I do not watch anything that isn't streaming from Netflix or an avi file, so I have no idea what you kids are watching these days. The first two you listed seem awesome though. I'll have to look around for them.
What am I watching "on the reg"? I have never sat or stood on a reg before, but I am watching Important Things with Demetri Martin (highly recommend) and Trailer Park Boys.
I learned a lot watching you draft. I did question your picks when going through the draft viewer, but they made more sense when I listened to the vid.
Your "dead air" syndrome is exactly why I don't do voice recordings for my videos. I am going to voice-record my next draft though, so people can at least understand why I make certain picks and then blast them any way :). I would love to hear your commentary on my next one. You seem to have a good grasp of what is going on here.
I think this is a good solution (multiple rooms), but we know how that works out as well.
When I play in the TP room, I often run into someone with a strong deck/interaction, but is an underplayed archetype due to the fact that it loses to X tier 1 deck consistently. Basically, you have an infinitesimal percent chance to be playing the deck that you are "practicing" against in a real tournament. While I do not mind this because there is still information to be gleaned, card interactions to become aware of, etc. I have had people concede to me in the TP room saying "Go to the Casual Room, noob", when I felt my deck was at least tier 2. For example, his happened with a Goblin deck that I was testing out recently. I also won the match g2 with double Goblin Grenade, so maybe dude was tilting.
The point of bringing this up is that the idea of "competitive" and "casual" are subjective to a degree. The problem that he highlights here will still be a problem, albeit some what segregated.
I don't know how hard it is to get a multiplayer game going, but I think that I would have felt that I wasted time even going into the casual room only to have my game wrecked by a competitive jerk.
I think the solution is a combination of this and the buddy/block lists. This solution, in my mind, just eliminates the need for game descriptions that say "Casual" or "Competitive".
I also agree about adding the "advantages" portion.
You're right that there are definitely a lot of advantages to playing online that I didn't mention. However, I sort of assumed that if you are still playing online, you are aware of both the advantages and disadvantages and decided the pros outweigh the cons. But yeah, there are lots of advantages to playing online, such as ease of finding a game, ease of purchasing cards, affordability of cards, etc.
I've recently been playing Commander more than anything else online (can't keep up with the standard/block metagames with a toddler and twin infants :). I really enjoy it, and the occasional opponent with a turn 5 combo table-kill hasn't soured my taste for the format.
As a "mainly for fun" player, I like the suggestions put forth, particularly the Commander clan one. I'm not too familiar with how to find an existing Commander clan (I imagine there are some out there). Any tips on that front? (Sorry if this is a newb question.)
Also, I agree with the advantages missing from the article. I hardly get to play my paper Commander decks (my playgroup is also lousy with kids :), and therefore my paper decks aren't quite where I'd like to them to be.
But online, thanks to cheaper prices and the "only need 1 copy" feature, I can invest in some staples or nice-to-haves without breaking the bank. Definitely a big draw, for me at least.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you and Pitlord, but I think you are both saying you would like to play games where everyone is playing the best and fastest decks they can build. I'm not sure if you've really considered the implications of this. As I said, in Legacy and Vintage, combo decks are kept in check by FoW. If you are playing a combo deck game 1 and don't have FoW in hand, the combo deck wins (game 2 maybe you'll board in hate and this isn't as true).
In EDH, the odds of having a FoW in your first 10 cards, assuming you even have it in your deck, are much lower than in other formats. This means that combo decks will win 9 games out of 10 against slower decks. The only solution for the noncombo player would be to play combo. All games would devolve into four players goldfishing their combo decks seeing who can get a faster win. That is what the end result would be of a competitive EDH environment.
Also, I never meant to give the impression that I can't or won't play with or against strong decks. I am equally frustrated when someone dominates a table, even if that person is me. I have plenty of decks that I rarely play because they won too often. For me, I don't enjoy a game where I walk all over the other three players, so I try to avoid decks that do that. I have at least three or four decks I've stopped playing because they win too quickly (turns 4-6 is my idea of too soon). If I do feel like playing those decks, I'll play them with people I know or with a description.
Finally, I don't feel I was whining and never intended it to come across as such. I was attempting to provide examples to illustrate how attitude manifests in both deck design and game play.
I'm guessing Chrome Mox is banned specifically to prevent T1 Bob, and it is quite good in decks running artifacts that can thirst them away late game. It could be there to keep decks like Ad Nauseum/Hive mind in check early, although I don't think they would play it even if given the chance.
I don't think it needs to be banned, especially since it doesn't combo with the cascade mechanic making it unplayable in all the cascade combo decks. Cards like Mox Diamond started on the Legacy banned list as well and was removed without issue.
Jitte is maybe the third best equipment in Modern even if Stoneforge Mystic was legal. (Fire and Ice, Feast and Famine are both certainly better, and the other swords can be better depending on the metagame.)
Hi... Just to say I thought the article was interesting, and to me it didn't come off as whiny.
Personally I used to only try to play competitively, and have only recently started playing EDH (ie casual).
I'm slowly starting to adjust to a whole new style of playing where you don't just try to win a fast as possible.
Your article gave useful advice, whichever side of the fence you sit on, and I look forward to your next one!
I saw that too. I totally should have played the peaks the turn before I did. It would have given me enough mana to do what needed to be done. You are absolutely right.
The song for game 2 in round 1 is This Mortal Coil "Waves Become Wings", which is very quick. Godspeed You! Black Emperor "Static" is the third song that sounds like someone is playing the theramin.
In my opinion there is only one and ONE only solution to this: There should be two multiplayer rooms. One for casual play and and one for competitive play. Just like we have two rooms for 1vs1 games.
Every one knows that if he wishes to play his 20x Grizzly Bears.dec, he should go to the Casual Room and if he wishes to play his Caw Blade, he should go to the TP Room. Why not give the same to the Multiplayer players as well? This way you will not need buddy lists, block lists nor will you need any game descriptions.
As of now, every multiplayer game happens in the same room. Meaning we have both that 20x Grizzly Bears.dec player AND the Caw Blade player in the same room. That's just wrong! It's wrong for both sides.
So WotC simply should seperate those players and everyone will be happy. That's absolutely the only logical option.
Regarding the article, I will only echo what others have already said:
1- Formatting is very important and you should work on it.
2- You show us one disadvantage of playing multiplayer online. Okay what you say is true but why not talk about the advantages as well? Why not mention for example that Xiahou Dun, the One-Eyed is a $150 rare in paper whereas it's an uncommon on MTGO that costs only $0,12?
It's late so i only had the chance to watch your first round, but it seems to me that you possibly missplayed yourself into a losing position G3. Personally i probably would have passed on the kiln and offed the firewalker as soon as i saw the dismember, but i can understand why you didn't, but there was a point in game where he had two firewalker and you played shrine and passed the turn. I suspect the ideal play would have been to play shrine, play teeting peaks then pass the turn. On his EOT, dismember a walker. Then on your turn burst his life then shrine kill his walker then play peaks and swing for 8? causing a net life loss of nine?
happy gaming
k
ps. what was the song in g2?
I agree with Pitlord, the solutions are exactly what I would recommend too: marking your games with descriptions, making extensive use of your buddy list and your block list, and join a clan. Segregating the player base makes everyone better off: the casual players will enjoy their longer non-combo games, and the competitive players won't feel bored and unchallenged trashing the casual players. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with either play style, just that they should be kept separate to keep the games interesting. This is how we do it in 1v1 Constructed and it applies to EDH too. The most challenging games are played with people around your skill level and with a similar perspective on the game, which is why many online games now have a ladder system to match you to your opponent by a similar skill level.
That said, the rest of the article was more whining about other players not adhering to your idea of fun. This is not constructive, nor is it informative about anything we care about. We all have our own ideas of fun, but most of us don't feel the need for everyone else to know about it either.
Lastly, consider the big advantage to play EDH online: variety. You get to play with so many different decks that no two games are even similar. Playing it in a small group in paper will only have so many iterations of decks, whereas the online pool is so much larger. Plus there are all the other advantages to playing online: availability of opponents, lower price of cards on average, building many decks with just 1 copy of the card, etc. Of course highlighting a disadvantage of playing online is useful, but let's not forget the advantages either, which may greatly outweigh the disadvantage.
In my opinion, things like this article are actually what's wrong with EDH. Every article like this sounds to me like a small child who entered a bicycle race with his Huffy and calls the actual cyclists jerks.
That said, I do like that you at least put forward a few solutions. If you want to play your made-up format with even more inane made-up rules, feel free to do so, and I will happily play my real cards with the big kids.
Finally, in response to the last post: The difference between having a deck that wins frequently and and deck that almost always wins is actually the difference between a mediocre deck and a good or great one. If everyone is playing decks that are actually good there is little issue with someone flipping Erayo on turn 3 or Sharruum killing you on turn 5. It's only when people play with mediocre cards/decks that it becomes an issue, and only for them. Sure, you're playing for fun, but who's to say that the person playing Erayo isn't as well? I loved playing Erayo, probably the most fun I've ever had in a casual format.
tl;dr: The solutions posted were actually somewhat decent, but next time skip the part that makes you look like a whiny child who can't compete with actual good decks.
I mentioned that players would need answers to all kinds of threats, and these answers come in 2 forms: counterspells and removal. Some threats can only be handled by counterspells, while others can be handled by both counterspells and removal.
If I am putting a threat down on turn 2 or 3 that must be answered (e.g. hermit druid), one of my opponents has to have a counterspell or a kill spell. If they have a coutnerspell, that means they didn't play anything on their turn, because they were waiting for my threat, despite not being aware I was playing a combo deck. A game where everyone is playing blue and just holding open counterspell mana every turn isn't very fun.
So let's say they'll stop my hermit druid with a terror. If I am making a deck that will have good odds to get a kill spell on turn 2 or 3, after seeing 10 total cards, I should put roughly ten terror effects into my deck (seeing 10 cards out of 100 equals one-tenth my deck, so I should have 10 terrors to ensure, on average, I see one by turn 3). That's 1 out of every 6 non land cards. A terror effect won't even answer all the possible threats though, and for some (like Erayo, for example), it will be too late to use a terror by the time we get to my turn again, so I should be running artifact/enchantment removal too. There's another ten cards gone. Now I only have 40 cards left to devote to what my deck is actually supposed to be about.
EDH is an eternal format. In other eternal formats, combo is kept in check by Force of Will. Yes, we have FoW in Commander, but in a 100 card deck there is a much smaller chance of drawing it. If a player wants to show up with a dedicated and well-built combo deck, he will win the majority of games he plays. There is no way to avoid it.
For example, I can play an Erayo deck that plays Erayo on turn two followed by 3 artifacts that cost 0 or less (Sol Ring is an example of an artifact with a negative mana cost). Unless you have a counterspell or terror ready for Erayo, you're screwed. And on turn 2, there's no guarantee you will.
There is a big difference between having a deck that frequently wins and having a deck that almost always wins. Usually that difference is between playing a well-made deck with good cards and playing a combo deck. EDH is a format that can be easily broken if one has that goal. It's up to the community not to have that goal and to avoid players who attempt to break the format.
Your solution is of course 100% reasonable... people should be free to make games with comments that amount to "No decks that frequently win." But I think people should try to progress out of that need as they mature as deck builders.
You give some specific examples, and I think they highlight my point. Isn't the problem that 3 people can't build decks capable of killing a hermit druid? You say players would need to pack answers to "all kinds of threats", but in a world in which people play decks that win efficiently (oops, I mean are "less accountable"), there aren't necessarily more types of threats, just different kinds of threats.
Also, the person Stone Raining you is not doing anything (besides summoning mild fat) to help beat the other two players. Perhaps he can do this because the other two players' decks are terrible (oops, "accountable")?
This gets to my broader point. The whole point of the game is to position yourself to succeed not just tactically, but strategically/politically. Sharuum or Erayo are major threats before mulligan decisions have even been made. By shunning players who make themselves the obvious #1 target, you contribute to the situation I commonly see where politics/strategy is almost non-existent. E.g., players tend to simply spread their attacks around, and when they don't, the harmed opponent moans. I think it adds to the fun of the format that sometimes someone could have an inexplicable vendetta against you.
The #1 problem in my opinion is that the client doesn't have a better tutorial on how to efficiently manage yields to triggers/passing of priority.
I would say its because 1v1 will never be supported by the Commander/EDH RC. And its been said that the groups are both trying to adhere to the natural intention of the format. This is why there is no 'official' 1v1 banned list outside of the semi-accepted French List.
The secret to beating Caw-Blade is never, ever try to beat them at card advantage, they are better at it than you. Having value creatures like Grim Lavamancer and whatnot are fine, since they can kill hawks or go to the dome, but they have a timely reinforcement for every arc trail, and their finishers are stronger than yours.
I actually just went 3-1 with the Rug Pod list (should have been 4-0 but I was being careless and F6ed in the finals because I was lazy and it cost me) but I scrapped the deck because ultimately Valakut and RDW were bad matchups and they are two of the most popular decks (it is very good vs Caw-decks).
I'm currently brewing with Garruk 2.0 in different shells. I can play Caw-blade in my sleep at this point and I'm just tired of the deck and the mirrors, ditto for UB.
My advice would be find a RDW list that goes 4-0, or watch replays of a 4-0 player (or both) and then tailor the list to your own style.
I can always use a good RDW gauntlet opponent, I'll send you a message next time I'm on.
I think the measures you suggest are fair enough. For some reason I have been reluctant to concede in the past, but recently I can do that when I'm not having any fun, and not feel bad about myself. You do have to wonder about the quality of some player's threat assessment, ignoring the big bad and picking off the obvious strugglers, for example don't ignore the Zedruu player when he actually has Thought Lash on the battlefield! It would be nice if commanders could be limited to one per table too, the craziness of three Mimeoplasms! Looking forward to your next wall of text, i mean article :-)
Another major problem with commander online is there is no ability to play 1v1 matches. IRL we play 2-player commander tournaments a lot at my local shop, but MODO will have none of it. I asked an ORC and was told that there was no intention of ever having this functionality...I don't understand why not.
I think the article content is great. I do not play Commander, but I have a general idea about what you are talking about. Some of my friends play in Thurdsay tournaments in my LGS. They had a dude show up in the past that consistently brought a competitive Vendilion Clique deck. He was asked to tone down his deck list because it was just not fun to play against (All permission/card draw, with either V. Clique wins via general damage or Tunnel Vision). I undertsand their qulam because this is supposed to be a fun, casual format. The guy didn't listen and kept bringing his deck as it was, he eventually got hated out of the group and they have been able to continue playing like they normally do. I imagine this type of thing would be harder when you are playing against a bunch of randoms...
Anyway, I like your solutions. The buddy and block lists have particularly been good friends.
I am interested in Commander online, maybe I'll give it a try sometime.
Very tempting as I need a platform to vent about classic and establishment now that I've been censored on classicquarter.com
Good cast guys I'll catch up via Skype
I really appreciate you coming out and checking out the vids - and even more appreciative you may have gleaned something from them..
I will check out both of those shows - and I look forward to seeing your vids as well.
Will work more on the 'dead air syndrome'!!
With best regards,
Zach
Very educational.
I do not watch anything that isn't streaming from Netflix or an avi file, so I have no idea what you kids are watching these days. The first two you listed seem awesome though. I'll have to look around for them.
What am I watching "on the reg"? I have never sat or stood on a reg before, but I am watching Important Things with Demetri Martin (highly recommend) and Trailer Park Boys.
I learned a lot watching you draft. I did question your picks when going through the draft viewer, but they made more sense when I listened to the vid.
Your "dead air" syndrome is exactly why I don't do voice recordings for my videos. I am going to voice-record my next draft though, so people can at least understand why I make certain picks and then blast them any way :). I would love to hear your commentary on my next one. You seem to have a good grasp of what is going on here.
Thanks
I think this is a good solution (multiple rooms), but we know how that works out as well.
When I play in the TP room, I often run into someone with a strong deck/interaction, but is an underplayed archetype due to the fact that it loses to X tier 1 deck consistently. Basically, you have an infinitesimal percent chance to be playing the deck that you are "practicing" against in a real tournament. While I do not mind this because there is still information to be gleaned, card interactions to become aware of, etc. I have had people concede to me in the TP room saying "Go to the Casual Room, noob", when I felt my deck was at least tier 2. For example, his happened with a Goblin deck that I was testing out recently. I also won the match g2 with double Goblin Grenade, so maybe dude was tilting.
The point of bringing this up is that the idea of "competitive" and "casual" are subjective to a degree. The problem that he highlights here will still be a problem, albeit some what segregated.
I don't know how hard it is to get a multiplayer game going, but I think that I would have felt that I wasted time even going into the casual room only to have my game wrecked by a competitive jerk.
I think the solution is a combination of this and the buddy/block lists. This solution, in my mind, just eliminates the need for game descriptions that say "Casual" or "Competitive".
I also agree about adding the "advantages" portion.
This is just my opinion, however.
You're right that there are definitely a lot of advantages to playing online that I didn't mention. However, I sort of assumed that if you are still playing online, you are aware of both the advantages and disadvantages and decided the pros outweigh the cons. But yeah, there are lots of advantages to playing online, such as ease of finding a game, ease of purchasing cards, affordability of cards, etc.
I've recently been playing Commander more than anything else online (can't keep up with the standard/block metagames with a toddler and twin infants :). I really enjoy it, and the occasional opponent with a turn 5 combo table-kill hasn't soured my taste for the format.
As a "mainly for fun" player, I like the suggestions put forth, particularly the Commander clan one. I'm not too familiar with how to find an existing Commander clan (I imagine there are some out there). Any tips on that front? (Sorry if this is a newb question.)
Also, I agree with the advantages missing from the article. I hardly get to play my paper Commander decks (my playgroup is also lousy with kids :), and therefore my paper decks aren't quite where I'd like to them to be.
But online, thanks to cheaper prices and the "only need 1 copy" feature, I can invest in some staples or nice-to-haves without breaking the bank. Definitely a big draw, for me at least.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you and Pitlord, but I think you are both saying you would like to play games where everyone is playing the best and fastest decks they can build. I'm not sure if you've really considered the implications of this. As I said, in Legacy and Vintage, combo decks are kept in check by FoW. If you are playing a combo deck game 1 and don't have FoW in hand, the combo deck wins (game 2 maybe you'll board in hate and this isn't as true).
In EDH, the odds of having a FoW in your first 10 cards, assuming you even have it in your deck, are much lower than in other formats. This means that combo decks will win 9 games out of 10 against slower decks. The only solution for the noncombo player would be to play combo. All games would devolve into four players goldfishing their combo decks seeing who can get a faster win. That is what the end result would be of a competitive EDH environment.
Also, I never meant to give the impression that I can't or won't play with or against strong decks. I am equally frustrated when someone dominates a table, even if that person is me. I have plenty of decks that I rarely play because they won too often. For me, I don't enjoy a game where I walk all over the other three players, so I try to avoid decks that do that. I have at least three or four decks I've stopped playing because they win too quickly (turns 4-6 is my idea of too soon). If I do feel like playing those decks, I'll play them with people I know or with a description.
Finally, I don't feel I was whining and never intended it to come across as such. I was attempting to provide examples to illustrate how attitude manifests in both deck design and game play.
I'm guessing Chrome Mox is banned specifically to prevent T1 Bob, and it is quite good in decks running artifacts that can thirst them away late game. It could be there to keep decks like Ad Nauseum/Hive mind in check early, although I don't think they would play it even if given the chance.
I don't think it needs to be banned, especially since it doesn't combo with the cascade mechanic making it unplayable in all the cascade combo decks. Cards like Mox Diamond started on the Legacy banned list as well and was removed without issue.
Jitte is maybe the third best equipment in Modern even if Stoneforge Mystic was legal. (Fire and Ice, Feast and Famine are both certainly better, and the other swords can be better depending on the metagame.)
Hi... Just to say I thought the article was interesting, and to me it didn't come off as whiny.
Personally I used to only try to play competitively, and have only recently started playing EDH (ie casual).
I'm slowly starting to adjust to a whole new style of playing where you don't just try to win a fast as possible.
Your article gave useful advice, whichever side of the fence you sit on, and I look forward to your next one!
Chrome Mox is the stupidest ban on there by miles. Except Jitte is right behidn it. So after them, by miles, is Ancestral Visions and Mental Misstep.
I saw that too. I totally should have played the peaks the turn before I did. It would have given me enough mana to do what needed to be done. You are absolutely right.
The song for game 2 in round 1 is This Mortal Coil "Waves Become Wings", which is very quick. Godspeed You! Black Emperor "Static" is the third song that sounds like someone is playing the theramin.
In my opinion there is only one and ONE only solution to this: There should be two multiplayer rooms. One for casual play and and one for competitive play. Just like we have two rooms for 1vs1 games.
Every one knows that if he wishes to play his 20x Grizzly Bears.dec, he should go to the Casual Room and if he wishes to play his Caw Blade, he should go to the TP Room. Why not give the same to the Multiplayer players as well? This way you will not need buddy lists, block lists nor will you need any game descriptions.
As of now, every multiplayer game happens in the same room. Meaning we have both that 20x Grizzly Bears.dec player AND the Caw Blade player in the same room. That's just wrong! It's wrong for both sides.
So WotC simply should seperate those players and everyone will be happy. That's absolutely the only logical option.
Regarding the article, I will only echo what others have already said:
1- Formatting is very important and you should work on it.
2- You show us one disadvantage of playing multiplayer online. Okay what you say is true but why not talk about the advantages as well? Why not mention for example that Xiahou Dun, the One-Eyed is a $150 rare in paper whereas it's an uncommon on MTGO that costs only $0,12?
LE
It's late so i only had the chance to watch your first round, but it seems to me that you possibly missplayed yourself into a losing position G3. Personally i probably would have passed on the kiln and offed the firewalker as soon as i saw the dismember, but i can understand why you didn't, but there was a point in game where he had two firewalker and you played shrine and passed the turn. I suspect the ideal play would have been to play shrine, play teeting peaks then pass the turn. On his EOT, dismember a walker. Then on your turn burst his life then shrine kill his walker then play peaks and swing for 8? causing a net life loss of nine?
happy gaming
k
ps. what was the song in g2?
I agree with Pitlord, the solutions are exactly what I would recommend too: marking your games with descriptions, making extensive use of your buddy list and your block list, and join a clan. Segregating the player base makes everyone better off: the casual players will enjoy their longer non-combo games, and the competitive players won't feel bored and unchallenged trashing the casual players. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with either play style, just that they should be kept separate to keep the games interesting. This is how we do it in 1v1 Constructed and it applies to EDH too. The most challenging games are played with people around your skill level and with a similar perspective on the game, which is why many online games now have a ladder system to match you to your opponent by a similar skill level.
That said, the rest of the article was more whining about other players not adhering to your idea of fun. This is not constructive, nor is it informative about anything we care about. We all have our own ideas of fun, but most of us don't feel the need for everyone else to know about it either.
Lastly, consider the big advantage to play EDH online: variety. You get to play with so many different decks that no two games are even similar. Playing it in a small group in paper will only have so many iterations of decks, whereas the online pool is so much larger. Plus there are all the other advantages to playing online: availability of opponents, lower price of cards on average, building many decks with just 1 copy of the card, etc. Of course highlighting a disadvantage of playing online is useful, but let's not forget the advantages either, which may greatly outweigh the disadvantage.
Have you added music to your mtgo vids? I can't watch them here in Germany because of non-licenced music issues according to YouTube...
In my opinion, things like this article are actually what's wrong with EDH. Every article like this sounds to me like a small child who entered a bicycle race with his Huffy and calls the actual cyclists jerks.
That said, I do like that you at least put forward a few solutions. If you want to play your made-up format with even more inane made-up rules, feel free to do so, and I will happily play my real cards with the big kids.
Finally, in response to the last post: The difference between having a deck that wins frequently and and deck that almost always wins is actually the difference between a mediocre deck and a good or great one. If everyone is playing decks that are actually good there is little issue with someone flipping Erayo on turn 3 or Sharruum killing you on turn 5. It's only when people play with mediocre cards/decks that it becomes an issue, and only for them. Sure, you're playing for fun, but who's to say that the person playing Erayo isn't as well? I loved playing Erayo, probably the most fun I've ever had in a casual format.
tl;dr: The solutions posted were actually somewhat decent, but next time skip the part that makes you look like a whiny child who can't compete with actual good decks.
I mentioned that players would need answers to all kinds of threats, and these answers come in 2 forms: counterspells and removal. Some threats can only be handled by counterspells, while others can be handled by both counterspells and removal.
If I am putting a threat down on turn 2 or 3 that must be answered (e.g. hermit druid), one of my opponents has to have a counterspell or a kill spell. If they have a coutnerspell, that means they didn't play anything on their turn, because they were waiting for my threat, despite not being aware I was playing a combo deck. A game where everyone is playing blue and just holding open counterspell mana every turn isn't very fun.
So let's say they'll stop my hermit druid with a terror. If I am making a deck that will have good odds to get a kill spell on turn 2 or 3, after seeing 10 total cards, I should put roughly ten terror effects into my deck (seeing 10 cards out of 100 equals one-tenth my deck, so I should have 10 terrors to ensure, on average, I see one by turn 3). That's 1 out of every 6 non land cards. A terror effect won't even answer all the possible threats though, and for some (like Erayo, for example), it will be too late to use a terror by the time we get to my turn again, so I should be running artifact/enchantment removal too. There's another ten cards gone. Now I only have 40 cards left to devote to what my deck is actually supposed to be about.
EDH is an eternal format. In other eternal formats, combo is kept in check by Force of Will. Yes, we have FoW in Commander, but in a 100 card deck there is a much smaller chance of drawing it. If a player wants to show up with a dedicated and well-built combo deck, he will win the majority of games he plays. There is no way to avoid it.
For example, I can play an Erayo deck that plays Erayo on turn two followed by 3 artifacts that cost 0 or less (Sol Ring is an example of an artifact with a negative mana cost). Unless you have a counterspell or terror ready for Erayo, you're screwed. And on turn 2, there's no guarantee you will.
There is a big difference between having a deck that frequently wins and having a deck that almost always wins. Usually that difference is between playing a well-made deck with good cards and playing a combo deck. EDH is a format that can be easily broken if one has that goal. It's up to the community not to have that goal and to avoid players who attempt to break the format.
Do send me a message. I look forward to play testing.
Thanks a lot. I really appreciate your insight and feedback.
I'll take the other side:
Your solution is of course 100% reasonable... people should be free to make games with comments that amount to "No decks that frequently win." But I think people should try to progress out of that need as they mature as deck builders.
You give some specific examples, and I think they highlight my point. Isn't the problem that 3 people can't build decks capable of killing a hermit druid? You say players would need to pack answers to "all kinds of threats", but in a world in which people play decks that win efficiently (oops, I mean are "less accountable"), there aren't necessarily more types of threats, just different kinds of threats.
Also, the person Stone Raining you is not doing anything (besides summoning mild fat) to help beat the other two players. Perhaps he can do this because the other two players' decks are terrible (oops, "accountable")?
This gets to my broader point. The whole point of the game is to position yourself to succeed not just tactically, but strategically/politically. Sharuum or Erayo are major threats before mulligan decisions have even been made. By shunning players who make themselves the obvious #1 target, you contribute to the situation I commonly see where politics/strategy is almost non-existent. E.g., players tend to simply spread their attacks around, and when they don't, the harmed opponent moans. I think it adds to the fun of the format that sometimes someone could have an inexplicable vendetta against you.
The #1 problem in my opinion is that the client doesn't have a better tutorial on how to efficiently manage yields to triggers/passing of priority.
I would say its because 1v1 will never be supported by the Commander/EDH RC. And its been said that the groups are both trying to adhere to the natural intention of the format. This is why there is no 'official' 1v1 banned list outside of the semi-accepted French List.
The secret to beating Caw-Blade is never, ever try to beat them at card advantage, they are better at it than you. Having value creatures like Grim Lavamancer and whatnot are fine, since they can kill hawks or go to the dome, but they have a timely reinforcement for every arc trail, and their finishers are stronger than yours.
I actually just went 3-1 with the Rug Pod list (should have been 4-0 but I was being careless and F6ed in the finals because I was lazy and it cost me) but I scrapped the deck because ultimately Valakut and RDW were bad matchups and they are two of the most popular decks (it is very good vs Caw-decks).
I'm currently brewing with Garruk 2.0 in different shells. I can play Caw-blade in my sleep at this point and I'm just tired of the deck and the mirrors, ditto for UB.
My advice would be find a RDW list that goes 4-0, or watch replays of a 4-0 player (or both) and then tailor the list to your own style.
I can always use a good RDW gauntlet opponent, I'll send you a message next time I'm on.
I think the measures you suggest are fair enough. For some reason I have been reluctant to concede in the past, but recently I can do that when I'm not having any fun, and not feel bad about myself. You do have to wonder about the quality of some player's threat assessment, ignoring the big bad and picking off the obvious strugglers, for example don't ignore the Zedruu player when he actually has Thought Lash on the battlefield! It would be nice if commanders could be limited to one per table too, the craziness of three Mimeoplasms! Looking forward to your next wall of text, i mean article :-)
Another major problem with commander online is there is no ability to play 1v1 matches. IRL we play 2-player commander tournaments a lot at my local shop, but MODO will have none of it. I asked an ORC and was told that there was no intention of ever having this functionality...I don't understand why not.
Do you play in dailies? I feel like I have watched some of your replays.
I think the article content is great. I do not play Commander, but I have a general idea about what you are talking about. Some of my friends play in Thurdsay tournaments in my LGS. They had a dude show up in the past that consistently brought a competitive Vendilion Clique deck. He was asked to tone down his deck list because it was just not fun to play against (All permission/card draw, with either V. Clique wins via general damage or Tunnel Vision). I undertsand their qulam because this is supposed to be a fun, casual format. The guy didn't listen and kept bringing his deck as it was, he eventually got hated out of the group and they have been able to continue playing like they normally do. I imagine this type of thing would be harder when you are playing against a bunch of randoms...
Anyway, I like your solutions. The buddy and block lists have particularly been good friends.
I am interested in Commander online, maybe I'll give it a try sometime.
Thanks for this.