-y stuff theme? Get to it. Werewolves? Yes, now we're all paying attention to spells cast each turn. Everyone needs to calm down.
I mentioned it was a casual deck, yeah, although I'm not sure why people think I need their approval or permission to play it? Or worse yet, their advice on changing it? It's fine that they built their decks to deny plays to their opponents, one was even looping Tectonic Edge (at which point I just left the game) but it seems dull as hell to me to build a deck of "Staples of these Colors"
My opinion is, if EDH isn't the format to play thematic decks, then at what point do variations of Constructed stop and a use for people's favorite cards or themes begin? I'm not going to police what others play, but am not obligated to play a Goodstuff deck of answers either.
Granted, I once played a guy who had a "Ladies looking Left" theme. I didn't judge but that was pretty narrow He liked it though, so why not?
If that's what you like to play, that's what you like to play. I do disagree with this, though:
So my question is, how many people also feel like EDH should be the format for thematic, fun, casual decks?
In my view, EDH isn't really a format for anything other than people who want to play around a Legendary in a highlander setting. It's a lot of different things, to a lot of different people, and none of them are incorrect as long as it works within your own social setting.
Were you also setting back the people who weren't in the lead by playing the wash spells? No judgement from me, but I know at least three people personally who get extremely frustrated about that sort of thing. Depending on the circumstances I've also been very frustrated by it.
It really varies by playgroup. Everyone other than its controller wants that Mind's Dilation dealt with, but nobody wants to spend the card to do it. To some extent that sort of removal is an expected deck-building burden.
Whether that's right or wrong? Again, it depends on the playgroup. It can also be very frustrating for an opponent to be in the lead, but then everyone else at the table ends up helping the opponent due either to poor threat assessment or because doing what their deck(s) are designed to do happens to benefit the leading player more than anyone else.
A recent example is a game where someone played a Static Orb because they were a Stax deck, when the leading player had a Sword of Feast and Famine. Another is when a pillow fort player played an early Overburden when I already had a huge lead due to Burgeoning (which allowed me to more or less ignore the Overburden).
There certainly are thematic decks that I just don't get. Usually though it's only when they try to go with some extremely incongruous theme like "only creatures that kind of sort of look like Star Trek characters" and then everything has to fit that extremely offbeat theme no matter how awful the card or tenuous the connection (Captain's Maneuver has a captain and a ship in it; it's in!; Searing Blaze looks kind of like that volcano planet they visited; IN!).
So the way I look at it, it shouldn't be an argument of "Casual, Fun, Cool Sea Monster Deck" vs. "Hyper Competitive Simic Goodstuff" as there are a lot of shades of grey in between. Only you can decide as to how much space your deck has for "goodstuff" or removal versus thematic cards, but I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to at least try to make an honest assessment of your deck and see if your fellow players have a point (however poorly they try and get that point across).
Looking at your Thrasios deck, I don't really see a problem with it. Yes, it doesn't have any of the "traditional" removal seen in a lot of UG decks, but there are no hard and fast rules about how you have to interact with your opponents. Could it use more cheap interaction? Sure. But you can probably say that about every deck (including all of mine). If you find that your deck has enough removal to get you to the late game where your Sea Monster Theme can get going and show what it can do then that should be all that matters. If you are finding that you can't survive long enough to get to the point where your Sea Monsters are relevant (or more to your opponent's point, can't survive without other players doing more than their share of keeping other players in check), then perhaps more removal is necessary.
There's certainly a gray area. My deck usually does well enough by ramping and laying low until the late game. It doesn't make early enemies and plays low impact cards, largely because theme is valued over competitiveness. You could argue, however, that approach is a strategy all to itself. My deck only has issues against competitive decks that, from what I could tell, all the decks had issues against (like when the guy started looping Tectonic Edge). I'd argue Land Destruction and such cardinal sins are generally disliked and an issue for just about anyone, though.
From what I could tell, their issue with my deck was that it didn't have enough staple answers that they expected my colors to have, that could deal with the threats on board. Basically, that my card choices didn't suit their demands. As if they should?
Were you also setting back the people who weren't in the lead by playing the wash spells? No judgement from me, but I know at least three people personally who get extremely frustrated about that sort of thing. Depending on the circumstances I've also been very frustrated by it.
It really varies by playgroup. Everyone other than its controller wants that Mind's Dilation dealt with, but nobody wants to spend the card to do it. To some extent that sort of removal is an expected deck-building burden.
Whether that's right or wrong? Again, it depends on the playgroup. It can also be very frustrating for an opponent to be in the lead, but then everyone else at the table ends up helping the opponent due either to poor threat assessment or because doing what their deck(s) are designed to do happens to benefit the leading player more than anyone else.
A recent example is a game where someone played a Static Orb because they were a Stax deck, when the leading player had a Sword of Feast and Famine. Another is when a pillow fort player played an early Overburden when I already had a huge lead due to Burgeoning (which allowed me to more or less ignore the Overburden).
There certainly are thematic decks that I just don't get. Usually though it's only when they try to go with some extremely incongruous theme like "only creatures that kind of sort of look like Star Trek characters" and then everything has to fit that extremely offbeat theme no matter how awful the card or tenuous the connection (Captain's Maneuver has a captain and a ship in it; it's in!; Searing Blaze looks kind of like that volcano planet they visited; IN!).
Yeah, I was setting back the player in the lead. Just not effectively or efficiently enough by whatever ambiguous standard they established in that moment. Often deck power discrepancies are inevitable. But it isn't the fault of a casual player wanting to enjoy a casual game that someone competitive or threatening isn't kept in check. The idea of EDH is to have fun, not police opponents. If someone had a Star Trek themed deck like that, although too narrow for me even as a fan of thematic decks, who am I to judge or ridicule their approach? People really need to keep their expectations and demands isolated to their own deck building. If someone is a problem opponent, it's on them to deal with it if they're that desperate to have it dealt with.
Now, being actively opposed by a casual player and handing the game to the one in the lead in need of being contained is a different situation entirely.
I think it can be both, upon prior agreement with your community for maximum levels of contentment. I love Vorthos decks myself, but there's certain people I'd never bother bringing them out with. Essentially, it's the format where your deck can be what you want it to be. Your gaming experience, however, is dictated by how well your group communicates and how accepting they are of your choices.
I'd be actively frustrated by someone telling me what I should be playing though; my deck, my choices. It's absolutely up to no one else to dictate what I want to see in my deck and which synergies I want to pursue.
I'd be actively frustrated by someone telling me what I should be playing though; my deck, my choices. It's absolutely up to no one else to dictate what I want to see in my deck and which synergies I want to pursue.
Yeah. That's definitely what inspired me to make the thread. I had a lot of fun playing regardless. I love my Vorthos decks, and while they're not ideal against most opponents, I'd rather find different opponents. If all our standards for fun were winning, three people would be miserable with every game. For me, having Thassa, Arixmethes and Kiora in play at any point is victory enough. But it gets annoying having to defend or explain your card choices.
I personally have a mixed relationship with Vorthos Theme Decks:
I have utmost respect for individuals using a theme (Knight Tribal, Homunculus Tribal, Chair Tribal, Artist Tribal) to limit the card pool and building the best possible deck within that cardpool.
What I have no patience for in games is when a players appear to force a strictly inferior card into a deck because it is "more flavorful" than a strictly better card that also falls within the same theme.
If someone makes a "Medieval Tribal" deck, I have no problem with that. You can make a commander deck in that theme and fill it with decent-to-good cards (Tithe, Moat, etc) and I won't get mad because it lacks Council's Judgment (which wouldn't be a thematic fit). If that player casts Icatian Moneychanger or Squire against me, however, I am instantly annoyed as there are likely other cards that are A) in theme and B) would make the deck work better.
Caveat 1: While I hate to play against decks that use Squire and the like, I can certainly appreciate the artistry of decks that force in (mechanically) subpar cards. It's just an art that I can only appreciate from afar.
Caveat 2: If a deck designer is more explicit with their thematic design (EX: 20% religion; 20% castle life; 20% knights; 20% townsfolk; 20% cards relating to knights that aren't actually knights), I am far more tolerant of subpar cards (as those earmarked slots often have much less competition).
I'd be actively frustrated by someone telling me what I should be playing though; my deck, my choices. It's absolutely up to no one else to dictate what I want to see in my deck and which synergies I want to pursue.
Yeah. That's definitely what inspired me to make the thread. I had a lot of fun playing regardless. I love my Vorthos decks, and while they're not ideal against most opponents, I'd rather find different opponents. If all our standards for fun were winning, three people would be miserable with every game. For me, having Thassa, Arixmethes and Kiora in play at any point is victory enough. But it gets annoying having to defend or explain your card choices.
I think there are certain "groups" of cards that every deck should have: ramp, removal, card draw, and win cons. There are also "utility" cards that either don't fall into these categories or fall into more than one. The point is that I think the groups should exist in any deck, but those groups can be populated by any number of cards. If you choose to run Scourge of Fleets or Crush of Tentacles because it is on theme, then it still fits that spot. If you choose Aetherspouts or Evacuation or Devastation Tide because it is thematic, then go for it. If these choices are made because of budget (not everyone has $12 to throw down on a Cyclonic Rift), then that is fine too. I have seen a number of cards being played due to being budget more so than being thematic, but honestly, the reason is hardly important. To suggest that every blue/green deck *must* run Rift or must run a ton of counterspells or must run anything is pretty narrow-minded of the group.
I agree with others that have said that all players should, in some way, be able to participate in the game and interact, but the methods for doing so should generally not be up for debate. In my mind, the way you have decided to build your Simic deck and still find ways to interact that are on theme are perfectly fine. If your opponents want more things to shut down others, they need to adapt, not you (if you feel your deck is in a good spot of course).
I think there are certain "groups" of cards that every deck should have: ramp, removal, card draw, and win cons. There are also "utility" cards that either don't fall into these categories or fall into more than one. The point is that I think the groups should exist in any deck, but those groups can be populated by any number of cards. If you choose to run Scourge of Fleets or Crush of Tentacles because it is on theme, then it still fits that spot. If you choose Aetherspouts or Evacuation or Devastation Tide because it is thematic, then go for it. If these choices are made because of budget (not everyone has $12 to throw down on a Cyclonic Rift), then that is fine too. I have seen a number of cards being played due to being budget more so than being thematic, but honestly, the reason is hardly important. To suggest that every blue/green deck *must* run Rift or must run a ton of counterspells or must run anything is pretty narrow-minded of the group.
This is definitely a consideration for my theme decks. As much as sticking to a theme is fun, the ability to interact in a game is what makes a deck. It doesn't mean that running format staples is a must, but themes can be broader in scope than what one might think. I'm reminded of a quote from classic cult Australian film, 'The Castle'; "It's the vibe of the thing".
I've found that a lot of the time a theme like, say tribal zombies or tribal knights, while easier to adhere to in terms of filling out 100 cards, is often a way to get lured into subpar choices. Just because there are a plethora of zombies, dragons, elves, what have you, doesn't mean they all play well or give you the options a fully functioning deck requires. It's easy to jam a ton of zombies (or whatever tribe you should choose) into sleeves, harder to make them all work together with purpose and synergy.
On the other side of the coin, a theme deck such as what Tiro has built, or in my case my 'High House Shadow' Lazav build, because they are more abstract they allow a significant amount of interpretation. A lot of good, or reasonably decent cards have a good degree of flavour and can see inclusion for those reasons over and above their utility. No one need ever know the true reasons you included said cards, and it need never be anyone else's business.
As an aside, the culmination of Tiro's scenario of "where's your x,y and z?' is sort of laughable, really. It's sort of a case of classic projection - when one doesn't have an answer, one is quick to blame others and slow to blame oneself. It's a silly thing to say, and very much a reductive question. Even if a theme deck did run staples like Rift, there's no guarantee that the Vorthos player has it in hand precisely when needed - and it's no more likely to turn up at the right time under that player's control than anyone else's, so why blame the Vorthos player? You run what you run, and no one else gets a say on what's included. Personally, I'm always delighted when someone solves a board state with something original or outside of the box. That's what makes this game such a delight from time to time.
When I plan to build my Sea monster deck, i plan to run Animethes as teh commander and run be dumb creature to turn them sideways, a bit of ramp and a lot of control. It will still be big dumb creatures, but Tossing in a C rift and other things that allow me to be the only one turning things sidewyas.
Like I've always said, half of the EDH game is about the social setting. EDH may be the format that allows thematic, fun, casual decks, but that's also only after it has passed the community filter. Other formats don't even have the filer to begin with (and is locked to competitive), so it sometimes befuddles me that people really think all because EDH has the filter we can pretend the filter doesn't exist.
Then again, my perspective makes it sound that EDH has a "competitive default state" (which isn't true) because of the way I phrased the filter, so to be more precise, all formats start neutral, but EDH is the only one with a two-way filter.
Anyway, to Tiro's case, it's a bit hard to judge without literally all the details, but to put an equally vague statement, the degree (be it quantity of quality) of interaction (especially removal) varies between the playgroup and that might be where the problem edges out.
EDH has mostly been a vanity competition (why do you think this is the only format I foil out?) - the real intent to to show off what your deck does (why do you think Primeval Titan got banned? It was generally the Bribery choice over other game-winning cards like Blightsteel or Jin-Gitaxias because it did such a good job at enabling the ability to show-off the deck's intent than any other) and try to win by doing so. Winning isn't the only goal - Winning while looking cool is the actual goal.
That's when the filter hits - that may be the goal, but it's a composite one... that contains too aspects that's arguably counteractive - the cooler the win looks, the harder it is to achieve and vice-versa. So people often have to tilt their preferences towards one side - is it okay to look less cool when winning to increase the chances of winning, or is it okay to lose while "looking cool".
Note there's no right or wrong, for every person out there who considers losing "okay as long as I did the cool thing" there are people who go "losing is never cool in the first place and overwrites everything else, no such thing as a cool loss". It's a mindset/psychology thing that honestly I hope you don't go expecting MTG to reverse (note I said "reverse", not "fix", since as I said there's no right or wrong).
So it rounds back to the beginning, finding the correct group of people, or... be malleable enough in your own mindset to fit in. Honestly if there are enough malleable people, you'll get pretty much the "75%" groups of today. Just like "looking cool" and "winning" have counteractive properties, the more convicted you are in your EDH-Style, the harder it is to filter out the correct playgroup and vice-versa.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But the other day, I was playing a Commander game with my Simic Sea Monster deck. And some people at the table were notably annoyed that I wasn't doing enough to set back a player who was clearly in the lead. Granted, I was occasionally washing the board with Scourge of Fleets or Crush of Tentacles, cards that thematically happened to interact with the board. At one point in the game, one of the players got visibly frustrated and goes: "Are you just going to play a bunch of draft chaff? Where is your Krosan Grip, Cyclonic Rift, or Counters to deal with player X?"
I already knew they weren't going to understand that I was playing a casual, thematic, slow and fun deck. In fact, often during the game I kept getting the classic "why do you play X instead of Y?" My answer was "because I didn't build my deck to Archenemy the player you want out."
So my question is, how many people also feel like EDH should be the format for thematic, fun, casual decks? My opinion is, why would I load up my deck with staples and stifle its creative and unique selections in a *casual* format? It's annoying when people expect Simic Goodstuff out of my deck, and even worse when I'm excpeted to dedicate my build to denying my opponent's certain plays. I'd rather build and play my way, and if a Kraken happens to wipe your board or I use my IDW Promo Wash Out to clear your colors, then that's great. But if you expect my deck to be Commander + Staples + Lands, go play Modern IMO. But overall, don't assume people need your advice.
Once I brought up my Azami deck that consistently won on turn 4-5, and asked which they'd prefer to see, I think they finally understood why everyone doesn't need to play Goodstuff Combo crap.
Thoughts?
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
Otherwise, yeah, they need to calm down. EDH is about GZF. Ramirez steal-y stuff theme? Get to it. Werewolves? Yes, now we're all paying attention to spells cast each turn. Everyone needs to calm down.
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
So the way I look at it, it shouldn't be an argument of "Casual, Fun, Cool Sea Monster Deck" vs. "Hyper Competitive Simic Goodstuff" as there are a lot of shades of grey in between. Only you can decide as to how much space your deck has for "goodstuff" or removal versus thematic cards, but I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to at least try to make an honest assessment of your deck and see if your fellow players have a point (however poorly they try and get that point across).
Looking at your Thrasios deck, I don't really see a problem with it. Yes, it doesn't have any of the "traditional" removal seen in a lot of UG decks, but there are no hard and fast rules about how you have to interact with your opponents. Could it use more cheap interaction? Sure. But you can probably say that about every deck (including all of mine). If you find that your deck has enough removal to get you to the late game where your Sea Monster Theme can get going and show what it can do then that should be all that matters. If you are finding that you can't survive long enough to get to the point where your Sea Monsters are relevant (or more to your opponent's point, can't survive without other players doing more than their share of keeping other players in check), then perhaps more removal is necessary.
Jalira, Master Polymorphist | Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder | Bosh, Iron Golem | Ezuri, Renegade Leader
Brago, King Eternal | Oona, Queen of the Fae | Wort, Boggart Auntie | Wort, the Raidmother
Captain Sisay | Rhys, the Redeemed | Trostani, Selesnya's Voice | Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight | Obzedat, Ghost Council | Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind | Vorel of the Hull Clade
Uril, the Miststalker | Prossh, Skyraider of Kher | Nicol Bolas | Progenitus
Ghave, Guru of Spores | Zedruu the Greathearted | Damia, Sage of Stone | Riku of Two Reflections
My opinion is, if EDH isn't the format to play thematic decks, then at what point do variations of Constructed stop and a use for people's favorite cards or themes begin? I'm not going to police what others play, but am not obligated to play a Goodstuff deck of answers either.
Granted, I once played a guy who had a "Ladies looking Left" theme. I didn't judge but that was pretty narrow He liked it though, so why not?
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
In my view, EDH isn't really a format for anything other than people who want to play around a Legendary in a highlander setting. It's a lot of different things, to a lot of different people, and none of them are incorrect as long as it works within your own social setting.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
It really varies by playgroup. Everyone other than its controller wants that Mind's Dilation dealt with, but nobody wants to spend the card to do it. To some extent that sort of removal is an expected deck-building burden.
Whether that's right or wrong? Again, it depends on the playgroup. It can also be very frustrating for an opponent to be in the lead, but then everyone else at the table ends up helping the opponent due either to poor threat assessment or because doing what their deck(s) are designed to do happens to benefit the leading player more than anyone else.
A recent example is a game where someone played a Static Orb because they were a Stax deck, when the leading player had a Sword of Feast and Famine. Another is when a pillow fort player played an early Overburden when I already had a huge lead due to Burgeoning (which allowed me to more or less ignore the Overburden).
There certainly are thematic decks that I just don't get. Usually though it's only when they try to go with some extremely incongruous theme like "only creatures that kind of sort of look like Star Trek characters" and then everything has to fit that extremely offbeat theme no matter how awful the card or tenuous the connection (Captain's Maneuver has a captain and a ship in it; it's in!; Searing Blaze looks kind of like that volcano planet they visited; IN!).
- Rabid Wombat
From what I could tell, their issue with my deck was that it didn't have enough staple answers that they expected my colors to have, that could deal with the threats on board. Basically, that my card choices didn't suit their demands. As if they should?
Yeah, I was setting back the player in the lead. Just not effectively or efficiently enough by whatever ambiguous standard they established in that moment. Often deck power discrepancies are inevitable. But it isn't the fault of a casual player wanting to enjoy a casual game that someone competitive or threatening isn't kept in check. The idea of EDH is to have fun, not police opponents. If someone had a Star Trek themed deck like that, although too narrow for me even as a fan of thematic decks, who am I to judge or ridicule their approach? People really need to keep their expectations and demands isolated to their own deck building. If someone is a problem opponent, it's on them to deal with it if they're that desperate to have it dealt with.
Now, being actively opposed by a casual player and handing the game to the one in the lead in need of being contained is a different situation entirely.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
I'd be actively frustrated by someone telling me what I should be playing though; my deck, my choices. It's absolutely up to no one else to dictate what I want to see in my deck and which synergies I want to pursue.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
I have utmost respect for individuals using a theme (Knight Tribal, Homunculus Tribal, Chair Tribal, Artist Tribal) to limit the card pool and building the best possible deck within that cardpool.
What I have no patience for in games is when a players appear to force a strictly inferior card into a deck because it is "more flavorful" than a strictly better card that also falls within the same theme.
If someone makes a "Medieval Tribal" deck, I have no problem with that. You can make a commander deck in that theme and fill it with decent-to-good cards (Tithe, Moat, etc) and I won't get mad because it lacks Council's Judgment (which wouldn't be a thematic fit). If that player casts Icatian Moneychanger or Squire against me, however, I am instantly annoyed as there are likely other cards that are A) in theme and B) would make the deck work better.
Caveat 1: While I hate to play against decks that use Squire and the like, I can certainly appreciate the artistry of decks that force in (mechanically) subpar cards. It's just an art that I can only appreciate from afar.
Caveat 2: If a deck designer is more explicit with their thematic design (EX: 20% religion; 20% castle life; 20% knights; 20% townsfolk; 20% cards relating to knights that aren't actually knights), I am far more tolerant of subpar cards (as those earmarked slots often have much less competition).
I agree with others that have said that all players should, in some way, be able to participate in the game and interact, but the methods for doing so should generally not be up for debate. In my mind, the way you have decided to build your Simic deck and still find ways to interact that are on theme are perfectly fine. If your opponents want more things to shut down others, they need to adapt, not you (if you feel your deck is in a good spot of course).
This is definitely a consideration for my theme decks. As much as sticking to a theme is fun, the ability to interact in a game is what makes a deck. It doesn't mean that running format staples is a must, but themes can be broader in scope than what one might think. I'm reminded of a quote from classic cult Australian film, 'The Castle'; "It's the vibe of the thing".
I've found that a lot of the time a theme like, say tribal zombies or tribal knights, while easier to adhere to in terms of filling out 100 cards, is often a way to get lured into subpar choices. Just because there are a plethora of zombies, dragons, elves, what have you, doesn't mean they all play well or give you the options a fully functioning deck requires. It's easy to jam a ton of zombies (or whatever tribe you should choose) into sleeves, harder to make them all work together with purpose and synergy.
On the other side of the coin, a theme deck such as what Tiro has built, or in my case my 'High House Shadow' Lazav build, because they are more abstract they allow a significant amount of interpretation. A lot of good, or reasonably decent cards have a good degree of flavour and can see inclusion for those reasons over and above their utility. No one need ever know the true reasons you included said cards, and it need never be anyone else's business.
As an aside, the culmination of Tiro's scenario of "where's your x,y and z?' is sort of laughable, really. It's sort of a case of classic projection - when one doesn't have an answer, one is quick to blame others and slow to blame oneself. It's a silly thing to say, and very much a reductive question. Even if a theme deck did run staples like Rift, there's no guarantee that the Vorthos player has it in hand precisely when needed - and it's no more likely to turn up at the right time under that player's control than anyone else's, so why blame the Vorthos player? You run what you run, and no one else gets a say on what's included. Personally, I'm always delighted when someone solves a board state with something original or outside of the box. That's what makes this game such a delight from time to time.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
Then again, my perspective makes it sound that EDH has a "competitive default state" (which isn't true) because of the way I phrased the filter, so to be more precise, all formats start neutral, but EDH is the only one with a two-way filter.
Anyway, to Tiro's case, it's a bit hard to judge without literally all the details, but to put an equally vague statement, the degree (be it quantity of quality) of interaction (especially removal) varies between the playgroup and that might be where the problem edges out.
EDH has mostly been a vanity competition (why do you think this is the only format I foil out?) - the real intent to to show off what your deck does (why do you think Primeval Titan got banned? It was generally the Bribery choice over other game-winning cards like Blightsteel or Jin-Gitaxias because it did such a good job at enabling the ability to show-off the deck's intent than any other) and try to win by doing so. Winning isn't the only goal - Winning while looking cool is the actual goal.
That's when the filter hits - that may be the goal, but it's a composite one... that contains too aspects that's arguably counteractive - the cooler the win looks, the harder it is to achieve and vice-versa. So people often have to tilt their preferences towards one side - is it okay to look less cool when winning to increase the chances of winning, or is it okay to lose while "looking cool".
Note there's no right or wrong, for every person out there who considers losing "okay as long as I did the cool thing" there are people who go "losing is never cool in the first place and overwrites everything else, no such thing as a cool loss". It's a mindset/psychology thing that honestly I hope you don't go expecting MTG to reverse (note I said "reverse", not "fix", since as I said there's no right or wrong).
So it rounds back to the beginning, finding the correct group of people, or... be malleable enough in your own mindset to fit in. Honestly if there are enough malleable people, you'll get pretty much the "75%" groups of today. Just like "looking cool" and "winning" have counteractive properties, the more convicted you are in your EDH-Style, the harder it is to filter out the correct playgroup and vice-versa.