Oko in cEDH settings

Ojallday says... #2

Its definitely a good card that's for sure. But, I would wager that the reason it's not seeing a ton of play in competitive lists is the 3 cmc. In cedh, games are over by turn 3 or 4 usually so there is an emphasis on being as mana efficient as possible with each spell. So essentially is 3 mana worth it for a removal spell when a 1 or 2 mana spell will do?

August 14, 2020 7:13 a.m.

Peligrad says... #3

There is absolutely no way that you are going to convince anyone that Gilded Drake isn't worth playing...

Oko, Thief of Crowns broke standard, so yeah... it's pretty good too. But he isn't as good as the drake.

Generally, you want the answers in your deck to cost 0 or 1. Gilded Drake at 2 is already pushing the limit, but the fact that it gains control of a permanent is huge. There are many key pieces that are shared among CEDH deck lists, so stealing an enabler such a Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy is often a win condition. If you can get an answer and a potential win condition for 2 mana... that's far superior than just a control piece for 50% more mana.

August 14, 2020 9:10 a.m.

SynergyBuild says... #4

Yeah, and remember why Legacy's Allure originally saw play, it was a hate piece against Flash Hulk in it's time, where the pre-Oracle versions used a shuffle-hulk pile revolving around Blood Artist.

Being able to steal the artist, as it had 0 power, and Legacy's Allure could be activated at instant speed, unlike Oko, Thief of Crowns was key, and while yes, both Gilded Drake and Oko, Thief of Crowns are both value-heavy threats and answers, Drake is able to steal things without needing more than the ETB, rather than waiting to take a card like Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy or Notion Thief until it makes a food (Yes I know you can swap and artifact or something too, but people use the food more often, and you still need to + it to get to the ult).

In context, Allure is a threat, able to be used at instant speed, for 2 mana, and Drake is a faster steal effect at 2 mana. Oko is sorcery speed, takes longer to use, but is reusable.

All 3 are good cards, but none replace eachother. While I'd rank Drake, then Oko, then Allure, if the metagame shifts, Allure could be on top, Oko could be on top, etc.

I think assuming that Oko, Thief of Crowns replaces any of these cards is biased due to the way it was seen in other formats. In EDH, a 3/3 isn't a big deal at protecting a Walker, and due to the fact that it is seen as a threat, players will kill it fast. It is akin to a Beast Within quite often, not even getting a singular steal. In comparison, Gilded Drake is less mana, and almost assuredly gets you the steal.

Could Oko, Thief of Crowns replace Beast Within in decks like Tasigur Control, where it was looped to make sure an opponent had a creature out for you to start Reality Shifting? Perhaps, but that is most likely where it fully replaces things, and not being instant speed, only hitting artifacts/creatures, etc. may even make that an unreasonable replacement to many players.

August 14, 2020 12:21 p.m.

jaymc1130 says... #5

Ojallday, if games are lasting only 3 or 4 turns that is, most definitely, not competitive and means that the players involved in the match, or the decks, or, most likely both, are not actually quite up to snuff for competitive settings. The days when cEDH games were consistently over on turns 3 or 4 are well more than 2 years behind us at this point. There's simply way too much cheap, effective interaction for players to attempt to go for wins that quickly in true competitive settings. 3 mana is a steep price for an answer, and sorcery speed isn't particularly where a player wants to be, but Oko answers a massive number of threats and hate pieces by simply elking things and he can do this multiple times unless people spend interaction on him. If he resolves he's almost always resource positive as he elks a threat and generally requires a piece of interaction to be removed while simultaneously clogging the board to make life more difficult for opposing Tymnas. As the competitive meta has become more grind oriented with longer games becoming the norm his merits are objectively superior.

Peligrad, you're the second person to mention mana cost, so I'm starting to sense a trend in why people still make these choices. The truth is, however, that the higher mana cost is more than justified by the functionality upgrade of being a universal answer to commanders by elking them as well as the potential to elk a huge number of other potential problems in a format where giving an opponent a 3/3 vanilla body is often irrelevant. In most games he'll be able to elk several things and be a net resource positive play, both in terms of mana investments and card investments. If you steal some one's Kinnan, sure, this might stop that player, but it won't do anything to any other player, you've spent mana and cards that puts you at a disadvantage for a turn cycle (at a minimum) against 2 people to stop one person. Not really a spot a pilot wants to be in for truly competitive settings, and certainly not a "win condition" as that disadvantageous play pattern can potentially enable a win for the other 2 players. Granted this can be true for Oko, but the upside of additional activations and value is tangible.

SynergyBuild, I recall the addition of Legacy's Allure as a response to those hulk piles specifically being a terrible justification for running that card in the first place. Those piles almost inevitably also included Grand Abolisher, the creatures all came in at the same time which meant Legacy's Allure was useless except for when Shuffle Hulk was trying to win at instant speed on an opponents turn, and the delayed development to play Legacy's Allure early (and potentially even have to tutor for it) was a net negative response to the line of play given that the data we collected showed this play pattern to result in a 4% decrease in win percentage for the deck playing Legacy's Allure. The use of Allure as a response to Shuffle Hulk win lines was always misguided and ineffective. Oko, by comparison, isn't stealing the thing, it's elking it 99 times out of 100, and sure, this isn't at instant speed and this is a drawback, but the reality is neither of the other potential options is instant speed either. Allure requires it be played preemptively at sorcery speed and delays development while also potentially preventing a player from having the resources to interact with any other threat, and needs time to accumulate counters for anything with any power at all. The Drake, while generally faster as an answer than Allure as it can solve a problem as part of the Drake resolving rather than waiting until it has enough counters to answer larger commanders, is functionally similar to Oko as both turn an opponent's high value threat into a 3/3 with less threat potential (though the evasion bit is a huge downside in some matchups). I think perhaps you highlight another potential answer to my questions though by focusing on Oko's -5 as his "steal" which is NOT the correct way to use Oko as an answer, just +ing Oko and elking high value targets is how he should be used in competitive settings as this 3/3 doesn't fly, is often unlikely to swing back at the Oko (because the elked player very much wants that Oko to elk a different opponents thing next turn cycle before attempting to eliminate him), and doesn't represent a game ending threat as life totals in cEDH are quite high. As a final point, if a deck is looping Beast Within to create tokens for each opponent and THEN looping Reality Shift this player is playing objectively incorrectly in the first place and absolutely not playing a competitive line as Beast Within looped is already it's own win condition outright by simply destroying all opposing permanents and leaving opponents with only a board consisting of a finite number of beast tokens and nothing else while the looping player then loops Beast Within on their own commander (or any other relevant, replayable target) an infinite number of times to generate an infinitely large token army. There's absolutely no reason to loop Reality Shift if you can already loop Beast Within, either one alone would win.

In any case, I've gotten some answers as to why players might make the decision to run either of the alternate options and it seems mana cost concerns are the consensus. I had been under the impression that it was mostly a comfort thing, players knew how the play patterns of the old options worked and, though these play patterns were demonstrably less than optimal, familiarity with them made them appealing. Given the responses I feel less inclined to believe that now instead wonder if players generally feel as if going from 2 mana to 3 mana is really that big a deal and if that's the reasoning most players would use in their decision making process? +1s all around for providing me some insight into player thought processes.

August 14, 2020 2:03 p.m. Edited.

SynergyBuild says... #6

jaymc1130 Mind if I get a source on the 4% decrease in winrate? Also is that a decrease of 4% in total winrate (assume 25% down to 21%) or is that a relative drop to the deck's winrate irrespective of its total against the field (25% down to 24%)?

Sorry, just haven't found the data you are referencing! I've been trying to collect a ton on it, and having an exact database of every deck running each card seems hugely impactful to supporting/debunking some other hypotheses I have about the format.

Again, I don't think Allure is a good card, let alone better than Oko, but it isn't a directly worse card, and many decks that don't want Oko for a variety of reasons.

Additionally, the metagame currently isn't extremely commander focused. Sure Gitrog has its issues, but Kess does consult one way or another, Kenrith is a 5c value pile, Najeela is always layered with Consult, sometimes even pod, etc.

Partner pairings run them for value and rarely rely on them (Yes some infinite mana combos want Thrasios, but mostly they are all cool with a pile of value too)

Really, commander-removal isn't the name of the game with Gilded Drake, Legacy's Allure, Oko, Thief of Crowns and it never was about that. Otherwise Darksteel Mutation would be played, and it certainly isn't in high enough numbers to count as relevant.

Oko is good because if players don't think it is a threat it will slowly take down a few stax pieces or opposing threats, before the elks kill it. It doesn't get more than 1-3 Beast Withins even in slow games, because it dies. The chance that it dies immediately, and doesn't get you another threat like Gilded Drake does is big.

My biggest issue is that you continue to say that Gilded Drake just is a Darksteel Mutation that gives a flying elk. It steals a threat. Oko answers something, and leaves you an Oko, Drake answers something, and leaves you whatever was so powerful it needed answering.

Oko is better in the scenarios that you aren't pressed on mana, you are in a commanding board presence for creatures, or are so far behind you know opponents won't kill it, if the threats are cards you don't want, or if you need to remove a troublesome artifact, like a Sensei's Divining Top under a Counterbalance or a Bolas's Citadel.

Gilded Drake is better if you are tight on mana, doesn't matter what board state you have, if an opponent has a high value creature you want, or if you need have a need for a threat on your side, rather than a Walker that will die.

The issue with Oko, is that it is really only better than Drake when you are way behind or way ahead, and if you are way behind I don't see it as the best way to catch up, a sweeper often is, and if you are way ahead you probably don't need it at all. That isn't to say you shouldn't run both, or if you are in a high-value artifact based metagame Oko couldn't be better, but that on average, against the field, a vast number of decks should run Drake over Oko, if they only have the choice of one.

But screw that, I'm running both loser xD

August 14, 2020 3:38 p.m.

jaymc1130 says... #7

SynergyBuild, the data I'm referencing is our log of 2000+ some odd games of cEDH collected over most of the last 3 years. Sadly, cEDH data isn't readily available to consume and much of the game data that is available is heavily biased and flawed, so our solution was to track our own so that at least we have one viable set of data to work from. The 4% decrease was total win rate, as per your example "down from 25% to 21%", which is a massive decline when considering that it's nearly 20% less wins per 100 games played. I completely agree that a database of this sort is an extremely helpful tool and as there just isn't a great amount of quality data for EDH the way there is for Standard or Modern I highly encourage players to track their own in addition to using what little is out there.

As you stated, the meta game in cEDH isn't really commander focused for the most part, which further supports the use of Oko over the other options as he's a highly capable piece of removal for problematic hate pieces. Especially in a grindy, value oriented meta game Oko shines these days as an excellent utility piece in ways the other options to fill the primary role simply can't do. Oko always gets one activation to remove a problematic piece and largely never dies to elks (again, the first, and even the second elked player will want all opponents to suffer an elking before even wanting to remove it, by which time Oko has a large number of counters and generally needs to be removed via a piece of interaction, very commonly trading 1 card for 4 total opposing cards).

The problem with the Gilded Drake comparison is that stealing an opponent's Gitrog Monster isn't going to do too terribly much for a non Gitrog deck that isn't optimized to play around Gitrog's value engine. The same is true for any similar type of commander threat like Yisan, or Emry. Kess tends to be good value to steal away, as does an opposing Yuriko, but largely outside of these 2, having the stolen creature won't generate much of an advantageous position (if any), aside from denying the opponent it was stolen from.

Never, in competitive settings, use Oko to target a Sensei's Divining Top. The top can just protect itself in response and Oko's ability will fizzle, that is not a competitive level line of play except in the sole circumstance where you are under precisely a Counterbalance lock, need to cast only non 1 cmc spells for the win, and the known top card is the exact cmc of the spell you need to cast. Even then crafty players might spin the Top, then activate the top to protect it, put interaction into their hand and an unknown card on top to prevent a potential game winning line of play.

Oko certainly isn't a piece that's significant in terms of impact only when far behind or far ahead, in both of these situations neither Drake or Oko is going to help, nor would Allure. Oko is terrific in situations where you are slightly behind and need a way to eliminate something that's a threat to the whole table and the whole table isn't in a terrific position to instantly eliminate the Oko (which is going to be the vast, overwhelming majority of the time in those spots). He's also terrific when you are slightly ahead and need a way to secure that position more solidly while denying opponents the ability to impede you with various hate pieces and force them to expend interaction instead to open an opportunity to combo off for the win. If mana is tight, in today's grindy meta, then the pilot is already doing it wrong. The name of the game in today's meta, in the most competitive possible settings, is assuring you can build up a relevant position while holding up interaction in the most common of common "Mexican standoff" game states. If a player is tight on mana in these situations and can't keep up while building up their position then the game is already lost for them and none of the options will help to win the game, only create opportunities for one of the two unaffected opponent's to win on that turn cycle (in all likelihood).

By all means, run both if you want. I'm definitely a fan of this option if you can find the card slots for it. Certainly hard to go wrong with that choice, lol.

August 14, 2020 4:32 p.m.

SynergyBuild says... #8

Honestly Gitrog works wonderfully as a 6/6 Deathtouch beatstick that just draws an additional card each turn, and because of the fetchlands of the format, it can draw 2-3 cards pretty easily in a turn as well, letting you draw lands that you play to feed it. Yes a Gitrog deck may abuse it more, but you don't need to win with it to say that an additional 1-3 cards a turn and a giant beatstick of death is bad for 2 mana and giving up a 3/3 flier.

Allure is weirdly the best while ahead, as interactive instant speed effects are the best to overthrow cheap one-turn wins that could overthrow your commanding presence. Drake is the worst, as it is only sorcery speed and doesn't have any threat value, like Allure and Oko, once it is out it is done.

Oko being better later on, while it's interactive effect is more often better utilized earlier on is the biggest issue with it, but it's a small issue, so mana cost isn't my biggest issue with it, it is that it's a walker. If it was an enchantment, artifact, or even creature that doesn't die to a turn cycle of creatures turning sideways.

If it just +1ed at that point it'd be a staple, as is, I don't trust it to survive, so I expect it to be worth a few sorcery speed Beast Withins that are delayed. Not a bad card, just not great.

I have a log of a little less than 1700 cEDH games that were individually recorded with commanders, decklists, etc. but not fully compiled to that extent. Sadly, over 200 games additional games had a misplay or misruling so they could be deemed unusable, or I'd have much more data.

August 14, 2020 4:49 p.m. Edited.

RambIe says... #9

@jaymc1130
in a competitive simic deck Oko, Thief of Crowns could easy hit the board turn 1 or 2
which means potential speed bump / ramp on turn 2 maybe 3 by snatching any opponents mana rock
i can not see how this wouldn't have a major impact on the game not to mention as already stated any later turns in the game it still maintains massive value

so i think you have a very valid point oko has massive value
i can not and will not speak for the cedh crowd
but personally i would over look oko in building a cedh simic becouse hes not a "win more" card
"win more" meaning a card that ends the game when i play it

August 14, 2020 5 p.m.

jaymc1130 says... #10

SynergyBuild, huh, so for you it's the vulnerability of being a walker that's the main concern? I find that interesting, people are perfectly inclined to run Ashiok and Narset, and even Karn, as these are all walkers in competitive settings. In fact, no one even thinks twice about it, the things they do are just that powerful that keeping them alive for more than one turn cycle isn't always a concern (and the truth is they are actually very difficult to remove in the first place). It's definitely been my experience in competitive settings that "creatures turning sideways" isn't much of a real threat to walkers. It's very hard to send that Kess crashing in at the Oko when another opponent is then going to smack the Kess player with a Tymna swing and put the Kess player behind the Oko player and the Tymna player by a significant margin in terms of resources. The overwhelming majority of the time in competitive settings attacking Oko with creatures is an untenable line of play when it's going to afford an opportunity for another opposing Najeela player to swing and start activating into a defenseless opponent, an opposing Tymna player to swing and draw extra cards off the defenseless opponent, an opposing Yuriko player to swing and draw an extra card (of the put into hand variety that can't be hated out by Notion Thief style effects) while burning all opponents, etc, etc. Attacking the Oko with the elks or other creatures is a very good way to put oneself in a losing position while generating advantages for every other opponent at the table. I'd venture to say that by being a walker is actually an advantage over the other options, and a significant one at that due to the implications of the play patterns being a walker creates.

August 14, 2020 5:02 p.m.

jaymc1130 says... #11

RambIe, so for you it's more of a personal choice to run him or not run I take it? Is that purely due to your preferred style of play or is it something more along the lines of what your normal playgroup finds acceptable?

August 14, 2020 5:07 p.m.

RambIe says... #12

jaymc1130
my personal choice based on play style
when i build competitive i focus on ending the game 1st
2nd is stopping others from stopping me / not just stopping others
if that makes any sense

but i do feel you have a valid argument and because of its value im surprised it doesn't have major play.

August 14, 2020 5:18 p.m.

RambIe says... #13

note: a lot of this is also because that he is simic
if i was to build a cedh simic i would most likely pick a mana dump commander and stack the deck with infinite mana combos
if oko was any other guild i would probably feel different about him

August 14, 2020 5:23 p.m.

jaymc1130 says... #14

RambIe, well thanks for the input. I've been really scratching my brain over why it's not seen more commonly myself and I've been getting some good feedback on why some players decide to eschew Oko as a choice. I expect that in time it will become commonplace to see him and consider him a staple of the format, but the cEDH community is always very lethargic when it comes to change and adaptation.

August 14, 2020 5:24 p.m.

SynergyBuild says... #15

RambIe "Win more", when I used it at least (not speaking for anyone else that uses it) means to me the types of cards like Overrun after you already had lethal on field. They are cards that don't need to be run, because when they are good you are already winning.

"Lose less" is another term meant to describe cards like Fog in a situation where it saves you a turn, but you do nothing with that turn and die the next turn. It stalls defeat, but doesn't change the situation.

A card that is great, but only when you are winning, or can stall, but only when you are losing are not good cards, and because it's hard to block creatures from 3 opponents, walkers have a disadvantage in EDH, making the thought that Oko protects itself from opposing creatures (one of the hallmarks of the card in formats like Standard and Modern, and even currently running through legacy) almost faulty, and while it being at 5 loyalty helps, often because it doesn't give direct card advantage, many deck will just beat it.

That's not saying I don't run and love the card, but I'd still pick Drake over Oko if I had to pick! I don't run Karn, Ashiok, or Narset often either. Oko is probably the toughest of them all, but my metagame is a lot of decks with Oakhame Adversary, Tymna the Weaver, partner decks, etc. that can deal with all sorts of walkers.

Yuriko is never really a big deal, as it's such an easy deck to whiff and die to itself. Our metagame is really just Kenriths, partner decks, Najeela (soo much najeela that just easy kills a walker), etc. that mean that slower Oko style plays are the more untenable variants.

Still, even on MTGO, while I would run both I'd still rather Drake, it's just a cleaner card overall, and more efficient, and easier to tutor, etc.

I also agree with RambIe, that Oko, Thief of Crowns is a bit in a strange color combo for him to be run.

BTW: I compare him more to Dack Fayden, Teferi, Time Raveler, and Grasp of Fate than to Gilded Drake. A 3 mana, sorcery speed, interaction piece that either hits multiple cards, or has additional value makes more sense to me to compare. Dack Fayden used to be everywhere, and slowly ran out of the metagame (still is in Kess, Dissident Mage, but the -2 is less used) and it just less useful given the metagame's more creature-based evolution.

August 14, 2020 5:32 p.m.

RambIe says... #16

i'm always happy to chime in and butt my nose in were it doesn't belong :)

one last thing i would like to say on this topic
if you and i were 1v1 and you droped an oko on t2 id be pretty tilted,
because he would most likely interfere with the combo i was going to use to win on t3.

@SynergyBuild you know me, i live in my own little world using my own little terms. its probably why i confuse so many people ;p

August 14, 2020 5:35 p.m.

SynergyBuild says... #17

@RambIe for sure! Just wanted to make sure I wasn't being confusing either xD

@jaymc1130 just wanted to state I really don't want to say Oko, Thief of Crowns isn't amazing, and shouldn't be a staple, it's just second to Gilded Drake in my book, however both are so different I find it strange to compare them.

Rhystic Study vs Ad Nauseam feels like a similar debate. Both are great, and I'd rather use Ad Nauseam than Rhystic Study, but they are incredibly different despite them both being card draw.

August 14, 2020 5:43 p.m.

jaymc1130 says... #18

SynergyBuild I think maybe you're underestimating just how much Oko can "protect himself" in today's cEDH meta. Again, the player hit by the Oko +1 isn't going to want to kill that Oko, they've been put behind and need that Oko to put other opponents behind to catch up. The other 2 players don't want the Oko bothering them, but often will not be able to swing into the Oko due to opposing Oakhame Adversaries, Tymnas, Azra Oddsmakers, etc unless they also want to be put behind in resources and allow the Oko and last remaining opponent to be significantly ahead.

It's the same reason Ashiok, Narset, and Karn are all very powerful in cEDH at the moment, attacking into them to get rid of them creates opportunities for each other opponent to gain advantages against the player doing the attacking. Are you really going to swing into the Ashiok with your Tymna, not kill it, not draw an extra card you could draw from hitting another opponent with no blockers, and put the Ashiok lower on counters so that another opponent can then kill it, immediately tutor, and potentially win? Of course not. No competitive player is deliberately going to make decisions that put them even further behind the rest of the players at the table and the walkers that are viable in cEDH protect themselves by simply existing as a non game ending threat that is preventing other opponents from presenting game winning threats.

One of the most common mistakes I see from players when I play outside my playgroup is misreading these types of situations and then attacking a walker when it's objectively incorrect to do so as it creates a game winning opportunity for each other player at the table.

Interesting take on Rhystic Study, my entire playgroup has stopped running it (haven't run it for almost 2 years now) because it simply isn't competitive enough in terms of it's tax or draw effects. We'd be willing to play it in mono blue competitive decks from time to time, but even then it often just doesn't make the cut because the data doesn't support it as a net positive contribution to a deck's chances to win with a -.4% expected win rate as an inclusion. Not exactly a huge performance problem, but it also doesn't improve deck performance.

August 14, 2020 5:50 p.m.

jaymc1130 says... #19

RambIe, I'd be very unlikely to play Oko on turn 2 of any competitive game unless absolutely forced to do so. It's just not worth tapping out for in this situation most of the time when I could just play another mana dork or rock and leave up mana for my interaction. The way the competitive meta is these days the first player to attempt to go for a game winning line of play loses on the spot for attempting it an overwhelming majority of the time so I'll be the person looking to do the stuffing while building up my board state to generate insurmountable advantages over time and win by being the last person to attempt to go for the win.

August 14, 2020 5:57 p.m.

SynergyBuild says... #20

I mean, maybe? That seems like a dream land where players don't win out of nowhere. Not really the cEDH I know of, but sure! Oko often won't be able to survive in that way, because players will just kill it if it annoys them. Removal still beats Oko, it's just that as a walker it dies to creatures too, which is my issue with it. That's all. It isn't a bad card because of it, it's just slightly less amazing.

Separately Study has been a card that needs to be played properly (not thrown out as a draw engine like a Tymna). It is efficient against storm, think Compost, and when played against opponents early on it can be absurd. Late game it's a meh card but so are a lot of cEDH cards.

August 14, 2020 5:58 p.m. Edited.

jaymc1130 says... #21

SynergyBuild, when your primary playgroup is 4 players who all played mtg at the professional level (albeit with what I certainly consider very lackluster results at PTs, even if I'm the only one without a lifetime Pro Point) it's very uncommon to "win out of nowhere". We all know exactly what each deck is doing and how they can do it, the odds of them being able to do it, and the circumstances required to be able to go for it. Winning "out of nowhere" in our group is a pipe dream and our games tend to average about 10-12 turns unless some one gets a god hand and and can go off turn 1 or 2 (almost exclusively while going first in turn order). Probably not the cEDH meta most players are familiar with, but I doubt most cEDH players regularly play within a group where each individual has spent almost 30 years playing the game and played "semi" professionally for a third of that.

August 14, 2020 6:08 p.m.

SynergyBuild says... #22

I've been playing professionally myself, and though for not as much time, and for the sake doxing myself, I won't put up a record, I will say I have top-8ed in grand prixs for limited, and standard (I've put up top 32s in modern as well, and probably played more there, but never found the sweet spot where my deck really cruised the metagame).

I have consistently random queue against the cEDH metagame, with a 93% winrate against the field, and though sure, the "comp" queues for Untap.in, and similar websites may be subpar, I do believe that a group of 4 players no matter how skilled don't have the group-think that an entire community does. I fight the metagame, rather than an inbred group, though I understand that playgroup cEDH styles are relatively common.

I know metagames where Steal Enchantment is a must-run for any blue deck, due to Necros, Tithes, etc., to metagames where blue was hated so thoroughly that Carpet of Flowers was a waste. While I would never look down on them, assuming they are the pinnacle of cEDH, despite the players' skills and records, doesn't mean they are the pinnacle.

I take inspiration from plenty, in fact that is why I have enjoyed and tested the bloom piles I consider to be so strong nowadays, however I don't believe that they make up for the issues with their individual metagames.

Going Silence, backing it up with Pact of Negation and Mental Misstep, then oracling is an easy thing to do with an Ad Nauseam turn. Tymna/Thrasios can do it relatively easily pretty well, even agains the best decks, they can't pack enough interaction to stop more than a couple win lines at best, and that means turn 1-4 wins can occur, sure, games can go to turn 10, I've had plenty, however that doesn't make it the norm for the cEDH community.

I understand on the base that you may feel your playgroup is superior to the entire cEDH metagame, but I'd recommend seeing how you play against them, seriously take your decks against theirs, queue up against other players, and see your winrate with your superior lists to theirs, and show me the results. I won't state you are wrong, I don't know what the results will be, however I'd recommend doing that pretty regularly, to see if your deck goes well against the metagame you built for yourself or for the general cEDH metagame.

Playing professional MTG has helped me learn for cEDH, but I had to research Poker and bluffs and read The Art of War, and had to teach myself by the concepts laid out by professional poker players, etc. to get really good at it. I had to go back to college for stat II just to do research for properly making a calculator for estimating these complex interactions, and understand that simply playing competitively in the past doesn't make you a guru for cEDH.

I'm still not anywhere near the best in my opinion, but saying the rest of the metagame is slow to update I find quite nearsided, when amazing users like ShaperSavant, AlwaysSleepy and the Laboratory Maniacs, etc. (Sigi makes some sweet lists), Leptys is incredible, etc. all understand the metagame quite well, and are incredibly adaptive!

August 14, 2020 7:18 p.m.

Megalomania says... #23

There lies the problem with jaymc. He begins discussions with strong points (that I actually agree with) which quickly deteriorates into “my playgroup is the best so anything we think and do is better than what everyone thinks and does”.

August 14, 2020 7:37 p.m.

SynergyBuild says... #24

Megalomania I think he has good intentions, and is a really smart person, just maybe played in a small group for too long!

August 14, 2020 7:43 p.m.

jaymc1130 says... #25

It'd be folly to assume our group is the pinnacle of competitive edh play, definitely not a mistake we make. There's always something out there to learn, something new to find, some new piece of information that can change how you look at things and our group always strives to search out this kind of stuff. None of us played EDH at all 5 years ago, let alone cEDH, so we had to start from the same places as everyone else.

It's nice you highlight the importance of specific metagames, as this is a very important consideration and my second assumption about why players tend to make the choices for Allure or Drake over Oko, that it was mostly a meta specific matter. So far no one seems to support that idea so I'm starting to doubt my thinking in that matter as it seems less and less likely.

I think, in most cases, most lines of play after resolving an Ad Nas are going to be rather easy to piece together a win from. The hard part isn't piecing together the win, it's getting the Ad Nas to resolve at all in the first place, something that is actually a difficult feat at times. Even in the type of example you present it can be quite problematic if an opponent casts Angel's Grace in response to the Silence. It doesn't much matter if the Ad Nas resolved if all the possible wins can only occur on that turn and yet the game can't be won due to a card with a mechanic that makes it almost impossible to interact with (a huge reason why our group never runs Lab Man style win lines at all these days).

Poker is an apt game choice for learning some very important fundamental elements required to play cEDH at the most competitive possible levels, it's also quite a lot of fun (and, for me at least, very very profitable). There are a lot of resources out there like the Art of War that can lead to some pretty incredible insights for a format like cEDH. I'd absolutely recommend players take advantage of resources like that to gain some fresh perspective.

When it comes to the Lab Maniacs, that's kind of where our group started when we first got into cEDH. I think it's a good place for people to start, but it's also important to realize that every single Lab Maniacs play video is rife with misplays and fundamental play errors. Though these are highly skilled, very competent players their videos regularly prove that even skilled, competent players can make huge mistakes from time to time. There is still a wealth of knowledge and experience that such a group contains and it's worthwhile to check up on their activities from time to time to see how things are evolving because of just how dedicated to the format these players are. Using them as one of many resources to draw inspiration from would definitely be something I recommend.

When it comes to specific playgroups it's important to always remember, as you point out, that there is inherent bias. As our group is very aware of this fact we take some pretty extreme measures to avoid falling prey to bias as much as possible by playing mostly lists we find from other community members, tracking the data, playing sets of games rather than singles, and playing with folks outside of our group whenever possible. There's still the fact that all our data has a common factor that includes us, so totally eliminating bias is impossible, which is why we also pull our data from as many sources outside our group as possible. Each data set will have it's own inherent bias, but when combined provide a fairly solid picture.

August 14, 2020 7:47 p.m.

SynergyBuild says... #26

Yeah, I'll admit I may have made some money off of poker ;)

I don't look to their gameplay, I look to people like Lerker, ShaperSavant, LabManiac_Sigi, and AlwaysSleepy, as well as some other incredible deckbuilders for their deckbuilding. I don't think I am necessarily the best builder, but I am a talented player, despite my opinion on which I enjoy more changing (sometimes playing, sometimes building), my winrate is due to proper play, rather than builds alone, that doesn't mean I wouldn't want the best deck AND playing all at once.

I agree that data can be biased and still be used. Just recently I explained trying to assume bias and still take results from it as well as mixing extremely differently biased sources to gain a better perspective. I take notes of other cEDH games (many hundreds to low thousands) that can be spectated on Untap.in and other sites just to properly see how other players interact. I know players with 0 table talk and players that won't shut up, even when it's beneficial to them to do so.

For perfecting the format, I think inspiration from many corners of the community is useful, mind chatting a bit about what you found interesting in dms? I, while maybe not agreeing to the tier of your playgroup, love data, and want to know more about the workings of it. The fact that you have so much data I find personally incredible, especially because we seem to have started collecting it around the same time, for me, it was Hour of Devastation when I was collecting cEDH data!

August 14, 2020 8 p.m.

Megalomania says... #27

Ok, buddy. I just think the delivery could be improved considering the points are logical to begin with.

August 14, 2020 9:03 p.m.

jaymc1130 says... #28

DeinoStinkus, quite right indeed. The background and qualifications were merely meant to express the fact that the circumstances of our group are pretty unique as one that consists entirely of players who've proven a high level of skill for a very long time. Clearly, we aren't the best players in the world or we'd have a handful of PT/GP top 8s (or wins) on our collective resumes, but we are a highly capable bunch with a fair share of GP day 2s and PT invites.

August 14, 2020 9:06 p.m.

jaymc1130 says... #29

Megalomania, perhaps your own delivery could use improvement? In this whole thread the only person to post anything remotely hostile was you and you alone. Everyone else has been contributing to a wonderful discussion. You could, for example, attempt to contribute to the discussion at hand and explain your own personal reasoning for making card choices and why you might choose one of these options over the others.

August 14, 2020 9:09 p.m.

Megalomania says... #30

Tried that in the past. Your response had always been about your playgroup being comprised of top 8 players so your opinion was more valid than mine. Remember when you kept trying to force me make changes to MY list based on YOUR meta? Kept telling you your “inception” shizz made sense but I don’t see any reason for me to make changes based on someone else’s playgroup. You ended up blocking me lol. Anywho, that’s where i’m coming from just so you know.

August 14, 2020 9:15 p.m.

RambIe says... #31

@jaymc1130 "RambIe, I'd be very unlikely to play Oko on turn 2 of any competitive game unless absolutely forced to do so."

yes yes your right, i just cant get this idea out of my head of t3 -5 giving away a spent Mana Vault and taking Birds of Paradise

it makes me laugh

August 15, 2020 1:10 p.m.

jaymc1130 says... #32

RambIe

Lol, that would be pretty annoying.

August 15, 2020 2:59 p.m.

SynergyBuild says... #33

Ngl, turn two Oko seems hella fine, like, I wouldn't try it, but if I knew it would resolve and had counter backup I'd toss it down. Who'd want to toss any threats into that, and spending early removal on it might take away from setup, so it could actually allow serious card advantage by way of threatening to elk their engines.

August 15, 2020 5:58 p.m.

dingusdingo says... #34

Lots to touch on in this thread

The reason Oko isn't run is almost strictly CMC and other relative options. He builds presence on the board and builds advantage, but there are tons of cards for 1-2 CMC that build board advantage, and better cards at 3 CMC that build board advantage. Gilded Drake does everything you could want Oko to do, except faster and better. The tempo swing from stealing the opposing card 1 CMC sooner as opposed to elk'ing the card is why the Drake sees play and Oko doesn't. Oko is also a board black hole, and you will be focused until Oko is gone. You correctly identify that walkers on the board changes play patterns, but walkers will overwhelmingly be obliterated from every opponent swinging at it until dead, rather than causing stalemates due to creature combat advantage. Oko's +2 and -5 are both also pretty much useless in the context of cedh, the +2 isn't relevant except metalcraft for something like Mox Opal and the life truly doesn't matter, and the -5 is just a limited Gilded Drake except it takes you even longer to use it. Oko as a deterrent on turn 2 doesn't work either, as your opponents will put out threats faster than you can elk and once again the imaginary stalemate this card causes doesn't happen in real games of 1v1v1v1. Oko's CMC of 3 also has another problem; it makes it extremely awkward to choose when to cast Oko, as it competes with many value engines that will outperform it (Rhystic Study comes to mind) and lots of commanders, especially partner commanders.
Legacy's Allure is a dogshit card for cedh, always has been, and the community has been blinded by their belief that the labmaniacs walk on water and speak for all of cedh. It requires multiple turns to turn on properly, is visible on the table the entire time, and forces you to give up opportunity cost in playing it and slotting it. When you talk about the cedh meta being slow to adjust, this is the card I think of. This is a nice litmus test for me to see if a deck is just another labmaniac copycat or someone put some actual brainpower into building something of value.
I can guarantee you with almost 100% certainty that no one cares about your qualifications, professional play, or your 2000 games with your inbred meta. Talk about the cards and give justifications for the choices, or bring actual cold hard statistics from a reputable and verifiable source. If your logic for an inclusion or removal of a card from a deck can't stand on its own, showing me all the accolades you've given yourself isn't going to help.
I agree that jaymc thinks his anecdotal experience with his tight knit playgroup applies to all competitive games and scenarios. I think jaymc also vastly underestimates how easy it is to assemble and protect a win, especially with cards like Silence at your disposal. While jaymc is correct that turn 2 and 3 wins are phasing out of the meta for decks with consistent back up plans and interchangeable pieces, I also firmly believe that jaymc doesn't play paper in shops or against strangers. You're going to see the Godo Helm deck go for the turn 2 win because its only like ~$400 to build and it works. You will see pods of Godo + Sidisi + a jank Grenzo deck, and you will realize just how insular your meta is. The 4-5 color valuepiles that have dominated the 60 card formats and now dominate cedh aren't going to be seen in paper with the 90% adherence you see online due to the actual raw cost of building the decks. To put it more bluntly: Jaymc builds decks to prey on midgame value builds because his meta is exclusively mid game value builds. The Labmaniac meta also suffers from this problem. When you sit down at a table that isn't 3+ players on midrange, this style of deck will struggle. It works because it assumes the other players act in their assumed best interest; getting fast mana, playing value engines, and holding counterspells. This assumption that every deck must pack value engines and counterspells has been detrimental to brewing and development and we can look almost exclusively to the labmaniacs for making this so popular.
Steal Enchantment is another symptom of the overall meta adjusting to prey on midrange decks. Against the aforementioned Godo + Sidisi + Grenzo table, this is almost always a dead draw. Is stealing a Smothering Tithe or Necropotence or Carpet of Flowers great? Sure, but once again expecting every deck to be a BUG+ value pile is a mistake from a building perspective and leaves your deck with angles to be exploited by savvy meta metagame brewers.
If you mention poker and cedh but don't mention the words "levels of thinking" why do you even bring it up? Statistical analysis is helpful for deck construction, but really understanding levels of thinking is the most useful and transferable skill poker can give magic players. Even talking about poker in the context of "lines of play tell a story and give information" is a skill that can be used in magic.
I firmly believe the only labmaniac worth his salt is Shaper. I despise how they ignore direct questions and tags, and I have been blocked by a few for asking them repeatedly to justify their deckbuilding choices. Use their decks for ideas and brews, but please stop kissing their feet every time they take a step, the hero worship is getting tiring.

August 16, 2020 6:52 a.m.

jaymc1130 says... #35

DeinoStinkus, it's usually better to just ignore trolling. People do it because they want attention.

Dingus makes some good points about the flaws in Lab Maniacs and other "cEDH" style videos you might find out there. They do have a lot of problems. There really isn't much to disqualify this. But there is also merit in material like this too. It just takes time to parse through it and find the kernels that are relevant.

As for any of his angsty silliness directed at me in particular, yeah, it's rude, it's impolite, no one likes looking at that when we had a nice civil discourse occurring before these last two got involved, but you can't force everyone to act appropriately. Some people will always be less civilized. It's the type of stuff you ignore.

The type of thing to focus on and maybe take away from a thread like this is how SynergyBuild and I have interacted. We discussed some differing opinions, some options, some reasoning behind them, our qualifications and credentials that allow us to hold the opinions we hold, and then a much much lengthier series of discussions in private dms where we talked about so many things and shared a ton of information with one another about not just this topic but all things cEDH. We've both got some new ideas based on those discussions to try out and have arranged to play some together online when we get a chance. The negative people and the negative stuff... just ignore. There's no point in trying to converse with people that act that way. The positive people who have healthy respectful discussions and enjoy teaching and learning from one another are the things to dial in on and appreciate because the value of those interactions and subsequent shared information is how players get better, decks are built better, communities interact better, and so on.

August 16, 2020 7:41 a.m.

jaymc1130 says... #36

DeinoStinkus, Rhystic Study is not a particularly impressive piece in competitive settings. It's a bit on the slow side for what it does and is largely only useful when it can come out on turn 2 in games where none of the opposing players had any form of opening ramp to play the game slow and conservative by building more slowly and paying the tax while holding up interaction. Competent competitive players tend not to feed an early Study or Mystic Remora because this often wastes the resource investment made to make those plays and turns them into net negative results. You'll often see less skillful players still playing into them willy nilly, but about the only time you see truly competitive players feeding one of these types of value engines is when they are about to Windfall and hard punish the player who played the Study or Fish in the first place as development was often sacrificed for the engine and it becomes extremely difficult to catch up on board when put that far behind without acquiring a massive influx of cards that no one else at the table was able to match.

August 16, 2020 7:58 a.m.

jaymc1130 says... #37

Study isn’t a bad card by any stretch of the imagination, it’s a very solid value engine and a meta staple for a reason. The fact it still is means that very experienced players get used to playing around it and those play patterns are quite simple to become accustomed to which winds up negating much of the value. It’s a card that basically won’t make your deck significantly better or significantly worse in competitive settings, it’ll just wind up being nuetral over a large sample size of games and if you can find a card in that slot that’s net positive then there’s a chance you stand to win a few more games per 100 played by swapping it for the Study. Winning one more game per 100 by swapping a single card isn’t a big deal, but if a pilot makes these kinds of decisions for every card in the deck then sometimes it could be 5 or 10 more games per 100 played and that can be a very big deal indeed.

August 16, 2020 8:19 a.m.

dingusdingo says... #38

DeinoStinkus

Take a closer reading of my response. I don't deride jaymc for playing in paper, the only reason I bring it up is because the metas are actually different in paper than online by deck % share of the total, due to real life cost in assembling decks. It isn't elitism for paper or claiming to be a high overlord, it is a tangible thing to consider when playing cedh. I'm going to need you to read for clarity and context before posting any further replies.

Also, come on, just call me a prick if you're upset. No need to talk around it "Oh you're acting like a prick but not saying you are :-) " Own your words coward.

jaymc1130

Its neat you can talk about your top-8 friends and your 2000 games, but its the internet and we have literally no way to verify this. It is quite literally useless information that doesn't change your position or give you further credibility. Instead of getting offended when someone points out that you have given yourself accolades to buff up your opinion, how about you just give a good opinion on something? Its the same thing with your poker shenanigans. We have absolutely 0 way to verify if you have won any money playing poker, but based on your complete lack of connecting anything even tangentially poker related skill wise to magic, we are only left with the assumption its an ego brag. Stop wasting my time with your egoism and discuss the cards, you don't have to give yourself a high five first.

As far as your meta? Yeah its extremely inbred and a closed circuit. Look at your opinions on Rhystic Study as an example. Rhystic Study costs mana and either taxes or draws a card. This means it goes positive on 4 spells after it resolves, taxing either or drawing 4 or some mix in the middle, and it also means Rhystic breaks even on 3 casts. Even if players aren't giving you draws, it is still a massive slowdown on their tempo, and the fact you can't recognize this is why you're discounting it. The fastest winning combos are 2 card combos, which is 2/3 of the way to paying it back right away. You also need to consider how the tax or draw impacts play lines of opponents, and it can potentially buy you extra turns when the consult player doesn't want to give 2 draws but also can't make the jump from to mana that turn. By your own admission the meta has shifted to longer games which favor Rhystic. Any game in which you think you will get 4+ casts after Rhystic resolves, it becomes a positive expected value play either in tempo slow or card advantage gain. The fact it has a negative winning correlation in your meta is due to the closed circuit nature of your meta, which preys too heavily on value cards rather than actually trying to winning.

Go ahead and discount me because I'm not sugarcoating my replies, but that doesn't impact the validity of anything I've posted. I'm not trolling, I legitimately think this community worships the labmaniacs and it is exhausting to see their shitty cards like Legacy's Allure in threads and decks. How about you respond to the points I'm making, or you explain how levels of thinking or lines of play giving information translate to magic?

August 16, 2020 9:03 a.m.

SynergyBuild says... #39

Tbh Legacy's Allure is pretty bad, let's all admit that.

August 16, 2020 2:40 p.m.

Megalomania says... #40

Oh now you’re being civil. Lol! You weren’t civil when you made fun of my deck for not being up to the standards of YOUR meta “despite costing thousands of dollars”. You weren’t being civil when you were going on other people’s lists bragging about how their deck wouldn’t fare well against your “inception” strategy. You also weren’t civil when you blocked me for telling you to stop convincing me to make changes to my deck based on how you think it would fare against your “inception-based strategy”.

Stop trying to make it seem like you haven’t been trying to thump your chest every opportunity you can. Every single time someone disagrees withyou, your go-to response is to point out how you’re part of an “elite” playgroup. You immediately stopped being an ass the moment Synergy introduced himself as an equally-accomplished player lol

August 16, 2020 6:26 p.m.

SynergyBuild says... #41

Megalomania I mean, to be fair I wouldn't say my accomplishments in 60 card constructed ever came over to cEDH, they are suuper different.

I have went up against a person that never stepped into a GP, or even played modern that could wipe the floor with my on knowledge of cards, who literally knew every single card in the game and every rule (this was around Dominaria, I haven't seen them since, they came from out of town to an FNM, and were huge into cEDH, Canadian Highlander, and limited). They had some weird brain thing idk enough about to comment on, but they were talented AF.

Basically, I am a mediocre deckbuilder, who relies on my mathematical knowledge and mild coding skills to make computers do the work for me, and test things much better than I can, and I think I'm a good player. My accomplishments in other formats doesn't mean much, which I think is true of jaymc1130 too. I don't think he tried to make it seem (at least in this conversation) that because of his and his playgroup's previous accomplishments that makes him better at cEDH. He's been playing about triple the time I've been playing, and yet we have a fine discussion in pms on this xD

I do think that the Inception package is a little weak in the current metagame, Gitrog, Kess, Kenrith, Najeela, etc. all are pretty multi-ended, so a single Extract won't often beat them, but Idk what deck you were talking about, so I won't comment much further.

In all honesty, I think jaymc1130 has a bit of a different metagame and mindset going into the format, so may see things in a way that I or you may not see as true or as obviously. I so far have understood everything he's said despite that, and even been attempting to inform myself on those niche metagames, because it shows how metas adapt much faster than the overall metagame, which can take time.

While perhaps not the best example, Leptys's Gitrog Monster deck (Gitrog Dredge Combo [Primer]) is one of the most famously good, stock versions, and 3 weeks ago was updated to include a second eldrazi, which helps stop the "Inception Package" that jaymc1130 had previously had a metagame using. That is why their version of Gitrog already ran two eldrazi shufflers, which happened to predict the future of Leptys's brew about two years prior. It just focuses on the specifics of the format, and attempts to fix them all at once. While often making their decks worse in a total (why I think his playgroup doesn't favor Rhystic Study, and does favor Oko, Thief of Crowns) vacuum, assuming their deck was going against the average cEDH field, I do believe that he has an interesting perspective on how the metagame could change.

Personally, I'd view any inbred metagame (not an insult, I think any group of less than 12 people is bound to be inbred, where their meta shifts farther from the general metagame, and moves toward more interesting strategies that battle against eachother, and are worse in a vacuum) as a petri dish. It is a strong way to see how things could naturally grow, but much faster than waiting for real metagames to adjust.

jaymc1130 isn't wrong when he says that Oko is better than Rhystic Study for his metagame, but he could be wrong when he says it's better in your metagame, as it's never going to be that simple. That's why DeinoStinkus wasn't wrong when he assumed Rhystic Study was a better play (or at least he'd rather drop it than oko), I personally have found it is an incredibly valuable card in the general metagames of MTG in online forms, where people often do not pay for it, and as such it gives vast amounts of general value.

If his metagame has adjusted to it's play-patterns, it would make it much worse overall as a card, though still perhaps being useful. If they aren't adjusted to Oko, Thief of Crowns as well as my metagame, as well as dingusdingo probably has, based on his statements, perhaps you too.

Honestly, I think jaymc1130 made some comments to me, that were meant to show credibility, and not superiority, and some misinterpretations of that set a bad mood. I personally have no issues with jaymc1130, I think he has a really cool personality (wanna be frands?), is a wonderful deckbuilder, and has a sweet, unique perspective on the format, as well as being good in a more generalized metagame too.

I think dingusdingo is an amazing brewer and honestly a pretty civil person too, but got the wrong idea from that initial misunderstanding that some reading what mine and jay's discussion could have gotten, and for that I will take some blame, for not properly explaining it when things got heated. Tbh, I agree with some of the other points, like the lab maniacs and other members of the community being seen as gurus when they aren't, and are just players like the rest of us.

Megalomania, while I don't know you as well, I love the cEDH brews I see on your front page, and have to apologize for Flash's ban on that front! I think you also misunderstood out discussion, and it was easily misunderstandable, so that's not on you either.

Tl;dr: I think a misunderstanding of credentials being elitism caused bit of drama, when it really comes down to the fact that I think you all are pretty chill people that I'd like to hang with. The cEDH community is small as is, let's not fragment it any further!

August 16, 2020 7:14 p.m.

Megalomania says... #42

I obviously wasn’t talking to you DeinoStinkus. I haven’t done anything to him as well. All I did was point out patterns and you’re here doing your best to defend him like you’re his wife or something.

SynergyBuild I know. I just dislike how the guy tries to impose his “knowledge” using numbers no one else can verify and how his playgroup of elite guys is the correct basis for determining what would work well in a “true” cEDH meta.

We know he is smart. And even I have repeatedly acknowledged the merits of his arguments in all the threads i’ve encountered him in. But you have to admit that for him to insist that the entire cEDH community is slow to grasp things that only his “elite playgroup” has figured out just doesn’t sound like something that would inspire a decent/civil conversation.

August 16, 2020 7:34 p.m.

SynergyBuild says... #43

Megalomania You see, I can get behind that. Using numbers we can't verify especially, but all of those things I think are simple enough that we can come to disagree and still be all cool here, right? I personally want a peek at some of those numbers myself ;)

But for now it's all cool, so what if he thinks the cEDH community is slow, honestly, from what I've seen I can't blame him. I'm pretty slow in the head too though, so I can love the cEDH community for being the slow-to-change, but really fun, unique competitive environment it is!

Again, I think everyone on this forum is a cool person, just taking a step back and voicing that as an opinion is all I'm doing xD

EDIT: Spelling, wow, proof I'm dumb.

August 16, 2020 7:40 p.m. Edited.

Megalomania says... #44

It’s not a stigma. It’s my way of telling you to back off because this has nothing to do with you, “bro”.

SynergyBuild you’re right. I just can’t stand the guy’s attitude though. Like I said, this isn’t the first time he has used that line of argument. He does it every single time. Anyways, i’m done here. Most of the guys on the site are cool and i’ve gotten a ton of helpful inputs over the years. Luckily, very few of them needed to be an ass just to get their point across.

August 16, 2020 8:57 p.m.

jaymc1130 says... #45

Hard to put it much better SynergyBuild.

Perhaps the best key point to take away is the importance of innovation and testing new concepts to find how they fare and also how meta games adjust to the new ideas. It's why our group played Inception style stuff and dominated with it for a year, and why, after that time period, things adjusted and the concept was no longer dominant, merely an answer to specific meta games that revolved around glass cannon combo style decks. It's why we test stuff like Oko against the field at large, both the best and some of the "worst" decks in the format. It's why we came up with the Bloom combo as an answer to evolving meta trends and test that against the field at large as well. Most of the community does not do this, they stick to what they've seen in the past or other people tell them to stick to and fail to attempt to innovate or explore emerging options due to preconceived notions (Playing with Power or Lab Maniacs being good examples of this).

The failure to explore all the potential options is what leads to stagnant, slow evolving meta states that trend toward "group think". Most of the options I or my group try fall flat on their face, for one reason or another and it's only once in a blue moon that we stumble upon something that has real merit in a wide variety of settings, but if we didn't push the limits and test all the things that didn't work we'd never identify new trends that do work. The fact our Gitrog lists long ago evolved to run double Eldrazi but the cEDH meta at large didn't initiate that change for 2 more years is indicative only of the fact that we like to try new things and this sometimes leads to adaptations before the community at large catches on. Oko has the potential to be another meta adaptation that happens over time and it's why I opened a discussion about it in the first place. So those interested parties can hear it here first and do their own research to find what works for them and hear about what works for other players.

It's a lot easier to come up with new ideas and test new things when you begin a discourse and wind up finding other folks with interesting takes and data that can then be exchanged as we've been doing and I'm looking forward to putting your Medium Green concept to the test in the upcoming months. An idea we've never considered but that looks promising, though the interaction that lead to this information exchange first required mutual respect and establishment of knowledge bases being worked from.

August 16, 2020 11:57 p.m.

RambIe says... #46

I have a confession
when you all write these 10 page documentary posts,
i get board after 3 sentences and move to the next post
maybe this is why i don't get as tilted by comments.

August 17, 2020 4:53 p.m.

RambIe says... #47

just idk imo

Problem: you think your play group is the best.
Solution: congrats that just means you got good friends and get to enjoy this game.
Problem: you think someone is going to put a stupid card in there deck
Solution: Let them play it, it wont hurt your deck at all
Problem: your card suggestion is better then theirs
Solution: See Solution For Number 2.
Problem: You have statistics to back your argument but they wont listen
Solution: if you actually follow and know all the statistics of cards
Then this is no longer a game or a hobby magic has become a job
and if its a job you should be getting paid. if you are getting paid then stop arguing with people that don't get paid about your job
Problem: someone is being an ass
Solution: everyone is an ass sometimes, even you O,o

glad i could help, if you need anymore solutions feel free to hit me up :)

August 17, 2020 5:07 p.m.

SynergyBuild says... #48

RambIe I wish there was money in cEDH fam.

August 17, 2020 5:12 p.m.

RambIe says... #49

Problem: SynergyBuild isn't getting paid
Solution: Someone should start paying SynergyBuild

August 17, 2020 5:17 p.m.

SynergyBuild says... #50

RambIe dude this is the energy I need in the community.

I've been grinding this stuff too hard to not get paid. Brb gonna go get sponsored by TCGplayer or like Card Kingdom, doesn't seem like they are too hard to get sponsored by ;)