What is building original?
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on May 8, 2014, 4:29 a.m. by SealableZero
The reason I write this thread is because I need you guys opinions. First off, would you agree that building an EDH deck takes a lot of time and in order to be original, that takes even more effort than copying what's in the meta for your general?
My general is Oloro. Now one word that comes to mind when hearing his name is life gain. It's natural to believe that, because of his abilities. Now for me to be original, I don't built that at all. I use the alternative esper control style which is also common. So I take it further and use heavy enchantment control with combo for my win cons.
Now I understand that this play style isn't considered casual friendly EDH, and many of you will say "oh anybody can build that," which I hear more than often. But isn't it itself original if I came up with a combination of enchantments through hours of research to build an entire deck of synergy?
My deck revolves around graveyard hate with cards like Rest in Peace , Gravestorm , web of intertia, and a whole bunch of cards that support not having a graveyard like Energy Field . Knowing that most decks utilize having a graveyard. Taking that away devastates their gameplay.
I'm not saying that this deck would be fun to play against, because it combos and wins. Many people have called my deck a troll deck because it locks the board heavily. But isn't that control is in the first place. Think about it. What is a control deck? What's its purpose? To control right? Well how is it a troll deck when you are doing exactly what a control deck does. Not necessarily using traditional methods, but that's what makes my deck unique right?
I babble to you guys reading this because i just finished a game of edh using lackeyccg. I played oloro, bust out Humility and Night of Souls' Betrayal and ruined his gameplan. He then got really pissy and said this deck is banned from my rooms from now on. And when that happens, I'm sorry to say this, but my troll face does come on. Come on!!! It's really hard not to be a smartass when someone rages so much against my deck. Like this guy was talking all loads of smack like saying that my deck is the worst control deck... First thing i said was "well thank you." Is it not a compliment? Well whatever I'm done babbling.
I have a feeling there might be a divide in responses. It's gonna be someone arguing the point of "oh I play magic for fun" blah blah blah. And others will support my argument. Or maybe a third group. To further the troll of which I just unleashed.
Well, to me, it depends on your commander. Some commanders have one million and 1 ways to build, while others like Kaalia of the Vast and Nekusar, the Mindrazer are pretty straightforward. To me, only thing that bothers me is TRUE netdecking of EDH decks. If someone uses a common build, it doesn't bother me.
May 8, 2014 7:36 a.m.
PlattBonnay says... #5
To be honest there really isn't any kind of "original deck" any more. Pretty much everything falls into an archetype that is already established. Just pick a type of deck that you like and try to build in that style.
May 8, 2014 7:40 a.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #6
EDH is one of the only formats where creativity can truly shine. You should always do your own thing in EDH, because your deck then gets to say a little bit about who you are.
It's perfectly reasonable to build EDH decks that are meant to win every time, but also keep in mind that EDH was designed as a casual format. If you end up building a deck that doesn't allow other players to also enjoy the game, then you're missing the big picture.
That doesn't mean you can't have a competitive deck stashed away in case a competitive event pops up, though.
May 8, 2014 9:36 a.m.
Then you have Bane of Progress that just ends enchantment / artifact decks (unless you have land destruction).
May 8, 2014 10:21 a.m.
CrimsonKing says... #8
As a suggestion use Helm of Obedience
and Rest in Peace
to exile someone's library.
May 8, 2014 11:41 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #9
@PlattBonnay: Sorry, that's incorrect.
While it's true that there are certainly established decks for every format, you'd have to have an unfairly broad view on unoriginality in order to make the claim you make. For example, you can go so far as to claim that any deck that falls under archetype X is unoriginal, but that doesn't really say anything.
As for EDH and originality, I think it's pretty easy to be original.
I'm probably in a unique position here. My deck, Dominus - Dreamcrusher Edition, appears to have become something of a standard for BUG combo control in EDH. I've seen people netdeck it, and other users have reported seeing exact copies of it on cockatrice. I developed this deck through years of theorycrafting and testing; it was and is original in the sense that it's my creation.
Netdecking in EDH is typically disadvantageous for the player. If you netdeck a Standard deck, you need to spend some time to learn why a handful of different cards make the decklist work. In EDH, you need to learn why many, many cards come together to make the decklist work. Furthermore, the sheer size of the card pool means you may see decks containing cards with which you have no experience or about which you have no knowledge. Every design choice has to come together to make a truly strong deck.
When I watch people talk about my deck or discuss their own copy/close variant, it becomes clear that they lack a certain degree of insight regarding the deck's function and its design choices. For example, some people don't know why I run Deathrite Shaman in EDH because they've never played in a competitive pod with tons of fetches and recursion. Some people don't know why I don't run Progenitor Mimic because they've never played at a level where a creature like that is too slow or inefficient to be relevant.
In general, it doesn't have to take a lot of effort to be original. If you give me a deck idea, I can probably give you a prototype in about an hour, including the time it takes to research relevant cards. Of course, it might appear that this means the deck is unoriginal because the decklist can be put together so quickly (so it must contain lots of "staples"), but this isn't necessarily the case. Yes, staples are in lots of decks. That's why they're staples. But playing Sol Ring and Sensei's Divining Top and Counterspell doesn't make you unoriginal.
To me, a deck is sufficiently original if you invested the time to do research and consciously build the list. There are "accepted" paths for many of the popular decks because those paths happen to be what work, but that doesn't, in my opinion, mean you're unoriginal if you build along a path.
May 8, 2014 11:59 a.m.
SealableZero - I'll address each of your points in turn because you're clearly missing some things.
The reason I write this thread is because I need you guys opinions. First off, would you agree that building an EDH deck takes a lot of time and in order to be original, that takes even more effort than copying what's in the meta for your general?
- Of course originality takes more time than copying people. That's the definition of it.
My general is Oloro. Now one word that comes to mind when hearing his name is life gain. It's natural to believe that, because of his abilities. Now for me to be original, I don't built that at all. I use the alternative esper control style which is also common. So I take it further and use heavy enchantment control with combo for my win cons.
- This isn't original it's called pillowfort or stax (depending on the direction you go) and has been done to death by various people. Oloro isn't even a particularly great general for it.
Now I understand that this play style isn't considered casual friendly EDH, and many of you will say "oh anybody can build that," which I hear more than often. But isn't it itself original if I came up with a combination of enchantments through hours of research to build an entire deck of synergy?
- It's not original because other people have done it to the extent where the archetype has a name. It can be casual friendly or somewhat competitive depending on how you play. It can't be highly competitive because it has limited interaction and a high curve. It's also completely wrecked by faster decks and those that can mass destroy enchantments and artifacts (which is a lot).
My deck revolves around graveyard hate with cards like Rest in Peace , Gravestorm , web of intertia, and a whole bunch of cards that support not having a graveyard like Energy Field . Knowing that most decks utilize having a graveyard. Taking that away devastates their gameplay.
- There are loads of decks that don't utilise a graveyard. Traditional esper control won't to a large extent (save Snapcaster Mage - but that's not a massive deal), aggro decks won't, green stompy won't, bant flicker won't. The only ones that do are usually mono-black control or midrange, golgari, or junk reanimator. That's not a majority of the decks played in EDH. Also playing a card like Energy Field is useless because as long as people have land they'll have enchantment destruction.
I'm not saying that this deck would be fun to play against, because it combos and wins. Many people have called my deck a troll deck because it locks the board heavily. But isn't that control is in the first place. Think about it. What is a control deck? What's its purpose? To control right? Well how is it a troll deck when you are doing exactly what a control deck does. Not necessarily using traditional methods, but that's what makes my deck unique right?
- The kind of decks you're describing are not fun to play against which is a massive problem in EDH because no-one will want to play against you. If no-one wants to play against you then what's the point in building it? Waste of time. I have a super competitive combo deck that can win instantly on the spot between turns 3-5. I never play it because no-one else wants to and it's really not fun. It's just tiresome. Doing the same thing every time and winning is really unfulfilling. It's such a crap way to win the game. Contrast that with a control deck rather than a lockdown deck, and you see the differences immediately. A control deck allows you to do things before wiping or countering certain aspects. A lockdown deck just doesn't let anyone do anythign at all, which is stupid and tiring. The most irritating aspect is that the combos they usually use to win take bloody ages to assemble so you have to sit there and wait whilst they construct them, all the while you have to just say 'land, go'.
I babble to you guys reading this because i just finished a game of edh using lackeyccg. I played oloro, bust out Humility and Night of Souls' Betrayal and ruined his gameplan. He then got really pissy and said this deck is banned from my rooms from now on. And when that happens, I'm sorry to say this, but my troll face does come on. Come on!!! It's really hard not to be a smartass when someone rages so much against my deck. Like this guy was talking all loads of smack like saying that my deck is the worst control deck... First thing i said was "well thank you." Is it not a compliment? Well whatever I'm done babbling.
- The guy's an idiot. This deck is a complete glass cannon. But then, you're also stupid for entering into a social EDH game and playing a non-social deck. There's a time and a place for competitive EDH and you misjudged.
I have a feeling there might be a divide in responses. It's gonna be someone arguing the point of "oh I play magic for fun" blah blah blah. And others will support my argument. Or maybe a third group. To further the troll of which I just unleashed.
- There's such a thing as competitive EDH. You have to be careful that when you play a competitive deck everyone else is playing theirs or you just ruin their fun and get this misguided sense of achievement because you've used a well constructed deck to blow out a casual deck (slow clap) - you've effectively achieved nothing. It is absolutely essential in EDH to ask people what they expect from the game BEFORE you play.
I can also tell you now that an enchantment lockdown deck is not original, and is not a good idea in a competitive aspect.
May 8, 2014 12:27 p.m.
I just have one question for you that may help.... If I come up with the combination of parts on my own and do hours upon hours of research and built a brand new gas engine by myself, would it be original? Nah it'll just be another gas engine, with the exception that I could say "I built it". I know engines and Magic are two different things, but the idea is the same. If you wouldn't consider it "original" in other situations, then it doesn't matter if you swap out engine for sandwich, bookcase, or Magic deck. It doesn't matter what you insert there it's not going to make it any more original, it just changes the subject matter.
"Original" implies that something is unique, one of a kind, or even that it was the very first of it's kind. There is nothing wrong with wanting to do something different than the norm, but I highly doubt your going to come up with an "original version" of something that already has thousands and thousands of variants.
May 8, 2014 1:14 p.m.
SealableZero says... #12
ChiefBell. I agree with you that aspects of the game have been made, such as a generic "enchantment lockdown" or "control" for example. But its the ingredients inside the cake that makes the cake special. Now I'm not gonna sit here and say my deck is the best deck in the world and can beat anyone, because its not. But i've taken this to 8 different shops hosting tournaments in my area and won. I did intend to build this deck to win tournaments like this so yes you can say that this deck wants to win.
As for the whole casual thing, I can't really play a casual game right now because this is my first EDH deck ive ever made, and I like to make viable decks, so the next one will be a while after I save up enough. So don't judge me for wanting to make viable decks. Yes I could make cheap decks with commons and uncommons or cheap rares that will do the trick. I take a little more pride than your average joe wanting to build a deck, and appreciate the time and money on spending a little more for better cards.
Now my next deck won't be combo, because I now have my "combo" deck. Its done and over with. However that doesn't mean i still want to be nice. I don't think I should be. If I did build something more friendly, I keep thinking in my head, card X would be better than card Y because of such and such and it will annoy me that I am limiting myself just to allow other players to have a chance. I just have a competitive nature, thats all.
I'm not saying you are a wrong ChiefBell, however I think the deck depends on the player, each EDH deck has its own stamp to it, whether or not it follows certain "generic" staples, each deck is unique in its own way.
If any of you reading this want to see the deck from my forum, here it is. Oloro The Knife Pillow
May 8, 2014 2:25 p.m.
If you want to think that using Lethal Vapors , Rest in Peace and Web of Inertia is original then cool. That's your prerogative. I can tell you now I'm extremely familiar with your decklist, it's all pretty standard fare and I've played against that kind of deck multiple times. But fine. Let's leave that to one side because I couldn't care less whether it is or isn't original anyway.
I don't judge you for winning tournaments with a semi-competitive decklist, I judge you for using the same decklist when playing casually. In the view of must people, that's not ok - hence the reaction you got online. At some point you realise that there are two formats within EDH - the casual variant and the competitive variant. It is exceedingly bad manners to enter competitive decks into casual matches. I understand that you have to make sacrifices when building a social deck, you don't have to lecture me on that, I know exactly how it works. You quickly learn, when no one wants to play against you casually, that the pathetic ego trip of entering competitive decks into casual matches isn't how the game should be played. Maybe the social aspect of the game takes a while to pick up on, but after a while it should become painfully clear. Limiting yourself to give other people a chance is how you play normal, non-competitive EDH. If you don't, you're just proving how much of an ass you are. Being level-appropriate is a factor you always need to consider. Would you use a top tier modern deck against an average standard deck in a casual match? No, of course not. You're effectively doing the same thing in EDH. That's just frustrating for everyone.
May 8, 2014 3:41 p.m.
hungerwolf says... #14
I have to disagree with Chief on principle- Is the idea not to win? Of course, being a douche is being a douche. But it's nothing like playing a modern deck against a standard deck because EDH is one format. The opponent has the same option to get better cards and a better deck.
I get that it can be fun to play silly trolly decks for lulz, but why get mad when someone built a more efficient deck with the same rules?
May 8, 2014 9:18 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #15
@hungerwolf: Generally, the idea is to win, yes. But it's about priorities. If your first priority is to win, and if you're using a competitive deck designed purely to win, then you won't fit in well in a casual pod with players who want to win, but prioritize a fun experience.
EDH is a social format. The experience is shaped by the players. Therefore, playgroups should consist of players who have the same expectations and priorities. A competitive player in a casual pod disrupts the experience for the rest of the players, just as a casual player in a competitive pod would. Unfortunately, it's more often the case that a competitive player joins a casual pod. Generally, casual players know that they don't want the same kind of experience as competitive players, so they don't bother pursuing competitive games. Some competitive players like to join casual pods to stomp people. That's where the problem starts -- with a difference in expectations and priorities.
May 8, 2014 9:33 p.m.
Entering into an edh game is a social construct built by the priorities and expectations of the players. As epoch said, it causes problems if you don't meet those expectations.
May 8, 2014 9:56 p.m.
SealableZero says... #17
hungerwolf See I think you understand my point... Its one format, same rules apply. Totally different than one format deck facing another. Also, Epochalyptik, I will let you know right now as it says in my profile, I'm an ass... Not arguing that point. However my discussion is coming from the not so much of an ass part of me. If the rules apply, use them. There is a banlist for a reason, which is why we don't play those cards.
Now we can argue all day about the history of EDH and how it started. But it's not that way anymore, which is why in 60 cards they created sanctioned formats, to stop that shinanigans. Now if the houserules where, only use cards from a certain set, then fine, whatever. However if there are no house rules in play, then the normal rules and cards apply, and I dont see a problem playing with what I have built.
One thing I do understand however, is after I play that deck, I might want to switch (which isn't an option right this moment as I have only 1 commander deck)... Nobody wants to play combo all night. The guy online raged at me mid game of the FIRST game we played, which I thought was kinda funny actually.... The next deck I build is gonna lock people down as well as win, but without heavy combo, because I built that already. But it will still be annoying.
If you were wondering if I play commander for the "casual" way, I say, what is casual play if this is already a format? As Bill Clinton would say, "that depends on what your definition of is is"...
May 8, 2014 10:10 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #18
@SealableZero: While I personally empathize with a by-the-rules stance on what goes in EDH (I'm a competitive player), your attitude is a perfect example of why there is conflict between casual and competitive players. You shouldn't automatically assume that everyone should or shouldn't play by a certain metric. One of the problems with playing EDH online is that it's difficult to establish beforehand what kind of game you're expecting. Of course, anonymous online players are also more prone to being whiny dicks. It's also unrealistic for you to expect someone to lose to a combo deck, then want to face you again.
May 8, 2014 10:28 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #19
Esper combo is very common. Just build what you like. Sure you will have overlapping cards, but as long as you don't look up a list and follow it, you will be making the deck your own.
May 8, 2014 11:30 p.m.
hungerwolf says... #20
I agree to a point, but I like building decks that are fun AND effective. Murdertrain A-comin' is one such deck that I built because I liked the idea of a "kill everything forever including myself" deck. Turns out I accidentally built in some stupid combos to get Eldrazi out as early as turn 2. It's not every turn, but it happens often enough to make it a very powerful deck.
I'm not playing it to be like "I win because I'm so good lolzz", but I still like the recursion effects, and it feels a shame to intentionally gimp the deck because it's good. Why would I clip its wings?
May 9, 2014 3:30 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #21
You don't have to neuter the deck. Just know whether the deck is or isn't appropriate in a given situation, and try not to play the deck in inappropriate situations.
May 9, 2014 3:55 a.m.
This is absurd. There are two experienced edh players telling you that you're approaching this incorrectly and you still argue, whilst admitting this is your first foray into the format.
I don't know how to make this much clearer. You are wrong. You need to understand that edh is basically comprised of two formats. This is socially accepted as representing the difference between a casual deck and a competitive deck. You need to behave fairly and appropriately. Entering a competitive deck into a casual game is not appropriate.
Me and epoch have explained this over and over and over again. If you don't want to neuter your deck then you need to enter it into level appropriate games. If you don't then you're breaking social contract.
Maybe you have problems understanding the social aspect of the game, in which case were going to be here forever explaining. This is a vitally important aspect of the game.
You can take analogies of this from sport. There's only one format in singles tennis - singles tennis. However that doesn't mean you'd ever see a pro playing an amateur because that would break a social contract. You're never going to see Rafael Nadal in your local tennis club. It's all about ability. There's no rule saying that Nadal can't enter a casual game - but he wouldn't anyway because he knows it's not appropriate. Just because there isn't a rule doesn't mean that it's acceptable to do it.
May 9, 2014 6:24 a.m.
@Epochalyptik. You seem to be under the assumption that everyone has multiple EDH decks. If someone only has one EDH deck... then that is going to be the deck they play.
What you are implying is that everyone who want's a strong deck should also be designing a 'casual' deck... but that also implies that everyone should have the cards required for 2 decks... which means having the funds to get the cards for multiple decks.
Personally, I have 5 decks to play with, and they all have varying power levels. I play casually and I play in a League. - Another player in the League only has 1 deck, and it wins at the League quite regularly. When I arrive early for FNM and people want to play some EDH ahead of time, I will generally play whichever deck I am in the mood to play... but if that's one of my weaker decks, I'm not going to stop the player with only one deck from playing, and tell him to build a second deck. - That's just rude!
If a casual player is truly 'casual', they wouldn't mind losing... even to the same deck. Sure it may get a little annoying, but everyone I know who calls themselves a 'casual' player enjoys playing the game, and the social environment of the game. They hold little to no value in winning in a non-competitive environment.
"Casuals" who ban decks or players, are not really casual... they are "want-to-be competitors", who would rather win by only playing against the weak.
Rather than ban decks, they should be thinking about certain combo's or cards that degrading the play environment, and make 'house rules' for those cards (and should only make as few as possible)... If the competitive player then still wants to play, he can swap out a few cards for the casual environment.
Banning a player or their deck is a cheap cop-out, saying "I don't want to lose, so you can't play."... sorry, but I stopped that attitude when I stopped playing in sand-boxes.
May 9, 2014 8:16 a.m.
Sometimes it becomes painfully clear that the average age of people on this site is about 16.
Figures that the people arguing in favour of moderation are over 20.
May 9, 2014 8:23 a.m.
Fun is a zero sum game in any environment where someone wins and someone loses.
May 9, 2014 8:24 a.m.
I play Chess, on a rather casual basis. I've entered a few tournaments, and have done okay at them, and I've even directed international tournaments.
When I was an organizer for a larger tournament, we paid to bring in a few "big-name" players, including Bent Larsen (Previous world Champion), and Alexei Shirov (World Champion at the time).
I played a few casual games against both of them (and lost of course). Does this mean that they were breaking their "social contract"? Or does it mean that all players, knowing the likely outcome, were still able to be social and get enjoyment out of a game? - I enjoyed chatting with them while we played, and I enjoyed learning form the (seemingly) small mistakes I made against them.
May 9, 2014 8:28 a.m.
You entered into that game with a clear impression of what the outcome would be. You were pre-emptively aware that you would be thrashed. Teaching is a slightly different case though, for obvious reasons.
May 9, 2014 9 a.m.
I think the professional player versus amateur analogy is a bit lacking.
Clearly the poster is what Wizards calls a Spike and is motivated by winning. There is nothing wrong with that. But, when Spike shows up at a table full of people just wanting to have a good time and he plays a bunch cards that clearly don't facilitate a good time (to anybody but Spike that is), you get the reaction that you get. Granted, the reaction wasn't a very mature reaction, but I would hardly say it is unexpected. You broke the implied social contract.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you play EDH it is safe to assume, if nothing is agreed upon beforehand, that you are playing a social, let's have fun game. Most EDH players are the casual kind.
Competitive EDH'ers will almost always say something before hand.
That's just the base expectations. Justifying that highly competitive builds are possible doesn't change these expectations. If you want to go that route then go to games that are built around these expectations. (Find a competitive group. Arrange games with like minded friends...)
If you play a deck that's terribly unfun for that social contract (and you know it and you don't disclose it) you are the one violating expectations and therefore being a bit of a jerk.
May 9, 2014 9:10 a.m.
It's funny how some people understand how to be a reasonable person socially and others don't.
May 9, 2014 9:45 a.m.
ChiefBell, don't forget, you were a little kid once too. Yeah it can be frustrating when you are clearly explaining things and someone doesn't comprehend what your saying, but just remember at one point in time you were young and naive but thought you knew everything too. Although in this case I don't think comprehension is the problem, I think it's more of a refusal to accept what they're being told.
Because there are competitive tournaments I think people sometimes forget that the entire format was created for the social aspect of the game. And because of these competitive environments that have been created I don't think newer players realize how prevalent or important the social aspect of the game is.
May 9, 2014 10:11 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #31
@Rayenous: I never make that assumption at all, nor do I imply it.
If you read carefully what I have written, I merely say that you should assess whether or not your deck is appropriate for a certain playgroup, then decide whether or not to play based on that assessment. Sometimes, this means you don't play that deck. If you don't have an appropriate deck, it can mean that you don't play that game. You are not obligated, nor are you entitled, to participate in every game of Magic.
I also adamantly disagree with your position that casuals can't ban players or decks and still call themselves casuals. House bans are one of the ways playgroups regulate themselves in a social format. Bans don't have to be about winning. Often, causal bans are aimed at healing or detoxifying the playgroup's atmosphere. If you and your buddies are looking for a fun game and somebody sits down with a turn 3 combo deck, are you not within your rights to ask that player to leave? It's not that losing is inherently unfun -- it isn't. Rather, it's that playing with or against a deck that's so far removed from your playgroup's focus is unfun and awkward.
May 9, 2014 10:19 a.m.
hungerwolf says... #32
So then, aside from the banned cards list, what is the proper way to build a deck so that it is "casual" rather than "competitive"? What are the defining factors? Can it not include combos? Are Eldrazi bad? What if you don't do recursion so you can't cheat them out? Well, there's some pretty aggressive ramp- I've seen around 20 mana by turn 5 in standard, that would easily get out an Eldrazi early, and that's without even delving into modern. Is tribal cool? I mean, they can be pretty aggressive too if left unchecked. Especially slivers. Is Overlord alright, or since he's a tutor on a stick with pretty consistent turn 7 wins is he too powerful? Would that ban all slivers or just sliver tribal decks?
That's the problem with the distinction you're making- There isn't really a distinction. It's just sort of vague claims of "don't be competitive, be casual" with no real definition FOR casual or competitive. To top it off, I think we all get that if a deck is too powerful for a certain group, don't spam it and be a douche about it. But you're acting like it's some kind of cardinal sin to have a well-prepared deck and play it against someone who doesn't.
May 9, 2014 10:57 a.m.
Didgeridooda says... #33
Very rarely have I met a person who has "netdecked" their EDH deck. It has happened twice. I think almost everyone does their own thing, that is what is so great about EDH. I see this thread as OP trying to humblebrag about his deck.
This does not seem like a deck that is a problem to me. It looks like a casual esper combo control. Not too powerful to warrant banning. Might be OP that the guy wanted to ban, not the deck.
May 9, 2014 11:03 a.m.
Didgeridooda says... #34
hungerwolf There is no defining factor to casual. It is all relative. Here is an example, I have 2 groups I play with. In one group a couple of my decks are far too strong, and can not be matched against what they play. So I built a few decks around ideas or a theme. Those decks are not as strong. It is a more even field even if I do well with them.
In the other group, my stronger decks are just the same as everyone else's. Everyone is always changing things up, and switching generals, and pieces. So I do not see that as competitive pro type play either. Though the everyone is highly competitive there, still a casual environment.
TLDR: Use common sense to judge the level of your opponents. Act accordingly.
May 9, 2014 11:13 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #35
@hungerwolf: You're missing the point.
There is no hard and fast rule. Again, EDH is a social format. Acceptability is defined and gauged by the group; different groups have different metrics.
It's very easy for someone to try to counter the "be reasonable in your context" stance by saying "well, what is reasonable, huh?" The problem is that this "counterargument" is too often used to sidestep the real point and justify toxic behaviors.
And while I think you're embellishing my stance, I will argue that playing outside of the level of a playgroup is a "sin" in some sense because it depreciates the experience for the other players. Yes, it's important for you to have fun, but you don't get your fun at the expense of others' gameplay experiences. EDH, as a social format, is like a social contract. In society, you don't get to do whatever you like at the expense of others.
May 9, 2014 11:16 a.m.
hungerwolf says... #36
@Epochalyptik - To an extent, you are right. But a well-prepared person does, in society, have advantages over those who are not prepared. Prepared with education? A higher chance at a high paying job. Prepared with skills? A higher chance at being called upon to use them. Prepared with wealth? An easier time doing just about everything. Why is Magic different in that regard? If people are playing EDH and you plop down with your stupidly good deck and wreck them, change it up for the sake of fun. But it's not wrong to not know how unprepared they are. It is THEIR responsibility to build their deck, not your responsibility to police your own to make sure they can handle it.
May 9, 2014 11:34 a.m.
Didgeridooda says... #37
Let us assume you are referring to your peers. Peer - a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status. If they are not your peers they will not be equal.
If you choose to play against people who are not your peers, then one of you will have to adjust accordingly to have a positive experience.
Or you could be Walmart. Come in to town, ruin everything, and be hated.
May 9, 2014 11:40 a.m.
It's about expectations too.
If you sit down with a new group. Say something like, "Hey, I'll be playing my Norin the Wary deck. I've been playing it for a while now and it feels pretty solid. Mind if I join?"
If your Norin the Wary deck just stomps all over them, that's ok. They bought into the idea that you could be over powered. The social contract is secured. They may not want you to play it a second time (and they should say so), but you've negotiated the social contract for that game.
May 9, 2014 11:48 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #39
@hungerwolf: You're still missing the point.
"It is THEIR responsibility to build their deck, not your responsibility to police your own to make sure they can handle it."
Except the responsibility is mutual. You have a responsibility to yourself to build your own deck, and a responsibility to others to not be an asshole. You are not entitled to play every game. If your deck or your attitude is toxic to a group (again, according to that group's philosophy), the onus is on you to remove yourself from that environment on the basis of being a decent player and a considerate person. Barring that, the onus is on the group to remove the obstacle to their experience.
Your argument that well-prepared individuals have advantages in society is correct, but completely irrelevant in this context. Magic is different because it's a game. Yes, winning is important, but losing in a game is not equitable to losing in life. The experience is what's important (depending on your philosophy, this could apply to life as well). You don't have to bully others or assert yourself as some "alpha-player."
May 9, 2014 11:48 a.m.
Didgeridooda says... #40
But if you want to bully them you should. Just don't expect to be accepted in to any other games, or if you are expect to be playing archenemy for a bit.
May 9, 2014 11:56 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #41
A control deck is a control deck. Whatever, that's fine. If it's a particularly punishing one then it pays to have the good sense to not play it too frequently in casual, "friendly" games with people you actually know and like (this is not a pass to actively be an asshole to people you don't know or necessarily like). For example, I really like my Dakkon Blackblade and The Mimeoplasm decks but they can get pretty mean, so I don't shuffle them up very often. If this is your only Commander deck then keep playing it, but maybe relax your play a little bit in friendly games. I'm not saying "play poorly on purpose" or "throw the game", just relax, if that makes sense.
Let's go back to the originality thing. If a thought pops into your head without anyone explicitly explaining it to you first and you do your own legwork to develop it, I think it's very possible to still be original even if other people have had that thought many times already. Thousands of players have said to themselves "I'm going to build a WUB control deck", and I'm sure a significant subset of them followed with "it's going to be full of enchantments, have a few key combo pieces to just win, and include a fair bit of graveyard hate for good measure". No, the core concepts aren't new and different, but this is your deck, and that means something. You did the work to make decisions for yourself about how to put it all together and make it go.
For example, is the overall structure and content of my Kaalia of the Vast deck "original"? Hell no. If someone builds a Kaalia deck and it doesn't come out looking like this I would start wondering if they read the card correctly (I guess it's possible to be one of those "just picked it for the colors" builds, but let's be serious here). But this is my deck, full of pet cards and other things I just find appealing or entertaining, and I personally wouldn't dock it any points for lack of "originality".
May 9, 2014 11:59 a.m.
hungerwolf says... #42
@Epochalyptik- What constitutes being an asshole, then? I agree that being an asshole is bad, but you're making it sound like trying to play your personal deck without researching the opponent's deck to determine if yours will probably beat them is being an asshole in and of itself.
That was your argument, that EDH is a social experience and should follow the same rules as society and civilized life. My counter was that it does, INCLUDING advantages based on preparation.
May 9, 2014 12:19 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #43
@hungerwolf: Yet again, it's not about winning. At this point, I'm seriously wondering whether you're purposefully ignoring that part of the conversation.
It doesn't have to be about research. Why can't you just ask, "Hey, what kind of game are you looking for? I have an EDH deck, but it's pretty competitive?" Why not take the initiative and actually work to build the social experience rather than gamble at poisoning it?
May 9, 2014 12:37 p.m.
SealableZero says... #44
Epochalyptik is it not about winning? Of course no one enjoys losing. That's obvious. But everybody wants to succeed. And my deck isn't impossible to beat. It has it's weaknesses. What's great is that every game I play ends up in a 3v1 situation, and that's what I designed my deck to handle. And if a pod can't win 3v1 then I feel that is a deserved victory.
I don't think I should build intentional weaknesses into decks just so my opponent has a chance. That ruins the whole deck building experience.
May 9, 2014 1:28 p.m.
You just keep repeating the same points - arguments that both Epoch and I have debunked over and over again. You are simply not listening.
We didn't say you had to build weaknesses into your deck, we merely said that not informing people that you're looking for a competitive game when everyone else is a social player is doing nothing more than preying on casual decks for easy wins and potentially spoiling other people's experience of the game.
May 9, 2014 1:37 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #46
I am really trying to see how the deck is all that special, and unique. You also use guildgates so it can not be that good.
If you really are that much better then your competition help them to make better decks.
May 9, 2014 2:07 p.m.
Consider
as compared to
I Don't Eat Anything That Casts a Shadow
To see the difference between a casual and competitive EDH deck
May 9, 2014 2:20 p.m.
SealableZero says... #48
I do help help them. The thing is pods I play with aren't whiney bitches when they lose. We appreciate each other's decks rather than act like a little girl when their deck can't win. Those are the people I refuse to help.
I play some casual games where my opponent swung with a dude for 28 damage on turn 3 or 4. I didn't cry or wine, I actually have him a few cards to make even better.
You haven't debunked anything I said. It's an equal playing field where everyone has equal opportunity to build whatever deck they want to. And if you call a 3v1 an easy win then hey, more power to ya. But I doubt it because you sound like one of those players who loses all the time and that's why you sympathize towards that viewpoint
May 9, 2014 2:21 p.m.
You may think there's nothing wrong with bringing a gun to a knife fight, after all, you're almost certain to win since you have a gun and they have knives. But maybe sometimes people just want to have a knife fight, where everyone actually has a knife. Sometimes they'll want to have a gunfight, and then your gun? Great choice to bring along.
I was at a sealed event a while ago (Sealed at a Bar, does it get any better?) and there was a guy there who I'd spoken to the week before about EDH who remembered me. We were final table (split, natch) so he asked me to play EDH with him. I only had my 1v1 French List deck so I tried to beg off, warning him that he would have no fun at all playing against it with a multiplayer deck.
He insisted, and cracked out his Prossh, Skyraider of Kher EDH deck. I could tell from looking at the cards that came out that this was a pretty solid multiplayer mass token deck. In a 4-player pod of other multiplayer decks, I'd say it was well above average. And I absolutely ripped him into tiny pieces. I felt like such an asshole. I kept apologising as I countered every major card, boardwiped in response to everything that made it through my counterspell screen, and ended up with about 30 lands out, draining him to death with my final life total at something in the 70s or 80s having taken not a single point of damage.
For me to go and do that on purpose without him knowing would have just made me be an asshole. And I wouldn't blame him, at all, for not wanting to play another game (he didn't) or being mad at me (he wasn't, since I warned him and was apologetic)
I have decks on all levels of the power band, specifically so I can gauge what is a good choice for the people with whom I'm playing.
May 9, 2014 2:28 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #50
28 on turn 3 is ok, but that is not game unless it was commander damage. Turn 2, 3 or 4 win is still possible in EDH.
How do I sound like someone that loses often? I don't really care how many games you think I win. I know where I stand. Your deck is nothing special, and you are making it out to be. 4/5 v 1 is a common thing for me.
I think the guy banned you because you are not a pleasant person to play with. I am sure you subtract from the game with your attitude, at least online. It is much easier to act like that here. That is why your in person play is more accepting. You probably act much kinder there.
When I play people who are newer to the format, I try to help them. It makes the game more fun for me. Everyone has a different way to play. If I sit down with a new group, I show them my decks, and tell them which ones are the stronger ones. I let them pick who I am going to play, and then I adjust accordingly to how the game goes when I play them next. I am a very competitive person, but I understand that not everyone is going to have a powerful deck.
You are spending a few hours playing with these people, it should be enjoyable to all. I could give you suggestions that would make your deck a little better if you want. It does not seem like that is what you made this thread for though. You just wanted people to stroke your ego, and others to argue with.
TheNinjaJesus says... #2
I think the answer to your question is 37.
May 8, 2014 5:02 a.m.