Hot Takes Double Down or Take Backsies | Commander Clash Podcast 154
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ค. 2024
- It's time to set the record straight. We've said some spicy things on the podcast, and now's our chance to double down or take backsies.
Use the same gaming accessories as we do on our channel! Check out Ultimate Guard ultimateguard.com/?...
Today's show is brought to you by Card Conduit! Get 10% off your order and support our show by using our link www.cardconduit.com/mtggoldfish
Support us directly on Patreon! / mtggoldfish
Follow us on your favorite podcast app!
▲ Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4LviEgd...
▲ iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Buy our merch! Clear out Richard's garage! mtggoldfishmerch.com/
#MTG #MagicTheGathering #Commander #commanderclash
0:00 Intro
5:48 Swords to Plowshares
15:40 The Fog meta
20:23 March of the Machine
26:34 Basic lands
33:19 Archdruid's Charm
40:35 Aggro
48:43 Wraths in Aggro Decks
50:14 3-mana mana rocks
56:13 Bounce lands
1:03:40 Universes Beyond
1:21:17 Outro - เกม
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #2 SS8 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RMhUgxxD49Q/mqdefault.jpg)
On this episode of hot takes; will Richard continue to say good cards are bad because they make you look like you are winning? Will Crim say bad cards are good because they make you look like you are winning and that’s fun? Will Seth be gaslight into thinking removal is bad? Tune in to find out!
Best comment
Find out in the next episode of dragonball Z
Richard is just based and says it like it is. Crim is too westernized and cares about fee fees too much.
@@GhGh-gq8oo m8 go be racist on your own time.
@@GhGh-gq8oo...the person who is like "noooo don't play good cards they will attack you nooooo" is based and the person who is like "yeah I will be a threat at the table thats fun!" cares about feelings too much? What? I feel like if anything you got them the wrong way round here
The Codfather Paradox:
A high number of good cards are not good enough to be played because they die to removal (Farewell), simultaneously, if I don't have the removal for your good card, I will just die. I will therefore not play removal.
I don't think I'm even doing him an injustice here in that description
This needs to be comment of the week. Lmao
He is talking abt single target removal because you go down on card advantage versus the other players
@@tr13ky13 yeah he is, although that then becomes a point of would you rather lose to an unanswered threat/engine or go down a card and have to makeup that disadvantage
Big difference between single target removal and sweeper removal.
@@Beam_on_team well if you as a single player loses while two of your opponents lose you are 2 players defeated versus only losing once so you have a 2-1 record
I’m 1 second into the video, and I 100% expect this to be nothing but the crew doubling down 😂
Unfortunately you’re wrong, there was a few quadruple downs as well :P
@@moocha3689That’s just doubling down on doubling down.
@@Dragon_Fyre 🤓
*richard, specifically
Oh no, it's my comment.
I'm not saying there's not enough removal in the games. There's just way more "dies to doomblade" discussion on the podcast.
If people were firing off board wipes and picking off synergy creatures as often as Richard talks about Farewell, the games (and the comments) would be very different.
So true! Every permanent meets the "dies to doomblade" argument on the podcast but nobody plays doomblade effects really so why shluld they affect card evaluation whilst deck building
@@peterhardiman7333after seeing Richard's mana base suggestions I'm starting to think he's just not good...
I do think that the cast makes sweeping estimates of cards when evaluating them in their very specific preferences for deck building as well as within their own meta game. If I were to grade Archdruid’s Charm, I wouldn’t say that it’s bad since it is hard to cast with mana bases that I prefer to use because I think they are optimal, because I realize that many other players would build their decks differently. In a deck that casts it consistently it is extremely versatile. They think of the cards too much in the lense of how they prefer to play vs how good that card might be for the average player/deck. That’s what I think.
@Trisket omg don't get me started on the hate ruination has received bcos they're all too scared of it punishing their greed
LOVE Y'ALL!!
The complained about games taking too long. Ironically they removed a LOT of their removal soley because it was effective.
Richard trying to convince the table that spot removal is bad so that he can win via no one but Crim having spot removal
Richard: "I run no basics and 36 colorless utility lands because they're OP"
Richard: "I can't find GGG to cast my 'tutor any OP land onto the battlefield' spell, it's trash."
The Swords discussion drives me nuts. Of course single target removal is bad if everyone plays a must-kill Commander because that's not why you play single target removal. That's why you have sweepers in your deck. Single target removal is for when one person threatens to snowball the game because deck randomness means power level disparity between players will always exist and you need a backup plan if some people are drawing more live than you are. Especially since sweepers may set you as far back as well from both killing your stuff and committing your mana heavily.
This is why Swords is particularly noteworthy. The discussion that "Swords gets stuck in your hand" is like...in what circumstance? It's 1 mana. If no one is going crazy in the game, just fire it the second you have a spare mana and move on. You lost a card in your hand, oh no, it's not like this is Commander where draw 3s are on the low end. It's to the point that the difference between 2-3 single target removals and like 5-6 single target removals in your deck is not going to magically kill your synergy package in your deck.
100% this. I don't understand how StP would ever get stuck in your hand, other than not having a SINGLE white mana available (this is Richard we are talking about, so it wouldn't be that surprising that there are times where he wouldn't have that with how he constructs his mana bases). And if it does get "stuck" in your hand, oh no? That means there isn't a big threatening thing in play. If I'm I some big, long, grindy game and StP stays in my hand for 10 turns, who cares? You're telling me that if that was a Generous Gift that the game would have been over by now or that the game would be drastically different at that point? There's no way. You could apply the same argument to Fog. Is Fog a terrible card because it sits in your hand and doesn't do anything for the entire game? No; that means you didn't need to use it. This is a big reason why Richard gets memed on all the time. His takes and strategies are so wildly inconsistent.
P.S. there will never be a reason why I would play Zof Conscription over a basic Swamp, other than intentionally making a deck with no lands on the front side of cards, and even then, it's probably gunna be a different dfc. There; rant over lol
Holy shit somebody who knows what they are talking about???????????????
Swords gets stuck in your hand when there are no worthwhile threats to swing the game in your favor by casting it. It's only actually useful in the extremely niche scenario that there is a creature on the battlefield that negatively affects you while not mattering to any of your opponents AND simultaneously resulting in you being at a losing board state that ALSO makes you the number one target for the table. That's a lot to ask. It gets stuck in your hand not because there are no threats, but because removing a big threat is a bad move in multiplayer if it doesn't either stop you from losing the game or put you in the lead. The format in question isn't a 1v1. Hurting your opponent doesn't necessarily help you. It is not a zero sum game anymore once you add more teams.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 you people expose how bad you play cards by saying shit like this lol you don’t need all that. A big creature swinging at you is a good enough reason to swords it a creature that shuts down your strategy is a good reason to use it. When you say “while not mattering to any of your opponents” are you implying that if there’s a problem creature you’re relying on your opponents to have the swords? Lmao do you not hear how dumb that sounds?
@@dontmisunderstand6041 if there is a powerful creature generating value you don’t need to swords it. You hold your swords knowing the table will be able to handle the player popping off. You use the swords to protect you and your game plan
Hot take: utility lands are overrated. 90% of their costs are too high to feel good about and/or are redundancies for effects you don’t need. Basics>most utility lands.
I've come to believe that a lot of how much you value utility lands is based on how expensive your colored mana sources are. A deck with multiple fetchlands, shocklands, Triomes, Yavimaya, etc, is disappointed to draw a 4th land that provides colored mana, because they're redundant. You'll practically always be able to produce any two colored mana symbols off your first 3 colored lands. After 3 lands, the downside of producing only generic mana doesn't much matter.
A lot of their games go long enough that they're able to pay 4 mana on an activated effect and still make a powerful 3 drop on the same turn.
Atoo{n my LGS, if you don't have a blocker by turn two, you might be at 20 life by the end fo turn 3. Different meta, for sure
@@ecoKady That’s a very valid response. Honestly, I can be a bit impulsive when I watch stuff like this and hadn’t really thought about how varied metas can be. Games in mine tend to run about the same average number of turns as commander clash, and we all play pretty budget friendly (only fetches and shocks we’ve pulled from packs) but maybe that’s more of an example of how 4 decks playing on very equal footing will have a similar game length no matter what level that equal footing is, which I may have misinterpreted as utility lands having no effect on game lengths. This is defintitely a theory i will need to continue exploring, perhaps by expanding my meta to a few more lgs’ and events to really get some EDHRec levels of data to work off of.
If you're drawing enough cards and have very few dead cards in your deck, utility lands are often unnecessary. It's obviously good to have some for abnormal boardstates, but the amount Richard (and likely soon Seth) play in each deck is just way over the top.
@@exsnypre time to throw some non-basic hate on the decks so they start reconsidering
Richard: Removal is bad, and Commander Clash runs tons of sweepers!
Commander Clash episode S16 E22:
Richard plays a snowballing one-drop that is not even attempted to be answered until turn 6. It leads to a game win.
An then there's the very next episode where Phil keeps building up elves and doesn't even get to attack with them most of the time because he keeps getting wiped.
@@kurowasanabewhich is why you run both.
@@kurowasanabe The true answer is that the whole table expects Richard to answer runaway boardstates, so he has a meta advantage. lol
Nice single example
What you have here is called "anecdotal evidence".
around 14:40 - if popping off Swords on someone's KoS commander only to get blown out by the next player who cast their commander is bad, wait until you see what happens when you actually spend a turn sweeping and then the next person has free reign to cast their must-kill: youre out of mana, didn't pack single-target-instant-speed removal, and now your other opponents won't have anything on board to either A) draw aggro away from you or B) help mitigate the threat - you just wrathed and passed, that's a pretty easy target to choose.
The real solution is to run your own KoS commander and not waste time on removal
Honestly, the crew should do these episodes at the Beginning and end of each Clash season.
Richard saying you should be running 0 removal in higher power pods is insane but on brand for him unfortunately 💀
Right because cEDH decks definitely to not run targeted removal spells to kill combo pieces that need to sit on board, or stax pieces that stop them from winning or insane value pieces that will win the game if left on board.
From his talks on Aggro, he seems to believe that other people at the table are sitting around and doing nothing while the Aggro deck goes off. By the time the aggro deck kills player #1, has no one else taken any damage, ramped, played artifacts? The game isn't starting over completely if a wrath drops after player 1 dies. Other players will have damage on them, it's not a completely new game.
Also, the idea that it's the Aggro player's job to kill 3 players b2b rather than letting your opponents tax or hurt each other.
Can't believe we're in a universe where former spike modern jund player Richard thinks fogs are better than removal.
Fogs scale up better in multiplayer than spot removal
oh boy I'm sure this video will be completely uncontroversial and the comments will be totally polite and reasonable
Haven't watched the video yet but I'm predicting very few taksies backsies
Tell us about your corgi
@@michaelcollins4534 he’s actually my sisters dog, his name is Mr. Evans and he is a very good boy
I want to mention, Richard, if you’re looking for a blue fog, Misleading Signpost is a hilariously good option. Yes, 3 mana sucks, but it’s a mana rock the other half of the time. It’s a rock early, and a fog late, which seems to match your ideal playstyle.
Every spell in your deck is a tool designed for a specific purpose. There's pros and cons to every card. What Sword lacks in versatility, it makes up for in efficiency. The grave hate aspect of Swords is also super relevant. Even if they're not a dedicated graveyard deck, most experienced players take advantage of the graveyard in some capacity. Feels bad to hold up 3 mana, Gift something into a 3/3 elephant, just for them to recure that threat. This entire discussion regarding Swords is just a different form of "dies to removal".
I don't like the argument of "good players will take advantage of the graveyard" because a good player will also ensure there are multiple Avenger level threats so exiling one still means there are 4 others to deal with.
Ex: Omnath typically doesn't do much GY recursion outside of lands, but they'll usually play a T-Wit or the new Six card. So while it might be nice to stop them from recurring Ancient Greenwarden, they still have Azusa, Toski, Scute Swarm, Moraug, and other cards that are just as good.
That being said I still think Swords is extremely good and only gets better the higher you go in power. But if you're at a janky table Oblation and Generous Gift tend to be better because of versatility.
@@zweisthe last thing you said is 100% true generous gift is better the lower power level you go and swords get better the higher you go
exiling a creature in commander is relevant every single game.
@@zweis well I never said "good players" and I'm not sure how you're dealing with a Toski with Generous Gift.
@@yaoguai8459 When you say "experienced players" I realize what you mean is players who implore good deck building habits, not necessarily from experience but maybe just good at deck building comprehension and a lack of greed. I mean the exact same thing when I say good.
I used the Toski example because that's the situation where Swords matters, dealing with Indestructible creatures. Preventing them from being reanimated/regrowthed is a small upside.
Richard's concept that "higher power" means no interaction is baffling to me.
He isn't saying no interaction, he's saying single target removal is worse at higher power. The value of counterspells and sweepers go up the higher power you play at because threats tend to be faster and more threatening.
That being said, he's still wrong about Swords to Plowshare. 1 mana deal with any creature is ridiculously good and gets better the higher power you play. Drawing into Swords to remove a Stax piece to pop off and win the game is so powerful that people will play a version of Swords that ramps your opponent.
However, in most casual pods I think I actually agree with Richard you're better off playing Oblation unless you have a payoff for cheap spells. He's still insane for saying Swords becomes worse the higher you go in power when the truth is the exact opposite.
@@zweis I also find the one mana instant speed answers necessary especially when playing around stax pieces. I've lost games having 2 or 3 mana removal spells I can't cast due to thorns, Thalia etc. Not to mention spell pierce and mana leak also becoming harder counters for higher CMC spells
@@daltonstrauser1628 My favorite example to use is Opposition Agent. There's no card in the game you're hoping to draw more than Swords when that's on the board
@@zweis Counterspells are the poster child for single target removal, by virtue of nearly all of them being single target removal spells, and the ones that ARENT single target being hilariously bad.
@@zweis There are a LOT of cards I'd hope for with an Opposition Agent on board instead of Swords to Plowshares. Almost all of the cards ever printed, in fact. There is basically no board state that would ever involve me wasting removal on a complete non-threat like Opposition Agent.
I’m similar to Seth; stopped playing swords for more versatile spells, but came back to it recently. Nowadays most decks draw so many cards that I’m just looking for mana efficiency from my spells rather than catch-alls, because I’ll probably have both options anyway. Sometimes it’s better to run swords and a good disenchant, rather than two beast within.
I think the best take is run a variety of removal. You want some that are very narrow but maximize cost/timing efficiency. You also want some who maximize versatility but are more pricey or narrow. These scales shift to balance each option. Run a swords and run a Generous Gift among others so you cover all your bases. Just like you run wipes and single target for variety, run a mixture within each category.
Targeted removal is still incredibly effective in Commander. Using it correctly gets harder every power crept set, however. Interrupting people's combos, taking out someone's defense against your winning stuff, just clearing the way for you to swing for lethal, all winning, game-changing effects targeted removal can do for you. If you don't use it in a way that changes the game towards you winning, targeted removal is one of the most wasteful ways to spend a card in Commander.
I play a good bit because I find engaging the game in that predictive way is extremely satisfying to me. If you aren't that kind of player, targeted removal probably isn't something you want to run a lot of. It's not going to help you win games.
Love to see an episode of them breaking down their deck building philosophies. Percentages of interaction (and how much of that is sweepers, single removal, fogs etc)
I think watching Richard build a deck would give me an aneurism.
OBLATION?! Richard done lost his mind
Yeah, that take was insane. Lets play a shitty 3 mana removal spell that gives them 2 cards too! Just...no.
The arguments against spot removal seem to me like "force of will is bad in legacy because it's card disadvantage." Snowballing value engines are so prevalent now that eating a small amount of card disadvantage now can easily prevent a much bigger disadvantage later (or just straight-up losing). Also, being minus 1 card often isn't going to matter--either you have a functioning, powerful engine of your own to keep up (and therefore easily recoup that spot removal effect) or you don't.
It’s a 1 v 1 format so it’s way different but I agree overall the argument is terrible. His argument is mainly swords is bad because I use it bad
I should say, I'm all for playing other answers along with swords, or even instead of it in some cases. Dress down, oblation, generous gift, all worth trying, depending on deck and meta. But swords also does things that those other cards don't do, and it's only 1 mana. And to be clear, this is a good thing! Different cards having different strengths and weaknesses is an important part of the game. I think the prevalence of card advantage engines has made tempo more important than ever, and leaving up 3+ mana every turn is bad.
Richard: "Blue has no fogs"
Cue the currently staring down aetherize, aetherspouts, cyclonic rift, reins of power, illusionist's gambit & Mirror Match
Blue has a lot of fogs, They cost a lot more but they are faaarrr more devastating on resolve than the usual fogs, often bouncing all creatures or devestating an opponent in exchange of saving your life.
Those fall more in line with wraths because they are mass removal. They serve the same purpose but are far more costed but their effects justify this. As far as I know, blue indeed doesn't have much in the way of 1-3 mana fog like effects.
Hear me out, the fog meta is over with the inclusion of everlasting torment. Crim needs to show us the way of “damage can not be prevented”
After listening to Richard's removal rant, Seth just needs to play Consecrated Sphinx and Seedborn Muse in every deck until Richard learns his lesson.
B-but muh farewell!
"More often than not Fog saves you"
HUGE citation needed.
"Who could have foreseen me losing to an aristocrats deck, or combo, or control, etc..." - guy only plays Fog.
Nah he's right. It's not uncommon to take 10-20 damage in a combat. That either finishes you or puts you within finisher range.
It's meta dependent right, like fog against 3 combo decks is useless, but even if fog doesn't literally save you from losing it can still save your life total for other things (black market connections/sylvan library/fetch or shocks)
@@TC-sl8ol My contention isn't that Fog is always bad.
It's that, more often than not it doesn't save you.
@@dyne313 yeah at most it will save you a single turn then you just die next turn instead the only fog I run is The One Ring
Calling Grand Abolisher an "anti-fog" antimeta card is like calling a machine gun useful in war bc you can use it as a walking stick so your troop's legs don't get tired. Like yeah, I guess technically you can use it that way but it clearly has much more direct benefits than what you're using it for!
Like Grand Abolisher is one of the best creatures in the format! Any cEDH deck that can play it usually does! What do you mean you play it specifically to combat fog!
Listening to their talk about swords, can really feel the disconnect in how their pod works compared to mine. No one in our group needs to kill 4 commanders, even if its all must kills. We’re in a group, my other players can deal with it if i don’t have it. Its in all our interests to stop things lol.
Every game is a Xv1, and a 1vX at the same time. You play on both sides, sometimes you have team mates, not enemies. Sometimes you play the archenemy.
To add onto that... every good deck is capable of both taking down the archenemy and winning as archenemy simultaneously, if the circumstance arises. It's just how the game works.
Crims take on Aggro is 100% correct in my experience. Most combat decks have this "spread the love" mentality and that's not right. You gotta unalive 1 person and then move to the next. It's how you remove the threat. It's called player removal. :)
If you're playing the bully deck, you act like a bully. It's the point of your deck. If you don't like that, you don't build the deck.
Yeah, he is right. The problem with those decks is they are kind of a 'removal check', and sometimes in social settings, people don't want you to effectively end the game as early as those decks kind of need to, to win. Richard is right, where people don't want/like the way they play out.
Who can leave up 5 for Inkshield. Well usually you look at the board and if its going to kill you next turn maybe leave up 5. You wouldn't leave up 5 with a board that isn't pressuring you. Tomer is right. And most decks don't suddenly have a lethal board out of nowhere.
Generally, we consider how quickly a lethal board appears from nothing to be roughly the power level of your deck.
Richard is wrong about single target removal, yes the average power level is that most commanders have to be removed BUT someone will be targeted more, someone will be effected more. Single targeted removal is a scalpel for when you're the one being targeted.
Unless you play at high power or combometai take repeated removal over swords every day of the week. In case of white creature removal, intepid hero would be my choice, more specific if you have blink/clone/recursion the world is your euster and thats just in mono white.
I love people talking about Sowing Micospawn as "Oh look at this great non basic land ramp" when it's literally just a slightly powercrept card from 15 years ago, Reap and Sow
Reap and Sow will now be joining Mycospawn in my Belbe deck, thanks!
Uncounterable is a big deal against blue control piles. The body isn't super relevant but does matter too.
It is absolutely 'just' a R&S upgrade, but it's also a pretty real upgrade.
I think part of Richard's philosophy (re: spot removal) springs from the reality that the playstyle of many EDH players is parasitic. Go back and watch games of clash. How often is it Richard who identifies a threat and petitions for someone to have an answer? How often is he willing to be the answer? Why have answers when someone else in your playgroup will have them?
This is much like the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Short term, the best scenario for you to benefit, is that everyone else is trusting and you repeatedly betray them.
In this context, everyone else is responsible about running removal to police the board while all you do is selfishly focus on your board state and winning.
If you play like that consistently however, I think players will get resentful and adapt their play to be more selfish themselves or to be more political (ie. I will let you cast it, if you are going to only attack Richard with it).
This is also why the bounce lands are so good for Richard. If you don't plan to participate in the early game and want to sit back watching your three opponents wear each other out, then there is no cost to the tempo loss of a bunch of lands that ETB tapped. At this point, I want Crim to demonstrate that aggro is valid and start with Richard. Let's see how far turbo fog can really go while Seth strips and wastes the bouncelands... ok, all of that happening in one episode would be a bit mean but you see the idea.
Richard sounds like a certified lunatic talking about the bounce lands.
theyre not draw a card, and they are a turn of tempo loss, but they arent unplayable for sure... just depends on what the deck wants to do. but yeah he's way too high on them
@@thatepicwizardguy They are very close to card draw. It's pretty much the same as if the land searched your library for a land and put it into your hand when it entered. The card being a land doesn't change the fact that it's an extra card in your hand, that you wouldn't have had otherwise.
If Crim isn't talking, he's looking out his window or to the side like he just saw someone get shot. Respectfully.
You do not understand that ADHD life. But also, you can be giving someone your full attention and not looking directly at them. It’s a social convention, but it doesn’t mean it’s always necessary.
The number of times people have stopped talking to me because they think I'm not listening because I'm not maintaining 100% eye contact is infuriating. Man do the eyes roam while I'm trying to process that info.
Black does not only have one fog. Sudden Spoiling effectively functions as a fog, but is also a little bit more flexible.
Capenna and March have been great sets for commander. Very underrated sets.
Richard: Confidently beats Nadu/Life gain combo/Eldrazi nonsense with an Ajani aggro deck
Also Richard: "Aggro can't win without combo"
I can understand the sentiment though- to consistently win in an environment of 3 other sources of removal, aggro needs a way to be explosive and pop off a turn that puts it in a position of great advantage. It's not like you can't win without it, it's just going to be a lot harder. Personal take though.
@@doylethompson1510 I generally agree. You can't bring 60 card aggro deck building philosophy into commander and expect to win consistently, you do have to add some sauce. Be that combo, stax, or even just being a savvy table talker/politic-er, it helps a lot to have those as part of the strategy. I'm just poking some light hearted fun at the juxtaposition of his statements and the results of one of crew's recent games.
Generally, combo is the easiest way to win for EVERY deck type. It's a completely nonsense argument because it fundamentally doesn't understand what it in itself is saying.
Time to be that mtg player who brings up the mighty snail. Salubrious snail ahd a really good argument for aggro, whoch is instead of focusing of killing your opponents early, since you can't, you focus on getting your opponents life total to the point where they are now uncomfortable. Someone is going to attack more when at 35 life than when at 15. This is also the point the cards Crim talked about put in work, deal 1 damage each upkeep puts a long term clock after you do your early damage
I've won games because people make decks that don't function without their commander in play. They ramp out their commander turn 3, and I swords it on the spot. Then they rage quit saying I'm being unfair 😂
That's a very silly thing to do... just play your commander again on turn 5 dummy. The game will continue. They got rid of a card you are GUARANTEED to get back. So silly.
Just play less scary commanders. A lot of my decks dont look particalary scary (partially because i like background commanders, who overall look weaker) giving me a lot of breathing room in both politics and generell safety from the table.
Will Richard take back a single one of his insane takes, I doubt it lol
Richard - basic lands are done, in the future we will only play utility lands.
Also Richard - wHy CaNt i cASt aRcHdrUiDs cHaRm?!?
Also also Richard: You just have to fetch one triome and your mana is perfect
To be honest, in a weird way all 3 of those ideas are generally accurate. They just sound silly together. They've been printing more and more utility lands, and making those utility lands provide more and more consistent manabases on top of that. But, when you split your colors sometimes you get into situations where 3 colored pips won't work on-curve, and that's just part of the game... feels bad, and it does mathematically make 3 colored pips less useful than fewer colored pips, but it is just part of the game still. And then, generally speaking, yeah triomes tend to fix your mana. Even a 5 color deck generally only needs 2 or 3 of them to be able to cover every combination of colored pips their deck asks for. And obviously that's the most difficult type of deck to get colored pips for. In truth, the fact that all 3 of those do make sense individually but not together probably says the most accurate take is somewhere in the middle of those extremes.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 well first the idea of basic lands being done is stupid. Basics have an insane amount of synergies there’s no reason to cut them for the off chance of a utility land working. I think people especially Richard way overstate the power of utility lands. I never once played (sorry can’t what the land is called it’s 3 mana active draw a card lose life equal to commanders colors or something like that) because I’ve always seen it as just a terrible card. I would much rather have color fixing. Also two triomes can provide enough pips for one spell. But if you wanna cast a spell and hold up counter spell you’ll need more than just two triomes. Mana fixing is just superior to random bad utility lands. And the sheer amount of cards that care about basic land types basics are better than ever
@@peewee0224 If there are equally powerful synergies available for non-basics, and non-basics also come in untapped and do more than produce one of a single color of mana, and the number of synergy pieces reach a critical mass where playing non-basics and basics have an equal number of synergy pieces in the deck possible... then why would the idea be stupid? Keep in mind, at no point did anybody say that's already happened. The claim was that at some point in the future, with current trends, it's going to. And that's pretty undeniable, the data directly supports it and contradicts the idea that it won't.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 non basics do not have equally powerful synergies unless you’re talking about the ones that have basic land types. Also no the “data” does not show that how much you wanna bet in 2 years basics will still be more than playable?
Richard you did it. You are a meme. Now let's talk about real Magic. Crim is right, your group plays a bunch of theme decks where not many big threats are played and also you don't play combos where a spot removal is much better
Are we really blaming Wotc that NOW we have to play swords to plowshares? How about you should've should and in the futurest ever should always play Swords.
Swords is cheeks, play thassas oracle and demonic consultation instead
Aggro definitely exists in casual/focused edh, it’s just a bit more midrange than something like mono red decks in 60 card formats. It’s probably closer to old jund in pacing.
As a frequent aggro player the difficulty is that you will often be on the receiving end of poor threat assessment because you are dealing damage and contributing to board presence instead of just drawing cards, deploying engines and getting ready to combo.
Blue has tons of fogs -- it is the best fog color. For example, Cryptic Command is a fog. When your opponent moves to combat you respond by tapping down all their creatures... and then draw a card. Blue has many spells that can tap down your opponents' creatures and prevent them from attacking at all which is better than preventing combat damage since they don't get attack triggers and it removes blockers.
If you think about it Fogs are the worst version of fog effects,
Aetherize is the first blue fog that came to my mind after Cyclonic Rift was mentioned. 4 mana and you bounce everything going at you. Best case scenario its a bunch of tokens and then you just wiped them all
Not exactly- because if you tap down before attacks, you’re stopping damage that could have gone to your opponents. Also the instant speed versions of that effect are generally *waaaaaay* more expensive than a fog
Time Warp is the best fog.
I can totally see white having a two mana "you gain protection during the combat phase" and it'll still be a better fog than fog
@@zacharyenglish2904yeah, if you have to prempt before attackers are declared its not as good
Seth is wrong. Now excuse me while I watch the episode.
Well, the situations where swords is better is : efficiency in high tempo/very fast games, dealing with indestructible creatures and dealing with some of the ward creatures with ward 2 and more, where you realistically wont want to spend 5+mana to deal with them using versatile removal. Meanwhile sitting there with a swords while an absurdly powerful enchantment/artifact has the game locked down feels awful
That's why I run reduce to memory. It's 2 more but hits artifacts and enchantments. Most of my wraths are 4-6 mana so I'd fire those off before the RtM
March of the Machines is one of my favorite sets in last 10 years. Crim nailed it!
Not to mention, MOM cards that combined characters was a great way to celebrate Magic’s past.
RE: Swords - My philosophy is that you use this only if you sniff out a combo happening soon or if you are about to get hit for a huge amount of damage from one hit. I think both of these are scenarios that happen often enough that saving one spot for spot removal is worth it.
i used a swords to interupted a krenko deck by removing their goblin chieftain. It wasnt a blow out but up against that deck stopping the haste is a big deal
In regards to the previous comment of the week they do play more wraths than most play groups but it's still not enough to justify their paranoia around them. You're not seeing 3 or 4 Farewells or Ondu Inversions a game and even if they did the answer would be to play effects that protect you from that rather than not advancing your game plan or playing other removal. Especially since the effects that protect you tend to make an opponent's wrath a blowout in your favour.
Yep, white has alot of mass blink effects to avoid farewell or other board wipes, or indestructible effects for the wrath of God effects.
@@atk9989 You also have the indestructibility in green, counter magic and phasing in blue, and black can usually get back anything you didn't exile or protect specific creatures. Basically as long as you aren't mono-red you have some kind of defense.
@@atevalvethere is also the reqlly fun philosophy, for anything not farewell level, that a sacrifice outlet is biard whipe protection in a way, exile all creatures can be dodged by saccing in response
I'm surprised they didn't mention voltron decks in their aggro talks. Something like light-paws or slicer will kill opponents so fast if left unchecked.
Literally killed someone on turn 4 with Lightpaws and was untouchable pretty much the rest of the game. Feels particularly good since it was 3 green decks I was facing with one being a Yarok, the Desecrated.
The UB comment is weird:
“We want to bring in new blood and turn them into lifelong players…at the cost of frustrating the already existing lifelong players”
The Archdruid’s Charm take from Richard is the most narrow-sighted perspective he’s ever presented hahaha
You think it would be a big reevaluation of his over all magic philosophy but nope
I'm completely with Crim on MoM. I have atleast 10 cards in Each of my 8 decks from the set.
Jfc ... as a person who started watching their videos recently, i have to agree with Crim saying that their play group is a meme/low power group. Richard's statement about everyone trying to turbo out a win feels very 2020 cedh mentality. Cedh is now about grinding out an overwhelming advantage that your opponents cant get back from. Sure cedh decks might runn less removal than alot of other decks but the fact remains that removing a balue engine before it gets online will always be important and you want to do it with as little mana as possible. Trading 3 mana to remove something means you probably didnt do anything during your turn, while 1 mana might mean you did something even if it was less optimal, which still progresses your board state while setting someone else back. My favorite analogy of this is races in cartoons where the characters are trying to reach the finish line while trying to trip up each other.
I recently heard cedh players calling the current Meta a midrange hell
@lookaspam with the release of mh3 the meta has sped back up a fair amount, but it is no where near the turbo meta of old
Calling Commander Clash a low power playgroup is simply incorrect. Most often, their decks are an 8 or a 9. Occasionally a 7 shows up and gets curbstomped. Even when they try to joke around and make weak decks, they tend to play things that are significantly more powerful than most groups have access to in the first place.
@@dontmisunderstand6041definitely not 8 or 9. 8 or 9 means that they are nearly as maximized as possible save for a few cards. We've seen them play more inefficient cards more than ever like that 5 mana artifact that lets them pay 1 to draw 1, few to no rituals to play out larger spells faster or mana rocks like mox diamond,mana vault, and chrome mox for similar reasons. They even limit themselves by imposing house bans like sol ring, gaeas cradle, and smothering tithe.the tutors they run are also very limited, maybe 1 or 2 that aren't land tutors. They are around a 6 on average and maybe an 8 at maximum.
@@dontmisunderstand6041power level discussions are so wonky, I feel like for 8s or 9s you need to be making use of combos, just compare their decks to cedh ones and see the difference
This was a nice idea for an episode. I hope you guys revisit this for the other 2 hosts when they're back. It would be nice to hear from them too.
I get Richard's about removal. With current powercreep, you kinda want to remove everything. But if that's the case perhaps running more stax like Crim does, is the solution. Stax is a sort of preventive removal that keeps getting value for every spell it prevents the opponent from playing. So you don't run into the issue of needing to have bazillion swords for the threats.
Stax and pillow forts keep you alive longer in the face of ever more powerful threats. The difference between old powerful cards and modern power creep doesn't tend to be how strong the effect is, it's how early it drops... so every little bit of time you buy evens the playing field that much more.
I feel like the only reason Richard gets away with playing such bad cards is that half the games the dude doesn't even get a chance to play and everyone knows if he does present a win, all they have to do is have an answer for that one turn and he crumples
Putting the bounty on him: If you play Richard at an event and you have Swords in your deck, everyone just use it on him until he stops talking about it 😂
Richard can't play good creatures because he plays 10 wrath. You will just hit a spirited companion
@@alexnope3200 "It's not about the mana... It's about sending a message."
"I'm not putting Archdruid's Charm in my mono-G decks" HOW IS RICHARD REAL HOW ARE THESE REAL OPINIONS AHHHHHHHHHH
Not hard to have that opinion when you have 3 basics lands in your mono green deck lol
“It’s hard to cast because 75% of my lands are colorless”
I sincierly hope we get more colorheavy cards like that. 3-5 color decks already have too much leeway, while mono color suffers for no reason.
@@Shimatzu95 they are 100% gonna complete the cycle for white red and black
@@peewee0224 more of that, more phyrexian obliterator variants, more pips overall. Just make 5color NOT have easy access to everything.
The feels bad thats unique to agro is you have to basically choose who doesn't get to play the game.
And often the best choice is the more durdely deck that missed a land drop.
There _are_ agro decks that don't need to choose but then you're playing Slicer or Winota which is a whole other bag of problems.
Yeah, when the best target is already the player who doesn't do anything, it's a double whammy.
If you can't cast Archdruid's charm in a monogreen deck, you need to stop playing. Yes, you will need utility lands for whatever your strat is. But in a 38+ land deck, which is what CC has been suggesting, like 28 of those lands should produce green mana. It's monoGREEN
I'm okay with minor take backsies in my play group (especially with newer players) but any mistakes I make I double down on
The apperance of Urzas Cave makes Archdruids Charm even more consistant. I don t build my deck around 1 possible action. As richard mentioned with Crop Rotation as another instant im OK now to run Glacial Chasm and Talon Gates of Madara in nearly every deck. And the Archdruid Charm does so much more then fog or phase out. It could also exiles the one ring or any other thread and if thats not enough, have a fight spell with +1/+1 synergie. Obviously Archdruids Charm gets an interaction slot in my decks, i don t wnat to ramp with it, but if i have to, i could even do that with it.
I forgot about the 'other way' to Tutor.. :D Need ur Walking Balista or Mazes End to end the game, here you go. Some episodes ago, people were praising Spelunking and Amulet and y not to maybe play them in every deck. The synergies of instant Land tutoring would be even better. Maze of Ith, Heroes Plaza, Lighthouse and what not, a real swiss pocketknife :)
Maybe a minor point, but it peeved me to hear Seth say that Archdruid Charm’s creature removal mode is bad because it’s a fight and “fights aren’t good”; it’s a *bite* effect, where the creature just deals damage directly equal to its power, which is way better than a fight.
The aggro discussion was super interesting! I think the biggest thing to think about when playing an aggro strategy is actually card draw. I have made two aggro decks Minn and Arna and both of them use Curiosity type effect to keep my hand stocked up for fast redeployment after a wrath.
We NEED two headed-giant: Seth+Richard vs Tomer+Crim!
phil > tomer
Richard’s take on archdruids charm is wild. He seems to have no concept of how useful flexibility is. And the fact that he compares it to worldly tutor without considering that it draws the card and that that cycle of tutors is already on the super high end of power…
Says flexibility is bad on Archdruid's Charm, but the reason to play Generous Gift is because of flexibility. Struggles to cast Archdruid's Charm in a mono-green deck, only plays colorless producing non-basic lands. I wonder if there's a problem here.
Farewell isn't good because of the exile, it's good because of the flexibility. That's the gigantic thing here. Their go-to example of an overtuned game-warpingly strong card... is strong because it's flexible more than because of its floor or ceiling.
This was the most frustrating part for me, Him and Seth only played it AS RAMP. This card is much more than this and way better of a draw to have when it isnt early. I dont need a urza’s cave on turn 7 or 8 unless I need a land. I will want a creature tutor or removal usually late, and if I do need a land it will give it you that as well WITH all of the other modes as well.
This episode exists exclusively for Richard to take back his claim on Archdruids Charm
20:36 I think MOM suffered from oddly generic marketing. That is what hit me initially with the set. The branding wasn't apocalyptic and Phyrexian it was like 90's sharp corners but neon/highlighter.
I like March!
The Doctor Who stuff certainly brought some of my friends *back* to magic. I now get to play commander with people I had previously played MtG with at college way back during Zendikar and Scars Blocks
Isn't the targeted removal thing like deck specific? Like Seth said, there's a lot of commanders that generate tons of value and you can lose to them if you don't take them out... But that's sort of based on the assumption that you're playing defensively. I feel like the deck that's generating tons of value and drawing all the cards and ramping a ton might need less targeted removal (or maybe none?) vs a more defensive deck
Crim is absolutely right about MoM. It’s kinda insane how many staple toolkit piece came from that set.
I really dont wanna talk about richards takes again week after week can we talk about anything else? You guys watch any good movies lately?
I recently watched Inside Out 2 and A Quite Place: Day One.
I enjoyed them
Cant wait to watch new quiet place @teafordaniel809
3 mana rocks are great if your commander is 5mv.
But if your commander is 3mv or 4mv they don't actually help you ramp into the only card you know you'll have every game.
If you're at 6mv or 7mv, they're okay, but you need other ramp spells to get there. at 6 I'd ramp on 2 and 4 ideally. At 7 I like to ramp on 3 and 5. (mana, not turn count)
Basic lands are great as long as you are playing either mono or 2c decks. 3c and up can get clunky with a ton of basics. In my monocolored decks I run 90% basics.
If you do the math properly, 5 color decks work fine with basics alone. Count your colored pips and that's your correct ratio. From there, shoot for 40% of the deck. Hypergeometric calculator can fine-tune the exact correct number of lands, just plug in the numbers that get your 7 card opener to have a 3 land hand more often than any other number of lands, and from there you decide whether you want the high end or low end of that range based on how low your curve tops out. To be honest though, I'll take the hit to tempo of a guildgate over basics in 3c+ decks too, so we do agree there. But that's a preference thing, because I mostly build midrange swiss army knife decks that expect a long and grindy game.
listening to richard about swords: "he's making some good points"
listening to richard about archdruid's charm: "this guy is out of his mind"
Universes Beyond is short-sighted and will not benefit magic long-term.
The difference between stax and aggro is that stax is trying to stop people from playing entirely to eek out a late game win, whereas aggro is trying to slow other people down while rushing to get ahead on board. If you're playing hate bears while swinging in as much as possible, that's still aggro. If you're playing a deck with 65 artifacts and enchantments that lock down players, and 1 Approach of the Second Sun, that's stax.
Also, voltron, generally, would be considered aggro.
I personally have at least three aggro decks. My Adeliz the Cinder Wind wizards tribal spellslinger deck is definitely aggro. My Subira, Tulzidi Caravanner suprise infect deck is aggro as well. And my Wyleth, Soul of Steel deck is voltron enough to feel decidedly aggro. My Cadira, Caller of the Small deck can feel aggro, depending on which cards I have early, and I used to have a Tjic, Legion's Edge deck that would play out aggro unless it found its secret commander and comboed off instead.
I think the problem is, in 60 card formats, you can devote every single slot to an aggro card and reliably get a fast kill. In commander, you can't guarantee that you'll be able to build and maintain a threatening board early and consistently, so aggro will typically play at least some cards that hold back their opponents or protect theor board or help them bounce back from a boardwipe or whatever. When you do that, even just a little around the edges of a clearly aggressive deck, people start to say, "That's not aggro, it's playing ______!"
Richard with the worst Swords to Plowshares evaluation I've ever heard.
I love how Richard justify half his points by saying "Imagine you are in 4 and 5 colors decks!", ok, me agreeing or not, I have to say, "Imagine you are in the great majority of =< 3 colors decks!"
The idea of Richard playing bounce land/MDFC tribal tickles me.
*Thanks for the Content!*
I agree with the sentiment that basic lands suck, but really, the number of times I've run into Winds of Abandon and not had anything to fetch out is nonzero and it wasn't fun in any way. I agree with not wanting to waste slots on them only in 3+ color decks though. My most efficient working casual decks in 1+2 color have probably 70% basic land content and they don't let me down. Typically do about 2-3 colorless utility lands, 4-5 dual color access lands, then an equal amount of basics for each color to fill the rest. Are there better choices? Yes. But I find that basic content roughly equates to game consistency for me.
Love this combination of perspectives fellas, keep up the fantastic work!
If Richard considers getting a revealed card to hand as drawing a card, does he consider the "explore" mechanic always drawing cards?
Idea for a game, all 4 players run a must-kill Commander, but no decks can run a single removal spell. No targeted removal nor board wipe. Let the chaos run rampant.
10 minute games
In before one of them runs 2 color omnath and sacs elementals to lightning bolt the other commanders
"Chaos." Its a race. It's 4 people goldfishing and going for their combo win.
@@al8188 Ah, I guess I'm just used to my LGSs and personal pods, we don't build decks with combos or infinites.
@@al8188 So, 4 aggro decks then.
Not sure where all these new players are Crim is talking about but they're not in my area. If anything UB has driven more players from the game than brought in.
Crims aggro take is correct. Richards take as always is "you need a perfect hand or you lose."
I think Phil of TrabenU described Archdruid's Charm somewhat perfectly (albeit from a cEDH perspective). You have diversity in choosing the right mode for your situation, but you also need to look at each thing the spell does on it's own in relation to the mana cost. It is an overcosted and hard to cast tutor, an overcosted and hard to cast fight spell and an overcosted and hard to cast artifact/enchantment removal.
Not really a problem for casual commander, but in a somewhat higher power environment (and I don't mean cEDH) this becomes suspect. E
Especially if you try to play it mainly as a ramp spell for t3.
If I had to bet for why Richard doesn’t like removal is probably because he either plays everything on curve and agros or ends up at turn 7, 7cards in hand so either is trying to gas out a win with removal being dead card or he holds the removal meant for a snowball piece waiting for someone else to remove the problem letting it get out of control
It seems that the guys really need to face Ruination effects more often. Basics are not bad, and easier to filter with cards (cheaper than the ones they always mention). It seems that they are so focused into their own micro-ecosystem that they are missing other things. After moving to a different country 4 times in the last 5 years, I learned that there is more than my group's opinion.
P.D: Edgar Markov is aggro!
Hot take: treachery is the best card in all of commander
Question: Is the number of new MtG players that came from Universes Beyond higher than the number of people who have stopped playing because of it?
I almost sold my collection twice because of that and only haven't yet because of the content creators I've watched for years.
If the answer was "no", then they wouldn't be posting record profits. Which they are, and have been.
Richard talking about the UB's setting and the connection of the cards to the media we consume. I got back into magic off the back of playing the Riders of Rohan commander deck and I remember the sheer glee I felt when I cast Forth Earolings and could hear the music of Rohan playing in my head as I charged them over my opponenets. I say it's a net positive, but we'll see if and when wizards bungles it by pushing too much.
Seth, the BIGGEST champion of Blood Moon, telling everyone to stop using basics. Sir, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE
Blue has the most fun fogs! Reins of Power, Illusionist's Gambit, etc. They are more expensive, but are like more versatile Inkshields.
I've figured it out. Richard's takes are only true if you're trying to build the sweatiest and most brutally efficient version of a deck. People aren't all playing the most efficient versions of their decks. Otherwise, everyone would play fast mana, og duals, tutors, and the like.
Richard says "Oh but I play birds all my decks are memes." But like he has said in the past,"when you play a tight restriction like budget or all birds, you have to play the most powerful versions of every card in those spots. So your deck is busted."
Bouncelands are like the cultivates that cost one more than the rampant growth other lands but secure you a land drop.
10:10
Richard was literally talking about Dress Down, a card that only answers creatures
He then proceeds to talk about non-creature stax pieces
wut
He is so freaking inconsistent.
If there's anything I agree on the most. It's that the bounce lands are incredible!
theyre above average to good. they still come in tapped, and lose you a turn for mana increase which may or may not matter. itd be pretty stupid to jam more than a few of these in any deck in almost any game.
@@thatepicwizardguy They do "draw a card" and any opener with a bounceland has essentially an extra land. Even discarding to hand size can often be a plus to get a piece into the yard.
There's only 12 bounces (not counting the karoo lands) any 1C deck could only run the two colorless ones. A 2C could run those and their bounce. In 3C you can just run your 3 dual bounces and if you really want to the two colorless.
It's a bit hash to call it stupid, less wise maybe, but stupid?
I love commander clash