|Commander / EDH||Legal|
Combos Browse all
- new eldrazi sicons and the old ones
- Eldrazi Mimic with Walker of the Wastes
- with the new wastes mana (not shur what is it called right now) does Kruphix, God of Horizons turn it in to that?
- If my general has no colorless mana in his color identity, can I include wastes in the same deck with the aforesaid general?
- Now with the new basic Wastes, could Draco only cost 4?
: Add to your mana pool. ( represents colourless mana.)
Price & Acquistion
|Have (10)||Dsmonsta , geazykagar , orzhov_is_relatively_okay819 , TrackerD , jrschnoebelen , gildan_bladeborn , TheRealPeaches , brokendwarf , AllDayTayTay , Matgic|
|Want (11)||bops , Pulseman , Elphane , rikimaru188 , imlinuxgeek , mlouden03 , kovellen , notsaying , Vasbear1 , Warxuaroz , CeruleanCOL7|
1 week ago
-1 Temple of the False God (not Modern legal)
1 week ago
So...some bat s*** crazy amendments:
What I removed:
and now, the additions:
and Vesuva to maybeboard (mainly because I don't have any yet)
2 weeks ago
Thank you, the Tron lands are a good suggestion, though I feel that they take away from the main commander booster that is waste. The three non-Wastes lands I chose to put in the deck are there for their utility beyond the colorless mana. I see the difficulty in colorless pauper to tutor and turn on the tron lands make them ultimately less useful than a basic Waste.
2 weeks ago
Yeah, you are right, I misread:
"It's also pretty silly to use this one user-created definition as gospel."
I mean, to my credit, I though you were saying one-user, and not one-definition, apologies on my part. I believe we are having a civil discussion. But about your whole definition thing, we are talking about semantics, and I disagree that the general definition of the word Archetype directly applies to Magic: The Gathering decks in such a narrow way, but to be fair, that is entirely my opinion, and has no evidence to back it up.
But, with evidence, I can back up the following argument:
Okay, this might be wrong, but hear me out.
EDH, being a four-player (unless you are playing 2 player edh... in which I apologies because what I have said has NOTHING to do with dual commander), 40-life format, and a lack of consistency being 100-card singleton, leads aggro not to be a competitive list.
This is point one, Aggro isn't competitive, as in it requires the opponents to play badly to win.
I mean the argument is dumb, okay, but I am not the best at this so it is the best I got on short notice:
Since you said we need to derive each deck from one of the archetypes, if I find a deck that falls outside of your archetypes, it is a new archetype? Right, yet you said, "Every single type of deck that exists in all of magic: the gathering can be derived from three core archetypes: Combo, Control and Aggro", so I can't make a deck that falls outside of these archetypes, right?
Point number two, There cannot be a deck outside of the core archetypes of Combo, Control and Aggro.
Okay, so 99x Relentless Rats in a Phage the Untouchable deck... yeah that is my deck. It isn't aggro... it doesn't exactly win the game by swinging with creatures very fast... at all. I will admit it does have consistent draws though, and I never have to mulligan past 5 cards with it. But enough jokes, it isn't aggro, is it combo? Not really, is it control? I'd be hard pressed to find someone that told me that... I mean eventually it just dies against itself. Maybe I should mulligan to 0 cards so it takes longer to die? Whatever, the point is made, that this deck, which is a perfectly legal deck, that can even in a game if an opponent doesn't play properly and donates me some lands and a Torpor Orb for my commander or something.
Okay, so this is point number three, There is a legal deck that can win without being any of the core archetypes.
Okay, so now it is time to look over the points made:
Aggro isn't competitive
There cannot be a deck outside of the core archetypes of Combo, Control and Aggro.
There is a legal deck that can win without being any of the core archetypes.
Okay, so the points have been made that contradict, points 2 and 3, so what can be done about that? Well, I guess you could say #2 should be rewritten as "[...] cannot be a good deck outside of ...", but good is very subjective, what isn't? competitive.
Now we can write it as There cannot be a competitive deck outside of the core archetypes of Combo, Control and Aggro.
But wait, that changes things, it means we can take away Aggro from that point in reference to point #1, Aggro isn't competitive
Hmm... well then the point, more effectively should be There cannot be a competitive deck outside of the core archetypes of Combo and Control everything would fit, and it would work splendidly.
The point is, if you are willing to put stax and control together, which I agree are the same archetype at face value, I generally think of control as shorthand for permission, if we were to separate them in this point, There cannot be a competitive deck outside of the core archetypes of Combo, Stax, and Permission, which would lead my narrative to be correct.
But wait, there is what appears to be a fallacy there! Though aggro can be dropped from point #2 and it would still work, it doesn't have to! Yes, but then we should add fishing pole as an archetype, of 99 lands, and that would be an archetype, it isn't aggro, nor is it control, nor combo, unless you pick a really weird commander... pick Phage the Untouchable and run 99 Wastes and call it a day. It fits, so lets add a hundred extra archetypes, oh yeah, because of the point number four I haven't mentioned:
"Every single type of deck that exists in all of magic: the gathering can be derived from three core archetypes: Combo, Control and Aggro"
See the word three, not four, despite fishing pole being a completely valid archetype (I don't know where I come up with this garbage), so I must assume you just haven't heard of it. In that case, you must have done the minimum amount that includes all of the ones that you deemed important, or required. This is the final point:
Any core archetype that is not required is not a core archetype in regards to point #2.
This is my conclusions, that only control (including both stax & permission) and combo exist as core archetypes in EDH.
PS: this took way too long to write, I regret this slightly.
2 weeks ago
TranscendingAll All of these commanders suck without a good list, what is prossh going to do with 99 Wastes? honestly I think n0bunga makes a ton of sense, but we just see things in a different light, I don't know what you are saying at all.