Magic Market Index for Sep 14th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Sep 6th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index: Hit Over Miss
  • posted a message on [[Official]] Unreleased and New Card Discussion
    I concur with most of these designations, but your opinion of tajic drips with preconceived Boris bias when he's actually a step forward for the legends of that guild, whereas Iroas just another runner in the combat step pack.
    The pyroclasm/earthquake/Mark of Asylum combo had no real home until Tajic, and while it's not uber tier good or common, it is NOT strictly hurrdurr combat step. It IS a valid excuse to run Personal Sanctuary mainboard without looking like a nerd though, and that is HyPe.
    I'm not saying Iroas isn't pretty standard boros, just that at least he's good.

    If tajic prevented the damage to himself I might be more into it, but as is his synergy is:
    1) you have to play him first, and then your big burn spell, so it's very mana intensive and slow
    2) he's going to die no matter what so you're burning two cards to pull off this maybe-plague-wind combo
    3) if gets removed in response, you just owned yourself, and he's very easy to remove

    If he prevented it to himself I could at least see a build where you keep quaking turn after turn while smashing in (at least in magic christmas land where no one runs spot removal or creatures big enough to survive a damage wipe), but when he dies every time? No thank you.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on [[Official]] Unreleased and New Card Discussion
    Operating on the assumption that we're done on legends now that we have all the guild leaders, time to rate 'em.

    Aurelia, Exemplar of Justice - C
    She's functionally a 4/5 flying vigilance trample mentor with halfway-haste, which is pretty strong really. But I don't think she actually enables decks that are dramatically different from what RW already had and she's basically only useful for attacking.

    Tajic, Legion's Edge - D
    ...Cool...both boros commanders are attacking machines that have mentor. How...exciting. So much variety for a color combination that badly needs more variety. I guess you could synergize around damage boardwipes or something to make use of his other ability, but I'm pretty sure you should just run iroas, god of victory and focus on the instant-speed ones and be fine. At least he probably won't get removed out from under you and make you faceplant. Once again boros gets the shaft. great.

    Niv-Mizzet, Parun - F
    Let's just take everything annoying about the original niv, and tack onto that uncounterability, a more powerful draw ability, and more stats. Because what we really wanted was a niv mizzet that's even less fun to play against.

    Lazav, the Multifarious - A
    I think they blew all their design budget on making this guy. He's awesome. Dimir Doppelganger was a super cool card, and this is that except with an emphasis on toolboxing and low-cmc creatures. I'm slightly bummed that it's so easy to get a 1 hit ko with him using phyrexian dreadnought, which detracts for the toolboxing a bit, but he's still super cool.

    Etrata, the Silencer - A
    Dimir really got the goods this set. Etrata doesn't appeal to me as much as Lazav, but she's a super interesting card that should make crafty opponents think carefully about how to avoid getting killed by her. I think she's going to create some great games while not being in any way oppressive, which is always good design in my book.

    Izoni, Thousand-eyed - C
    The sac ability is pretty unexciting but it's not nothing. The main utility here seems to come from making a dozen tokens, but it requires a lot of setup and the cost is quite high, and even then you sorta need a payoff for the tokens besides just slowly sacking them for CA. This seems a bit underpowered to me, and just hoarding up creatures in the grave because you have to is a boring goal imo. I'd rather play karador or sidisi who give you more interesting payoffs and/or actually help you fill the grave themselves.

    Trostani Discordant - D
    Getting a couple tokens is pretty unexciting and the brand ability is usually irrelevant, so the main event is the anthem. Which at 5 is fine I guess, but I don't see anyone playing meng huo, barbarian king. So I doubt this snoozefest will see any play.

    Emmara, Soul of the Accord - C
    Low cmc and a fairly efficient token-making ability are both solid points for this card, but it's probably pretty low-impact in most decks unless I'm missing something. I suspect this will be in the 99 a lot more often than in the command zone. It's a fine card, though, no complaints about the design. Hell of a lot better than OG emmara.

    Overall...Dimir got all the good stuff and everyone else got jack. Which, in fairness, if I had to pick one guild to get the good stuff, it'd be Dimir. So I guess I'm happy? But I would have liked to see something new for boros and izzet, or something more interesting for selesnya and golgari.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Overinvested
    Quote from Gashnaw »
    I wasn't giving deck building advice, you mention intruder alarm and i mention conscripts.
    I guess I don't understand why, though. Everyone knows about kiki-conscripts (at the time I made my kiki deck, conscripts wouldn't be printed for another 7 years, and pestermite for another 3 - it was a standard legal deck). Deckbuilding specifically was more targeted at other people - mostly I just mean that people seem to have a tendency to explain really basic stuff to me on this thread like I'm just now learning commander.

    Anyway I do get the issue with certain people ruining metas, but that's not actually the problem I have. The guy I mentioned I've only played against a couple times in the many years I've been playing EDH in the Seattle area. As much as I find the way he plays to be annoying and a bit pathetic, I don't have much reason to care. If I see him again I'll probably just decline to play him.

    Quote from Yatsufusa »
    After the recent string of posts, I see where I missed the point (or at least I think I see it).

    At the end of the day, it's basically still a "social contract" problem. The reason why I (and some other people I guess) keep reverting to "deckbuilding solutions" that you find irrelevant is because that is pretty much the "single-person" solution to the problem. Without citing specific examples this time (and chances are you already know) is that one basically has to adapt to any given situation and learn to appreciate the situation if you want to "solve" the situation. Build decks of every caliber and learn to enjoy every possible situation, be it the most casual timmy beatdowns, the most convoluted johnny combos or the most spike matches and even harder than all of them, learn to extract enjoyment in the unfortunate case they clash. Deckbuilding-wise it traslates to "build everything, build diversity".

    The reason why we fall back to the "single-person" solution is because short of saying "Get the playgroup to engage in a serious, detailed discussion about setting power levels", there probably isn't an actual "multi-people" solution for these cases. The whole "garden of eden" situation you described is the natural, much, much-slower process of the same thing.

    So from this chain of recent activity I conclude that your problem amounts to "Why do "newer/unaware" players who experiment like I do not adopt the same same conscious intentional limiter levels like I do?" and then you already answered it with "because people like to win" and you are frustrated that these "new/unaware" players are evolving to "competitive players" instead of "creative players".

    Then there's the issue of "competitive players" evolving further to "just for the win" people who purposely choose to play with the creative/newbie groups simply for their desire to win (because it's too much work to win at cEDH, the curve steepens dramatically there) and the "creatively competitive people" who enjoy the toughness of the cEDH curve the same way they enjoyed the initial difficulty curve of the creative/newbie groups when they were part of the group proper, but might choose to dabble in the weaker groups for inspiration anyway.

    Either way, fact remains most players are aligned to to "strive to improve and become more competitive" than the "consciously limit my power levels because I just enjoy playing around" and even those who don't mind the later are more attuned to the former because its more likely their friends are aligned to that (since most people are aligned to the first, again). If you're frustrated that the people are turning out like that after spending so long in the "Garden of Eden", then short of proposing the accelerated direct discussion to identify what type of players they are, there isn't really one, it's just the natural slow cycle of generating (mostly striving to be competitive) players. The "Garden of Eden" may be an "ideal" (or close to it) playgroup for creative players like you, but that's mainly because newer players have to experiment like creative players, so the Garden isn't actually a playgroup OF creative players.
    The guy who was trying to trick people into playing casual decks vs his cEDH bull***** isn't actually a real problem for me. As I said to Gashnaw, I've almost never seen him. He's most just indicative of the problem I have with how I behave myself in those circumstances - when he started comboing his command with words of wind+mana crypt+ornithopter I got huffy and asked him angrily why he didn't want to find someone else who actually wanted to play cEDH. Which is a fair question I think, but I was actually angry and that's kind of a stupid reaction. I already knew what kind of deck it was going to be and I played anyway. I still think he's wrong and a prick, but that doesn't mean I'm not also wrong. also I just don't like feeling like a bad sport.

    There's a few people who play moderately-competitive decks at my LGS but it's usually within reasonable levels. Usually stuff similar to mine power-wise, where it's a well-constructed, high-budget version of a non-competitive idea (i.e. recently played against a fairly strong atraxa superfriends list - not going to combo win on turn 3 or anything, but still pretty threatening for a casual table - obviously my decks are (hopefully) a little more original but whatever). I don't mind there being some discrepancy in power levels, that's why threat assessment exists. Makes it easier to get everyone to gang up on them.

    Occasionally someone will blindside me with some bull***** (recently had someone go infinite with DEN + drake while I was playing my "sequence" deck (I have to cast spells in an order dictated by a random pile of cards with various conditions on them...it sounds dumb in retrospect) which I thought was pretty lame and I also reacted kind of badly) but usually things tend to be within competitive levels that I'm fine with. Some people are becoming a little more competitive, but they're still very far away from cEDH and have openly told me they don't wish to get much closer, and other people are limited by budget. While things could theoretically get worse, I don't see any current problems with my playgroup. And I've been to multiple other groups that mostly fit within my range of acceptability.

    So I can see where you got the impression that I'm complaining about power discrepancy, but that's not actually the problem either. The core of the problem is that I feel like I can get overanxious about the results of the game, causing me to be a bad sport, in multiple EDH scenarios - one of which is when I play against someone with an uncreative, high-powered deck that wins in a way I feel is unearned, and another is when I'm playing a deck that I have significant attachment to. Power level discrepancies can bring out my anxiety and anger, but I need to solve the anxiety, not the discrepancies.

    And while I do agree that some people have trouble with the idea of limiting their power, I don't see that as a problem in our EDH group - or even in many of the groups in my city. But I'm sympathetic to those who do have those woes.
    Quote from Gashnaw »
    an additional issue is that even if they build more decks, they are not creative, i will admit, not every deck i build is creative, but i try to be on most. The decks i see others play (Those who win a lot) don't have creative decks. Its all invested into win more, which is boring. Plus i can probably find all of their decklists on tapped out, multiple times.

    I mean Arcades, mg LGS had 5 decks the night he was released (out if 9 people there that night, meaning over half were playing arcades, all of them differed by less than 10 cards.

    That is why i mean by not being creative. Tell me, when is the last time you saw someone build Atraxa voltron (Completely ignoring the proliferate ability)? Or a ruhan deck that donates Propaganda effects so he can aim? Or an arcum deck that wins by attacking rather than locking down the board (My deck was able to lock down the board, but swinging with blightseels (Yes multiple) was my usual win con. Or a sliver hivelord that ran only 3 other slivers.
    5 out of 9 is pretty ridiculous. Although really I'm impressed that high of a percentage of your group can get a deck together that quickly. At my LGS some people have been playing the same deck for the better part of a year.

    That said, I don't buy the idea that creative equals crappy. Donating propaganda is funny but that is beyond awful for a game plan. And making atraxa voltron doesn't strike me as creative or interesting. Imo creativity isn't about attaching random strategies to commanders that don't synergize with it in any particular way - it's about finding something different but still makes sense - like zur rebels (which I haven't built but is a super fun idea).
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Dealing with the Devil - Athreos, God of Backstabbing Traitors
    Quote from darrenhabib »
    The problem with this is that you've burnt that bridge, and you'll not be able to make future deals with this person. In fact you'll probably be targeted in future matches, even if you're the weaker threat. Depends if you're playing with the same people again, or if these are some random once off people.

    But if it's a regular group setting then you can't really do this sort of stuff and not have it come back to bite you.
    I don't think that's necessarily true.

    Earlier in the same match, the fourth player made, like, 8 angels or something off an entreat. I made a deal with striplock to wipe out all the angels and also sunder's commander (tatyova) because it was beneficial for both of us, using death match and a 0-drop. And striplock didn't have any retribution visited upon him - although if I'd had a storm card, I potentially could have.

    Making a deal with the devil (aka me playing athreos) is always going to be a matter of weighing the pros and cons. Sunder was absolutely going to lose that game - he was getting strip mined 3-4 times per turn, was down to 3 lands already - sure, he had like 30 power on the board with an avenger of zendikar, but striplock was building up power even faster (he had the landfall guy that makes 4/4s) and had actual mana to cast his cards. If anything I stole the win from striplock, not sunder. Sunder already lost, he just made a deal that had maybe some chance of saving him.

    Ideally it should be a bit more ambiguous though, as with the board wipe earlier in the game, that I may or may not pull some nonsense and win. Naturally the co-conspirator will need to be in a bad position to want to make a deal with me, but that's bound to happen to most of the players at some point, in a game that only has one winner. Ideally it's not a position of "you are guaranteed to lose, so how about I offer you a .01% chance of not losing in exchange for giving me a 99.9% chance to win?" kind of deal, which is why I wish I'd done the other thing because he would have had a slim chance instead of essentially zero chance. If he'd had a blue mana into a counterspell of some sort, or a way to gain a couple life, he might have weaseled out of the tendrils play and still won. Pretty impossible to survive the bitter ordeal play that I ended up doing, though. Which is why I think that was a poor play on my part.

    I'm sure in the future, if we play again, he'll be more cautious, but if he's in a situation where his only hope to win is to let me go off and hope I don't have the finisher, then I think he'll take it. I'd take it.
    Posted in: Multiplayer Commander Decklists
  • posted a message on Overinvested
    Quote from Gashnaw »
    @Dirk

    Yea Kiki is often paired with zealous conscripts in edh
    Lol, yeah, I know.

    Why do people keep explaining really basic deckbuilding advice to me in this thread? I know I'm not the MOST senior person here, but still, I've been neck-deep in EDH since 2009. I'm familiar with the combos even if I don't build them.
    Quote from Gashnaw »
    I never planned for scrum to be that fast or deadly. It's kind of a
    Tire vs nurture. Naturally it was meant to be fun jank. But they taught me to be merciless and so I was. When you have an army of flying blighteels coming at you turn 4 (yes an army. Not one) you know your opponent is not messing around. And you have to ask "am I the cause?"

    I build a lot of combo decks. It's not the same kind of combo, but still combo.
    I don't have any problem with people playing combo or whatever if that's what their playgroup's power level is. As long as it's balanced and everyone's having fun, I'm not one to judge. Personally I prefer a slower meta, though.

    Been said, but commander gets weird because many players aren't familiar with the idea of intentionally limiting power level. And honestly it rarely comes up in conversation, and when it does it tends to get bogged down in details of "this effect is ok, this effect isn't". It's natural to want to have the highest win% you can, and to build decks that help you do that, because winning is more fun than losing. Not everyone can easily reign in that urge.

    Right now my main playgroup is sort of a garden of eden situation, where most of the players either aren't aware of how to make a powerful deck or can't afford it. Which is simultaneously great, because we don't need to argue about what's ok and what's not, but also bad because broken things do occasionally pop up and we haven't really had any discussions about those sorts of things to make it clear what the expectations are.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Overinvested
    @Gashnaw

    Yeah, sounds like roughly the same thing. Definitely an annoying category of person.

    Curiously I've never really been tempted to build a fast combo deck in commander. When I built arcum ages ago I studiously avoided any kind of combo so I could run him as a janky toolbox build. I think that urge got burnt out of my system before EDH when I was building terrible 60-card-casual decks. The two that come to mind being kiki-jiki, mirror breaker+intruder alarm, and the much lesser known but hilarious griffin canyon + land animation + creature type change.
    I can kind of relate. I love the brewing process and creating a meld of mechanisms that synergise and lead to different lines of play. And it frustrates me when that doesn't work out how I want it to. I feel like maybe it's a disconnect between the brewing process and the way the deck plays outside a vacuum - certainly seems to be, in my case. It's part of the reason I'm more interested in toolbox/quasi-control builds these days; there may not be a specific game plan or a win-con I set up every game, but I run enough answers to have stamina through a reasonable amount of problems.

    This guy you talk about with the Jeleva deck would piss me off too, FWIW. And I would also try to take him down a peg or two, but ultimately it does seem like the best way to deal with him is just to not game with him, and leave pods that he joins, tell your friends how he games and such. That's neither here nor there in relation to the original topic, but his actions do move the goalposts for success with your brews. Certainly, I would try not to judge my decks in relation to his, considering Jeleva is known for being a strong cEDH deck.
    I've been thinking about the sorts of decks that I might try building to attempt to assuage my inner demons, and right now I'm thinking something along the lines of a proactive control deck. Extremely reactive control decks like Phelddagrif are really cool and unique strategically, and can definitely be fun, but they can also be kind of stressful since you're vulnerable in a lot of ways without a strong board presence, oftentimes I'm effectively policing the entire table, it's very difficult to play well, and also it almost always wins via people scooping because the games goes too long :p So I'm thinking maybe something life Raff Capashen that can play to the board while still keeping up answers to block stupid stuff, and wins on a reasonable time scale.

    Not really a permanent fix, because I still love designing difficult to play, politic-heavy, reactive control builds, but it's still something worth experimenting with.

    Of my decks, I think my athreos actually has an OK chance against cEDH since it can semi-reasonably kill someone as early as turn 3 (theoretical turn 2 with a god hand) with a little help from a co-conspirator (which ought to be easy to get when the other player is pulling some serious BS like that), but that requires a good draw which I didn't have, and cEDH guy had 4 mana on turn 1 because mana crypt is totally a boon to the format Rolleyes Anyway ofc I don't judge my decks based on how they perform in those scenarios, but it's still the sort of conflict that tends to stress me out. In retrospect I should have said "no thanks, I don't like playing against cEDH decks" but oh well. Heat of the moment. (btw it was jhoira not jeleva but who cares)
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Overinvested
    Quote from Gashnaw »
    I know what you mean. I feel the same way sometimes. Of course what really bothers me is one person in Play against. I like the guy usually. But I get so burned out playing against him.
    I'm curious what bothers you about this person. I definitely notice that how anxious I get depends on who I'm playing against.

    The last game I played with Athreos was against a guy I've run into a couple times who really bothers me. He's plenty friendly and everything, and a good sport, but every time I've bumped into him he's been playing an unabashed cEDH deck - in this case, some sort of storm Jhoira list that looks basically identical to this one: https://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/fast-mana-is-fair-and-balanced-jwc-storm-primer/. Not sure if he created it or if he's netdecking, but either way he doesn't give any kind of disclaimer about what he's playing, he just asks if we want to play a game. When I said I needed to leave soon, he said not to worry, that the game would be quick because of his deck.

    Last time I bumped into him, me and my gf were trying to find additional players to bash precons (I had a box of them) and he said he had no interest in playing any decks except his own.

    Basically I don't the sense he wants any challenge at all - he just wants to steamroll unsuspecting people all day, like he's totally oblivious to the idea that EDH involves a social contract and that most people aren't interested in games that end on turn 3-5. I don't mind as much for me, since I could smell what he was cooking a mile away. But for sure he's sat down next to newer players and done the same thing and doesn't seem to see anything wrong with it. I asked him why he bothers, why doesn't he find someone also interested in cEDH, and he said "well I didn't make you play the game".

    Anyway, this sort of person bothers me and I get a lot more anxious about losing, and a lot more invested in taking him down a peg. Which is probably not a great reaction.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on [[Official]] Unreleased and New Card Discussion
    Quote from Taleran »
    Enjoy cards like this

    Wait, so coffee canonically exists in the mtg multiverse? That's a weird revelation.

    My best guess is some flavor text writer was up late trying to think of the last few, probably sucking down a latte or something.

    Fun card, though. I like those sorts of funky rares.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Dealing with the Devil - Athreos, God of Backstabbing Traitors
    Thanks!

    Thanks for pointing out the blood pet, looks like i just added an extra on accident. I was trying to scramble the order around a little to throw people off the case of what the deck was doing :p and I accidentally included it twice. Actual deck was 100 cards though.

    Enduring renewal isn't included because it goes infinite without politics - the theme I wanted to go for was that you win only with someone else's permission. Somebody has to make the mistake of trusting you :p Of course the deck can still go infinite if an opponent is down to 2 or less life, but that's kind of unavoidable. The deck has enough required combo pieces that I wanted to be able to include a decent number of tutors, without accidentally making the "correct play" to just always tutor for the same infinite combo every game. Same reason I didn't include nim deathmantle, which goes infinite with su-chi.

    Viscera seer got cut for a few reasons, but the main one is that my opponents have no reason to want me to be able to scry a ton of times. Same reason I didn't include cards like grim haruspex. It benefits me, but not the opponent I'm targeting with athreos, so it's not really political. It's still fine as a sac outlet that costs 1, but since most of the combos are pretty low-cmc even to play the whole thing in one turn, I don't think there's much downside to paying a few extra for a sac outlet that can give me a way to actually kill/maim someone instead of needing a side-effect dude like blood artist or whatever in addition to the free creature.

    Basically the combo should ideally either be (sac outlet + free dude) OR (side effect + 0/0 dude) to keep it as simple as possible. Sac outlets like viscera seer means I need side effect + sac outlet + free dude. Which is obviously going to be what happens anyway sometimes, since for example husk might not be able to swing in for lethal and I'll need a side effect to support it, but I'd rather that my sac outlets not REQUIRE a third piece.

    So that's the logic of why viscera seer (and other powerful sac outlets that don't provide an immediate win, like ashnod's altar) aren't in there.

    There was a little indecision on my part - I kinda forgot exactly what I said so went for tendrils first, then corrected to ordeal, and kinda rushed through the whole thing, so I think that's why it kind of left a bitter taste in people's mouth. Ideally I think the combo should be that you show an on-board, obvious way to kill your mutual opponent, and then an in-hand secret tool to backstab and kill your conspirator. In this circumstance, where I don't have all those pieces (there were a lot of wheels and sunder and other bull***** going on, so sculpting a hand was near impossible), I think going for the win where I do let him live but have the tools to virtually guaranteed kill him next turn is better. If my deals just always result in my conspirator dying immediately then there's not much reason to trust me - I'd rather give them a fleeting hope. Unfortunately because of how behind I was on-board (both opponents had 30+ power), it was hard to see the line where I could safely let anyone live until next turn, but it was there.
    Posted in: Multiplayer Commander Decklists
  • posted a message on House rules - laws or guidelines?
    We don't have house "rules", but generally people don't play anything too nasty. It's mostly built on the majority of our players being relatively new/bad/on a budget - not many people restricting deckbuilding based on actual principles, which makes it a little bit shaky at times. But on the plus side, people aren't trying to narrowly circumvent the rules. Occasionally people will have more competitive decks, but generally not powerful enough that the other players ganging up on them doesn't give everyone a fair shake.

    Personally I've stopped using mass LD, and generally avoid anything that ends up creating an unpleasant play experience (by which I mean I disassemble it afterwards - I'll still play it until the end of the night usually).

    Generally I think outlawing certain specific things is not an ideal way to go since I think, if you've got people who were previously breaking those rules they'll probably just want to get as close to breaking them as possible - ideally I think everyone should just have the same understanding of how they want games to go. But of course that's a bit unrealistic.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Worst Card-Reading Errors
    Boring common one, but I see people very frequently miss the "sorcery speed only" clause when it appears in a big block of text. Happened recently with transmogrifying wand but it's happened at least a couple times before.

    Funnier one - my girlfriend cast dream cache while bashing precons together, and after drawing 3 cards proceeded to thoughtfully sort out 2 piles of 2 cards each, so she could put one pile on top and the other pile on bottom of the deck :p draw 3 lose 4, seeeeems pretty bad.

    Then she miracled entreat the angels next turn and kicked my ass, so I guess she didn't need the help.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Overinvested
    Quote from Yatsufusa »
    ... and I only covered the deckbuilding half
    Feel like you're still kinda sorta totally missing the point.

    My deckbuilding process is great. I love deckbuilding. You may notice I've got 70 of them down there, not counting the PDH and brawl and all the EDH and 60-card-casual decks I built and never recorded. At no point do I ever feel uncomfortable while building a deck, and definitely not because it's "too creative". I have no problem with how much I care about deckbuilding or the decks I make.

    The problem is with how much I care about the results of the games I play with them. Ultimately, the success or failure of a deck in a single game - especially its first game - is a pretty poor metric for success. And I'm not brewing cEDH here, success on its own isn't even the goal. So just because I like my decks and invest time and thought into them, that's still not much reason to get anxious while playing them. Ideally each game should be a learning experience where I develop an understanding of the nuances of the deck, find synergies I didn't notice, or maybe find faults that result in poor function or unpleasant play patterns or some other undesirable outcome, and where the actual win/loss outcome isn't of much consequence. But instead I often find myself worked up about the result while playing, and ignoring all the valuable stuff until after the game is over.

    I take the games very personally, I guess, is sort of what I'm trying to say here, and I don't think there's any reason I ought to. There may well not be an easy fix for this, but I thought I'd see if anyone else had any techniques for getting into the right frame of mind, or could at least commiserate.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Overinvested
    I feel like you aren't really responding to what I actually said. I don't have problems win%-wise, if anything it's too high. I know how to build good decks. I've been building edh for nearly a decade.

    The problem isn't the decks, but how I feel playing them.

    I do think there's room to explore trying to figure out what sorts of decks are more comfortable to play, but that's sort of a band-aid solution. I don't want my build creativity to be constrained by caring too much about the result - that's the actual crux of the issue.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on Nature's Lore/Three Visits vs Krosan Tusker/Shefet Monitor
    Quote from Incanur »
    I've seen it happen! In one case, it led to a physical conformation & almost a fistfight.

    & to be fair, in certain circumstances countering ramp spells makes sense. For example, if you know the combo player needs two more lands to go infinite, maybe you should counter. Or for tempo with Disrupt or (in a pinch) Arcane Denial.

    I countered a Sakura-Tribe Elder activation with Bind once because I wanted to draw a card. Denying that one land ended up mattering.
    If you need the side effect of a counter, sure, fine, but if you have a counter and you're worried about someone going infinite...just counter the thing they're going to go infinite with? Is it already on-board in this scenario? Why would they play it early if they need more lands first?
    Why would they play their hand like that?
    Quote from Dunharrow »
    I mean, if someone playing Naya only has green mana available, you bet I'm countering the spell.
    Or maybe you just want value off of your remand.
    Remand, fine. Countering it just to deny colors, unless they're the biggest threat by a significant margin, there's no chance that's correct. Any deck with decent fixing will probably topdeck the colors within a few turns anyway.
    Countering a ramp spell is no different than land destruction; we just don't think of it that way. Same with Pyroclasming a bunch of elves or Krosan Grip on a mana rock. They all set back the target player's mana.

    Now, what kind of idiot land destruction player blows up lands that generate one mana and do nothing else with no intention of destroying all the lands for all the opponents is a riddle for the ages.
    Maybe this is just what you're saying, but if you're countering a 3 cmc spell it's probably only 1-2 mana.
    So it's basically the same thing as running stone rain. Which is really bad in this context.
    Quote from cryogen »
    Hitting someone's T3 ramp spell can be a huge tempo loss, as there's a decent chance it was in their opening hand and they were evaluating it based on the ramp spell.
    In 1v1, sure, in multiplayer, no way in hell. Unless you know in advance that the player is by far the biggest threat at the table or something.

    Trading 1:1 resources reactively is fine. Proactively is (with some exceptions) not. Wait for them to ramp into the threat, then counter the threat if it's necessary. Patience is key.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on The Return of the Dream EDH Ban List Poll
    ban sol ring, mana crypt, and DEN
    unban gifts and library.

    >:-D
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.