The line is wherever your playgroup draws it. And indeed, people are the problem.
@Cryogen: Absolutely. Online EDH is an abomination in all of its forms. I've never heard of anyone having fun with it, and every 4-man video I've seen is painful just to watch.
I rarely have problems on MTGO, but I also consider myself to be a fairly tolerant person, and I understand the environment and try to limit the types of decks that I play on there.
That's true, but the type of jerk that is very rampant amongst the casual players are whiny, passive-aggressive *****. You can defend one group all you want, but saying something like that is a lot like claiming that both religious and scientific people have irrational thinkers; one inherently spawns them while the other just happens to have them.
/wentthere
I have my biases in the secular/non-secular debate as well, but the comparison you're drawing is a non-starter.
"Casual" playgroups do not spawn jerks, they spawn soft players, who can sometimes fall into the all-too-human mindset that anything they can't beat is unfair. They can just as easily spawn a laid-back mother****er who can have fun playing with or against anything.
"Competitive" playgroups do not spawn jerks, they spawn players with a solid grasp of the game's rules and optimal strategies, who can sometimes fall into the common competitive mindset of winning at any cost. They can just as easily spawn a judge, willing to give up his/her time and energy for the betterment of the community.
I have my biases in the secular/non-secular debate as well, but the comparison you're drawing is a non-starter.
"Casual" playgroups do not spawn jerks, they spawn soft players, who can sometimes fall into the all-too-human mindset that anything they can't beat is unfair. They can just as easily spawn a laid-back mother****er who can have fun playing with or against anything.
"Competitive" playgroups do not spawn jerks, they spawn players with a solid grasp of the game's rules and optimal strategies, who can sometimes fall into the common competitive mindset of winning at any cost. They can just as easily spawn a judge, willing to give up his/her time and energy for the betterment of the community.
I have to say that Commander/EDH should be kept casual. It is a game that was designed for fun, not to play competitively. I do not see a purpose in playing anything but casual for the format, because Wizards will never sanction the format, as they have declared recently at Gen-Con.
Playing it competitively takes the fun out of the game.
Competitive EDH is fun... Why does everyone assume that competitive deck players sit at a table with the sole purpose to absorb all fun from the game, have no fun, and vicitimize their opponents. No, that's a load of poop. I speak for myself when I say my deck evolved over time, and like any work of art it evolved. Over time, I learned what works and what does not.
I understand some cards are cheaper than others, some cost quiteca bit and not everyone can afford good cards. It is my understanding that people that love magic the most tend to invest more into it than do others. But it's always those that do invest more into it that fall victim to "not being fun".
Why are fans of the game victimized for having better cards?
It was 'designed for fun, not to play competitively.' ????
Why the heck would something that was played competitively not be fun? The thrill of competition does nothing to reduce the fun of a game.
Obviously, all those competitive players go to grand prixs to not have fun with friends/playing the game and then go home and cut themselves because they hate fun.
I understand some cards are cheaper than others, some cost quiteca bit and not everyone can afford good cards. It is my understanding that people that love magic the most tend to invest more into it than do others. But it's always those that do invest more into it that fall victim to "not being fun".
Why are fans of the game victimized for having better cards?
I do not think this is true at all. Some people are not fun to play with, they want to win at the cost of other's fun, and that has nothing to do with expensive cards.
There are plenty of budget decks and cards that get the job done. Lots of people enjoy a cut-throat environment, lots don't.
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.
I guess we all have to agree that fun is subjective. Each and everyone of us has a different notion of what "having a great time at magic" is. Some like the fast and constant adrenaline rush, where a wrong move will mean the cost of a game. Others prefer a slower paced session where cards that are rarely seen get played. Strategy preferences differ too, some hates Land destruction to the core, others dislike pillowforts or prison.
Like what a lot of people posted here and in other similar threads, EDH is a social game. It is best played with people who embrace the same ideals as you. This is the best way to have fun in the game, where everyone in your group has the same wavelength on the "level of competitiveness" the group should adopt. There will be no conflicts and everyone is happy.
Commander should always be fun, first and foremost. If you are involved in a game, the objective should always be fun before anything else. Secondly, I feel it is important to play games with the intention of not only having a good time but winning. After all, who plays a game to intentionally lose? From my perspective, participating in any game and not giving it your best is bad sportsmanship. In any game, there will be people with better talent, better gear, and better strategy; these facts remain constant within the realm of any game. This brings me to the world of Commander. I keep coming across the debate between “competitive” and “casual” EDH players battling it out over the playability of the format.
Casual Stance:
A common trend among ‘casual’ players I have read is that they believe the game should remain fun, and that competitive EDH players should stick to modern or legacy for quick and repetitive win conditions. Casual players tend to like their games long, drawn out, and to include as many interactions as physically possible. Casual Players often talk about avoiding playing people with more competitive decks, not because they are better but because they drain the fun out of the game for them. Additionally, there will be times when a competitive deck will achieve victory and the remaining players will, instead of owning up to defeat and playing a new game, continue their game for second place leaving the player that won to sit and reflect on his actions as a form of punishment. Many casual players tend to make the statement that they don’t care who wins the game, as the journey is more important than the destination. Casual Players often care much less about what their opponents may throw at them and more about dropping big flashy cards they otherwise would never get a chance to experiment.
Competitive:
First lets define “competitive”—in my personal definition: a competitive deck is a fine tuned to produce similar results that help maintain or strive to achieve a board-state capable of achieving you victory. This may include win-conditions outside of commander and regular damage.
The stance that ‘competitive’ players usually take is that the objective of the game is to win. Players that are more competitively aligned will continuously tamper with their deck’s chemistry until the craft a consistency that produces results. Often times a more fluent deck list will consist of combinations of cards that a less developed “causal” deck struggles to fend off.
The Debate:
First of all, EDH is just as good as any other format to master. Just because it isn’t sanctioned as competitive by large tournaments- that doesn’t mean it can’t be challenging. The concept of 100 different cards is appealing even to those that are more competitive in nature. Often times, EDH can be cheaper than modern or legacy because you only need to afford one instead of 4 of the same card in order to use it, so the “competitive players should stick to modern and legacy” argument is out the window. Commander is not strictly for casual players.
The Financial Argument:
Often times Casual Players will argue that they will can’t compete against more expensive cards, and that is why they don’t like playing with more competitive decks. It truthfully isn’t fair for a competitive player to have to listen to casual player complain about the value of their cards if the more casual player uses their disposable income in other hobbies. How could it possibly be fair to an individual, someone that enjoys the game enough to invest most of their resources into, to have to adhere to people that are only partially invested in magic while more fully invested in other hobbies. Why should anyone that dedicates the bulk of their resources to Magic have to intentionally downplay both their cards and their talent to match others who are less dedicated?
They Shouldn’t Which Leads me to the next argument.
Complaining vs. Improvement
I think most would agree that a commander deck should be an ongoing work of art, sculpted over rigorous battles throughout time against many allies and foes. Many casual players tend argue that competing against a competitive deck always ends the same, when in reality; if casual players were to adapt their decks to being more well-rounded then odds are they wouldn’t be steam rolled each game in a similar fashion. From my perspective, most casual players see the game of magic far too unilaterally. They tend to miss many of the more intrinsically interesting aspects of the game. There is far more to the game of magic than this revolutionary war type line up and blast away at each other type hack and slash almost pokemon-esque game experience.
My solution is that instead of making excuses about others playing more competitively-- they should embrace the challenge, and better both themselves and their decks to better be able to handle the challenges that come their way. It isn’t fair that people that seek improvement be subject to being avoided, or insulted because they want to better their magic game. If one invests more time into learning how to better suit their deck to handle the issues another deck may present, games would be far more interesting for everyone. I can’t emphasize enough how annoying it is to listen to other magic players complain about someone else’s good strategy as opposed to arming themselves to deal with said issue. The world doesn’t bend and change for every individual that complains about something they find unfair, and it shouldn’t for the more casual player either,
Albeit, I will agree that, although largely preventable, two card combos can be incredibly bogus at times. I once played a tournament where someone was able to lock the board down on turn twin with splinter twin and deceiver exarch… That, indeed, was lame. If you’re going to combo out, you should at least dedicate at the very least a small percentage of the game toward collected the pieces to your puzzle. Nobody should be able to win with their opening hand… Players should have at least a chance to prepare for what may be coming. However, fair is fair. Lame as a game winning combo may be, it is the game that we play. Magic is more complicated than hacking and slashing 21 or 40 life away.
@ Regiment47: You seem to work under the premise that casual EDH players don't like competitive EDH ONLY because they can't win at it. There are tons of motivations for playing Magic. I enjoy a good high-power EDH but there are only so many archetypes and viable cards you'll encounter in highly tuned decks. There are many more suboptimal decks out there than there are competitive decks, so when the whole table is playing suboptimal decks at a similar power level, the game is still challenging but there's a way wider range of possible matchups and cards you can face.
Casual can just mean playing a theme or general outside the top 10% of decks. It doesn't need to mean playing like you don't care.
Also: I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to invest "the bulk of their resources" in Magic. This is a hobby. Any level of commitment is OK. People with vastly differing levels of commitment may not enjoy playing against each other but that doesn't mean either is wrong for playing Magic the way they do.
Where do you draw the line? What is, and is not acceptable? It's difficult for me to intentionally avoid adding effective strategies so... In your best opinion, what would you suggest that I do?
I cant imagine playing EDH ultra competitive.. that would be more like who-can-pull-infinite-combo-faster games.
Even in my group we don't like when someone wins with some lame combo as Triskelion and Mikaeus, the Unhallowed
I think EDH is good causal format, where people can have really fun, if they don't take it super serious.
Where do you draw the line? What is, and is not acceptable? It's difficult for me to intentionally avoid adding effective strategies so... In your best opinion, what would you suggest that I do?
There is no line to draw. It totally depends on the playgroup you play in. If you notice most players don't like a certain strategy you play (going infinite every game for example), you could talk about it with them, and change your deck accordingly. Not every playgroup likes decks that always tutor for the same two card combo. So maybe don't play those if your playgroup starts to find it a boring way to play the game. Find other cards that have the same effect together, but do not go infinite together for example.
I play a Ghave combo EDH, full of combo's. A simple one is Ghave + Woodfall Primus. You can destroy a lot with it, but it won't go infinite. That is why I don't play Mikaeus, the unhallowed in that deck, because it would make a lot of those combo's go infinite. I don't like infinite combo's myself, but even if I did, I wouldn't play them because the playgroup doesn't like them
Though sometimes I have an infinite combo in a deck by mistake, or just because the cards need to be in the deck. I just don't tutor for it. This is just an example of course. Have a talk with the group about what tactics really destroy their fun in playing EDH. Most of the time it's MLD (or land denial in general) and infinite combo's that people don't like.
There is no line to draw. It totally depends on the playgroup you play in. If you notice most players don't like a certain strategy you play (going infinite every game for example), you could talk about it with them, and change your deck accordingly. Not every playgroup likes decks that always tutor for the same two card combo. So maybe don't play those if your playgroup starts to find it a boring way to play the game. Find other cards that have the same effect together, but do not go infinite together for example.
I play a Ghave combo EDH, full of combo's. A simple one is Ghave + Woodfall Primus. You can destroy a lot with it, but it won't go infinite. That is why I don't play Mikaeus, the unhallowed in that deck, because it would make a lot of those combo's go infinite. I don't like infinite combo's myself, but even if I did, I wouldn't play them because the playgroup doesn't like them
Though sometimes I have an infinite combo in a deck by mistake, or just because the cards need to be in the deck. I just don't tutor for it. This is just an example of course. Have a talk with the group about what tactics really destroy their fun in playing EDH. Most of the time it's MLD (or land denial in general) and infinite combo's that people don't like.
In my current Sunday EDH League I remove the Jin-Gitaxias from my deck. They are cool with the rest but he's a bit brutal. I don't run Sylvan Primordial at all either. Though I might get it to piss of my cousins when we play.
I'm not sure the line of thinking is correct. "I've an infinite combo, but I don't search for it." Then why don't you take it out. You could have change the combo portion into something that you wanted to add but didn't.
People who are newer to the format tend to do combos and tutor. I was like that when I first started. But things will go bland really fast when board states end similarly. As a result, people get bored of EDH really fast and move on to other formats. Or they simply quit magic.
It's all about catching on to the format as fast as possible, identify your playgroup's likes and dislikes, the frequency of playing EDH (once a week, 3times, etc). I find that minimizing tutors, zero extra turns, and ridding of all the Sylvan Primordial shenanigans work best.
Also, 4 in a multiplayer is perfect. Nothing more than that.
On the "why don't you take it out?" comment: It's a three card infinite combo. The individual cards are just fun to play and belong in that deck. I've never drawn into the combo yet and I only play 1 creature tutor in the deck. I still wouldn't tutor for it even if I could though, because I don't like infinite combos period :).
To me, the difference between casual and competitive means that I don't understand the players who want to combo out as early as possible. Reading the "Most Degenerate Play" thread, I want to respond to every post about a turn 2 Sylvan Primordial/turn 1 Smokestack with "Why would you even want to do that?" Playing Tooth and Nail into Mikaeus and Triskelion feels like utter dreck to me, not because it's unfair but because it's so boring. As soon as you pull it off, the game is over--where's the fun in that? That's the same reason I don't run many tutors, even in my one combo deck - I don't want the game to play out the same way every time. That's why, reading everyone's posts in this forum, it's obvious I'm a casual player at heart.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander DecksUB Sygg - Stream of Answers UBGWU Phelddagrif - Hugs and Handshakes GWURW Gisela - Firebender RWB Endrek - Correct! 6,000 Thrulls BBU Wrexial - Wrist Deep In Your Graveyard BUGW Trostani - My Wife's Deck GWBR Lyzolda - Chaos Hug BR
WUBRG Reaper King - The Trouble With Tribals WUBRG
To me, the difference between casual and competitive means that I don't understand the players who want to combo out as early as possible. Reading the "Most Degenerate Play" thread, I want to respond to every post about a turn 2 Sylvan Primordial/turn 1 Smokestack with "Why would you even want to do that?" Playing Tooth and Nail into Mikaeus and Triskelion feels like utter dreck to me, not because it's unfair but because it's so boring. As soon as you pull it off, the game is over--where's the fun in that? That's the same reason I don't run many tutors, even in my one combo deck - I don't want the game to play out the same way every time. That's why, reading everyone's posts in this forum, it's obvious I'm a casual player at heart.
For me only one of my decks is competitive. The turn 2 slyvan primodial isn't something that happens every game or else it would be boring. When I'm playing my competitive deck, or any other for that matter, I like to face adversity. I like it when people are destroying my stuff, countering my spells, and generally making it hard for me to win. It becomes like a puzzle to figure your way out of a tough situation and leads to better deck building. If I have a chance at an early win, I'll do it because if I don't someone else could win. If I can win fairly consistency even with ample adversity, to me it says that I did well in my deck building and my threat assessment during the game. There's a reason why many people who games of all kinds crave competitive play. It gives people a chance to show off their skills and makes them feel good about themselves.
Now I do also enjoy slow casual games too. In those games I enjoy being silly. I enjoy not worried about making the best play or about who will win. I can build up my board or do some shenanigans and have fun. Sometimes I like competitive cutthroat games, and sometimes I like slow games with bad decks. The only thing I don't enjoy as much is when I'm play a slow bad deck against a competitive deck, because it's obvious who will win. I have no chance and have to basically wait to lose. In real life I can usually guess what type of game I can expect.
I've left my previous playgroup for personal reasons and found a new one
One of the players in the new group is cuthroat competitive and willing to spend the money on his decks: his most recent is Derevi with winter orb and static orb and it's just an absolute chore to play against
In fact it's so bad we just all give up as soon as he gets one of the orbs out
I just built Ghave stax, it does something really similar. Although my playgroup actually knows how to play around armageddon/orb effects, (weird, I know!) so they usually team up to try to kill me pretty fast. It's been really fun, it's like stax vs everything else. I win about 50% of the time so far, it's been a blast to play ^.^ MVP of the deck definitely goes to Tainted Aether, that thing is such a horse O.o
I've left my previous playgroup for personal reasons and found a new one
One of the players in the new group is cuthroat competitive and willing to spend the money on his decks: his most recent is Derevi with winter orb and static orb and it's just an absolute chore to play against
In fact it's so bad we just all give up as soon as he gets one of the orbs out
*sigh*
I'v played against people in casual games and EDH with decks like that orb one you describe, there really isn't a point in playing because you really aren't, your more waiting to lose in that case... I relate playing lock-down decks to masturbation. Your really only playing by yourself while disgusting the nearby people who are forced to watch. Also most people have at least some self control to keep that sort of behavior a private thing so as to not disturb children and those of weak constitution... Combo is similar but, it at least can be done quickly so that the disgusting part is over painlessly.
I suppose the best way to not have to deal with lock-down is to simply refuse to play against lock-down, Denial of playing the game is the most effective form of denying players of strategies that make people feel sick. An example: he pulls out Derevi to play against you, if you can win play, if you have no hope don't even start. He'll goad you to play, you refuse. There really is no point in trying to force people to change as they are free, but so are you, and since playing casually there is no list to rise up there is no opponent that must be faced, which you can not just simply deny to play against. If they want to play and you refuse to play then they must either bend or move on. After all money spent on decks that gather dust is such a shame...
I suppose that Denial of playing is a exclusively casual area where one can play the game and also deny play to those that are offensive to them. There is nothing forced in casual, people play on terms that they find acceptable not terms that are predefined by competitive areas. Since the tolerance of play styles is personal there is only personal right an wrong opinion on what is fun and not fun. In a competitive environment personal preference is not allowed to hold weight in the outcome of play. People will play against those who play the best deck to give them the best chance of winning not for the pleasure of the idea.
If changes must be made then it is easiest conclude that a group succeeds in the goal of enjoyment with hegemony in unspoken rules. Since a casual form of enjoyment is not bound by forced play the conformity comes from social pressure. The easiest path for change is to have minorities integrate acceptably into the hegemony. In regards to this game it is easier for the strong to pretend to be weak vs the weak attempting to be strong. Would a pro sports player who has children play with them at the same level of competence as they would in a competitive game? Probably not, and if they did they would more likely frustrate them more than motivate them to improve. Now why would this not be relatable to our game? When does frustrating people in hopes they improve actually work, and without resentment.
Lastly this is a hobby for the vast majority of players. I doubt that more than a tiny portion of players actually earn a decent amount of money from playing. Assuming that hobbies are investments in enjoyment and pleasure for most people. The intensive to continue to enjoy the hobby resides in a continued return of enjoyment and pleasure. There are no wrong ideas about how to enjoy this hobby. One caveat which is that this is not a hobby of hermitism but a hobby that requires at lest two or more players to enjoy. As a result there is likely to be a difference in opinion about how enjoyment is obtained. In the case where there is no forced interaction (casual) with other players then they must either agree upon a common form of enjoyment or to avoid playing each other. This is the source of tension between casual and competitive players, or more realistically casual vs casual. The reason for this is that there are no limits or rules specifically described in casual play, unlike competitive play which has structure and defined goals. Since there are no rules defined by some authority it is upon the social contract where the rules for casual play spring. The rules that come from the social contract are built from common opinions of how best to obtain enjoyment. So we can now see there is no right or wrong way to enjoy the game. But there will be opinions about how to enjoy the game. As long as those who play together share the same perspective they will be likely to enjoy the game and in the end that is what matters.
Yeah it is exactly that. In casual people like to actually be able to play the game. Stax decks are extremely passive. Nothing really happens except 1 player casting passive cards that lock down the game until nobody can do a thing. No interaction...
@ Feverous: If you playing that deck always means it's going to be an archenemy game, don't people get bored with that? From start everyone knows how the game's going to be. Either you ramp and draw quickly into the right stax and win, or you don't and you get kicked out of the game first. Doesn't seem very interactive or hard to accomplish. But of course it's totally subjective and nothing wrong with that. I just wonder how the rest of the group feels when you play that deck. Aren't they bored of either doing nothing or focusing on you until you are dead so they can then play the game 'normally'?
Yeah it is exactly that. In casual people like to actually be able to play the game. Stax decks are extremely passive. Nothing really happens except 1 player casting passive cards that lock down the game until nobody can do a thing. No interaction...
@ Feverous: If you playing that deck always means it's going to be an archenemy game, don't people get bored with that? From start everyone knows how the game's going to be. Either you ramp and draw quickly into the right stax and win, or you don't and you get kicked out of the game first. Doesn't seem very interactive or hard to accomplish. But of course it's totally subjective and nothing wrong with that. I just wonder how the rest of the group feels when you play that deck. Aren't they bored of either doing nothing or focusing on you until you are dead so they can then play the game 'normally'?
No, not at all lol. My stax decks is one of the most interactive decks that I play, and also the most challenging. It's incredible difficult to figure out the right moment to drop an Armageddon or Contamination, so far I've lost just as many times as won off those cards >.< My playgroup just understands how to play around stax, they understand it's a viable strategy, and they do really well with it. It is on the same level as combo for most of them, in that I'm the guy that needs to die in order for their decks to work, hence me being targets. If one of them is playing their zoo or super low cmc voltron deck, however, I usually am helping them more than hurting because I'm limiting the U/G decks a massive amount, allowing the other faster decks to function much better.
There's a general conception about stax and combo that's erroneous, the idea of it allowing players to do nothing. This isn't the case at all, unless the other players are really bad and/or just stupid and refuse to play around it. Effective players understand that when playing against a stax player all you do is slow down your strategy by about 2 turns, and hold an answer to their resource engine, and you've got it made. This means always keeping about 2 lands in hand (To wait on the 'Geddon), keeping a threat or two available, and being ready to Krosan Grip their Doubling Season, or whatever else allows them to pull ahead while still having a Smokestack on the board. It's really the same way you beat a combo deck. Hold some mana open for a killspell/counterspell at all times is all you have to do. While this slows your gamestate development by a few turns, it also it ensures you don't just auto-lose to a random combo T4-5.
You know what's a non-interactive game? Bant flicker. "Lawl, Prophet of Kruphix, @ your upkeep, Dead-Eye Navigator paired with a Mystic Snake, rofl, gg?" That's an un-interactive game. Or Omnath ramp. "Snicker. T4 Concordant Crossroads, T5 Tooth and Nail into Avenger of Zendikar/Craterhoof Behemoth. you lose!" I mean, who wants to play against such a boring strategy? Stax/combo really teach how to play a totally different way, the value of your cards as resources, not just wincons, How to combat a totally new archetype effectively... It's really interactive. Unless you're like the people above and just quit on the spot when it appears. Talk about non-interactive! lawl.
I rarely have problems on MTGO, but I also consider myself to be a fairly tolerant person, and I understand the environment and try to limit the types of decks that I play on there.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
[Primer] Kozilek, Butcher with Juice.
I have my biases in the secular/non-secular debate as well, but the comparison you're drawing is a non-starter.
"Casual" playgroups do not spawn jerks, they spawn soft players, who can sometimes fall into the all-too-human mindset that anything they can't beat is unfair. They can just as easily spawn a laid-back mother****er who can have fun playing with or against anything.
"Competitive" playgroups do not spawn jerks, they spawn players with a solid grasp of the game's rules and optimal strategies, who can sometimes fall into the common competitive mindset of winning at any cost. They can just as easily spawn a judge, willing to give up his/her time and energy for the betterment of the community.
---
BRG Prossh, Skyraider of Kher
WUB Sharuum, the Hegemon
UGEdric, Spymaster of Trest
Eh, I'll accept that.
Huh, really? Well, uh, that's refreshing.
---
BRG Prossh, Skyraider of Kher
WUB Sharuum, the Hegemon
UGEdric, Spymaster of Trest
Competitive EDH is fun... Why does everyone assume that competitive deck players sit at a table with the sole purpose to absorb all fun from the game, have no fun, and vicitimize their opponents. No, that's a load of poop. I speak for myself when I say my deck evolved over time, and like any work of art it evolved. Over time, I learned what works and what does not.
I understand some cards are cheaper than others, some cost quiteca bit and not everyone can afford good cards. It is my understanding that people that love magic the most tend to invest more into it than do others. But it's always those that do invest more into it that fall victim to "not being fun".
Why are fans of the game victimized for having better cards?
Why the heck would something that was played competitively not be fun? The thrill of competition does nothing to reduce the fun of a game.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
[Primer] Kozilek, Butcher with Juice.
There are plenty of budget decks and cards that get the job done. Lots of people enjoy a cut-throat environment, lots don't.
Like what a lot of people posted here and in other similar threads, EDH is a social game. It is best played with people who embrace the same ideals as you. This is the best way to have fun in the game, where everyone in your group has the same wavelength on the "level of competitiveness" the group should adopt. There will be no conflicts and everyone is happy.
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
Casual Stance:
A common trend among ‘casual’ players I have read is that they believe the game should remain fun, and that competitive EDH players should stick to modern or legacy for quick and repetitive win conditions. Casual players tend to like their games long, drawn out, and to include as many interactions as physically possible. Casual Players often talk about avoiding playing people with more competitive decks, not because they are better but because they drain the fun out of the game for them. Additionally, there will be times when a competitive deck will achieve victory and the remaining players will, instead of owning up to defeat and playing a new game, continue their game for second place leaving the player that won to sit and reflect on his actions as a form of punishment. Many casual players tend to make the statement that they don’t care who wins the game, as the journey is more important than the destination. Casual Players often care much less about what their opponents may throw at them and more about dropping big flashy cards they otherwise would never get a chance to experiment.
Competitive:
First lets define “competitive”—in my personal definition: a competitive deck is a fine tuned to produce similar results that help maintain or strive to achieve a board-state capable of achieving you victory. This may include win-conditions outside of commander and regular damage.
The stance that ‘competitive’ players usually take is that the objective of the game is to win. Players that are more competitively aligned will continuously tamper with their deck’s chemistry until the craft a consistency that produces results. Often times a more fluent deck list will consist of combinations of cards that a less developed “causal” deck struggles to fend off.
The Debate:
First of all, EDH is just as good as any other format to master. Just because it isn’t sanctioned as competitive by large tournaments- that doesn’t mean it can’t be challenging. The concept of 100 different cards is appealing even to those that are more competitive in nature. Often times, EDH can be cheaper than modern or legacy because you only need to afford one instead of 4 of the same card in order to use it, so the “competitive players should stick to modern and legacy” argument is out the window. Commander is not strictly for casual players.
The Financial Argument:
Often times Casual Players will argue that they will can’t compete against more expensive cards, and that is why they don’t like playing with more competitive decks. It truthfully isn’t fair for a competitive player to have to listen to casual player complain about the value of their cards if the more casual player uses their disposable income in other hobbies. How could it possibly be fair to an individual, someone that enjoys the game enough to invest most of their resources into, to have to adhere to people that are only partially invested in magic while more fully invested in other hobbies. Why should anyone that dedicates the bulk of their resources to Magic have to intentionally downplay both their cards and their talent to match others who are less dedicated?
They Shouldn’t Which Leads me to the next argument.
Complaining vs. Improvement
I think most would agree that a commander deck should be an ongoing work of art, sculpted over rigorous battles throughout time against many allies and foes. Many casual players tend argue that competing against a competitive deck always ends the same, when in reality; if casual players were to adapt their decks to being more well-rounded then odds are they wouldn’t be steam rolled each game in a similar fashion. From my perspective, most casual players see the game of magic far too unilaterally. They tend to miss many of the more intrinsically interesting aspects of the game. There is far more to the game of magic than this revolutionary war type line up and blast away at each other type hack and slash almost pokemon-esque game experience.
My solution is that instead of making excuses about others playing more competitively-- they should embrace the challenge, and better both themselves and their decks to better be able to handle the challenges that come their way. It isn’t fair that people that seek improvement be subject to being avoided, or insulted because they want to better their magic game. If one invests more time into learning how to better suit their deck to handle the issues another deck may present, games would be far more interesting for everyone. I can’t emphasize enough how annoying it is to listen to other magic players complain about someone else’s good strategy as opposed to arming themselves to deal with said issue. The world doesn’t bend and change for every individual that complains about something they find unfair, and it shouldn’t for the more casual player either,
Albeit, I will agree that, although largely preventable, two card combos can be incredibly bogus at times. I once played a tournament where someone was able to lock the board down on turn twin with splinter twin and deceiver exarch… That, indeed, was lame. If you’re going to combo out, you should at least dedicate at the very least a small percentage of the game toward collected the pieces to your puzzle. Nobody should be able to win with their opening hand… Players should have at least a chance to prepare for what may be coming. However, fair is fair. Lame as a game winning combo may be, it is the game that we play. Magic is more complicated than hacking and slashing 21 or 40 life away.
Casual can just mean playing a theme or general outside the top 10% of decks. It doesn't need to mean playing like you don't care.
Also: I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to invest "the bulk of their resources" in Magic. This is a hobby. Any level of commitment is OK. People with vastly differing levels of commitment may not enjoy playing against each other but that doesn't mean either is wrong for playing Magic the way they do.
Even in my group we don't like when someone wins with some lame combo as Triskelion and Mikaeus, the Unhallowed
I think EDH is good causal format, where people can have really fun, if they don't take it super serious.
There is no line to draw. It totally depends on the playgroup you play in. If you notice most players don't like a certain strategy you play (going infinite every game for example), you could talk about it with them, and change your deck accordingly. Not every playgroup likes decks that always tutor for the same two card combo. So maybe don't play those if your playgroup starts to find it a boring way to play the game. Find other cards that have the same effect together, but do not go infinite together for example.
I play a Ghave combo EDH, full of combo's. A simple one is Ghave + Woodfall Primus. You can destroy a lot with it, but it won't go infinite. That is why I don't play Mikaeus, the unhallowed in that deck, because it would make a lot of those combo's go infinite. I don't like infinite combo's myself, but even if I did, I wouldn't play them because the playgroup doesn't like them
Though sometimes I have an infinite combo in a deck by mistake, or just because the cards need to be in the deck. I just don't tutor for it. This is just an example of course. Have a talk with the group about what tactics really destroy their fun in playing EDH. Most of the time it's MLD (or land denial in general) and infinite combo's that people don't like.
In my current Sunday EDH League I remove the Jin-Gitaxias from my deck. They are cool with the rest but he's a bit brutal. I don't run Sylvan Primordial at all either. Though I might get it to piss of my cousins when we play.
People who are newer to the format tend to do combos and tutor. I was like that when I first started. But things will go bland really fast when board states end similarly. As a result, people get bored of EDH really fast and move on to other formats. Or they simply quit magic.
It's all about catching on to the format as fast as possible, identify your playgroup's likes and dislikes, the frequency of playing EDH (once a week, 3times, etc). I find that minimizing tutors, zero extra turns, and ridding of all the Sylvan Primordial shenanigans work best.
Also, 4 in a multiplayer is perfect. Nothing more than that.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
On the "why don't you take it out?" comment: It's a three card infinite combo. The individual cards are just fun to play and belong in that deck. I've never drawn into the combo yet and I only play 1 creature tutor in the deck. I still wouldn't tutor for it even if I could though, because I don't like infinite combos period :).
For me only one of my decks is competitive. The turn 2 slyvan primodial isn't something that happens every game or else it would be boring. When I'm playing my competitive deck, or any other for that matter, I like to face adversity. I like it when people are destroying my stuff, countering my spells, and generally making it hard for me to win. It becomes like a puzzle to figure your way out of a tough situation and leads to better deck building. If I have a chance at an early win, I'll do it because if I don't someone else could win. If I can win fairly consistency even with ample adversity, to me it says that I did well in my deck building and my threat assessment during the game. There's a reason why many people who games of all kinds crave competitive play. It gives people a chance to show off their skills and makes them feel good about themselves.
Now I do also enjoy slow casual games too. In those games I enjoy being silly. I enjoy not worried about making the best play or about who will win. I can build up my board or do some shenanigans and have fun. Sometimes I like competitive cutthroat games, and sometimes I like slow games with bad decks. The only thing I don't enjoy as much is when I'm play a slow bad deck against a competitive deck, because it's obvious who will win. I have no chance and have to basically wait to lose. In real life I can usually guess what type of game I can expect.
My Saffi deck
One of the players in the new group is cuthroat competitive and willing to spend the money on his decks: his most recent is Derevi with winter orb and static orb and it's just an absolute chore to play against
In fact it's so bad we just all give up as soon as he gets one of the orbs out
*sigh*
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
I'v played against people in casual games and EDH with decks like that orb one you describe, there really isn't a point in playing because you really aren't, your more waiting to lose in that case... I relate playing lock-down decks to masturbation. Your really only playing by yourself while disgusting the nearby people who are forced to watch. Also most people have at least some self control to keep that sort of behavior a private thing so as to not disturb children and those of weak constitution... Combo is similar but, it at least can be done quickly so that the disgusting part is over painlessly.
I suppose the best way to not have to deal with lock-down is to simply refuse to play against lock-down, Denial of playing the game is the most effective form of denying players of strategies that make people feel sick. An example: he pulls out Derevi to play against you, if you can win play, if you have no hope don't even start. He'll goad you to play, you refuse. There really is no point in trying to force people to change as they are free, but so are you, and since playing casually there is no list to rise up there is no opponent that must be faced, which you can not just simply deny to play against. If they want to play and you refuse to play then they must either bend or move on. After all money spent on decks that gather dust is such a shame...
I suppose that Denial of playing is a exclusively casual area where one can play the game and also deny play to those that are offensive to them. There is nothing forced in casual, people play on terms that they find acceptable not terms that are predefined by competitive areas. Since the tolerance of play styles is personal there is only personal right an wrong opinion on what is fun and not fun. In a competitive environment personal preference is not allowed to hold weight in the outcome of play. People will play against those who play the best deck to give them the best chance of winning not for the pleasure of the idea.
If changes must be made then it is easiest conclude that a group succeeds in the goal of enjoyment with hegemony in unspoken rules. Since a casual form of enjoyment is not bound by forced play the conformity comes from social pressure. The easiest path for change is to have minorities integrate acceptably into the hegemony. In regards to this game it is easier for the strong to pretend to be weak vs the weak attempting to be strong. Would a pro sports player who has children play with them at the same level of competence as they would in a competitive game? Probably not, and if they did they would more likely frustrate them more than motivate them to improve. Now why would this not be relatable to our game? When does frustrating people in hopes they improve actually work, and without resentment.
Lastly this is a hobby for the vast majority of players. I doubt that more than a tiny portion of players actually earn a decent amount of money from playing. Assuming that hobbies are investments in enjoyment and pleasure for most people. The intensive to continue to enjoy the hobby resides in a continued return of enjoyment and pleasure. There are no wrong ideas about how to enjoy this hobby. One caveat which is that this is not a hobby of hermitism but a hobby that requires at lest two or more players to enjoy. As a result there is likely to be a difference in opinion about how enjoyment is obtained. In the case where there is no forced interaction (casual) with other players then they must either agree upon a common form of enjoyment or to avoid playing each other. This is the source of tension between casual and competitive players, or more realistically casual vs casual. The reason for this is that there are no limits or rules specifically described in casual play, unlike competitive play which has structure and defined goals. Since there are no rules defined by some authority it is upon the social contract where the rules for casual play spring. The rules that come from the social contract are built from common opinions of how best to obtain enjoyment. So we can now see there is no right or wrong way to enjoy the game. But there will be opinions about how to enjoy the game. As long as those who play together share the same perspective they will be likely to enjoy the game and in the end that is what matters.
@ Feverous: If you playing that deck always means it's going to be an archenemy game, don't people get bored with that? From start everyone knows how the game's going to be. Either you ramp and draw quickly into the right stax and win, or you don't and you get kicked out of the game first. Doesn't seem very interactive or hard to accomplish. But of course it's totally subjective and nothing wrong with that. I just wonder how the rest of the group feels when you play that deck. Aren't they bored of either doing nothing or focusing on you until you are dead so they can then play the game 'normally'?
No, not at all lol. My stax decks is one of the most interactive decks that I play, and also the most challenging. It's incredible difficult to figure out the right moment to drop an Armageddon or Contamination, so far I've lost just as many times as won off those cards >.< My playgroup just understands how to play around stax, they understand it's a viable strategy, and they do really well with it. It is on the same level as combo for most of them, in that I'm the guy that needs to die in order for their decks to work, hence me being targets. If one of them is playing their zoo or super low cmc voltron deck, however, I usually am helping them more than hurting because I'm limiting the U/G decks a massive amount, allowing the other faster decks to function much better.
There's a general conception about stax and combo that's erroneous, the idea of it allowing players to do nothing. This isn't the case at all, unless the other players are really bad and/or just stupid and refuse to play around it. Effective players understand that when playing against a stax player all you do is slow down your strategy by about 2 turns, and hold an answer to their resource engine, and you've got it made. This means always keeping about 2 lands in hand (To wait on the 'Geddon), keeping a threat or two available, and being ready to Krosan Grip their Doubling Season, or whatever else allows them to pull ahead while still having a Smokestack on the board. It's really the same way you beat a combo deck. Hold some mana open for a killspell/counterspell at all times is all you have to do. While this slows your gamestate development by a few turns, it also it ensures you don't just auto-lose to a random combo T4-5.
You know what's a non-interactive game? Bant flicker. "Lawl, Prophet of Kruphix, @ your upkeep, Dead-Eye Navigator paired with a Mystic Snake, rofl, gg?" That's an un-interactive game. Or Omnath ramp. "Snicker. T4 Concordant Crossroads, T5 Tooth and Nail into Avenger of Zendikar/Craterhoof Behemoth. you lose!" I mean, who wants to play against such a boring strategy? Stax/combo really teach how to play a totally different way, the value of your cards as resources, not just wincons, How to combat a totally new archetype effectively... It's really interactive. Unless you're like the people above and just quit on the spot when it appears. Talk about non-interactive! lawl.
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