Trying to Win vs Avoiding Losing
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Aug. 20, 2014, 2:16 p.m. by HeroInMyOwnMind
Commander is a vast format with the potential to brew any kind of deck you can think of. There are tons of player personalities, deck types, and strategies that can all take advantage of the flexibility of the format.
There is one major aspect about Commander that I don't see mentioned very often, at least not directly, when it comes to deck building approaches - offense and defense.
We talk about it offhandedly at my local game store, and players confuse "aggro" decks for offense or pillow fort decks for "defense", which makes sense at face value, but there is more to it.
When you sit down to build a deck, you have to make a decision to add or cut cards based on your approach to the game. When you select a card (at least for competitive play) you are trimming down the cards and eventually deciding, "this card will help me win" or "this card will prevent me from losing".
So here are my questions for the community:
Do you prefer cards that help you win, or prevent you from losing?
Do you like to play against decks that try to win, or try to avoid losing?
What examples can you give of cards that function as purely defensive cards in your offensive deck?
What examples can you give of cards that function as purely offensive cards in your defensive deck?
What examples can you give of "defensive" or "offensive" cards that function the opposite of how they are usually played because of how you utilize them in your deck?
HeroInMyOwnMind says... #3
You sound like my kind of player TheGnat. Can you think of any cards you like to use that might go against your general philosophy? Cards that serve a defense only purpose in your decks?
August 20, 2014 2:37 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #4
I enjoy playing and playing against decks that try to win. "Not losing" leads to 5 hour games of no one really doing anything. I would much rather lose turn 6-10 than win on turn 50, because we can shuffle up and have another game instead of siting around accomplishing nothing for hours.
August 20, 2014 2:44 p.m.
In my BUG counters everywhere deck (not up on this site) - I have a few counterspells, but quite limited number, and they can be used offensively, either to get me more mana or to give me a X/X token which will trigger evolve, Mystic Genesis . And with Prophet of Kruphix , I use the other counter to play creatures not on my turn.
August 20, 2014 2:49 p.m.
HorrorAvengers says... #6
It's a balance in all of my decks. Almost every deck I play is a reactive combo deck, that may be because I play for money a lot of the time though. My zegana deck is designed to control the board until it can draw it's entire library, and blue sun zenith you for 100-500, depending on the hand I get.
August 20, 2014 3:05 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #7
Although I can see the humor and fun in playing some kinds of "don't lose" decks (e.g. group hug, chaos), I'm a Spike at heart. I play competitively, which means I play exactly by the rules and with no holds barred. I expect the other players in the pod to do the same. There's something to be said about the thrill of a high-pressure scenario where you can lose the game for mulling incorrectly.
My deck (shameless plug: Dominus - Dreamcrusher Edition) uses Blue Sun's Zenith offensively as a win condition, but most of the cards (counterspells, ramp, etc.) are used in their traditional roles.
August 20, 2014 3:33 p.m.
HorrorAvengers says... #8
There's something about 2 superpowered, pimped out EDH contenders decking (heh) it out for a half hour.
August 20, 2014 3:38 p.m.
miracleHat says... #9
I like playing utility spells! I have found that playing solely offensively or defensively doesn't work.
For example, Iona, Shield of Emeria can be considered an offensive/defensive play. 7/7 is a huge body that attacks for a lot of damage. It's color restricting ability can offensively shut down a player or save you from that Blue Sun's Zenith coming at you. Admonition Angel is the same. You can exile the cards that you pressuring you and about to wreck face and kill you. You can exile the cards that your opponents are using as "not losing" cards and bring the house down.
Did that make sense?
August 20, 2014 4:07 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #10
I think generally I play to win, but in that I play cards that prevent me from losing, if that makes sense.
Take Avacyn, Angel of Hope for example; She is a huge 8/8 flying bomb, but she also protects my combat oriented deck from being flipped upside down by some sort of ridiculousness...She saves me from picking up my cards to a Damnation . As a result, she plays an important role in my deck, and I run cards like Privileged Position to protect her (amongst other things.) Iona and Admonition Angel are other great examples. That being said...I try to craft my EDH decks so they're not all in around one or two cards so you don't have to scoop when they're removed.
Alternatively, some decks are by nature a little slower rolling and cards like Propaganda and Ghostly Prison fit in very well. They're keeping you from losing while you prepare to win ie. stalling. I think they play a very important role in many decks too. That being said our playgroup regularly uses the phrase "life-gaining scum" because in multiplayer, when everyones playing life gain the games take forever...and it's often in everyones best interest to just start a new game...
I once saw a guy AEtherize his alpha strike just to troll his opponent...but that's a whole different story.
August 20, 2014 4:37 p.m.
HeroInMyOwnMind says... #11
miracleHat I totally understand that the utility on some cards allows for them to be offensive or defensive. That is all about execution.
My question was more directed about how you initially INTEND to use a card when choosing to put it in your deck. I realize that some spells may come off defensively in one situation (a board wipe, for example), but can be put in your deck with the intention of being offensive (intending to use it with something like a Boros Charm in a situation where it will net you a win).
I suppose my intention was more to expose the concept of what you try to accomplish when you build a deck - to live, or to kill.
Honestly, a lot of my curiosity stems from my own play group's concept of what makes a deck competitive. The majority of the players I play with almost exclusively build decks that try to survive. Our games are long (which, even though guilty of causing, all of them hate) and most of my group seems to have the notion that focusing on ending the game is an abnormal way to go about EDH deck building.
I am not just talking about in-game politics, or being aggressive and pulling the trigger while playing. From the start these players sit down and figure out how not to lose. What buys them time. What disrupts people who try to win.
I was just gauging the rest of the gaming community to see which deck building tactic was more common, and which stratagem people actually enjoyed playing with.
August 20, 2014 4:47 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #12
I feel like a well played game where each player packs lots of answers to other peoples win conditions and card advantage engines is a good game...no matter if it takes half an hour or 3 hours. Everyone playing group hug is different from the chess match that turns into.
This is why many groups I've heard of discourage things like Grave Pact I think.
August 20, 2014 4:51 p.m.
HeroInMyOwnMind says... #13
MindAblaze! I share in your thinking. I have a habit of being the best target at the table to go after, regardless of board state. I am in the habit of looking for cards that help me stall so I can get the win. Right from the start, however, I know I am trying to use these cards offensively.
I am glad that the entire community isn't obsessed with "be the last man standing" as a deck concept. I almost feel like the secret strategy of some of the people in my play group is to wait for everyone else to scoop, and win by default.
August 20, 2014 4:53 p.m.
miracleHat says... #14
Okay then, i understand now. It all depends on who i am playing against and what type of deck they are playing. I try to kill opponents instead of trying not to be killed. I will admit with my playgroup that it is FCKNG difficult to do that. My playgroup does four player games, which is really annoying for me since i am the only one not doing lifegain. There happen to be 2 oloro decks and Daxos of Meletis .
Obviously, the oloro decks are just trying to survive, and sit on the throne of laziness. The daxos deck doesn't do much since i don't give it the option to what it wants it to do. Since there are two oloro decks, I have to be very aggressive.
When i first started building mono blue (for example), i wanted to build a game of Attrition , one that grinds the opponent down. Ever since the two oloro decks said hello, i had to rework my deck to make it voltron. I would say that i like to use cards offensively. My favorite deck is Kaalia of the Vast beatdown because stupid shit is stupid.
tl;dr; i like aggressive decks.
August 20, 2014 4:56 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #16
I'm unsure that "Obviously, the oloro decks are just trying to survive, and sit on the throne of laziness" is so obvious. I'm the only one in my playgroup with Oloro and it is far from doing that. I have enough must answer win conditions and ways to find them that it is very actively trying to win and is not "just trying to survive."
August 20, 2014 5:19 p.m.
miracleHat: use alt ways to win against a lifegainer; i.e. mill or poison counters.
============================
How to decide on which card to use? I just ask myself which card I can cast faster, OR does it have early game and end game impart, OR can I cast it as soon as I topdeck it or do I have to wait for some action from my opponent? I understand the utility of slowing down your opponent but that extra slot could also be used for a card that will allow you to win one turn earlier.
All Timmy's eventually learn that there's no use in putting big 7/7 creatures if you won't reach enough mana to cast them. By the same logic, a handful of cards waiting on something is as good as a dead hand if there's nothing to interact with.
August 20, 2014 5:19 p.m.
miracleHat says... #18
@cr14mson, oh i do.
In kaalia, i have Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon . In Azusa, Lost but Seeking , i have Blightsteel Colossus /Eldrazi Conscription -(on azusa). Vendilion Clique kills by general damage.
Another thing about your timmy point: why not cheat them in? Tooth and Nail /Kaalia of the Vast do a great job!
August 20, 2014 5:23 p.m.
ThisIsBullshit says... #19
In my opinion, going for certain types of cards depends on the deck and it's commander. Almost all the cards in my Kaalia of the Vast deck I chose for being offensive because that commander requires an offensive build. The Zedruu the Greathearted deck I built has many more defensive cards because it builds to a finish much more slowly than an offensive deck.
I'm not sure I just went way off the original questions but that's my two cents.
By the way, I like to play offensive cards, and I prefer to play against offensive cards/decks because it's always a nail biting, exhilarating race to see who messes up and leaves themselves open.
August 29, 2014 6:58 p.m.
FancyTuesday says... #20
Not losing is an important part of winning. Building your deck anticipating that everything will go smoothly for you and that your opponents will just sit back and let you win seems like a pretty poor plan. Wrath of God and Counterspell aren't going to win you the game on their own, but played right they'll be the reason you were able win. When that Mikaeus, the Unhallowed player announces he's dropping Triskelion all the Blightsteels and Avacyns in the world won't save you when a Cryptic Command would.
In my meta EDH is about endurance; foiling your opponents long enough to get your own system going as they do their utmost to screw with you. Graveyard hate, disenchants, mass removal, if you aren't running it you simply lose to the guy that is.
I'd say I ere on the side of defense. When I go to build a deck I start with the theme and utility/answers first, then try to find a way to win from that foundation. I prefer playing against decks that at least try to slow their opponents down, decks that just go all in on doing their own thing are a little sad to play against after a couple board wipes or a Return to Dust blows them out.
August 29, 2014 10:24 p.m.
I generally prefer cards that make it I that I can't lose, because by not losing I'll just exhaust my opponents of resources, and eventually be able to win.
That being said, I /love/ playing aggro vs control (me with control obvi) because it becomes a game of resource management. Can the aggro player make sure to kill the opponent without overextending? Can the control player take out key threats without running out of answers? It's always awesome to fight that fight, and the best games are either when the games over i four turns, or when the control player crawls back against insurmountable odds.
TheGnat says... #2
I generally go with cards that are more "offensive" cards. It is more fun to put pressure on others even if it leaves yourself open. The countdown is better than just letting the game stretch out longer and longer.
And I also prefer to play against more offensive decks.
August 20, 2014 2:34 p.m.