maralen of the mornsong
ashiok, dream render
So i suspect i already know the answer to this, but ashiok DOESN'T stop people from maralen's tutoring ability if they are both controlled by the same player, correct? Or is it that maralen gives that ability to each player?
But if my opponent has the maralen, and i ashiok, no one draws any cards.
- Registered User
Member for 5 years, 8 months, and 18 days
Last active Mon, May, 20 2019 14:11:13
- 0 Followers
- 2,758 Total Posts
- 189 Thanks
May 18, 2019A not-often used synergy; it goes well with silent gravestone. since it doesn't target, and MOST reanimate effects do, you can use it to nick stuff without fear that your opponents can do the same thing back to you.Posted in: Commander (EDH)
Not specifically for breaking // entering, but i saw the interaction recently with shallow grave.
May 18, 2019schweinefett posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer BanlistSomething that's come up vaguely recently in my playgroup is trying this new format - 60-card highlander with PW as general and a 'commander' spell (or something along those lines), and starting at 20 life. The biggest reason why they wanted to try it:Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
- EDH took too long
- people who get knocked out early looks too sad to make the game enjoyable.
- the last few turns of the game generally look so warped compared to normal magic, it makes the game just 'feel' broken.
Are these things that anyone else here is aware of/thinking about? I feel like it's a good jumping point to shift to a lower starting life total (i used to have a group that ran 30 life start.. that worked well), and/or changing the winning conditions (as to remove player elimination from the game).
My old group did this thing once where the player who eliminated another from the game became their 'master'. their life reset to 10, and during their turn, their master would direct them to do something, and everything else the player decides (so things like attack that guy, or until your next turn, counter that guy's stuff, and so on). It's probably too clunky to implement here, but that's how much we hated player elimination.
We ended up with a house rule where we played for a set amount of time, and then got points in game for doing stuff. Dealing ridiculous amounts of damage, drawing 3 or more cards a turn, actually dealing the killing blow, and so on. If you lose the game, you lose some points, that player shuffles up again and start at 30 life. Highest points wins.
but on more feasible rules changes, is shifting from 40 to 30 something that's even remotely discussable? I can imagine the inertia of having it there for so long being the biggest challenge to a change like this.
May 18, 2019schweinefett posted a message on Oathbreaker (60 card, Planeswalkers as Commanders)i just meant that i can see having reset or some other untap all lands instant as the commander-spell + some number of lands/mana-doubler is a pretty sure-fire way to net infinite mana.Posted in: Variant Commander
I like the idea of a 20 life format, though I'd actually wanna see some sort of errata to the rules to remove 'player elimination' from the game. Maybe something like when the first player gets killed from the game, at the end of that turn, the player with the highest life total wins (or something like that). this way, the table actually has reason to help the player who's going to lose AND remove the annoying waiting part of the 'game' (my favourite deck is famous for killing itself really quickly, so i do this a lot).
Is this format still somewhat mouldable still? or is it pretty much set in stone? some people in my playgroup has suddenly gotten really into this, so on the off-chance this sticks (unlike tiny leaders etc), i wanna make sure the rules are discussed/challenged enough that it's a significant step up from EDH.
May 17, 2019schweinefett posted a message on Oathbreaker (60 card, Planeswalkers as Commanders)i don't understand why some of the cards are on the banlist:Posted in: Variant Commander
painter's servant? recurring nightmare? really? they're pretty tame in normal EDH as it is.. I suspect that they just started from the EDH banlist as a start, and then just added stuff to it.
And er... before anyone actually breaks it, put reset, early harvest, possibly even rude awakening on a watchlist. even a single mana-doubler in play can get quite out of hand fast. Also possibly bubbling muck.
but yea, i'm reserving judgement before i knock off a couple of games of it though. I've got somewhat low expectations though.
May 17, 2019Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion ForumQuote from BloodyWednesday »It's basically what Ava stated 2 pages back. We'd just continue to ignore the 'outside the game' portion while give them some actual usability as alternatives to pull from eternity and riftsweeper. However those two cards barely see play as it is, so I do not see what the point of doing a blanket errata would fix.
it actually captures the original intent/use of the wishes, and harkens back to the pre-exile days.
That is not strictly true either. Mastermind's Acquisition came out well after Coax from the Blind Eternities and it does not have the 'from exile' template... so that blanket errata would potentially cause new cards to play differently in EDH than they do anywhere else for no real reason.
I can only assume that it became too wordy and/or wasn't worth the hassle. Or maybe someone just forgot or it made an actual difference in standard at the time?
But it's fair enough; i've not got an encyclopaedic knowledge of all the wishes in the game let alone all cards. I just assumed that it was the case. To be honest, I've always wanted to make Ring of Ma'rûf work in EDH (note that back in the day, referring to outside the game was so out of whack, they put everything in italics!!). ages back, i had a friend who'd swords to plowshares my only serra angel (and probably my only real wincon). I figured it's a sure-fire way to make sure i'll always have my awesome-sauce card on me. Fast-forward some number of years, and I'm still trying to make that work!
May 17, 2019Posted in: Commander (EDH)Quote from benjameenbear »Quote from DirkGently »I don't think I can let that one slide. I'd say playing cEDH drastically reduces the number of interactions to worry about because the pool of played cards is so much fewer, as are the number of decks and archetypes. #1. It also drastically reduces the number of important decisions in a game because it's so much shorter. Granted, those decisions are much more likely to be life and death than any of the myriad mostly-irrelevant decisions made in a normal commander game, but I think being able to #2. identify the critical junctures in a normal commander game from among all the unimportant ones - and to make the right choice in those decisions - can be a lot harder than making the right decisions in a fast combo game, because in #3. the fast combo game it's mostly the same kinds of decisions every game. Whereas in the normal commander game, the kinds of decisions can be enormously diverse and require more critical thinking and less rote memorization.
Not that the play skill of most normal commander players is high - it is not. And the skill of cEDH players tends to be higher, partly because you have to be fairly invested and familiar with the game to buy in at that level. But there's way, way more room to perfect your gameplay in a normal game of commander than a cEDH one, at least imo.
Alright, I'll bite. A healthy debate is fun to engage in. I've quoted you and added bold text and numbers around each of the primary points I'd like to debate. To set the ground rules, please know that I approach this topic and you with respect and a genuine desire to broaden your perspective, at the very least. I fully and wholeheartedly support the various ways to play Commander and I happily recognize that I'm a minority (being a cEDH player) - if part of a vocal one, heh. Regardless of the debate and the conclusions we draw, I hope that I will be able to at least respectfully showcase why I prefer to play cEDH over a regular "battlecruiser" Commander game.
I will be referencing both personal examples as well as videos from the excellent LabManiacs.com website. I personally believe that their cEDH content is representative of the way that my playgroup and I play cEDH games (as well as general cEDH games), the relative playskill of my playgroup (and other cEDH players), and a showcasing of the premier cEDH strategies and archetypes available. Their curated video content can be found here and a compendium of their decklists can be found here, as references.
I think it's also important to define a few things as well, since I'll be using them in the context of my arguments.
- When I mention "battlecruiser" decks/Commander games, I mean to say that the propensity and focus on executing an infinite combo is much less pronounced than that of a cEDH deck/Commander game. That doesn't mean to say that battlecruiser Commander decks cannot be optimized nor streamlined to great efficiency, because many are, but it's more representative of a playstyle and philosophy; battlecruiser games are more concerned (generally) about the number of interactions, tempo swings, and emotional well-being of its players. Battlecruiser games are essentially decks and games that are all about maximizing the amount of cards that you can see from your deck within a given game.
- I'll also reference a preface/introductory article that I wrote that's stickied in the cEDH forums. I think this document is important to read since it will help explain the general philosophy of the cEDH niche of Commander players (many cEDH players have read it and generally agreed with its points on Discord, Facebook, and reddit, to substantiate that document as being semi-official).
Alright, time to dig in.
For point #1, I both agree AND disagree with you here. You are correct in the perception that a cEDH game is usually played at a faster pace than a regular battlecruiser game. By necessity, this DOES limit the number of interactions that you experience within a game by virtue of it being shorter, so you are correct in this point.
But I disagree with you because a cEDH game makes a substantially higher number of the "regular" decisions you make substantially more impactful, thus also INCREASING the number of important decisions that you make. For example, in a battlecruiser game, it's reasonable to assume that I can spend the first few turns of a game deploying my ramp effects, accruing card advantage, or building a board presence without substantial cost because it's likely that the other battlecruiser players are employing a similar strategy. I'm not going to lose tempo or face dire consequences of tapping out on T3 to play a Dimir Signet into a Night's Whisper (as a generic example); indeed, making this kind of play in a battlecruiser Commander game is probably safe and will actively help me execute my primary strategy by developing my card advantage AND mana advantage.
However, doing a similar action in a cEDH game could have HUGE repercussions on your chances to win the game; I've seen some decks consistently assemble a game-winning combo on T3 and execute it (in fact, some of my own decks can reliably do this). By doing the same action that I would take in a battlecruiser game, and performing it within a cEDH game, I could lose the game as a consequence. This makes resource management even more crucial during a cEDH game because any actions I take to develop my board state or accrue card advantage has real consequences to it. It heightens the potential risks of making any in-game decision. As an example of this, if you look at the 48 minute mark of this recorded game, the Yidris player chose a correct moment to go for the win because the other players had spent their resources in addressing other issues. The other player's decisions of when to respond with interaction throughout the course of the game(of which there is a great deal of, by the way) allowed the Yidris player that window of opportunity to execute a win successfuly that he wouldn't have been able to do otherwise. The Tasigur player even admits that he chose the wrong moment to pay for a Rhystic Study trigger at the 54:00 mark. This is an example of how important it is to manage resources and discern whether or not a specific action is the correct one; paying for the Study trigger may not have seemed important during the previous slew of interaction, but it cost the Tasigur player the game. And while the actual recording is under an hour, and the volume of interactions therefore in comparison to a battlecruiser game is less, I think it showcases very well how important nearly EVERY decision is within a cEDH game. This kind of example is commonplace during cEDH games, so I feel comfortable saying that my example is representative of nearly every cEDH game that is played.
Point #2. I don't disagree with the first part of your point here at all, actually. I think the beauty of a cEDH game is that it compresses the number of important decisions that a player needs to make into a much more compact time frame. The same type of decisions of tempo generation, card advantage, and board development hold true whether playing a battlecruiser game or a cEDH game. In a battlecruiser game, the frequency of these important decisions is a little more spread out from a time standpoint and usually occur within the later turns of a game, generally from T5-T6 onwards. In a cEDH game, the frequency of these decisions occurs more often and within a faster timeframe, often starting around T2-T3.
I do disagree with you on the second half of it, that "making the right choices... can be a lot harder [than a] fast combo game". As my previous point alludes to, I think the complexity of decisions that any player makes within a cEDH game is actually INCREASED by playing against other cEDH decks. If you're sitting down at a cEDH game, it's likely that you'll be playing against 3-4 disparate and equally powerful combos, all utilizing different cards. These combos are built within the context of the player's specific Commander deck, meaning that the card advantage engines and board development cards that each player utilizes will be fairly varied; and even if they're the same across the table, this only adds to the complexity because you know precisely what kind of play your opponents COULD make, given their mana sources and card count. Because being able to play more cards in a turn cycle is more critical for a cEDH game than a normal battlecruiser game (generally speaking), CMC considerations are paramount when building a cEDH deck. Because each player's cards and their associated effects are able to be deployed at lower CMC's, and therefore at a faster pace than a battlecruiser game, the opportunity cost for doing a certain action is much higher for EVERY action taken. Because the opportunity cost is higher for each decision tree during a cEDH game, this adds depth and complexity to the game right out of the gates and forces a similar number of "critical junctures" that a battlecruiser game would experience at a faster pace.
This is primarily one of the reasons that cEDH players absolutely NEED to be clear about what type of game they're playing with the table; it's totally inappropriate for a cEDH player to pub-stomp a table of unaware battlecruiser decks and players because their deck is cEDH level and the rest of the table's decks are not. This kind of inappropriate disparity in deck construction and/or play-skill is what leads to feel-bads amongst the other players, who had different expectations of what that game was supposed to feel like. While I recognize that there are cEDH players that do actively look to curb-stomp others, the vast majority of our vocal minority respect the social contract of a playgroup and will play and build decks accordingly.
Point #3. I disagree. While the same type of combos that are in a deck are consistently executed as the primary way of how that deck wins the game (Flash Hulk is probably always going to want to Flash Hulk, Gitrog is always going to Dredge Dakmor Salvage, etc.), the decision trees and "critical junctures" that said player employs to get there are VASTLY different per game. If you want to binge watch the LabManiacs' video content, I encourage you to do so, as it demonstrates how variegated and complex cEDH games really are. Often, the phrase "cEDH games always end on T3 and combat damage doesn't matter" is used as a joke/meme phrase within a game because this is RARELY the case. Their most recent episode is a classic example of how this common perception is totally inaccurate.
Some decision points have to be the same (i.e. destroying an opponent's Rest in Peace to utilize your 'yard-based strategy) because they stop your primary win line, but that too adds complexity to the game. How will you remove it? What cards will you spend to do so? Will your opponent be able to protect their RIP? Can/will an OPPONENT protect the opponent's RIP in order to prevent you from executing your combo? These are common questions that come up during a game.
I generally agree with the both of y'all in most points too actually. My EDH decks are most decidedly NOT competitive, but i do run some number of competitive legacy decks, so i can chime in a bit with that:
1. Yes, competitive games of legacy at least can be pretty quick, and have more impactful decisions in a more compressed amount of time. Turn 1 when an opponent plays a wooded foothills then passes, I'm generally considering very carefully whether or not they have the stifle, so i'd play my non-fetch land if possible. It can also indicate some sort of lands control, so i should land the early threat if possible. or it could even be some rogue deck! I can imagine cEDH being somewhat similar. knowing the meta, knowing what can be brought against you, and working the probabilities is kinda a thing.
3. Playing against combo in legacy, it's always a bit of a light dance (sort of). Depending on what they're showing, you have to attack it differently. Sometimes, you counter the LED. sometimes, it's knowing when to disenchant their lotus petals. Sometimes, its hymning them and hoping for the best. Sometimes, you just gotta figure out a line for yourself that allows you to go off at instant speed in response to their kill. I can imagine it being more varied in EDH, since you can only run singletons of each combo piece.
Dunno, i think either way, it's interesting that so many people think that combo is rampant in their meta, but people generally don't like playing against them. Maybe it's this idea that it's non-interactive. But your deck is only not interacting with them because of how you've built it, right? I think having a tempo/aggro list, you're still interacting with combo players if you beat with aethersworn canonist, and when you pressure their life totals to a point where they have to actually take you seriously (which is why i've been a proponent for 30 life total instead of 40).
May 17, 2019schweinefett posted a message on Welp it’s finally happening for black/rakdos players...or something like:Posted in: Commander (EDH)
pay half your life rounded up: destroy target enchantment.
i thought the flavour for black was always 'can do anything, as long as you're willing to pay for it'.
May 17, 2019I have it in my werewolf horde. That's about as playable as i can see it getting.Posted in: Commander (EDH)
i think even if you removed the R part of the activation, it wouldn't be all that playable. it could be more playable if the ability was just "R:" maybe.
May 16, 2019Ok, that's good to know. It just gets a bit weird with painter when it says things like 'every' and 'in all zones', and sometimes, knowing where the boundaries and definitions of things are a bit weird.Posted in: Magic Rulings
Thanks for answering!
May 16, 2019So this is a bit convoluted, so bear with me:Posted in: Magic Rulings
Painter's servant makes everything blue.
venser, the sojourner's emblem in play.
earnest fellowship makes all creatures protected from its own colour, and in play.
And the controller of venser's emblem plays a spell. Can it target my creature?
In other words, are emblems cards or not (overburden as a previously-used template, using 'card' for 'non-token'), and is wherever the emblem sitting a zone in the game?
May 16, 2019Here's an interesting thought: Errata all wishes BACK to its original tempting.Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
As in, there was no exile zone when the wishes came. There was only 'removed from the game'. So if all wishes were templated like how the new karn does it. So now, the wishes read: "You may choose an XXXXX card you own from outside the game or in exile, reveal that card, and put it into your hand"
How does something like that sound? it actually captures the original intent/use of the wishes, and harkens back to the pre-exile days.
May 16, 2019Well, i can't really fault him/her for being bored with the existing options. Many of the current generals already have an "optimal" build, which leads to this boringness - it's already been solved.Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
My way of dealing with this is to try to do the opposite of what the general seems to want to be. My zedruu the greathearted voltron deck is sort of the epitome of that. No one expects zedruu to get pumped to 13+ power and attack with double strike.
I'm not sure necessary changing the rules is what the community needs. I think static, reliable rules are good. That being said, I think an emphasis on local groups having local house-rules is probably something that everyone needs. It did take a bit of time for me to convince my playgroup that we'd transcended the need for the RC to dictate how we play EDH, and our group's gotten better for it. Not to demean what the RC does though; they generally do a good job - it's just that my group isn't exactly their target.
May 16, 2019yea, i suspected that combo would be the highest generally, 'cuz:Posted in: Commander (EDH)
1. it's the easiest to diagnose as a deck archetype
2. Even if a deck isn't a dedicated combo deck, just having a combo finish means it becomes a combo deck (even if the main plan is to aggro people to death).
But yea, this is pretty interesting actually. when people voted that their actual playgroup leans heavier on an archetype that doesn't really fit the existing general types, what did they mean? is that midrange?
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.