Hey all, I was wondering what you all think of the idea of a new MtG format. That format being no reserve list vintage. Imagine vintage with no reserve list. We could start with the modern ban list, but everything currently banned in modern and everything not in modern (and not on the reserve list) would be restricted to one-of only. Seems like a format that could be tons of fun and enable a large variety of competitive decks. I'd love to play with Force of Will in a format with no reserve list cards, so it is actually somewhat affordable and likely to be more widely played than Legacy and Vintage.
Regarding the idea that lower life totals will reduce the incidence of combo decks in commander
Are people not worried that those who are using less optimal combos would not simply increase the efficiency of their combos to ensure they can win faster with less life? That seems more likely than them breaking apart their decks. As someone who does not enjoy winning through straight up vanilla creature aggro damage I would certainly do as much as possible before switching away from control and combo. I do think that there is an arms race that occurs as more people add combo to their decks (I have noticed this in my own play groups as well, but I realize this is anecdotal evidence), but as this arms race occurs I find our games have gotten better and lasted longer as more people become familiar with combos and play more interaction and politick better instead of only focusing on their decks.
Another issue I have with lowering the life total is it makes it more likely someone will be knocked out early, which leaves to more feel bad games IMO. I've been in many games where a player focused on one player with aggro until they died, then the games continued on for hours.
In non-cEDH metas the higher life total seems even more important as more players play ramp and higher cmc cards (from my experience). Do others disagree? If so, why do you think so? Whereas in cEDH games I have played there have been many games where players life has stayed around 40 the entire game even when games have lasted hours.
I think the biggest issues are: (1) Talking with people beforehand and deciding on playing at similar power levels or agreeing that a game will be basically archenemy if the power levels are very different. (2) Playing more interaction (Many times I have played versus a Gitrog player with an extremely competitive deck with Dakmor Salvage as a key combo piece for the faster version of their deck. Being mono-blue I was in a bind for faster and permanent answers to this, but research and sticking to it got me to include Extract and more graveyard hate in my deck.) Interactive games make for the best games IMO. I'm continuously amazed how few people play reasonable amounts of interaction or waste interaction on weird things. (3) Being more aware of the threats and potential threats. This takes time to learn I know, but it baffles me how many times you can play versus the same people and yet they still seem unaware of what the key things to target to stop you are. (4) Sharing threat and potential threat information more with other players, including threats you pose if players are at obviously different power levels or newer to the game or you simply like more players to be knowledgeable. Players will only get better at playing more interaction and properly assessing threats if they learn. It is all of our responsibility to help them learn. Help your fellow commander players become better players.
Hi, I've enjoyed this site for a couple years now and I hope to continue enjoying it in the future. This being said I'm a little confused why a second site is still going ahead if this site is staying around. I read in a comment on the 'A New and Exciting Beginning' article that the split isn't due to drama, but if it isn't, then why the split? What will be the benefit of having two sites exactly? Like I would likely use both sites if I find there is value for me, but why split at all? If the only reason is people are moving to a new site, why are they moving? Will there be additional features on this new site that isn't offered here? Do some people really hate the UI of this site? Is it just that those working on the new site started working on it and want to see it to completion even if doing so will split the community? Just looking for some insight here as to why the split is occurring and/or what the benefits and downsides of each site would be so I can better determine which one might be most useful for different purposes (e.g. Commander more on one site while the other focuses on Modern or one site will be more lax with restricting necro threads or one site will allow spoilers).
But being the best at magic means leveraging EVERY tool, and tac scooping is a tool, even if it's not one that commonly comes up.
Funny you say the above DirkGently when earlier in the thread you said the following:
"People way overrate the risk of speed-scooping. Not only do very few people do it, but most strats aren't particularly affected by it. Insurrection, perhaps, although as mentioned above it can usually be politicked through if everyone is playing logically. Theft decks in general (such as Geth, which I've played a fair amount of) are pretty vulnerable to people leaving the game, whether from being eliminated, scooping out of spite, or just needing to catch the bus. It's an important part of the strat to be able to keep your hosts alive while you feed from them - if you aren't putting pressure on them until you've eliminated the other players, they're less likely to want to scoop, or be eliminated by the other players.
But these are corner cases, most decks are barely affected by speed-scooping, if at all. And combo is much stronger than what most people are doing, with or without speed-scooping on the table. Saying that people will play fast combo if speed-scooping is allowed is ridiculous - if people wanted to maximize wins during deck construction they'd all be playing fast combo decks regardless. But if they did have to worry about speed-scooping, it might make them think a little harder about politics."
So people will be tactical scooping as it gives them a slight advantage and being the "best at magic means leveraging EVERY tool", but a meta with tactical scooping will not really encourage people to play combos that don't care if someone tactically scoops even if it gives them an advantage?
I love infinite combos and competitive extra turns decks, so I am actually ok with tactical scooping if it is clear beforehand as I can just play my favourite type of decks. I guess my main issue with tactical scooping is people don't normally declare whether that is allowed or not when playing with new people (you could certainly argue they should and I'd agree, but would you agree it isn't common to do so?). Couple this with the fact I think it is fair to say a majority do not support tactical scooping and this generates king making games and animosity between players when someone out of the blue threatens tactical scooping when it isn't expected. It almost feels like the rules of the game are changing in that instance and nullifies any 'win' (even though I agree with others that a win is a win). What are you thoughts on that?
Additional thoughts:
When playing competitively I normally automatically assume the 'worst' and that someone will play as cutthroat as possible. I've been in competitive and less competitive games before and sometimes I point out tactical scooping potentials in game, but so far none of the 50+ people I've ever played commander with came out in favour of tactical scooping to deny combat triggers (one other person and myself would be ok with it if it was clear beforehand, but we were both the most cutthroat players in any of the groups I've played in).
I understand the purpose of allowing tactical scooping. That being that players own their cards and need to be able to take them and leave whenever they want, but that's why it seems tactical scooping is an accident of the rules. Perhaps a slightly messier rule that could support the majority who are against tactical scooping could be that scooping at anytime is allowed, but if someone insta-scoops players are allowed to move back a phase of the game (or move back to declare attackers step if insta-scooping occurs at any point during combat). It does seem allowing tactical scooping was the easiest way to have the rules though when making rules for the majority as a whole.
In most situations I am pro scooping at instant speed, except for during combat steps (so someone doesn't screw someone else over during combat by insta-scooping) and to deny triggers. I would be willing to change my opinion based on the group. The important thing for me is consistency. I don't have a problem with someone killing themselves to deny triggers using 'in-game' moves like tapping a land to lose the last life one has, because those are moves that one could reasonably expect in the game and somewhat predict (at least partially). Since most groups (that I have played in and I feel is the case more widely based on threads I have followed on this over the years and through asking people around me who play Magic) seem to play as if the triggers occurred anyway when someone insta-scoops it seems odd to deny triggers this way as it is unexpected and cannot reasonably be expected or predicted. I am also against insta-scooping to deny triggers and so forth, because allowing insta-scooping to deny triggers incentivizes insular infinite combo strategies that do not care about what opponents are doing or whether someone insta-scoops to deny triggers. This being said I am a spike and lots of my decks already use insular infinite combo strategies (e.g. infinite combo and 'infinite' turns), so for me what matters most is if it is clear that insta-scooping to deny triggers using non-'in-game' actions is allowed or not before a game begins so one can act in a manner that is consistent with expectations.
Too situational. It depends. In some cases it makes more sense to counter the tutor if you have good reason to believe the thing being tutored is something you can't deal with (e.g. can't be countered, a land (e.g. Dakmor Salvage in a The Gitrog Monster EDH deck) or a card with a cast trigger). In other cases it makes sense to counter the card being tutored as you get your opponent to waste more time and mana, while you gain card advantage.
I don't tend to have a problem with either of them but that is probably just down to I play in a pretty regular group at a store and the matches all can go from races to grinds at a drop of a hat and the winner varies a whole bunch.
If you have a top tier commander. So cEDH, which is irrelevant to the banlist.
The style of Commander you play doesn't also limit your choices of Commander so I don't understand this statement. Elf's follow up post also expands on this but Fast mana is the best in Commander because no matter what you have a Commander, and if you are playing a well made commander deck of any power level having your commander in play faster generally means your deck is working better.
If you aren't building those commanders competitively, then they aren't going to just win off of fast Mana like master is describing. Choosing to play Azami doesn't mean you are going to build a competitive deck, true, but if you're playing Azami and a turn 1 Sol ring means you are going to win, then you are almost certainly playing a competitive build.
We aren't saying you are going to win.
We are saying those cards are like snowballs of value rolling down a hill and eventually that amount of added value to any deck that early in the game overwhelms the opponents attempting to deal with making it so statistically the deck that has gained the most value over the game will win the game.
In your Azami deck example what you are describing is the different between turn 5 Azami or turn 3 Azami and that represents quite a lot more value.
Maybe you should try reading the posts in the conversation. He said "yeah, you pretty much win" then talked about cEDH level decks.
Sorry if that may have been hyperbole. I was trying to respond in a similar manner to how the 'tutors are worse' people are responding.
And I focused on cEDH Commanders (not cEDH decks), because those are the main engines in and of themselves, so ramping into them early is a massive advantage. Early fast ramping into a voltron commander can also kill very quickly.
Like I said though, I think the main issue is varying power levels between decks when they play. I don't think the issue is fast mana or tutors, but if I was forced to say which was stronger I believe fast mana is stronger for multiple reasons, many of which have already been stated in this thread.
If you have a top tier commander. So cEDH, which is irrelevant to the banlist.
I haven't even voted in this poll since I don't think fast mana or tutors are an issue in Commander. As I stated in an earlier post (not the one you responded to (see previous page)), I think the main issue is decks of varying power level playing versus each other and pilots with poor threat assessment. I've played cEDH and games were very fun, very swingy and lasted a long time more times than not. I was mainly responding to the fact some seem to think tutors are stronger or worse for Commander than fast mana. One of the common points those who think tutors are stronger or worse seem to put forward is they are stronger because fast mana can do nothing with the variance in Commander. My counterpoint is there is no variance with your Commander as you 'always' (barring stealing and such niche tactics) have it available via the command zone, so with fast mana you can always ramp into it, whereas a single tutor is often less powerful on its own and more balanced versus other players with similar mana availability who all have the goal of winning themselves. Granted if variance is the thing you hate most, then yes, I guess tutors would be the thing you hate more, but I don't think tutors are stronger than fast mana. So really by saying tutors are worse I think those people with that view are in effect saying 'I love variance, tutors kill variance'. They aren't really saying tutors are stronger or less fair.
Personally I like fast mana and tutors in EDH. I think the issue is decks of varying power level. If everyone's deck is at a similar power level (and those playing have good threat assessment), then games can last a very long time and have lots of swings about who is in first place at any particular time. Granted there will be some games where people win really early, but with 4 or more people with similarly powered decks that is the exception rather than the rule.
The above being said I think fast mana is likely stronger of the two for two key reasons:
Fast mana enables one to cast their commander faster. A deck's commander is normally key for the deck's strongest synergy, engine and strategies. Variance doesn't matter for one's commander since a deck's commander is almost always available from the command zone.
Tutors enable other players to find answers as well as threats.
Spell-Version Snapcaster just spoiled at UU with Surveil 2.
I think Blue is doing just fine, and you guys REALLY need to go play Pauper if this isn't enough for you. Every complaint in this Thread is absolutely addressed by moving to a different format.
I'd play Legacy or Vintage if there were actual events near me and I could afford to without seriously hindering every other part of my life financially. The reserve list is stupid. You'd probably have fewer people wanting stronger countermagic and stack manipulation in Modern if they could play the formats they wanted.
I love Modern how it is as it allows me to play cool decks like Taking Turns, but I love stack manipulation (I think instants and stack manipulation are the best part of Magic along with the wide diversity of strategies possible). I want all strategies viable in Modern with less emphasis on creatures and combat.
Are people not worried that those who are using less optimal combos would not simply increase the efficiency of their combos to ensure they can win faster with less life? That seems more likely than them breaking apart their decks. As someone who does not enjoy winning through straight up vanilla creature aggro damage I would certainly do as much as possible before switching away from control and combo. I do think that there is an arms race that occurs as more people add combo to their decks (I have noticed this in my own play groups as well, but I realize this is anecdotal evidence), but as this arms race occurs I find our games have gotten better and lasted longer as more people become familiar with combos and play more interaction and politick better instead of only focusing on their decks.
Another issue I have with lowering the life total is it makes it more likely someone will be knocked out early, which leaves to more feel bad games IMO. I've been in many games where a player focused on one player with aggro until they died, then the games continued on for hours.
In non-cEDH metas the higher life total seems even more important as more players play ramp and higher cmc cards (from my experience). Do others disagree? If so, why do you think so? Whereas in cEDH games I have played there have been many games where players life has stayed around 40 the entire game even when games have lasted hours.
I think the biggest issues are: (1) Talking with people beforehand and deciding on playing at similar power levels or agreeing that a game will be basically archenemy if the power levels are very different. (2) Playing more interaction (Many times I have played versus a Gitrog player with an extremely competitive deck with Dakmor Salvage as a key combo piece for the faster version of their deck. Being mono-blue I was in a bind for faster and permanent answers to this, but research and sticking to it got me to include Extract and more graveyard hate in my deck.) Interactive games make for the best games IMO. I'm continuously amazed how few people play reasonable amounts of interaction or waste interaction on weird things. (3) Being more aware of the threats and potential threats. This takes time to learn I know, but it baffles me how many times you can play versus the same people and yet they still seem unaware of what the key things to target to stop you are. (4) Sharing threat and potential threat information more with other players, including threats you pose if players are at obviously different power levels or newer to the game or you simply like more players to be knowledgeable. Players will only get better at playing more interaction and properly assessing threats if they learn. It is all of our responsibility to help them learn. Help your fellow commander players become better players.
Funny you say the above DirkGently when earlier in the thread you said the following:
"People way overrate the risk of speed-scooping. Not only do very few people do it, but most strats aren't particularly affected by it. Insurrection, perhaps, although as mentioned above it can usually be politicked through if everyone is playing logically. Theft decks in general (such as Geth, which I've played a fair amount of) are pretty vulnerable to people leaving the game, whether from being eliminated, scooping out of spite, or just needing to catch the bus. It's an important part of the strat to be able to keep your hosts alive while you feed from them - if you aren't putting pressure on them until you've eliminated the other players, they're less likely to want to scoop, or be eliminated by the other players.
But these are corner cases, most decks are barely affected by speed-scooping, if at all. And combo is much stronger than what most people are doing, with or without speed-scooping on the table. Saying that people will play fast combo if speed-scooping is allowed is ridiculous - if people wanted to maximize wins during deck construction they'd all be playing fast combo decks regardless. But if they did have to worry about speed-scooping, it might make them think a little harder about politics."
So people will be tactical scooping as it gives them a slight advantage and being the "best at magic means leveraging EVERY tool", but a meta with tactical scooping will not really encourage people to play combos that don't care if someone tactically scoops even if it gives them an advantage?
I love infinite combos and competitive extra turns decks, so I am actually ok with tactical scooping if it is clear beforehand as I can just play my favourite type of decks. I guess my main issue with tactical scooping is people don't normally declare whether that is allowed or not when playing with new people (you could certainly argue they should and I'd agree, but would you agree it isn't common to do so?). Couple this with the fact I think it is fair to say a majority do not support tactical scooping and this generates king making games and animosity between players when someone out of the blue threatens tactical scooping when it isn't expected. It almost feels like the rules of the game are changing in that instance and nullifies any 'win' (even though I agree with others that a win is a win). What are you thoughts on that?
Additional thoughts:
When playing competitively I normally automatically assume the 'worst' and that someone will play as cutthroat as possible. I've been in competitive and less competitive games before and sometimes I point out tactical scooping potentials in game, but so far none of the 50+ people I've ever played commander with came out in favour of tactical scooping to deny combat triggers (one other person and myself would be ok with it if it was clear beforehand, but we were both the most cutthroat players in any of the groups I've played in).
I understand the purpose of allowing tactical scooping. That being that players own their cards and need to be able to take them and leave whenever they want, but that's why it seems tactical scooping is an accident of the rules. Perhaps a slightly messier rule that could support the majority who are against tactical scooping could be that scooping at anytime is allowed, but if someone insta-scoops players are allowed to move back a phase of the game (or move back to declare attackers step if insta-scooping occurs at any point during combat). It does seem allowing tactical scooping was the easiest way to have the rules though when making rules for the majority as a whole.
Sorry if that may have been hyperbole. I was trying to respond in a similar manner to how the 'tutors are worse' people are responding.
And I focused on cEDH Commanders (not cEDH decks), because those are the main engines in and of themselves, so ramping into them early is a massive advantage. Early fast ramping into a voltron commander can also kill very quickly.
Like I said though, I think the main issue is varying power levels between decks when they play. I don't think the issue is fast mana or tutors, but if I was forced to say which was stronger I believe fast mana is stronger for multiple reasons, many of which have already been stated in this thread.
I haven't even voted in this poll since I don't think fast mana or tutors are an issue in Commander. As I stated in an earlier post (not the one you responded to (see previous page)), I think the main issue is decks of varying power level playing versus each other and pilots with poor threat assessment. I've played cEDH and games were very fun, very swingy and lasted a long time more times than not. I was mainly responding to the fact some seem to think tutors are stronger or worse for Commander than fast mana. One of the common points those who think tutors are stronger or worse seem to put forward is they are stronger because fast mana can do nothing with the variance in Commander. My counterpoint is there is no variance with your Commander as you 'always' (barring stealing and such niche tactics) have it available via the command zone, so with fast mana you can always ramp into it, whereas a single tutor is often less powerful on its own and more balanced versus other players with similar mana availability who all have the goal of winning themselves. Granted if variance is the thing you hate most, then yes, I guess tutors would be the thing you hate more, but I don't think tutors are stronger than fast mana. So really by saying tutors are worse I think those people with that view are in effect saying 'I love variance, tutors kill variance'. They aren't really saying tutors are stronger or less fair.
Yes, you do pretty much win when you have the fast start if you have a top tier commander and know how to build a deck that works with your commander. At the very least you have a huge advantage. The ramp enables you to kill your opponents fast, tutor or otherwise gain card advantage. For example, ramping into Zur the Enchanter, Arcum Dagsson, Captain Sisay, Prossh, Skyraider of Kher, Sidisi, Undead Vizier, The Gitrog Monster, Yisan, the Wanderer Bard, Azami, Lady of Scrolls, Momir Vig, Simic Visionary or Narset, Enlightened Master. These are commanders who are engines by themselves. Granted there are other commanders that are similarly backbreaking if ramped into early (e.g. Grand Arbiter Augustin IV), but I wanted to focus on commanders that are engines themselves as technically someone could just draw bricks, making a tutor better.
The above being said I think fast mana is likely stronger of the two for two key reasons:
I'd play Legacy or Vintage if there were actual events near me and I could afford to without seriously hindering every other part of my life financially. The reserve list is stupid. You'd probably have fewer people wanting stronger countermagic and stack manipulation in Modern if they could play the formats they wanted.
I love Modern how it is as it allows me to play cool decks like Taking Turns, but I love stack manipulation (I think instants and stack manipulation are the best part of Magic along with the wide diversity of strategies possible). I want all strategies viable in Modern with less emphasis on creatures and combat.