MTG Salvation

I really like how you think there. Build it like it's a Borg ship. Would love to see any current decklists you're playing, get an idea of how you went about laying out the deck by looking for the synergies your deck's cards have between each other.

No... It's just a matter of opinion. Pretty much any legend should be viable in a semi-competitive environment, but the ones that have even an ounce of self protection from a color/indestructable or whatever, haste, or an ETB effect are probably better. I was trying to provide an alternative way of thinking about those two cards, be a devils advocate of sorts.

To be a bit more open about what I mean, even a unprotected general can do great without having to rely on the boots or greaves. It would just have to be one that does what you need it to do, but doesn't demand removal by appearing to be too big of a threat. To do something like that, build the deck as such that your opponent would rather save removal for things that aren't your general.

Quote from Wildfire393 »

Clone Shell provides a similar ability to the egg, but lets you dig in your deck for the creature to put into play, rather than restricting you to the cards in your hand. It's very strong in any deck that can recur it repeatedly, like Arcbound Marchesa.

Wow, that's a really neat card, reminds me of Mosswort Bridge. But considering how I built my Purphoros EDH I don't think it would recur well and it would easier to rely on my hand for what I want to cheat into play. (Say, a Knollspine Dragon) Clone Shell also costs one more mana so that can make a big difference on a mana-limited turn. It really depends on the deck. To make the most use of clone shell some top of library manipulation like scroll rack would be amazing, but otherwise it would often be easier playing off of the 4-7 cards you'd typically have in hand. Especially if I was tutoring in black and had some reason to run Summoner's Egg, I'd rather be pulling out of my hand than my library. But I digress. They both have their merits.

Bookmarked. This thread deserves a sticky, that master list is incredibly helpful.

I have a couple to recommend:

Summoner's Egg - A nice little cheat into play-type artifact with a lot of complex application options.

Smash A niche cantrip card I run in my Purphoros EDH along with Summoner's egg.

Thanks, that's way easier than i thought it would be to link cards. Cool little forum function. I like this site a whole lot better now. Wonder what other neat things you can do on here.

Kruphix is definitely my favorite due to its options and perfect mana efficiency. It is pretty hard to stop that critical mass of mana from winning the game. It did take awhile to learn to hold back my instant-speed removal for the critical problem cards and situations, though you may have a point about attrition. When most of a deck's removal is instant speed, one like myself won't be capable of switching modes to a long-game constant attrition strategy.

Probably my biggest blunder last week was /not/ countering a 4X Diabolic Revelation. I try really hard to not use my removal until the last second, but then there are dumb mistakes like not countering that due to thinking I'm far enough ahead to deal with whatever gets played off of that.

Also, I'm considering building one of these three below next - any opinions on their viability and possible weaknesses? Would also be interested in hearing about what everyone else is considering brewing up.

Tri-color considerations:

GRIXIS - Thraximundar
TEMUR - Surrak Dragonclaw
SULTAI - The Mimeoplasm Maybe instead of this, switch out blue for white and try an Abzan general?

Maybe something with white? I'm at a loss for what three-color general in white I'd try out, if I did.

Sudden Spoiling. I don't really hate it but every time I fall into it happening to me and ruining everything because I can't respond to it I want to kick myself.

My answer to this? Don't play a general that needs them. If it does its probably a slow general that doesn't pull its weight as well as a better option in the same colors. The boots and greaves in my experience are very often just dead cards. Play something that protects itself. I'd rather that spot in my deck be a mana rock.

Just ignore this if you want a silly swingy voltron deck though. Those are fun, but I think voltron is too linear and easy to beat.

If you're playing multiplayer, use the Bruna player to your advantage. Put them in a situation where you aren't the person they want to mess with. There are tons of ways to deal with Bruna. She doesn't have red in her identity so its not as bad as it could be. I've answered it with all of these before across multiple games:

Chaos Warp
Hinder
Spell Crumple

And pseudo-answers that stall:

Trickbind
Stifle
Voidslime
Venser, Shaper Savant

Additionally, if you don't draw into those or the answers people above its often pretty easy to just pack some enchantment removal like:
Krosan Grip
Naturalize
Destructive Revelry
Beast Within

Sometimes you don't get the right removal but artifact/enchantment removal can often be all you need to stay right outside of taking 21 commander damage. Plus, those kinds of cards are versatile in many other situations. I know bruna can often get hexproof/color protection effects on her so easiest way to deal with it is to pick off those protective enchantments/artifacts (voltron sword package included) off of her as she attacks.

God help you if they have a grand abolisher in play on their attacking turn you didn't get rid of, though.

Thanks for the very informative post mazeTemporal. And also to Underhill83 and krichaiushii for the points you made. As for Bolas, the Mindsculptor, that was a couple years ago and games in my group tend to be about an hour or less now. I for one kind of force my meta to get their disruption handy and wins conditions in hand, because If they don't I simply take the game right out from under them with my initiative to simply try to win and not durdle about. For everyone's points made about the color, I think I'm beginning to see the value of white in a deck. It really helps me out being informed on those cards, because I've actually been looking to play against other groups of people outside my normal meta, and additionally you've done a great job giving me a reference of a lot of cards for white against which I can evaluate their strategic usefulness. Perhaps, committing to memory some of the great things white has access to, new avenues of strategy will open up. To clear something up - I don't run goodstuff just for the sake of goodstuff. I'm not an idiot. I just try to use commanders where the goodstuff actually synergizes with them, so if the commander gets tucked or something, the cards I have in hand are still relevant and versatile without the commander.

Surprised to hear you don't want to run MLD especially considering your focus on using white in your decks is specifically to stall out the game until you win. I think you shouldn't be afraid to run mass land destruction. Green gets ahead really fast with its ramp, and MLD is arguably one of the best ways to deal with that kind of thing. I think, if either of us were to decide to run MLD, it would be smart to discuss it with our metas and warn them first, because you are right, that kind of thing is seen by many players as unfair. But it's really not unfair when its the best way to deal with an archetypical advantage of one of the stronger, more popular commander colors. What, are we going to lock down their lands, artifacts and creature ETB effects? There are so many easy ways a player can get around that problem. I occasionally see a player play something to lock things down with an artifact or enchantment and, to my luck I've almost always have removal for that problem, assuming I'm playing my Kruphix deck where I have access to green. It's only logical to think ahead and simply want to nuke lands - AFTER one has the board-state advantage, of course. I look at all my decks I've built and see nonbasic-heavy land bases with spell/artifact ramp. Considering what would beat such a deck, land destruction seems the easiest answer. So, the hope it that to get ahead of the meta, I make the MLD-carrying deck first before they try it against me. Typically, every deck after the first that I make is actually an answer to the deck I made previously, and it really seems to work as way of improving myself as I design new decks.

One big curveball I remember hitting me once though - someone I played against once brought in a deck that was built with the ability to blink Terastodon in and out repeatedly - that was pretty crushing.

To answer about my metagame. The main group seems headed by a couple of longtime players - one of which has played the game since only a few years after it was first in the market, the other probably a decade's worth of experience. Everyone else has between 2-6 years of experience with the game, myself having played three years now. Despite most of my playgroup having more experience than I, I find myself winning a lot of games and advising on card choices and rulings frequently, and picking up on a lot more glaring weaknesses in their decks than I currently find in mine. I'll be more specific about the preferred colors in my playgroup. Green is actually at the top, I think, with blue trailing. A couple years ago the longtime veterans were running 15-20+ counterspell filled decks and I haven't seen them play those much since. They've both shifted towards playing more ramp, more enchantments and planeswalkers, and way, way more artifacts than much if any control. Perhaps they got tired of playing heavy control. My Purphoros EDH only seems like a good option because there is such a prevalence of artifacts in my group that even red, which its card advantage problems, seems like a perfect fit as it has tons of ultra-relevant access to artifact hate. There are decks like Damia, Nekusar, Child of Alara, Muzzio, Bruna, Ghave, Jenara, Vorinclex, Surrak, Niv-Mizzet, Keranos, Derevi, Marath, and Kruphix, to name some of those I see frequently on the other side of the table.

I would like to know, what philosophy do you guys take to deckbuilding? Could you identify your strategic behavior as close to the philosophy of a color or a couple colors of magic? I'll start by saying I'd definitely be a 'red' player. I take the initiative and try to become the main threat, I roll with that and win the game and play lots of cards that immediately effect the game. I can play the long game (the philosophy of blue with its counterspells) but even then I just try to make things happen and be more tense for the race to victory. What path do you take, and why would you argue that its better than another path?

By the way, how are you linking those cards in your posts? I haven't figured out how everyone does that yet.

Responding to mazeTemporal, my problem with white is that as far as I've seen I can do the same stuff in blue, which is of course the color in magic that is notorious for breaking the color pie all over the place. Essentially... its a difference of bounce/tuck instead of exile for removal. I tend to run very few enchantments in my decks so I never really liked the options white gave me there either. However, I will agree that parallax wave and sun titan are both crazy cards and I'm lucky I never encountered the former of those two in my meta. Still, white removal... doesn't peg me as a great way to play removal. Exiling things, correct me if I'm wrong, seems like a waste of a good card to remove in that manner. There are all these options via the other 4 colors for removal that can set up or otherwise directly enable stealing permanents in a situation where white would simply exile - and played right stealing stuff wins games. I like red, black and blue as removal sources over white especially because with those, my opponent's deck becomes another resource.

You and Sir Magic Toast brought up a lot of good white cards which I'll definitely have to keep wary of.

My previous experience is a couple years of EDH now, with my three currently assembled decks being Kruphix blue/green goodstuff control/combo, Lazav combo, and an unorthodox Purphoros edh I have yet to test. Good point though, Lithl - I never thought about it but I suppose what I end up striving for is a blue deck just like yourself, even in mono-red.

My first EDH was Karthus, Tyrant of Jund and it had a good mana base, but the prevalence of blue decks in my meta made it totally impossible to win with. Then Vorel of the Hull Clad, again easily shut down and too janky to be a good deck. Learned a lot of valuable lessons about strategy from those early days.

Tried Melek recently, found it to be totally unfit for my meta as my opponents have plenty of ways to screw up my topdeck even while letting me keep a scroll rack in play. Too disruptable and easily shut down, and can't keep up with fast decks due to lack of green. Every other izzet general bores me although I know Niv-Mizzet combo would be easy to secure games with.

The things that got me down the path of doubting tri-color's effectiveness were that of trying out Nekusar and consistently failing horribly(EG: tucked/disabled before he ever does anything), I ended up hating using maelstrom wanderer because going the optimal route with the design felt way too restrictive. Felt like the problem was that even with all the mana fixing in the world the mana was still a problem when facing down 3 other monkey-wrench filled blue decks at the table - blue decks which my above decks now seem to contend with well. And otherwise, a lot of the three-color generals seem so linear that building a three-color goodstuff deck doesn't work without compromising a lot of synergy potential. Any suggestions on three-color generals that are powerful/effective but don't have anti-synergy problems with things their colors should have in the standard goodstuff package? Surrak Dragonclaw, a totally new card, seems like the only one and of course half of my meta has made decks for him now so making another wouldn't feel very original at all. Plus, the major reason I've actually ended up not liking Temur much anymore as a possibility is because it doesn't have access to black. In any good three-color deck I think black might just be what makes or breaks it, if the above post by mazeTemporal is any indication. I know the differences of color choice are pretty shaky grounds to argue about the three-color decks over but it seems to me the difference in potential is definitely there. Grixis or Sultai might just be the best options in three color - the question is, is red or green better? Red does open up access to good cards like Rakdos Charm, Grixis Charm, and Crosis' Charm.

Besides all that, I wonder what you guys think of selective and mass-land destruction. I've only encountered it once, and all it did was result in a six hour game where its user didn't even win in the end and everyone scooped to go home. Boardwipe-filled sen triplets with things like Maralen the Mornsong, Torpor Orb, and much much more. I would love to find some excuse to run more land destruction, if only I could run it in a deck where it wouldn't screw up my own mana-base too.

TL:DR; How do you strategize in free-for-all multiplayer commander, from your deckbuilding choices and design process, to your actual play, and, if any, what colors would you swear by?

If you care to read ahead I'll be more specific in the above line of questioning and perhaps post your own *cough*doctoral thesis*cough* opinion of EDH strategy:

I would like to exchange ideas in matters of opinion and strategy specifically related to multiplayer commander to try to better myself as a player. To do such I would like to delve into the more abstract fundamentals of the game itself - the color pie, the commanders we can choose in those colors, and the level of synergy we can achieve in those colors.

As such, what colors do those amongst the forum consider the best, which do you dislike playing the most? What are your favorite color combinations and commander?

I'm probably a fool for saying so but because I want my complicated view of what makes a good multiplayer deck heavily challenged for the benefit of learning to be a better player in the realm of strategic thought and deck design, I'll say this: I won't built a commander deck with white in it. I would like to be convinced that the other 4 colors don't lend themselves to superior potential in their combinations, and I will happily argue (likely foolishly but for the purpose of learning) why they do and white does not.

I am also shaky in confidence about the fundamental capabilities of a refined 3-color deck vs a refined 2-color deck. Temur (RUG), Grixis (UBR), and Sultai(BUG) seem like the best options but I cannot help but doubt their capabilities against that of a refined two-color deck like simic, izzet, or dimir. Of this I would like my view shaken up the most to free my choices of future decks.

I would absolutely love to hear what other players swear by as their strategies and go-to colors/generals for playing in a somewhat-competitive multiplayer commander meta. What monkey-wrench cards do you love to have to throw off your opponent's game? How much do you like to push your deck towards total synergy, and to what degree do you let the threat of anti-synergies (EX: Boardwipes alongside a boardstate-heavy deck, graveyard hate in a deck that is dedicated to the graveyard, etc) between your cards restrict your deck design?

A lot of questions, I know. The hope is for a very deep and thought-provoking discussion of strategy. I hope this attracts like minds who also derive extra fun from the game by, ironically, taking everything too seriously/obsessively intentionally.

My process is entirely strategic. In my experience and opinion, commander's strongest colors in order are blue, then green, the black, followed by red and white as the least strong. My view of deck building is to approach every card with a logical evaluation of its synergies with other cards, blunt uses, and weaknesses.

I do play edh for fun, but I'm also pretty competitively minded because I bring logic into every single card choice in the deck. I don't play cards just because they're fun, but also because they're good for the deck. I also choose the colors of my deck before choosing the general, evaluating the potential of those colors. I don't make edh decks without either green or blue because I view them as severely under-equipped for the format if they can't run some of the staples in those two colors. I've experimented with decks that don't run green or blue and just didn't like them at all, felt under-prepared for combating other decks that did run those colors.

Here's a step by step process of my deckbuilding:

1. Choose colors. If my first two choices of colors don't include blue or green, choose a wedge that contains one or the other.
2. Figure out which general can best work with the staple cards in those colors, that doesn't conflict with the good swiss-army-knife cards.
3. The mana base must always include Sol Ring, Command Tower, Temple of the False God, Vesuva, and Reflecting Pool if multicolored. (I've found these to be optimal as consistent cards) I like to run about 2/3rds of the dual lands too, and about 20-25 basic lands because I prefer their consistency over sac tutor/janky lands.
4. Research, discover or otherwise include at least 3 solid ways for the deck to win that aren't overly complicated or janky. Two card combos are optimal, three card combos only if one of the three cards of the combo is like a tutor for the other two. Make sure the win conditions are synergistic or at least not conflicting with the rest of the deck's function and its commander's function. I avoid winning with land destruction/total lockdown/infect because I dislike fighting against those strategies, but I'm no stranger to running infinite combos.
5. Control cards. At least 12 dedicated control cards like counterspells, bounce, boardwipes, tucks, destruction/exile. 15-18 is even better. I want to be very reactive and capable of messing with my opponents constantly. I have the most fun in EDH if my opponents and I are similar in this strategic regard, trying to disrupt each other back and forth with all our goodstuff removal. Cards should be good by themselves as well as in tandem with other cards of the deck.
6. Goodstuff artifacts, enchantments, planewalkers. I only run any of them if they have immediate board impact and are very synergistic/helpful with my deck. As such my decks often have a low number of these card types, with some exception where due. I often end up with 5-15 artifacts, a variable number of enchantments, and 0-3 planeswalkers.
7. Make sure I'm not running any overly janky cards that lack synergy with the deck's strategy, make sure I've got several tutor cards for getting key cards out as well as card advantage sources. Make sure all my cards have instant impact capability. I don't like creature cards that have a tap effect without haste. Polish the deck out, balance the mana sources perfectly with the colored symbol balances of the cards for mana availability consistency. I also don't want to be playing anything that is overly helpful to my opponents, aside from the occasional mana flare or join forces card. I'll run cards that help the other players as long as they aren't too dangerous of moves for me.

Additionally, Tappedout is extremely helpful to me for analyzing my deck design as I go along. I'll google about strategies, combos, synergies, staple cards in the colors I'm running - probably look at about 10 different decklists for the same colors the deck is in. I'll use the Gatherer to find niche cards I feel my deck needs if I don't already know what they should be. I often spend a week or two designing a deck before building it, being very very thorough about getting the strategy just right. In the end I've got myself another well-oiled machine for the collection that is very interactive and disruptive, making for very fun games. As surprising at is may be, I don't always play to win even with this attitude towards my deck building. I like some long chaotic games especially, where everyone gets a chance to play their big splashy spells.

Mana Short really messes with Kruphix, God of Horizons. Empty their mana pool and tap all their lands at instant speed for 2U. Considering there are three people with Kruphix decks in my meta (including myself) It seems like a good thing to run. The same decks often have crazy big hands every game, so Wit's End can be a good thing too if you can get it to resolve against them.

I played a Maelstrom Wanderer RUG deck for awhile, and it performed decently in multiplayer until it encountered, surprisingly enough, group hug decks. Opponents making you draw constantly can completely screw up a combo you've set up with, for example, brainstorm. Then I just dropped the red and played Kruphix for my general - things have never been better for me in multiplayer.

In playtesting of a couple decks of mine, I've run into some situations which have made me conclude - I need a better understanding of how wither and regenerate work.

Mainly, I had this confusing scenario occur:

Deck A has a 3/3 Experiment One with 2 +1/+1 counters on it, it has evolve and 'Remove 2 +1/+1 counters from experiment one - Regenerate experiment one.'
Deck B is attacking with Boggart Ram Gang, a 3/3 creature with haste and wither.
Deck A blocks Boggart Ram Gang with Experiment One - Wither would inflict 3 -1/-1 counters as damage.

What happens? Wither deals damage in -1/-1 counters - can Deck A regenerate experiment one or are the 2 +1/+1 counters cancelled out before that can happen?