Based on my own experiences, I divide people into competitive and casual via their willingness to interact. Competitive players build decks and play the game to limit interaction as much as possible. Casual players do the opposite.
Massive Marc says "Casual and Competitive are states of mind. They can't be quantified by the cards you choose to put in your deck. It's how you play."
This is it. I am a "casual" player. I want to play weird stuff that the "competitive" player scoffs at. An example:
I have no playgroup. I pick up games at the LGS. I grew so tired of the "competitive" players building their decks to maximum efficiency. I like crazy plays. I don't like some douche making the entire table discard their hands on turn seven. I don't like people taking four turns in a row. I don't like people taking the interactivity out of the game. So I starting making decks that prevent people from tutoring, make them target at random and wipe the board clear of lands while I sit on top of fifteen mana rocks. And you know what? They HATE it. Eye of the Storm? Arrrrg!!! Thieves Auction? Grrrrrrrr!!! And you know why they hate it? It's because they want to control every aspect of the game. And they want you to control nothing. And that's BS. Sure, we all want our decks to work as we built them. We all want to prevent someone from running the game. But the "competitive" player takes it too far and doesn't care about anyone else's enjoyment. They play like they are playing against a computer. A casual player wants to make moves, but doesn't do so at the cost of others enjoyment. Sure, I run some instant game-winning combos in my Thrax deck, but just because a draw into them by turn six, it doesn't mean I just pop it off and win at the expense of everyone else's enjoyment. I hold it and pop it when the game has gone on too long or someone else (usually a "competitive" player) is controlling the game too much.
So it really is how you play the game, not what he build of your deck is.
Massive Marc says "Casual and Competitive are states of mind. They can't be quantified by the cards you choose to put in your deck. It's how you play."
I like the way Massive Marc puts this. Too many players have misused the term casual and competitive. There are play groups who plays competitive crawwurm.dec and others who play very casual cutthroat.dec.
Personally I feel that competitive and casual are classified as follows:
Competitive
- Treats a win/loss seriously.
- Minds losing a lot, especially to strategies he/she is not prepared for
- Very strict on rulings (like rule-shark forgotten triggers on a mana crypt 3 turns back)
- Often gets irritated/stressed by strategies/plays that are detrimental to him/her
- Doesn't have fun when others are ahead of him/her
Casual
- Takes wins and losses with a stride. It is a game sometimes will win sometimes will lose
- Less strict on rulings (forgot an unkeep roll trigger 3 turns back? nvm go carry on ahead)
- Treats the game and legit strategies fairly, since they are part of the game
- Appreciates the plays of others and have fun even when they are losing
Decks on the other hand, can only be gauged by how 'optimally tuned' they are. From the most vanilla crawwurm.dec to the most cut-throat hermitdruid.dec. Interactivity amongst decks is another subject altogether and shouldn't be lumped in, it is just part of deck building.
Putting the 2 together we can have different kinds of playgroups, like a playgroup with commander precons where the players take winning seriously (like winning over table drinks) or playgroup with extremely tuned decks playing casually (like laughing over how some Derevi player created a million angel tokens gaining a million life, only to be killed by a Marath player who cast Boros Charm+Phyrexian Rebirth with Parallel Lives and Orge Battledriver on board) or somethere in between.
Personally I feel that competitive and casual are classified as follows:
Competitive
- Treats a win/loss seriously.
- Minds losing a lot, especially to strategies he/she is not prepared for
- Very strict on rulings (like rule-shark forgotten triggers on a mana crypt 3 turns back)
- Often gets irritated/stressed by strategies/plays that are detrimental to him/her
- Doesn't have fun when others are ahead of him/her
Casual
- Takes wins and losses with a stride. It is a game sometimes will win sometimes will lose
- Less strict on rulings (forgot an unkeep roll trigger 3 turns back? nvm go carry on ahead)
- Treats the game and legit strategies fairly, since they are part of the game
- Appreciates the plays of others and have fun even when they are losing
This isn't biased at all. From just reading your list I can't imagine you've ever played with any mature "competitive" players and are defining "casual" by people you like.
If you can't be balanced when trying to have a discussion you shouldn't say anything at all. There's enough "Here's my opinion based on nothing but what I'm thinking at this moment" in this thread/on this site.
This isn't biased at all. From just reading your list I can't imagine you've ever played with any mature "competitive" players and are defining "casual" by people you like.
If you can't be balanced when trying to have a discussion you shouldn't say anything at all. There's enough "Here's my opinion based on nothing but what I'm thinking at this moment" in this thread/on this site.
I am interested to know how you can come to that conclusion that my opinions are based off nothing. I do play against all sorts of players and decks. Some playgroups right out hate my decks with a vengeance, others are totally fine with them. I have also played in cut-throat playgroups where combos at turn 3 and 4 are the norm.
This comes to a point on how I notice the players around me react in these playgroups. Very often the players who complain the most are those who are in the so-called "casual" playgroup, who always happens to have a very long extensive list of cards that are "anti-social". Whereas playgroups whom "these so-called casuals" coined as "competitive" are totally fine on how everyone else plays, no restrictions or anything.
In a game with no restrictions besides the official ban list, where everyone has free reign isn't it casual?
Or do you find that a game with imposed restrictions of cards that you would like to play but can't due to "being unfun to others but fun to you" a casual game?
I don't accept that it's segregated just because "Phil" tells me I should...Perpetuating these ridiculous labels is why we're here in the first place.
Re-read your points and see that they're interchangeable between the predetermined labels you've gone by, just like Sunfire's list.
Not on the internet they're not, where "I'm right and you're wrong" is par for the course.
I've wasted far too much time explaining it's a player based format with no results. So, when on the internet, I'll just either not participate or give the most basic surface answer possible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The EDH stax primer When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
Based on my own experiences, I divide people into competitive and casual via their willingness to interact. Competitive players build decks and play the game to limit interaction as much as possible. Casual players do the opposite.
Are you serious? How many competitive decks have you faced? How many casual decks have you faced?
Casual decks just durdle and pack no removal or interactive spells like counter-magic in mono-blue or spot removal in mono-black.
Craw Wurm stompy is 40 lands, 20 ramp spells, 40 creatures. How is that interactive at all? Going to the red zone does not mean interaction.
At least Hermitdruid.dec runs spot removal, counter-magic, and tutors for tough situations. They have back up plans for when Plan #A isn't guaranteed.
How many outs does Craw Wurm stompy have against turn 3 Propaganda and turn 4 Armageddon?
I believe you are misunderstanding the definition of interaction.
Are you serious? How many competitive decks have you faced? How many casual decks have you faced?
I've been playing MTG since Mirage. I played it semi-competitively since Invasion, and became full-on competitive in Mirrodin. I am relatively new to EDH, but I have played both against competitive brews tuned to combo ASAP and more casual decks with a focus on maximising interaction.
Casual decks just durdle and pack no removal or interactive spells like counter-magic in mono-blue or spot removal in mono-black.
This illustrates my point. Removal and countermagic are less interactive than combat (almost all decks can interact through combat, while few of them can interact with countermagic and removal on the stack).
I vote that we just adopt the word Durdle for any non-regulation EDH (House rules/bans/socially enforced warping of format rules) and leave EDH as the term for... well... EDH.
That way, people who do want to take the format somewhat seriously are saved the effort/time of trying to explain to other not so serious players why they're playing by the rules of the game, and the not so serious players have a format they can enjoy and take pride in where they don't have to worry about some non-durdle player coming in and smashing all their fun.
On the same page i could just argue that you combo guys sit there, in silence, eyeballing each other who goes off first. Solitaire for the win! It's the truth, i know it!
Well it is utter nonsense, that's been known since page 1 of this thread. Who keeps reviving this thread anyways? Just let it die if we know this won't resolve anything.
I don't play combo; I play tempo, I am actually the few people at any given table is prepared for combo/stax players. People need to make their decks more resilient against combo in the main deck anyways.
Any black deck can run Braids or Mind Twist. An early Braids will take the combo player out of the game. An Mind Twist for 7 when the combo player is tapped out will ruin their whole turns setting up their combo.
I only solitaire against combo players because they are too easy to beat. Early targeted land destruction, and threats with disruption will shift their focus entirely.
Yall need to learn to adapt and suck it up to just meta game against the meta game.
Jester's Cap is a good inclusion in any combo heavy meta.
Most combos can be shut down by 2 abilities graveyard hate and shroud/hexproof.
- Leyline of the Void/Rest in Peace/Graveyard hate shuts down most B/x combos, Saffi
- Leyline of Sanctity/Witchbane Orb/Ivory Mask shuts down Sharuum combo once again, Blasting Station combo with Saffi
I find that some "unfriendly" decks like Azami can be "de-fanged" by removing key combo pieces like high tide and knowledge pool, then replacing them with more general-use cards like arcane denial and aetherling. This means that you can have an Azami deck which can be easily tweaked on the fly depending on who you play with.
People need to make their decks more resilient against combo in the main deck anyways.
Something that I second everyone to practice, it is good to run some answers against some common strategies like graveyard hate and such. Well quite a number of players still prefer to take easy way out by 'soft-banning' what they don't like and their decks don't have an answer to. And make it worse by masking the ban under the reason "against the social spirit of EDH".
There is absolutely nothing said here that's going to change ****.
Example:
This has never happened and never will.
-"MLD makes X better, does Y, blah."
-"wow, you're right!"
Or
-"sol ing should be banned because ______."
_"you've convinced me. Sol ring is bad."
Never going to happen. ever.
Then stop reading it.
I mean seriously, you're intelligent enough to know that this thread attracts the same conversations, and your playgroup is mature enough that none of this applies to you. But you also know that this topic will never go away, so rather than risk every thread get derailed, we can simply divert it here.
I mean seriously, you're intelligent enough to know that this thread attracts the same conversations, and your playgroup is mature enough that none of this applies to you. But you also know that this topic will never go away, so rather than risk every thread get derailed, we can simply divert it here.
So basically what your saying is this thread is a trashcan? I would actually like to reach some conclusions or perhaps convince someone reading this that responsibility with removal is key to having a balanced metagame. People just use labels like Casual and Competitive to mask their lazyness at dealing with the situation.
So basically what your saying is this thread is a trashcan? I would actually like to reach some conclusions or perhaps convince someone reading this that responsibility with removal is key to having a balanced metagame. People just use labels like Casual and Competitive to mask their lazyness at dealing with the situation.
I'd say more like a filing cabinet. But what I can say is that in the time ive been here on Sally, this theme is one of the most recurring ones, one of the most easily labeled and accused, and the most opinionated topic. There are always going to be people and threads which either discuss this topic or go off in tangents about it. The mods made a conscious decision to contain it all in one thread rather than have many threads. It's just that simple.
Don't make the mistake in thinking I'm talking bad about the topic. I actually like the topic a lot. I think it is extremely relevant to this format. I just don't talk about it because I've said my peace in the past. I also don't think it's a subject we can ever get closure on.
I mean seriously, you're intelligent enough to know that this thread attracts the same conversations, and your playgroup is mature enough that none of this applies to you. But you also know that this topic will never go away, so rather than risk every thread get derailed, we can simply divert it here.
I just wish it didn't exist as well as the whole argument itself.
It's a silly argument. Imagine if this same argument happened with other hobbies.
Video games: "anyone who uses care packages is a try hard ruining the game. I just want to sit in a bush and camp, not get blown up by a helicopter."
Skateboarding: "360 flips are bad for the sport. They're too complicated. Why go through all the trouble when you could just Ollie down those stairs?"
Art: "water colors are against the spirit of art. Why show off using a unforgiving medium, when crayons exist and are way more fun?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The EDH stax primer When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
I like the way Massive Marc puts this. Too many players have misused the term casual and competitive. There are play groups who plays competitive crawwurm.dec and others who play very casual cutthroat.dec.
Personally I feel that competitive and casual are classified as follows:
Competitive
- Treats a win/loss seriously.
- Minds losing a lot, especially to strategies he/she is not prepared for
- Very strict on rulings (like rule-shark forgotten triggers on a mana crypt 3 turns back)
- Often gets irritated/stressed by strategies/plays that are detrimental to him/her
- Doesn't have fun when others are ahead of him/her
Casual
- Takes wins and losses with a stride. It is a game sometimes will win sometimes will lose
- Less strict on rulings (forgot an unkeep roll trigger 3 turns back? nvm go carry on ahead)
- Treats the game and legit strategies fairly, since they are part of the game
- Appreciates the plays of others and have fun even when they are losing
Seems to me just the opposite, actually, at least on the points of taking losses in stride, getting irritated, and accepting other strategies. Some casual players, you can attack them with Wood Elves, and then they do everything they can to see you lose for the rest of the game. Other casuals, they apologize for forcing an Oblivion Stone to activate when you have a couple mana dorks and an equipment out, as if it just ruined your day. Some casuals when they're eliminated by someone who doesn't win after that, they sit trying to prove to everyone that they weren't the right person to attack, as if they've never lost a game before. And if someone's complaining about MLD, combo, aggro, what have you, it's probably in the form of them accusing the other of being "competitive", which ostensibly self-identifies them as a "casual". In fact, this whole topic gets started by people complaining about the stuff other players are playing. And someone who's committed to getting better at the game, aka competing, rarely has things to complain about, and rarely does so when he does.
See, the casual wants to win just as bad, or worse. He just has no commitment to getting better at the game and no willingness to adapt what he's playing. That's what makes him casual. He wants to win without competing for it. I mean, we can each decide to ourselves which of "casual" and "competitive" is positive or negative. And a whole lot of the time people throw around the word "competitive", they're using it as a negative against someone else. But in the end, the root of the word "competitive" is "compete". A willingness and interest to compete makes you a competitive. And you will start playing more competitive things. If you're not willing to compete, you're a casual. And chances are, the casual on average will be playing less effective things, since he's not interested in getting better, and as a result he will continue to complain when he loses.
See, the casual wants to win just as bad, or worse.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but this just isn't true. Casualness is defined, in part, by a lower priority to win. Oftentimes, the motivation of a casual player runs orthogonal to winning. So yeah, they'll often have little or "no commitment to getting better at the game" and perhaps little or "no willingness to adapt", but I don't think that's what makes them casual players.
It seems to me that people on both sides of the argument here tend to more often describe the differences between mature and immature players than those of casual and competitive players.
I just wish it didn't exist as well as the whole argument itself.
It's a silly argument. Imagine if this same argument happened with other hobbies.
Video games: "anyone who uses care packages is a try hard ruining the game. I just want to sit in a bush and camp, not get blown up by a helicopter."
Skateboarding: "360 flips are bad for the sport. They're too complicated. Why go through all the trouble when you could just Ollie down those stairs?"
Art: "water colors are against the spirit of art. Why show off using a unforgiving medium, when crayons exist and are way more fun?"
Sure, but I can't say that I don't get butthurt whenever I play Super Smash Bros Melee. I don't play it anymore, because of the shenanigans people do. It seems that most people who play smash now try to exploit every little glitch and get so intense about the game. I guess the difference with magic is that everything legal in the game was intentional.
I'm just glad Magic isn't like many board games I've played, where there is usually one or 2 best ways to play. Once you figure that out you win almost every game, especially against new players. Or worse when you realize the game is more about luck than you thought it was.
The thing is this thread exists mostly for newer people to magic. They will get easily frustrated by things they don't understand. When I was a new player I would get so angry, because I didn't know how to beat certain cards/strategies. I felt helpless. That feeling of helplessness is just a part of getting better. This thread helps people vent their frustration until they get better, if they care to. So you just have to let people vent. You don't have to read the comments here.
Sure, but I can't say that I don't get butthurt whenever I play Super Smash Bros Melee. I don't play it anymore, because of the shenanigans people do. It seems that most people who play smash now try to exploit every little glitch and get so intense about the game. I guess the difference with magic is that everything legal in the game was intentional.
I agree with the rest of your sentiments but this one seems a bit off. There are certainly unintended interactions in Magic. It's ridiculous to think that the designers of the game playtest for any possible situation that could arise on the kitchen table. They're getting better at streamlining the process and removing these potential glitches, by introducing terms like "until" to reduce the abuse of the previous method. The problem is that this doesn't help eternal formats like EDH, so there will always be some type of learning curve for new players. This isn't bad, and it doesn't make those interactions bad for the game; learning is a natural process and part of any hobby.
I think the notion that casual players don't want to win is a little silly. Most people play the game with the intention of winning. I think the bigger difference you might define is that competitive players will do whatever it takes to win, where as a casual player wants to win with his or her personal flair. When I play red/blue, I want to win because everyone drew their whole deck via Nin's wheeling and dealing, or because everyone took 100 damage from Melek burning up their brains. I still want to win, but it's got to feel right.
Then again, I'm not quite casual, because I'm super okay with mass land destruction as long as it's closing out the game. If the game is going to take another hour and half because you misplayed, I'll probably be at least a little grumpy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
I agree with the rest of your sentiments but this one seems a bit off. There are certainly unintended interactions in Magic. It's ridiculous to think that the designers of the game playtest for any possible situation that could arise on the kitchen table. They're getting better at streamlining the process and removing these potential glitches, by introducing terms like "until" to reduce the abuse of the previous method. The problem is that this doesn't help eternal formats like EDH, so there will always be some type of learning curve for new players. This isn't bad, and it doesn't make those interactions bad for the game; learning is a natural process and part of any hobby.
I think the notion that casual players don't want to win is a little silly. Most people play the game with the intention of winning. I think the bigger difference you might define is that competitive players will do whatever it takes to win, where as a casual player wants to win with his or her personal flair. When I play red/blue, I want to win because everyone drew their whole deck via Nin's wheeling and dealing, or because everyone took 100 damage from Melek burning up their brains. I still want to win, but it's got to feel right.
Then again, I'm not quite casual, because I'm super okay with mass land destruction as long as it's closing out the game. If the game is going to take another hour and half because you misplayed, I'll probably be at least a little grumpy.
Sure. I know that casual people want to win too. I also know that they don't care about the game as much as more competitive people. They don't want to take the time to learn every interaction and every counter to everything. Or maybe they just don't want to invest a lot of money. Whatever it is, the game just isn't as important. Experienced players in any game should be better than noobs, because they took the time to get better. It's just that in some games becoming experienced takes a lot more time and effort than others, and a lot more time and effort then a lot of people care for. I don't care to be good at starcraft. I don't feel like investing my time into doing that. I can still enjoy being a bad player. What I like about magic is that you get better by just playing it. With skill intensive games like starcraft you could play until the cows come home and still be terrible. You have to play a certain way and get really good at it before you can be a good player.
See, the casual wants to win just as bad, or worse.
Depends on the casual. Some do, some don't really care.
On the flip-side, I've never met or heard of a competitive player who didn't care about winning.
It's a silly argument. Imagine if this same argument happened with other hobbies.
EDH is a subcategory of Magic The Gathering. It's a mode of play, not an independent game.
Making EDH competitive is a subcategory of a subcategory - and now things are getting really vague. EDH was never meant to be competitive, and the banlist for EDH isn't meant to cater to anything competitive.
It's regretful that its advertised as a helpful tool for tournaments (competitive) on their website, and yet its actually not at all concerned with the needs of the competitive community. The RC claims - and probably truthfully - that they don't care about comp play, and the banlist isn't made with that in mind. So the real question is: why have a banlist at all, when the recommended solution for all problems is "talk to your playgroup and find a solution that works for you."
Okay RC, don't bias every playgroup against cards you don't like. Remove the banlist and replace it with a detailed explanation of the type/nature of cards that may be harmful to the format, and let local communities decide what they want to ban without you singling out specific cards. Don't say one thing, do another. Man up and do it right.
Depends on the casual. Some do, some don't really care.
On the flip-side, I've never met or heard of a competitive player who didn't care about winning.
EDH is a subcategory of Magic The Gathering. It's a mode of play, not an independent game.
Making EDH competitive is a subcategory of a subcategory - and now things are getting really vague. EDH was never meant to be competitive, and the banlist for EDH isn't meant to cater to anything competitive.
It's regretful that its advertised as a helpful tool for tournaments (competitive) on their website, and yet its actually not at all concerned with the needs of the competitive community. The RC claims - and probably truthfully - that they don't care about comp play, and the banlist isn't made with that in mind. So the real question is: why have a banlist at all, when the recommended solution for all problems is "talk to your playgroup and find a solution that works for you."
Okay RC, don't bias every playgroup against cards you don't like. Remove the banlist and replace it with a detailed explanation of the type/nature of cards that may be harmful to the format, and let local communities decide what they want to ban without you singling out specific cards. Don't say one thing, do another. Man up and do it right.
Well you can revise your first statement. I'm a competitive player who doesn't care about winning. That's not to say that I don't enjoy winning, but I'm not upset if it doesn't happen.
As Justice said the root word of competitive is compete. What matters to me is the competition and having a good game that challenges me and requires me to think and use all the skills I have available to me. Winning is definitely satisfying and I enjoy it, but to say that all competitive players care about is winning, is false.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 1 Judge-
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane for the awesome Sig.
Well you can revise your first statement. I'm a competitive player who doesn't care about winning. That's not to say that I don't enjoy winning, but I'm not upset if it doesn't happen.
As Justice said the root word of competitive is compete. What matters to me is the competition and having a good game that challenges me and requires me to think and use all the skills I have available to me. Winning is definitely satisfying and I enjoy it, but to say that all competitive players care about is winning, is false.
I didn'y say or implied that "all" competitive players care about is winning. I said I haven't met one who doesn't care about winning (because they don't exist). You are the first person who claims to be a competitive player who doesn't care about winning. Frankly, I doubt the truth of either claim, because you're replying with an attitude that raises my inner bull**** alarm. This is ignoring that you can't be playing competitively and not care about winning, simply due to the nature of competitive play.
The root word of competitive isn't the point of the description. Casuals and competitives compete. The point is that competitive decks and the players who label themselves as competitive play in a manner which promotes winning, when they're "playing competitively." It's both a deck and a mindset.
This is it. I am a "casual" player. I want to play weird stuff that the "competitive" player scoffs at. An example:
I have no playgroup. I pick up games at the LGS. I grew so tired of the "competitive" players building their decks to maximum efficiency. I like crazy plays. I don't like some douche making the entire table discard their hands on turn seven. I don't like people taking four turns in a row. I don't like people taking the interactivity out of the game. So I starting making decks that prevent people from tutoring, make them target at random and wipe the board clear of lands while I sit on top of fifteen mana rocks. And you know what? They HATE it. Eye of the Storm? Arrrrg!!! Thieves Auction? Grrrrrrrr!!! And you know why they hate it? It's because they want to control every aspect of the game. And they want you to control nothing. And that's BS. Sure, we all want our decks to work as we built them. We all want to prevent someone from running the game. But the "competitive" player takes it too far and doesn't care about anyone else's enjoyment. They play like they are playing against a computer. A casual player wants to make moves, but doesn't do so at the cost of others enjoyment. Sure, I run some instant game-winning combos in my Thrax deck, but just because a draw into them by turn six, it doesn't mean I just pop it off and win at the expense of everyone else's enjoyment. I hold it and pop it when the game has gone on too long or someone else (usually a "competitive" player) is controlling the game too much.
So it really is how you play the game, not what he build of your deck is.
I like the way Massive Marc puts this. Too many players have misused the term casual and competitive. There are play groups who plays competitive crawwurm.dec and others who play very casual cutthroat.dec.
Personally I feel that competitive and casual are classified as follows:
Competitive
- Treats a win/loss seriously.
- Minds losing a lot, especially to strategies he/she is not prepared for
- Very strict on rulings (like rule-shark forgotten triggers on a mana crypt 3 turns back)
- Often gets irritated/stressed by strategies/plays that are detrimental to him/her
- Doesn't have fun when others are ahead of him/her
Casual
- Takes wins and losses with a stride. It is a game sometimes will win sometimes will lose
- Less strict on rulings (forgot an unkeep roll trigger 3 turns back? nvm go carry on ahead)
- Treats the game and legit strategies fairly, since they are part of the game
- Appreciates the plays of others and have fun even when they are losing
Decks on the other hand, can only be gauged by how 'optimally tuned' they are. From the most vanilla crawwurm.dec to the most cut-throat hermitdruid.dec. Interactivity amongst decks is another subject altogether and shouldn't be lumped in, it is just part of deck building.
Putting the 2 together we can have different kinds of playgroups, like a playgroup with commander precons where the players take winning seriously (like winning over table drinks) or playgroup with extremely tuned decks playing casually (like laughing over how some Derevi player created a million angel tokens gaining a million life, only to be killed by a Marath player who cast Boros Charm+Phyrexian Rebirth with Parallel Lives and Orge Battledriver on board) or somethere in between.
WUBRG Reaper King - Elf Tribal WUBRG | Tribal Fun
WRG Gishath, Sun's Avatar - Dinosaur Tribal WRG | Rawr!!!
WUG Derevi, Empyrial Tactician - Enchantress Tactics WUG | Enchantments Focused
GBG The Gitrog Monster - Land Shenanigans GBG | Lands/Mill Focused
WBW Kambal, Consul of Life Allocation Matters WBW | Life Gain/Loss focused
UBR Kess, Dissident Mage of the Lotus UBR | Spellslinger
BGB Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons - Counters & Tokens BGB | -1/-1 counters focused
This isn't biased at all. From just reading your list I can't imagine you've ever played with any mature "competitive" players and are defining "casual" by people you like.
If you can't be balanced when trying to have a discussion you shouldn't say anything at all. There's enough "Here's my opinion based on nothing but what I'm thinking at this moment" in this thread/on this site.
I am interested to know how you can come to that conclusion that my opinions are based off nothing. I do play against all sorts of players and decks. Some playgroups right out hate my decks with a vengeance, others are totally fine with them. I have also played in cut-throat playgroups where combos at turn 3 and 4 are the norm.
This comes to a point on how I notice the players around me react in these playgroups. Very often the players who complain the most are those who are in the so-called "casual" playgroup, who always happens to have a very long extensive list of cards that are "anti-social". Whereas playgroups whom "these so-called casuals" coined as "competitive" are totally fine on how everyone else plays, no restrictions or anything.
In a game with no restrictions besides the official ban list, where everyone has free reign isn't it casual?
Or do you find that a game with imposed restrictions of cards that you would like to play but can't due to "being unfun to others but fun to you" a casual game?
WUBRG Reaper King - Elf Tribal WUBRG | Tribal Fun
WRG Gishath, Sun's Avatar - Dinosaur Tribal WRG | Rawr!!!
WUG Derevi, Empyrial Tactician - Enchantress Tactics WUG | Enchantments Focused
GBG The Gitrog Monster - Land Shenanigans GBG | Lands/Mill Focused
WBW Kambal, Consul of Life Allocation Matters WBW | Life Gain/Loss focused
UBR Kess, Dissident Mage of the Lotus UBR | Spellslinger
BGB Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons - Counters & Tokens BGB | -1/-1 counters focused
Not on the internet they're not, where "I'm right and you're wrong" is par for the course.
I've wasted far too much time explaining it's a player based format with no results. So, when on the internet, I'll just either not participate or give the most basic surface answer possible.
The EDH stax primer
When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
Are you serious? How many competitive decks have you faced? How many casual decks have you faced?
Casual decks just durdle and pack no removal or interactive spells like counter-magic in mono-blue or spot removal in mono-black.
Craw Wurm stompy is 40 lands, 20 ramp spells, 40 creatures. How is that interactive at all? Going to the red zone does not mean interaction.
At least Hermitdruid.dec runs spot removal, counter-magic, and tutors for tough situations. They have back up plans for when Plan #A isn't guaranteed.
How many outs does Craw Wurm stompy have against turn 3 Propaganda and turn 4 Armageddon?
I believe you are misunderstanding the definition of interaction.
EDH
BWG Doran Suicide Tempo BWG
BUW Sharuum Midrange Control BUW
I've been playing MTG since Mirage. I played it semi-competitively since Invasion, and became full-on competitive in Mirrodin. I am relatively new to EDH, but I have played both against competitive brews tuned to combo ASAP and more casual decks with a focus on maximising interaction.
This illustrates my point. Removal and countermagic are less interactive than combat (almost all decks can interact through combat, while few of them can interact with countermagic and removal on the stack).
The whole point of Armageddon/Propaganda is to attack in ways that can be interacted with as few "outs" as possible, limiting interaction.
That way, people who do want to take the format somewhat seriously are saved the effort/time of trying to explain to other not so serious players why they're playing by the rules of the game, and the not so serious players have a format they can enjoy and take pride in where they don't have to worry about some non-durdle player coming in and smashing all their fun.
Hail to Durdle!
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics
[Primer]WIsamaru, the Howling BladeW[Primer]
[Primer]BGSkullbriar: From Life, Death Eternal (1v1)GB[Primer]
BGRbighaben and Feverous' Prossh, Skyraider of KherRGB
BGRProssh-Gro (1V1)RGB
Well it is utter nonsense, that's been known since page 1 of this thread. Who keeps reviving this thread anyways? Just let it die if we know this won't resolve anything.
I don't play combo; I play tempo, I am actually the few people at any given table is prepared for combo/stax players. People need to make their decks more resilient against combo in the main deck anyways.
Any black deck can run Braids or Mind Twist. An early Braids will take the combo player out of the game. An Mind Twist for 7 when the combo player is tapped out will ruin their whole turns setting up their combo.
I only solitaire against combo players because they are too easy to beat. Early targeted land destruction, and threats with disruption will shift their focus entirely.
Yall need to learn to adapt and suck it up to just meta game against the meta game.
Jester's Cap is a good inclusion in any combo heavy meta.
Most combos can be shut down by 2 abilities graveyard hate and shroud/hexproof.
- Leyline of the Void/Rest in Peace/Graveyard hate shuts down most B/x combos, Saffi
- Leyline of Sanctity/Witchbane Orb/Ivory Mask shuts down Sharuum combo once again, Blasting Station combo with Saffi
Pretty simple solutions to such big issues.
EDH
BWG Doran Suicide Tempo BWG
BUW Sharuum Midrange Control BUW
Modern: Jund Legacy: RUG Delver EDH: Captain Sisay
Something that I second everyone to practice, it is good to run some answers against some common strategies like graveyard hate and such. Well quite a number of players still prefer to take easy way out by 'soft-banning' what they don't like and their decks don't have an answer to. And make it worse by masking the ban under the reason "against the social spirit of EDH".
WUBRG Reaper King - Elf Tribal WUBRG | Tribal Fun
WRG Gishath, Sun's Avatar - Dinosaur Tribal WRG | Rawr!!!
WUG Derevi, Empyrial Tactician - Enchantress Tactics WUG | Enchantments Focused
GBG The Gitrog Monster - Land Shenanigans GBG | Lands/Mill Focused
WBW Kambal, Consul of Life Allocation Matters WBW | Life Gain/Loss focused
UBR Kess, Dissident Mage of the Lotus UBR | Spellslinger
BGB Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons - Counters & Tokens BGB | -1/-1 counters focused
There is absolutely nothing said here that's going to change ****.
Example:
This has never happened and never will.
-"MLD makes X better, does Y, blah."
-"wow, you're right!"
Or
-"sol ing should be banned because ______."
_"you've convinced me. Sol ring is bad."
Never going to happen. ever.
The EDH stax primer
When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
Then stop reading it.
I mean seriously, you're intelligent enough to know that this thread attracts the same conversations, and your playgroup is mature enough that none of this applies to you. But you also know that this topic will never go away, so rather than risk every thread get derailed, we can simply divert it here.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
So basically what your saying is this thread is a trashcan? I would actually like to reach some conclusions or perhaps convince someone reading this that responsibility with removal is key to having a balanced metagame. People just use labels like Casual and Competitive to mask their lazyness at dealing with the situation.
I'd say more like a filing cabinet. But what I can say is that in the time ive been here on Sally, this theme is one of the most recurring ones, one of the most easily labeled and accused, and the most opinionated topic. There are always going to be people and threads which either discuss this topic or go off in tangents about it. The mods made a conscious decision to contain it all in one thread rather than have many threads. It's just that simple.
Don't make the mistake in thinking I'm talking bad about the topic. I actually like the topic a lot. I think it is extremely relevant to this format. I just don't talk about it because I've said my peace in the past. I also don't think it's a subject we can ever get closure on.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I just wish it didn't exist as well as the whole argument itself.
It's a silly argument. Imagine if this same argument happened with other hobbies.
Video games: "anyone who uses care packages is a try hard ruining the game. I just want to sit in a bush and camp, not get blown up by a helicopter."
Skateboarding: "360 flips are bad for the sport. They're too complicated. Why go through all the trouble when you could just Ollie down those stairs?"
Art: "water colors are against the spirit of art. Why show off using a unforgiving medium, when crayons exist and are way more fun?"
The EDH stax primer
When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
Seems to me just the opposite, actually, at least on the points of taking losses in stride, getting irritated, and accepting other strategies. Some casual players, you can attack them with Wood Elves, and then they do everything they can to see you lose for the rest of the game. Other casuals, they apologize for forcing an Oblivion Stone to activate when you have a couple mana dorks and an equipment out, as if it just ruined your day. Some casuals when they're eliminated by someone who doesn't win after that, they sit trying to prove to everyone that they weren't the right person to attack, as if they've never lost a game before. And if someone's complaining about MLD, combo, aggro, what have you, it's probably in the form of them accusing the other of being "competitive", which ostensibly self-identifies them as a "casual". In fact, this whole topic gets started by people complaining about the stuff other players are playing. And someone who's committed to getting better at the game, aka competing, rarely has things to complain about, and rarely does so when he does.
See, the casual wants to win just as bad, or worse. He just has no commitment to getting better at the game and no willingness to adapt what he's playing. That's what makes him casual. He wants to win without competing for it. I mean, we can each decide to ourselves which of "casual" and "competitive" is positive or negative. And a whole lot of the time people throw around the word "competitive", they're using it as a negative against someone else. But in the end, the root of the word "competitive" is "compete". A willingness and interest to compete makes you a competitive. And you will start playing more competitive things. If you're not willing to compete, you're a casual. And chances are, the casual on average will be playing less effective things, since he's not interested in getting better, and as a result he will continue to complain when he loses.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but this just isn't true. Casualness is defined, in part, by a lower priority to win. Oftentimes, the motivation of a casual player runs orthogonal to winning. So yeah, they'll often have little or "no commitment to getting better at the game" and perhaps little or "no willingness to adapt", but I don't think that's what makes them casual players.
It seems to me that people on both sides of the argument here tend to more often describe the differences between mature and immature players than those of casual and competitive players.
Sure, but I can't say that I don't get butthurt whenever I play Super Smash Bros Melee. I don't play it anymore, because of the shenanigans people do. It seems that most people who play smash now try to exploit every little glitch and get so intense about the game. I guess the difference with magic is that everything legal in the game was intentional.
I'm just glad Magic isn't like many board games I've played, where there is usually one or 2 best ways to play. Once you figure that out you win almost every game, especially against new players. Or worse when you realize the game is more about luck than you thought it was.
The thing is this thread exists mostly for newer people to magic. They will get easily frustrated by things they don't understand. When I was a new player I would get so angry, because I didn't know how to beat certain cards/strategies. I felt helpless. That feeling of helplessness is just a part of getting better. This thread helps people vent their frustration until they get better, if they care to. So you just have to let people vent. You don't have to read the comments here.
My Saffi deck
I agree with the rest of your sentiments but this one seems a bit off. There are certainly unintended interactions in Magic. It's ridiculous to think that the designers of the game playtest for any possible situation that could arise on the kitchen table. They're getting better at streamlining the process and removing these potential glitches, by introducing terms like "until" to reduce the abuse of the previous method. The problem is that this doesn't help eternal formats like EDH, so there will always be some type of learning curve for new players. This isn't bad, and it doesn't make those interactions bad for the game; learning is a natural process and part of any hobby.
I think the notion that casual players don't want to win is a little silly. Most people play the game with the intention of winning. I think the bigger difference you might define is that competitive players will do whatever it takes to win, where as a casual player wants to win with his or her personal flair. When I play red/blue, I want to win because everyone drew their whole deck via Nin's wheeling and dealing, or because everyone took 100 damage from Melek burning up their brains. I still want to win, but it's got to feel right.
Then again, I'm not quite casual, because I'm super okay with mass land destruction as long as it's closing out the game. If the game is going to take another hour and half because you misplayed, I'll probably be at least a little grumpy.
Sure. I know that casual people want to win too. I also know that they don't care about the game as much as more competitive people. They don't want to take the time to learn every interaction and every counter to everything. Or maybe they just don't want to invest a lot of money. Whatever it is, the game just isn't as important. Experienced players in any game should be better than noobs, because they took the time to get better. It's just that in some games becoming experienced takes a lot more time and effort than others, and a lot more time and effort then a lot of people care for. I don't care to be good at starcraft. I don't feel like investing my time into doing that. I can still enjoy being a bad player. What I like about magic is that you get better by just playing it. With skill intensive games like starcraft you could play until the cows come home and still be terrible. You have to play a certain way and get really good at it before you can be a good player.
My Saffi deck
Depends on the casual. Some do, some don't really care.
On the flip-side, I've never met or heard of a competitive player who didn't care about winning.
EDH is a subcategory of Magic The Gathering. It's a mode of play, not an independent game.
Making EDH competitive is a subcategory of a subcategory - and now things are getting really vague. EDH was never meant to be competitive, and the banlist for EDH isn't meant to cater to anything competitive.
It's regretful that its advertised as a helpful tool for tournaments (competitive) on their website, and yet its actually not at all concerned with the needs of the competitive community. The RC claims - and probably truthfully - that they don't care about comp play, and the banlist isn't made with that in mind. So the real question is: why have a banlist at all, when the recommended solution for all problems is "talk to your playgroup and find a solution that works for you."
Okay RC, don't bias every playgroup against cards you don't like. Remove the banlist and replace it with a detailed explanation of the type/nature of cards that may be harmful to the format, and let local communities decide what they want to ban without you singling out specific cards. Don't say one thing, do another. Man up and do it right.
Well you can revise your first statement. I'm a competitive player who doesn't care about winning. That's not to say that I don't enjoy winning, but I'm not upset if it doesn't happen.
As Justice said the root word of competitive is compete. What matters to me is the competition and having a good game that challenges me and requires me to think and use all the skills I have available to me. Winning is definitely satisfying and I enjoy it, but to say that all competitive players care about is winning, is false.
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane for the awesome Sig.
Currently Playing- EDH
GGGOmnath, Locus of the LifestreamGGG
BBBShirei, Lord of PoniesBBB
UWRasputin Dreamweaver, Russia's Greatest Love MachineUW
UBWZur, Killer of FunUBW
UGWTreva, Princess of CanterlotUGW
RWTajic, Master of the Reverse BladeRW
RRRZirilan, How to Train Your DragonRRR
PDH Decks
Gelectrode
Ascended Lawmage
Blaze Commando
I didn'y say or implied that "all" competitive players care about is winning. I said I haven't met one who doesn't care about winning (because they don't exist). You are the first person who claims to be a competitive player who doesn't care about winning. Frankly, I doubt the truth of either claim, because you're replying with an attitude that raises my inner bull**** alarm. This is ignoring that you can't be playing competitively and not care about winning, simply due to the nature of competitive play.
The root word of competitive isn't the point of the description. Casuals and competitives compete. The point is that competitive decks and the players who label themselves as competitive play in a manner which promotes winning, when they're "playing competitively." It's both a deck and a mindset.