Quote from DirkGently »
You think the elf is bigger than dakkon blackblade? Hell no, that's all dinosaur baby.
Every time I go on here, I try to find something that makes the trip worth it. Tonight, it's all dinosaur baby.
-
- DirkGently
- Registered User
-
Member for 12 years, 10 months, and 3 days
Last active Tue, Jan, 17 2023 01:06:05
- 4 Followers
- 5,688 Total Posts
- 1046 Thanks
-
Aug 23, 20171
TheAmericanSpirit posted a message on [[Official]] Unreleased and New Card DiscussionPosted in: Commander (EDH)
Every time I go on here, I try to find something that makes the trip worth it. Tonight, it's all dinosaur baby. -
Dec 9, 20161
XeroxedFool posted a message on Some pointless complainingYour posts in this thread are really cool to read, a sort of 'faith in humanity' restored moment. I've been a sore loser before as well. My reason is that when you get used to winning sometimes you make excuses or get salty when you loose. I feel ashamed about it and its not often that I act that way but it does happen. Youre not the only one and I find it inspiring that you admitted it and moved past it.Posted in: Commander (EDH) -
May 30, 20161
So I know why Commander Damage is set at 21 it is because 7x3 and 3 is a good number of swings that all checks out. What I don't know is why the overall life total is set at 40. The simple answer is that is is double 20, and there are a couple others I can think of that make sense but why is it 40 for real and do you guys think 40 is still a good number.Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
Personally I think it is too high, and I think lowering that number would actually help a lot of other things people don't like about Commander that 40 Life helps facilitate.
1) Certain cards which relay on you having life to pay get drastically weaker as the starting life totals get pulled down now.
2) 40 Life is a pretty nice cushion and it allows people I think too much time to sit in relative safety and accumulate a win without needing to worry or care about a total.
3) Aggro is a pretty non-existent archetype in Commander it more exists on the fringes or in completely different forms (Voltron and decks like Purphoros are the big examples or more Battlecruiser type sets ups)
4) I play primarily combo decks and I know for me depending on the deck I know I don't need nearly as much protection / disruption because of the 40 Life I start the game with, especially if the any part of what I am doing also has life gain built into it.
I haven't personally gotten to try something smaller (that wasn't 1v1) because the places I play Commander stick pretty heavily to the rules as written, but I have been trying to figure out if there would be any massive downsides to lowering the starting life total.
(I put that 3rd entry in the poll in mostly as a joke but does anyone actually think 40 is not enough?) -
Aug 19, 20142
PhroX posted a message on Political Cards DatabasePosted in: Commander (EDH)Quote from DirkGently »Another very political card is "every instant-speed removal ever printed". "Do what I want and I'll kill his thing, otherwise I'll kill your thing" is a staple political maneuver.
Completely agree with this. Helping people isn't politics. Getting them to do your bidding is. Coercion is the epitome of politics.
One cool move I saw was with someone who had Kamahl, Fist of Krosa out, and a bunch of untapped green mana. Someone wrathed. Did he animate the wrather's land out of spite? No, he animated the land of Mr Mono-Blue with 8 untapped islands. Mr. Mono-Blue now has to counter the wrath he otherwise would've liked to resolve.
To me, that is far far more political than going "Oh, I gave you those centaur tokens from Hunted Horror two turns ago, now you should help me". If you give me stuff, I have no incentive to help you, as I already have the stuff. -
Apr 8, 20145
ISBPathfinder posted a message on Name your DeckThe Rampaging Baloth!Posted in: Commander (EDH)
........ ohhhhh you said deck.... yea..... I usually just go off of the commander when referring to them. I will sometimes give it a fancied up title for the thread name but I usually refer to my decks by means of the commander. -
Sep 17, 20133
Jusstice posted a message on Sheldon's 21 Cards We're Better WithoutPosted in: Commander (EDH)Quote from Dechs KaisonI wish it were that easy. I simply cannot ignore the underhanded tactics he used to discredit and misrepresent certain groups of players. This article is going to be touted around by way too many people screaming "but Sheldon said you shouldn't use these, and if you do, you're a bully* and a bad player!**"
Misrepresentation number one: Real competitiveness isn't about winning fast or controlling the game. It's about winning reliably and getting better every time you play. The guys that just want to roflstomp a table are bullies and have nothing competitive about them.
Misrepresentation number two: I've written books on this in the thread already. Suffice to say he's lying about the argument MLD people use for why it counters ramp.
I partially agree. First though, I will say to your previous comments that 99% of the time the internet says that something is a Strawman, it's actually just someone arguing against a position that the accuser just doesn't happen to hold. So while I agree (and Maro historically agrees as well) that what motivates competitives is the drive to get better in building and in play, Sheldon might be arguing against players (if any) who just want to win. As to whether those actually exist, I happen to think they do because I consistently see the same people on MODO show up with T5 combo decks in public games. He's saying that he's not really going to cater to those people.
Likewise with MLD, he's saying that people can't justify it as a naked answer against ramp. That's not necessarily saying that's the only thing to recommend it. He's just saying that it doesn't counter ramp. Which is deceptively true. You can't just slide it into your deck. What you have to do is build a control deck around resource denial, or to sensibly fit it in and use it in an aggro deck. So if you're in the boat crying that you need MLD against ramp, then he's saying you're wrong, but if you're not in that boat he's not arguing against your position. No strawman.
But I do agree that he's being a bit deceptive in places. It's almost Napoleonic when he says that most people came up with things that they themselves refuse to play rather than disallowing from others, when the very title of the thread he used here to elicit feedback was, "things YOU might consider not using". He seems to be pinpointing the group he wants to talk to and play with, then using the fact of those discussions and those games as support for the conclusion that this is what all or most EDH'ers are. Elsewhere, his lack of knowledge of the format seems to come from legitimate lack of play against competent decks, rather than deliberately singling them out. The fact that he doesn't like Vicious Shadows, a card that never wins before Turn 10, says a lot about the kinds of decks he faces.
In fact, that struck me a lot. It's evident that his experience with the format is widely different from my own, and so I find myself wishing his feedback were more constructive in the setting that I play. I think you can essentially divide the format into three groups:
1) The, "It sucks you played Vicious Shadows because otherwise my Decree of Pain would've kept me alive" group. The 5 board wipes in every deck group because creatures are the only thing that wins group. Apparently, Sheldon's group.
2) The group that doesn't do anything super-fast at the expense of being uninteractive but nevertheless builds decks that win by Turn 9-10 group. The Survival-Mimeoplasm, BUG Combo-Control, Zur, Arcum, UBx Orb Stax, Obliterate.dec group. The I don't care about board wipes group. Probably the fastest growing group, to my eye at least.
3) The Tier-0, never get tired of Hermit Druid group. Nuff said.
It seems that 2 and 3 seem like the exact same thing to group 1. And it seems that no respect is being paid to group 2 when they complain about degenerate cards, and most of all, they're not being evaluated for whether their games are interactive and in the "spirit of EDH". They're just labeled tryhards when Rite of Replication on top of a 7-drop isn't their win-con. And the apparent fact that Sheldon's never played in Group 2 is disappointing to me.
One more thing that I found troubling - the Dream Theater example. In any controversy, one party has to carry what's called the burden of persuasion. That party's case is evaluated, and if it's insufficient, things stay on the status quo without the other party having to make its counter-case. Who has the burden of persuasion on what kind of play should be allowed in EDH is cripplingly unclear, and nothing in that article clarified it. In the Dream Theater example, it's one thing to not listen to that band when the two are "hanging out". It's another thing to go passive-aggressive and delete the songs from the other person's iPod. But the real comparison is whether to go to the concert of a band that covers 90's music generally, or whether there should be both DT and non-DT playlists of 90's music. Who has the burden of persuasion? Should you have to tell me that you don't like DT before I pop in my mix CD, or should I know beforehand somehow?
Because there's a category of cards that are allowed and not allowed in EDH as per the RC banlist. It seems to me that anyone arguing against a card not on that list has the burden of persuasion. Yet this article along with the house-rule mentality in it seems to suggest that people who want to run legal cards that are nevertheless undesirable under a set of unofficial, nebulous criteria have the burden of persuasion shifted to them instead. It suggests that people have to open up the discussion every time a game is had so that this house-rule crowd has its legally guaranteed say-so. This group has judicial protection against things it doesn't like, because the banlist is just a "starting point" preparatory to this group's right. It's just shifting the burden of persuasion. And so the existence of a ban list simultaneously with the peremptory right of this group to have their first say is a source of enormous confusion in the format, and I don't even see any acknowledgment paid to that.
So Sheldon professes tolerance for other styles of play and vows to keep the banlist uncluttered owing to that respect, but meanwhile, the whole format is just procedurally stacked in favor of the unspoken majority that Sheldon and others apparently see.
Also troubling from the opposite angle is the RC commitment not to enforce their ideals on anyone else, when in fact, every other established format has had no problem with Wizards responsibly enforcing its own vision of it. If people want to play Cloutpost in Modern, too bad, because it's outside for Wizards vision of the format. And rather than being worse off, it's actually better because of the responsible oversight is coupled with a vision of play that a lot of people (not everyone) can find fun. That there are other types of fun outside that format has never bothered any rules body ever before.
Honestly, that makes me suspect it's something else. Fear of backlash. Perceived difficulty of regulating the format. Something. Evidently belonging to group 1 above maybe leads to some doubt about whether the RC can even evaluate the validity of group 2's interests, much less enforce a vision that's acceptable to both, which is in my opinion possible. -
Sep 15, 20131
Lithl posted a message on [[MCD]] Why don't combo players play better and actually use good creatures?Posted in: Commander (EDH)
You seem to be missing something here. Is there supposed to be a Riptide Laboratory or something in here? Because that's very far from a lock, even a soft one. At best, that's a 4-card counterspell. Which isn't very good on its own, even in a format where you're permitted multiples of each.Quote from BaconoftheArkFor example any deck with U/x can run Vendilillion Clique, Mutavault, Spellstutter Sprite, and Mistbind Clique for a soft lock.
I'm not really sure I understand your post. As far as I can tell, you feel that tossing a few faeries into your deck turns it into the empitome of control, and that's enough to ensure a combo deck wins the game.
That's an extremely erroneous assumption. -
Mar 31, 20133
Tantarus posted a message on EDH banlist timelinePosted in: Commander (EDH)Quote from WingedkagoutiThis list would be far better if you completely left out any personal opinions, regardless of how funny they might be. Otherwise, nice job.
Totally disagree. These where all good for a chuckle. Nice work on the list. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
As mentioned, the constant rolling updates were way too much. Also only doing one category at a time meant, if I cared about x card, it might be ages until it was eligible, at which point I had forgotten.
But also I don't think the idea is as relevant as it used to be. Sure, edhrec prioritizes low-cost cards over top-tier expensive cards, but the fact that you're getting a list customized around your specific commander makes up for that times about a thousand. Plus it can go much deeper than 50, filter deeper by type, etc.
Edhrec also has a vastly larger voting pool. It has some minor failings but it has way more info, more flexible filtering, and it's faster updating and with much more input.
There's also the problem that, for most actual top 50 cards, most savvy deck builders know them basically from memory, obseleting the list for enfranchised players. Which means many of them (I.e. myself) stop caring about this thread pretty quickly in favor of deeper-dive resources like edhrec and primers if they're making an actual deck.
So I see basically two uses for a top 50 list - a quick reference for "what stuff should I put in my trade binder" and an entry point for new players who just wanna make a goodstuff deck or see what the format is about.
As someone who isn't new and rarely trades, it doesn't hold much interest for me.
1
Looks like Aboshan got a new toy. Don't get to say that very often.
1
Your opponent has a removal spell. You've got permanents. Using the spell costs a card, mana, and the opportunity to use it elsewhere. They'll use the removal on your permanent if those costs are less than the resulting effect. So if you want to make sure they aim elsewhere, you do your best to ensure that the value they get from removing your stuff is less than the value of the removal.
There are plenty of ways to do this without playing bad cards. One way a lot of people know intuitively is etb creatures. Token production. Repeatable token production. Recursion. Etc. I think one that newer players overlook is not having the scariest permanent on the board. Less what you play, and more when you play them.
The reason your opponent doesn't want to stp your rat is because their removal is more valuable than your rat. If your permanent is low enough threat, it becomes real hard to remove profitably. They'd need a pinger or something to reduce the cost enough to justify using their removal against your rat (whether a card or a token produced by something). Unless they're particularly interested in hurting you for some reason.
2
Ophiomancer is top-tier at this. Kill the mancer and you've still got a good non-threatening blocker. Kill the token and it comes right back. Use 2 removals on a 3-drop and you feel like a fool. Excellent card.
1
Anyway constructed aside it's limited bomb.
3
1
1
2
1
It's a mutually assured destruction situation. If you want to win, you've gotta play along. At least a bit.