I'm in the US and I've definitely heard "wouldn't say boo to a goose" although I still think it's a misnomer because geese are not the animal you want to spook 😁
This is the issue: the power scale. The Power Scale doesn't work because it's too much for players who don't play outside of their play group. The scale is 1-10 but pre-cons are some how up at 6???
I swear to God I expect some random guy to pop up and say. "Remember when you guys thought thus game was fake? I found it! It's totally real!" With his voice and his lips not synced up.
The Cedh player at my tournament store once told us, quote, "NEVER use a number to determine the power of your deck. Instead of saying 'its a 7 or 8' you should be saying 'on what turn does your deck usually start working?'" I think he makes a great point. Power level is completely subjective. My buddy constantly says "My deck's not that bad" then after watching him get infinite mana turn 6 I'm like "Riiiiiight"
This! I NEVER really understood powerlevels, as a theory sure, but applying it to decks is extremely subjective and is incredibly difficult since there's just so many combinations of cards you can use. Noting the turn your deck consistently hits its stride is a far better way to compare
@@ManaPirate agree I’ve had people tell me my pile of legendary cards kethis deck is too strong to be an 8. There is no win conditions just a pile of legendary creatures lands and 3 planeswalkers. I have only one piece of fast mana and probably can’t win before turn 10. But somehow it’s too strong.
As a long time cEDH enjoyer, I think there are two powerlevels; There is cEDH and there is casual. Unless you are trying your hardest win regardless of budget, tastefulness of tactic or your own preferences in card choices, you are playing casual. If you take the most competitive cEDH out there and replace one card with something silly, its now a casual deck, since cEDH is not a measure of power, but a measure of mindset. "What turn does it win" is a bit subjective too, since usually people dont jam wins without backup.
I don't remember where, but there's a web page that calculate your deck's power level. Just use that. It's unbiased and as arbitrary as any other system. Then your table will have a neutral way to balance the game. It's no different than points in Canadian Highlander or Warhammer. Just some dude's opinion. At least you have someone else to blame when one player stomps the table.
I did a similar thing to the passing the deck to the right idea with my playgroup. I did a 'Blind Commander' night, everyone was asked to bring a at least one new deck that no one had seen before. They were told to write a short blurb about what the deck did. Then we took all the decks and assigned them randomly to people. We also had a bit of a scoring system, winning with the deck gives the winner 1 point, and the deck builder 1 point, but also at the end of the game everyone voted for the deck they liked the best. At the end of the night we gave away some prizes to the one with the most points.
my jaw dropped at the Edit at 1:57 it is so creative, yet so simple, yet so amazing. I am amazed. EDIT: i just started watching the video, and i have to pause it, as i am only listening to it during work in the background. I have to actively watch this editing masterpiece. Who is the editor?!?!?
The most interesting games I played is where a player clearly was ahead of everyone else and played as optimally as possible. But the variance in who was ahead on board shifted so much after the biggest fish was knocked down a peg. It made it unpredictable how the game would play out. It's the best way to play IMO.
Had a game where I had the win from nowhere on T4. No-one was wary of me. At the end of my third turn, I announced I was ready to win. I was stopped and lost the game. But it lasted longer and was more interesting for everyone, me included.
I agree with Prof. I never go easy in the game but I don't make every deck optimal. I cap the power of my decks. The other idea is that the plays that are optimal for me aren't always clear to other people. Example: I have left people alive in a game to try to make other players use THEIR resources to take out that player instead of me unless they have something that is hurting my play like a certain stax cards. Another example: the players knew I had counter spells in hand. The current player is starting to play extra turn spells and looks at me to stop it. The player taking extra turns had no board or anything. They don't have any easy combo wins in the deck. I knew even if they took 3 turns they probably aren't gonna beat me so I let the turn spells resolve. The next player in rotation is the one who has pieces to win the game on his next turn. So I saved the counters for him. Some might have seen that and thought "I went easy on extra spell guy" but in reality I was making sure I still had the best chance to win since I knew he wasn't a threat. I've also left people alive cause I didn't have removal for the biggest threat player so I wanted more players to help me beat them so I can position myself better. Commander is a complicated game, you don't gotta LET things happen, things will happen naturally with everyone doing their best
It was definitely popular in StarCraft to play 3v3/4v4 "no rush" games. This was my favorite thing to do as a kid, letting everyone get together a MASSIVE 200/200 force with rows and rows of towers and cannons defending. These fights were absolutely epic. Of course some people would break the rule and rush in, but most of the time it let everyone make a ton of their favorite unit and try to break/sneak through.
Our group did the same, the trick to winning was when everyone mustered into the middle of the map with their death balls, you make sure you sent your army in 2 to 3 seconds later than the other 7 guys 🤣
Origin of the stax deck name: "The deck was named $T4KS, an acronym for "The Four Thousand Dollar Solution," and Stax its use of Smokestack to lock the opponent out of the game for good. The four thousand dollar part is due to the fact that before current proxy rules this deck cost nearly $4000.00 US due to the deck running eight of the "power nine" cards and a full set of Mishra's Workshops." from a 2005 article
I got banned for playing an island at an LGS once. They were incredibly casual players. After talking about it, I understood where they were coming from. My playgroup was incredibly....umm...cutthroat. Everyone made the most powerful thing they could make. It got real tiresome after a while.
@@mattcarper9853 I'm not an expert, but I don't think you need to be one to see the flaw in hating a basic land. Anyway sorry, didn't mean to start an argument, I was mostly just annoyed with a number of notifications and confused how this one was even related to my original comment. I do not know why youtube doesn't let me mute replies from individual comments. Have a nice day :)
A part of my gameplay philosphy is optimizing play around a single question: "what can I do to make the game more spicy?" Because it's not really about winning/losing a lot of times, but rather HOW I, or an opponent, win that really makes games fun and memorable.
Yeah, same. I have about 10 decks, all with radically different strategies. I alternate them when I'm playing with a friend for an evening, unless they ask me to repeat a deck because they want to try and beat it.
You don't have to tone stuff down and be a bad player, but you can make decks with less optimized strategies -- and if you're making new friends, you can use the underpowered deck first to gauge power levels in the group and then if you find you get creamed easily you may find it prudent to switch decks. But if you're still winning and it's just more challenging to do so anyway, arguably, closer games feel much more fun anyways. A loss is a loss, but I say if you're going to lose, do so spectacularly and memorably so it stays fun. And if you win, isn't it better if it feels like a close game than it is if you win by a mile rather than an inch?
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Commander is not a format in the way Standard or Legacy are formats. It's why the banlist is not 'complete', and why it is trivial to make a 'broken' deck. It's a guideline for you to design the kind of game you want to play, and the issue is we have pickup games where people have different expectations.
This is incredibly true. Its why I am completely opposed to talking in power level. Power level means nothing and many players are incapable of giving a honest assessment of their deck's "level". Rather, I prefer to talk in terms of how many turns on average does a player typically win with the deck in pickup games. If I go by that, I can tend to better assess what I bring to the table to match level.
I wouldn't call people expecting different things from the game an issue. Just like in real life, one can't innately enjoy every single second of life. There has to be some mundane stuff in there to contrast the really high points, or the high points won't be enjoyable anymore. On a more macro scale, being gracious in victory and accommodating once one has had their fun is the best way to achieve this. For myself, I play all kinds of colour combinations, strategies, budget levels and power levels, and if I win a game and notice that my opponents didn't enjoy what I brought to the table, I switch to a different deck that I think might match their preferences in terms of game length and power level better. When I've had my fun, it's time to let others have a shot at it. Not like I'm throwing the games from thereon out, but I do what I can to accommodate my opponents once I've done my thing. And if I can't do so through deck selection, I serve their better interest by excusing myself from that pod and go find another, to start the process over again. In my experience, this is the best way to enjoy the game, for anyone. No, the real issue here is antisocial tendencies and behaviour: Behaviour like playing the same deck over and over, completely ignoring that the entire pod is visibly cringing and audibly groaning at it; People who's goal it is to have fun, not with other people but at their expense, or at the very least not being bothered in the slightest if they suck all the fun out of the room; And conversely, in people who seek to control and restrict what other people can do, in order to serve their own interests. Asking someone to swap decks after they've had a decisive victory or produced a game state that you really didn't enjoy is alright, but demanding it isn't, and neither is attempts at emotional blackmail to get them to do what you want.
Vintage takes the concept of "broken" as the necessary forces of balance. In many ways, vintage is the best experience of Magic barring costs. The fact that Chalice of The Void is restricted in Vintage and legal in Legacy proves that point where the "broken" cards are necessary because the Chalice would make shops too good.
I've toyed with this idea too, but in regards to the comparison between casual and competitive EDH. cEDH IS a format. It has a meta. It has a much narrower list of "viable cards". cEDH is an entirely different beast from casual commander and it shows, but I never considered the idea of casual commander not being a true format. Thats a good way to phrase it though.
@@902496 To an extent, this is why I don't care for cEDH because it's adopting an attitude that isn't really native to the format, and to truly balance it to the same yardstick as other formats the banlist would have to be larger (as seen in other Commander-like formats such as Oathbreaker or Duel/French Commander).
Before I moved away from the area I had an amazing playgroup- most of the time it was casual commander with some really inventive deck ideas (that didn’t always work, but were fun). About once every 2-3 months when we got together it was “no holds barred” commander- just the most degenerate cards and combos we could come up with. Other people at our LGS would gather around and watch the salt fest unfold. Every once in a while it’s a refreshing change of pace.
every card shop fnm I ever went to had at least that one player who ALWAYS plays with no holds barred. You just cant escape them no matter the continent or language XD
The answer to the question is the same as this question: "if the other players knew you didn't win when you could have, would they feel good about it?"
Yeah like I just accept I've lost. No point in prolonging it. If I lose I lose. And also if let's say I win that game when I know another person didn't choose to win when they could've it just feels unearned and bad.
There's an interesting side element. I'm trying to win the game overall. Sure I could take out players B and C, But if that doesn't leave me in a position to handle player A, then what's the strategy of doing so?
Whoever edited this one did a great job. It was fun and engaging the whole way through, playing around with and emphasising Prof and Vince's discussion without taking over
@8:33 What the professor is describing here is known, in some other sports, as "Good Sportsmanship". That is always playing your best game to your best ability and not intentionally 'throwing' or making a poor strategic decision. It can be seen as being disrespectful of your opponents and the game itself.
I think a large part of having fun is when you talk at the table. The most fun I have is when talking with the people I'm playing against, not just playing spells and seeing what my deck is dealing me during a game. I really enjoy thinking outloud, evaluating threats, discussing what we, as a table, can do against those threats whilst everyone still aims to win. I don't play CEDH, but hearing that those sort of conversations happen at those tables makes me more interested in playing it!
"Commander works better when it's not the main format!" YES! Thank you for saying the quiet part out loud!!!!! Give me my pauper, my standard, and my limited.
I ALWAYS have a pre-game conversation with my opponent, whether it's Magic, Warhammer or any similar game. The idea is just to see what sort of game people are looking to have, what sort of skill level they're at, etc. Maybe it's the warhammer player in me, but I just see that conversation as fundamental to setting up a fun experience for everyone. Games are about having fun, and we have a responsibility to each other to help each other have fun.
wow, this is so rare in my experience with dnd, magic or any other tabletop games. the nicest players are often those who have very little to nothing in the way of strong cards, but the ppl who have the best cards are always, always huge jerks who just need to win and rub it in everybodys face, and then make sure they talk themselves up. whats even worse is those around them who dont do anything to discourage this behaviour, but laugh it away and let them get away with whatever, especially with newer players, which damages the reputation of the hobby at worst and definitely makes the community look unfriendly.
There's something to be said about opening hand in relation to "power level." There is an, albeit small, percent chance that a deck will draw an ideal hand at the start. That doesn't mean that I misrepresented the power level, I just happened to have an ideal starting position.
Maybe this should be another point of discussion for deck powerlevel. "With the most ideal starting hand, and having no interaction pointed at you, how quickly and *how* will your deck win?"
@@MomirsLabTech to be honest that's a terrible way of discussing a deck's strength. It can be trival to put 7 cards into your deck that, if in a starting hand, wins you the game on turn 1. If the rest of your deck is garbage, that theoretical combo doesn't mean anything except maybe in the rare blue moon when you happen to draw it. To me, laying out how your deck wants to win and what turn on average it will be in a winning position is a much better and interesting conversation, as it quickly separates decks with aggressive tutoring and redundancy from those that durdle and are liable to not win if interacted with. You won't get a perfect, objective scale, but it will give your opponents an idea of how aggressively the odds could be in your favor, and whether or not using another deck is warranted
That's why I'm more concerned about the lines of play or most impactful effects you can muster. If you COULD combo off turn 4 I want to feel like I have a chance to answer that, even if the normal ttk is turn 12
It's interesting to reflect that the largest influence to Richard Garfield when he designed the 2 player duel of MTG was Cosmic Encounter, a 3-6 multiplayer experience with wildly asymmetric player powers and take-that cards that relies on coalitions to keep the powerful player in check. I would rec all commander players get in a game or 2 of Cosmic and experience the silly, lighthearted, chaotic atmosphere that was once recessive in the DNA of magic, only to flower full force with the commander format. One lesson that can be learned from it for the commander table is to not get too worked up about different "power levels" at the table, *embrace the inevitable asymmetry* of commander; there are many games to play where everyone starts in a balanced position. Commander is not one of them! Team up on players with stronger positions to check their strength, don't be like the young prof and nuke Josh Lee Kwai's enchantment for aesthetic enjoyment. Learn to ride the flow and balance of a chaotic, silly game.
@Trackrise You may be right. It seems to me a lot of people use commander as a medium to express creativity and try experiments in mechanics. They want the individual experience of EDH with the wild unexpected turns and bold multiplayer interactions of a CE game. I would recommend people read Richard Garfield's thoughts on CE!
I think a lot of the problem in EDH at the moment is a lot of people trying to use systems as a substitute for empathy. Ban lists and rule 0 discussions and power level and yadda yadda yadda, all of it as an attempt to codify and systematize human interaction, because people think it's easier than just... thinking about what other people are feeling. And I don't mean "let other players do whatever they want in game." That's just another thoughtless knee-jerk system. You don't solve this problem by just setting a new default thing in your head. You solve this problem by looking to have a good time, and looking to give other people a good time, and trying to get those two goals to mesh together. That's difficult to do with three strangers, for sure, but that's why Commander is a game mode best enjoyed with friends. But that doesn't mean try and remove that element from your experience with a list of decrees, that means actually try and *make some new friends when you sit down to play.*
I agree with you on this! The problem is that a lot of people just don’t care about other people having fun. Unless you find a good friendship group to play with that is. An LGS is not this experience. At least not here in Spain. Or in London and Portugal according to my friends that live there. It’s super competitive without being cEDH. And this is the entry point for new players. You get new players showing up with an upgraded precon expecting a Game Knights experience and getting crushed. And on that note TH-cam channels have a lot to answer for but not doing as they say. I mean when was the last time you saw a Game Knights or Goldfish etc game where someone won with a combo?! Why not? Because it doesn’t make for entertaining games to watch. And yet they talk about them all the time. They just add to the confusion for new players trying to understand what the format is about. Is it about having fun with your friends or about winning quickly so we can “shuffle up and play again” to get as many games into a night as possible Take a clear stance!
Nobody who actually thought about how other players feel would play aggro or control... both are effectively an attempt to play solitaire in what should ostensibly be a game founded upon interacting with the other player.
@@richardpitt8177 this has been my experience as well. My lgs and some others I've been to really aren't casual at all. It's just whatever competitive thing they can do to win quickly and brag about their deck. Even when I was brand brand new, I had almost every game where someone is obviously playing a completely different level of edh and it was never fun. Even a friend of mine plays super high power things but argues semantics about it not "technically" being competitive. Like yeah, you're not going to s tournament but you win 80% of the time minimum. Who wants to play when they have no chance unless it's just dumb luck?
@@hnaoto2 This has been my experience too. All the LGSes around me have nothing but extremely hyper competitive players that want to lock everyone out of the game by turn 1 or 2 every single game. When I started playing with my first, random cards deck (whatever I'd opened from OGW and BFZ packs), 80% of the players in the event would bring tier 1 competitive vintage decks that won every game on turn 1 or 2. And they did it every single week. So I'd shuffle the deck, draw an opening hand, maybe play a land, wait for anywhere between 5 and 20 minutes for them to kill me and shuffle again, draw an opening hand, maybe play a land, wait for 5 to 20 minutes, and pick up the cards. Then I'd wait for 45 minutes until the next round started, and do it again. And again. And commander was the same. I'd sit down at a table with my 10 dollar jank deck and others would bring the hyper competitive Urza Stax deck that drops their stax lock and Urza on turn 2, or TurboNaus turn 1. Or they'd play their 'low power deck' and open with Crypt, Vault, and a Llanowar Elves turn 1, Gaia's Cradle and Kodama turn 2, Kill with an infinite turn 3. And the solution wasn't "just go to a different table" because that was EVERY table. I even changed LGSes to the other one, which is 4x as far from my house, and it was the same thing. The solution was to stop playing Magic altogether. Here's the thing. I don't WANT to play games that resolve on the first or second turn, regardless of if the game actually ends. A stax player that drops orbs and Urza has resolved the game. In most situations, they're gonna win the game from there. Eventually. The same thing happens when a Storm player takes a 20 minute turn. Or if someone drops Ad Nauseum on their first turn. And that's all I'd played, for ages.
The most frustrating games of magic for me are when 3 players collude before the game, but AFTER the decks are picked, to not let you win. So by turn 2 or 3 you are knocked out of the game and then they play 3 player commander basically. This usually happens if I won the previous game, regardless if I pick my worst deck. The players just don't want it to be possible for you to win again.
@threedoubleyou dotcom That sounds like poor sportsmanship. They said outright that it was *after* the decks were picked, meaning the decision was almost certainly in response to the deck choice. That's pretty normal. If we're doing a 3 player game of commander, one with Krenko Mob Boss, one with Odric, Master Tactician, and you come with Sliver Queen, you are the archenemy. Sorry. That's just how it is.
that makes me think of a game I played where I was 5 hp and played pact weapon (While its attached to a creature you don't lose the game for having 0 life) and had only 1 creature in play and another player which didnt like the spell decided I was the biggest threat on the board and kept hassling the other players to target me although all other players had much higher life totals and more cards in play. Then the next day that player lectured me for playing to win in a 1v1, saying its not about winning its about having fun and letting other players enjoy the game. IN A 1V1
this is really degenerate behaviour, and cant really be addressed directly without incurring a lawsuit XD it is also seldom without reason; so the question is, what did you do to make them oust you like this? Are you sure? If you are positive that you are not toxic or obnoxious, then you need to play with another group.
My favorite deck is angel tribal and I'm happy playing it whenever I can regardless if I win or not. Even if I lose I can live happily knowing that my deck affected the game in a fun way.
@@Bruhecc sanctuary warden is great since you can just remove the +1/+1 counters to draw. Battle qngels of Tyr are really strong since the copies that enter all get a few counters too. Herald of war is a must include in Giada. Angel of jubilation is a must as well to stop some stupid combos. It can literally shutdown some decks.
One thing I"ve noticed about myself, is if I have a "competitive outlet" so like playing pioneer, FAB, something, i generally have more relaxed commander experience because I've had a way to get those gotta win urges out in another way.
Personally, the best games are when you had fun regardless of whether you win or lose. There is always the post game discussion revealing next draw, the hand, what my winning play would have been, etc. So in all fairness if the loss was legit without cheatin then even better for a new game sooner.
My pod has had so many games that end because everyone's had enough fun and not because people don't have board wipes or removal. The issue is when one or more people don't buy into that :/
I'd say "stop going easy on each other" is misleading, as it implies that sparing another player is "going easy"; often killing a player isn't the right choice because it'll use resources / turn other players against you / reduce available blocks etc. and in those cases it's more beneficial to spare them (or better yet, make a deal!). Also, I'll generally spread damage around in early game instead of attempting to eliminate a player because it's more fun when everyone gets to do their thing. That said, there are, of course, plenty of situations where knocking someone out is the right play, and I won't hesitate to do so when that's my evaluation.
Was actually in a game recently where two turns in a row, I could have taken a player out, but it would leave me way too open to the other two. Definitely not always a benefit to KO someone.
Not all decks are built to win no matter the situation either. Anything that relies on combat damage without an arbitrarily large number of creatures or a few huge evasive creatures might not be able to wipe the table in all situations. So if everyone gets whittled down equally, it makes it easier to end it in one swing. Even all-in Voltron strategies still need multiple turns to win as normally your one mega-buffed creature can only go after one opponent at a time without extra turns or combat phases. I feel like these strategies shouldn't be looked down on either. Otherwise, you're looking at combo finishes only which can favor certain colors over others as well as end games out of nowhere.
@@batatac4mil86 I was definitely picking up the idea I posted from the video, but I also felt that they were arguing a fair bit and seemed passionate about it and so I chose to sum up my philosophy and was curious if others agreed (seems they do!)
I also spread damage around instead of rabid dogging on one player. In the early stages at least. But not because I wanna see everyone do their thing. That's their issue. I just spread the love so that people die at roughly the same time so nobody's left waiting for too long.
My self-reflection became me realizing it isn’t that I dislike infinite combos, it’s that them tutoring for the same combo because that’s what their 100-card deck is meant to means it’s a predictable experience with little interaction. I like how varied a game of Commander can be. Those that lay back with little to no interaction while they ready their combo each time goes against the fun of interacting with multiple decks of 100 cards when they finish it briefly the same way each time. Then the game does become just telling a story about targeting the one player before they do their thing.
I had a guy launch into a 3 minute diatribe at me last Friday, because I went through a Worldly and Enlightened Tutor on T5 and T7 respectively, without assembling an Infinite to win the game. We were stuck with a 5-man pod including 2 rawest of raw new players on modified Precons their friends had upgraded for them. (I’d gone and gotten an Esper Sentinel I could put 3 +1/+1s on trivially, followed by a Smothering Tithe. The idea being giving myself the resources to disincentivize the other 2 players from farming the rookies for attack-triggers and life in the case of the Orzhov Vamp Tribal.) I won maybe 2 turns later than I otherwise would have, and really don’t understand why he was so mad. (I wouldn’t have been playing my 8.5 Lathiel list if the rookies literally weren’t an after T1 had already begun last second addition.)
Love the video! Since we're on the ever-elusive topic of power level, I'd like to share a pregame question I've had a lot of success with: "What are your deckbuilding restrictions?" I find that most players are *excited* to answer this, since it lets them share of their creative card inclusions (and omissions) as well as talk about any overall theme of their deck! It gives players a *granular* way to talk about power level which actually clues one another in about potential gameplay sequences. If they can't think of any restrictions to tell you (or won't, but I haven't seen this yet) then you can assume it's the top end of what their Commander can do. Hope this helps someone out there get some great games in.
I got into EDH right before it became officially Commander. Between graduating college, getting married, moving, etc. I sold all my cards and got into the board game hobby. I'm just getting back into EDH now. It is really interesting to me to see how EDH started and where Commander is today. I look forward to getting back into the format but I most definitely am going to be making proxy decks and figuring out a play set of 4-8 decks that seem balanced together, almost like a "board game" of EDH for many of the reasons listed in this episode. I hope the pod we are currently getting together can find a balance. I believe much of the board game hobby will be able to benefit this issue EDH/Commander is facing today. Really is a shame to think so much money goes into this fun format and it's wildly unbalanced/crazy/etc. That's what we loved about it back in the day. We didn't take it too seriously. We did goofy things. We had insane combos. The fun was dealing with that stuff and seeing who was going to win. The fun was tinkering with your decks to make it better when they were played in your play group. Not spiteful or anti fun. But balance each other out. I'm thinking of aura shards warping EDH and needing a lot more spot removal for enchantments because that card would literally win the game. Or finding value in playing counter spells to stop combos/win conditions (as opposed to countering a mana rock to stall out a person's deck and make it unfun). etc. Thanks for the amazing content, as always. Looking forward to digesting as much of this as I can to get up to speed in the format.
I'm in the exact same boat as you (played a decade+ ago, but am getting back into it now). I also love the board game and multiplayer aspect, so I have a recommendation for you! "Planechase" is the most random and board game like way to play Magic. They pre-designed 8 decks for it. If you build and keep those decks together, then you can randomly assign them to people. And everyone will be at the same power level. The Planechase cards also make it random enough that the newest player can beat the most experienced and competitive one. If you follow my advice, I also advise skipping the Mono-B Zombie deck, and just making the other 7. My friends all agreed to ban it, because for some reason it's power level is far above the others. But the other 7 decks are very balanced and awesome to run against each other.
I think the difficult part to nail down is the fact that there are diverse ways that people have fun playing magic. It's one of the things that makes the game so unique in my opinion. Maybe the conversation with strangers should be about how they have fun, and I think there are enough ways to design or select decks that allow for that without necessarily "going easy" on opponents. I know someone in my playgroup loves to build up a board and win through combat damage, but he also knows that triumph of the hordes isnt satisfying for anyone. He can still do what brings him joy in magic, but he's considerate enough to make that kind of accommodation, and it feels like a small price to pay. Another member in the same group gravitates towards group slug, but instead of denying his way of enjoying magic, he decided to take out literally just 2 or 3 of the most brutal cards, and everything is fine! I think the reason people may feel like the format is souring is because at some point everyone encounters someone who really doesn't care about their opponent having fun, especially if their opponent's fun means that they can't play their favorite archetype. Then it feels logical to just prioritize your own fun over someone else's, but I don't think it needs to be that distinct of a line between my fun and your fun. I hope players can be more flexible and figure out a way to compromise with deck-building in particular. The problem is, I think a lot of peoples' idea of fun is simply winning, and THAT above all else is what makes magic feel like a zero-sum game.
It sounds like some commander players need a similar cooperative format. Personally I have a horde deck built for this reason. This lets my kids and I jam our commander decks against the horde as a team. I've never been to a shop here we actually have a rule zero talk. Everyone tends to just play what they want. Sometimes after a player crushes a pod, the rest of us in the pod will just ask them to play again and grab a different deck closer to the one that just stomped us
Oh my gosh, that freaking opening skit gave me such a good laugh. The fact the narrator for some reason felt the need to elaborate on the recommended age of play for magic is the exact amount of ridiculousness I live for.
Never thought I would hear the Professor say what we have been saying for some time: "cEDH is the inevitable future of commander" 🥳 Your analogy on Civ VS Starcraft is incredible too! 👌
Man, does no one else remember no rush 10/15/20 minute games on battle.net? Casuals are always going to casual. There is no future where every casual suddenly becomes a tryhard.
CEDH and Casual are like two side to the same coin. A quarter is a quarter: it feels like the difference is CEDH is about winning as fast as possible while casual is more about the interactions. Which is why we have the issue of what you can and can't do. CEDH IS LITERALLY TREATED LIKE ANYTHING GOES.
@@tevinrj It's not about winning fast, but about winning *more*. Winning fast just reduces variance and since there is less time for your opponents to draw cards. In cEDH, it's common to wait 2-3 turns to jam your win with double protection or to try to win at instant speed over top of someone else.
My suggestion is to have a small variety of decks (if you can afford it). My deckbox can hold 5 decks, so I have 2 cEDH decks, 2 regular decks and 1 slightly upgraded pre-con deck. This allows me to dial in my power level to other players at the table.
Yes good call. I kinda assumed everyone did that. I have about 10 decks, ranging from "nobody likes it when I use this deck" to "oops, I tried to make this bad, but it's TOO bad." The funniest was a blue creature deck I made and it was so bad that I COULDN'T beat my girlfriend who had just started playing, even when I tried really hard. Oops. That deck has been sacked and I will try upping the power level just slightly!
agree! I played with this guy that only brought one cEDH deck to a "CASUAL COMMANDER night" at a game club. It was my 3rd time playing commander with a precon and yeah wasn't fun
Only 6 mins in and I've already jumped back like 5 times, editing and jokes are on point this episode Edit: I'm a Scot and would never say; "He wouldn't be caught saying boo to a goose", that's some peak twee Englishness.
When you mentioned putting powerful cards (mana crypt) in low powered decks to help them... Yes! I have built some mediocre decks that wouldn't be playable without beefing up with some tutors, fast mana, etc. It's great to make a bad idea work. And my groups love it.
I have a griffin tribal deck (mono white) with several 'very" strong enchantments and rocks, it still looses almost 100% of the time because...it's a griffin tribal deck. But it gets a positive reaction every time I pull it out because who would actually play these cards.
On the idea that "Maybe this isn't for you." I agree to a point. I've learned that fighting games aren't for me. I've learned that Standard, Modern, Legacy, and other competitive Magic formats are not for me. Commander is SUPPOSED to be a casual format. It is for me. I'm not saying don't try to win the game. But I am saying stop trying so hard. If you want to combo off turn 2 or 3, that's fine. But let me know that's the game you want to play and I will opt out of the game. If you want to play hard stax, that's fine. But let me know and I will opt out of the game. The pregame talk is an important part of Commander.
I think we should pivot from a 10-scale and just straight up start talking about deck wincon/composition to get an idea of what we wanna play. I agree with asking about combos early.
41:00 This is exactly what has happened to EDH; as modern and standard play decreased, players from those formats entered EDH and brought their desire for fast, competitive games with them. It would not be quite as frustrating to the older EDH players if we hadn't gone to EDH to get away from that experience in the first place.
I have the mindset of matching power levels the best you can, so that the most impoverished player feels on even ground. but play the game like you're in it to win it.
My group does the same. If someone wants to play their newly upgraded precon or newly created deck, we’ll try meeting power level or at least hold backs a smidge for them to start seeing what their deck does.
The stigmas come from the fact that losing feels bad, even in a 'casual' format. Most players have difficulty finding fun in any game they don't win. In commander, that means most of the time you lose, on average. Even if you can understand that intellectually, it's much harder to internalize.
Honestly for newbies maybe, but I would disagree. I actually only enjoy winning if it was really close and anyone could've gotten it. My fun is taken out of a game if anyone is dumpstered by a deck or card that isn't fitting with what we sat down for. Exsanguinate for 32 in a 3 power deck, type deal
I’ve always thought the conversation should be “how many turns to ideally win?” I’ve always liked to build decks that allow a game to go long just so hopefully everyone gets a chance to play out a bit of their decks strategy. Turns to win is a much more direct metric than some abstract subjective number grade Also, wouldn’t say boo to a goose is totally a British saying, I can see than applying to the Prof pretty well x
My issue with that is that many decks don't have a good measurement on turns to win. For instance, I have an animar Elemental tribal deck that might win turn 4 or win turn 20, just depends on the hand I get and the cards I draw. I'm not a fan of tutors because I like the variance but as a result I can't tell you the number of turns my deck is expected to win.
@@V2ULTRAKill if you're running a cedh derevi stax deck and you do a test goldfish and you see that by turn, let's say 3 or 4 or whatever, can effectively lock everyone else out from playing, then that's the real indicator of the power level. You have to think about it in the context of what the deck does
Yeah I get that but a aggro deck that gets stopped and rebuild of a control deck that wants a long game like for example azami can give a wrong impression by that defenition. But its a starting point.
I feel like saying "This should be an open and diverse format with no rules and a very limited ban list, just don't grief each other" is exactly where Commander was pre-2013 before the first Commander products, and since then we've basically had a continually expanding conversation about what qualifies as griefing, and how to maintain deck diversity in the format. I don't think we can solve anything by saying "Let's stop being so picky, it's ok to lose as long as you aren't being griefed" because we will just end up all having a different definition of griefing and restarting the cycle (We go from "land destruction is unfun" to "fast mana is an unfair pay-to-win advantage" to "combos end the game too quickly" to "I just don't like that card"). There's also the issue of arguing against a ban list, but then bemoaning the homogenized format that results from everyone identifying the best cards that you would just be incorrect to leave out of your deck, and putting them in every deck (which leads as well to naturally promoting those commanders that interact best with those all-star staple cards that you have to run anyway, which then creates repetitive gaming experiences against the same few commanders all the time). My experience with Commander is that it is really only fun in regular play groups that can find a consistent power level they like to play at, and using deck construction rules or expansive ban lists to maintain it if they have to. This is not practical if your intention is to go to your LGS and get some pickup games, but it does promote fun multiplayer Magic experiences within a play group, I find. I just don't think Commander can stand on its own as a universal casual format (CEDH being a different format with different expectations).
Lot to read but I think I agree. Commander really works at its best in well established pods where expectations and goals are shared. You're gonna find such an unbalanced experience in random pickup games at the lgs. You have spoken or unspoken rules in a regular group that the banlist or wider edh chatter doesn't cover, which looks different for everyone. You can't expect everyone to have the same philosophy as you but be grateful if some do
So I'll say a reason I'll play sub optimality on purpose is if I'm playing with a friend who put something fun in their deck and finally got a chance to use it, I usually leave whatever it is out for a round. It's always a great feeling when an upgrade hits the table and that's immediately crushed when it's removed right away
I disagree that commander isn't cooperative. It definitely is in the way that drafting is. You stay in your lane and do what's best to progress the game UNTIL you don't need the other players anymore and can eliminate them. When someone doesn't do that and actively makes bad decisions to grief people/cause chaos/etc. at the cost of progressing the game, that leads to an unfun experience.
@@sdewfergtysadferfgyhu2449 By definition, you're wrong. You literally just used the term "zero sum game" to sound smart, when you don't even know what it actually means. It's legitimately just not true at all, here.
For some people, turning a FOUR PLAYER FREE-FOR-ALL GAME WHERE ONE PLAYER WINS into a cooperative experience is...really boring. Commander is the "casual friendly" format because its designed around multiplayer. Casual "friendly" is a good thing, but it does not at all mean its a "casual" format. I am all for making the game whatever you want it to...with a group of friends doing the same. I really enjoy playing group hug when my friends are going for a silly game. Praise thy Jellyfish, Glunch! But the norm when playing against strangers should always be by the book, the rules as they are. Expecting others to WANT to play the way you desire, CONCEPTUALIZE playing how you desire, have the necessary DECK to fit into the kind of game you're looking for...its absurd. And to have semi-"fair" games, you can almost always find somebody experienced to glance over the decks people are playing and help determine if its a reasonable pod. I sort of became the "arbiter of power levels" along with a couple of people who worked at a store to help people find the ideal pods for their power level or determine if they should swap decks based on the table. "We're playing cEDH? Are you guys familiar with that?" with a response of "oh ya we have very competitive decks" is hands down the most common misconception I've experienced with strangers. I've played with the two players hosting the game plenty of times, one ran Najeela Tempo and the other Tymna / Jeska "Mad Farm", but powerful decks close to the top of cEDH. The two new players had a Teysa Karlov Aristocrats deck and an Atraxa Superfriends deck with a ton of slow mana. I let them know that those weren't really cEDH lists, but out of curiosity they sat down and still played. They got stomped to no surprise, but after that, people brought out other decks more on that level, and they played 4-5 games and had a ton of fun. Communicate. Educate yourself a bit on cEDH even if you don't play it, and you'll have a far better understanding as well as the ability to set up "fair" matchups for yourself and others. Oh and STAHPPP with the power level thing. This rule is FAR from perfect, but I've generally found that asking: Does your deck CONSISTENTLY threaten a win, have the ability to prevent a win or setup a powerful value engine from turns 2-4? CEDH. Turns 5-7? "High Power". Turns 8+? Causal or "Battlecruiser". Can't answer the question? Its probably "jank" or a "meme" deck.
The most unmanageable situation in commander is when someone brings one of those fast combo decks that can go off at any point after turn 2 or 3 but complain when they get focused down from the get go like they should.
the reason that happens, is because in a cEDH pod, if everyone ganged up on one guy that would be unfair as hell and someone else would win nearly immediately as all resources were used against 1 guy, so the cEDH player feels like its an unfair experience. but sometimes it can be fun to be archenemy!
@@hairyhulkvideos It's less of a problem in CEDH because the expectation there is that you have to stop the guy who's about to win otherwise everyone else loses. It's competitive, so every player is expected to look out for themselves and make plays that help them win the game. You shouldn't try to combo off if you think you can't get through your opponents' interaction. The corollary is you want to not present a threat for as long as possible until you can win since that keeps your opponent's shields down/gives you the opportunity to be the second player who tries to win after everyone else has used their interaction on the first guy. In casual however the guy playing fast combo can be much more explosive than the rest of the table and thus he has to be archenemy since otherwise the fast combo guy would just win every game. It seems unfair but that's the only way to get games that are interesting for all players rather than just "fast combo win haha ggez" over and over.
14:00 - We see this in healthcare all the time. Things like the pain scale has actual examples attached for how you should feel. 10 is "Unspeakable pain. Bedridden and possibly delirious. Very few people will ever experience this level of pain." And we routinely had patients walk into the clinic demanding all forms of service claiming their pain is at a 10 all day. You'll never escape be able to escape that.
That's why I've seen many pregame discussions turn away from an out-of-10 scale and onto deck composition, e.g. "Do you have fast mana", "Do you have combos in the deck, and if so how many cards do you need to win with the combo(s)","Do you have cards that you drop and win on the same turn because of it", "Do you have stax pieces in the deck", etc.
@@Oopsall But they make a good point that even these factors can be subjective. Every deck is gonna want to ramp, you have 4 opponents. All your decks are gonna want tight synergy and combos. I've seen episodes of IHYD where someone says "Yeah I got a combo, but it's unlikely during their pre-game" only to combo off in a crazy way. I agree it's good to have some understanding of what people are trying to do, though.
@@Oopsall watch you get that one person when they hear combo they think combination of cards as they don't know the slang and think what other people see as synergy is combos as logically it is a combination of cards in the purest sense of the word combo so you have to sit there and explain to them the slang for magic as they look at you like you are a fucking idiot. Like there are people that think that logically and not going to understand your slang unless you specifically say infinite combo(s) as every other card interaction is literally a combo in the purest of sense Though honestly i think it should be as simple as "What turn do you expect the game to be over with?"
@@devinkerr5474 that's fair. I think we need an updated vocabulary for defining what is those specific types of cards, like obviously a fire diamond is ramp but it isn't fast mana, combos are something that are infinitely repetitive that get you to a point where you're guaranteed or nearly guaranteed to win the game, crater hoof is an obvious example of "cards you win with if you drop it" assuming your deck is built properly, etc.
@@JohnnyYeTaecanUktena and that's fair but for a new person that just means we can politely correct them. Synergy!=combo, though I can see where people mix that up. As for the turns discussion - I don't think that works either because the only way to "guarantee" your deck wins around that turn range is to be heavy tutoring and have a win condition that involves a specific set of combos. I like building low power themes as good as I can, but a lot of time that means that I'm making decks that can win turn 5 or struggle until turn 10, so with most of my decks I can tell you when I could reliably win because it all depends on so many factors.
I pulled a punch once . A buddy of mine was playing Dimir horrors, summoned a Brainstealer Dragon; it was the first time he was popping off, so I let it stick around. Big mistake; the very next turn the other 4 players immediately cloned it. I had to spend like 5x the mana to board-wipe, instead of having spent the mana to clear the original dragon.
The problem with 2 card combos is it effectively makes everything that happened in that game pointless. I know some people probably assume this is true of any win condition but its different with 2 card infinites. With infinites, you sit down to play a game, it's turn 7, everyone just got their engines online, people are interacting and removing stuff etc. and then one guy just says "Oh I play these 2 cards and they go infinite, any response?" and if no one has a response then the game just ends. It's super anti climactic and makes you feel like setting up your field and value engines was all for nothing because this guy drew into an infinite. I know the arguments are always "play more removal/interaction" or "how is that different than winning with an overrun effect" and the thing is that sometimes you dont draw the removal, or sometimes you used it earlier. I think the reason it feels so bad in commander is because everyone is always talking about EDH being more casual or longer games but 2 card infinites generally go against that concept. Honestly, I wouldnt mind them at all if everyone played cutthroat (which I prefer) but then that's basically cEDH, just feels like there are too many ideas of how a commander game should play out and not everyone agrees which creates these feel bads. It's hard to convey the feeling but I guess I'm saying, people want to play the game and play out what their decks do and infinites typically are independent of the game state and create a binary game state, you either have the answer or not.
"Drew into an infinite" any well built deck running a 1 or 2 card combo builds the entire deck around getting to that combo Cards like ad naus, pita, wheels, necropotence, tutors Nobody just top decks an infinite unless its turn 0
My issue with proxies is that people often use them to increase power level. If I'm running a deck without proxies, that means I'm not running mana crypts or original duals. Proxies can be something of an arms race at times.
"I have a copy already, and I don't want to have to swap it between all my decks." -my friend trying to justify putting a rhystic study proxy in every blue deck they make.
I was playing commander the other day with a friend who is new to commander. He resolved a Ruinous Ultimatum and won the game. He was incredibly apologetic about it, which I realize he expected me to be angry that I lost in such a way. I felt like this was a great time to show a new player that I wasn’t going to be salty. I didn’t have an answer and that’s okay. He did what he wanted to and won in an awesome fashion. I don’t have to win to have fun and in commander sometimes I lose in horrible ways like that and that’s just how it goes.
Totally this! I'm teaching my son and some friends and I congratulate them and comment on how great the game was! I don't care who wins if we all had fun.
for the first time, i completely agree with PleasantKenobi, stax is the most misunderstood word in magic! It’s used to describe both lock cards like static orb and taxing cards like Thalia. That’s where the misunderstanding comes in. Lock cards are a strategy people don’t like (e.g. karn+lattice) but they are a valid strategy. I think it’s fine that people don’t like it, akin to land destruction. Taxing cards are basically just tools you use to make everyone play fair magic. Instead of a player storming off on turn 4 when your deck needs to get to turn 6 to do the thing it wants to achieve, you are putting up a distraction that the storm player needs to defeat before they do their thing, which would hopefully buy you the time you need to do your thing on turn 6!
Well said! I always say this around my playgroup, and they are like, "whatever, it's not a big deal what it's called." But it does matter! Especially when people get such a visceral reaction to certain words. No competitive player on the planet would confuse a "Death and Taxes" deck for Small Pox, Braids, or Smokestack deck. They are completely different goals. In reality a true "stax" deck is far more akin to a combo deck than a tree taxes deck.
While Yes, Ressource limiting pieces Stop the Storm Player, or generalized, the strongest Deck at the table, it is a Major feelbad for the Decks that didnt have a perfectly good starting Hand. It leads to the feeling of "Not being able to Play Magic" with Just enough Hope to continue. While a Lock does essentially the same thing, it most often ends the Game that turn. The Player playing Karn+Lattice doesn't make it their "Game Plan", it is their win condition. I would rather agree to scoop due to being denied all Ressources at once, rather than being limited throughout the game. This is Stax for me. There is no/little room for Interaction left once both resolve, so you Just loose. I Just wanted to elaborate that Karn+Lattice and other locks do not nearly get as much hate as Stax, because they end the Game. As Prof Said: "Shuffle Up and Play!"
At least you don't save your counters to use against them when they eventually draw ramp spells. I know a guy like this, not a lot of people like playing him if he's using blue.
Also, the reason that EDH has devolved in combo wins is because everyone has 40 life. Multiplayer in 60 card days was already a disadvantage for combat kills with 20 life each. 40 life is just too much extra padding and lets even not great combo decks played by not great players win a lot more than tuned aggro decks played by good players. I've felt the format should be 30 starting life for some time now. It's just too easy to combo in a format that can be singleton vintage/legacy if someone wants it to be. And the problem with the well established pool of 2-3 card combos means it's really pretty easy to end games before turn 5 *regularly* if that's what you want to do and you wouldn't even be in the casual mtg equivalent of playing sandlot baseball with death beams and mechs and calling yourself profession players that is 'cEDH' territory yet. And when it happens it doesn't generally feel earned or clever or interesting. It's more often than not an anticlimactic like "oh yeah, that one, again. You were able to wait until we interacted with each other an them play your commander+card combo through no interaction. Exhilarating." Give me the engine decks snowball or 4-5 card combos that require protection; I don't mind losing to that because it feels like there's some piloting necessary and it feels earned and it's hard for a 4-5 combo to be a overused trope of the format. That its turns EDH into a boring, repetitive and unimaginative pile of a few win conditions you see come up in the same colors of any deck where the person what's to just slot in the same efficient win con in the given colors. Which, like, feels bad man, and feels like people missing the point of casual play. Missed the point of experience theme and flavor and *variance*. When I wanted to have serious contests of playskill in a competitive format with established metas and decks that show up consistently I would play Legacy/Modern/Pauper. I play casual, EDH and 60 card before it, to explore interesting ideas in a sandbox.
This is how I feel a lot as well. Commander used to be the format where people could be creative and the most optimal lines weren't necessary. I blame Wizards for a lot of it. The focus on printing things for commander has shifted it.
Edh card pool and rules favor combos but it's still The Format for battle cruiser magic, building to themes and jank. It's surrounding philosophy supports casual play and people make it what they want. I think it's the players who have shifted to more competetive mindsets, or attracted more of such minds, especially since there's been very little competetive magic available for some time now.
I go easy on my opponents because to go 'all out' would be a shield's down moment allowing the next player to eliminate me. Our Meta involves a lot of shuffling of 'Archenemy' positions and very little politics and alliances. The winner is the person who can gain the lead and protect it. Not the person who is able to eliminate one or two players. In other words, why kill another player if they can be somehow useful in eliminating threat #2 on the board.
I personally think mass land destruction is fine, we are living in a time where mass artifact destruction is okay but to some decks like white/red is how they ramp, blowing all artifacts is blowing their lands effectively, i deserve the right to blow up their mana too, specially if they are green
I agree to the point that of you do it win the game. I don't want to play 6 or 8 more turns where I'm just waiting for another player to "get around" to winning. I have no issues with MLD and other cards that "stop" you playing if the person playing can win. Use it as part of your strategy.
@@jcoe371 I don't think that's fair to ask, you can boardwipe all day the green player but he can keep building back up since he will have 15+ mana vs your 6-8 if you on non green colors, land wipe is an effective way to neutralize the threat. Additionally imagine you are playing mono white by turn 4 realistically you could have 4 lands and let's say 1-2 rocks meanwhile green could be 6-8 how is that fair? Your rocks can be touched and greens lands can't be? Doesn't seem fair if by turn 4 I see green ramp past everyone on the table I will Armageddon you
If the green deck is getting oppressive then it can be a nice meta shaker in a known playgroup. I like Fall of the Thran since it restores some lands if you didn't manage to win after. I still wouldn't bring mld since the games tend to become miserable to at least one player and my play group likes playing magic vs not playing it
I tend to agree with the “don’t hold back” idea, but I also get tired of seeing the same cliché combos win games when the combo cards have nothing to do with the Commander’s text or the overall deck strategy/theme they just get dropped into anything that happens have those colors.
Then you have a couple of options. Only play with who will play how you want them to. Play a different format where there is a wider variety of strategies Maybe mtg isnt right for you as a game
Don't hold back, but also generally make decks that are fun to use AND play against. Don't throw the game on purpose, but also don't run turn 2 wins or 45 counterspells in your deck.
@@josephalfano1065 Or OR, now hear me out, I can play STAX decks every game so no one else can play at all and you win every, or nearly every, game. Then those people can choose a different format or consider whether magic is the right game for them,
@@Fly-the-Light yep, then the meta will revolve Around stax decks. Commander games will take 2-5 hours per game every time and everyone will have SO-MUCH-FUN!
I would eliminate crim unless it would make me vulnerable to a hit back. I dont think you can say Vince made a mistake if he was trying to stay on defense. Which apparently was a correct accessement since he did die to combat damage in the same turn order
I think the biggest commander problem is honestly deck construction. And what I mean by that is that a lot of people find a commander they want to use, and then go on the internet to find all the cards everyone else uses for it, find the infinite combos that work the best, and that's what they run. A lot of people don't build decks anymore. My main commander is Atraxa, Grand Unifyer, but I didn't go online looking up some deck list for it. I saw what the creature did, knew what I wanted the rest of the deck to do, and put it together. In my friend group, we don't play with banned lists. We don't worry about what cards have been rotated out or anything like that. We find the best cards of what we have in front of us, and without the help of the internet, we build decks. It's truly what the game was meant to be, both commander and other 60 card formats.
I remember once I was playing a Karrthus deck against a grand arbiter Augustin IV deck, and my opponent was a little strapped for mana in the early game (no ramp or rocks, and his 3rd land drop was lotus vale); on my turn I showed my buddy I had an acidic slime and the only reason i wasn't going to blow up his only land was because i didn't want to be a jerk; he ended up coming back and winning that game and talked smack about it for weeks. since that day i have sworn to never take it easy on an opponent in game (i make exceptions for my friends who are just learning to play and don't have decks of their own so I can get them hooked on cardboard crack)
Yeah, I think that’s the right balance. Be nice and go easy on your friends that are new to the game, because you want them to like the game. At an LGS with strangers, play optimally and don’t pull punches. I might consider an exception if the person clearly comes up with a precon and says they’re playing for the first time, but otherwise play to win.
@@sharktrap267 he actually wasn't playing a stax deck; he was playing big cmc stuff in azorius, and he had the arbiter in there for the mana reduction, but yeah definitely should've been merciless and shuffled up for a new game
I think a good discussion to have prior to playing with people you have not played with yet should look something like this: "What type of deck are you wanting to play with? Is it a Precon, an upgraded Precon, a homebrew, etc" and if it's something more than a precon, ask "What turn can you expect to be in position to knock a player out?" - Asking those two questions will take care of 90% of the pre-game deck talk and let everyone know what type of game they are walking into. If you're a player that has a very good deck and expects to win by turn 4/5, but everyone else has precons or slightly upgraded ones, then maybe choose something a little different to ensure everyone can have a good time. You do not have to go easy on them within the game because your deck choice has already done that for you. However, if they are okay with you playing whatever you want, then do that. The point is, people often do not communicate prior to playing and I think that causes the most salt than anything.
Some of my favorite commander games were unspoken Archenemy games. I started to deck build around the idea of "I want to be the scariest thing in the board" and it really gave my playgroup a clear goal to play to which I feel most commander games lack beyond "let everyone do everything". Sometimes I would win, but most times I'd fall and people looked at their boards and were happy that they got to do something. Then they duke it out 3 players and the chaos was what I enjoyed.
I almost exclusively would play 3 player matches. And I generally only had 2 types of decks... 1, fun and unusual decks that aren't likely to win, but do create interesting board states, or 2, decks that try to win a 2v1 through overwhelming force. That's what was fun for me. I usually lost, and when I had a deck that was too successful, I would dismantle it because that's just not fun for anybody. Nobody likes to get dominated by the same thing over and over. So, my friends would never know whether I was shuffling up something like a R/W burn/prevent deck that runs all 5 Circle of Protection enchantments, or a 5 color aristocrats deck. But they would know that I was trying to have fun, and would make sure to change things next time around if they *weren't* having fun against it.
I try to do scary, wild things that are out there without wildly strong combos popping off or otherwise just being chaotic without expectation of winning. However this turned out to bother some pod members so much they didn't want me playing at all. They didn't like that the unpredictable builds made them feel like they had to build to counter everything, even though the decks in question won 1/20. So now if I want to play around here I have to use decks that have more refinement and mass synergy, but instead of getting a wild game, I win more often and just see these looks of defeat that sap the fun from the game for me. I don't need to or want to win to have fun. I won't throw a game though and disrespect them like that... but it clearly bothers them more that I'm winning more instead of being a chaotic field effect that they team up against and beat me more?
I've definitely noticed my enjoyment of commander games has gone up when I've focused more on seeing what'll happen and working with other players. It's kind of strange. The same people who complain about others playing too much like Spikes seem to focus too much on killing their opponents or building up towards killing their opponents and don't make use of them as a resources. Someone attacks you turn two because they have a one drop and you haven't played anything yet? Instead of immediately complaining and targeting them, instead, offer them a deal or just take the 1 or 2 damage. You could offer them something in return for not targeting you, helping you beat the other players. Alternatively, just taking the damage without retaliating will cause them to not be retaliating back. Your own cards aren't the only things you can use at the table. Something as simple as pointing out a card in someone's graveyard can be a game winning play. If you can get your opponent's to play their spells and attack with their creatures to remove threats to yourself, you'll pull way ahead. The best part about this: you could have an awful game where you mulliganed down to a small hand and can't find any lands and still be able to do this. Just talk to the people you're playing with and engage with the game in more ways than just playing your cards. Something which can help is to think back on games you've lost but liked the outcome of. How did they go? Seek to replicate that and build up towards that. If you can't think of anything like that, instead of playing to win, play to discover what this scenario is. Just taking a moment to reflect on something you're doing while you're doing it really helps with improving your enjoyment and discovering what you want or don't want from it. Another tip, there are usually about 4 players in a commander game. If your playgroups are going to be fair, you'll be winning 25% of the time. If you don't like that then you'll need to adjust why you play the format. On a different note, I really don't agree with that point about Gaia's Cradle. "Dies to removal" isn't a good argument for why a powerful card is okay, especially when it's in the land slot, a place where removal isn't as welcome/accessible. Ghost Quarter and Field of the Dead are pretty cheap but you can't expect those cards to always show up. Not every player has a removal spell in reserve for all these really powerful cards. Sometimes they don't draw them and other times they've already used them up on more reasonable threats. Just because there are situations where removal stops a card from going off, doesn't make all the situations where the card does go off when there isn't removal okay.
Too much to read it all at 2am but I like a lot of your points. Removal and counterplay CAN be a solution but if games will be horribly skewed in one person's favour if nobody has it, that's important to consider. One person in my group plays magister sphinx and other cards that can functionally one-shot players. If we upgrade to have the right answers constantly, we're power creeping away from what we like or sit here having unbalanced or unsatisfying game ends. It's exceptionally tricky balancing outcomes for everyone
I find it fascinating joking about long games being a never-ending Civ game considering a lot of us *want* those long ass games. The people who like multi-hour long games where you see lots of things from multiple people get pushed to the side and ridiculed because it's not "playing to win" or something. I'd much rather pause in the middle of a game that's been going 1.5 hours, step outside for a smoke, chat about life for a few minutes, come back inside and pick back up than sit down, get turn 3 Blightsteeled by Satoru or smacked with a turn 2 hasted Ulamog when I sat down at the table with Crab tribal or something. It's all about environment and expectations. When I pull out my combo decks the atmosphere is different. K'rrik will win the whole match in 4 turns. Stop me if you can. If you don't have something to match the table's power you can borrow a deck. Just don't be that guy who has absolutely no regard for the experience of others at the table. If you're gonna be that guy you can play 1v1 or another format. Those formats are fun in their own way and there's no expectation to care about the singular opponent's play experience since you both sat down with different expectations.
If you play three games in an hour or one game in an hour, you're playing the same amount of Magic. Even less so when you consider the time spent changing decks and mulliganing and all that setup. Unless you're a particular fan of the early turns, you're getting less of the meat of the game. Not that I don't understand how playing the same deck for a length of time can be boring, but I wonder if some folks that dislike longer games think they're getting "more Magic" in by getting more games in when that's not really the case.
@@Tuss36 you absolutely get "more magic" in faster games if the entire table is playing equal decks Because you are doing as much if not more in a 15 minute game as you are in a 2-3 hour battlecruiser game How much of your deck do you see and play on average per game? Unless i topdeck a turn 0 win in my opening hand I see more than half of my deck in 3 to 5 turns, and since i know the sequence of cards i want to play i dont waste 15 minutes a turn trying to decide on a play
@@V2ULTRAKill I suppose in that case it's like eating a big fluffy cake vs a condensed one-bite calorie ball. It's more efficient but a different experience. Personally I'd find seeing half my deck so quickly to be boring, as part of the appeal of the game to me is the variety it can hold and when you see so much of your deck it's like I've already done it all and there's no reason to repeat, at least for that night. I'd think a 60 card format that lets you have 4-ofs lends itself better to such play patterns. But then as was mentioned in the video at one point, EDH is what people are playing these days, so I suppose I can't fault people for trying to seek such an experience in the format.
@pat1989ize I suppose it depends on your tastes. It's like Counterstrike vs I don't know, Paladins. The Time-To-Kill is very different, leading to games of the former feeling very tense and snappy with momentary decisions and skill deciding the match, while the latter mistakes aren't really punished and you can just come back and keep fighting. My point was that if you have ten Counterstrike rounds in the same span of one Paladins game, both players have played their shooter for the same amount of time. Neither has gotten "more game in" than the other.
I believe it comes down to "it just depends on your group". Most of the time the deck choice is how I "go easy". Second is I'll make the "more fun play" over the optimized plays. Third is I tend to spread my plays equally to not "bully" a person out early. I will play to win but not at all costs. If I can win that turn I'll go for it. I try to avoid killing one player early unless I can close quickly or if we are playing that style. If it's pure casual I spread out my attacks. But that's why pregame talk is important and if it doesn't go well maybe that group isn't good for each other and that's totally okay. You don't have to like everyone you play with, you just find a different group or mix it up and try different pods just know there may be a bad experience and you just got to make note and find a group that you will have a good experience with.
Of course. It was at its healthiest when players were grabbing piles of cards they had left over from past standard and old frames and mashing em into decks based around a bunch of weird legendaries. The second it became more formalized and marketted to 'casuals' and a more social way of playing magicnand drinking with 4 people etc it became full of social rules that arent covered in the actual rules. Then it became soft and weak cause people were told there was an experience here that there really wasnt and now everyone polices each other. Its silly, these personality types do this in ALL social situations, and they shouldnt be playing boardgames until they work on themselves because they arent fun playing games with. No one wants to play a board game where you opponent is mad about your moves and takes offense to them and thinks you should play their way and tells you how to play. THIS DOESNT FLY IN ANY BOARDGAMES EVER, from monopoly or risk all the way to dungeon lords ticket to ride agricola etc.
My take is that commander would be healthier if the banlist was for pickup/random games where some cards can create unfun experiences when your deck isn't prepared for them. Established pods self regulate well enough.
I found this podcast insightful because I struggle with "optimal" deck building and so adjusting in deck construction for power level differences for me is really hard but I tend to hold my punches in gameplay instead which can sometimes lead to my demise on occasion but I enjoy longer games. What I usually do to limit power level is constrain to a budget most of the time and check for infinites.
My friend and I both name our decks after songs that thematically fit the deck. We have a playlist of songs and will randomly decide which deck each of us plays.
As someone who owns a revised wheel of fortune I salute you. Use those helper cards for any card you want to use but are too expensive to buy. Proxy anything to you want to.
Someone tell Prof that "wouldn't say boo to a goose" shows up in American books, specifically on page 24 of The Outsiders when Ponyboy describes Johnny. 😋
“Stax” as a term dates back to an old vintage/type 1 workshop deck, which owed the card Smokestack from Saga. The term Stax dates back to then, and refers to a vintage artifact prison deck.
Haven't watched the video yet, but I'm about to. 100% yes. Play more counterspells, play more spot removal, play more board wipes, play more focused hate cards, and interact with each other instead of politely "popping off".
I disagree - it's 100% "It depends on the group" In some groups, the fun isn't in being hyper-competitive, or in trying to continually push the power level up. In others, it's absolutely vital. There's no one size fits all solution - but if you go to a group that just wants to chill and have a long game with casting big, underpowered but cool spells that usually don't get played - and then just counterspell everything and do an infinite combo win - it's not going to be fun for anyone.
I somewhat agree with you, but as an example, I have an Osgir deck that has something like 34-35 lands, 14-15 ramp artifacts, 13 interaction+wrath spells, and the rest is synergy pieces and shenanigans. To win the game, I need a critical mass of artifact stuffs to beat people to death with or burn them out with. The only way to play more spot removal, board wipes, hate cards and other interactions is to play a more focused set of win conditions, which often means some sort of infinite combo. That's just not a way I or my play group generally likes to play the game. So essentially to play more interaction, you're going to either power down your own way of winning the game or are pigeon holed into playing combos.
@@WaterlooFlu I personally do not find it fun to stomp other players just because my deck was higher power level. Do you really find it fun to pub-stomp your friends with a guaranteed win?
@@WaterlooFlu "Well the guy who ruined everyone else's fun had fun at least" is the mentality that gets people uninvited to tables. We've run off numerous people like that at my LGS. If we all sit down with goofy tribal and you sit down with with some optimized combo deck it demonstrates an inability to consider the experience of the whole playgroup and signals this person doesn't respect that everyone is there to have fun together, not at the expense of others. When the few of us who have competitive decks break them out then it's a different situation and expected you play well, play to win, and bring some beef.
just let everyone have fun and be happy to be playing an interesting game with unique and cool art and a complex rules system that constantly changes and stays the same. the best way to play is the best way to do everything else with joy in your heart no expectations and a friendly attitude.
I love the phrase "don't try to win during deck building". Play your deck to the best of your ability during game play, but it's more fun for everyone if you don't go ham in the deck building phase. One of the most common pieces of advice I give to new Commander players at my store is to take certain high power cards out of their decks. Sure, Smothering Tithe is powerful, but can the rest of your deck support the hate it generates?
While I definitely agree one of the biggest issues with commander has been WotC designing cards specifically for it (I've been playing multiplayer magic since like 1996 and a big part of what I loved was you had to balance your play for more than one opponent, and you can't rely on having removal for everything,) for myself, someone who enjoys commander as a sometimes game, it has completely replaced any form of casual magic in the community. It's easy to say you can just play casually, but imagine going to any store or hang out with people and being like "Hey can we play a casual, 60 card multiplayer game? It will not happen. No one builds casual decks like that when they go to communal magic spaces. My favorite format is Planechase, but adding Planechase to commander, while fun with a group that knows how to play with it, like LRR when they have, it's mostly the equivalent of using all the house rules in Monopoly that makes the game just more miserable for everyone cause it never ends. Magic needs a casual community that isn't just playing the only thing, cause I love this game, and I don't want to play modern or pioneer or pauper. I want to play casual multiplayer games with a focus on having fun with people, and isn't just commander converging on cedh. I have one big suggestion to anyone like me who wants to play more casual magic but don't have access to a group to make whatever you find most fun work for everyone. It's not a fix all, it's far far from perfect, but I think it will help at least make games feel more interesting than they tend to currently, and that's remove every card that searches decks. If you can get games going where even decks that rely on a specific win con are going to at least be more interesting games if no one is tutoring up the same win every single game. I don't like Craterhoof, it's an uninteresting and not fun card really. But I would hate seeing it much less in games if it wasn't being Tooth and Nailed every time I do see it pretty much. Again, not a fix for the over all issues with the formant and community discussions around it, but it is very much in the spirit of what the original idea was, which is games that play out differently every time. Until WotC stops doing 14 commander products every year, and gives us something like Archenemy and Planechase every few years again, I don't think Magic is in a healthy place for it's casual community...
I like to base my games around variance. The more powerful the cards in my deck, the less tutors I put in (but more card draw). I have a few decks with tutors and combos, but I tell my opponents before I sit down I say, "I have combos AND tutors to consistently find them" versus just "I have combos." Where I get frustrated is when one of the people at the table combos out turn 4 and everyone else has only cast one spell each. I also would like to say it's ok to get frustrated. We're humans. We experience emotions and sometimes we don't act the way we know we should. If you make an ass of yourself, apologize and do better next time.
Wwo this is validating. I've been saying for years that Commander is Magic for people who don't like Magic. Which is the same sentiment in the Profs Brood War story.
Magic is a game that's conceptually paradoxical. The appeal is, ostensibly, strategic interactivity between the players. However, the most effective strategy for any competition is to prevent competition at all. The optimal play is always to remove that interactivity. Which devolves into the two primary brands of solitaire, aggro and control, which seek to minimize the timeframe where those interactions matter (aggro) or just not interact at all (control). And before you say control is interactive... counterspells literally prevent a thing from creating an interaction between the players. It's specifically one player saying "I would like a game to be happening" and the control player saying "no thanks". And that's the general way control decks work. And that's just no good for the meta... if both players are trying their damnedest to avoid playing a game with each other *during the match* that doesn't say good things about the game as a whole.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 I don't agree with this on a few levels. It has a questionable premise and relies on a rhetorical bait and switch. Can we really reduce the appeal of Magic to "strategic interaction between players"? It has a lot of elements besides that, the ability to build and tweak your own strategies before the game even begins in deckbuilding, the puzzle solving element of sequencing or combo decks. These are things people like that would still exist even if Magic had no interaction at all. Also, when a Magic player says "interaction" they don't usually mean just "strategic interaction between players". They usually are referring to a subset of game actions that involve multiple player's cards and usually creatures. but if we are talking about general "strategic interaction between players" counterspells absolutely count, they interact with your opponent's strategy. When to counter, what to counter, how to bait a counter, these are all strategic decisions that involve another player. In any other game a counterspell would be considered an interactive element, and a ton of games have counterspells, it's one of the simplest forms of player interactivity. Similarly an aggro deck does have to make strategic decisions, and those decisions will change depending on your opponent's deck and their actions. How is that not interacting strategic decisions? Again we see this disconnect between the general meaning of a "strategic interaction" and the very narrow Magic player's definition. Finally, your criticism of the meta because players are "trying (...) to avoid player a game" can be applied to literally any game. Any chess player would be happy to win the game on turn 4 instead of later, does this mean chess is a bad game because the player's goal is to stop playing it? Of course not, this is the goal of any game in a competitive environment.
@@dyrnwynski Yes, we can reduce the appeal of MtG specifically down to strategic interaction between players. At a fundamental level, even deckbuilding skills and the puzzle solving elements of combo decks require being cognizant of exactly which interactions are likely to arise to foil the plan. Otherwise, the combo player loses to one single piece of removal. Those examples you gave are examples of the strategic interaction I was referring to. How other people use words has nothing to do with what I meant when I said it. You attempt to equivocate what I said with something I didn't say, in order to conclude that both are wrong, when in reality there's no logical connection between the two ideas at all. As for the specific case of counterspells, the specific wording tells the actual goal of the spell. I would concede that *some* counterspells are interactive, while also insisting that others are not. "Counter target spell" means "I want to prevent interaction", whereas "counter target instant" would be a form of interaction as you describe. The former says "I don't want you to play the game" while the latter says "I want to beat your strategy". One is the type of interaction the game bases its appeal on, the other is a way to just say no to gameplay in general. There's a reason I said things the way I did. I specifically described aggro decks as trying to minimize the amount of interaction involved with gameplay, as that's both an objectively true fact and the definition of an aggro deck. Their entire goal is to win before you're ready to start the game properly. That's the sum total of the strategic interaction with the deck, can you avoid losing before the game starts? If yes, you beat the aggro deck. If not, the aggro deck wins. That leaves a LOT more of the game up to luck than it does skill, by dramatically increasing the importance of a strong opening hand. And, before you claim that leans more toward deckbuilding skill... you can have 4 of a card in a 60 card deck, and if you need one of that card in order to survive until turn 4, there's a 48% chance you just lose the game outright because of that alone. Most would count a coin flip as luck, not skill. Your suggestion that all players in all games attempt to win whenever they can is a false equivalence. There's a big difference between avoiding interaction (and by extension gameplay) and simply trying to win. Your example with chess displays clearly the misunderstanding at play here... the maximum possible interactivity in chess is when all 32 pieces are still in play. A quick win doesn't minimize interactivity or prevent it, it maximizes interactivity in the process of victory. Not only that, the explicit goal in chess is to leave the opponent with 0 strategic options. That's literally how you win the game. MtG, that's not the goal... in fact, each deck is free to have a wide variety of possible goals that all result in victory, whether that's simply reducing the enemy life total to 0, forcing them to draw with an empty library, having 10 infect counters, or any number of "you win the game" effects on specific cards.
This is how I prefer to play. I like weird janky decks , so those are the decks I build. But once I'm playing I try to play as optimally as I can with the jank I built.
Back in the day when I played paper commander, I played exclusively cEDH. Whenever someone would ask what powerlevel it is, I'd reply "It's a cEDH/competitive deck" or "It's a singleton Vintage deck". People would be very polite and instruct where I could find the other cEDH players and I we became good friends. They were really happy to see someone come to the capital from a different town to find the touches opponents to play against :) Best part of playing cEDH is not having to explain yourself. You tell whoever asks that you came there to play Singleton 4 player Vintage, and thats that.
I go easy with My Yuriko deck sometimes at my LGS because they have a monthly point system for store credit where you get negative points for Thoracle and Killing opponents before their 5th turn. Tons of chances to play Doomsday or Enter the Infinite and I'm more likely to discard those cards just to not lose points.
What I love about this subset of videos is the fact that you 2 don't agree on everything. You both argue your points, potentially sway the other to your way of thinking on a subject, but other times still disagree. You still remain friends, still argue, but, most importantly imo, you both listen. Thank you Prof and Vince for showing ways to have healthy discussions while also showing those discussions don't HAVE TO end in mutual agreement. We are all individuals (cue Life of Brian joke), and we all have unique likes, dislikes, play styles, hopes, and aspirations (in MTG and in life). No one can ever agree on everything, all the time. But, discussing our similarities and differences allow us to see our fellow people as peers.
Wouldn't be surprised if he played what we're known as "big game hunter" maps. Essentially maps where the crystals and gas are in extreme quantities meaning you essentially never have to expand. In StarCraft played as intended the limited resources in your main base necessitated expansion. In BGH you could easily turtle.
"Should commander players stop going easy on eachother" Depends on the experience level at the table TBH. If somebody is just starting playing of course im not going to go ham on them i want more players to join i dont want to scare players away or have a new player eliminated super fast so they can just wstch for the next half hour waiting for the next game.
I think the deck discussion is the most important, and casual conversations between games, not necessarily power level, but thinking to an extent about what decks we think would play in a fun way against each other. I try not to play decks other people don't enjoy too often, such as decks that lock down other players, but I still play them because I like them. There are things I personally don't enjoy having in my own decks, which are infinite combos and infect, but I'm fine if other people want to run that stuff. It's up to everyone to look at what others are playing and make sure they have a deck they think would be a fun match up against it. Everyone should play what they enjoy. That's my current opinion anyway.
23:35 last week I found my own happiness when I played Bearer of the Heavens as a monored deck and all other players went Defcon 1. Went from Commander to Red Alert REAL quick.
This is a great discussion. I figured out this analogy. Are we fighting, sparring or practicing? For our playgroup, this makes a difference in how we play out games, and design our decks. I do not compete with Magic. I have competed in a number of other disciplines, but Magic, for me is about having a good time with people whose company I enjoy. Yes, winning a game is great, but it is not the objective for me. However, I can adjust my actual gameplay to suit my pod. So, the question becomes when we Rule 0, "Are we practicing, sparring, or fighting?" The answer will determine my decision making, such as whether I board-wipe, or what spells I cast in what order, and how fast am I trying to win. My first Sensei used to set us up when sparring thusly: "Hit only as hard as you want to hit, and use technique and control." That's sparring. Punches get pulled. Practice is MORE relaxed. Fighting, is no holds barred, and choices are made to win as expediently as possible, no pulled punches. I can play however everyone else in the pod chooses. Trick for us, is understanding the intent of everyone else and matching it. After all, the entire point of Commander is social/co-op with winning secondary to having an enjoyable time. We can do that with "practice" (new deck testing out ideas), Sparring (more intense but not cutthroat), or Fight (no holds barred, hit full power and try to knock people out). Ultimately, the decision of how hard to play, should be based on the pod and Rule 0. I understand that people default to different choices. I'd rather spar and play around and goof than fight, which I see as more serious play. As Prof pointed out, this requires a level of introspection, and self-ownership, and making adjustments to my playstyle and deck design, than to me imposing my values on the other players in the pod.
I love this take. I find playing magic (commander here) to be more of a puzzle solving game than anything. I don't even approach the game to win, I'm just trying to best solve a puzzle. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
I agree 'taking it easy' is a slippery slope. Similar to the 'pass your deck to the right' concept, I actually think that constructing commander battle boxes go a long way towards resolving these issues. If everyone in your playgroup builds a set of 4 decks and you choose to play one of those sets each game or each night, that allows everyone to construct their own magic experience according to their taste. Balancing is taken care because it's done in advance through deck construction and everyone still gets freedom of expression through taking turns. And if building a battle box sounds intimidating, just ask yourself if you own 4 edh decks or not. As for more public games at game stores or events where you might not feel comfortable sharing cards, then I think the answer is cEDH. Have the same spirit that keeps healthy spirits in 1v1 formats. Everyone does the most powerful things they can be doing within the constraints of the format. If you bring a subpar deck and don't do very well, no one to blame but yourself. For those who counter with they don't want to be competitive in this format, then you could try precons only, or precons with X upgrades, but precons vary quite a bit in power so I think the effectiveness would be limited there. Limiting the scope would help.. say 'standard' precons, ie only decks from the last couple years of precons. Would really clamp down on variety tho.
You can also "auction" the starting decks. Some people start with 5 cards and 25 life while some other might start with 8 cards and 50 life. Just need to figure out how the auction rules work.
Did you miss "It's Time To Fix Magic The Gathering Arena! | Dies To Removal 43" Check it out here: th-cam.com/video/3np_iT1Jm0o/w-d-xo.html
I'm in the US and I've definitely heard "wouldn't say boo to a goose" although I still think it's a misnomer because geese are not the animal you want to spook 😁
This is the issue: the power scale. The Power Scale doesn't work because it's too much for players who don't play outside of their play group. The scale is 1-10 but pre-cons are some how up at 6???
As someone who comes from the UK, with Scottish grandparents. Yeah. "Wouldn't say boo to a goose." Is a valid and excellent saying.
where are your geese now?
I swear to God I expect some random guy to pop up and say. "Remember when you guys thought thus game was fake? I found it! It's totally real!" With his voice and his lips not synced up.
The Cedh player at my tournament store once told us, quote, "NEVER use a number to determine the power of your deck. Instead of saying 'its a 7 or 8' you should be saying 'on what turn does your deck usually start working?'"
I think he makes a great point. Power level is completely subjective. My buddy constantly says "My deck's not that bad" then after watching him get infinite mana turn 6 I'm like "Riiiiiight"
This! I NEVER really understood powerlevels, as a theory sure, but applying it to decks is extremely subjective and is incredibly difficult since there's just so many combinations of cards you can use.
Noting the turn your deck consistently hits its stride is a far better way to compare
@@ManaPirate agree I’ve had people tell me my pile of legendary cards kethis deck is too strong to be an 8. There is no win conditions just a pile of legendary creatures lands and 3 planeswalkers. I have only one piece of fast mana and probably can’t win before turn 10. But somehow it’s too strong.
As a long time cEDH enjoyer, I think there are two powerlevels; There is cEDH and there is casual. Unless you are trying your hardest win regardless of budget, tastefulness of tactic or your own preferences in card choices, you are playing casual. If you take the most competitive cEDH out there and replace one card with something silly, its now a casual deck, since cEDH is not a measure of power, but a measure of mindset.
"What turn does it win" is a bit subjective too, since usually people dont jam wins without backup.
I don't remember where, but there's a web page that calculate your deck's power level. Just use that. It's unbiased and as arbitrary as any other system. Then your table will have a neutral way to balance the game. It's no different than points in Canadian Highlander or Warhammer. Just some dude's opinion. At least you have someone else to blame when one player stomps the table.
I did a similar thing to the passing the deck to the right idea with my playgroup. I did a 'Blind Commander' night, everyone was asked to bring a at least one new deck that no one had seen before. They were told to write a short blurb about what the deck did. Then we took all the decks and assigned them randomly to people. We also had a bit of a scoring system, winning with the deck gives the winner 1 point, and the deck builder 1 point, but also at the end of the game everyone voted for the deck they liked the best. At the end of the night we gave away some prizes to the one with the most points.
The editing of this episode is absolutely fantastic. This comedy feels quite different, but you had me in tears throughout the episode.
my jaw dropped at the Edit at 1:57 it is so creative, yet so simple, yet so amazing. I am amazed.
EDIT: i just started watching the video, and i have to pause it, as i am only listening to it during work in the background. I have to actively watch this editing masterpiece. Who is the editor?!?!?
I came here to compliment the editing, too! Hella great job, peeps!
I was unfortunately taking a big gulp of water and didn't realize how hilarious it would be
35:17 as a fellow merfolk player, I love seeing the professor spread the classic merfolk player tradition of hating elves.
Aren’t merfolk just sea-elves?
Elves with ready access to counterspell
@@Vance731sounds kinda racist
The most interesting games I played is where a player clearly was ahead of everyone else and played as optimally as possible. But the variance in who was ahead on board shifted so much after the biggest fish was knocked down a peg. It made it unpredictable how the game would play out. It's the best way to play IMO.
Variance and unpredictability are super fun!
Had a game where I had the win from nowhere on T4. No-one was wary of me. At the end of my third turn, I announced I was ready to win. I was stopped and lost the game. But it lasted longer and was more interesting for everyone, me included.
@@cyriltournier5784 Perfect example of what I mean. :-)
I agree with Prof. I never go easy in the game but I don't make every deck optimal. I cap the power of my decks.
The other idea is that the plays that are optimal for me aren't always clear to other people. Example:
I have left people alive in a game to try to make other players use THEIR resources to take out that player instead of me unless they have something that is hurting my play like a certain stax cards.
Another example: the players knew I had counter spells in hand. The current player is starting to play extra turn spells and looks at me to stop it. The player taking extra turns had no board or anything. They don't have any easy combo wins in the deck. I knew even if they took 3 turns they probably aren't gonna beat me so I let the turn spells resolve. The next player in rotation is the one who has pieces to win the game on his next turn. So I saved the counters for him.
Some might have seen that and thought "I went easy on extra spell guy" but in reality I was making sure I still had the best chance to win since I knew he wasn't a threat.
I've also left people alive cause I didn't have removal for the biggest threat player so I wanted more players to help me beat them so I can position myself better.
Commander is a complicated game, you don't gotta LET things happen, things will happen naturally with everyone doing their best
Thats how i win. Politic the enemy of my enemy. 😂
It was definitely popular in StarCraft to play 3v3/4v4 "no rush" games. This was my favorite thing to do as a kid, letting everyone get together a MASSIVE 200/200 force with rows and rows of towers and cannons defending. These fights were absolutely epic. Of course some people would break the rule and rush in, but most of the time it let everyone make a ton of their favorite unit and try to break/sneak through.
“No rush”. That brings up memories.
Our group did the same, the trick to winning was when everyone mustered into the middle of the map with their death balls, you make sure you sent your army in 2 to 3 seconds later than the other 7 guys 🤣
"THE SICILIAN DEFENSE?!" I literally burst out laughing
Origin of the stax deck name:
"The deck was named $T4KS, an acronym for "The Four Thousand Dollar Solution," and Stax its use of Smokestack to lock the opponent out of the game for good. The four thousand dollar part is due to the fact that before current proxy rules this deck cost nearly $4000.00 US due to the deck running eight of the "power nine" cards and a full set of Mishra's Workshops."
from a 2005 article
@@stigmurder99 well workshops are around $3,000 for a single one, so that should give you an idea
I got banned for playing an island at an LGS once. They were incredibly casual players. After talking about it, I understood where they were coming from. My playgroup was incredibly....umm...cutthroat. Everyone made the most powerful thing they could make. It got real tiresome after a while.
@@mattcarper9853 That sounds incredibly stupid and off topic.
@@ThatSkiFreak Ok. You are the expert.
@@mattcarper9853 I'm not an expert, but I don't think you need to be one to see the flaw in hating a basic land.
Anyway sorry, didn't mean to start an argument, I was mostly just annoyed with a number of notifications and confused how this one was even related to my original comment. I do not know why youtube doesn't let me mute replies from individual comments.
Have a nice day :)
I died after "I think I'm wounding that king on 2s?!"
destroyed me
A part of my gameplay philosphy is optimizing play around a single question: "what can I do to make the game more spicy?" Because it's not really about winning/losing a lot of times, but rather HOW I, or an opponent, win that really makes games fun and memorable.
Yeah, same. I have about 10 decks, all with radically different strategies. I alternate them when I'm playing with a friend for an evening, unless they ask me to repeat a deck because they want to try and beat it.
You don't have to tone stuff down and be a bad player, but you can make decks with less optimized strategies -- and if you're making new friends, you can use the underpowered deck first to gauge power levels in the group and then if you find you get creamed easily you may find it prudent to switch decks. But if you're still winning and it's just more challenging to do so anyway, arguably, closer games feel much more fun anyways. A loss is a loss, but I say if you're going to lose, do so spectacularly and memorably so it stays fun. And if you win, isn't it better if it feels like a close game than it is if you win by a mile rather than an inch?
Facts: It's not about if you win or lose but how you play the game. Cliché I know.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Commander is not a format in the way Standard or Legacy are formats. It's why the banlist is not 'complete', and why it is trivial to make a 'broken' deck. It's a guideline for you to design the kind of game you want to play, and the issue is we have pickup games where people have different expectations.
This is incredibly true. Its why I am completely opposed to talking in power level. Power level means nothing and many players are incapable of giving a honest assessment of their deck's "level". Rather, I prefer to talk in terms of how many turns on average does a player typically win with the deck in pickup games. If I go by that, I can tend to better assess what I bring to the table to match level.
I wouldn't call people expecting different things from the game an issue. Just like in real life, one can't innately enjoy every single second of life. There has to be some mundane stuff in there to contrast the really high points, or the high points won't be enjoyable anymore. On a more macro scale, being gracious in victory and accommodating once one has had their fun is the best way to achieve this.
For myself, I play all kinds of colour combinations, strategies, budget levels and power levels, and if I win a game and notice that my opponents didn't enjoy what I brought to the table, I switch to a different deck that I think might match their preferences in terms of game length and power level better. When I've had my fun, it's time to let others have a shot at it. Not like I'm throwing the games from thereon out, but I do what I can to accommodate my opponents once I've done my thing. And if I can't do so through deck selection, I serve their better interest by excusing myself from that pod and go find another, to start the process over again. In my experience, this is the best way to enjoy the game, for anyone.
No, the real issue here is antisocial tendencies and behaviour: Behaviour like playing the same deck over and over, completely ignoring that the entire pod is visibly cringing and audibly groaning at it; People who's goal it is to have fun, not with other people but at their expense, or at the very least not being bothered in the slightest if they suck all the fun out of the room; And conversely, in people who seek to control and restrict what other people can do, in order to serve their own interests. Asking someone to swap decks after they've had a decisive victory or produced a game state that you really didn't enjoy is alright, but demanding it isn't, and neither is attempts at emotional blackmail to get them to do what you want.
Vintage takes the concept of "broken" as the necessary forces of balance. In many ways, vintage is the best experience of Magic barring costs. The fact that Chalice of The Void is restricted in Vintage and legal in Legacy proves that point where the "broken" cards are necessary because the Chalice would make shops too good.
I've toyed with this idea too, but in regards to the comparison between casual and competitive EDH. cEDH IS a format. It has a meta. It has a much narrower list of "viable cards". cEDH is an entirely different beast from casual commander and it shows, but I never considered the idea of casual commander not being a true format. Thats a good way to phrase it though.
@@902496 To an extent, this is why I don't care for cEDH because it's adopting an attitude that isn't really native to the format, and to truly balance it to the same yardstick as other formats the banlist would have to be larger (as seen in other Commander-like formats such as Oathbreaker or Duel/French Commander).
Before I moved away from the area I had an amazing playgroup- most of the time it was casual commander with some really inventive deck ideas (that didn’t always work, but were fun). About once every 2-3 months when we got together it was “no holds barred” commander- just the most degenerate cards and combos we could come up with. Other people at our LGS would gather around and watch the salt fest unfold. Every once in a while
it’s a refreshing change of pace.
every card shop fnm I ever went to had at least that one player who ALWAYS plays with no holds barred. You just cant escape them no matter the continent or language XD
I firmly believe every player should have "that deck".
The answer to the question is the same as this question: "if the other players knew you didn't win when you could have, would they feel good about it?"
Fuck no. Save your pity for the weak. End the game.
@@thenewlollipopjam8248 yeah that's what I was saying. People don't feel good when you go easy on them.
Yeah like I just accept I've lost. No point in prolonging it. If I lose I lose. And also if let's say I win that game when I know another person didn't choose to win when they could've it just feels unearned and bad.
But them not knowing is part of the deal. If I caught someone going easy on me, I'd tell them that they don't have to. But I wouldn't be mad.
There's an interesting side element. I'm trying to win the game overall. Sure I could take out players B and C, But if that doesn't leave me in a position to handle player A, then what's the strategy of doing so?
Whoever edited this one did a great job. It was fun and engaging the whole way through, playing around with and emphasising Prof and Vince's discussion without taking over
@8:33 What the professor is describing here is known, in some other sports, as "Good Sportsmanship". That is always playing your best game to your best ability and not intentionally 'throwing' or making a poor strategic decision. It can be seen as being disrespectful of your opponents and the game itself.
I think a large part of having fun is when you talk at the table. The most fun I have is when talking with the people I'm playing against, not just playing spells and seeing what my deck is dealing me during a game. I really enjoy thinking outloud, evaluating threats, discussing what we, as a table, can do against those threats whilst everyone still aims to win. I don't play CEDH, but hearing that those sort of conversations happen at those tables makes me more interested in playing it!
"Commander works better when it's not the main format!" YES! Thank you for saying the quiet part out loud!!!!! Give me my pauper, my standard, and my limited.
I ALWAYS have a pre-game conversation with my opponent, whether it's Magic, Warhammer or any similar game. The idea is just to see what sort of game people are looking to have, what sort of skill level they're at, etc. Maybe it's the warhammer player in me, but I just see that conversation as fundamental to setting up a fun experience for everyone. Games are about having fun, and we have a responsibility to each other to help each other have fun.
wow, this is so rare in my experience with dnd, magic or any other tabletop games.
the nicest players are often those who have very little to nothing in the way of strong cards, but the ppl who have the best cards are always, always huge jerks who just need to win and rub it in everybodys face, and then make sure they talk themselves up.
whats even worse is those around them who dont do anything to discourage this behaviour, but laugh it away and let them get away with whatever, especially with newer players, which damages the reputation of the hobby at worst and definitely makes the community look unfriendly.
Well said.
Basic human decency.
Yes that is Tets 10th commandment.
There's something to be said about opening hand in relation to "power level." There is an, albeit small, percent chance that a deck will draw an ideal hand at the start. That doesn't mean that I misrepresented the power level, I just happened to have an ideal starting position.
Maybe this should be another point of discussion for deck powerlevel.
"With the most ideal starting hand, and having no interaction pointed at you, how quickly and *how* will your deck win?"
@@MomirsLabTech to be honest that's a terrible way of discussing a deck's strength. It can be trival to put 7 cards into your deck that, if in a starting hand, wins you the game on turn 1. If the rest of your deck is garbage, that theoretical combo doesn't mean anything except maybe in the rare blue moon when you happen to draw it.
To me, laying out how your deck wants to win and what turn on average it will be in a winning position is a much better and interesting conversation, as it quickly separates decks with aggressive tutoring and redundancy from those that durdle and are liable to not win if interacted with. You won't get a perfect, objective scale, but it will give your opponents an idea of how aggressively the odds could be in your favor, and whether or not using another deck is warranted
That's why I'm more concerned about the lines of play or most impactful effects you can muster. If you COULD combo off turn 4 I want to feel like I have a chance to answer that, even if the normal ttk is turn 12
It's interesting to reflect that the largest influence to Richard Garfield when he designed the 2 player duel of MTG was Cosmic Encounter, a 3-6 multiplayer experience with wildly asymmetric player powers and take-that cards that relies on coalitions to keep the powerful player in check. I would rec all commander players get in a game or 2 of Cosmic and experience the silly, lighthearted, chaotic atmosphere that was once recessive in the DNA of magic, only to flower full force with the commander format. One lesson that can be learned from it for the commander table is to not get too worked up about different "power levels" at the table, *embrace the inevitable asymmetry* of commander; there are many games to play where everyone starts in a balanced position. Commander is not one of them! Team up on players with stronger positions to check their strength, don't be like the young prof and nuke Josh Lee Kwai's enchantment for aesthetic enjoyment. Learn to ride the flow and balance of a chaotic, silly game.
This right here
@Trackrise You may be right. It seems to me a lot of people use commander as a medium to express creativity and try experiments in mechanics. They want the individual experience of EDH with the wild unexpected turns and bold multiplayer interactions of a CE game. I would recommend people read Richard Garfield's thoughts on CE!
Everyone begins a game of magic in perfect balance, than one person is chosen to start the game.
You can always play 1v1 commander.
I think a lot of the problem in EDH at the moment is a lot of people trying to use systems as a substitute for empathy. Ban lists and rule 0 discussions and power level and yadda yadda yadda, all of it as an attempt to codify and systematize human interaction, because people think it's easier than just... thinking about what other people are feeling. And I don't mean "let other players do whatever they want in game." That's just another thoughtless knee-jerk system. You don't solve this problem by just setting a new default thing in your head. You solve this problem by looking to have a good time, and looking to give other people a good time, and trying to get those two goals to mesh together. That's difficult to do with three strangers, for sure, but that's why Commander is a game mode best enjoyed with friends. But that doesn't mean try and remove that element from your experience with a list of decrees, that means actually try and *make some new friends when you sit down to play.*
I agree with you on this! The problem is that a lot of people just don’t care about other people having fun. Unless you find a good friendship group to play with that is.
An LGS is not this experience. At least not here in Spain. Or in London and Portugal according to my friends that live there. It’s super competitive without being cEDH. And this is the entry point for new players. You get new players showing up with an upgraded precon expecting a Game Knights experience and getting crushed.
And on that note TH-cam channels have a lot to answer for but not doing as they say. I mean when was the last time you saw a Game Knights or Goldfish etc game where someone won with a combo?! Why not? Because it doesn’t make for entertaining games to watch. And yet they talk about them all the time.
They just add to the confusion for new players trying to understand what the format is about. Is it about having fun with your friends or about winning quickly so we can “shuffle up and play again” to get as many games into a night as possible Take a clear stance!
Nobody who actually thought about how other players feel would play aggro or control... both are effectively an attempt to play solitaire in what should ostensibly be a game founded upon interacting with the other player.
@@richardpitt8177 this has been my experience as well. My lgs and some others I've been to really aren't casual at all. It's just whatever competitive thing they can do to win quickly and brag about their deck. Even when I was brand brand new, I had almost every game where someone is obviously playing a completely different level of edh and it was never fun. Even a friend of mine plays super high power things but argues semantics about it not "technically" being competitive. Like yeah, you're not going to s tournament but you win 80% of the time minimum. Who wants to play when they have no chance unless it's just dumb luck?
@@hnaoto2 This has been my experience too. All the LGSes around me have nothing but extremely hyper competitive players that want to lock everyone out of the game by turn 1 or 2 every single game. When I started playing with my first, random cards deck (whatever I'd opened from OGW and BFZ packs), 80% of the players in the event would bring tier 1 competitive vintage decks that won every game on turn 1 or 2. And they did it every single week. So I'd shuffle the deck, draw an opening hand, maybe play a land, wait for anywhere between 5 and 20 minutes for them to kill me and shuffle again, draw an opening hand, maybe play a land, wait for 5 to 20 minutes, and pick up the cards. Then I'd wait for 45 minutes until the next round started, and do it again. And again.
And commander was the same. I'd sit down at a table with my 10 dollar jank deck and others would bring the hyper competitive Urza Stax deck that drops their stax lock and Urza on turn 2, or TurboNaus turn 1. Or they'd play their 'low power deck' and open with Crypt, Vault, and a Llanowar Elves turn 1, Gaia's Cradle and Kodama turn 2, Kill with an infinite turn 3. And the solution wasn't "just go to a different table" because that was EVERY table. I even changed LGSes to the other one, which is 4x as far from my house, and it was the same thing. The solution was to stop playing Magic altogether.
Here's the thing. I don't WANT to play games that resolve on the first or second turn, regardless of if the game actually ends. A stax player that drops orbs and Urza has resolved the game. In most situations, they're gonna win the game from there. Eventually. The same thing happens when a Storm player takes a 20 minute turn. Or if someone drops Ad Nauseum on their first turn. And that's all I'd played, for ages.
The most frustrating games of magic for me are when 3 players collude before the game, but AFTER the decks are picked, to not let you win. So by turn 2 or 3 you are knocked out of the game and then they play 3 player commander basically.
This usually happens if I won the previous game, regardless if I pick my worst deck. The players just don't want it to be possible for you to win again.
@threedoubleyou dotcom That sounds like poor sportsmanship. They said outright that it was *after* the decks were picked, meaning the decision was almost certainly in response to the deck choice. That's pretty normal. If we're doing a 3 player game of commander, one with Krenko Mob Boss, one with Odric, Master Tactician, and you come with Sliver Queen, you are the archenemy. Sorry. That's just how it is.
that makes me think of a game I played where I was 5 hp and played pact weapon (While its attached to a creature you don't lose the game for having 0 life) and had only 1 creature in play and another player which didnt like the spell decided I was the biggest threat on the board and kept hassling the other players to target me although all other players had much higher life totals and more cards in play. Then the next day that player lectured me for playing to win in a 1v1, saying its not about winning its about having fun and letting other players enjoy the game. IN A 1V1
this is really degenerate behaviour, and cant really be addressed directly without incurring a lawsuit XD
it is also seldom without reason; so the question is, what did you do to make them oust you like this?
Are you sure?
If you are positive that you are not toxic or obnoxious, then you need to play with another group.
My favorite deck is angel tribal and I'm happy playing it whenever I can regardless if I win or not. Even if I lose I can live happily knowing that my deck affected the game in a fun way.
My philosophy is I don’t care if I lose ,if my deck did what it’s supposed to then I am happy
Im building angel tribal now! Any cards you recommend? Running giada
@@Bruhecc sanctuary warden is great since you can just remove the +1/+1 counters to draw. Battle qngels of Tyr are really strong since the copies that enter all get a few counters too. Herald of war is a must include in Giada. Angel of jubilation is a must as well to stop some stupid combos. It can literally shutdown some decks.
One thing I"ve noticed about myself, is if I have a "competitive outlet" so like playing pioneer, FAB, something, i generally have more relaxed commander experience because I've had a way to get those gotta win urges out in another way.
Personally, the best games are when you had fun regardless of whether you win or lose. There is always the post game discussion revealing next draw, the hand, what my winning play would have been, etc. So in all fairness if the loss was legit without cheatin then even better for a new game sooner.
My pod has had so many games that end because everyone's had enough fun and not because people don't have board wipes or removal. The issue is when one or more people don't buy into that :/
I'd say "stop going easy on each other" is misleading, as it implies that sparing another player is "going easy"; often killing a player isn't the right choice because it'll use resources / turn other players against you / reduce available blocks etc. and in those cases it's more beneficial to spare them (or better yet, make a deal!). Also, I'll generally spread damage around in early game instead of attempting to eliminate a player because it's more fun when everyone gets to do their thing. That said, there are, of course, plenty of situations where knocking someone out is the right play, and I won't hesitate to do so when that's my evaluation.
Was actually in a game recently where two turns in a row, I could have taken a player out, but it would leave me way too open to the other two. Definitely not always a benefit to KO someone.
Not all decks are built to win no matter the situation either. Anything that relies on combat damage without an arbitrarily large number of creatures or a few huge evasive creatures might not be able to wipe the table in all situations. So if everyone gets whittled down equally, it makes it easier to end it in one swing.
Even all-in Voltron strategies still need multiple turns to win as normally your one mega-buffed creature can only go after one opponent at a time without extra turns or combat phases.
I feel like these strategies shouldn't be looked down on either. Otherwise, you're looking at combo finishes only which can favor certain colors over others as well as end games out of nowhere.
He said that
@@batatac4mil86 I was definitely picking up the idea I posted from the video, but I also felt that they were arguing a fair bit and seemed passionate about it and so I chose to sum up my philosophy and was curious if others agreed (seems they do!)
I also spread damage around instead of rabid dogging on one player. In the early stages at least. But not because I wanna see everyone do their thing. That's their issue. I just spread the love so that people die at roughly the same time so nobody's left waiting for too long.
My self-reflection became me realizing it isn’t that I dislike infinite combos, it’s that them tutoring for the same combo because that’s what their 100-card deck is meant to means it’s a predictable experience with little interaction. I like how varied a game of Commander can be. Those that lay back with little to no interaction while they ready their combo each time goes against the fun of interacting with multiple decks of 100 cards when they finish it briefly the same way each time. Then the game does become just telling a story about targeting the one player before they do their thing.
I had a guy launch into a 3 minute diatribe at me last Friday, because I went through a Worldly and Enlightened Tutor on T5 and T7 respectively, without assembling an Infinite to win the game.
We were stuck with a 5-man pod including 2 rawest of raw new players on modified Precons their friends had upgraded for them.
(I’d gone and gotten an Esper Sentinel I could put 3 +1/+1s on trivially, followed by a Smothering Tithe. The idea being giving myself the resources to disincentivize the other 2 players from farming the rookies for attack-triggers and life in the case of the Orzhov Vamp Tribal.)
I won maybe 2 turns later than I otherwise would have, and really don’t understand why he was so mad.
(I wouldn’t have been playing my 8.5 Lathiel list if the rookies literally weren’t an after T1 had already begun last second addition.)
The skit was pretty great. And I like the idea that Vince just manifested those dice out of the aether at the end.
Love the video! Since we're on the ever-elusive topic of power level, I'd like to share a pregame question I've had a lot of success with:
"What are your deckbuilding restrictions?"
I find that most players are *excited* to answer this, since it lets them share of their creative card inclusions (and omissions) as well as talk about any overall theme of their deck! It gives players a *granular* way to talk about power level which actually clues one another in about potential gameplay sequences.
If they can't think of any restrictions to tell you (or won't, but I haven't seen this yet) then you can assume it's the top end of what their Commander can do.
Hope this helps someone out there get some great games in.
I got into EDH right before it became officially Commander. Between graduating college, getting married, moving, etc. I sold all my cards and got into the board game hobby. I'm just getting back into EDH now. It is really interesting to me to see how EDH started and where Commander is today. I look forward to getting back into the format but I most definitely am going to be making proxy decks and figuring out a play set of 4-8 decks that seem balanced together, almost like a "board game" of EDH for many of the reasons listed in this episode.
I hope the pod we are currently getting together can find a balance. I believe much of the board game hobby will be able to benefit this issue EDH/Commander is facing today.
Really is a shame to think so much money goes into this fun format and it's wildly unbalanced/crazy/etc. That's what we loved about it back in the day. We didn't take it too seriously. We did goofy things. We had insane combos. The fun was dealing with that stuff and seeing who was going to win. The fun was tinkering with your decks to make it better when they were played in your play group. Not spiteful or anti fun. But balance each other out. I'm thinking of aura shards warping EDH and needing a lot more spot removal for enchantments because that card would literally win the game. Or finding value in playing counter spells to stop combos/win conditions (as opposed to countering a mana rock to stall out a person's deck and make it unfun). etc.
Thanks for the amazing content, as always. Looking forward to digesting as much of this as I can to get up to speed in the format.
I'm in the exact same boat as you (played a decade+ ago, but am getting back into it now).
I also love the board game and multiplayer aspect, so I have a recommendation for you!
"Planechase" is the most random and board game like way to play Magic. They pre-designed 8 decks for it.
If you build and keep those decks together, then you can randomly assign them to people. And everyone will be at the same power level. The Planechase cards also make it random enough that the newest player can beat the most experienced and competitive one.
If you follow my advice, I also advise skipping the Mono-B Zombie deck, and just making the other 7. My friends all agreed to ban it, because for some reason it's power level is far above the others. But the other 7 decks are very balanced and awesome to run against each other.
@@dejinn7765 My goodness. Planechase. That's a throw back. I completely forgot about that. Such a great idea! Thanks for the rec!
I think the difficult part to nail down is the fact that there are diverse ways that people have fun playing magic. It's one of the things that makes the game so unique in my opinion. Maybe the conversation with strangers should be about how they have fun, and I think there are enough ways to design or select decks that allow for that without necessarily "going easy" on opponents. I know someone in my playgroup loves to build up a board and win through combat damage, but he also knows that triumph of the hordes isnt satisfying for anyone. He can still do what brings him joy in magic, but he's considerate enough to make that kind of accommodation, and it feels like a small price to pay. Another member in the same group gravitates towards group slug, but instead of denying his way of enjoying magic, he decided to take out literally just 2 or 3 of the most brutal cards, and everything is fine! I think the reason people may feel like the format is souring is because at some point everyone encounters someone who really doesn't care about their opponent having fun, especially if their opponent's fun means that they can't play their favorite archetype. Then it feels logical to just prioritize your own fun over someone else's, but I don't think it needs to be that distinct of a line between my fun and your fun. I hope players can be more flexible and figure out a way to compromise with deck-building in particular. The problem is, I think a lot of peoples' idea of fun is simply winning, and THAT above all else is what makes magic feel like a zero-sum game.
The editing on these last several Dies to Removals have been as good if not better than the actual discussion, great job to everyone
"Wouldn't say boo to a goose" is a pretty popular saying over here in the UK to describe someone of a quiet/timid/shy demeanour.
It sounds like some commander players need a similar cooperative format. Personally I have a horde deck built for this reason. This lets my kids and I jam our commander decks against the horde as a team.
I've never been to a shop here we actually have a rule zero talk. Everyone tends to just play what they want. Sometimes after a player crushes a pod, the rest of us in the pod will just ask them to play again and grab a different deck closer to the one that just stomped us
Oh my gosh, that freaking opening skit gave me such a good laugh. The fact the narrator for some reason felt the need to elaborate on the recommended age of play for magic is the exact amount of ridiculousness I live for.
Never thought I would hear the Professor say what we have been saying for some time: "cEDH is the inevitable future of commander" 🥳
Your analogy on Civ VS Starcraft is incredible too! 👌
Man, does no one else remember no rush 10/15/20 minute games on battle.net? Casuals are always going to casual. There is no future where every casual suddenly becomes a tryhard.
CEDH and Casual are like two side to the same coin. A quarter is a quarter: it feels like the difference is CEDH is about winning as fast as possible while casual is more about the interactions. Which is why we have the issue of what you can and can't do. CEDH IS LITERALLY TREATED LIKE ANYTHING GOES.
@@tevinrj It's not about winning fast, but about winning *more*. Winning fast just reduces variance and since there is less time for your opponents to draw cards.
In cEDH, it's common to wait 2-3 turns to jam your win with double protection or to try to win at instant speed over top of someone else.
My suggestion is to have a small variety of decks (if you can afford it).
My deckbox can hold 5 decks, so I have 2 cEDH decks, 2 regular decks and 1 slightly upgraded pre-con deck.
This allows me to dial in my power level to other players at the table.
Yes good call. I kinda assumed everyone did that. I have about 10 decks, ranging from "nobody likes it when I use this deck" to "oops, I tried to make this bad, but it's TOO bad."
The funniest was a blue creature deck I made and it was so bad that I COULDN'T beat my girlfriend who had just started playing, even when I tried really hard. Oops. That deck has been sacked and I will try upping the power level just slightly!
Facts i got 13 decks i bring anywhere.
agree! I played with this guy that only brought one cEDH deck to a "CASUAL COMMANDER night" at a game club. It was my 3rd time playing commander with a precon and yeah wasn't fun
if only you can afford it:(
I've got only one deck and 3 budget decks in various stages of completion, one day I'll finally have a second deck
Only 6 mins in and I've already jumped back like 5 times, editing and jokes are on point this episode
Edit: I'm a Scot and would never say; "He wouldn't be caught saying boo to a goose", that's some peak twee Englishness.
My Scottish wife (Clackmannanshire) says otherwise! Perhaps a regional thing?
When you mentioned putting powerful cards (mana crypt) in low powered decks to help them... Yes! I have built some mediocre decks that wouldn't be playable without beefing up with some tutors, fast mana, etc. It's great to make a bad idea work. And my groups love it.
I have a griffin tribal deck (mono white) with several 'very" strong enchantments and rocks, it still looses almost 100% of the time because...it's a griffin tribal deck. But it gets a positive reaction every time I pull it out because who would actually play these cards.
On the idea that "Maybe this isn't for you." I agree to a point. I've learned that fighting games aren't for me. I've learned that Standard, Modern, Legacy, and other competitive Magic formats are not for me. Commander is SUPPOSED to be a casual format. It is for me. I'm not saying don't try to win the game. But I am saying stop trying so hard. If you want to combo off turn 2 or 3, that's fine. But let me know that's the game you want to play and I will opt out of the game. If you want to play hard stax, that's fine. But let me know and I will opt out of the game. The pregame talk is an important part of Commander.
I think we should pivot from a 10-scale and just straight up start talking about deck wincon/composition to get an idea of what we wanna play. I agree with asking about combos early.
I like Pauper, it's budget friendly and gives everyone a fair chance. I got my first Elspeth from a booster that I won at a small Pauper tournament!
41:00 This is exactly what has happened to EDH; as modern and standard play decreased, players from those formats entered EDH and brought their desire for fast, competitive games with them. It would not be quite as frustrating to the older EDH players if we hadn't gone to EDH to get away from that experience in the first place.
*SO. MUCH. YES.*
I have the mindset of matching power levels the best you can, so that the most impoverished player feels on even ground. but play the game like you're in it to win it.
My group does the same. If someone wants to play their newly upgraded precon or newly created deck, we’ll try meeting power level or at least hold backs a smidge for them to start seeing what their deck does.
The stigmas come from the fact that losing feels bad, even in a 'casual' format. Most players have difficulty finding fun in any game they don't win. In commander, that means most of the time you lose, on average. Even if you can understand that intellectually, it's much harder to internalize.
Honestly for newbies maybe, but I would disagree. I actually only enjoy winning if it was really close and anyone could've gotten it. My fun is taken out of a game if anyone is dumpstered by a deck or card that isn't fitting with what we sat down for. Exsanguinate for 32 in a 3 power deck, type deal
I’ve always thought the conversation should be “how many turns to ideally win?” I’ve always liked to build decks that allow a game to go long just so hopefully everyone gets a chance to play out a bit of their decks strategy.
Turns to win is a much more direct metric than some abstract subjective number grade
Also, wouldn’t say boo to a goose is totally a British saying, I can see than applying to the Prof pretty well x
My issue with that is that many decks don't have a good measurement on turns to win. For instance, I have an animar Elemental tribal deck that might win turn 4 or win turn 20, just depends on the hand I get and the cards I draw. I'm not a fan of tutors because I like the variance but as a result I can't tell you the number of turns my deck is expected to win.
Turns to win is way worse
Tell me does my 26,000 usd cedh derevi stax deck that wins between Turns 10-13 on par with your battlecruiser deck?
@@V2ULTRAKill if you're running a cedh derevi stax deck and you do a test goldfish and you see that by turn, let's say 3 or 4 or whatever, can effectively lock everyone else out from playing, then that's the real indicator of the power level. You have to think about it in the context of what the deck does
@@marimi46 yes but thats why its flawed
It leads to pubstompers saying "well my midrange/stax deck doesnt WIN until x turn so it must be okay!"
Yeah I get that but a aggro deck that gets stopped and rebuild of a control deck that wants a long game like for example azami can give a wrong impression by that defenition. But its a starting point.
I feel like saying "This should be an open and diverse format with no rules and a very limited ban list, just don't grief each other" is exactly where Commander was pre-2013 before the first Commander products, and since then we've basically had a continually expanding conversation about what qualifies as griefing, and how to maintain deck diversity in the format. I don't think we can solve anything by saying "Let's stop being so picky, it's ok to lose as long as you aren't being griefed" because we will just end up all having a different definition of griefing and restarting the cycle (We go from "land destruction is unfun" to "fast mana is an unfair pay-to-win advantage" to "combos end the game too quickly" to "I just don't like that card"). There's also the issue of arguing against a ban list, but then bemoaning the homogenized format that results from everyone identifying the best cards that you would just be incorrect to leave out of your deck, and putting them in every deck (which leads as well to naturally promoting those commanders that interact best with those all-star staple cards that you have to run anyway, which then creates repetitive gaming experiences against the same few commanders all the time). My experience with Commander is that it is really only fun in regular play groups that can find a consistent power level they like to play at, and using deck construction rules or expansive ban lists to maintain it if they have to. This is not practical if your intention is to go to your LGS and get some pickup games, but it does promote fun multiplayer Magic experiences within a play group, I find. I just don't think Commander can stand on its own as a universal casual format (CEDH being a different format with different expectations).
Lot to read but I think I agree. Commander really works at its best in well established pods where expectations and goals are shared. You're gonna find such an unbalanced experience in random pickup games at the lgs. You have spoken or unspoken rules in a regular group that the banlist or wider edh chatter doesn't cover, which looks different for everyone. You can't expect everyone to have the same philosophy as you but be grateful if some do
Always make a deal with your opponents then betray them a turn later. - Jin-Gitaxias
So I'll say a reason I'll play sub optimality on purpose is if I'm playing with a friend who put something fun in their deck and finally got a chance to use it, I usually leave whatever it is out for a round. It's always a great feeling when an upgrade hits the table and that's immediately crushed when it's removed right away
When I played Warhammer, we had a rule that you could not target someone’s cool new model in the first game they played with it.
I disagree that commander isn't cooperative. It definitely is in the way that drafting is. You stay in your lane and do what's best to progress the game UNTIL you don't need the other players anymore and can eliminate them. When someone doesn't do that and actively makes bad decisions to grief people/cause chaos/etc. at the cost of progressing the game, that leads to an unfun experience.
Lol are u delusional? Mtg is a zero sum competitive game, commander is no different.
@@sdewfergtysadferfgyhu2449 I mean, I think your wrong... But agree to disagree.
lol u cannot even provide a reason to backup that opinion idiot
@@sdewfergtysadferfgyhu2449 By definition, you're wrong. You literally just used the term "zero sum game" to sound smart, when you don't even know what it actually means. It's legitimately just not true at all, here.
For some people, turning a FOUR PLAYER FREE-FOR-ALL GAME WHERE ONE PLAYER WINS into a cooperative experience is...really boring.
Commander is the "casual friendly" format because its designed around multiplayer. Casual "friendly" is a good thing, but it does not at all mean its a "casual" format.
I am all for making the game whatever you want it to...with a group of friends doing the same. I really enjoy playing group hug when my friends are going for a silly game. Praise thy Jellyfish, Glunch!
But the norm when playing against strangers should always be by the book, the rules as they are. Expecting others to WANT to play the way you desire, CONCEPTUALIZE playing how you desire, have the necessary DECK to fit into the kind of game you're looking for...its absurd.
And to have semi-"fair" games, you can almost always find somebody experienced to glance over the decks people are playing and help determine if its a reasonable pod. I sort of became the "arbiter of power levels" along with a couple of people who worked at a store to help people find the ideal pods for their power level or determine if they should swap decks based on the table.
"We're playing cEDH? Are you guys familiar with that?" with a response of "oh ya we have very competitive decks" is hands down the most common misconception I've experienced with strangers. I've played with the two players hosting the game plenty of times, one ran Najeela Tempo and the other Tymna / Jeska "Mad Farm", but powerful decks close to the top of cEDH. The two new players had a Teysa Karlov Aristocrats deck and an Atraxa Superfriends deck with a ton of slow mana. I let them know that those weren't really cEDH lists, but out of curiosity they sat down and still played. They got stomped to no surprise, but after that, people brought out other decks more on that level, and they played 4-5 games and had a ton of fun.
Communicate. Educate yourself a bit on cEDH even if you don't play it, and you'll have a far better understanding as well as the ability to set up "fair" matchups for yourself and others.
Oh and STAHPPP with the power level thing. This rule is FAR from perfect, but I've generally found that asking:
Does your deck CONSISTENTLY threaten a win, have the ability to prevent a win or setup a powerful value engine from turns 2-4? CEDH. Turns 5-7? "High Power". Turns 8+? Causal or "Battlecruiser". Can't answer the question? Its probably "jank" or a "meme" deck.
The most unmanageable situation in commander is when someone brings one of those fast combo decks that can go off at any point after turn 2 or 3 but complain when they get focused down from the get go like they should.
the reason that happens, is because in a cEDH pod, if everyone ganged up on one guy that would be unfair as hell and someone else would win nearly immediately as all resources were used against 1 guy, so the cEDH player feels like its an unfair experience. but sometimes it can be fun to be archenemy!
@@hairyhulkvideos It's less of a problem in CEDH because the expectation there is that you have to stop the guy who's about to win otherwise everyone else loses. It's competitive, so every player is expected to look out for themselves and make plays that help them win the game. You shouldn't try to combo off if you think you can't get through your opponents' interaction. The corollary is you want to not present a threat for as long as possible until you can win since that keeps your opponent's shields down/gives you the opportunity to be the second player who tries to win after everyone else has used their interaction on the first guy.
In casual however the guy playing fast combo can be much more explosive than the rest of the table and thus he has to be archenemy since otherwise the fast combo guy would just win every game. It seems unfair but that's the only way to get games that are interesting for all players rather than just "fast combo win haha ggez" over and over.
@@Starkipraggy i think you replied to the wrong guy
14:00 - We see this in healthcare all the time. Things like the pain scale has actual examples attached for how you should feel. 10 is "Unspeakable pain. Bedridden and possibly delirious. Very few people will ever experience this level of pain." And we routinely had patients walk into the clinic demanding all forms of service claiming their pain is at a 10 all day. You'll never escape be able to escape that.
That's why I've seen many pregame discussions turn away from an out-of-10 scale and onto deck composition, e.g. "Do you have fast mana", "Do you have combos in the deck, and if so how many cards do you need to win with the combo(s)","Do you have cards that you drop and win on the same turn because of it", "Do you have stax pieces in the deck", etc.
@@Oopsall But they make a good point that even these factors can be subjective. Every deck is gonna want to ramp, you have 4 opponents. All your decks are gonna want tight synergy and combos. I've seen episodes of IHYD where someone says "Yeah I got a combo, but it's unlikely during their pre-game" only to combo off in a crazy way.
I agree it's good to have some understanding of what people are trying to do, though.
@@Oopsall watch you get that one person when they hear combo they think combination of cards as they don't know the slang and think what other people see as synergy is combos as logically it is a combination of cards in the purest sense of the word combo so you have to sit there and explain to them the slang for magic as they look at you like you are a fucking idiot. Like there are people that think that logically and not going to understand your slang unless you specifically say infinite combo(s) as every other card interaction is literally a combo in the purest of sense
Though honestly i think it should be as simple as "What turn do you expect the game to be over with?"
@@devinkerr5474 that's fair. I think we need an updated vocabulary for defining what is those specific types of cards, like obviously a fire diamond is ramp but it isn't fast mana, combos are something that are infinitely repetitive that get you to a point where you're guaranteed or nearly guaranteed to win the game, crater hoof is an obvious example of "cards you win with if you drop it" assuming your deck is built properly, etc.
@@JohnnyYeTaecanUktena and that's fair but for a new person that just means we can politely correct them. Synergy!=combo, though I can see where people mix that up. As for the turns discussion - I don't think that works either because the only way to "guarantee" your deck wins around that turn range is to be heavy tutoring and have a win condition that involves a specific set of combos. I like building low power themes as good as I can, but a lot of time that means that I'm making decks that can win turn 5 or struggle until turn 10, so with most of my decks I can tell you when I could reliably win because it all depends on so many factors.
I pulled a punch once . A buddy of mine was playing Dimir horrors, summoned a Brainstealer Dragon; it was the first time he was popping off, so I let it stick around. Big mistake; the very next turn the other 4 players immediately cloned it. I had to spend like 5x the mana to board-wipe, instead of having spent the mana to clear the original dragon.
The problem with 2 card combos is it effectively makes everything that happened in that game pointless. I know some people probably assume this is true of any win condition but its different with 2 card infinites.
With infinites, you sit down to play a game, it's turn 7, everyone just got their engines online, people are interacting and removing stuff etc. and then one guy just says "Oh I play these 2 cards and they go infinite, any response?" and if no one has a response then the game just ends. It's super anti climactic and makes you feel like setting up your field and value engines was all for nothing because this guy drew into an infinite.
I know the arguments are always "play more removal/interaction" or "how is that different than winning with an overrun effect" and the thing is that sometimes you dont draw the removal, or sometimes you used it earlier.
I think the reason it feels so bad in commander is because everyone is always talking about EDH being more casual or longer games but 2 card infinites generally go against that concept. Honestly, I wouldnt mind them at all if everyone played cutthroat (which I prefer) but then that's basically cEDH, just feels like there are too many ideas of how a commander game should play out and not everyone agrees which creates these feel bads.
It's hard to convey the feeling but I guess I'm saying, people want to play the game and play out what their decks do and infinites typically are independent of the game state and create a binary game state, you either have the answer or not.
100% agreed. And well put.
"Drew into an infinite" any well built deck running a 1 or 2 card combo builds the entire deck around getting to that combo
Cards like ad naus, pita, wheels, necropotence, tutors
Nobody just top decks an infinite unless its turn 0
My issue with proxies is that people often use them to increase power level. If I'm running a deck without proxies, that means I'm not running mana crypts or original duals. Proxies can be something of an arms race at times.
"I have a copy already, and I don't want to have to swap it between all my decks."
-my friend trying to justify putting a rhystic study proxy in every blue deck they make.
@Firestorming Fox hahaha. I would totally accept that, it's fair. But imagine being the kind of player that needs rhystic in every blue deck?
I was playing commander the other day with a friend who is new to commander. He resolved a Ruinous Ultimatum and won the game. He was incredibly apologetic about it, which I realize he expected me to be angry that I lost in such a way. I felt like this was a great time to show a new player that I wasn’t going to be salty. I didn’t have an answer and that’s okay. He did what he wanted to and won in an awesome fashion. I don’t have to win to have fun and in commander sometimes I lose in horrible ways like that and that’s just how it goes.
Totally this! I'm teaching my son and some friends and I congratulate them and comment on how great the game was! I don't care who wins if we all had fun.
for the first time, i completely agree with PleasantKenobi, stax is the most misunderstood word in magic! It’s used to describe both lock cards like static orb and taxing cards like Thalia. That’s where the misunderstanding comes in.
Lock cards are a strategy people don’t like (e.g. karn+lattice) but they are a valid strategy. I think it’s fine that people don’t like it, akin to land destruction.
Taxing cards are basically just tools you use to make everyone play fair magic. Instead of a player storming off on turn 4 when your deck needs to get to turn 6 to do the thing it wants to achieve, you are putting up a distraction that the storm player needs to defeat before they do their thing, which would hopefully buy you the time you need to do your thing on turn 6!
Well said! I always say this around my playgroup, and they are like, "whatever, it's not a big deal what it's called." But it does matter! Especially when people get such a visceral reaction to certain words.
No competitive player on the planet would confuse a "Death and Taxes" deck for Small Pox, Braids, or Smokestack deck. They are completely different goals. In reality a true "stax" deck is far more akin to a combo deck than a tree taxes deck.
While Yes, Ressource limiting pieces Stop the Storm Player, or generalized, the strongest Deck at the table, it is a Major feelbad for the Decks that didnt have a perfectly good starting Hand. It leads to the feeling of "Not being able to Play Magic" with Just enough Hope to continue.
While a Lock does essentially the same thing, it most often ends the Game that turn. The Player playing Karn+Lattice doesn't make it their "Game Plan", it is their win condition. I would rather agree to scoop due to being denied all Ressources at once, rather than being limited throughout the game. This is Stax for me.
There is no/little room for Interaction left once both resolve, so you Just loose.
I Just wanted to elaborate that Karn+Lattice and other locks do not nearly get as much hate as Stax, because they end the Game. As Prof Said: "Shuffle Up and Play!"
The only time I turn my attention away from players is when they get mana screwed for a couple turns, it happens to the best of us.
@@EbonAvatar I like that idea
They can win with 2u and 1b. No mercy to thoraclers. -this has been a PSA by the sorcery speed interaction gang.
At least you don't save your counters to use against them when they eventually draw ramp spells. I know a guy like this, not a lot of people like playing him if he's using blue.
It's not always optimal to hit them anyway, if I can attack them and only attack them. I tend to toss stuff at em
@@EbonAvatar great idea in social pods
Tbh in the power level im at if ya brick you concede, unless someone is playing stax you already lost
Also, the reason that EDH has devolved in combo wins is because everyone has 40 life. Multiplayer in 60 card days was already a disadvantage for combat kills with 20 life each. 40 life is just too much extra padding and lets even not great combo decks played by not great players win a lot more than tuned aggro decks played by good players.
I've felt the format should be 30 starting life for some time now. It's just too easy to combo in a format that can be singleton vintage/legacy if someone wants it to be. And the problem with the well established pool of 2-3 card combos means it's really pretty easy to end games before turn 5 *regularly* if that's what you want to do and you wouldn't even be in the casual mtg equivalent of playing sandlot baseball with death beams and mechs and calling yourself profession players that is 'cEDH' territory yet. And when it happens it doesn't generally feel earned or clever or interesting. It's more often than not an anticlimactic like "oh yeah, that one, again. You were able to wait until we interacted with each other an them play your commander+card combo through no interaction. Exhilarating." Give me the engine decks snowball or 4-5 card combos that require protection; I don't mind losing to that because it feels like there's some piloting necessary and it feels earned and it's hard for a 4-5 combo to be a overused trope of the format.
That its turns EDH into a boring, repetitive and unimaginative pile of a few win conditions you see come up in the same colors of any deck where the person what's to just slot in the same efficient win con in the given colors. Which, like, feels bad man, and feels like people missing the point of casual play. Missed the point of experience theme and flavor and *variance*. When I wanted to have serious contests of playskill in a competitive format with established metas and decks that show up consistently I would play Legacy/Modern/Pauper. I play casual, EDH and 60 card before it, to explore interesting ideas in a sandbox.
This is how I feel a lot as well. Commander used to be the format where people could be creative and the most optimal lines weren't necessary. I blame Wizards for a lot of it. The focus on printing things for commander has shifted it.
Edh card pool and rules favor combos but it's still The Format for battle cruiser magic, building to themes and jank. It's surrounding philosophy supports casual play and people make it what they want.
I think it's the players who have shifted to more competetive mindsets, or attracted more of such minds, especially since there's been very little competetive magic available for some time now.
I go easy on my opponents because to go 'all out' would be a shield's down moment allowing the next player to eliminate me. Our Meta involves a lot of shuffling of 'Archenemy' positions and very little politics and alliances. The winner is the person who can gain the lead and protect it. Not the person who is able to eliminate one or two players.
In other words, why kill another player if they can be somehow useful in eliminating threat #2 on the board.
The best scale for "do I want to play against this deck with my casual list?" seems to be the "salt" score by EDHRec :D
I personally think mass land destruction is fine, we are living in a time where mass artifact destruction is okay but to some decks like white/red is how they ramp, blowing all artifacts is blowing their lands effectively, i deserve the right to blow up their mana too, specially if they are green
Hear hear. Normalize MLD!
I agree to the point that of you do it win the game. I don't want to play 6 or 8 more turns where I'm just waiting for another player to "get around" to winning. I have no issues with MLD and other cards that "stop" you playing if the person playing can win. Use it as part of your strategy.
@@jcoe371 I don't think that's fair to ask, you can boardwipe all day the green player but he can keep building back up since he will have 15+ mana vs your 6-8 if you on non green colors, land wipe is an effective way to neutralize the threat. Additionally imagine you are playing mono white by turn 4 realistically you could have 4 lands and let's say 1-2 rocks meanwhile green could be 6-8 how is that fair? Your rocks can be touched and greens lands can't be? Doesn't seem fair if by turn 4 I see green ramp past everyone on the table I will Armageddon you
If the green deck is getting oppressive then it can be a nice meta shaker in a known playgroup. I like Fall of the Thran since it restores some lands if you didn't manage to win after. I still wouldn't bring mld since the games tend to become miserable to at least one player and my play group likes playing magic vs not playing it
@@selkokieli843 oh no for sure, fall of thran is what I run, but also cataclysm (that way it doesn't sit in your hand doing nothing).
I tend to agree with the “don’t hold back” idea, but I also get tired of seeing the same cliché combos win games when the combo cards have nothing to do with the Commander’s text or the overall deck strategy/theme they just get dropped into anything that happens have those colors.
Then you have a couple of options.
Only play with who will play how you want them to.
Play a different format where there is a wider variety of strategies
Maybe mtg isnt right for you as a game
Don't hold back, but also generally make decks that are fun to use AND play against. Don't throw the game on purpose, but also don't run turn 2 wins or 45 counterspells in your deck.
@@josephalfano1065 Or OR, now hear me out, I can play STAX decks every game so no one else can play at all and you win every, or nearly every, game.
Then those people can choose a different format or consider whether magic is the right game for them,
@@oriondye3212 Or they can play decks that are more resilient and can play through Stax
@@Fly-the-Light yep, then the meta will revolve Around stax decks. Commander games will take 2-5 hours per game every time and everyone will have SO-MUCH-FUN!
I would eliminate crim unless it would make me vulnerable to a hit back. I dont think you can say Vince made a mistake if he was trying to stay on defense. Which apparently was a correct accessement since he did die to combat damage in the same turn order
I think the biggest commander problem is honestly deck construction. And what I mean by that is that a lot of people find a commander they want to use, and then go on the internet to find all the cards everyone else uses for it, find the infinite combos that work the best, and that's what they run. A lot of people don't build decks anymore. My main commander is Atraxa, Grand Unifyer, but I didn't go online looking up some deck list for it. I saw what the creature did, knew what I wanted the rest of the deck to do, and put it together. In my friend group, we don't play with banned lists. We don't worry about what cards have been rotated out or anything like that. We find the best cards of what we have in front of us, and without the help of the internet, we build decks. It's truly what the game was meant to be, both commander and other 60 card formats.
I remember once I was playing a Karrthus deck against a grand arbiter Augustin IV deck, and my opponent was a little strapped for mana in the early game (no ramp or rocks, and his 3rd land drop was lotus vale); on my turn I showed my buddy I had an acidic slime and the only reason i wasn't going to blow up his only land was because i didn't want to be a jerk; he ended up coming back and winning that game and talked smack about it for weeks. since that day i have sworn to never take it easy on an opponent in game (i make exceptions for my friends who are just learning to play and don't have decks of their own so I can get them hooked on cardboard crack)
Yeah, I think that’s the right balance. Be nice and go easy on your friends that are new to the game, because you want them to like the game. At an LGS with strangers, play optimally and don’t pull punches. I might consider an exception if the person clearly comes up with a precon and says they’re playing for the first time, but otherwise play to win.
He plays augustin, his whole plan is locking you out. Should have sniped his land
@@sharktrap267 he actually wasn't playing a stax deck; he was playing big cmc stuff in azorius, and he had the arbiter in there for the mana reduction, but yeah definitely should've been merciless and shuffled up for a new game
I think a good discussion to have prior to playing with people you have not played with yet should look something like this:
"What type of deck are you wanting to play with? Is it a Precon, an upgraded Precon, a homebrew, etc" and if it's something more than a precon, ask "What turn can you expect to be in position to knock a player out?" - Asking those two questions will take care of 90% of the pre-game deck talk and let everyone know what type of game they are walking into. If you're a player that has a very good deck and expects to win by turn 4/5, but everyone else has precons or slightly upgraded ones, then maybe choose something a little different to ensure everyone can have a good time. You do not have to go easy on them within the game because your deck choice has already done that for you. However, if they are okay with you playing whatever you want, then do that.
The point is, people often do not communicate prior to playing and I think that causes the most salt than anything.
Some of my favorite commander games were unspoken Archenemy games. I started to deck build around the idea of "I want to be the scariest thing in the board" and it really gave my playgroup a clear goal to play to which I feel most commander games lack beyond "let everyone do everything". Sometimes I would win, but most times I'd fall and people looked at their boards and were happy that they got to do something. Then they duke it out 3 players and the chaos was what I enjoyed.
I almost exclusively would play 3 player matches. And I generally only had 2 types of decks... 1, fun and unusual decks that aren't likely to win, but do create interesting board states, or 2, decks that try to win a 2v1 through overwhelming force. That's what was fun for me. I usually lost, and when I had a deck that was too successful, I would dismantle it because that's just not fun for anybody. Nobody likes to get dominated by the same thing over and over. So, my friends would never know whether I was shuffling up something like a R/W burn/prevent deck that runs all 5 Circle of Protection enchantments, or a 5 color aristocrats deck. But they would know that I was trying to have fun, and would make sure to change things next time around if they *weren't* having fun against it.
I try to do scary, wild things that are out there without wildly strong combos popping off or otherwise just being chaotic without expectation of winning.
However this turned out to bother some pod members so much they didn't want me playing at all. They didn't like that the unpredictable builds made them feel like they had to build to counter everything, even though the decks in question won 1/20. So now if I want to play around here I have to use decks that have more refinement and mass synergy, but instead of getting a wild game, I win more often and just see these looks of defeat that sap the fun from the game for me.
I don't need to or want to win to have fun. I won't throw a game though and disrespect them like that... but it clearly bothers them more that I'm winning more instead of being a chaotic field effect that they team up against and beat me more?
I've definitely noticed my enjoyment of commander games has gone up when I've focused more on seeing what'll happen and working with other players. It's kind of strange. The same people who complain about others playing too much like Spikes seem to focus too much on killing their opponents or building up towards killing their opponents and don't make use of them as a resources. Someone attacks you turn two because they have a one drop and you haven't played anything yet? Instead of immediately complaining and targeting them, instead, offer them a deal or just take the 1 or 2 damage. You could offer them something in return for not targeting you, helping you beat the other players. Alternatively, just taking the damage without retaliating will cause them to not be retaliating back. Your own cards aren't the only things you can use at the table. Something as simple as pointing out a card in someone's graveyard can be a game winning play. If you can get your opponent's to play their spells and attack with their creatures to remove threats to yourself, you'll pull way ahead. The best part about this: you could have an awful game where you mulliganed down to a small hand and can't find any lands and still be able to do this. Just talk to the people you're playing with and engage with the game in more ways than just playing your cards.
Something which can help is to think back on games you've lost but liked the outcome of. How did they go? Seek to replicate that and build up towards that. If you can't think of anything like that, instead of playing to win, play to discover what this scenario is. Just taking a moment to reflect on something you're doing while you're doing it really helps with improving your enjoyment and discovering what you want or don't want from it.
Another tip, there are usually about 4 players in a commander game. If your playgroups are going to be fair, you'll be winning 25% of the time. If you don't like that then you'll need to adjust why you play the format.
On a different note, I really don't agree with that point about Gaia's Cradle. "Dies to removal" isn't a good argument for why a powerful card is okay, especially when it's in the land slot, a place where removal isn't as welcome/accessible. Ghost Quarter and Field of the Dead are pretty cheap but you can't expect those cards to always show up. Not every player has a removal spell in reserve for all these really powerful cards. Sometimes they don't draw them and other times they've already used them up on more reasonable threats. Just because there are situations where removal stops a card from going off, doesn't make all the situations where the card does go off when there isn't removal okay.
Too much to read it all at 2am but I like a lot of your points. Removal and counterplay CAN be a solution but if games will be horribly skewed in one person's favour if nobody has it, that's important to consider. One person in my group plays magister sphinx and other cards that can functionally one-shot players. If we upgrade to have the right answers constantly, we're power creeping away from what we like or sit here having unbalanced or unsatisfying game ends. It's exceptionally tricky balancing outcomes for everyone
I find it fascinating joking about long games being a never-ending Civ game considering a lot of us *want* those long ass games. The people who like multi-hour long games where you see lots of things from multiple people get pushed to the side and ridiculed because it's not "playing to win" or something. I'd much rather pause in the middle of a game that's been going 1.5 hours, step outside for a smoke, chat about life for a few minutes, come back inside and pick back up than sit down, get turn 3 Blightsteeled by Satoru or smacked with a turn 2 hasted Ulamog when I sat down at the table with Crab tribal or something. It's all about environment and expectations. When I pull out my combo decks the atmosphere is different. K'rrik will win the whole match in 4 turns. Stop me if you can. If you don't have something to match the table's power you can borrow a deck. Just don't be that guy who has absolutely no regard for the experience of others at the table. If you're gonna be that guy you can play 1v1 or another format. Those formats are fun in their own way and there's no expectation to care about the singular opponent's play experience since you both sat down with different expectations.
I’m in the camp of enjoying long games. I mean, that’s the whole point of playing magic.
If you play three games in an hour or one game in an hour, you're playing the same amount of Magic. Even less so when you consider the time spent changing decks and mulliganing and all that setup. Unless you're a particular fan of the early turns, you're getting less of the meat of the game. Not that I don't understand how playing the same deck for a length of time can be boring, but I wonder if some folks that dislike longer games think they're getting "more Magic" in by getting more games in when that's not really the case.
@@Tuss36 you absolutely get "more magic" in faster games if the entire table is playing equal decks
Because you are doing as much if not more in a 15 minute game as you are in a 2-3 hour battlecruiser game
How much of your deck do you see and play on average per game? Unless i topdeck a turn 0 win in my opening hand I see more than half of my deck in 3 to 5 turns, and since i know the sequence of cards i want to play i dont waste 15 minutes a turn trying to decide on a play
@@V2ULTRAKill I suppose in that case it's like eating a big fluffy cake vs a condensed one-bite calorie ball. It's more efficient but a different experience.
Personally I'd find seeing half my deck so quickly to be boring, as part of the appeal of the game to me is the variety it can hold and when you see so much of your deck it's like I've already done it all and there's no reason to repeat, at least for that night. I'd think a 60 card format that lets you have 4-ofs lends itself better to such play patterns. But then as was mentioned in the video at one point, EDH is what people are playing these days, so I suppose I can't fault people for trying to seek such an experience in the format.
@pat1989ize I suppose it depends on your tastes. It's like Counterstrike vs I don't know, Paladins. The Time-To-Kill is very different, leading to games of the former feeling very tense and snappy with momentary decisions and skill deciding the match, while the latter mistakes aren't really punished and you can just come back and keep fighting.
My point was that if you have ten Counterstrike rounds in the same span of one Paladins game, both players have played their shooter for the same amount of time. Neither has gotten "more game in" than the other.
I believe it comes down to "it just depends on your group". Most of the time the deck choice is how I "go easy".
Second is I'll make the "more fun play" over the optimized plays.
Third is I tend to spread my plays equally to not "bully" a person out early. I will play to win but not at all costs. If I can win that turn I'll go for it. I try to avoid killing one player early unless I can close quickly or if we are playing that style. If it's pure casual I spread out my attacks.
But that's why pregame talk is important and if it doesn't go well maybe that group isn't good for each other and that's totally okay. You don't have to like everyone you play with, you just find a different group or mix it up and try different pods just know there may be a bad experience and you just got to make note and find a group that you will have a good experience with.
Hot take: commander was healthier before edhrec and commander specific printed cards
commander-specific cards for sure are bad, but edhREC? Thats the age-old netdecking argument xD Which is BS, more information available is never bad
Of course. It was at its healthiest when players were grabbing piles of cards they had left over from past standard and old frames and mashing em into decks based around a bunch of weird legendaries.
The second it became more formalized and marketted to 'casuals' and a more social way of playing magicnand drinking with 4 people etc it became full of social rules that arent covered in the actual rules. Then it became soft and weak cause people were told there was an experience here that there really wasnt and now everyone polices each other.
Its silly, these personality types do this in ALL social situations, and they shouldnt be playing boardgames until they work on themselves because they arent fun playing games with. No one wants to play a board game where you opponent is mad about your moves and takes offense to them and thinks you should play their way and tells you how to play. THIS DOESNT FLY IN ANY BOARDGAMES EVER, from monopoly or risk all the way to dungeon lords ticket to ride agricola etc.
My take is that commander would be healthier if the banlist was for pickup/random games where some cards can create unfun experiences when your deck isn't prepared for them. Established pods self regulate well enough.
I found this podcast insightful because I struggle with "optimal" deck building and so adjusting in deck construction for power level differences for me is really hard but I tend to hold my punches in gameplay instead which can sometimes lead to my demise on occasion but I enjoy longer games. What I usually do to limit power level is constrain to a budget most of the time and check for infinites.
My friend and I both name our decks after songs that thematically fit the deck. We have a playlist of songs and will randomly decide which deck each of us plays.
I actually have "wheel of fortune" on one of those MDFC "proxy" cards, I love those things :')
As someone who owns a revised wheel of fortune I salute you. Use those helper cards for any card you want to use but are too expensive to buy. Proxy anything to you want to.
I have saved every single one I've opened to do just that. Fill in needed cards that are just too expensive. I love them too!
Old Frame only commander is what you were looking for 45 minutes in. It would be GLORIOUS!
Someone tell Prof that "wouldn't say boo to a goose" shows up in American books, specifically on page 24 of The Outsiders when Ponyboy describes Johnny. 😋
Just went to the Outsiders museum this past week. Ponyboy refrences have been popping up everywhere since then
@@kriptonite981 They know
It's also basically a 1-to-1 with the phrase "wouldn't hurt a fly," which is a *very* common phrase to describe a nice/timid person in the States.
@@kriptonite981 I don't think the professor know much about SOPHIE
Puttin his degree to use
I love that even in the chaos of the opening skit the chessboard has already been setup wrong
Thank you! That was killing me!!
“Stax” as a term dates back to an old vintage/type 1 workshop deck, which owed the card Smokestack from Saga. The term Stax dates back to then, and refers to a vintage artifact prison deck.
Yep, The Four Thousand Dollar Solution $T4KS
Haven't watched the video yet, but I'm about to. 100% yes. Play more counterspells, play more spot removal, play more board wipes, play more focused hate cards, and interact with each other instead of politely "popping off".
I disagree - it's 100% "It depends on the group"
In some groups, the fun isn't in being hyper-competitive, or in trying to continually push the power level up. In others, it's absolutely vital. There's no one size fits all solution - but if you go to a group that just wants to chill and have a long game with casting big, underpowered but cool spells that usually don't get played - and then just counterspell everything and do an infinite combo win - it's not going to be fun for anyone.
I somewhat agree with you, but as an example, I have an Osgir deck that has something like 34-35 lands, 14-15 ramp artifacts, 13 interaction+wrath spells, and the rest is synergy pieces and shenanigans. To win the game, I need a critical mass of artifact stuffs to beat people to death with or burn them out with. The only way to play more spot removal, board wipes, hate cards and other interactions is to play a more focused set of win conditions, which often means some sort of infinite combo. That's just not a way I or my play group generally likes to play the game. So essentially to play more interaction, you're going to either power down your own way of winning the game or are pigeon holed into playing combos.
@@mattgopack7395 in the scenario you provided, it was probably fun for the dude who won. Shuffle up a new game, pick some new decks ✌️
@@WaterlooFlu I personally do not find it fun to stomp other players just because my deck was higher power level. Do you really find it fun to pub-stomp your friends with a guaranteed win?
@@WaterlooFlu "Well the guy who ruined everyone else's fun had fun at least" is the mentality that gets people uninvited to tables. We've run off numerous people like that at my LGS. If we all sit down with goofy tribal and you sit down with with some optimized combo deck it demonstrates an inability to consider the experience of the whole playgroup and signals this person doesn't respect that everyone is there to have fun together, not at the expense of others.
When the few of us who have competitive decks break them out then it's a different situation and expected you play well, play to win, and bring some beef.
The editing on this episode is incredible. Great work all!
Glad you enjoyed it!
just let everyone have fun and be happy to be playing an interesting game with unique and cool art and a complex rules system that constantly changes and stays the same. the best way to play is the best way to do everything else with joy in your heart no expectations and a friendly attitude.
I love the phrase "don't try to win during deck building". Play your deck to the best of your ability during game play, but it's more fun for everyone if you don't go ham in the deck building phase.
One of the most common pieces of advice I give to new Commander players at my store is to take certain high power cards out of their decks. Sure, Smothering Tithe is powerful, but can the rest of your deck support the hate it generates?
that opening sketch was amazing
While I definitely agree one of the biggest issues with commander has been WotC designing cards specifically for it (I've been playing multiplayer magic since like 1996 and a big part of what I loved was you had to balance your play for more than one opponent, and you can't rely on having removal for everything,) for myself, someone who enjoys commander as a sometimes game, it has completely replaced any form of casual magic in the community. It's easy to say you can just play casually, but imagine going to any store or hang out with people and being like "Hey can we play a casual, 60 card multiplayer game? It will not happen. No one builds casual decks like that when they go to communal magic spaces. My favorite format is Planechase, but adding Planechase to commander, while fun with a group that knows how to play with it, like LRR when they have, it's mostly the equivalent of using all the house rules in Monopoly that makes the game just more miserable for everyone cause it never ends. Magic needs a casual community that isn't just playing the only thing, cause I love this game, and I don't want to play modern or pioneer or pauper. I want to play casual multiplayer games with a focus on having fun with people, and isn't just commander converging on cedh.
I have one big suggestion to anyone like me who wants to play more casual magic but don't have access to a group to make whatever you find most fun work for everyone. It's not a fix all, it's far far from perfect, but I think it will help at least make games feel more interesting than they tend to currently, and that's remove every card that searches decks. If you can get games going where even decks that rely on a specific win con are going to at least be more interesting games if no one is tutoring up the same win every single game. I don't like Craterhoof, it's an uninteresting and not fun card really. But I would hate seeing it much less in games if it wasn't being Tooth and Nailed every time I do see it pretty much. Again, not a fix for the over all issues with the formant and community discussions around it, but it is very much in the spirit of what the original idea was, which is games that play out differently every time.
Until WotC stops doing 14 commander products every year, and gives us something like Archenemy and Planechase every few years again, I don't think Magic is in a healthy place for it's casual community...
I like to base my games around variance. The more powerful the cards in my deck, the less tutors I put in (but more card draw). I have a few decks with tutors and combos, but I tell my opponents before I sit down I say, "I have combos AND tutors to consistently find them" versus just "I have combos." Where I get frustrated is when one of the people at the table combos out turn 4 and everyone else has only cast one spell each. I also would like to say it's ok to get frustrated. We're humans. We experience emotions and sometimes we don't act the way we know we should. If you make an ass of yourself, apologize and do better next time.
Wwo this is validating. I've been saying for years that Commander is Magic for people who don't like Magic. Which is the same sentiment in the Profs Brood War story.
Magic is a game that's conceptually paradoxical. The appeal is, ostensibly, strategic interactivity between the players. However, the most effective strategy for any competition is to prevent competition at all. The optimal play is always to remove that interactivity. Which devolves into the two primary brands of solitaire, aggro and control, which seek to minimize the timeframe where those interactions matter (aggro) or just not interact at all (control). And before you say control is interactive... counterspells literally prevent a thing from creating an interaction between the players. It's specifically one player saying "I would like a game to be happening" and the control player saying "no thanks". And that's the general way control decks work.
And that's just no good for the meta... if both players are trying their damnedest to avoid playing a game with each other *during the match* that doesn't say good things about the game as a whole.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 I don't agree with this on a few levels. It has a questionable premise and relies on a rhetorical bait and switch.
Can we really reduce the appeal of Magic to "strategic interaction between players"? It has a lot of elements besides that, the ability to build and tweak your own strategies before the game even begins in deckbuilding, the puzzle solving element of sequencing or combo decks. These are things people like that would still exist even if Magic had no interaction at all.
Also, when a Magic player says "interaction" they don't usually mean just "strategic interaction between players". They usually are referring to a subset of game actions that involve multiple player's cards and usually creatures. but if we are talking about general "strategic interaction between players" counterspells absolutely count, they interact with your opponent's strategy. When to counter, what to counter, how to bait a counter, these are all strategic decisions that involve another player. In any other game a counterspell would be considered an interactive element, and a ton of games have counterspells, it's one of the simplest forms of player interactivity.
Similarly an aggro deck does have to make strategic decisions, and those decisions will change depending on your opponent's deck and their actions. How is that not interacting strategic decisions? Again we see this disconnect between the general meaning of a "strategic interaction" and the very narrow Magic player's definition.
Finally, your criticism of the meta because players are "trying (...) to avoid player a game" can be applied to literally any game. Any chess player would be happy to win the game on turn 4 instead of later, does this mean chess is a bad game because the player's goal is to stop playing it? Of course not, this is the goal of any game in a competitive environment.
@@dyrnwynski Yes, we can reduce the appeal of MtG specifically down to strategic interaction between players. At a fundamental level, even deckbuilding skills and the puzzle solving elements of combo decks require being cognizant of exactly which interactions are likely to arise to foil the plan. Otherwise, the combo player loses to one single piece of removal. Those examples you gave are examples of the strategic interaction I was referring to.
How other people use words has nothing to do with what I meant when I said it. You attempt to equivocate what I said with something I didn't say, in order to conclude that both are wrong, when in reality there's no logical connection between the two ideas at all.
As for the specific case of counterspells, the specific wording tells the actual goal of the spell. I would concede that *some* counterspells are interactive, while also insisting that others are not. "Counter target spell" means "I want to prevent interaction", whereas "counter target instant" would be a form of interaction as you describe. The former says "I don't want you to play the game" while the latter says "I want to beat your strategy". One is the type of interaction the game bases its appeal on, the other is a way to just say no to gameplay in general.
There's a reason I said things the way I did. I specifically described aggro decks as trying to minimize the amount of interaction involved with gameplay, as that's both an objectively true fact and the definition of an aggro deck. Their entire goal is to win before you're ready to start the game properly. That's the sum total of the strategic interaction with the deck, can you avoid losing before the game starts? If yes, you beat the aggro deck. If not, the aggro deck wins. That leaves a LOT more of the game up to luck than it does skill, by dramatically increasing the importance of a strong opening hand. And, before you claim that leans more toward deckbuilding skill... you can have 4 of a card in a 60 card deck, and if you need one of that card in order to survive until turn 4, there's a 48% chance you just lose the game outright because of that alone. Most would count a coin flip as luck, not skill.
Your suggestion that all players in all games attempt to win whenever they can is a false equivalence. There's a big difference between avoiding interaction (and by extension gameplay) and simply trying to win. Your example with chess displays clearly the misunderstanding at play here... the maximum possible interactivity in chess is when all 32 pieces are still in play. A quick win doesn't minimize interactivity or prevent it, it maximizes interactivity in the process of victory. Not only that, the explicit goal in chess is to leave the opponent with 0 strategic options. That's literally how you win the game. MtG, that's not the goal... in fact, each deck is free to have a wide variety of possible goals that all result in victory, whether that's simply reducing the enemy life total to 0, forcing them to draw with an empty library, having 10 infect counters, or any number of "you win the game" effects on specific cards.
I'm a fan of the mindset (I think from Shivam) of "Don't build your deck 'to win', but play to win once you sit down with it."
This is how I prefer to play. I like weird janky decks , so those are the decks I build. But once I'm playing I try to play as optimally as I can with the jank I built.
What?
Back in the day when I played paper commander, I played exclusively cEDH. Whenever someone would ask what powerlevel it is, I'd reply
"It's a cEDH/competitive deck" or "It's a singleton Vintage deck".
People would be very polite and instruct where I could find the other cEDH players and I we became good friends. They were really happy to see someone come to the capital from a different town to find the touches opponents to play against :)
Best part of playing cEDH is not having to explain yourself. You tell whoever asks that you came there to play Singleton 4 player Vintage, and thats that.
I go easy with My Yuriko deck sometimes at my LGS because they have a monthly point system for store credit where you get negative points for Thoracle and Killing opponents before their 5th turn. Tons of chances to play Doomsday or Enter the Infinite and I'm more likely to discard those cards just to not lose points.
What I love about this subset of videos is the fact that you 2 don't agree on everything. You both argue your points, potentially sway the other to your way of thinking on a subject, but other times still disagree. You still remain friends, still argue, but, most importantly imo, you both listen. Thank you Prof and Vince for showing ways to have healthy discussions while also showing those discussions don't HAVE TO end in mutual agreement. We are all individuals (cue Life of Brian joke), and we all have unique likes, dislikes, play styles, hopes, and aspirations (in MTG and in life). No one can ever agree on everything, all the time. But, discussing our similarities and differences allow us to see our fellow people as peers.
As a funny thing, I can relate to the prof when he talks about his experience with Starcraft. I did exactly the same hahaha.
Wouldn't be surprised if he played what we're known as "big game hunter" maps. Essentially maps where the crystals and gas are in extreme quantities meaning you essentially never have to expand.
In StarCraft played as intended the limited resources in your main base necessitated expansion. In BGH you could easily turtle.
the pause to edit in the self fist-bump and go "unh!" has me so entirely dead
More of this energy in my life please
"Should commander players stop going easy on eachother"
Depends on the experience level at the table TBH. If somebody is just starting playing of course im not going to go ham on them i want more players to join i dont want to scare players away or have a new player eliminated super fast so they can just wstch for the next half hour waiting for the next game.
I think the deck discussion is the most important, and casual conversations between games, not necessarily power level, but thinking to an extent about what decks we think would play in a fun way against each other. I try not to play decks other people don't enjoy too often, such as decks that lock down other players, but I still play them because I like them. There are things I personally don't enjoy having in my own decks, which are infinite combos and infect, but I'm fine if other people want to run that stuff.
It's up to everyone to look at what others are playing and make sure they have a deck they think would be a fun match up against it. Everyone should play what they enjoy. That's my current opinion anyway.
one of my favourite games I ever played was one were I lended 2 of my decks to other people, it was surprisingly balanced and fun for everyone
23:35 last week I found my own happiness when I played Bearer of the Heavens as a monored deck and all other players went Defcon 1. Went from Commander to Red Alert REAL quick.
This is a great discussion. I figured out this analogy. Are we fighting, sparring or practicing? For our playgroup, this makes a difference in how we play out games, and design our decks. I do not compete with Magic. I have competed in a number of other disciplines, but Magic, for me is about having a good time with people whose company I enjoy. Yes, winning a game is great, but it is not the objective for me. However, I can adjust my actual gameplay to suit my pod. So, the question becomes when we Rule 0, "Are we practicing, sparring, or fighting?" The answer will determine my decision making, such as whether I board-wipe, or what spells I cast in what order, and how fast am I trying to win.
My first Sensei used to set us up when sparring thusly: "Hit only as hard as you want to hit, and use technique and control." That's sparring. Punches get pulled. Practice is MORE relaxed. Fighting, is no holds barred, and choices are made to win as expediently as possible, no pulled punches. I can play however everyone else in the pod chooses. Trick for us, is understanding the intent of everyone else and matching it. After all, the entire point of Commander is social/co-op with winning secondary to having an enjoyable time. We can do that with "practice" (new deck testing out ideas), Sparring (more intense but not cutthroat), or Fight (no holds barred, hit full power and try to knock people out).
Ultimately, the decision of how hard to play, should be based on the pod and Rule 0. I understand that people default to different choices. I'd rather spar and play around and goof than fight, which I see as more serious play. As Prof pointed out, this requires a level of introspection, and self-ownership, and making adjustments to my playstyle and deck design, than to me imposing my values on the other players in the pod.
I'm gonna adopt a form of this, this is fantastic
I love this take. I find playing magic (commander here) to be more of a puzzle solving game than anything. I don't even approach the game to win, I'm just trying to best solve a puzzle. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
I'm actually going to bring thus idea of practice, sparring and fighting to my pod thank you.
@@sp0dershanks506 My pleasure. Perhaps we can use this to have more fun and less salt.
Brilliant breakdown.
I feel like the number system would work if we had a baseline. The precons SHOULD work but they’re so inconsistent with power level that they don’t
Vince misplayed there. Clearly Knight of the Reliquary can only move 2 steps forward and one sideways.
I agree 'taking it easy' is a slippery slope. Similar to the 'pass your deck to the right' concept, I actually think that constructing commander battle boxes go a long way towards resolving these issues. If everyone in your playgroup builds a set of 4 decks and you choose to play one of those sets each game or each night, that allows everyone to construct their own magic experience according to their taste. Balancing is taken care because it's done in advance through deck construction and everyone still gets freedom of expression through taking turns. And if building a battle box sounds intimidating, just ask yourself if you own 4 edh decks or not.
As for more public games at game stores or events where you might not feel comfortable sharing cards, then I think the answer is cEDH. Have the same spirit that keeps healthy spirits in 1v1 formats. Everyone does the most powerful things they can be doing within the constraints of the format. If you bring a subpar deck and don't do very well, no one to blame but yourself. For those who counter with they don't want to be competitive in this format, then you could try precons only, or precons with X upgrades, but precons vary quite a bit in power so I think the effectiveness would be limited there. Limiting the scope would help.. say 'standard' precons, ie only decks from the last couple years of precons. Would really clamp down on variety tho.
You can also "auction" the starting decks. Some people start with 5 cards and 25 life while some other might start with 8 cards and 50 life. Just need to figure out how the auction rules work.