On what turn is it acceptable to win the game?
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Nov. 6, 2015, 4:15 a.m. by Dorotheus
Right now 4-player free-for-all EDH is imbalanced the way it is. Some things should have never been allowed to be played with, some things should be banned, and others should be unbanned.
One of the main concerns to pick up on to fix this, is, What turn is it acceptable to win the game?
(Modern is a turn 3 format, and Legacy is a turn 1 format)
From the moment when the game starts.
If you're annoyed because your friend has faster deck than you, build a better one. Even if someone has T1 possibility in their EDH deck it is almost impossible to pull it off. If that happened against me I would congratulate, not complain about it.
November 6, 2015 6:16 a.m.
One random asides before I get to the question posed:
Modern is "turn four" not entirely because of the turn by which you can win. Yes decks can win on turn four, but thats realistically more the turn by which you either win, as is implied, OR you stabilize. It really is a big distinction.
Okay. Now that it's out of my system... It really depends on your group. Epoch has a WONDERFUL article series in which he critically analyzes EDH and the claim that it is a "casual" format that I highly recommend at least thumbing through. Personally when I get salty opponents when I turn 4 or 5 combo, I use a lot of his summations to explain why their view doesn't make me feel bad about doing so. He basically states in a TLDR fashion: EDH is what you make it. Your play group has to agree upon the type of games you're all looking for and then follow through, if someone is unhappy with an early combo then one of you is in the wrong playgroup.
November 6, 2015 6:34 a.m.
iLikeDirt's comment on Modern as turn 4 is what I was going to say. It's not about winning turn 4, but saying that by turn 4 you can usually guess who's going to win.
In my playgroup we don't have any rules about this sort of thing, but we try to make sure everyone has a chance to play the game. If someone has been topdecking shit and hasn't cast a spell other than Sol Ring all game, we aren't gonna just kick them while they're down. We had a competitive tournament once with prizes, and I Wasteland-Life from the Loam locked someone out of the whole fucking game because it was for prizes, and I felt like shit. We just don't do that in our casual games.
This is just how we do things. I'd consider trying a similar "moderation-without-rules" approach. If I had to summarize it into a single sentence: let everyone play the game; that's why you're there.
November 6, 2015 8:03 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #6
I appreciate the plug.
I suppose we should start with this: why do you think the format is unbalanced?
Note that I don't agree or disagree just yet. But I want a stronger postulation than "it's unbalanced and the bans are wrong." That doesn't really tell us anything about the state of the format. And is it the format that's unbalanced or is it your local meta? I understand that, to some extent, your point depends on some consensus on what constitutes an acceptable win rate or win speed, but is that all?
November 6, 2015 8:05 a.m.
I actually have a Nekusar, the Mindrazer deck that can win fairly consistently on turn 5 or 6 and I'm not really "allowed" to play that deck in my group. I've not eaten the deck because I like to hear people cry sometimes.
Otherwise our play group, largely at the request of a few people who will complain, typically gets upset if things start to happen before turn 7.
This means that with a few of my decks that can "decide" to end he game, I sit on those pieces until the game either needs to end or someone tries to murder me.
November 6, 2015 8:28 a.m.
You're approaching it the wrong way. In most Magic formats, you have an unspoken "tempo" resource of how quickly your deck goes off. EDH has tempo, too, but it largely replaces it with a popularity resource. Put another way, there are a lot of decks which can draw a winning T3 hand against 40-life dummies that don't cast spells. There are very few decks which can pull that off against the wishes of the entire table.
So there's not really a wrong time to end the game. There's just a big obstacle most players are conditioned to ignore. The classic EDH beginner mistake is to combo of too early, not because there's a gentleman's code on when you should end the game, but because beating a roundtable is a completely different proposition than beating individual opponents.
November 6, 2015 10:01 a.m.
Karns_Pyromancer says... #9
My group has a tendency to hate out players on accident. We are fairly casual/beer EDH, but even in that format some cards (Herald of Leshrac) are a bit broken unless dealt with.
I usually know by T5 if I'm going to win or lose. If I lose, it's within 4 more turns. That's just how my decks work. Some other players will do nothing, but get royally screwed by their decks and get trimmed from the game.
Do I dislike it, not really. The group is friendly, so no one really gets their feelings hurt. We each usually run a few of the tempted cycle; Tempt with Discovery is very good for helping the low man out. We only recently decided Iona, Shield of Emeria needed to go after we had a 5 player game and 4 player were running Blue (one was a Thassa deck).
So, how to remedy winning too fast? Don't win. I think you should definitely ask your playgroup what they think is acceptable as well. And, if needed, consider changing Banlists. The French/Duel list is meant for competitive play, whereas the regular EDH list is just suggestions. Or take both under advisement and make your own.
November 6, 2015 10:10 a.m.
It depends on the play group. Honestly it's great to see a turn 1 win and worthy of congratulations. But if that's all someone's deck is, super quick wins that doesn't really let anyone have fun, then it sucks.
Honestly if you're playgroup like quick games of edh, then play a deck that goes bam bam bam win. If not, then don't play it. And if someone has a deck that wins turn one to three potentially, build a deck to fuck it over.
November 6, 2015 10:15 a.m.
when i play at the edh tournaments at my LGS, i definitely shoot for a turn 4-6 win with my Animar, Soul of Elements deck
they're usually 10-20 people broken into pods of 4-6 people, but sometimes we will play big games with everyone at the table (biggest i saw was a 14 person free-for-all).
at home with our playgroup (2-6 people), i'll still shoot for the fastest win i can with animar to practice for the shop. my playgroup is pretty strong so it's always a challenge. if i do happen to blow-out within the first 8 or so turns, i'm definitely switching to a different, more casual deck next game to keep things fun
synopsis: if it's for prizes, go for the win no matter what. if it's casual, don't be an asshole.
November 6, 2015 12:22 p.m.
griffstick says... #12
I need to feel like I played the game befor its over so I shy away from infinite combos and stupidly strong commanders. Just remember if the game ends in 1 hr or 1 min, you just shuffle up and play another game. Thats the best part is that you can talk about how many turns, mins, hrs, the game is, or how fun or boring it is, or maby you get ganged up on and loose first, or its a landslide victory... You see thats the best part about the game is the emotional roller coaster youll have when playing the game. But like i said before. Just shuffle up and play another game. There's no set rule on how many games you can play.
November 6, 2015 12:30 p.m. Edited.
griffstick says... #13
Just remember its ment to be a social game so it really doesn't matter
November 6, 2015 12:33 p.m. Edited.
it is acceptable to win on turn 0...its a freaking game that you play with 1 outcome for playing it: winning.
November 6, 2015 1:06 p.m.
I think if we focus on EDH through a competitive lens that deals with 4 players, rebalance it around that, then the 'casualness' of the game would be preserved as well.
I think some of the EDH Leagues that have been going around have a large list of points and players lose points for comboing and gain points for multi-kills, or does something to the similar effect, but it's far too complicated to have a sit-down tournament.
So firstly, I just wanted to get some opinions of when it's acceptable for people that win or start winning. And I would say Turn 5, but did just want some opinions.
November 6, 2015 2:21 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #16
I guess the question still is, "Why do we need to?"
Call me a libertarian, but I'm of the opinion that Commander should be managed as little as possible. Owing largely to its identity as a social format, Commander is in the position of allowing playgroup regulation to take charge of most of the fine tuning. Format-wide decisions should focus on things that are intrinsically detrimental to the format and that offer little in return to balance what they take away.
For example, Fastbond is a reasonable ban because it almost immediately guarantees a win. However, something like Primeval Titan may not necessarily reach that level and should be left to playgroup discretion.
If you try to manage the format according to what is good for either competitive or casual, you end up hurting both demographics. (This is something I always rant about whenever the RC makes a new decision.)
So do we need to change how the format operates? Is there a real issue with people winning on turn 3 in one playgroup and turn 20 in the next? Why should we change the format and what would the changes bring to the table?
November 6, 2015 2:28 p.m.
Thursday Nights there is an MTG Club that is predominantly EDH and I've been watching and studying how people break into groups for the past couple years, with a rather large sample, if anyone was wondering where this was coming from.
November 6, 2015 2:28 p.m.
If the bans were more strict to a competitive sense then wouldn't people house-rule unbanned them anyway? So that doesn't really change anything except for a competitive scene.
November 6, 2015 2:33 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #19
But why should the onus be on the playgroup to undo damage done to the format as a whole? Playgroup regulation is a social tool, not an excuse for poor format management. I've used exactly that phrase when talking about RC decisions.
The thing is, Commander is inherently not a tournament-friendly format. The multiplayer aspect and disparity between it and 60-card make it functionally difficult to organize for. The social nature means that competitive interests are no longer assumed to be the guiding or predominant ones, even though a tournament structure necessarily promotes competition at some level. It's not a format-level issue, in my opinion, to attempt to reconcile casual and competitive interests on behalf of the players. Let each playgroup or LGS figure out what it wants to do based on its audience.
November 6, 2015 2:39 p.m.
Remember that Commander is marketed as a casual format. From Wizard's website: A casual multiplayer format in which each player's deck is led by the legendary creature of his or her choicefittingly, that's the deck's commander. The rest of the deck is a specially crafted arsenal of creatures, artifacts, and other spells, designed to reflect the personality of the deck's commander and take advantage of its strengths.
However players like Epochalyptik take this a step further and say "Why bother with this as casual? Let's ramp it up!" and include cards like Time Warp or Food Chain to make it more competitive. Or take it all the way and make decks where having Force of Will is necessary.
With this turn where local metagames can either be incredibly casual or incredibly competitive, Epochalyptik is closer to correct than most people are. Because of this, a "turn rule" isn't really viable. I have a commander deck that can win on Turn 3, and I have another commander deck that can't win before turn 8. But enforcing a "can't win before turn X" ban list would only alienate players who are already used to the way the game is now.
November 6, 2015 3:09 p.m.
poorpinkus says... #22
For my playgroup, everything is fair game once each player has had the opportunity to play their commander, whether they did it or not. We want to let everyone showcase their decks, and usually their ability to play their general is a good tell as to whether or not they have been able to do anything.
Now, my playgroup tends to scoff at anyone being killed before everyone else has taken at least 20 damage, which I understand as it's unfun to sit and watch, but I also slightly disagree with, but I am also the player that tends to unwittingly realize an infinite combo in my hand and roll the rest of the table after being unable to do anything for half the game...
Anyways I'd say that it's usually a good idea to let each player do ... something before you decide to bring on the pain train, as people's hatred of certain decks usually stems from preventing players from playing the game. If you have a combo in your hand, just let it sit there until another player seems to have a heavy upper hand, at which point you can emerge as the "hero"
Sorry if this made absolutely no sense I need to go to sleep
November 8, 2015 3:51 a.m.
Commander will forever be a universal format that can appeal to both the competitive minds and contemplating youth. It's designed to be flexible for each group. The beauty of this format is that it is what you make it. The chance to create the ideal deck with the ideal friends at the ideal time at the ideal place is what it's all about. My opinion is that it is different for each group. If players are having a hard time or if they haven't decided, work with them to make house rules that make the game fun for everyone. If combo is what you like to play, then make accommodations so that you can. It's a social event. BE SOCIAL.
kengiczar says... #2
Turns 1 through 9,999
I'm dead serious. I don't mind if somebody combos out turn one. It just means they got a perfect 7 (or at least perfect 5 i'm pretty sure) and I didn't have Mental Misstep to stop them.
Modern is only a turn 4 format because of two main things: Deceiver Exarch + Splinter Twin type combos and mono
. Mono 
loses to Leyline of Sanctity. Splinter Twin doesn't. It's absolutely rediculous that modern has been declard a turn 4 format based off the easiest combo in the format's speed when the combo itself is way to easy. No other two card combo can compare to Splinter Twin + Stupid uncommon or common.
TLDR: Don't ban everything that can win on turns 1-4 just because it has the perfect 7 or even perfect 6 cards. Hell, even the perfect 5 is ok with anyone I've ever played with. But DO ban the generals that are consistent and easy to abuse with a plethora of different hands drawn. The first one that comes to mind is Scion of the Ur-Dragon.
November 6, 2015 5:29 a.m.