Pro-tip for searching in Scryfall: using fo: instead of oracle: in the searchbar searches the Full Oracle text, which includes the reminder text for keywords. So in your example, searching fo:counter instead of oracle:counter would return cards with Connive and Explore. I enjoyed the video!
Love all your videos! As a newer brewer, this and upping the average are my favorite deckbuilding series - not just for discovering cards but for the mentality behind card choices and the deck building process
this video contains amazing and borderline life-changing advice disseminated with great efficacy. the level of intuition displayed here is nothing short of inspirational. i’ve never built my own deck before (precon player), and it’s overwhelming to consider the vast multitude of cards in existence, but this video is an invaluable starting point. i’m going to focus on developing a broad understanding of the commanders that interest me and hopefully come up with unique and potent ideas for my first deck.
Excellent video, I need to back through some of my decks using this new mindset, as I have definitely made the mistake of taking commanders for cards and not the other way around.
I find this topic really interesting, I had always approach deck crafting like some kind of art more than anything, art is subjective there for my decks end up looking similar to others decks but hardly the same, that being said in commander sometimes I feel railroaded by the commander/ the mana identity/ the meta and I end up frustrated, like there is only one way to build them for them to work out. Your video has made me reconsider how to look at cards when crafting a deck, thanks for the new found inspiration
Old massacre girl, scammy voltron, with equipment that buffs the slaughter gal for each swamp you control. There's one that you can equip with phyrexian mana. Include forbidden orchard to get an abundance of 1/1 to start the chain. Have fun! Cause your opponents won't have any of that.
Hi, new Magic player and first time stumbling upon your video. Thank you for the solid pointers, it helped me understand deck-building more. I seem to be finding myself in a pickle on the "avoid cards with the same CMC as your commander" advice though. I've heard of this from multiple sources, but since the first deck that I'm playing is a Midrange Vehicle Beatdown Shorikai, there are so many good 4CMC cards that I feel like I'd miss out to not run. Things like [[Padeem, Consul of Innovation]], [[Deadeye Quartermaster]]. [[Rebbec, Architect of Ascension]], [[Scaretiller]], [[Solemn Simulacrum]], [[Surgehacker Mech]], [[Weatherlight]], [[Unwinding Clock]] for example. Granted, I do run [[Etherium Sculptor]] and [[Foundry Inspector]] to bring their costs down. Do you account for their cost reduction in this case, or perhaps only having 2 of them out of the 99 cards is way too inconsistent to account for? (Me and my pod doesn't run tutors). Would you consider cutting most of them, or do you think it's fine in the case of like Shorikai? I feel like I am still way too inexperienced playtime-wise to solve the "would I rather drop Shorikai on 4 vs the other listed spells" dilemma. But thank you for the great video again!
Thanks for watching! It's great to hear more people getting into the game. First I want to be clear- you don't have to avoid same-cmc cards entirely, they're just something you should be more skeptical of. The idea is that if you want to play your commander ASAP, those cards get in the way. For Shorikai in particular though, while I don't think those cost reductions are enough to count is as *cheaper* than 4, I do have a thought that might help solve your dilemma. Shorikai *does* generate value over time, since each turn represents an untap. But that only works if you've tapped it. Playing Shorikai when you have exactly 4 mana means you don't have enough left over to tap it with, so it might actually be better to act as though Shorikai were a 5 cost commander instead. You'd still be able to deploy your 4 drops, then drop Shorikai on 5 and immediately use it. Thanks for watching!
Yeah, knowing how to search scryfall (or databases generally) and how to evaluate cards in terms of what they do for you is like 90% of deckbuilding. It doesn't mean you'll end up with something powerful, or even good, but something coherent.
Great video! I got this in my recommendations and really enjoyed the theory brought out. One thing, did you know you can download the PNG of a card from scryfall without white corners?
First cards on my mind: - Drannith Magistrate - Jaheira, Friend of the Forest - Halsin, Emerald Archdruid - Knowledge Pool (if you're evil) First thoughts for gameplay: - Don't use the food for lifegain. Find other ways to use them. - Get creatures that can hold 1/1 counters well (see my Optimus Prime deck) - Of the three effects Rocco brings, the fact that there are three opponents casting from exile is the biggest contributor. If you have to focus on just one thing, focus on that.
@@aegisgamingofficial2178 thanks for the reply :) I totally missed that Optimus Prime video, but I had a lot of similar ideas when I put it together in paper. The deck has a lot going on and some stuff you cant goldfish, so I will test different things. Halsin I will try out for sure. I also think having a low curve in this deck makes sense to able to even play the cards from exile - I wonder how much I should lean into myself playing from exile apart from Rocco. In the real games I have played, people did not play the exiled cards as much as possible.
I think this video would have been better if you had use an example commander like Wasitora instead of Falco. Falco can be very complicated because he can be used as a type b commander that comes packaged in with his own protection. It also comes off in the video that you're against atypical decks like those that use their commanders as removal fodder or those that can function without their commander but use it as a way to get value (like Atraxa, Grand Unifier in cedh.) From the comments I know that isn't the case, but this point might need a little bit of editing. Wasitora on the other hand is a huge body with a built in way to tempo, but her top two hits on EDHrec are tribal archetypes.
I've seen "Type A" and "Type B" appear in these videos a few times now but can't find anywhere that actually explains what those terms mean. I don't suppose you could enlighten me?
Seeing again this video, after finishing my Neyali deck, and I have a thought whow viable is a "inderect" sinergy in deck, for example there a lot of very strong token maker that work only with lifegain, and as you say, you only need three tokens so is better to buff the token and make less but stronger tokens, so is possible to work deck around that (without the commander being good at lifegaing) and be good? Probably there are better examples.
It could work, but I'd caution against it. Similar indirect synergies usually spiral outwards and make the deck less focused. For example, maybe Crucible of Fire is really good in your dragons deck, so you start to play cards that can search for enchantments. And since you're running those you might like to put more enchantments in... and so on and so on. But now your dragons deck actually looks more like an enchantments deck that does neither particularly well. There's something to be said for relying too much on your commander, but the fact is that it's the only card you'll reliably have access to, so your commander needs to be the rubric you judge inclusions by. If Neyali doesn't gain life, then for lifegain tokenmakers to work, you'll need to cut a lot of cards for lifegain pieces. Soon the deck looks less like tokens and more like lifegain, while doing neither especially well. (That said there are some really good cards for Neyali that are good regardless and just happen to gain life, so it's not off the table completely, just inadvisable). Thanks for watching! 😁
I probably won't make videos about countering specific strategies (at least, not for a while; I've already got a big list of deck techs I'm making 😅), but in a lot of the decks posted to the channel, I talk about and expose some of the deck's weaknesses and strengths at the very end when I talk about its Power Level. I can try to be more explicit about that from now on though! Thanks for the suggestion!
Re: the avoidance of same-CC cards as your commander. What would you say is the maximum number of those cards you would be willing to run? Does it depend on the commander's CC? For instance, a 3CC commander like Abomination of Llanowar would want to discourage running many 3CC spells, which would eliminate a lot of otherwise-good Elf spells (e.g., Farhaven Elf, Reclamation Sage); a 6CC commander wouldn't usually have as many 6CC's in the deck to begin with.
The number itself depends on a lot of factors: The commander, its mana value, and most importantly, *your game plan.* As a general rule though I probably don't like more than 4. That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions though. For example, Wilson//Cultist is a commander pair that's very low to the ground, but plays a lot of 1 and 2 mana cards anyway because of how tight its plan is. On a case by case basis though, you need only ask "If I had the mana, would I rather play this card or one of my one-mana-more spells?" There surely exist cards that fit that description, but it depends incredibly on those factors mentioned above. Thanks for watching!
With the "selecting cards for you commander not the other way around" how do you deal with commanders getting removed every time they hit the board? I feel like I rarely play games that I can untap with a commander more than once or twice a game before they are removed enough times that they aren't feasible to cast. I've started designing decks the other way around because expecting my commander to live feels like it makes my game plan too fragile.
@aegisgamingofficial2178 a combination, I've experienced it a lot but I've also seen it a lot and recognize it to be the best play most times. I feel like the only time people's build around commanders don't get removed early is if someone is being nice, which it kinda feels bad to win due to either the opponents bad threat assessment or just the goodwill of the opponents. Just for note this is not talking about kill on sight commanders. Also my other answer has been running a ridiculous amount of protection spells to counter this but it's been easier to just build around theme that doesn't require the commander than try to defend it most of the time
@@Mteverfresh Then, short of asking your playgroup to change how they play, one thing you might be interested in are what I call "Type B" commanders. Essentially these commanders- while you're still building around them- aren't very threatening on their own, and are at their best on resource management duty. The result is that removing them is typically a mistake, and makes the deck resilient against commander removal. If you're interested, my Braids, Arisen Nightmare and Zimone and Dina builds go into more detail about these kinds of commanders and how differently they play.
There's some interesting points here. I think the biggest issue I have is that many of these tips are geared towards Commander as a game where the primary goal is winning, which isn't always the case. Another issue is your overreliance on the commander. Additionally my meta is packed with "bad" players. They don't make the most optimal plays or they're bad at evaluation, sometimes intentionally. One of our biggest Spikes doesn't think they're a Spike and then is mystified when people focus him when he played Saheeli the Gifted on turn 1 for the second game in a row. For example, my group hug deck isn't designed for winning. It's designed to make the game more fun for everyone. When there are two people left, if I'm one, we scoop up and start a new game. In many of my most successful decks my commander is a game piece, but not the entire focus. A lot of this comes from designing in a time when tucking a commander was possible and attractive. My Rafiq voltron deck has a bunch of backup attackers like cold eye selkie and original Daxos and Thada Adel and is better for it. My group hug deck rarely plays its Pheldagrif. My Muldrotha value Sultai deck's rule is that all the cards have to be good on their own in a normal game of Magic, so that if Dranith Magistrate (very popular in my meta) hangs around too long I'm not impeded. My Rem Karolus damage board wipe tribal deck is fine if the commander isn't on the board. My Brash Taunter and Spitemare just get to shine brighter in those cases. One of my buddies runs a 5c deck that is actually mono Red planeswalkers + the defeat cycle from Hour. For him, it's not about winning, (I think the deck has 4 wins to its name) it's about cool card choice. We have another player in my meta who runs goat tribal (no changlings). His only win condition is Coat of Arms. It's cool when it happens, but he's really just trying to amass an army of 0/1s for the lulz. Meanwhile, many of my most Commander focused decks are my most frustrating to pilot. My Reki mono green legends deck usually folds if Reki dies twice. My cEDH Marwyn deck is zero fun to play despite how successful it usually is. All this said, these tips are definitely valuable and correct for designing decks using your personal values.
Thanks for watching! And thanks for the comment! I don't usually reply to comments like this, but I love getting to talk about this stuff more, and you put a lot of thought into yours, so here goes: Everyone here is playing because they have fun, and I feel like that goes without saying. Everyone is playing to have fun, but they're also trying to win in *some* capacity (imagine a game where nobody tried to win. Does it ever end? How fun is that?) Because fun is largely subjective, I can't tell you what cards to play, because I don't know what you think will be fun (I don't think I would have ever recommended 5c planeswalker/defeat tribal). However, since we're all *also* trying to win to *some* degree, what I *can* do is provide guidelines, some general structure that will help everyone win (while also not going into cedh territory- the decks I post are never anything above an 8. Any higher tends to be so consistent as to be boring), but in the end, if you have cards that are more fun for you to play, then *you should play those cards.* What I provide is a template that you are more than free to deviate from, nothing more- I'm not gonna stand over your shoulder and make you cut bad cards 😂 Some decks can be *over-reliant* on their commanders- many Voltron decks are. But that doesn't change the fact that this is a singleton format. The only card that you *can* rely on is your commander; it's only natural that this dictate your strategy- some commanders more than others: I use the terms "type A" and "type B" to differentiate those commanders that should be leaned on from those that shouldn't in my deck techs (for example, in the case of Reki and Muldrotha, both type B decks, it's a mistake to lean too heavily on the commander). My Braids deck (also type B) doesn't need the commander at all; she's just there to give the deck a push. On the topic of decks that are less focused on winning though, even my *favorite* deck isn't completely optimized. But these decks are more like that chess player I talk about trying to arrange their pawns into a smile instead of winning- goals determine correctness, and these decks have different goals. The deck is a tribute to my friendship with my best friend, and so a lot of the cards aren't in there for power, they're in there because they represent memories of our time together- it just also *happens* to be strong; the cards that represent those memories aren't total non-bos with the commanders. Hope this cleared things up! Thanks again!
Here’s the problem with this video. You’re building decks that are optimized the best you can and winning with combos. I build decks to not win. I hate powerful decks. Like the new Bilbo commander coming out. His ability is get 111 or more life and you get all creatures out of your library. It would be a win for me to get that much life without a combo. That is much harder than building a fully optimized deck that just cares about winning. That truly is boring and mindless. There is no way to correctly build a deck
Thanks for watching! I gave a much more detailed reply to Mark Brierly a few comments down from yours, so I won't rehash it all here, but here's the short(ish) version: - Don't misunderstand. Everyone is playing to have fun (even me). But everyone *is also trying to win* (even you on *some* level). To illustrate, imagine a game where *nobody* tried to win. How long did that game go on for? When did it end? When everyone got tired of playing? Was that very fun? Probably not. - If you really aren't *ever* trying to win, then yeah, this video isn't for you. Think back to the example I gave about two chess players. In that example, you're the player who wants to arrange their pawns into a smile *and there's nothing wrong with that.* Unless, of course, your opponents want to play chess. In which case your refusal to participate subtracts from everyone else's fun. If you and all of your opponents would rather be arranging your pawns into smiles than winning, I would suggest taking up a coloring book or lego set and leaving the game pieces to people who actually want to play. Anything less would be a waste of your time and everyone else's. - I don't know you, so I don't know what you think is fun. *It is not possible for anyone to make deck techs that optimize your fun experience* for just that reason. However, because all players have in common that we're trying to win in *some capacity,* what I *can* do is tell you how to optimize winning, and let you then be free to *deviate from that guideline to the degree that's right for you and your playgroup.* That's something that *all* deck techs have in common. In my mind, decks that durdle around and never do anything are *much* worse to play against than powerful decks. However much you may "hate powerful decks," you'd probably have a lot more hate for the deck that steals all your permanents, counters all your spells, and taxes all your cards without ever trying to win. Holding your opponents hostage while you durdle around and waste everyone's time is extremely inconsiderate. As a courtesy to your opponents, who are hopefully also your friends, *you have to try to end the game at some point.* There is such a thing as not trying hard enough, and I would caution that people who "hate powerful decks" step back and consider the degree to which they're not seriously trying to win as a *subtraction from the fun of the game.* What I provide is, what I hope, the greatest degree to which you can be trying to win without playing cEDH, where decks are often so consistent as to be boring.
@@aegisgamingofficial2178 your points are fair. I stopped playing on spelltable because every single game, I encountered somebody is lying about their so called “casual deck” I durdel around because nobody else does. I want games to go 2-4 hours. I want one long game and not 3-4 mini-games. I literally do not play to win. I love this game. I love the interactions. I used to play Grant Arbiter to try to make games go longer than 6-8 turns. Edh was never about winning fast. Back then the game was slow. These fully optimized decks have gotten so outta hand, that’s all people want to build now. Your argument “well the game has got to end sometime” is like a fundamental thing. The game ends when your deck grinds out your opponents. I haven’t played commander in a awhile now, because I believe I’m the last of the casual edh players. I had all those expensive cards but sold them all. Yeah I won more games but I found people get salty and complain. It’s the most boring and mindless way to win. A life gain deck should be able to win if you get to 200 plus or more life, but oh no an enraging 2 card combo can win the whole dam game. There’s no such thing as casual commander anymore. It’s either all high powered BS or CEDH BS
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
Pro-tip for searching in Scryfall: using fo: instead of oracle: in the searchbar searches the Full Oracle text, which includes the reminder text for keywords. So in your example, searching fo:counter instead of oracle:counter would return cards with Connive and Explore. I enjoyed the video!
Thanks for the tip!!
Love all your videos! As a newer brewer, this and upping the average are my favorite deckbuilding series - not just for discovering cards but for the mentality behind card choices and the deck building process
this video contains amazing and borderline life-changing advice disseminated with great efficacy. the level of intuition displayed here is nothing short of inspirational.
i’ve never built my own deck before (precon player), and it’s overwhelming to consider the vast multitude of cards in existence, but this video is an invaluable starting point.
i’m going to focus on developing a broad understanding of the commanders that interest me and hopefully come up with unique and potent ideas for my first deck.
Cant wait to dig into this. Always love the rationale for your deck techs!
Excellent video, I need to back through some of my decks using this new mindset, as I have definitely made the mistake of taking commanders for cards and not the other way around.
I find this topic really interesting, I had always approach deck crafting like some kind of art more than anything, art is subjective there for
my decks end up looking similar to others decks but hardly the same, that being said in commander sometimes I feel railroaded by the commander/ the mana identity/ the meta and I end up frustrated, like there is only one way to build them for them to work out. Your video has made me reconsider how to look at cards when crafting a deck, thanks for the new found inspiration
subbed, because you explain and teach like a pro
I love listening to game theory
But I always end up forgetting everything when I sit down to build
Great video. All the edits keep it visually interesting and the tutorial on how to search up cards for the deck is needed in this space
No goals. Everything dies. Removal Tribal.
I mean, that is a goal 😂
@@aegisgamingofficial2178 yeah, youre right lol
I laughed too hard at this lol
@@callmeanti6985 in actuality I try not to play like this but I can certainly build to do this.
Old massacre girl, scammy voltron, with equipment that buffs the slaughter gal for each swamp you control. There's one that you can equip with phyrexian mana. Include forbidden orchard to get an abundance of 1/1 to start the chain. Have fun! Cause your opponents won't have any of that.
Hi, new Magic player and first time stumbling upon your video. Thank you for the solid pointers, it helped me understand deck-building more. I seem to be finding myself in a pickle on the "avoid cards with the same CMC as your commander" advice though. I've heard of this from multiple sources, but since the first deck that I'm playing is a Midrange Vehicle Beatdown Shorikai, there are so many good 4CMC cards that I feel like I'd miss out to not run.
Things like [[Padeem, Consul of Innovation]], [[Deadeye Quartermaster]]. [[Rebbec, Architect of Ascension]], [[Scaretiller]], [[Solemn Simulacrum]], [[Surgehacker Mech]], [[Weatherlight]], [[Unwinding Clock]] for example. Granted, I do run [[Etherium Sculptor]] and [[Foundry Inspector]] to bring their costs down. Do you account for their cost reduction in this case, or perhaps only having 2 of them out of the 99 cards is way too inconsistent to account for? (Me and my pod doesn't run tutors). Would you consider cutting most of them, or do you think it's fine in the case of like Shorikai?
I feel like I am still way too inexperienced playtime-wise to solve the "would I rather drop Shorikai on 4 vs the other listed spells" dilemma. But thank you for the great video again!
Thanks for watching! It's great to hear more people getting into the game.
First I want to be clear- you don't have to avoid same-cmc cards entirely, they're just something you should be more skeptical of. The idea is that if you want to play your commander ASAP, those cards get in the way. For Shorikai in particular though, while I don't think those cost reductions are enough to count is as *cheaper* than 4, I do have a thought that might help solve your dilemma.
Shorikai *does* generate value over time, since each turn represents an untap. But that only works if you've tapped it. Playing Shorikai when you have exactly 4 mana means you don't have enough left over to tap it with, so it might actually be better to act as though Shorikai were a 5 cost commander instead. You'd still be able to deploy your 4 drops, then drop Shorikai on 5 and immediately use it.
Thanks for watching!
@@aegisgamingofficial2178 That is a really great thought, thanks a ton for sharing!
This channel is awesome!
Yeah, knowing how to search scryfall (or databases generally) and how to evaluate cards in terms of what they do for you is like 90% of deckbuilding. It doesn't mean you'll end up with something powerful, or even good, but something coherent.
New blood!!!! With anhelo is amazing! 😂
Great video! I got this in my recommendations and really enjoyed the theory brought out.
One thing, did you know you can download the PNG of a card from scryfall without white corners?
😂 I do now!
I would love your opinion or a video on the new Rocco (Street chef)- with counters artifacts and playing from exile he has so much going on
First cards on my mind:
- Drannith Magistrate
- Jaheira, Friend of the Forest
- Halsin, Emerald Archdruid
- Knowledge Pool (if you're evil)
First thoughts for gameplay:
- Don't use the food for lifegain. Find other ways to use them.
- Get creatures that can hold 1/1 counters well (see my Optimus Prime deck)
- Of the three effects Rocco brings, the fact that there are three opponents casting from exile is the biggest contributor. If you have to focus on just one thing, focus on that.
@@aegisgamingofficial2178 thanks for the reply :) I totally missed that Optimus Prime video, but I had a lot of similar ideas when I put it together in paper. The deck has a lot going on and some stuff you cant goldfish, so I will test different things. Halsin I will try out for sure. I also think having a low curve in this deck makes sense to able to even play the cards from exile - I wonder how much I should lean into myself playing from exile apart from Rocco. In the real games I have played, people did not play the exiled cards as much as possible.
I think this video would have been better if you had use an example commander like Wasitora instead of Falco. Falco can be very complicated because he can be used as a type b commander that comes packaged in with his own protection. It also comes off in the video that you're against atypical decks like those that use their commanders as removal fodder or those that can function without their commander but use it as a way to get value (like Atraxa, Grand Unifier in cedh.) From the comments I know that isn't the case, but this point might need a little bit of editing.
Wasitora on the other hand is a huge body with a built in way to tempo, but her top two hits on EDHrec are tribal archetypes.
I've seen "Type A" and "Type B" appear in these videos a few times now but can't find anywhere that actually explains what those terms mean. I don't suppose you could enlighten me?
Seeing again this video, after finishing my Neyali deck, and I have a thought whow viable is a "inderect" sinergy in deck, for example there a lot of very strong token maker that work only with lifegain, and as you say, you only need three tokens so is better to buff the token and make less but stronger tokens, so is possible to work deck around that (without the commander being good at lifegaing) and be good? Probably there are better examples.
It could work, but I'd caution against it. Similar indirect synergies usually spiral outwards and make the deck less focused.
For example, maybe Crucible of Fire is really good in your dragons deck, so you start to play cards that can search for enchantments. And since you're running those you might like to put more enchantments in... and so on and so on. But now your dragons deck actually looks more like an enchantments deck that does neither particularly well.
There's something to be said for relying too much on your commander, but the fact is that it's the only card you'll reliably have access to, so your commander needs to be the rubric you judge inclusions by. If Neyali doesn't gain life, then for lifegain tokenmakers to work, you'll need to cut a lot of cards for lifegain pieces. Soon the deck looks less like tokens and more like lifegain, while doing neither especially well. (That said there are some really good cards for Neyali that are good regardless and just happen to gain life, so it's not off the table completely, just inadvisable).
Thanks for watching! 😁
@@aegisgamingofficial2178 Thanks as always, slowly but surely learning commander.
You seem like the kind of guy who'd've voted for the nail and gear, Tim.
weird request, but could you try making videos on how to counter certain types of decks, or specific precons?
I probably won't make videos about countering specific strategies (at least, not for a while; I've already got a big list of deck techs I'm making 😅), but in a lot of the decks posted to the channel, I talk about and expose some of the deck's weaknesses and strengths at the very end when I talk about its Power Level. I can try to be more explicit about that from now on though!
Thanks for the suggestion!
Re: the avoidance of same-CC cards as your commander.
What would you say is the maximum number of those cards you would be willing to run? Does it depend on the commander's CC? For instance, a 3CC commander like Abomination of Llanowar would want to discourage running many 3CC spells, which would eliminate a lot of otherwise-good Elf spells (e.g., Farhaven Elf, Reclamation Sage); a 6CC commander wouldn't usually have as many 6CC's in the deck to begin with.
The number itself depends on a lot of factors: The commander, its mana value, and most importantly, *your game plan.* As a general rule though I probably don't like more than 4.
That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions though. For example, Wilson//Cultist is a commander pair that's very low to the ground, but plays a lot of 1 and 2 mana cards anyway because of how tight its plan is.
On a case by case basis though, you need only ask "If I had the mana, would I rather play this card or one of my one-mana-more spells?"
There surely exist cards that fit that description, but it depends incredibly on those factors mentioned above.
Thanks for watching!
With the "selecting cards for you commander not the other way around" how do you deal with commanders getting removed every time they hit the board? I feel like I rarely play games that I can untap with a commander more than once or twice a game before they are removed enough times that they aren't feasible to cast. I've started designing decks the other way around because expecting my commander to live feels like it makes my game plan too fragile.
Do you feel like it's just *your* commanders or *all* commanders that can't stick?
@aegisgamingofficial2178 a combination, I've experienced it a lot but I've also seen it a lot and recognize it to be the best play most times. I feel like the only time people's build around commanders don't get removed early is if someone is being nice, which it kinda feels bad to win due to either the opponents bad threat assessment or just the goodwill of the opponents. Just for note this is not talking about kill on sight commanders. Also my other answer has been running a ridiculous amount of protection spells to counter this but it's been easier to just build around theme that doesn't require the commander than try to defend it most of the time
@@Mteverfresh Then, short of asking your playgroup to change how they play, one thing you might be interested in are what I call "Type B" commanders. Essentially these commanders- while you're still building around them- aren't very threatening on their own, and are at their best on resource management duty. The result is that removing them is typically a mistake, and makes the deck resilient against commander removal. If you're interested, my Braids, Arisen Nightmare and Zimone and Dina builds go into more detail about these kinds of commanders and how differently they play.
🙏🏼
I like to build decks, that don't need the commander to work.
There's some interesting points here. I think the biggest issue I have is that many of these tips are geared towards Commander as a game where the primary goal is winning, which isn't always the case. Another issue is your overreliance on the commander. Additionally my meta is packed with "bad" players. They don't make the most optimal plays or they're bad at evaluation, sometimes intentionally. One of our biggest Spikes doesn't think they're a Spike and then is mystified when people focus him when he played Saheeli the Gifted on turn 1 for the second game in a row.
For example, my group hug deck isn't designed for winning. It's designed to make the game more fun for everyone. When there are two people left, if I'm one, we scoop up and start a new game.
In many of my most successful decks my commander is a game piece, but not the entire focus. A lot of this comes from designing in a time when tucking a commander was possible and attractive. My Rafiq voltron deck has a bunch of backup attackers like cold eye selkie and original Daxos and Thada Adel and is better for it. My group hug deck rarely plays its Pheldagrif. My Muldrotha value Sultai deck's rule is that all the cards have to be good on their own in a normal game of Magic, so that if Dranith Magistrate (very popular in my meta) hangs around too long I'm not impeded. My Rem Karolus damage board wipe tribal deck is fine if the commander isn't on the board. My Brash Taunter and Spitemare just get to shine brighter in those cases.
One of my buddies runs a 5c deck that is actually mono Red planeswalkers + the defeat cycle from Hour. For him, it's not about winning, (I think the deck has 4 wins to its name) it's about cool card choice.
We have another player in my meta who runs goat tribal (no changlings). His only win condition is Coat of Arms. It's cool when it happens, but he's really just trying to amass an army of 0/1s for the lulz.
Meanwhile, many of my most Commander focused decks are my most frustrating to pilot. My Reki mono green legends deck usually folds if Reki dies twice. My cEDH Marwyn deck is zero fun to play despite how successful it usually is.
All this said, these tips are definitely valuable and correct for designing decks using your personal values.
Thanks for watching! And thanks for the comment! I don't usually reply to comments like this, but I love getting to talk about this stuff more, and you put a lot of thought into yours, so here goes:
Everyone here is playing because they have fun, and I feel like that goes without saying. Everyone is playing to have fun, but they're also trying to win in *some* capacity (imagine a game where nobody tried to win. Does it ever end? How fun is that?)
Because fun is largely subjective, I can't tell you what cards to play, because I don't know what you think will be fun (I don't think I would have ever recommended 5c planeswalker/defeat tribal). However, since we're all *also* trying to win to *some* degree, what I *can* do is provide guidelines, some general structure that will help everyone win (while also not going into cedh territory- the decks I post are never anything above an 8. Any higher tends to be so consistent as to be boring), but in the end, if you have cards that are more fun for you to play, then *you should play those cards.* What I provide is a template that you are more than free to deviate from, nothing more- I'm not gonna stand over your shoulder and make you cut bad cards 😂
Some decks can be *over-reliant* on their commanders- many Voltron decks are. But that doesn't change the fact that this is a singleton format. The only card that you *can* rely on is your commander; it's only natural that this dictate your strategy- some commanders more than others: I use the terms "type A" and "type B" to differentiate those commanders that should be leaned on from those that shouldn't in my deck techs (for example, in the case of Reki and Muldrotha, both type B decks, it's a mistake to lean too heavily on the commander). My Braids deck (also type B) doesn't need the commander at all; she's just there to give the deck a push.
On the topic of decks that are less focused on winning though, even my *favorite* deck isn't completely optimized. But these decks are more like that chess player I talk about trying to arrange their pawns into a smile instead of winning- goals determine correctness, and these decks have different goals. The deck is a tribute to my friendship with my best friend, and so a lot of the cards aren't in there for power, they're in there because they represent memories of our time together- it just also *happens* to be strong; the cards that represent those memories aren't total non-bos with the commanders.
Hope this cleared things up! Thanks again!
Here’s the problem with this video. You’re building decks that are optimized the best you can and winning with combos. I build decks to not win. I hate powerful decks. Like the new Bilbo commander coming out. His ability is get 111 or more life and you get all creatures out of your library. It would be a win for me to get that much life without a combo. That is much harder than building a fully optimized deck that just cares about winning. That truly is boring and mindless. There is no way to correctly build a deck
Thanks for watching! I gave a much more detailed reply to Mark Brierly a few comments down from yours, so I won't rehash it all here, but here's the short(ish) version:
- Don't misunderstand. Everyone is playing to have fun (even me). But everyone *is also trying to win* (even you on *some* level). To illustrate, imagine a game where *nobody* tried to win. How long did that game go on for? When did it end? When everyone got tired of playing? Was that very fun? Probably not.
- If you really aren't *ever* trying to win, then yeah, this video isn't for you. Think back to the example I gave about two chess players. In that example, you're the player who wants to arrange their pawns into a smile *and there's nothing wrong with that.* Unless, of course, your opponents want to play chess. In which case your refusal to participate subtracts from everyone else's fun. If you and all of your opponents would rather be arranging your pawns into smiles than winning, I would suggest taking up a coloring book or lego set and leaving the game pieces to people who actually want to play. Anything less would be a waste of your time and everyone else's.
- I don't know you, so I don't know what you think is fun. *It is not possible for anyone to make deck techs that optimize your fun experience* for just that reason. However, because all players have in common that we're trying to win in *some capacity,* what I *can* do is tell you how to optimize winning, and let you then be free to *deviate from that guideline to the degree that's right for you and your playgroup.* That's something that *all* deck techs have in common.
In my mind, decks that durdle around and never do anything are *much* worse to play against than powerful decks. However much you may "hate powerful decks," you'd probably have a lot more hate for the deck that steals all your permanents, counters all your spells, and taxes all your cards without ever trying to win. Holding your opponents hostage while you durdle around and waste everyone's time is extremely inconsiderate. As a courtesy to your opponents, who are hopefully also your friends, *you have to try to end the game at some point.* There is such a thing as not trying hard enough, and I would caution that people who "hate powerful decks" step back and consider the degree to which they're not seriously trying to win as a *subtraction from the fun of the game.* What I provide is, what I hope, the greatest degree to which you can be trying to win without playing cEDH, where decks are often so consistent as to be boring.
@@aegisgamingofficial2178 your points are fair. I stopped playing on spelltable because every single game, I encountered somebody is lying about their so called “casual deck”
I durdel around because nobody else does. I want games to go 2-4 hours. I want one long game and not 3-4 mini-games. I literally do not play to win. I love this game. I love the interactions. I used to play Grant Arbiter to try to make games go longer than 6-8 turns. Edh was never about winning fast. Back then the game was slow. These fully optimized decks have gotten so outta hand, that’s all people want to build now. Your argument “well the game has got to end sometime” is like a fundamental thing. The game ends when your deck grinds out your opponents. I haven’t played commander in a awhile now, because I believe I’m the last of the casual edh players. I had all those expensive cards but sold them all. Yeah I won more games but I found people get salty and complain. It’s the most boring and mindless way to win. A life gain deck should be able to win if you get to 200 plus or more life, but oh no an enraging 2 card combo can win the whole dam game. There’s no such thing as casual commander anymore. It’s either all high powered BS or CEDH BS