2:07:00 I know playing against TOR is miserable, but honestly I think people would win more games if they'd play it out. Seth is over here like "We're just done, that's game" while the opponent is at 5 and he's at 25, with no other impactful permanents in play. Like, you just won through TWO castings of the most broken card in the game rn. Obviously if they had a boardstate and lifegain, I'd say a scoop is probably fair. But he had threats in play the whole time. I don't see why people just assume they're gonna lose. It's like the planeswalker blindness, people see that card type and immediately commit a lot to getting rid of it, even if it's not necessary. I know it's situational, and a lot of the situations are bad. But like, might as well go for it if you have the time right?
@@raphaelaldenmendoza8468 Well he drew it out, won, and talked to chaat the whole time. So I think so? I understand it would be miserable to sit in silence, but it gives him time to read and interact with chat. Plus, the number of people that yell at him for early scoops implies they don't mind him sitting around for a bit XD
RE Chat-GPT commander clash episode: I think a fun one could be if each of you give Chat-GPT a unique prompt with categories of cards (like: "let this deck include 6 boardwipes, 20 basic lands, 5 basic land payoff cards, ...") and let it built a deck this way. It would probably not do a great job with sticking to (or understanding) these categories, but it would be interesting to see whose Commander philosophy (e.g., Crim's "8 boardwipes" vs Seth's "10 MDFCs" vs Richard's "5 white catchup ramp cards") leads to the most functional deck. This would also serve as a silly proxy for what would happen if you give far-too-detailed tips to a commander beginner who is likely to misunderstand what you mean.
@3:10:00 ish. I would love to see you do a MtG version of Diners, Dives, and Drive-ins, or a video series of pitching increasingly unhinged ideas to Richard to see what he finally says no to or how exasperated you can make him.
I think Black destroying enchantments allows for the developers to explore more space for Enchantments. Leyline of the Void is a great example of a card that is fun unless you're playing a deck that just needs to scoop on turn 1 when they see it. Being able to sideboard in a Feed the Swarm means there's a chance to get out of that. I do feel that black should have had to discard a card, sacrifice a creature, or pay some life to destroy something outside its slice of the pie, but having more flexible answers always allows for more more flexible development. I think every color needs to be able to do everything, just some colors should do it best, and some should do it decidedly poorly.
2:02:44 I extremely disagree with making the bowmaster a more taste target for solitude. Putting Phoenix on the army and attacking in the air with just it and dragon's rage channeler means they can't block to offset the damage from you attacking. I also disagree with firing bolt at their face when you suspect they have solitude. You bestow onto army, bolt solitude when it comes down leaves you with 3 damage from DRC, and a bowmaster in play making them activating the ring next turn almost 100% likely to kill them
I was able to find the true name nemesis deck at target, and traded him in for the prosh deck, was awesome great times. Now all Walmart and targets get looted by scalpers at 5 am every day 😢
For commander clash, I'd love to see either the BG Scarecrow (the backup commander for the golgari deck) or Niko. Lots of fun ways to take them both, I think.
If you’re wondering why Jeff Hoagland doesn’t play Magic anymore he recently posted a picture of a modern deck with just the cards that were released in standard sets and it was less than half. I can’t say I disagree with him.
A reason for black to destroy enchantments? How about the ability to play through enchantments that lock you out of the game? Its one of the worst enchantment removal spells in the game? There have been multiple edicts for enchantments in black. But if it was "target opponent sacs target enchantment" would be more powerful. If it was the opponents choice then it would just be another of one of the worst enchantment removals in the game. Least efficient in mana cost, targeting, and destruction type. Your discussion with it only being for commander: blue, green, and white can handle enchantments on and off the board in 60 card formats with much more efficiency and more permanent removal. Black heavily encourages you to run only black cards. Arguably more than any other color, thus its worse to splash into any color just for enchantment removal than for any other colors. It's so hypocritical to say you don't think black or red for that matter can remove enchantments (something that the 3 other colors can do better in every way) while blue can't monopolize on counters. Which it hasn't....there are counters in black, and white and red which are much more narrow. and there are only a few of them, typically 1 to 2. You know what else there is only 1 to 2 of? Black enchantment removal. Its also super narrow compared to other removal and once again much less efficient. Your complaining about black getting a bad version of a niche card that allows it to do one of its most pushed strategies which is staying monoblack. I believe in the color pie but that never meant that a color just can't do a basic game function. It meant it had to do it in a way that represented that color. Black sacking enchantments is super flavorful but also loosing life is pretty on brand for black. If you want it more flavorful make the additional cost to sac a non token permanent. But why on earth does a color just not get allowed a basic function to the game?
The convincing argument for why black needs to kill enchantments is WotC cash cow, Magic Arena, and the b01 format they love so much. A 60 card format with only one game and no sideboard. Without breaking the color pie, certain colors would simply autoscoop to certain kinds of decks. So WotC HAD to start breaking the color pie and making more MDFCs and slapping more effects on each card. Essentially, bo1 makes it so every color has to be able to do all things. In the mean time they sit back and let Commander take the fall for all these design choices, which…is exactly what Seth did in this video. Don’t know the answer? Blame Commander! 🤷🏾♂️
I believe the stated reason is that enchantments are overly difficult to remove, so 'weak' enchantment removal is being added to Black's colour pie. Every other permanent type can be dealt with in at least three colours - artifacts for example have answers in White, Red and Green. This means any two colour deck that touches Naya can deal with artifacts. To deal with enchantments, you have to tocgh GW, none of the other colours have hard removal options. So Black is being given enchantment removal so that you just need to have at least one of the Abzan colours rather than just Selesnya
Commander also has no sideboards, so Seth didn't miss the mark by much. (If you are playing rakdos, the only way to kill enxhantments used to be to ask anoyher player) Btw, i'm ok with enchanment edicts in black, target enchantment removal, no.
It triggers me a little how Seth is so up in arms about black enchantment removal but then defends "Beast Within" existing - an actual outrageous color break. Green having a stronger creature removal than Doomblade, Terror, Dark Banishing and co; what the actual fuck? Oh, and for some reason it's also additionally an at-rate stone rain, planeswalker and battle removal (things green shouldn't be able to do - in regards to planeswalkers and battles - or should not be able to do at 3 mana - in regards to lands). How does this card make sense? Black is already nerfed in commander because one of its biggest identities - discard - doesn't translate well into commander* (or at least: WotC thinks it's too unfun to make discard cards that scale well into commander; I think some random discard cards - e.g., a 1BBB "every opponent discards two cards at random - could do the format good, given how everything is ramp and card draw, nowadays). TLDR: Throw black a bone so that it can do things other than aristocrats and reanimation; the color pie is dead anyways! * It's telling that no one from the commander clash crew remembered to mention "discard" in their podcast episodes on what colors are (uniquely) good at.
Calling beast within a stronger piece of removal when it costs more and gives them a body is incorrect. Efficiency is king when it comes to removal, and taking an extra turn off and still having to deal with a not insignificant threat is a massive tempo loss.
@@TheZeratulsanI remember building the deck when it was a top deck and still can't believe a relatively vanilla 4/4 won games. IIRC it also had flamewake phoenix to recure from the GY? I also remember despite being a top deck, me going 0-7 in my first 7 matches with the deck lolololol
The problem with giving all colors the ability to deal with everything (except counterspells for whatever reason) is it makes all colors the same and makes the game more boring, like how easy it is nowadays to run 3 or more colors making a lot of games where you are always seeing the same cards.
this is very interesting to me, and I’d like to (respectfully) ask: what do you consider yourself to be “here for”? Personally, if I see a cool magic deck’s gameplay advertised by a youtube video from a creator whose gameplay commentary I like and I’m in the mood, I click on it to see the deck, its gameplay, and the commentary surrounding that. I don’t personally at all care if the gameplay is paper in-person, paper via webcam (so long as cards are identifiable and I can follow the game) or MTGO or arena at all. My only bias in this capacity is finding MTGO’s top-down viewpoint to help me read cards on the board more easily. I generally find myself to be either enjoying or not enjoying an MTG gameplay video due to factors such as whether/how I am invested in the format being played and if watching the deck play out while listening to the commentary is being engaging for me (factors that affect this could be something like the deck featured not having a ton of nuance in gameplay or having a game-plan which is massively repetitive, or something like the creator being at the end of a long stream and [understandably] allowing tiredness to degrade the quality of the commentary). What I’m trying to convey is that I am “here for” watching magic gameplay, and I personally struggle to see a significant difference in how that gameplay plays out (assuming the format is the same) between different modes of playing MTG. So, I ask again (out of nothing more than a desire to learn): what brings YOU to magic content? Is it just seth’s personality and commentary? Would you just as readily watch seth play something like a long-haul trucking simulator or even desert bus? If you are motivated in some capacity by watching MTG content specifically, what do you see as the reasons for your finding “magic online… so boring to watch”? Is it that Arena has random stuff going on within the game board you can use to distract your attention at times? I find that hard to take serious as a reason something is genuinely more “boring” to someone, but in the interest of fairness I have played a lot of arena in my day so I have had to do a lot of looking at those game boards and it’s entirely possible the magic has long-since been lost on me. Would appreciate your answer to some of these questions about your motivations surrounding watching MTG content! Thanks and have a great day!
3:16:50 The band Haken is one of my absolute favorites, give them a listen for sure!
At 1:28:26, an alternate play might have been to hard cast Street Wraith, and then Bestow Phoenix on it using Hollow One and something else.
2:07:00 I know playing against TOR is miserable, but honestly I think people would win more games if they'd play it out. Seth is over here like "We're just done, that's game" while the opponent is at 5 and he's at 25, with no other impactful permanents in play. Like, you just won through TWO castings of the most broken card in the game rn. Obviously if they had a boardstate and lifegain, I'd say a scoop is probably fair. But he had threats in play the whole time. I don't see why people just assume they're gonna lose. It's like the planeswalker blindness, people see that card type and immediately commit a lot to getting rid of it, even if it's not necessary.
I know it's situational, and a lot of the situations are bad. But like, might as well go for it if you have the time right?
He doesn’t have the time hahaha this is his job and his job isn’t to win it’s to create good content
@@colecarmichael5724Winning is good content.
Got to remember this is a stream you got to ask yourself would it be entertaining to watch a drawn out game
@@raphaelaldenmendoza8468 Well he drew it out, won, and talked to chaat the whole time. So I think so? I understand it would be miserable to sit in silence, but it gives him time to read and interact with chat. Plus, the number of people that yell at him for early scoops implies they don't mind him sitting around for a bit XD
RE Chat-GPT commander clash episode: I think a fun one could be if each of you give Chat-GPT a unique prompt with categories of cards (like: "let this deck include 6 boardwipes, 20 basic lands, 5 basic land payoff cards, ...") and let it built a deck this way.
It would probably not do a great job with sticking to (or understanding) these categories, but it would be interesting to see whose Commander philosophy (e.g., Crim's "8 boardwipes" vs Seth's "10 MDFCs" vs Richard's "5 white catchup ramp cards") leads to the most functional deck. This would also serve as a silly proxy for what would happen if you give far-too-detailed tips to a commander beginner who is likely to misunderstand what you mean.
I also love the paper magic videos!!
@3:10:00 ish. I would love to see you do a MtG version of Diners, Dives, and Drive-ins, or a video series of pitching increasingly unhinged ideas to Richard to see what he finally says no to or how exasperated you can make him.
I think Black destroying enchantments allows for the developers to explore more space for Enchantments. Leyline of the Void is a great example of a card that is fun unless you're playing a deck that just needs to scoop on turn 1 when they see it. Being able to sideboard in a Feed the Swarm means there's a chance to get out of that.
I do feel that black should have had to discard a card, sacrifice a creature, or pay some life to destroy something outside its slice of the pie, but having more flexible answers always allows for more more flexible development. I think every color needs to be able to do everything, just some colors should do it best, and some should do it decidedly poorly.
2:02:44 I extremely disagree with making the bowmaster a more taste target for solitude. Putting Phoenix on the army and attacking in the air with just it and dragon's rage channeler means they can't block to offset the damage from you attacking.
I also disagree with firing bolt at their face when you suspect they have solitude. You bestow onto army, bolt solitude when it comes down leaves you with 3 damage from DRC, and a bowmaster in play making them activating the ring next turn almost 100% likely to kill them
I was able to find the true name nemesis deck at target, and traded him in for the prosh deck, was awesome great times. Now all Walmart and targets get looted by scalpers at 5 am every day 😢
For commander clash, I'd love to see either the BG Scarecrow (the backup commander for the golgari deck) or Niko. Lots of fun ways to take them both, I think.
If you’re wondering why Jeff Hoagland doesn’t play Magic anymore he recently posted a picture of a modern deck with just the cards that were released in standard sets and it was less than half. I can’t say I disagree with him.
Decklist: www.mtggoldfish.com/deck/6628729#paper
Civ VI stream when?
A reason for black to destroy enchantments? How about the ability to play through enchantments that lock you out of the game? Its one of the worst enchantment removal spells in the game? There have been multiple edicts for enchantments in black. But if it was "target opponent sacs target enchantment" would be more powerful. If it was the opponents choice then it would just be another of one of the worst enchantment removals in the game. Least efficient in mana cost, targeting, and destruction type. Your discussion with it only being for commander: blue, green, and white can handle enchantments on and off the board in 60 card formats with much more efficiency and more permanent removal. Black heavily encourages you to run only black cards. Arguably more than any other color, thus its worse to splash into any color just for enchantment removal than for any other colors. It's so hypocritical to say you don't think black or red for that matter can remove enchantments (something that the 3 other colors can do better in every way) while blue can't monopolize on counters. Which it hasn't....there are counters in black, and white and red which are much more narrow. and there are only a few of them, typically 1 to 2. You know what else there is only 1 to 2 of? Black enchantment removal. Its also super narrow compared to other removal and once again much less efficient. Your complaining about black getting a bad version of a niche card that allows it to do one of its most pushed strategies which is staying monoblack. I believe in the color pie but that never meant that a color just can't do a basic game function. It meant it had to do it in a way that represented that color. Black sacking enchantments is super flavorful but also loosing life is pretty on brand for black. If you want it more flavorful make the additional cost to sac a non token permanent. But why on earth does a color just not get allowed a basic function to the game?
I want a format that just starts at origins for the flavor
Curious?
Could affinity fir artifacts make the demon broken
The convincing argument for why black needs to kill enchantments is WotC cash cow, Magic Arena, and the b01 format they love so much. A 60 card format with only one game and no sideboard. Without breaking the color pie, certain colors would simply autoscoop to certain kinds of decks. So WotC HAD to start breaking the color pie and making more MDFCs and slapping more effects on each card. Essentially, bo1 makes it so every color has to be able to do all things. In the mean time they sit back and let Commander take the fall for all these design choices, which…is exactly what Seth did in this video. Don’t know the answer? Blame Commander! 🤷🏾♂️
I believe the stated reason is that enchantments are overly difficult to remove, so 'weak' enchantment removal is being added to Black's colour pie.
Every other permanent type can be dealt with in at least three colours - artifacts for example have answers in White, Red and Green. This means any two colour deck that touches Naya can deal with artifacts.
To deal with enchantments, you have to tocgh GW, none of the other colours have hard removal options. So Black is being given enchantment removal so that you just need to have at least one of the Abzan colours rather than just Selesnya
@@hadrianj
Makes sense but also doesn't matter. It's more a romantic emotional response to the multi-year design trend of pushing black.
Commander also has no sideboards, so Seth didn't miss the mark by much.
(If you are playing rakdos, the only way to kill enxhantments used to be to ask anoyher player)
Btw, i'm ok with enchanment edicts in black, target enchantment removal, no.
It triggers me a little how Seth is so up in arms about black enchantment removal but then defends "Beast Within" existing - an actual outrageous color break. Green having a stronger creature removal than Doomblade, Terror, Dark Banishing and co; what the actual fuck? Oh, and for some reason it's also additionally an at-rate stone rain, planeswalker and battle removal (things green shouldn't be able to do - in regards to planeswalkers and battles - or should not be able to do at 3 mana - in regards to lands). How does this card make sense?
Black is already nerfed in commander because one of its biggest identities - discard - doesn't translate well into commander* (or at least: WotC thinks it's too unfun to make discard cards that scale well into commander; I think some random discard cards - e.g., a 1BBB "every opponent discards two cards at random - could do the format good, given how everything is ramp and card draw, nowadays).
TLDR: Throw black a bone so that it can do things other than aristocrats and reanimation; the color pie is dead anyways!
* It's telling that no one from the commander clash crew remembered to mention "discard" in their podcast episodes on what colors are (uniquely) good at.
Calling beast within a stronger piece of removal when it costs more and gives them a body is incorrect. Efficiency is king when it comes to removal, and taking an extra turn off and still having to deal with a not insignificant threat is a massive tempo loss.
Watching this deck, I have to wonder...how in the world it was ever a top deck in modern, even without bowmasters all but making it unplayable
It's not exactly bad, just prone to more variance than most decks, but stronger than the crashing footfalls deck when it high rolls
@@TheZeratulsanI remember building the deck when it was a top deck and still can't believe a relatively vanilla 4/4 won games. IIRC it also had flamewake phoenix to recure from the GY?
I also remember despite being a top deck, me going 0-7 in my first 7 matches with the deck lolololol
The problem with giving all colors the ability to deal with everything (except counterspells for whatever reason) is it makes all colors the same and makes the game more boring, like how easy it is nowadays to run 3 or more colors making a lot of games where you are always seeing the same cards.
This is false.
Commander players salty?....no don't tell me so
Magic online is so boring to watch but I just want Seth entertainment
this is very interesting to me, and I’d like to (respectfully) ask: what do you consider yourself to be “here for”?
Personally, if I see a cool magic deck’s gameplay advertised by a youtube video from a creator whose gameplay commentary I like and I’m in the mood, I click on it to see the deck, its gameplay, and the commentary surrounding that. I don’t personally at all care if the gameplay is paper in-person, paper via webcam (so long as cards are identifiable and I can follow the game) or MTGO or arena at all. My only bias in this capacity is finding MTGO’s top-down viewpoint to help me read cards on the board more easily.
I generally find myself to be either enjoying or not enjoying an MTG gameplay video due to factors such as whether/how I am invested in the format being played and if watching the deck play out while listening to the commentary is being engaging for me (factors that affect this could be something like the deck featured not having a ton of nuance in gameplay or having a game-plan which is massively repetitive, or something like the creator being at the end of a long stream and [understandably] allowing tiredness to degrade the quality of the commentary).
What I’m trying to convey is that I am “here for” watching magic gameplay, and I personally struggle to see a significant difference in how that gameplay plays out (assuming the format is the same) between different modes of playing MTG.
So, I ask again (out of nothing more than a desire to learn): what brings YOU to magic content? Is it just seth’s personality and commentary? Would you just as readily watch seth play something like a long-haul trucking simulator or even desert bus?
If you are motivated in some capacity by watching MTG content specifically, what do you see as the reasons for your finding “magic online… so boring to watch”? Is it that Arena has random stuff going on within the game board you can use to distract your attention at times? I find that hard to take serious as a reason something is genuinely more “boring” to someone, but in the interest of fairness I have played a lot of arena in my day so I have had to do a lot of looking at those game boards and it’s entirely possible the magic has long-since been lost on me.
Would appreciate your answer to some of these questions about your motivations surrounding watching MTG content! Thanks and have a great day!