And again I don't think the card Armageddon or Fall of the Thran or whatever other card you want to name qualifies a deck to be competetive in anyway
There are variations of power levels of every archetype under the sun.
I have made some exceptionally dumb combo decks over the years and some exceptionally fast ones too both styles are Combo decks because that is how the game ends. I have even put exceptionally dumb combos in pretty good shells it is liquid and it flows (it is part of why I bristle at the 75% thing (75% for who)) but that is a different conversation.
And again I don't think the card Armageddon or Fall of the Thran or whatever other card you want to name qualifies a deck to be competetive in anyway
There are variations of power levels of every archetype under the sun.
I have made some exceptionally dumb combo decks over the years and some exceptionally fast ones too both styles are Combo decks because that is how the game ends. I have even put exceptionally dumb combos in pretty good shells it is liquid and it flows (it is part of why I bristle at the 75% thing (75% for who)) but that is a different conversation.
In your experience, how many people resolve a MLD effect who don't have the board well under control? The intention of those cards is to resolve the game and win the game from the current board state. Even in a casual deck I would consider it a competitive tactic to make me stop interacting and furthering any sort of gameplan. I really would not make any exception in calling that a competitive effect.
When it comes to bad combos especially decks that don't heavily tutor into the pieces its something I am willing to give a little more grace in. But at the same time my sympathy is very low. The number of ways to interact with combo can be very limited depending on the combo. Some of these combos can really only be interacted with counter magic even though they are kind of jank assembly things. I would give combo a little leeway assuming its something that likely won't happen or uses a lot of cards to make it happen.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
And again I don't think the card Armageddon or Fall of the Thran or whatever other card you want to name qualifies a deck to be competetive in anyway
There are variations of power levels of every archetype under the sun.
I have made some exceptionally dumb combo decks over the years and some exceptionally fast ones too both styles are Combo decks because that is how the game ends. I have even put exceptionally dumb combos in pretty good shells it is liquid and it flows (it is part of why I bristle at the 75% thing (75% for who)) but that is a different conversation.
I kind of agree here. Competitive is very specific, and there are plenty of combos and toned down stax strategies that aren't competitive. Still, if I'm sitting down with a stax deck in paper, I'm going to be upfront about it if the group is lower power. If the group is more competitive, then I don't want to share info about my plans, but that's also expected.
In any case, all I got from the article is what I already knew, that the RC is pretty liberal with how they manage the format and don't ban just because they don't like certain cards or strategies. They did at the outset with regard to combo but have since reversed course.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I have seen Kemba decks equip a few equipment and then MLD
I have seen White decks of all stripes get a bit ahead and pull that trigger (it tends to work out well for them)
I have seen Krenko decks cycle a Decree
More than a handful of Tajic / Zurgo Worldslayer decks
I have seen people cast them more nonchalantly when the ramp deck was blowing way ahead of people to equalize things
I have dropped Thran a bunch out of an Ideal
I have never had the same stigma against those cards and have played through games where a Bearer of the Heavens has died multiple times because the game and the people playing it were enjoyable.
That is just an archetype and a collection of cards that gets a bad rap because they are famous spite plays that is really all it is in my mind.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
I have seen Kemba decks equip a few equipment and then MLD
I have seen White decks of all stripes get a bit ahead and pull that trigger (it tends to work out well for them)
I have seen Krenko decks cycle a Decree
More than a handful of Tajic / Zurgo Worldslayer decks
I have seen people cast them more nonchalantly when the ramp deck was blowing way ahead of people to equalize things
I have dropped Thran a bunch out of an Ideal
I have never had the same stigma against those cards and have played through games where a Bearer of the Heavens has died multiple times because the game and the people playing it were enjoyable.
That is just an archetype and a collection of cards that gets a bad rap because they are famous spite plays that is really all it is in my mind.
And if I were to play against you regularly I would know how you deckbuild. I am just saying when you sit down blind with new people you don't know that announcing how you play and the kind of effects to expect sometimes leads to a better experience for everyone. If you don't want to call it competative but say there are a few LD effects in there but they are not optimized that also describes it. I just don't think that the norm and expected average for a game of commander is expecting MLD. I often try to lead with my weakest deck against new players to feel it out rather than leading with something like that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
He just now learned that strategies do not = personality? Like, beforehand would he see my Lathliss and my The-Ur Dragon and think I'm some time traveling weirdo that wants to bring back the dragons and also my dream girl? Oh and also bring back some guy who keeps talking to me in my mind?
For me the biggest issue with his interaction with "Costas" was that if you ask me whether I'm the kind of person you want to play against (regardless of if you're being serious or joking", I'm going to say yes, because I genuinely feel that I'm a social player and try to make banter in order to keep games enjoyable regardless of game state. Now, if he had instead asked whether my deck was one which he'd want to play against, then I feel like it would be my responsibility to be upfront about the deck I was playing. But if you ask about me as a player, well my answer will be the same no matter if I'm playing Stax or craw wurms.
Fun is subjective. It varies from person to person. One person might find it fun to run a marathon. The next person might find it an exhausting and painful impossibility. The fact that different people find different things fun isn't really disputable. What I believe is worth mentioning though is the fact that large groups of people commonly find certain things to be fun or unfun. That's important because that allows us to agree upon a commonly recognized version of what's considered fun, making the subjectivity of fun mostly irrelevant. We don't have to worry about the guy who thinks watching paint dry is fun. He doesn't share the commonly accepted version of fun that the rest of us do. And there's nothing wrong with that. If watching paint dry is truly the activity said individual wants to participate in because that is what they get the most enjoyment from, then by all means, let them go do that. All I'm trying to say here is that that person, the person who doesn't share what is commonly considered fun in Commander, isn't of concern. If they don't find Commander fun and they aren't a constituent, they don't have to play it.
Basically, when you design something, like a game, you're trying to craft an intended experience. Commander suffers from the fact that its rules alone can't adequately craft the experience the RC would like since Commander is a mod of Magic and therefore uses its cardpool, relying upon players to craft the desired experience instead of the rules. This causes a host of problems since players are selfishly motivated and (rightfully) believe they shouldn't be responsible for crafting the experience that Commander promises. Thus, you end up with lots of games of Commander that don't look like what the RC intended, and a lot of unhappy players.
Lemme know if I need to elaborate on that some more. I'm kind of writing this on the fly, sorry.
It may be outside the scope of this thread, but I've been dabbling in amateur game design for a few years now so this topic is incredibly fascinating to me.
Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting you, but I agree 100% with the idea that EDH, being a mod of Magic, is fundamentally unsuitable for the vision the RC has. It can approximate their vision, of course, but will never be fully realized because of the limitations of the base game. Sheldon has said something to the effect of that they don't mind alienating swaths of players if they don't like the format's philosophy, but that such exclusion is unintentional (I forget the exact quote but someone around here has it in their sig). I think that's a foolish perspective. In the early days when it was a small, insular format I could see adhering to a particular philosophy over balance, but now that WotC is producing Commander product and EDH is the de facto casual format I think it's past time to reevaluate the format's philosophy and take a serious look at balance.
Ultimately, this is why I favor a more robust banlist. If you balance the highest echelons of play, that balance trickles down to non-competitive gamers and creates a healthier format overall. If you don't want someone playing Armageddon or stax, ban the ****ers and be done with it. Sure, you'll still have some clown who pubstomps little Billy's pirate tribal pile with a tuned combo deck, but you get that in any format and is outside the purview of any banlist due to the nature of a deckbuilding game with 20,000+ moving parts. However, lowering the overall power level of the format flattens things out and, in my mind, creates a more homogeneous meta in which more decks can flourish. The gap between a tuned combo deck with fast mana and cheap enablers banned and pirate tribal would be much smaller. Ironically, I think a bigger, saner banlist would fulfill the current vision of the format a lot better than the current list does.
Big banned lists become a problem. Already we have people forgetting things are on the banned list - including, in one recent thread, one of the mods on here who recommended a banned card. This would be a lot more problematic with a larger list.
The idea of banning everything from before a given point in the game is also a very bad one. The huge card pool is part of what attracts many people to the format. I know that when I got back into Magic, part of what sold me on EDH was that I could still use most of the old cards I had from before I dropped out. Suddenly deciding that things like original duals or cards which are on the reseerved list are bad for the format just because not everyone can access them would alienate a lot of players, including a lot of those who have helped make this format successful.
Unpopular opinion time - I don't think it's unreasonable to have questions about a person's disposition after this conversation (which is what the conversation between an "average" player and a STAX player fundamentally is)
Lil' Timmy: I think it's fun to play Magic! I like to play cards! If I can just play my cards, I am happy!
STAX the Destroyer: I think it's fun to deny you the thing you find fun. I can only have fun by ensuring you cannot play any cards. At all.
Now, it's also fair that someone can be STAX the Destroyer and be a genuinely lovely human being, but that doesn't mean I don't have questions about how you reconcile "Good person" with "my joy comes from ruining your night". It's a social game and everyone has their own definition of fun. Also, often what's fun is "winning" and thus, all games inevitably have someone who didn't have the most fun because there is only one winner. But it feels different to say "I have fun when I win - so unfortunately, you have to lose" and "I have fun when my opponents are unable to do the thing they came out for". That's like saying the only way you can enjoy a movie is if you go to the theater and scream or play with flashlights the entire time - I get you have a right to choose what's fun, but the thing you find fun is actively harming everyone else's experience and that makes me suspicious. Or as another example - if we all have dinner together, saying "I can only enjoy my meal if I get all the bread sticks and if no one orders what I order" is a little weird and odd and rude, but saying "I can only enjoy this meal if I throw everyone else's plates in the trash so they can't eat" feels actively malicious in a way that's quite different and worrying.
I do agree saying "STAX=competitive" or even "MLD = competitive" is wrong, and I appreciate the art and skill that goes into playing STAX well. I understand that for some folks it's about the puzzle of earning a flawless victory - nothing personal or malicious about it, it's just a hard and unique playstyle. But I don't think Sheldon is elite or a creep for automatically having some biases against people who can only find joy in playing a game by making the game unplayable to everyone else at the table.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sufferer of EDHD
Commander - Currently Playing: RCRDaretti: Superfriends Forever RCR WGBDoran: Ent-mootWBG GGGMultani: Group Bear HugGGG GB(B/G)The Gitrog Monster: Dredgefall DurdleGB(B/G) RGWGahiji, the Honored Group Hug MonsterRGW UB(U/B)Yuriko, Ninja Trinket AggroUB(U/B) WUBRGAtogatog: Assembling a OHKOWUBRG
“…a player who said we could call him "Costas" asked if he could take the seat. In jest, I said "I dunno; are you the kind of person we want to play a game with?" He shrugged and said "Yeah, why not?"”
This would only be said this way by someone who thought the person already knew what kind of game they wanted. Otherwise, they would have first explained what kind of game they liked, then asked the question. It seems from Costas’ response also that he is half-asking Sheldon to elaborate on just what kind of game he’s talking about.
In some places, the RC has said that the format can be different things to different groups. But this kind of thing reveals that in their mind there is a principal constituency, which players can be presumed to understand, then every other group who might find something different out of EDH.
This is a prime example of the latent failures of the RC rule #1 - "...Players should aim to interact both during the game and before it begins, discussing with other players what they expect/want from the game." This doesn’t happen because of burden shifting. The main constituency believes that it’s everyone else’s job to know when they have a deck that needs a disclaimer. Whereas, others see this burden on the shoulders of the format rules – things that aren’t banned are ok, there are just different power levels.
There are enough problems with this, intrinsically. It is hard enough to regulate a game that is different than the game whose rules you actually have.
To me, it also ignores that grief is a question of degree, not of morality. People know that Jokulhaups is strong. But there are decks where it would be a wasted card. Certain decks can be expected to win with less than 6 mana before it’s castable, the most common answers in that environment are much cheaper than the threat, and even if it does land slowing the game down makes it more likely that combo’s needing 3-5 mana or so will be drawn.
Approaching the question as a line between in-group and out-group rather than along a spectrum leads the RC to escape the fact that regulating the most powerful things of the format actually can have a trickle-down effect. It’s harder for someone to escape the knowledge that the deck is restrictive when it’s among the best of the format, rather than when they look at a card like Jokulhaups and see it in virtually no decks advertised as competitive.
Unpopular opinion time - I don't think it's unreasonable to have questions about a person's disposition after this conversation (which is what the conversation between an "average" player and a STAX player fundamentally is)
Lil' Timmy: I think it's fun to play Magic! I like to play cards! If I can just play my cards, I am happy!
STAX the Destroyer: I think it's fun to deny you the thing you find fun. I can only have fun by ensuring you cannot play any cards. At all.
Now, it's also fair that someone can be STAX the Destroyer and be a genuinely lovely human being, but that doesn't mean I don't have questions about how you reconcile "Good person" with "my joy comes from ruining your night". It's a social game and everyone has their own definition of fun. Also, often what's fun is "winning" and thus, all games inevitably have someone who didn't have the most fun because there is only one winner. But it feels different to say "I have fun when I win - so unfortunately, you have to lose" and "I have fun when my opponents are unable to do the thing they came out for". That's like saying the only way you can enjoy a movie is if you go to the theater and scream or play with flashlights the entire time - I get you have a right to choose what's fun, but the thing you find fun is actively harming everyone else's experience and that makes me suspicious. Or as another example - if we all have dinner together, saying "I can only enjoy my meal if I get all the bread sticks and if no one orders what I order" is a little weird and odd and rude, but saying "I can only enjoy this meal if I throw everyone else's plates in the trash so they can't eat" feels actively malicious in a way that's quite different and worrying.
I do agree saying "STAX=competitive" or even "MLD = competitive" is wrong, and I appreciate the art and skill that goes into playing STAX well. I understand that for some folks it's about the puzzle of earning a flawless victory - nothing personal or malicious about it, it's just a hard and unique playstyle. But I don't think Sheldon is elite or a creep for automatically having some biases against people who can only find joy in playing a game by making the game unplayable to everyone else at the table.
100% agreed.
Playing a game together means everyone gets to participate in playing the game. Taking 20 extra turns or locking someone out from playing the game is the exact opposite of mutual participation.
Lil' Timmy: I think it's fun to play Magic! I like to play cards! If I can just play my cards, I am happy!
STAX the Destroyer: I think it's fun to deny you the thing you find fun. I can only have fun by ensuring you cannot play any cards. At all.
Your inference that the stax player is deliberately playing to ruin the enjoyment of others says more about you and your psychological makeup than what deck someone is playing.
...Okay look I still don't know how the two of us are gonna make it work with the size difference between us and the fact that with her it's never gonna be just the two of us. Oh far from it. But I'm trying, ok!
Sheldon needs to understand that people play magic for different reasons. I am a pure Johnny, and I love unconventional stax decks because I get to show off cool card interactions. It is definitely not my only archetype, but I do like it a lot.
Some commander players are spikes. They see the format as a kind of non-powered vintage and have fun puzzling out turn 2 wins.
Commander exists for all of these kinds of players, and the thing is that when you have people meeting and playing together for the first time, there will invariably be a difference in how these people play the game.
And, another point, is that when there are a half-million combos in the format, some people want a deck that answers them all, and that tends to be some kind of stax deck.
Except that the "hardcore" players don't see an under powered commander and think the person playing it is a bad person.
And why would they care? they jut crush him/her and are happy
Well, I dunno about them but I myself find the most "fun" game to be one where I have to think of a new strategy or come up with a new plan to win, or to use your cards in a way that you never considered them to be used before, the games that last into turn 25+ where everybody has used their most common plans are all in top deck mode looking for a line to win are the best to me because the line of "Land -> Birds of Paradise -> Land -> Dragon Tempest -> Land -> Kaalia of the vast into Nicol Bolas, make the two biggest threats dump their hands" is a great way to win but it also doesn't force me into doing something new.
Too many people just play dumb stuff and often games devolve into "who does their dumb stuff first". People essentially just goldfishing. Great social format you got here Sheldon.
Too many people just play dumb stuff and often games devolve into "who does their dumb stuff first". People essentially just goldfishing. Great social format you got here Sheldon.
Liking, RTing, reblogging, and sharing this until it trends worldwide.
Too many people just play dumb stuff and often games devolve into "who does their dumb stuff first". People essentially just goldfishing. Great social format you got here Sheldon.
This is the opposite end of the spectrum.
Stax doesn’t deserve the flak it gets at times, but, thinking that any form of Stax deck is appropriate to roll out into any environment is a wee bit irrational. You’re allowed to do stupid things, too. I don’t know where people get off thinking they need to “police” their games like that.
Usually arguments like this are centered around the thought that people just play Simic good stuff Ramp/combo and are playing 8-9 drops on turn 3. Those people fall into the same minority that think Stax is appropriate for any environment. Most individuals realize that there is a time an place for such tactics, and casual tables are not it.
To the point, Stax should be used as a reactionary measure to known metas or competitively advertised metas. Otherwise, roll out the jank and enjoy the couple of hours with new faces. If you get steam rolled one game because you were ill-equipped, well, you’ll be ready next time. Otherwise, you are just passively admitting that you only care about winning, and people like that suck to play with.
There is nothing inherently game breaking or competitive about wanting to play denial strategies in a game about denial, because that is largely what Magic the Gathering is a game about overcoming your opponent(s) denying you resources while you are doing the same to them.
To expect people are not going to also want to do this when deck and life totals and strategies are expanded as they are in Commander at any power level is foolish.
There is nothing inherently game breaking or competitive about wanting to play denial strategies in a game about denial, because that is largely what Magic the Gathering is a game about overcoming your opponent(s) denying you resources while you are doing the same to them.
To expect people are not going to also want to do this when deck and life totals and strategies are expanded as they are in Commander at any power level is foolish.
This is 100000% untrue. Try again.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are variations of power levels of every archetype under the sun.
I have made some exceptionally dumb combo decks over the years and some exceptionally fast ones too both styles are Combo decks because that is how the game ends. I have even put exceptionally dumb combos in pretty good shells it is liquid and it flows (it is part of why I bristle at the 75% thing (75% for who)) but that is a different conversation.
In your experience, how many people resolve a MLD effect who don't have the board well under control? The intention of those cards is to resolve the game and win the game from the current board state. Even in a casual deck I would consider it a competitive tactic to make me stop interacting and furthering any sort of gameplan. I really would not make any exception in calling that a competitive effect.
When it comes to bad combos especially decks that don't heavily tutor into the pieces its something I am willing to give a little more grace in. But at the same time my sympathy is very low. The number of ways to interact with combo can be very limited depending on the combo. Some of these combos can really only be interacted with counter magic even though they are kind of jank assembly things. I would give combo a little leeway assuming its something that likely won't happen or uses a lot of cards to make it happen.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
I kind of agree here. Competitive is very specific, and there are plenty of combos and toned down stax strategies that aren't competitive. Still, if I'm sitting down with a stax deck in paper, I'm going to be upfront about it if the group is lower power. If the group is more competitive, then I don't want to share info about my plans, but that's also expected.
In any case, all I got from the article is what I already knew, that the RC is pretty liberal with how they manage the format and don't ban just because they don't like certain cards or strategies. They did at the outset with regard to combo but have since reversed course.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I have seen White decks of all stripes get a bit ahead and pull that trigger (it tends to work out well for them)
I have seen Krenko decks cycle a Decree
More than a handful of Tajic / Zurgo Worldslayer decks
I have seen people cast them more nonchalantly when the ramp deck was blowing way ahead of people to equalize things
I have dropped Thran a bunch out of an Ideal
I have never had the same stigma against those cards and have played through games where a Bearer of the Heavens has died multiple times because the game and the people playing it were enjoyable.
That is just an archetype and a collection of cards that gets a bad rap because they are famous spite plays that is really all it is in my mind.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
And if I were to play against you regularly I would know how you deckbuild. I am just saying when you sit down blind with new people you don't know that announcing how you play and the kind of effects to expect sometimes leads to a better experience for everyone. If you don't want to call it competative but say there are a few LD effects in there but they are not optimized that also describes it. I just don't think that the norm and expected average for a game of commander is expecting MLD. I often try to lead with my weakest deck against new players to feel it out rather than leading with something like that.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
(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'
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting you, but I agree 100% with the idea that EDH, being a mod of Magic, is fundamentally unsuitable for the vision the RC has. It can approximate their vision, of course, but will never be fully realized because of the limitations of the base game. Sheldon has said something to the effect of that they don't mind alienating swaths of players if they don't like the format's philosophy, but that such exclusion is unintentional (I forget the exact quote but someone around here has it in their sig). I think that's a foolish perspective. In the early days when it was a small, insular format I could see adhering to a particular philosophy over balance, but now that WotC is producing Commander product and EDH is the de facto casual format I think it's past time to reevaluate the format's philosophy and take a serious look at balance.
Ultimately, this is why I favor a more robust banlist. If you balance the highest echelons of play, that balance trickles down to non-competitive gamers and creates a healthier format overall. If you don't want someone playing Armageddon or stax, ban the ****ers and be done with it. Sure, you'll still have some clown who pubstomps little Billy's pirate tribal pile with a tuned combo deck, but you get that in any format and is outside the purview of any banlist due to the nature of a deckbuilding game with 20,000+ moving parts. However, lowering the overall power level of the format flattens things out and, in my mind, creates a more homogeneous meta in which more decks can flourish. The gap between a tuned combo deck with fast mana and cheap enablers banned and pirate tribal would be much smaller. Ironically, I think a bigger, saner banlist would fulfill the current vision of the format a lot better than the current list does.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
The idea of banning everything from before a given point in the game is also a very bad one. The huge card pool is part of what attracts many people to the format. I know that when I got back into Magic, part of what sold me on EDH was that I could still use most of the old cards I had from before I dropped out. Suddenly deciding that things like original duals or cards which are on the reseerved list are bad for the format just because not everyone can access them would alienate a lot of players, including a lot of those who have helped make this format successful.
How can anything go if some things can't go?
Lil' Timmy: I think it's fun to play Magic! I like to play cards! If I can just play my cards, I am happy!
STAX the Destroyer: I think it's fun to deny you the thing you find fun. I can only have fun by ensuring you cannot play any cards. At all.
Now, it's also fair that someone can be STAX the Destroyer and be a genuinely lovely human being, but that doesn't mean I don't have questions about how you reconcile "Good person" with "my joy comes from ruining your night". It's a social game and everyone has their own definition of fun. Also, often what's fun is "winning" and thus, all games inevitably have someone who didn't have the most fun because there is only one winner. But it feels different to say "I have fun when I win - so unfortunately, you have to lose" and "I have fun when my opponents are unable to do the thing they came out for". That's like saying the only way you can enjoy a movie is if you go to the theater and scream or play with flashlights the entire time - I get you have a right to choose what's fun, but the thing you find fun is actively harming everyone else's experience and that makes me suspicious. Or as another example - if we all have dinner together, saying "I can only enjoy my meal if I get all the bread sticks and if no one orders what I order" is a little weird and odd and rude, but saying "I can only enjoy this meal if I throw everyone else's plates in the trash so they can't eat" feels actively malicious in a way that's quite different and worrying.
I do agree saying "STAX=competitive" or even "MLD = competitive" is wrong, and I appreciate the art and skill that goes into playing STAX well. I understand that for some folks it's about the puzzle of earning a flawless victory - nothing personal or malicious about it, it's just a hard and unique playstyle. But I don't think Sheldon is elite or a creep for automatically having some biases against people who can only find joy in playing a game by making the game unplayable to everyone else at the table.
RCRDaretti: Superfriends Forever RCR
WGBDoran: Ent-mootWBG
GGGMultani: Group Bear HugGGG
GB(B/G)The Gitrog Monster: Dredgefall DurdleGB(B/G)
RGWGahiji, the Honored Group Hug MonsterRGW
UB(U/B)Yuriko, Ninja Trinket AggroUB(U/B)
WUBRGAtogatog: Assembling a OHKOWUBRG
This would only be said this way by someone who thought the person already knew what kind of game they wanted. Otherwise, they would have first explained what kind of game they liked, then asked the question. It seems from Costas’ response also that he is half-asking Sheldon to elaborate on just what kind of game he’s talking about.
In some places, the RC has said that the format can be different things to different groups. But this kind of thing reveals that in their mind there is a principal constituency, which players can be presumed to understand, then every other group who might find something different out of EDH.
This is a prime example of the latent failures of the RC rule #1 - "...Players should aim to interact both during the game and before it begins, discussing with other players what they expect/want from the game." This doesn’t happen because of burden shifting. The main constituency believes that it’s everyone else’s job to know when they have a deck that needs a disclaimer. Whereas, others see this burden on the shoulders of the format rules – things that aren’t banned are ok, there are just different power levels.
There are enough problems with this, intrinsically. It is hard enough to regulate a game that is different than the game whose rules you actually have.
To me, it also ignores that grief is a question of degree, not of morality. People know that Jokulhaups is strong. But there are decks where it would be a wasted card. Certain decks can be expected to win with less than 6 mana before it’s castable, the most common answers in that environment are much cheaper than the threat, and even if it does land slowing the game down makes it more likely that combo’s needing 3-5 mana or so will be drawn.
Approaching the question as a line between in-group and out-group rather than along a spectrum leads the RC to escape the fact that regulating the most powerful things of the format actually can have a trickle-down effect. It’s harder for someone to escape the knowledge that the deck is restrictive when it’s among the best of the format, rather than when they look at a card like Jokulhaups and see it in virtually no decks advertised as competitive.
100% agreed.
Playing a game together means everyone gets to participate in playing the game. Taking 20 extra turns or locking someone out from playing the game is the exact opposite of mutual participation.
UR Mizzix of the Izmagnus ~~~ Build your own win-condition: Finite Spellslinging
UR Brudiclad, Telchor Engineer ~~~ We are the Borg. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.
WUB Oloro, Ageless Ascetic ~~~ A Guide to dying slowly
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose ~~~ Marchesa's undying Marionettes
RGW Mayael the Anima ~~~ All Hail the Big Chungus
GWU Chulane, Teller of Tales ~~~ Permanents Only ETB Shenanigans
BGU Sidisi, Brood Tyrant ~~~ Sidisi's Restless Servants
WUBRG The Ur-Dragon ~~~ Dragons eat your face
Your inference that the stax player is deliberately playing to ruin the enjoyment of others says more about you and your psychological makeup than what deck someone is playing.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
This made me chuckle,since the mechanic was a selling point for those commander sets
...Okay look I still don't know how the two of us are gonna make it work with the size difference between us and the fact that with her it's never gonna be just the two of us. Oh far from it. But I'm trying, ok!
Some commander players are spikes. They see the format as a kind of non-powered vintage and have fun puzzling out turn 2 wins.
Commander exists for all of these kinds of players, and the thing is that when you have people meeting and playing together for the first time, there will invariably be a difference in how these people play the game.
And, another point, is that when there are a half-million combos in the format, some people want a deck that answers them all, and that tends to be some kind of stax deck.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
Well, I dunno about them but I myself find the most "fun" game to be one where I have to think of a new strategy or come up with a new plan to win, or to use your cards in a way that you never considered them to be used before, the games that last into turn 25+ where everybody has used their most common plans are all in top deck mode looking for a line to win are the best to me because the line of "Land -> Birds of Paradise -> Land -> Dragon Tempest -> Land -> Kaalia of the vast into Nicol Bolas, make the two biggest threats dump their hands" is a great way to win but it also doesn't force me into doing something new.
Dragons of Legend, Lead by Scion of the UR-Dragon
The Gitrog Monster
Gonti, Lord of Luxury
Shogun Saskia
Hive World
Atraxa hates fun
Abzan
Too many people just play dumb stuff and often games devolve into "who does their dumb stuff first". People essentially just goldfishing. Great social format you got here Sheldon.
Liking, RTing, reblogging, and sharing this until it trends worldwide.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
This is the opposite end of the spectrum.
Stax doesn’t deserve the flak it gets at times, but, thinking that any form of Stax deck is appropriate to roll out into any environment is a wee bit irrational. You’re allowed to do stupid things, too. I don’t know where people get off thinking they need to “police” their games like that.
Usually arguments like this are centered around the thought that people just play Simic good stuff Ramp/combo and are playing 8-9 drops on turn 3. Those people fall into the same minority that think Stax is appropriate for any environment. Most individuals realize that there is a time an place for such tactics, and casual tables are not it.
To the point, Stax should be used as a reactionary measure to known metas or competitively advertised metas. Otherwise, roll out the jank and enjoy the couple of hours with new faces. If you get steam rolled one game because you were ill-equipped, well, you’ll be ready next time. Otherwise, you are just passively admitting that you only care about winning, and people like that suck to play with.
There is nothing inherently game breaking or competitive about wanting to play denial strategies in a game about denial, because that is largely what Magic the Gathering is a game about overcoming your opponent(s) denying you resources while you are doing the same to them.
To expect people are not going to also want to do this when deck and life totals and strategies are expanded as they are in Commander at any power level is foolish.
This is 100000% untrue. Try again.