Holy cow that's a lot of info in one article! I'd heard of this PRE but, of course, never had the time to join. Didn't know it was yours, congrats on keeping it going! And thanks for the shout out as well. Can't wait to watch the video after work but your play by play was excellent.
Just looking at the decks, there's a variety of very cutthroat things going on. At first I was a little surprised that talk about adjusting the banned list didn't come up until the comments of the article, but my guess is that the people who play in Suncom are perfectly happy with the way things are, and with a stable environment that's what matters. Keep up the good work and I can't wait to see more!
I didn't mean to imply that WotC doesn't care about Commander. I simply meant that WotC is not taking control of the banned and restricted list for it and letting a committee of players make the decisions for its banned list.
I think you might be overstating the assertion that those in charge of Commander are not even thinking of the existence of a 1 vs 1 Commander format. It is clearly not a large consideration but Sheldon is aware of it. It is clearly referenced in the article that you supplied.
"In creating the banned list there are several factors that are only taken into small consideration if at all:
....
•One on One Play. A 1v1 community exists (and the French community has created a banned list for it) but Commander is designed as a multiplayer format."
At the end of the day, I think we're both dancing around the same point. They are two separate entities and should have different rule sets.
The Rules Committee for Commander is lead by Sheldon Menery, which is a former Judge of the highest level. Whatever they decide is DCI-sanctioned, though. They publish it on the official WotC site and enforce it on MTGO. Commander is a WotC product, they have the right to overrule Menery's group at any time. It seems to me that they just elected a committee of experts to deliberate on the topic they know better. The fact that such a committee exists at all (which isn't true for any other fringe format) already proves they care.
It's worth noting that none of the official sources, nor the Menery committee consider Commander anything other than "a multiplayer format for 3-6 players". They're clearly not even thinking of the existence of 1v1 tournaments.
"Commander is unique to Magic formats in that it seeks to shape the mindset of the game before players ever start building decks pointing them in the direction of thinking socially before they choose their first card. (...) We recognize that without drastic measures (like a 200-card banned list) we can't actually prevent an individual from breaking the format. What we can do is create a social environment where that individual doesn't want to or at the very least is discouraged from doing so."
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the committee that oversees the Commander ban list and made the decision to ban Primeval Titan is separate from WotC.
I absolutely agree. In fact, I'd like to start asking WotC directly for the two formats to be more clearly distinct, and to have different ban lists, as you said.
Early on in SUNCOM, we would have a case where the final table was a 2-man table (now we have usually enough players to avoid that, and I ruled it out anyway). It was insane, people that came to play multiplayer suddenly found themselves in a 1v1 game, sometimes with cards in their decks that were only good in multiplayer. Decks that were kept at bay in multiplayer would go to a 1v1 final and crush their opponent in a 2-minute game, which is an aberration in Commander.
However, I don't share your feeling that WotC "decided not to be involved with the banned and restricted decision making process for 4-man Commander". It seems to me that they are, indeed. They recently banned Primeval Titan, a staple of the format, and explained the decision in a way that makes me think that they observe the format closely and care for it to be balanced.
Whereas, I'm not sure they're even aware of the 1v1 community. Honestly, when they made so that 1v1 games were playable in the client, I'm not sure they expected that to be a whole new format, rather than just a way to test decks with a single friend for lack of more opponents or something. But now that the format definitely exists, it should be brought to their attention that it can't possibly be regulated by the same body of rules of its multiplayer parent.
Kumagoro, I agree with you that 4-man Commander and 1 vs. 1 commander are entirely different animals.
They should have different banned and restricted lists as well as different starting life totals. As a player who was a huge fan of 100cs and is just now getting into 1 vs. 1 Commander I can tell you that the two formats are very different. Straight Aggro and burn decks were a staple in 100cs and are basically non-existant in 1 vs. 1 commander. There are no sideboards in 1 vs. 1 commander. The commander mechanic itself creates a significantly more advanced set of possible decks. For example a black/green deck with Glissa as commander is going to be significantly different than one with Varolz as commander.
I think that multi-player and 1 vs 1 Commander deserve to exist as separate entities. Since WotC started making sets and cards specifically with Commander in mind, I believe they have a right to expand the uses for those cards. I think one of the problems with the two formats is that there isn't enough of a distinction between the formats. 4-man Commander is best seen as kitchen table magic with politics as a major factor, while 1 vs. 1 Commander is more of a competitive slugfest. Unfortunetly this leads to a kind of difficult political decision for WotC. They have decided not to be involved with the banned and restricted decision making process for 4-man Commander, so if they try to make some reasonable changes to make the two formats distinct and to make 1 vs. 1 Commander less broken, they have to deal with the wrath of the 4-man Commander people raising up arms against WotC for taking over their format. On the other hand, without some type of 1 vs 1 Commander rule modifications, 1 vs 1 commander can be incredibly broken. I think 3Drinks has done a great job of creating a reasonable ruleset for 1 vs. 1 Commander but in the end it's not going to do much for the format until WotC gives it some kind of online support. I have no problem if WotC decides to support them as separate entities.
There are certainly a lot of different ways to build a Zoo deck. Geist was a staple back when ChannelFireball were playing the deck in the 2012 Players Championship. I actually see it less in Zoo decks these days but I couldn't really tell you why. It seems like a solid inclusion and one worth a try.
I don't currently own Geists, though I'm hoping they will drop in price once they rotate, so I might try them out if I get a chance to pick them up.
Young Pyromancer certainly seems to be popular in the UR Delver decks recently. It would probably be similarly powerful in this deck. Definitely something that would be worth a try.
Knight of the Reliquary is certainly a good shout, I hadn't considered the Knight but it would certainly be very powerful. Tarmogoyf would also be great but alas I don't own them. I feel like Loxodon Smiter would be better than Watchwolf, though obviously slightly more expensive, just because it's a more formidable creature and doesn't die to Lightning Bolt. The one thing I would say about your suggestions is if you were adding more big green creatures to the deck you would probably want to change the manabase somewhat. In the current list green is actually the least important colour in the whole deck. UWR is the main base of the deck, then Black allows us to play Deathrite Shaman and flashback Lingering Souls (making it the fourth most important) and Green allows us to play Deathrite and activate it's life gain ability (least important). If the deck became more green heavy, I think you might want more green duals, possibly a Stomping Ground and/or a Breeding Pool.
I would probably have taken the Rachet Bomb, it's always been at least a 2 for 1 every time I play it. Usually around CMC 3 is where you want it, but it depends on the matchup. Sengir Vampire is good, but you have the rest of the pack and pack 3 to get creatures. Saying Quag Sickness is a lackluster card is a bit ridiculous. Scroll Thief is absolutely horrible if it never hits (which it won't 99% of the time). If it never hits you paid 3 mana for a worse Seacoast Drake. Black was super open pack 1 and even though I love drafting blue, black was clearly the better color to be in pack 1. Pack 2 blue was open and then in pack 3 both colors were open. Hindsight is 20/20, but you should've gone into black in pack 1.
You need to value Blood Bairn a bit higher, especially when you have Tenacious Dead in your deck! Not taking the Bairn even when it wheeled was pretty unfortunate I thought.
Thanks everyone for the comments and suggestions, although I'd suggest back to come and see what the event is like before deciding what it needs. :)
romellos: down the line everything is possible, bur for now I like to keep things simple. Commander is already complex on its own, and I'd rather make particular building rules the objective of a challenge than a requirement to play the events.
Rex: online, if a player is clearly starting an elaborate endgame, the surviving players can just acknowledge the win and concede. If they stay is out of interest in observing the endgame rolling out (like happened to me and doncogollo in the mentioned game), or hoping for a mistake, or for some miracle stop from the guy playing blue next to them. The only real enemy in multiplayer is the guy with connection issues.
Plus, as I say below, what happens in 1v1 rarely happens in 4-man. You put 4 competitive CMD decks together, you can be reasonably sure the guy who's trying something funny will be stopped cold. If it's not, table has failed, not just you.
The next challenges, as said, might be about "oddball commanders" of sort.
3drinks: the day I'll ban Sol Ring is the day I'll stop running this thing. Commander is "the format with Sol Ring". Demonizing Sol Ring and a couple other cards is, to me, pointless. I won't ban anything, ever. WotC is following and supporting Commander (unlike, say, Tribal Wars), so their ban list is already up to date for a great multiplayer experience.
But here's the thing: I'm talking with multiplayer in mind, you're thinking of 1v1. But comparing Commander multiplayer with Commander 1v1 is like comparing it with Legacy or Vintage. They're entirely, WILDLY different animals. I personally consider 1v1 something WotC shouldn't even have allowed to exist to begin with, since Commander was conceived as a multiplayer format, and reducing it to just two players takes away most of what makes commander unique, turning it essentially into 100cs with a fancy building restriction. But if the format has its fans, then so be it.
Still, what is true for 1v1 isn't true for multiplayer. Hell, actually even 3-man Commander and 4-man Commander are mostly different things (and the SUNCOM's tournament structure prioritizes 4-man). 3-man is a faster format, where combo decks have a say. In 4-man tables, that are long and rich and play like a movie with twists and turns, a combo deck rarely makes it to the final, as there's always someone who has the card that says "you shall not pass".
The described game was a good example of a 3-man game that played like a 4-man game, and you could never predict how it would end at any given time. That's Commander in a nutshell to me.
More so: multiplayer Commander is based on meta-interactions. Politics, diplomacy, meta-strategy are strong components of Commander even some cards acknowledge. I won games myself starting from a so-so initial build and working my way up to unexpected victory by playing Iago in the chat window. You have to understand what each of the other guys is more likely to be doing, and exploit that at your advantage. Everyone is your ally and your enemy at the same time. Reset buttons are pushed by people outside a conflict, changing the balance in surprising ways. There's more to multiplayer Commander than "let's smash each other faces with decks constructed this way". Sometimes I feel like it's not even MTG anymore; it's another game based on MTG.
Always love reading draft writeups, but I have some serious objections to your picks and I'll lay out what I would have done differently below (I am not looking at your results before I post this):
p1p3: Really have no idea why red wasn't considered here - lots of options. ALSO - you mention fortify but not the super mega bomb path of bravery? Really questionable in my opinion
p1p4: You just picked Mark of the vampire, then ignore perhaps the best black common in the set? even in light black a quag for -2/-2 is always a quag.
p1p5: Quag and Corrupt are there are you pick a super underpowered ophidian. Morphling (Water Servant) is great but he is no reason to sabotage your draft....
p2p2: That is a hard pick. I would probably pick based on where my curve currently stands... and although hindsight is 20/20 I think I would have picked the doom blade.
p2p4: PHANTOM WARRIOR. Most underrated card in the set - you can get divinations pick 10...
p2p6: I think this is a close one.... Seakite can be a blowout but after passing on doom blade I think this is a fine choice
p3p3: This is where I think you really paid for passing all those quag sicknesses. Blightcaster is an absolute BOMB - and getting 2 for 1's from the best removal spells (Domestication, claustrophobia, quag sickness, even mark and sensory deprivation) is the best thing about him. I think this was your worst pick - grim return is barely borderline playable... Cockatrice is also much better
p3p4: Your comment is insane. You have 2 Tenacious Deads (Gnawing Zombie is my pick for 2nd best uncommon in black behind doom blade), you could have had a 4th or 5th or 6th quag sickness (blightcaster above), AND there is a Seakite. Liturgy is a great removal spell, but it costs 5 and shouldn't be picked with the swiftness I see people picking it....
P3P7: I take back my comment on p3p3, this is by FAR your worst pick. Corrupt man, corrupt....
Sorry if I cound like a jerk - this is honest constructive advice from my experience.
Keep up the articles and I look forward to your next one!
It is certainly nice to see another Commander event surfacing, even if I don't particularly care for multiplayer formats. That said it looks fun, and I can say I at least have a vested interest in seeing Kaalia of the Vast take down a table.
Since you guys are doing this with some amount of tix on the line, I'd recommend disallowing cards like Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Necropotence and Mana Drain - Commander is already an inherently broken format, and the guy who generates the most mana the quickest will win. Of course these are just my suggestions, from a fellow Commander event host. My events may not be absolutely perfect, but I'd like to think they are quite balanced in allowing all archetypes to show up with reasonable levels of success afforded. :)
Congrats on your event's success and I want to wish you the best of luck in the future with your Commander events.
This reminds me of my "Dark Naya Domain" I had in Legacy at one point (which admittedly was kind of jank, lol). I do <3 the deck, something about maximizing Domain is a cool thing for me to try and "force".
Something I liked in my deck was my playset of Knight of the Reliquary - with all the fetchlands these guys are regularly 6/6s for three cmc, with potential to grow more. Additionally since this is Modern, Tarmogoyf seems well positioned here or, failing that if you don't own the bastards, then Watchwolf. I also had moderate success with some Woolly Thoctars too - but they conflict with your Knights which are generally superior, so I probably wouldn't do more than two.
If life is a problem, perhaps some Scavenging Ooze would be in order? As an added bonus it stops Kitchen Finks and Strangleroot Geists if those are a problem.
"SunCom" was a cellular telecommunications company many years ago that was eventually bought out by AT&T, since I used them for my first cellphone years ago that's all I can think about when I see the word.
I sort of agree with romellos about multiplayer commander. The trouble I have with multiplayer commander, when I've played it in paper and occasionally online, is that too many people play decks that take 20 minute turns where they do a million things and everybody else sits around bored -- that problem is way worse online, since those kinds of turns take twice as long. There's just too much self-indulgent durdling, some of which is slightly mitigated in paper because of announced shortcuts. In 1v1, the games are much faster and cleaner.
Looks like the "biodiversity" award got ported over to this event, sort of. Thought about a system of bounties for winning with certain oddball commanders?
Very interesting deck. It reminds me Yound Delver, yet it has some different approaches. I think I may try to run some Young Pyromancers in this deck, at least to see how it will work.
Holy cow that's a lot of info in one article! I'd heard of this PRE but, of course, never had the time to join. Didn't know it was yours, congrats on keeping it going! And thanks for the shout out as well. Can't wait to watch the video after work but your play by play was excellent.
Just looking at the decks, there's a variety of very cutthroat things going on. At first I was a little surprised that talk about adjusting the banned list didn't come up until the comments of the article, but my guess is that the people who play in Suncom are perfectly happy with the way things are, and with a stable environment that's what matters. Keep up the good work and I can't wait to see more!
I didn't mean to imply that WotC doesn't care about Commander. I simply meant that WotC is not taking control of the banned and restricted list for it and letting a committee of players make the decisions for its banned list.
I think you might be overstating the assertion that those in charge of Commander are not even thinking of the existence of a 1 vs 1 Commander format. It is clearly not a large consideration but Sheldon is aware of it. It is clearly referenced in the article that you supplied.
"In creating the banned list there are several factors that are only taken into small consideration if at all:
....
•One on One Play. A 1v1 community exists (and the French community has created a banned list for it) but Commander is designed as a multiplayer format."
At the end of the day, I think we're both dancing around the same point. They are two separate entities and should have different rule sets.
The Rules Committee for Commander is lead by Sheldon Menery, which is a former Judge of the highest level. Whatever they decide is DCI-sanctioned, though. They publish it on the official WotC site and enforce it on MTGO. Commander is a WotC product, they have the right to overrule Menery's group at any time. It seems to me that they just elected a committee of experts to deliberate on the topic they know better. The fact that such a committee exists at all (which isn't true for any other fringe format) already proves they care.
It's worth noting that none of the official sources, nor the Menery committee consider Commander anything other than "a multiplayer format for 3-6 players". They're clearly not even thinking of the existence of 1v1 tournaments.
This excerpt from an article by Menery at StarCityGames says it all:
"Commander is unique to Magic formats in that it seeks to shape the mindset of the game before players ever start building decks pointing them in the direction of thinking socially before they choose their first card. (...) We recognize that without drastic measures (like a 200-card banned list) we can't actually prevent an individual from breaking the format. What we can do is create a social environment where that individual doesn't want to or at the very least is discouraged from doing so."
Which is exactly what I'm doing, too! :)
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the committee that oversees the Commander ban list and made the decision to ban Primeval Titan is separate from WotC.
I absolutely agree. In fact, I'd like to start asking WotC directly for the two formats to be more clearly distinct, and to have different ban lists, as you said.
Early on in SUNCOM, we would have a case where the final table was a 2-man table (now we have usually enough players to avoid that, and I ruled it out anyway). It was insane, people that came to play multiplayer suddenly found themselves in a 1v1 game, sometimes with cards in their decks that were only good in multiplayer. Decks that were kept at bay in multiplayer would go to a 1v1 final and crush their opponent in a 2-minute game, which is an aberration in Commander.
However, I don't share your feeling that WotC "decided not to be involved with the banned and restricted decision making process for 4-man Commander". It seems to me that they are, indeed. They recently banned Primeval Titan, a staple of the format, and explained the decision in a way that makes me think that they observe the format closely and care for it to be balanced.
Whereas, I'm not sure they're even aware of the 1v1 community. Honestly, when they made so that 1v1 games were playable in the client, I'm not sure they expected that to be a whole new format, rather than just a way to test decks with a single friend for lack of more opponents or something. But now that the format definitely exists, it should be brought to their attention that it can't possibly be regulated by the same body of rules of its multiplayer parent.
Kumagoro, I agree with you that 4-man Commander and 1 vs. 1 commander are entirely different animals.
They should have different banned and restricted lists as well as different starting life totals. As a player who was a huge fan of 100cs and is just now getting into 1 vs. 1 Commander I can tell you that the two formats are very different. Straight Aggro and burn decks were a staple in 100cs and are basically non-existant in 1 vs. 1 commander. There are no sideboards in 1 vs. 1 commander. The commander mechanic itself creates a significantly more advanced set of possible decks. For example a black/green deck with Glissa as commander is going to be significantly different than one with Varolz as commander.
I think that multi-player and 1 vs 1 Commander deserve to exist as separate entities. Since WotC started making sets and cards specifically with Commander in mind, I believe they have a right to expand the uses for those cards. I think one of the problems with the two formats is that there isn't enough of a distinction between the formats. 4-man Commander is best seen as kitchen table magic with politics as a major factor, while 1 vs. 1 Commander is more of a competitive slugfest. Unfortunetly this leads to a kind of difficult political decision for WotC. They have decided not to be involved with the banned and restricted decision making process for 4-man Commander, so if they try to make some reasonable changes to make the two formats distinct and to make 1 vs. 1 Commander less broken, they have to deal with the wrath of the 4-man Commander people raising up arms against WotC for taking over their format. On the other hand, without some type of 1 vs 1 Commander rule modifications, 1 vs 1 commander can be incredibly broken. I think 3Drinks has done a great job of creating a reasonable ruleset for 1 vs. 1 Commander but in the end it's not going to do much for the format until WotC gives it some kind of online support. I have no problem if WotC decides to support them as separate entities.
There are certainly a lot of different ways to build a Zoo deck. Geist was a staple back when ChannelFireball were playing the deck in the 2012 Players Championship. I actually see it less in Zoo decks these days but I couldn't really tell you why. It seems like a solid inclusion and one worth a try.
I don't currently own Geists, though I'm hoping they will drop in price once they rotate, so I might try them out if I get a chance to pick them up.
Thanks a lot Romellos.
Young Pyromancer certainly seems to be popular in the UR Delver decks recently. It would probably be similarly powerful in this deck. Definitely something that would be worth a try.
Knight of the Reliquary is certainly a good shout, I hadn't considered the Knight but it would certainly be very powerful. Tarmogoyf would also be great but alas I don't own them. I feel like Loxodon Smiter would be better than Watchwolf, though obviously slightly more expensive, just because it's a more formidable creature and doesn't die to Lightning Bolt. The one thing I would say about your suggestions is if you were adding more big green creatures to the deck you would probably want to change the manabase somewhat. In the current list green is actually the least important colour in the whole deck. UWR is the main base of the deck, then Black allows us to play Deathrite Shaman and flashback Lingering Souls (making it the fourth most important) and Green allows us to play Deathrite and activate it's life gain ability (least important). If the deck became more green heavy, I think you might want more green duals, possibly a Stomping Ground and/or a Breeding Pool.
I would probably have taken the Rachet Bomb, it's always been at least a 2 for 1 every time I play it. Usually around CMC 3 is where you want it, but it depends on the matchup. Sengir Vampire is good, but you have the rest of the pack and pack 3 to get creatures. Saying Quag Sickness is a lackluster card is a bit ridiculous. Scroll Thief is absolutely horrible if it never hits (which it won't 99% of the time). If it never hits you paid 3 mana for a worse Seacoast Drake. Black was super open pack 1 and even though I love drafting blue, black was clearly the better color to be in pack 1. Pack 2 blue was open and then in pack 3 both colors were open. Hindsight is 20/20, but you should've gone into black in pack 1.
You need to value Blood Bairn a bit higher, especially when you have Tenacious Dead in your deck! Not taking the Bairn even when it wheeled was pretty unfortunate I thought.
Well, continue the quest and you will really go there. It will be a nice quest. - Integrity Spas
If I am not mistaken, the picture comes from the movie Hook. Is he supposed to be Capt. Hook? - Integrity Spas
The invitational will attract all the gamers out there. Be sure that you bring on you’re A game because it will be nasty. - Michael Courouleau
I thought most Domain Zoo lists ran 4x Geist of Saint Traft as standard - any comment as to why not included?
Thanks everyone for the comments and suggestions, although I'd suggest back to come and see what the event is like before deciding what it needs. :)
romellos: down the line everything is possible, bur for now I like to keep things simple. Commander is already complex on its own, and I'd rather make particular building rules the objective of a challenge than a requirement to play the events.
Rex: online, if a player is clearly starting an elaborate endgame, the surviving players can just acknowledge the win and concede. If they stay is out of interest in observing the endgame rolling out (like happened to me and doncogollo in the mentioned game), or hoping for a mistake, or for some miracle stop from the guy playing blue next to them. The only real enemy in multiplayer is the guy with connection issues.
Plus, as I say below, what happens in 1v1 rarely happens in 4-man. You put 4 competitive CMD decks together, you can be reasonably sure the guy who's trying something funny will be stopped cold. If it's not, table has failed, not just you.
The next challenges, as said, might be about "oddball commanders" of sort.
3drinks: the day I'll ban Sol Ring is the day I'll stop running this thing. Commander is "the format with Sol Ring". Demonizing Sol Ring and a couple other cards is, to me, pointless. I won't ban anything, ever. WotC is following and supporting Commander (unlike, say, Tribal Wars), so their ban list is already up to date for a great multiplayer experience.
But here's the thing: I'm talking with multiplayer in mind, you're thinking of 1v1. But comparing Commander multiplayer with Commander 1v1 is like comparing it with Legacy or Vintage. They're entirely, WILDLY different animals. I personally consider 1v1 something WotC shouldn't even have allowed to exist to begin with, since Commander was conceived as a multiplayer format, and reducing it to just two players takes away most of what makes commander unique, turning it essentially into 100cs with a fancy building restriction. But if the format has its fans, then so be it.
Still, what is true for 1v1 isn't true for multiplayer. Hell, actually even 3-man Commander and 4-man Commander are mostly different things (and the SUNCOM's tournament structure prioritizes 4-man). 3-man is a faster format, where combo decks have a say. In 4-man tables, that are long and rich and play like a movie with twists and turns, a combo deck rarely makes it to the final, as there's always someone who has the card that says "you shall not pass".
The described game was a good example of a 3-man game that played like a 4-man game, and you could never predict how it would end at any given time. That's Commander in a nutshell to me.
More so: multiplayer Commander is based on meta-interactions. Politics, diplomacy, meta-strategy are strong components of Commander even some cards acknowledge. I won games myself starting from a so-so initial build and working my way up to unexpected victory by playing Iago in the chat window. You have to understand what each of the other guys is more likely to be doing, and exploit that at your advantage. Everyone is your ally and your enemy at the same time. Reset buttons are pushed by people outside a conflict, changing the balance in surprising ways. There's more to multiplayer Commander than "let's smash each other faces with decks constructed this way". Sometimes I feel like it's not even MTG anymore; it's another game based on MTG.
These cards are really good. I want to learn techniques on how to use their skills and powers. - Travis Jones Rush Properties
I want to learn more about this game. It is kinda hard at first. Good thing there are many guides here. - Travis Jones Rush Properties
Hey man,
Always love reading draft writeups, but I have some serious objections to your picks and I'll lay out what I would have done differently below (I am not looking at your results before I post this):
p1p3: Really have no idea why red wasn't considered here - lots of options. ALSO - you mention fortify but not the super mega bomb path of bravery? Really questionable in my opinion
p1p4: You just picked Mark of the vampire, then ignore perhaps the best black common in the set? even in light black a quag for -2/-2 is always a quag.
p1p5: Quag and Corrupt are there are you pick a super underpowered ophidian. Morphling (Water Servant) is great but he is no reason to sabotage your draft....
p2p2: That is a hard pick. I would probably pick based on where my curve currently stands... and although hindsight is 20/20 I think I would have picked the doom blade.
p2p4: PHANTOM WARRIOR. Most underrated card in the set - you can get divinations pick 10...
p2p6: I think this is a close one.... Seakite can be a blowout but after passing on doom blade I think this is a fine choice
p3p3: This is where I think you really paid for passing all those quag sicknesses. Blightcaster is an absolute BOMB - and getting 2 for 1's from the best removal spells (Domestication, claustrophobia, quag sickness, even mark and sensory deprivation) is the best thing about him. I think this was your worst pick - grim return is barely borderline playable... Cockatrice is also much better
p3p4: Your comment is insane. You have 2 Tenacious Deads (Gnawing Zombie is my pick for 2nd best uncommon in black behind doom blade), you could have had a 4th or 5th or 6th quag sickness (blightcaster above), AND there is a Seakite. Liturgy is a great removal spell, but it costs 5 and shouldn't be picked with the swiftness I see people picking it....
P3P7: I take back my comment on p3p3, this is by FAR your worst pick. Corrupt man, corrupt....
Sorry if I cound like a jerk - this is honest constructive advice from my experience.
Keep up the articles and I look forward to your next one!
Zach
It is certainly nice to see another Commander event surfacing, even if I don't particularly care for multiplayer formats. That said it looks fun, and I can say I at least have a vested interest in seeing Kaalia of the Vast take down a table.
Since you guys are doing this with some amount of tix on the line, I'd recommend disallowing cards like Sol Ring, Mana Crypt, Necropotence and Mana Drain - Commander is already an inherently broken format, and the guy who generates the most mana the quickest will win. Of course these are just my suggestions, from a fellow Commander event host. My events may not be absolutely perfect, but I'd like to think they are quite balanced in allowing all archetypes to show up with reasonable levels of success afforded. :)
Congrats on your event's success and I want to wish you the best of luck in the future with your Commander events.
This reminds me of my "Dark Naya Domain" I had in Legacy at one point (which admittedly was kind of jank, lol). I do <3 the deck, something about maximizing Domain is a cool thing for me to try and "force".
Something I liked in my deck was my playset of Knight of the Reliquary - with all the fetchlands these guys are regularly 6/6s for three cmc, with potential to grow more. Additionally since this is Modern, Tarmogoyf seems well positioned here or, failing that if you don't own the bastards, then Watchwolf. I also had moderate success with some Woolly Thoctars too - but they conflict with your Knights which are generally superior, so I probably wouldn't do more than two.
If life is a problem, perhaps some Scavenging Ooze would be in order? As an added bonus it stops Kitchen Finks and Strangleroot Geists if those are a problem.
"SunCom" was a cellular telecommunications company many years ago that was eventually bought out by AT&T, since I used them for my first cellphone years ago that's all I can think about when I see the word.
I sort of agree with romellos about multiplayer commander. The trouble I have with multiplayer commander, when I've played it in paper and occasionally online, is that too many people play decks that take 20 minute turns where they do a million things and everybody else sits around bored -- that problem is way worse online, since those kinds of turns take twice as long. There's just too much self-indulgent durdling, some of which is slightly mitigated in paper because of announced shortcuts. In 1v1, the games are much faster and cleaner.
Looks like the "biodiversity" award got ported over to this event, sort of. Thought about a system of bounties for winning with certain oddball commanders?
Congratulations for your new article series debut. I enjoy to read it, even I don't play much Commander.
Personally, I like the Commander format, but not the multiplayer environment. I mostly prefer to play it as 1-1.
Do you think, there can be some special occasions or themes in the future?
Very interesting deck. It reminds me Yound Delver, yet it has some different approaches. I think I may try to run some Young Pyromancers in this deck, at least to see how it will work.
Great work...
Ah, ok, I had lost track of the premise. :)