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.
No, think about it. Stax is a viable archetype across many formats. I don't play against hyper-competitive decks very often, but I have stax decks... I don't play them non-stop, just as a change of pace. And it isn't like I play competitive stax... I play Johnny stax. Forbidden Orchard + Burning Sands is my style. It is fun. For my opponents, it is similar to encountering a game-ending combo. I would argue that losing to combo out of nowhere is less fun than trying to find a way around a stax deck.
The history and card pool of Magic is what is disagreeing with you in this case not me.
Oh really?
I’d argue “majority rules”, and the vast majority of cards in all of magic are not predicated on resource denial. Really, nice try though.
@dunharrow
Listen, I’m not arguing against Stax as an archetype. It’s a viable option. The question is whether or not it is suitable for casual games of EDH.
It’s a pretty bold(and incorrect) statement to say Magic is about resource denial. MTG is about balanced gameplay. Stax, and fast combo, are chief offenders in creating unbalanced games at tables with varying levels of personal expectations.
You know what I personally find interesting after being a Stax player for years? STAX isn't even all that good. Where the target for a group might be 75% power per deck, well-built and properly piloted stax still has a hard ceiling around 85-90%. Hard and fast combo usually if not always beats it. It's really only a bogeyman to groups designed like Sheldon's because Armageddon ain't great across from a pile of mana crypts, vaults, and sunny rings.
What I said has nothing to do with the number of cards that are denial cards versus those that are not. Also using sheer card volume and not archetypes is perhaps misguided when so many MTG cards are design chaff that rarely see play.
You know what I personally find interesting after being a Stax player for years? STAX isn't even all that good. Where the target for a group might be 75% power per deck, well-built and properly piloted stax still has a hard ceiling around 85-90%. Hard and fast combo usually if not always beats it. It's really only a bogeyman to groups designed like Sheldon's because Armageddon ain't great across from a pile of mana crypts, vaults, and sunny rings.
Stax is very good at controlling more than one opponent, to be more specific, it is the best tactic to handle a multiplayer game. Screeching the game to halt. However, you, the Stax player, are least affected by this, therefore giving you the advantage.
What I said has nothing to do with the number of cards that are denial cards versus those that are not. Also using sheer card volume and not archetypes is perhaps misguided when so many MTG cards are design chaff that rarely see play.
So it’s magics history then? The history that has seen almost all elements of resource denial evaporate from modern set design? Or it is over costed “chaff”? Either way you want to spin it, you are still incorrect.
You know what I personally find interesting after being a Stax player for years? STAX isn't even all that good. Where the target for a group might be 75% power per deck, well-built and properly piloted stax still has a hard ceiling around 85-90%. Hard and fast combo usually if not always beats it. It's really only a bogeyman to groups designed like Sheldon's because Armageddon ain't great across from a pile of mana crypts, vaults, and sunny rings.
Stax is very good at controlling more than one opponent, to be more specific, it is the best tactic to handle a multiplayer game. Screeching the game to halt. However, you, the Stax player, are least affected by this, therefore giving you the advantage.
Allow me to clarify, since clearly the "played Stax for years" qualifier was missed: I understand how stax works. I understand its goals and the various methods by which you attrition out a win. What I'm saying is that pure stax just isn't really all that dangerous. It's much weaker than it's reputation would suggest because often playing it well requires a) set up time, b) meta-specific knowledge, and a fair amout of RNG with getting your pieces out in an advantageous order in a 100 card format. I'm not talking the wanton Winter Orb tossed in a Jhoira Storm list, I'm talking Derevi, GAIV, Ghave, Brago, etc.
That being said, it is much slower than dedicated combo. It's simply more efficient to move proactively toward a wincon (via tutors, draw, ramp, etc) than try to stall out three other players.
No matter how much you want to fight it or pretend that it isn't true, magic is a game of resource management.
You are limited to drawing ome card each turn, playing one land each turn, and attacking once each turn all at once.
There are cards within the game which bend or even outright break these rules... but they are still essential to the core game.
Magic is a game and Commander is a format where Demonic Tutor at 1B is super strong, but Diabolic Tutor at 2BB is unplayably slow. Resource development and management are the core of MtG.
Stax is a part of that. Live with it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
You know what I personally find interesting after being a Stax player for years? STAX isn't even all that good. Where the target for a group might be 75% power per deck, well-built and properly piloted stax still has a hard ceiling around 85-90%. Hard and fast combo usually if not always beats it. It's really only a bogeyman to groups designed like Sheldon's because Armageddon ain't great across from a pile of mana crypts, vaults, and sunny rings.
Stax is very good at controlling more than one opponent, to be more specific, it is the best tactic to handle a multiplayer game. Screeching the game to halt. However, you, the Stax player, are least affected by this, therefore giving you the advantage.
Allow me to clarify, since clearly the "played Stax for years" qualifier was missed:
That’s not a “qualifier”. It literally has no bearing on this discussion. I didn’t cite my ~15+ years of experience as a reason you should listen to me, because clearly that doesn’t mean anything here.
I understand how stax works. I understand its goals and the various methods by which you attrition out a win. What I'm saying is that pure stax just isn't really all that dangerous. It's much weaker than it's reputation would suggest because often playing it well requires a) set up time, b) meta-specific knowledge, and a fair amout of RNG with getting your pieces out in an advantageous order in a 100 card format. I'm not talking the wanton Winter Orb tossed in a Jhoira Storm list, I'm talking Derevi, GAIV, Ghave, Brago, etc.
That being said, it is much slower than dedicated combo. It's simply more efficient to move proactively toward a wincon (via tutors, draw, ramp, etc) than try to stall out three other players.
This isn’t very accurate, at all. Obviously it’s slower than Combo, that’s the point. “Qualifying” your statement, then saying “it’s much slower than dedicated combo” makes me think you may not know as much as you claim you do. I’m not here to discuss that. I’m also not here to actually discuss what pros/cons are of the Stax archetype.
What I’m here to say is that Stax strategies in general are not “causal friendly”, and certainly not fun for multi-player games. The primary objective is is to slow the game down and make it difficult for your opponents to do anything. That is universally “unfun” to the other 3 players at the table.
So, in closing, if you think it’s a good idea to carry that around as your “go to” deck for any situation, well, your wrong and it drives me to think that your in it for yourself, at the the expense of others at the table. Which is basically the opposite of casual and/or social.
Stax player has warp their deck to operate under stax while other decks can just play good cards.
Trust me, when I'm playing Stax, I'm aiming at combo players. The rest of you are just collateral damage.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Except that the "hardcore" players don't see an under powered commander and think the person playing it is a bad person. Look at the paragraph that was highlighted earlier in the thread, his assumption is that "Bad" People play Stax or MLD.
No, they just call them bad a magic, tell them how to 'get good', and laugh if the person wants a slower game.
He specifically says its a bias, as most of us think good people and friends generally want everyone to have a good time. And those sorts of cards rarely lead to such.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Like it or not, this is a coherent philosophy. The philosophy could be summed up as fairness in Standard, the direction Standard has gone combined with, more or less, summarized as a trajectory of ridiculous things. The important thing is the ridiculous things, not the win of the game. Think the card game "War" instead of say a trick taking game where you could even bid low. You can't bid low. You can outbid and play some crazy thing or some fair combo within those things, and the Commander. Going outside of "Standard" play is "not being fun" if one DOES stay within Standard-type play, and who could fail to understand this.
BUT - not everyone reads everything and is up on this, yeah? The cards go back to 1993 and the design's continual fresh coat of paint is for a drop in the bucket of this totality. Not everyone is up on the no LD no discard no counters meme of "Do this in Standard, nah", "Do THAT in Standard, yeah."... and is successful. The mythics part of it may be eye-rolling, but that's fixable and the key point was that whether it's a spell or a creature, this is a pull back the red carpet moment, and the part of the story that includes that freshly revealed to this exact game state information, continue as some kind of a thing, there's some lip service to conceptual "floor" there, fantasy fun player vs. player, that you can actually do things and those things matter, you don't lose on skill before you even realize you're losing on skill by as much as including EVERYTHING would have it be. And this led to permanently removing / nerfing certain areas of the game. That are tradeoffs that help their own dead clamorers in business.
To recap, what these things are, are a classic curmudgeon-curmudgeoning.
1) Land destruction / Stax. Stops the trajectory of ridiculous things, slowing them down to a compound interest reorientation of sequences, and even worse if MASS land destruction. Not so much strong Land Destruction like Stone Rain and Armageddon in Standard anymore, nor cards reprinted to wit as the hue of Tangle Wire and Smokestack.
2) Super efficient ripping of players' hands. Hymn to Tourach and Mind Twist, this is "zones of play" ABC-123 of the issue.
3) Super excellent countering of spells. Counterspell, Mana Drain, Arcane Denial, Force of Will. If this combines with kill you with a combo, even a weak one like Eternal Witness + Crystal Shard + Time Warp, that was kind of not so great.
4) A) Wrath of God and Compulsive Research. This is "too good", and arguably it is correct.
B) * BUT DOESN'T APPLY HERE = Cursed Scroll, Sulfuric Vortex, reprint Goblin Guide in M20 no questions asked, no testing*
5) Degenerate cards in general, engine cards, fast mana and super duper card draw ("The Evil Triangle"). Where occurred, banned in Modern/Extended/Legacy, Vintage restricted type power level.
If you duly consider this As Per Wizards instead of INFINITELY fuzzy there's no reason that should be unclear. This is a Green-biased philosophy of the game for which the card support remains a little weaker than it should be, where the things you NEED black and blue for, stopping Combo while still being in the game if someone goes hyper-aggro, are not AUTOMATICALLY at the coequal Tier 0 state of play. The color pie's identity breakdown and player-to-commander interface with the same thing is intended to be explored with some per-game, per-experience flavor here, and all of them are cool. It is supposed to be fantastic that you used Mirari on that Banefire and this won the game, because there were MANY configurations where that was relevant, compounded to zoomed in on each element in each situation. The situations are just so much more where the cards are weaker. There are different levels of the infinities there.
The killer problem with this is that it's entirely subjective still, some effects do not exactly toe the line here, and personal history playgroup factors where an exact personal opinion on a card's validity as a fun card or an unfun one have to have total onus on bending like rubber, like a combination of coathangars and rubber tying it all together, maybe you can bend and maybe you can't, what do you get for that, is this a remove missiles here for missiles there situation, and this is not the same thing as here is the list you shall keep it holy and play literally anything it does not forbid. If you ask me, I would say ban more cards, until I re-realize how many would have to be banned and the endless nature of it.
What ABOUT Magical Christmas Land, though? This all tends towards questions of Magical Christmas Land and what it is worth, that is the essential nature of the interface between Rules Committee and Consistently Doesn't Like the Rules Comittee's Decisions. The simple answer is that Magical Christmas Land is worth a LOT, it's easily worth about TWICE as much as 'no-prize-pool in nearly all cases' and probably more. As a generalized system of the HARDEST rule set of allowability, that just has the most, it has the most total space where if TRUE DETERMINATION to have a fun games that are also competitive games MASSIVELY extended the ban list, there is at least ONE piece of uninfringable information there, and information is valuable, a LITTLE can go a LONG way, if the zoomed in time-delay ping decisions are THAT bad (I'm arguing that they're fine, more or less obviously). If it were attainable and there were just separate sections of one's briefcase, whether empty or full, within the same explicit rule set. It would be worth it to have a fun deck that met everyone's definition of fun who had the money for 40 Peasant decks. Something like that, make your own best 40 decks and then actually test this out as a Tiered process where the 40 go against the 10, and you the player who just wants to jam win the game has the handicap. Figure out the good ones, then what that costs and create. Then come back with some kind of number, but where you have more than a number, you have some kind of process and direct 1-to-1 slate of fun. As SOME kind of a memorandum. (As in, it would meet NEARLY everyone's definition of a fun deck. That's what's up I think, it's just that without experience playing and building for this reason, you literally just have a cognitive dissonance. This is one the key points, a lot of people are experiencing cognitive dissonance with the Magic they've been given here, being asked to consider more than they'd consider anywhere else and with only a MAYBE/figure it out for yourself as the answer for whether that experience is valid but one must ignore it or whether it is invalid and should perhaps even be actively ignored. The continual reintroduction of the zero leeway ON total leeway except when that leeway is wrong and bad and now you're a bad Magic player... could use some work. Including the weak version, now that's a tricky area that has to count as go ahead, it SHOULD count as whining if it's for Destructive Force instead of Wildfire, but that's just my take on it. Why NOT say this, just recap what power levels of the fundamental game effects are in Core Sets within the last 10 years, you lose nothing and gain a lot. If it's all going to be hearsay and seconded that motion, something that has the "shocklands" spectrum to it, of "I have a fun deck" or "I have a competitive deck", and can even have further breakdown would seem to be indicated.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Warning: Um, warning. This is going to be a game state violation. And a taking extra turns and drawing extra cards violation, pretty much, a whole bunch of violations. Look at me, I'm the DCI."
I’d argue “majority rules”, and the vast majority of cards in all of magic are not predicated on resource denial. Really, nice try though.
Every Kill spell and counter spell that exists?
No, they just call them bad a magic, tell them how to 'get good', and laugh if the person wants a slower game.
He specifically says its a bias, as most of us think good people and friends generally want everyone to have a good time. And those sorts of cards rarely lead to such.
And just letting Battlecruiser and combo decks just do whatever they want is a "good time"?
I’d argue “majority rules”, and the vast majority of cards in all of magic are not predicated on resource denial. Really, nice try though.
Every Kill spell and counter spell that exists?
That is called interaction. If you do not, or are unwilling, to see the difference, I don’t know what to tell you.
No, they just call them bad a magic, tell them how to 'get good', and laugh if the person wants a slower game.
He specifically says its a bias, as most of us think good people and friends generally want everyone to have a good time. And those sorts of cards rarely lead to such.
And just letting Battlecruiser and combo decks just do whatever they want is a "good time"?[/quote]
See, this is the hyperbole BS that creeps into every discussion like this. If Stax isn’t a boogey man, than neither is “Ramp to 10 on turn 3 and win the game from there”. I think I’ve been fair in my assessment of Stax as an archetype. I understand it has its place. My point is, and always has been, that it has no place at a casual table unless all parties involved are aware and willing to participate.
And yeah, if you want my honest opinion, I’d much prefer the guy who just drops fatty after fatty that leaves room for anybody to interact instead of the dude who plays his Teferi Winter Orb deck, or Derevi lock down.
It’s like sports. I can appreciate a low scoring, defensive slug fest, but it isn’t for everybody. It doesn’t always lead to compelling game play. However, you would be in the minority if you said you don’t like high scoring affairs. If things aren’t happening, most people just check out.
That is called interaction. If you do not, or are unwilling, to see the difference, I don’t know what to tell you.
And I am using that interaction to deny you a valuable resource, your major enchantments, your key creatures. Every single card in the game is a resource, heck the entire game is about resources. Life points, Cards in hand, cards on the battlefield, cards in your deck, if you are unwilling to see that the entire game is built on using all the available resources to counter your opponents use of theirs that is your problem.
See, this is the hyperbole BS that creeps into every discussion like this. If Stax isn’t a boogey man, than neither is “Ramp to 10 on turn 3 and win the game from there”. I think I’ve been fair in my assessment of Stax as an archetype. I understand it has its place. My point is, and always has been, that it has no place at a casual table unless all parties involved are aware and willing to participate.
Considering that "Ramp" is FAR more available to every color and is the one of the most basic mechanics for the best color in the format. I am not talking "Ramp to 10 on turn 3" Stax isn't going to stop that, but Rampant growth/Sakura Tribe Elder/Explore into Cultiavate/Kodama's Reach/Explosive vegetation is an incredibly common play and Trading 1 for 1s when some one starts dropping 6CC effects isn't fun for me to do basically every game.
That is called interaction. If you do not, or are unwilling, to see the difference, I don’t know what to tell you.
And I am using that interaction to deny you a valuable resource, your major enchantments, your key creatures. Every single card in the game is a resource, heck the entire game is about resources. Life points, Cards in hand, cards on the battlefield, cards in your deck, if you are unwilling to see that the entire game is built on using all the available resources to counter your opponents use of theirs that is your problem.
See, this is the hyperbole BS that creeps into every discussion like this. If Stax isn’t a boogey man, than neither is “Ramp to 10 on turn 3 and win the game from there”. I think I’ve been fair in my assessment of Stax as an archetype. I understand it has its place. My point is, and always has been, that it has no place at a casual table unless all parties involved are aware and willing to participate.
Considering that "Ramp" is FAR more available to every color and is the one of the most basic mechanics for the best color in the format. I am not talking "Ramp to 10 on turn 3" Stax isn't going to stop that, but Rampant growth/Sakura Tribe Elder/Explore into Cultiavate/Kodama's Reach/Explosive vegetation is an incredibly common play and Trading 1 for 1s when some one starts dropping 6CC effects isn't fun for me to do basically every game.
Dude, you haven’t “denied” me anything. You are answering threats. That’s the way the game works. Stax, on the other hand, proactively answers threats by keeping them nice and non-threatening in your hand, on the bottom of your deck, in your GY etc. That’s denial. I’m not asking you to let me slam my 10/10 into your life points. I’m just asking that you give me the opprotunity to do so. Draw-pass isn’t exactly my idea of a “good time”. Punch-counter punch? Now that’s entertaining.
The most ironic part of this discussion, if you want to call it that, is most Stax decks rely on Artifact Ramp to drop a fatty that nobody can answer, or, combo out for the win.(or, drive their opponents to boredom and they concede after they’ve lost interest).
Dude, you haven’t “denied” me anything. You are answering threats. That’s the way the game works. Stax, on the other hand, proactively answers threats by keeping them nice and non-threatening in your hand, on the bottom of your deck, in your GY etc. That’s denial. I’m not asking you to let me slam my 10/10 into your life points. I’m just asking that you give me the opprotunity to do so. Draw-pass isn’t exactly my idea of a “good time”. Punch-counter punch? Now that’s entertaining.
Ah, yes, the illusion of free will. You strike again.
This paragraph betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the subtle nuances of high level Magic play. To use a simple, obvious example, let's say you've cast Craw Wurm with no other nonland permanents in play or cards in hand. In this situation, there is no functional difference between a counterspell and a removal spell, so the distinction between denied and answered is semantic at best. Of course, things get more complicated in a real game, with on cast triggers, enter the battlefield effects, supporting permanents in play, and so on, but the fundamental differences between proactive denial and reactive removal are functionally nonexistent. Honestly, it sounds like you're salty about primarily disruptive strategies and for some reason don't think those are "punch-counterpunch" approaches. They are, of course. Interactive spells are the definition of "punch-counterpunch" and control decks run them in spades.
I'm not disagreeing with the argument that proactive denial creates more feelbads than removal since the illusion that you were going to do something with a given card is strong. Personally, I dislike playing against stax because it hoses my primary deck pretty hard and due to stax being a rarity around my parts I'm not equipped to deal with it. But that doesn't mean I think people who play such strategies are bad people. It's two-thousand-goddamned-nineteen and we're still arguing about badwrongfun. This all goes back to arrogantAxolotl's observation that as a mod of Magic, EDH will always fail to live up to both the RC's and player's expectations. The idea that a competitive game is something you play with people and not against them is pretty contradictory, right?
Ah, the “your salty” rebuttal finally rears it’s head.
There is no illusion. This is a multiplayer game. Take your Craw Wurm example. You, the reactive player, have to make a choice. Do you answer my threat? Or do you wager the guy sitting next to me has a more dangerous threat? Beyond that, those are simply 1 for 1’s. Stax is, effectively, a 3 for 1. That’s the point of it. Stax is best employed at MP tables because you can Pay 2 to effectively Armageddon, and that means you have more control over the choices you make, contradicting the very nature of what a FFA Multi-player game should be.
Stax is the most efficient form of resource denial you are ever going to get. Nothing else in this game effects multiple players at time for the little investment Stax pieces require. Deck construction doesn’t count. Building your deck in such a way that couldn’t, or wouldn’t, break the symmetry is illogical, like running Zombie tribal Kaalia of the Vast.
After all of that, what really bothered me the most was your final line. That’s a pretty pessimistic view point. I have played thousands of games with people that have never felt as though I was playing against them. Just sayin’, but, I wouldn’t neccisairly judge somebody based on the contents of their favored EDH deck, however, I would judge them if I heard them mutter a line like that before taking a seat.
Also, for the of clarity(without getting deeply into it), I feel fast combo falls into this category as well, but in reverse. You effectively ignore the other 3+ players and then roll the dice, having rigged them with cheap tutors and back-up protection.
... contradicting the very nature of what a FFA Multi-player game should be.
What nature is that? Why should it be that way? Aren't you attempting to force your viewpoint on others with such an attitude?
After all of that, what really bothered me the most was your final line. That’s a pretty pessimistic view point. I have played thousands of games with people that have never felt as though I was playing against them. Just sayin’, but, I wouldn’t neccisairly judge somebody based on the contents of their favored EDH deck, however, I would judge them if I heard them mutter a line like that before taking a seat.
I mean, it's objectively true. A competitive game with a clearly defined goal and a format that emphasizes mutual enjoyment are strange bedfellows. They're inherently at odds with one another, which leads to all kinds of feelbads. This is exacerbated by an unnecessarily permissive banlist that accommodates playstyles that the RC pooh-poohs. Contrasted with Dungeons and Dragons, a collaborative storytelling game, it's easy to see the distinction.
I mean, it's objectively true. A competitive game with a clearly defined goal and a format that emphasizes mutual enjoyment are strange bedfellows. They're inherently at odds with one another, which leads to all kinds of feel bads. This is exacerbated by an unnecessarily permissive banlist that accommodates playstyles that the RC pooh-poohs. Contrasted with Dungeons and Dragons, a collaborative storytelling game, it's easy to see the distinction.
I have issues with the argument you, and others, have made here. It's based on the idea that the strategies are allowed within the rules and that the game is inherently competitive. Both of these arguments are not relevant as the issue is a social one. To the greater community the game is not inherently competitive. No one, whether it be Wizards, the Rules committee, or the average players, would call EDH "competitive." You may view it that way, and you have every right to do so, but the greater community does not.
Same goes for the "stax" is part of the game argument, it is known to be looked upon by the majority with distaste. Evidence for this can be seen in modern card design, relative popularity on EDHRec of MLD and Stax pieces, and anecdotal evidence from the community at-large. Once again, you may hold this belief that Stax is reasonable and should be fine, and you have every right to believe that. However, you are at odds with the majority of players with-in the community in that respect.
The argument here is a social one. Is it socially acceptable to ambush people with strategies that are known to be widely disliked? That seems to be antagonistic to sociable practices of the greater EDH community, and that's literally the definition of "anti-social." In my view, people who want to play these less popular strategies owe a simple warning to the people they intend to play with. Not providing any warning, given how common knowledge the distaste for the strategies is, seems to just be disrespectful of those at the table.
That is just my opinion. Be social, friendly, and courteous to others. The game is more fun when everyone is on the same page.
End of the day, no one person that plays EDH will ever convince everyone that their style of play is the best. Or most correct, or most efficient, or whatever. Where's the fun in playing exactly the same game every time? No one wants that. Ultimately everyone here is entitled to their opinions barring any prejudice.
The RC tries to walk a fine line; it's a socially minded game, and one of the first things that drew me to this format is that power levels and acceptable limits are dictated by the people you sit down with; that's the way it should be, and that's what is encouraged by the RC. If you don't like their recommended banlist, don't use it, or make your own. If you want a game where fast combo is accepted and welcomed, great. You want to lock everyone else out of the game, go for it. If you want to embrace your inner Timmy and play battlecruiser stompy, you can. So long as the people you sit down with are happy with you doing that. That's where it's at.
I think at the end of it all, from what I read in the article, Sheldon maybe could have been more specific in his questions towards the guy in question - instead of 'are you the kind of guy we wanna play with?' 'just so you know, we're not interested in MLD, hope that's ok'. It's his prerogative to want to enjoy the game the way he wants to, as it is everyone's. The only real part of this that shouldn't sit well with anyone is the way communication broke down in this instance.
It's why I'm absolutely clear with what to expect, and what I can expect, when I sit down with a new group of people. I have a little something for everyone - stompy decks, chaos decks, control, a couple combo decks, a tiny splash of stax in some, I can handle land destruction with some too, I just need to know what vibe we're going for. I sit down with people and game to make friends, that's the whole point. No one needs to defend what play style they enjoy, they just need to make it clear what they don't enjoy, so that everyone involved has fun. It isn't that hard.
No, think about it. Stax is a viable archetype across many formats. I don't play against hyper-competitive decks very often, but I have stax decks... I don't play them non-stop, just as a change of pace. And it isn't like I play competitive stax... I play Johnny stax. Forbidden Orchard + Burning Sands is my style. It is fun. For my opponents, it is similar to encountering a game-ending combo. I would argue that losing to combo out of nowhere is less fun than trying to find a way around a 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
Oh really?
I’d argue “majority rules”, and the vast majority of cards in all of magic are not predicated on resource denial. Really, nice try though.
@dunharrow
Listen, I’m not arguing against Stax as an archetype. It’s a viable option. The question is whether or not it is suitable for casual games of EDH.
It’s a pretty bold(and incorrect) statement to say Magic is about resource denial. MTG is about balanced gameplay. Stax, and fast combo, are chief offenders in creating unbalanced games at tables with varying levels of personal expectations.
Stax is very good at controlling more than one opponent, to be more specific, it is the best tactic to handle a multiplayer game. Screeching the game to halt. However, you, the Stax player, are least affected by this, therefore giving you the advantage.
So it’s magics history then? The history that has seen almost all elements of resource denial evaporate from modern set design? Or it is over costed “chaff”? Either way you want to spin it, you are still incorrect.
And when playing against Stax, you need to warp your deck to operate under the restrictions placed upon them. This is pretty silly man.
Allow me to clarify, since clearly the "played Stax for years" qualifier was missed: I understand how stax works. I understand its goals and the various methods by which you attrition out a win. What I'm saying is that pure stax just isn't really all that dangerous. It's much weaker than it's reputation would suggest because often playing it well requires a) set up time, b) meta-specific knowledge, and a fair amout of RNG with getting your pieces out in an advantageous order in a 100 card format. I'm not talking the wanton Winter Orb tossed in a Jhoira Storm list, I'm talking Derevi, GAIV, Ghave, Brago, etc.
That being said, it is much slower than dedicated combo. It's simply more efficient to move proactively toward a wincon (via tutors, draw, ramp, etc) than try to stall out three other players.
You are limited to drawing ome card each turn, playing one land each turn, and attacking once each turn all at once.
There are cards within the game which bend or even outright break these rules... but they are still essential to the core game.
Magic is a game and Commander is a format where Demonic Tutor at 1B is super strong, but Diabolic Tutor at 2BB is unplayably slow. Resource development and management are the core of MtG.
Stax is a part of that. Live with it.
No you don't. Every deck has answers to all kinds of stax pieces. Even precons runs removal.
That’s not a “qualifier”. It literally has no bearing on this discussion. I didn’t cite my ~15+ years of experience as a reason you should listen to me, because clearly that doesn’t mean anything here.
This isn’t very accurate, at all. Obviously it’s slower than Combo, that’s the point. “Qualifying” your statement, then saying “it’s much slower than dedicated combo” makes me think you may not know as much as you claim you do. I’m not here to discuss that. I’m also not here to actually discuss what pros/cons are of the Stax archetype.
What I’m here to say is that Stax strategies in general are not “causal friendly”, and certainly not fun for multi-player games. The primary objective is is to slow the game down and make it difficult for your opponents to do anything. That is universally “unfun” to the other 3 players at the table.
So, in closing, if you think it’s a good idea to carry that around as your “go to” deck for any situation, well, your wrong and it drives me to think that your in it for yourself, at the the expense of others at the table. Which is basically the opposite of casual and/or social.
Trust me, when I'm playing Stax, I'm aiming at combo players. The rest of you are just collateral damage.
On phasing:
He specifically says its a bias, as most of us think good people and friends generally want everyone to have a good time. And those sorts of cards rarely lead to such.
Like it or not, this is a coherent philosophy. The philosophy could be summed up as fairness in Standard, the direction Standard has gone combined with, more or less, summarized as a trajectory of ridiculous things. The important thing is the ridiculous things, not the win of the game. Think the card game "War" instead of say a trick taking game where you could even bid low. You can't bid low. You can outbid and play some crazy thing or some fair combo within those things, and the Commander. Going outside of "Standard" play is "not being fun" if one DOES stay within Standard-type play, and who could fail to understand this.
BUT - not everyone reads everything and is up on this, yeah? The cards go back to 1993 and the design's continual fresh coat of paint is for a drop in the bucket of this totality. Not everyone is up on the no LD no discard no counters meme of "Do this in Standard, nah", "Do THAT in Standard, yeah."... and is successful. The mythics part of it may be eye-rolling, but that's fixable and the key point was that whether it's a spell or a creature, this is a pull back the red carpet moment, and the part of the story that includes that freshly revealed to this exact game state information, continue as some kind of a thing, there's some lip service to conceptual "floor" there, fantasy fun player vs. player, that you can actually do things and those things matter, you don't lose on skill before you even realize you're losing on skill by as much as including EVERYTHING would have it be. And this led to permanently removing / nerfing certain areas of the game. That are tradeoffs that help their own dead clamorers in business.
To recap, what these things are, are a classic curmudgeon-curmudgeoning.
1) Land destruction / Stax. Stops the trajectory of ridiculous things, slowing them down to a compound interest reorientation of sequences, and even worse if MASS land destruction. Not so much strong Land Destruction like Stone Rain and Armageddon in Standard anymore, nor cards reprinted to wit as the hue of Tangle Wire and Smokestack.
2) Super efficient ripping of players' hands. Hymn to Tourach and Mind Twist, this is "zones of play" ABC-123 of the issue.
3) Super excellent countering of spells. Counterspell, Mana Drain, Arcane Denial, Force of Will. If this combines with kill you with a combo, even a weak one like Eternal Witness + Crystal Shard + Time Warp, that was kind of not so great.
4) A) Wrath of God and Compulsive Research. This is "too good", and arguably it is correct.
B) * BUT DOESN'T APPLY HERE = Cursed Scroll, Sulfuric Vortex, reprint Goblin Guide in M20 no questions asked, no testing*
5) Degenerate cards in general, engine cards, fast mana and super duper card draw ("The Evil Triangle"). Where occurred, banned in Modern/Extended/Legacy, Vintage restricted type power level.
If you duly consider this As Per Wizards instead of INFINITELY fuzzy there's no reason that should be unclear. This is a Green-biased philosophy of the game for which the card support remains a little weaker than it should be, where the things you NEED black and blue for, stopping Combo while still being in the game if someone goes hyper-aggro, are not AUTOMATICALLY at the coequal Tier 0 state of play. The color pie's identity breakdown and player-to-commander interface with the same thing is intended to be explored with some per-game, per-experience flavor here, and all of them are cool. It is supposed to be fantastic that you used Mirari on that Banefire and this won the game, because there were MANY configurations where that was relevant, compounded to zoomed in on each element in each situation. The situations are just so much more where the cards are weaker. There are different levels of the infinities there.
The killer problem with this is that it's entirely subjective still, some effects do not exactly toe the line here, and personal history playgroup factors where an exact personal opinion on a card's validity as a fun card or an unfun one have to have total onus on bending like rubber, like a combination of coathangars and rubber tying it all together, maybe you can bend and maybe you can't, what do you get for that, is this a remove missiles here for missiles there situation, and this is not the same thing as here is the list you shall keep it holy and play literally anything it does not forbid. If you ask me, I would say ban more cards, until I re-realize how many would have to be banned and the endless nature of it.
What ABOUT Magical Christmas Land, though? This all tends towards questions of Magical Christmas Land and what it is worth, that is the essential nature of the interface between Rules Committee and Consistently Doesn't Like the Rules Comittee's Decisions. The simple answer is that Magical Christmas Land is worth a LOT, it's easily worth about TWICE as much as 'no-prize-pool in nearly all cases' and probably more. As a generalized system of the HARDEST rule set of allowability, that just has the most, it has the most total space where if TRUE DETERMINATION to have a fun games that are also competitive games MASSIVELY extended the ban list, there is at least ONE piece of uninfringable information there, and information is valuable, a LITTLE can go a LONG way, if the zoomed in time-delay ping decisions are THAT bad (I'm arguing that they're fine, more or less obviously). If it were attainable and there were just separate sections of one's briefcase, whether empty or full, within the same explicit rule set. It would be worth it to have a fun deck that met everyone's definition of fun who had the money for 40 Peasant decks. Something like that, make your own best 40 decks and then actually test this out as a Tiered process where the 40 go against the 10, and you the player who just wants to jam win the game has the handicap. Figure out the good ones, then what that costs and create. Then come back with some kind of number, but where you have more than a number, you have some kind of process and direct 1-to-1 slate of fun. As SOME kind of a memorandum. (As in, it would meet NEARLY everyone's definition of a fun deck. That's what's up I think, it's just that without experience playing and building for this reason, you literally just have a cognitive dissonance. This is one the key points, a lot of people are experiencing cognitive dissonance with the Magic they've been given here, being asked to consider more than they'd consider anywhere else and with only a MAYBE/figure it out for yourself as the answer for whether that experience is valid but one must ignore it or whether it is invalid and should perhaps even be actively ignored. The continual reintroduction of the zero leeway ON total leeway except when that leeway is wrong and bad and now you're a bad Magic player... could use some work. Including the weak version, now that's a tricky area that has to count as go ahead, it SHOULD count as whining if it's for Destructive Force instead of Wildfire, but that's just my take on it. Why NOT say this, just recap what power levels of the fundamental game effects are in Core Sets within the last 10 years, you lose nothing and gain a lot. If it's all going to be hearsay and seconded that motion, something that has the "shocklands" spectrum to it, of "I have a fun deck" or "I have a competitive deck", and can even have further breakdown would seem to be indicated.
Every Kill spell and counter spell that exists?
And just letting Battlecruiser and combo decks just do whatever they want is a "good time"?
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
That is called interaction. If you do not, or are unwilling, to see the difference, I don’t know what to tell you.
And just letting Battlecruiser and combo decks just do whatever they want is a "good time"?[/quote]
See, this is the hyperbole BS that creeps into every discussion like this. If Stax isn’t a boogey man, than neither is “Ramp to 10 on turn 3 and win the game from there”. I think I’ve been fair in my assessment of Stax as an archetype. I understand it has its place. My point is, and always has been, that it has no place at a casual table unless all parties involved are aware and willing to participate.
And yeah, if you want my honest opinion, I’d much prefer the guy who just drops fatty after fatty that leaves room for anybody to interact instead of the dude who plays his Teferi Winter Orb deck, or Derevi lock down.
It’s like sports. I can appreciate a low scoring, defensive slug fest, but it isn’t for everybody. It doesn’t always lead to compelling game play. However, you would be in the minority if you said you don’t like high scoring affairs. If things aren’t happening, most people just check out.
And I am using that interaction to deny you a valuable resource, your major enchantments, your key creatures. Every single card in the game is a resource, heck the entire game is about resources. Life points, Cards in hand, cards on the battlefield, cards in your deck, if you are unwilling to see that the entire game is built on using all the available resources to counter your opponents use of theirs that is your problem.
Considering that "Ramp" is FAR more available to every color and is the one of the most basic mechanics for the best color in the format. I am not talking "Ramp to 10 on turn 3" Stax isn't going to stop that, but Rampant growth/Sakura Tribe Elder/Explore into Cultiavate/Kodama's Reach/Explosive vegetation is an incredibly common play and Trading 1 for 1s when some one starts dropping 6CC effects isn't fun for me to do basically every game.
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
Dude, you haven’t “denied” me anything. You are answering threats. That’s the way the game works. Stax, on the other hand, proactively answers threats by keeping them nice and non-threatening in your hand, on the bottom of your deck, in your GY etc. That’s denial. I’m not asking you to let me slam my 10/10 into your life points. I’m just asking that you give me the opprotunity to do so. Draw-pass isn’t exactly my idea of a “good time”. Punch-counter punch? Now that’s entertaining.
The most ironic part of this discussion, if you want to call it that, is most Stax decks rely on Artifact Ramp to drop a fatty that nobody can answer, or, combo out for the win.(or, drive their opponents to boredom and they concede after they’ve lost interest).
Ramp is not a basic blue mechanic.
Ah, yes, the illusion of free will. You strike again.
This paragraph betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the subtle nuances of high level Magic play. To use a simple, obvious example, let's say you've cast Craw Wurm with no other nonland permanents in play or cards in hand. In this situation, there is no functional difference between a counterspell and a removal spell, so the distinction between denied and answered is semantic at best. Of course, things get more complicated in a real game, with on cast triggers, enter the battlefield effects, supporting permanents in play, and so on, but the fundamental differences between proactive denial and reactive removal are functionally nonexistent. Honestly, it sounds like you're salty about primarily disruptive strategies and for some reason don't think those are "punch-counterpunch" approaches. They are, of course. Interactive spells are the definition of "punch-counterpunch" and control decks run them in spades.
I'm not disagreeing with the argument that proactive denial creates more feelbads than removal since the illusion that you were going to do something with a given card is strong. Personally, I dislike playing against stax because it hoses my primary deck pretty hard and due to stax being a rarity around my parts I'm not equipped to deal with it. But that doesn't mean I think people who play such strategies are bad people. It's two-thousand-goddamned-nineteen and we're still arguing about badwrongfun. This all goes back to arrogantAxolotl's observation that as a mod of Magic, EDH will always fail to live up to both the RC's and player's expectations. The idea that a competitive game is something you play with people and not against them is pretty contradictory, right?
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
There is no illusion. This is a multiplayer game. Take your Craw Wurm example. You, the reactive player, have to make a choice. Do you answer my threat? Or do you wager the guy sitting next to me has a more dangerous threat? Beyond that, those are simply 1 for 1’s. Stax is, effectively, a 3 for 1. That’s the point of it. Stax is best employed at MP tables because you can Pay 2 to effectively Armageddon, and that means you have more control over the choices you make, contradicting the very nature of what a FFA Multi-player game should be.
Stax is the most efficient form of resource denial you are ever going to get. Nothing else in this game effects multiple players at time for the little investment Stax pieces require. Deck construction doesn’t count. Building your deck in such a way that couldn’t, or wouldn’t, break the symmetry is illogical, like running Zombie tribal Kaalia of the Vast.
After all of that, what really bothered me the most was your final line. That’s a pretty pessimistic view point. I have played thousands of games with people that have never felt as though I was playing against them. Just sayin’, but, I wouldn’t neccisairly judge somebody based on the contents of their favored EDH deck, however, I would judge them if I heard them mutter a line like that before taking a seat.
Also, for the of clarity(without getting deeply into it), I feel fast combo falls into this category as well, but in reverse. You effectively ignore the other 3+ players and then roll the dice, having rigged them with cheap tutors and back-up protection.
Also the orbs are barely a Geddon in EDH unless incredibly well supported.
What nature is that? Why should it be that way? Aren't you attempting to force your viewpoint on others with such an attitude?
I mean, it's objectively true. A competitive game with a clearly defined goal and a format that emphasizes mutual enjoyment are strange bedfellows. They're inherently at odds with one another, which leads to all kinds of feelbads. This is exacerbated by an unnecessarily permissive banlist that accommodates playstyles that the RC pooh-poohs. Contrasted with Dungeons and Dragons, a collaborative storytelling game, it's easy to see the distinction.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
I have issues with the argument you, and others, have made here. It's based on the idea that the strategies are allowed within the rules and that the game is inherently competitive. Both of these arguments are not relevant as the issue is a social one. To the greater community the game is not inherently competitive. No one, whether it be Wizards, the Rules committee, or the average players, would call EDH "competitive." You may view it that way, and you have every right to do so, but the greater community does not.
Same goes for the "stax" is part of the game argument, it is known to be looked upon by the majority with distaste. Evidence for this can be seen in modern card design, relative popularity on EDHRec of MLD and Stax pieces, and anecdotal evidence from the community at-large. Once again, you may hold this belief that Stax is reasonable and should be fine, and you have every right to believe that. However, you are at odds with the majority of players with-in the community in that respect.
The argument here is a social one. Is it socially acceptable to ambush people with strategies that are known to be widely disliked? That seems to be antagonistic to sociable practices of the greater EDH community, and that's literally the definition of "anti-social." In my view, people who want to play these less popular strategies owe a simple warning to the people they intend to play with. Not providing any warning, given how common knowledge the distaste for the strategies is, seems to just be disrespectful of those at the table.
That is just my opinion. Be social, friendly, and courteous to others. The game is more fun when everyone is on the same page.
End of the day, no one person that plays EDH will ever convince everyone that their style of play is the best. Or most correct, or most efficient, or whatever. Where's the fun in playing exactly the same game every time? No one wants that. Ultimately everyone here is entitled to their opinions barring any prejudice.
The RC tries to walk a fine line; it's a socially minded game, and one of the first things that drew me to this format is that power levels and acceptable limits are dictated by the people you sit down with; that's the way it should be, and that's what is encouraged by the RC. If you don't like their recommended banlist, don't use it, or make your own. If you want a game where fast combo is accepted and welcomed, great. You want to lock everyone else out of the game, go for it. If you want to embrace your inner Timmy and play battlecruiser stompy, you can. So long as the people you sit down with are happy with you doing that. That's where it's at.
I think at the end of it all, from what I read in the article, Sheldon maybe could have been more specific in his questions towards the guy in question - instead of 'are you the kind of guy we wanna play with?' 'just so you know, we're not interested in MLD, hope that's ok'. It's his prerogative to want to enjoy the game the way he wants to, as it is everyone's. The only real part of this that shouldn't sit well with anyone is the way communication broke down in this instance.
It's why I'm absolutely clear with what to expect, and what I can expect, when I sit down with a new group of people. I have a little something for everyone - stompy decks, chaos decks, control, a couple combo decks, a tiny splash of stax in some, I can handle land destruction with some too, I just need to know what vibe we're going for. I sit down with people and game to make friends, that's the whole point. No one needs to defend what play style they enjoy, they just need to make it clear what they don't enjoy, so that everyone involved has fun. It isn't that hard.