Don't Build Around Your Commander
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ธ.ค. 2024
- #mtg #thetrinketmage #trinketmage
Sorry, my voice is a bit gruff here I am recovering from a cold... hopefully my voice will be back soon! Let me know how you build with your commander in the comments below!
Channel Art by Cassus Lynn:
cassuslynn.myp...
All the music is from Chillpeach:
www.youtube.co...
My deckbuilding philosophy basically comes down to: my commander isnt gonna win me the game most of the time, but it helps me get there. The commander is part of the game plan, not the game plan itself
I think I've found this balance really well with my Kykar superfriends deck. The deck functions just fine without the commander and its not a super synergy piece, but having kykar in play generates alot of value by making blockers to defend your walkers whenever you cast them, and by allowing you to ramp into more walkers by playing walkers.
Counterpoint, it's very fun to play cards that wouldn't work anywhere else but are enabled by your commander.
IMO, I feel that the real crux of the problem is newer players don't play enough draw/ramp. The card pool for commander is so vast that you can find plenty of card draw to synergize with what the deck wants to do, and for the love of Urza, play more lands.
“For the love of urza” I like that I might use it in a video
@@thetrinketmageonly problem is that lore-wise literally nobody loves Urza (his wife tried her hardest, but he ignored her in favor of giant robots and war crimes). His name is used as a curseword thousands of years after his death, and every friend he had eventually abandoned him and ended up hating his guts.
I run a Yargle and Multani deck. One thing I've learned while playing such a glass dannon deck, is to wait a turn or two before dropping my Commander. Hold up a protection spell so they actually survive so I can swing with them.
Yea waiting and using protection spells is something I should’ve mentioned tbh
I think the moral of the story is:
- build a deck that is synergistic and good without the commander
- play stuff that works well with your commander
- but not to the extreme that you play cards that are terrible w/o your commander
I tend to agree with this as a new Commander player. It started because I simply didn't have the cards to build around them, but then I found it really fun. My Jhoira deck relies on her suspending big threats, if she's out my deck tends to be really slow. My Grand Warlord Radha deck tries to ramp into strong cards, but she isn't fully necessary when I already have so many ramp pieces.
Yup I had a Jhoira deck too before I took it apart… maybe try a polymorph deck instead!
@@thetrinketmage Jhoira was also one of my first commander decks. haha.
I made it go wizard-tribal with big spells to suspend, cheat, and copy.
Good video !
I think the only deck where my commander is a big threat from the get go is my Gishath, but thanks to its Haste, and the 20++ ramp pieces in the deck, It is a tool to develop a board without cards in hand for 8 mana. I advise people to see similar commanders are "a tool to convert mana into card draw", so if you pack enough ramp, the commander is a sorcery that you can cast multiple times.
Have a good day
This issue tends to pop up with value-based and high mana value commanders, for sure. It's why I've been leaning towards decks that provide a way to end the game fast or consistently.
Or when I do build a deck around the commander, it can usually close it out well enough or at least bounce back in the mid to late game if I get set back. I've brewed a number of decks with that concept in mind.
I see this topic from time to time, but your video specifically added ways to work & go around that... Thank you immensely!
I couldn't agree more with this. Take Ghyrson Starn, Kelermorph for example. In my "Hot shot" commander deck, while he is kind of the "Centerpiece" of the deck, as his ability is triggered off of 1 damage, I can still feasibly win with _other_ cards in my deck, from just chipping away at my opponent, to the myriad of other triggers I have from my creatures/instant and sorceries.
A commander should be the general theme of the deck, with good synergy to the other cards, not the sole engine. The deck should be able to function without your commander ever being able to hit the floor.
Recently, my friend was playing a Krenko, Mob boss, commander deck and he got pissed off because "He couldn't do anything." or that "we shut down his entire deck." and that "I can't build an army cuz the other player will steal it." Thing is, I know Krenko is KOS no matter what, not to mention if your playing goblins, you shouldn't be afraid if your shit gets stolen just build more goblins and out swarm your opponents.
The main problem is my friend's deck was built _around_ Krenko, rather then having Krenko as a part of the deck.
Take my Ninjitsu Demon's Deck for example: My main commander is Bel'akor, mostly, _For the colors._ Satoru Umezawa was actually the _Original_ idea for the commander, but as soon as I found other synergies, and better colored pairs I changed it around. Now, if I do Draw Satoru, the deck can combo off with just blinking in Bigger, and better demons. But if I don't, I still have Demon Tribal to do the work for me so I can beatdown sac my opponent out. _Which_ synergizes off of Bel'akor, _And_ Raphael,
This sounds like a ton of fun, would you mind sharing the decklist? 😁
Lately I've been brewing commander decks that focus a lot on the commander, but the way i get around the issues with protecting the commander is by diverting attention either by having other strong support pieces or representing an underpowered boardstate, another way is that i usually avoid picking commanders with Instant value because of the attention they draw and the ability of the opponents to better time their interaction the exception here is if you expect it to die or get countered, and lastly if you really want your commander to stick and be the threat make sure you are dedicating plenty of cards for protection because you are gonna need it
Great vid!
I appreciate the suggestions in good faith. Some of the comments seem to paint your title as an absolute, but you address some of the common pushback to the dea in a helpful way. Such as being prepared to protect your weak spot.
I have a healthy mix of decks that can operate fine without casting the commander at all and a few pet decks that are completely centered around it, such as my Tatsunari Keimi Mutate build. I dedicate a good chunk of the deck to protect the commander while also synergizing with its strategy, such as playing enchantments that protect my pieces.
I also think its great that you did mention that your commander could still be a part of your deck outside of just "being the colors you want". Which is often something my friends will say when i lightly suggest advice like yours. And like you said in the video, hopefully people can take at least "SOME" of your advice when it comes to building. I've always found more ways to enjoy the game by keeping an open mind.
Thanks! And yea the average view duration is always less than the full length of the video some people I think might comment before finishing the vid
Love this topic because in another video someone mentioned how having multiple creatures that function without the commander will always be better than doing nothing until they arrive.
Keep up the content brother 🤌
I do both, it sort of depends on the deck. For example, I have an Eriette of the Charmed Apple deck that is all about giving my opponent's biggest threats (to me) a beneficial enchantment (like a Battle Mastery or Dragon's Shadow) and then watching as they fight each other and I slowly drain them. This is the kind of fun deck that really couldn't be built without my commander at the center of it. I think anyway, a unique strategy I have dubbed, "we have goad at home". However, when I built the deck, I knew I needed my commander out to function, so I threw in some other pieces to protect me, such as Ghostly Prison, along with tons of protection for Eriette, such as Darksteel Plate, Gift of Immortality, and at least three or four other cards to give her indestructible (I still need a Mithril Coat for this deck). But yes, even with all that, I still get hosed sometimes, like with edict effects. But I acknowledge that is just a rare bad matchup that I can't really effectively guard against. Every deck has those and you won't be able to guard against them all, but yeah, if your commander is central, protect the hell out of it.
This was a trap I fell into when I started with Kyler as my first deck. Either he popped off and won the game or got removed and I sat there with a few 1/1 humans.
I'm trying to learn and build a Hinata deck with no X spells, just using her as value and cost reduction in a blink deck, though she may not last long on the field due to her reputation.
Interesting take on Hinata! And there is a sweet spot too if you find an X spell that is good like heliod’s intervention it just gets better with the commander!
Although you're right I do love building around the commander
That’s fine! As long as you realize your decks weaknesses!
@thetrinketmage I 100% do. However with that said, I've won more games focusing on my commander than when I don't. Light paws is worthless without the commander. But I won so many games with it... people hated playing against it.
Commanders like the one you mentioned and explained at 1:42 through the example of Mairsil are what I like to call "binary commanders". They either get to stick around and completely pop off by "doing their thing" - or the entire deck does absolutely nothing.
This advice is something that I've considered, another way to fit the commander as a suporting role is to have it be the backup plan. Gisa and Geralf is a great example of this. You don't need them before your sacrifice engines are online or you have stuff dead. It works well if you need extra omph and if you need a comeback.
Ive made a deck recently woth darretti as the commander. He's really there for just advantage with the draw or re animate of vics for my things to crew. Lots of fun as a casual deck
I have Eloise, Nephalia Sleuth as my Commander, I'm new in EDH (used to play Modern way before MH2 ruined the format) and feel your video is aimed at me hehehe. I'm updating it with your advice on my mind. Thanks!
I also used to grind a lot of modern before the elementals invaded… good luck with edh though it’s a lot of fun!
This is why I like Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger for my Eldrazi deck. Any of the titans could take his place, I just like having repeated access to removal, and if he hits the field and sticks he starts nuking libraries.
This line of thinking is why, when coming back to the game, my first deck was Yorion over Brago.
I wanted to build a Blink deck because Pauper Familiars reignited my spark for the game, and I was looking mainly at those two.
I'm sure that if I built Brago properly, it would win more (after all, it's played in cEDH); but the way I'd build it, especially when keeping it lower power and avoiding being too staxy, would mean if Brago can't stick for the turn cycle, it'd probably fold quickly.
With Yorion on the other hand, I can and have won games without ever casting him; he's just a big burst of value when casted, and then a way to make single target blinks into board wide ones if he sticks.
Also, the reasoning in this video applies the most to big, flashy, expensive haymaker commanders. In my experience, you can rely more on cheaper commanders that are online quicker, especially if they're not really a wincon as much as they are a way to carry you through the early game.
I'm building a Will, Scion of Peace deck and in my experience he does stick around for the first few turns, since people often use those to ramp/setup and would rather not fall behind to remove it (having a big butt helps here). Once he's discounted 1-2 threats/value pieces, he can die and I don't really need him, because I should have mana to just start playing threats fairly.
Love this advice, this is actually why I run Rhuk as my commander instead of most other voltron commanders. I can win through a lot of good equipment creatures in red, but if I can’t bludgeon them with regular damage I just cast rhuk and swing them out using his ability.
I've started doing that more recently as I'm playing in much more removal heavy groups. Unless my commander is hard to deal with on its own or is a major combo piece, I tend to just build around similar effects and have the commander for redundancy or extra value.
Like, my newly built Saskia deck is a reanimator deck with no real need to cast her to get my game plan going. She's an asset, but not the main feature
Don't build around your commander, build around your theme. You're commander can be a win con but should definitely be inline with your deck's theme.
I like the idea that the Commander is a powerful piece of the puzzle, but shouldnt be the sole win-con.
The solution for me in this situation is adding "secundary" commanders inside the decks I made.
In the case of hylda (one of my favourite commanders of 2023) I searched if there was other Legendary Creatures that work with the tap strategy and then added to my hylda deck. If your main commander is removed from game at last you have a replacement inside the deck.
I absolutely agree with a lot in your video but I and a lot of people know don’t have an idea for a deck and then build it but rather find a legendary creature randomly and want to make a deck with it and naturally build around it
I feel like this really boils down too, would you rather have fun being your commander. A thematic deck that revolves around the commander can be deeply flavorful. Or would you rather be optimal? If you continue this philosophy all the way up the chain, why play any black white commander that isn't Tymna? Why not play CEDH?
I really agree with the sentiment, especially when it comes to optimally playing. But sometimes I want to play a deck where all my terrible creatures have really high toughness, or I make specifically saprolings. You know what I mean?
I don’t think it’s just about being optimal. I think you will have more fun if your deck gets to do it’s thing more! Whether or not you win. As for the tymna thing in casual you can play some aristocrats commander and my point still stands I even had an example in the video
I just made Animar. But I could absolutely replace it with Gimbal and the deck would function nearly the exact same. Maybe a bit slower but that extra "ramp" from Animar's ability definitely helps.
I built an Obeka deck from the new OTJ stuff, swifties (of course}, mythril coat, silver shroud, bladed fan blade, and a bevy of unlikely aid effects, no one really expects your commander to survive so much.
I do agree with you on that, I have run into issues where I think I like the commander but I get so bored with the deck I take it apart.
With that though I do love making useless cards good with the right commander
Like the idea of have a backup plan ,something to do when you lose your commander for X reazon,.
In my Zellix/HauntedOne deck this very easy after all you play a lot of Mill Motors,
but in my goro-goro and satoru deck is very complicate, I still don't found a good payoff for all the ninjas and cheap creatures in the deck (yuriko is one, but is 1 card in 99)
That totally works too! I like the idea of a plan B
I agree with the message of "don't include cards that are bad without your commander".
This message, however, is closer to "treat your commander deck like every other 60-card format", which I don't love.
That being said, people making decks that either win or don't do anything is a real problem. In my experience, they're usually combo decks like Mairsil (which you mentioned). I DO think that you can build a Mairsil combo deck that doesn't just fold without its commander, though.
TLDR: I agree with your message, but I think you took it a touch too far.
That’s fair and you are right that there is a middle ground!
I play a lot of decks that are really heavily centered around the commander. Since 2-3 removals will just shut me down completely, I usually play between 10-15 pieces of protection. Wether it's counterspells, auras or equipments that give hexproof or indestructible, or other creatures that give protection. I really make sure that my commander stays on the board as long and consistent as possible.
Also ramp and carddraw is absolute key.. as always.
Huh, this explains why the 3 decks I've kept together work.
Dihada Binder of Wills: A Mardu reanimation list that uses the commander around turn 3 to fill the graveyard and generate treasures to cheat mana curve.
Nahiri, Forged in Fury: The deck started as a joke that all Boros Commanders are equipment commanders! But it turns out if you put a lot of them in one deck (backed by for mirrodin and living weapons which do synergize with Nahiri) you get a deck that turns out to be very strong.
Pantlaza: It's Dinosaur tribal so admittedly I think she does a really cool thing with discover triggers but you're still stompy AF at the end of the day if she gets removed once or twice.
A lot of decks I've built and taken apart definitely have focused too hard on the commander as a shiny new toy.
I still want to build Hylda but now I'm not so sure lol
In my main ur dragon deck ur dragon is kinda just there for the eminence effect, Jodah arch mage eternal, or kenrith would probably be fine as well. Occasionally it gets cheated out with hellkite courser but most of the time the game is won or lost before I cast the ur dragon. On the opposite end of the spectrum my muldrotha the gravetide list needs the commander in play to function and as such I have a huge number of spells to protect it and make sure I can keep the commander around
I normally play with commanders that have resilience and can have lots of support on whatevs they do. Normally things that give them protection can also be part of the main strategy, and cards that may seem sub-par are actually ways to secure the commander reentering. I only play a few decks, but most of the time they have to states: before casting commander and after casting commander and those states flow well. The commander is not another value piece, it's what the deck is about and the theme of the deck goes around it.
Great video. I have been thinking about this. Kinda why landfall decks slap so hard.
Yeah you have a fair point here but I think you missed a big point/didn’t explain it super well. For most commanders, my philosophy is that they cannot be your only enabler/payoff for your decks theme. Enablers are obviously cards that enable your strategy and payoffs are obviously cards that reward you for playing that strategy: ie token generators and death triggers in an aristocrats deck. If you have more enablers/payoffs than just your commander, your deck can still function without your commander just not as well. However, your argument totally invalidates many deck themes, especially voltron. Just saying that your commander dies to removal so don’t build around your commander completely undoes the point of a Voltron deck. So while your point to not build your entire deck around your commander to the point you can’t play without it is somewhat valid, I’d argue it would be better to evaluate how scary of a threat your commander is on the field. If it’s some 2 drop that only does a little here and there, then you won’t really have to worry about targeted removal. If it’s Atraxa, Ur Dragon, etc. then yeah it’s going to be targeted a lot and thus you should be mindful of that when you’re building your deck.
The last thing I wanted to mention is that your video seems to mainly be focused on the idea of if you want to win, do this. Sure you might win more often if your deck is less fragile and less susceptible to removal, but if you have to cut a lot of fun cards you want to play in order to satisfy that requirement, I’d argue it isn’t worth it. I play commander for fun and especially because I love to see the creativity and synergy it allows for in deck building. Just because a deck isn’t super optimal and dies to removal doesn’t mean it’s a bad deck, it just means you have to expect to not win every game and that’s fine.
I agree that I probably should’ve made a section about Voltron specifically since that is a special case! As for the winning thing I feel like I covered that with my first example. If your deck is only pop off with commander and win or do nothing it’s not going to be very fun. Even though that deck could win often
@@thetrinketmage yeah you’re right that a lot of decks are very much win or do nothing and should be built better (I’ve seen it happen way too often at my LGS) but sometimes it’s just because that table was running a lot of removal or they didn’t draw many nonlands or something. As someone else said, I don’t really feel like the dies to removal argument is super useful in determine how good a card or deck is. With three other players in the game, that’s a lot of targets to share removal.
However, I have played my cards to “lay low” early sometimes and let others bait out removal and counter spells etc before I popped off to win. Someone said I won out of nowhere and I just replied that I was patient and let them take the hits for me, but that speaks more to game strategy than deck building IMO
@@thetrinketmage also, that’s the reason why I stopped playing my Gishath deck for the most part, as it became a constant 50/50 of either I win turn 5, or I never do anything. No in between and it’s not fun to play, whereas with my scorpion god, Faldorn and Brago decks I can do a lot without winning and still have a good time
I think the trick is to just understand that if you do build around your commander, your deck needs to be able to cope with the problem it presents your opponents. Kill your commander to beat you. So protect it. Protection protection protection. Generally, once you have your commander and an engine in play, just run out the clock till you win. Your win condition becomes keep your commander alive, not develop more engines.
Being shut down by farewell and cyclonic rift is a bad argument as most decks are shut down by it. Deck Driver MTG made a series of videos recently related to monolith commanders, which I believe was inspired by a video from EDH Deckbuilding. His conclusion was that monolith commanders simply require more instant speed protection/counterspells. For example my Ardenn and Rograkh deck has 40 lands, a sol ring, an average mana value of 1.83, and 15 cards that give instant speed protection or hexproof for one mana or less. 15 seems like a like but when your playing voltron and are facing 3 players worth of removal it starts to make sense.
The only deck I have that really relies on the commander is Yuriko. I had a ninja deck before she was printed and it quickly became obvious that they don't really do that much damage by themselves. That said, she is very easy to cast over and over again, thanks to Ninjitsu. With the few zombie decks I had over the years, I really only ever cast my commander if I had _nothing_ else to do. Then there is Arahbo, who I've maybe cast once, since he doesn't even need to be on the battlefield.
I feel like those commanders break the rules of edh anyway and don’t really apply here!
Ertai resurrected is the perfect example of a commander that's built to the deck, not the deck built to it. He is just removal that is available to you at any point in time during the game, so you can focus your deck on card advantage and your win con and less on removal
I feel like this is great philosophy for CEDH since your commander is going to be a target and you should learn to play without it. However, if you're playing casual with friends and playing low power decks, it is way more fun to synergise with your commander. I specifically take out some target removal and board wipes for synergy cards in my lower power decks because it's more about showing what my deck can do vs actually winning the game
I would heavily disagree! This advice does not work for most cEDH decks at all. Many just utilize their commander as a crucial combo piece for an all in win. Like Godo bandit warlord. Many non blue combo decks are like that in cEDH. I think if your deck preformed better in an average game you will have more fun overall
me, a yuriko player, looking at this foreign concept called "commander tax"
Good hot take, combo decks that rely on a single combo are very one dimensional
As you said too board wipes are very common in commander
I disagree strongly with this advice. Dies to removal isnt a valid argument. Everyone at the table has threats, so unless you have some playgroup that just focusses on you, most games are not seeing one commander removed over and over unless it is a super scary one. In any case being clever when you play your commander is crucial. Play it early when you obviously have nothing to threaten the table with and people will likely concentrate on their own strategy rather than waste a turn removing your commander so early. The other option is you play your commander late when you can protect your commander. Building an appropriate board state to likely achieve value before anyone can stop it. Sometimes even tricking the table by throwing out an expendable threat to get rid of potential removal from opponents is the right move. .if you play ramp and protection in every deck you build, protecting and recasting a commander should be no issue. A deck shouldnt be completely functionless without the commander on the field but the build should revolve heavily around it. A deck with great functional synergy with its commander will beat a deck mostly using commander being used mostly for color access everytime. The only time this changes is in CEDH, there color access is mostly what matters although a well timed commander can really contribute to a win.
If your argument is everyone has threats can I not say everyone has removal? Also although does to removal is a meme it is a valid reason why many cards are not good in many formats. Although you are correct that often times waiting and not running out your commander the first chance you get is smart but that does not change the fact that if you have a huge threat in the command zone everyone can see your other threats you use as bait don’t work as well because everyone can see the bigger threat at all times. Also saying you need to play safe and protect your commander later means your deck must be able to function without the commander right? Otherwise how did you make it to the late game?
@@thetrinketmage so no one else is playing threats during this? You seem like your stuck in 1v1 mode. A threat in the command zone means nothing to threats on the table that are presently threats not future maybe threats. You playing with randoms or a set playgroup? Dies to removal is not a good argument at all in commander. Sure it does, thats just not a constrictive argument . The commander is the card you have access to the whole game making it the most important card to utilize in casual. Synergy with that always available card makes your strategies more likely to work not less because someone might kill it. Thats just numbers and probabillity. Well synergized decks will just have more opportunity to create value with their commander and if your commander does something like draw cards or create huge discounts like hinata the value it adds is not going to be overcome by a deck with less regularity and synergy. You almost sound like you think you can just repeatedly play removal against all 3 opponents without running out or that all 3 will consistantly always have removal for each others commanders. I play with lots of randoms and in my experience people almost never play enough renoval but even those that do thats why you run protection and recovery cards in a deck so thats why dies to removal is not an argument. Removal gets blocked and countered. Board wipes are easy to avoid or recover from. Ascend from avernas, clever concealment, heroic intervention just to name a few. Just like you can try to argue dies to removal i can counter it with cards like those or just counterspells. So if we take those arguments off the table because they can happen or not happen, we go back to what is most likely to win in any format and almost any card game is the more consistent a deck is and synergy with the card you almost always have access to is going to give you that better consistency. In cedh where all that matters is the combos you have access to your argument has more merit, but not in casual in my opinion. My opinion aside we can use actual mathmatics to look at probabillities and again decks will always be more consistent if their strategy strongly uses the card they have the most access too.
I think the video title is mostly hyperbolic. The point he is making is really that kill-on-sight, feast-or-famine, mega build-around commanders tend to be exactly that-threats that either die instantly or end the game, neither of which make for particularly engaging games. Personally I think how good a kill-on-sight commander is not set in stone-it all depends on the pod/meta calls, as the presence of 3 opponents who can also sometimes help you destroys any possibility of a stable meta.
@@lawrencehu7654 all commanders are mega build around commanders, the challenge of utilizing a commander properly is what makes the format fun, otherwise you could be playing any format. People who play in specific pods are going to have a tilted viewpoint because of the people the are consistantly playing. Utilizing an interesting commander to the fullest is what creates interesting game states in commander, otherwise your just playing with magic cards. The commander sets you off on a building adventure, letting you explore how to make the most of its strategy. So your statements on this and in your video perplex me because they in my opinion seem to miss something wonderful and fun about the format. I dont mean this in any sort of insulting way, you have your opinion but i disagree with it so strongly i had to debate the merits because i believe they are on my side in this regard. Do you come from a 1 v 1 environment? Your viewpoint just seems very 1 v 1 to me but i could be wrong. I have played commander for just over 10 years now. I dont know who yout playing against and if its randoms or a set pod, we dont need to get into it as it seems we could keep going on, but those things do have a big factor on the position your viewpoint is coming from. I see games where kill on sight commander sit on the field because no one has removal, games where no one can keep anything on the field. There are many different game states that can happen in any given game. Those things should have np bearing on building strategy other than one should always include appropriate protection and recover cards in their decks. Sure if one person in a pod has some op commander and no one else does the table might team up on them that isnt relevant to deck.building strategy that is a poor rule 0 conversation. If 1 person is playing a sweaty commander then the whole table should be as thats what sets the playing ground for a fun and excellent game. There is something not quite adding up for me in your position and it must be in the information i do not know about your playing habbits so we will just have to leave this debate at this, at the end of the day casual is for fun so you build however you desire, i just had to dispute your position because it is completely against my fundamental philosophy towards building and playing. Anyway i will leave it at that, thanks for your content and have a great day.
@@jeremiahchamberlain4179 not all commanders are mega build around commanders. That's the point of the video.
If your deck literally does not work if your commander isn't on the field, you're gonna have games where you do nothing all game because your commander isn't on the field. Building your deck somewhat differently means that even in games where you can't play your commander, you're not stuck in draw go mode until you lose, which is more fun than having one game where you pop off and then 15 where you are a spectator.
Your point that there are many possible boardstates so you can't have rules of thumb is especially odd to me. That is true of any format, does that mean that you can't have good practices when building? If your deck folds at the first removal, the possibility that no one draws removal does not invalidate the concern.
Your viewpoint seems very slanted towards the wholesome battlecruiser rule 0 let's hug it out chungus side of commander where people just play cards because they like them, even if they don't really work together. Some people want to make decks that actually work without the table just letting them do it, without necessarily spilling into cEDH.
I have a Ishai, Ojutai Dragonspeaker/Kraum, Ludevic's Opus group hug deck
I only have one deck that the deck falls apart without the commander and that's Purphoros, God of the Forge. Being indestructible helps and if he's a creature, things have gone poorly or I'm winning with a Muxus pile.
I dont know man, this advice is valid for cedh I suppose, but I feel like it really goes against the spirit of the format. When I break out my deck, I want to feel like "yeah, this is my Myrkul, Lord of Bones deck" or "check out my Lord of the Rings themed Sauron deck" not "I'm playing azorius midrange".
I could slap together of deck of 50 staples any day, but then the format just loses all of its charm for me.
Oh, also, nevermore is an absolute doo doo card in commander. Does nothing unless you have consistant playgroup and know everything in their decks, and even then, its a singleton game mode. I can't imagine spending 3 mana, declaring cyc rift, and then passing. Just asking to be punched in the face.
Why does everyone mention cEDH this video had nothing to do with that… and hold up friend! You can’t tell me you want to play a jank theme deck then say you won’t play never more cause it’s a bad card! Pick a side are you casual let’s play goofy themes or competitive I can’t take turn 3 off to play a card
@thetrinketmage yeah, the nevermore comment was a little too hyperbolic, I will admit. But, the comparison to cedh is still apt imo. Building a deck this way isn't going to make it cedh powerful inherently, but it is using the same mindset of complete optimisation that takes away some of the fun of commander for me, personally.
can you link to your decklists?
Not everything is up to date but I’ve got some stuff there!
www.moxfield.com/decks/personal
I think you're right in your sub points, but all of these aren't specific support for the title and main point of the video. Maybe that's a meta way of showing you didn't build around the title...? I only mean that to say, you built around Mina & Denn, but made it to not solely rely on her. Sure you could swap out the Commander, but it would always change the way it functions and you would likely want to make swaps in and out based on the new Commander you pick unless they really are that similar. This is what I try to do for most of my decks "Build loosely around the commander to focus on a fun theme or style of play. Build contingencies into the deck including plan Bs, alternate commanders, protection and such. It's still building around the commander, because that's what commander is, but it's not relying on the commander. So maybe the title should be "don't rely on your commander", but that might not sound as catchy.
I guess it depends what you mean by “around” but for my Mina deck. There is no card in the 99 that needs my commander to function. And since I am in a green red ramp deck the fact that Mina ramps is good but it’s still not built around them because I could swap the commander out for something else without really changing the deck
@@thetrinketmage If you have one landfall trigger or one Timmy creature in the deck, they really benefit from your commander. It doesn't mean you need your commander out, but your commander highly enable them. I love Mina and Denn and it is in the 99 of my Lord Windgrace deck. Do I need my commander? No. But the deck is built around lands and he does so much for the deck. I think that's perfectly fine to build around the commander, but not rely solely on the commander. This is why I like the video and agree with what you're saying throughout, but just don't agree with the overall title.
Maybe we as a player base should realize that not all legendaries are commander worthy, or game winners
Damn… wasn’t my point in the video but you’re not wrong
What's your thoughts on experience counter commanders? Or tribal commanders?
Experience counter commanders are also traps. Because they snowball so much most of them are must kill threats and many decks I see built around them are so weak without the commander. Daxos is the best one in my opinion. As for tribal… don’t most tribal decks not need a commander at all? You just play tribe members then cast coat of arms? It’s why tribal decks are probably stronger than many others cause you don’t fall into that trap
banger video
Tribal stuff is the closest i get to "building around my commander" cause my commander is ofc gonna be something that is synergistic with that tribe and/or part of that tribe(chatterfang, urtet, ur-dragon, edgar, etc...) but the decks definitely still shouldn't be reliant on said commander. So imo the meaning of your title is closer to "don't build decks reliant on your commander" *unless they can infinite and win*
What about Voltron cmd?
Any thoughts?
I really should’ve done a whole section on Voltron but, I think it’s the exception to the rule cause you kinda need to build around your commander and get it into play. Most Voltron decks aren’t great tbh but many Voltron commanders also have built in protection.
aight where that mina and denn decklist
Go to my channel and check the deck techs playlist
@@thetrinketmage cool thanks
and that is why i play pokemon with joda for those who didnt get it i play 15 to 30 counter spell , yea i know i will never go to heaven xD
You should play cedh. I’m going to build around my commander or I’m going to stop playing the format. It’s the entire reason I play this format. I don’t play to win, I play to do cool things with a legendary creature I picked out, and that’s what this format used to be. Back when it was Elder Dragon Highlander. The commander was so central to the deck it was considered rude to lock them down. Now people only care about winning instead of do a cool thing. It makes me so sad that the stupid casual format is dead.
I do play cEDH it’s fun! But my video isn’t about winning. New players often times get upset when they can’t seem to do anything. And I feel like a new player might not realize that their heavy reliance on their commander is causing them to struggle. Is it not ok for me to give advice that I think will make players have a more fun and enjoyable experience? I don’t think I even mentioned winning once, it’s about having fun first and foremost
@@thetrinketmage you literally described those players as “easy w’s” for having the naive assumption that this is a format about playing with cool legendary creatures and the neat synergies around that legendary creature. If my deck can function just fine without the commander, why am I not playing Canadian Highlander or any of the other Highlander variants that are just 100 card singletons. The commanders are what sets this format apart. It’s what it was built on and what it is for.
@@thetrinketmage so I know I was kind of confrontational earlier, but I will put forward that this format has begun to feel like a bunch of people playing with foam swords for the explicit reason of wanting to hit each other without getting hurt, then people start showing up with foam covered bamboo sticks, then we had a version of the game where they used bamboo and that was fine and we just go back to the foam, and now finally people are putting out videos to tell people it’s incorrect to put foam on your sword. We explicitly made an ultra casual format for purpose, and now it feels like not only are we not able to play that format outside of people specifically we trust to actually play said format the way it used to be, all the people who talk about it continuously say that the reason we play it isn’t just not optimal, but that it’s impossible to have fun with. And honestly it is. I haven’t gotten to play an EDH match like what I used to play with my friends in literal years now. EDH is dead. Commander is not the same format. And it makes me sad and it makes me angry. But it’s true. I should give it up.
Tribal decks would be an exception to this though, right?
Nope! Tribal decks are great without their commander cause you just cast tribe members then play shared animosity and win right? You don’t need your commander for that at all!
"Other stax pieces like Grave pact and humility"
Neither of these are stax pieces my friend
Buddy I’ve been blowing up lands for 10 years I promise you at least humility is a stax piece and both of those are considered stax by 90% of commander players
But this is not possible with voltron decks
Right, dont build around Mairsil. Tell that to the 7 players I solo-ed with him in a 8 man table.
Sure it can be a trap, not denying that, but when multiple try to deal with my single commander to get killed one by one is such a great experience.
I pretty much always build my deck around my commander and win quite often. So its not as cut and dry as you make it seem.
And I've built and played more than a hundred commanders (not exagerating either). ✌️
That could be the case, I mean at the the end of the day you do you right. I still think many of my points stand also I think that many play groups don’t play enough removal
@@thetrinketmage Mairsil with Aetherling ability is just not easy to get rid off.
Not saying there is nothing true about what you said.
But I play EDH for the unique commanders and experience and I've been playing it since it got globally spread. Before there even where Commander decks from Wizards. ✌️
i play landfall with lord windgrace.
i dont cast lord windgrace. lol
Or I can play commander and not 100 singleton legacy.
Watch the whole video noob
Trinket Mage knows his stuff. How bout you try giving some valid criticism next time after you watch the whole vid. 🤦
The problems is all your decks sound like really samey value engines. You shouldn't only put cards that work around your commander and deck should function with your commander on board. But if you don't build around your commander at all you are just playing any generic deck in that color and that's just as boring as spamming edhrec front page imo.
You can go to my TH-cam channel page and click the moxfield link to see my decks. Obviously I’m biased but I think my decks are all really unique and interesting! My channel control deck is built around some pretty niche cards. My mardu goad deck uses Jeska as a way to triple damage from goaded creatures! It doesn’t rely on jeska but she does help the decks game plan. And I’ve never seen anyone use her that way before. My artifact deck is bauble tribal again not relying on the commander but he does help double the effect from my small dinky artifacts.
I see this topic from time to time, but your video specifically added ways to work & go around that... Thank you immensely!
I see this topic from time to time, but your video specifically added ways to work & go around that... Thank you immensely!
I see this topic from time to time, but your video specifically added ways to work & go around that... Thank you immensely!
Happy to help!