Correct EDH deckbuilding fundamentals?
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Oct. 15, 2020, 11:44 a.m. by Ronin009
I have a group of people I play mtg with on discord. I've tried to explain to them that when building EDH decks, your deck should be able to run/win without your commander. They don't want to listen. Are there any articles on this topic I can link them to to prove my point?
I cannot think of any good articles, but it is rather good common sense.
Consider the following:
-
Commander tax will eventually make it prohibitively expensive to cast your commander. If your deck is overly reliant on your commander, just a couple removal spells will make it impossible to win.
-
Oubliette, Darksteel Mutation, Song of the Dryads, and similar effects can lock down a commander for an extended period of time. If your deck is too reliant on your commander, a single one of these cards can ruin your chances of winning.
-
Some boardstates might render your commander-based strategy ineffective. If your opponents have a heavy stax base, pillowfort, threatening blockers, etc. you might want the ability to switch to a different strategy. Relying on a singular strategy based around your commander leaves you inflexible and unable to adequately react to the game.
-
Building specifically around your commander makes you predictable as a player--the Commander is known information to the entire table from the start of the game, and your enemies can derive some basic information about your deck from that singular card. If you are only playing to that card, you are also only playing directly into your opponents' expectations.
-
Many players adjust their decks to better stack up against their current meta. By having decks that are too reliant on its commander, your friends are building decks that someone could very easily be stopped cold by someone else at the table making a few small deck modifications.
October 15, 2020 12:19 p.m.
VampDemigod says... #4
Ooh if you go my route of making a deck to prove your point, definitely include cards like those in Cae’s number 2.
( Caerwyn is it ok if I refer to you as Cae, or would you prefer Caerwyn?)
October 15, 2020 12:37 p.m.
EleshNornsFs says... #5
It's not a point to prove. It's a personal preference. Objectively, being able to win without your commander is a more safe strategy. Alternatively, at that point, why play commander at all. Just play Canadian Highlander. The commander is what makes the game interesting and I prefer to play against decks that rely on and revolve around their commander. Otherwise, it feels like yet another generic, soulless set of cards.
October 15, 2020 1:09 p.m.
EleshNornsFs says... #7
I am exaggerating a little. I don't think that you should always build to win with your commander only. I do it often. I just think that you should let others do it that way. That's what they think is more fun.
October 15, 2020 1:13 p.m.
VampDemigod says... #8
I’ve found that often newer EDH players build around their commanders. It’s probably because that’s the big difference in gameplay between EDH and other formats. Yes, 100 unique cards does affect the game, but that’s not what people think about.
There’s a reason the format’s called Commander, not 99-card singleton library.
All this said, I would compare building around the commander vs. not building around it to building aggro vs control in 60-card formats. It’s a style choice and one is easier for newer players to the format! There’s nothing wrong with trying to show people new ways to play, but don’t shove it down their throats.
October 15, 2020 1:19 p.m.
Try removing their commanders. They'll learn. In terms of numbers, I usually go for 38 lands, 13+ ramp, 13+ draw, 2-3 boardwipes, and 5 pin-point removal.
October 15, 2020 1:24 p.m.
By removing their commanders, they won't necessarily learn to change their deck to a new commander-independent strategy. They could just choose to run more ways to protect their commander, from Darksteel Plate and Lightning Greaves to cards like Whispersilk Cloak if they really get desperate. This is what I've done in my commander-centric decks. In my commander-centric decks, I do add lots of cards to protect them because I hate getting them killed too much.
October 15, 2020 2:36 p.m.
EleshNornsFs says... #11
Lanzo493 I agree. That's kinda how I build a lot. Bruna, Kaalia, Elesh Norn... and tons of protection.
October 15, 2020 3:24 p.m.
RNR_Gaming says... #12
so, everyone enjoys the format differently. They could just be trolling.
October 15, 2020 3:26 p.m.
After facing decks like Zurgo Helmsmasher board wipe tribal, I eventually decided to make decks that function without the commander. The reason I waited so long to make decks that can function without the commander is because it usually involves starting from scratch. People put a lot of time into their decks, so starting over, or choosing a new commander just so you can make a deck that doesn't even need said commander, is a hurdle you have to decide to jump over.
October 15, 2020 3:33 p.m.
I was just about to suggest and Avacyn, Angel of Hope wrath tribal. If their boardstates keep getting nuked into oblivion they'll want to change something.
October 15, 2020 3:36 p.m.
Which would be an ironic way to push them into non-commander centric decks, since Avacyn wrath would be built around Avacyn lol
October 15, 2020 3:37 p.m.
I have decks that I've won games with without ever thinking about casting my general but I have others that struggle without the general out. You shouldn't build all your decks where the general is the crux of your gameplan but variety is important too
October 15, 2020 3:37 p.m.
CasualCucumber says... #17
I am going to be honest with you. Drop the whole "prove a point" thing. You've made your point, but the people simply enjoy building decks around their commander. If you continue with this path, you will simply end up being "that one guy" who doesn't let people play more casually and for fun - you just suck the fun part away.
October 15, 2020 4:55 p.m.
At the end of of the day, the fun of Magic is making choices that you want to make. You can offer tips, but it's always a bad thing to try and make people change the kind of decks they run.
October 15, 2020 5:08 p.m.
RNR_Gaming says... #19
additionally, you may of outgrown that play group. Not everyone enjoys building optimally or even effectively. Some people will just mash their binder rares they cannot trade away into decks. It might be best to find people with a similar approach to magic or you'll just end up pubstomping.
October 15, 2020 6:16 p.m.
VampDemigod says... #21
(Jkjk) Though it feels kinda derogatory towards games in pubs, I’m aware of a bar in my hometown that did a monthly mtg event for their Friday game night. Never went, but heard it was actually quite competitive. Apparently the tradition started when two cEDH players brought their decks to game night and introduced edh to about 10 people.
October 15, 2020 6:26 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #22
Experience is the best teacher. They will learn by playing their commander centric decks and not be able to execute their strategy when it's gone. It's a process that takes time, and if they don't want to learn yet, don't force them to.
Making a deck trying to teach them faster than they want to learn, will only antagonize yourself to them. Instead of building better decks, they will just stop playing with you.
Just let them play and enjoy their decks, until they don't enjoy them anymore and want to build better decks. That's how I learned too, my first commander deck ever was lead by Noyan Dar, Roil Shaper. It was only removal and cantrips, a few counterspells, but if my 5 mana commander was countered or removed, I wasn't doing anything. At some point, swinging in with a 24/24 land every 7 games was not worth the other 6 games doing nothing anymore, that's when I started building better allround decks. People advised me not to be so dependant on the commander, but I only started listening when everyone else's regular decks, not a specific commander-hate deck, but their regular decks, started outclassing me on every turn I didn't have my commander out.
The motivation needs to be intrinsic, external pressure on how to enjoy your casual format usually leads to opposite of the intended results. Be patient and let them figure it out themselves.
October 15, 2020 8:30 p.m.
dingusdingo says... #23
Uhhhh, I don't know fellas, should we build our 99 card piles around the 1 card that we literally always have access to at every single point in the game, especially considering that we only start with 7 of those 99 cards and will most likely see 10-30 of those 99 cards over the course of the entire game?
October 17, 2020 2:23 a.m.
VampDemigod says... #24
We don’t always have access to it. Ever heard of commander tax? Good point tho.
VampDemigod says... #2
They’re allowed to build decks how they want! How do you think voltron decks work!
Yes, it’s optimal to have a deck that can win without the commander, but Commander has never been about playing optimal decks. That’s what cEDH is for.
I do commend you for trying to help them improve their decks, but they’ve already said that they don’t care. Showing them articles will just annoy them. Let them play how they want. Deckbuilding isn’t like rules. There is no wrong way to deckbuild (unless you forget lands).
If you really want to drive the point home though, brew a King Macar, the Gold-Cursed deck focusing on spot removal, and only target their commanders. Include some wincon based around a combo that has nothing to do with your commander. Yes, you’ll be the asshole for the game. Will you become the archenemy? Yes. But that’ll give you a better chance of getting your point through to them than any article. Don’t make that your regular deck though. If you do, you’ll get excluded from games. Play it once, then ask them if they want you to not play it. Tell them you just wanted to prove a point. Don’t play the deck again, until they’ve made new decks that are less commander-centric. Keep in mind that this could take years. Then break out this deck and you can all have a laugh over that time you made an all-spot removal deck.
October 15, 2020 12:01 p.m.