The issue with trying to formalise anything around Kingmaking is that a player in that position is *always* forced to kingmake one player - yes, they could take a game action that hands the win to one player. But refraining from taking that game action is the exact same - it hands the win to the other player, by conscious choice. It's the trolley problem of magic, and at the end of the day at least one opponent is going to walk away from the table having lost because of your decision, and it's GONNA suck for them.
Lol, being handed a win in a multiplayer format? Everything other players do affects your win. If they remove your stuff or let it stay, if they counter your stuff or let it pass, if they attack you or not. The idea that at some point that stuff becomes wrong or misplays is insane. The issue with analyzing other player's faulty threat assessment and say that they're throwing is that there is a conflict of interest. You want to win, but you can't win if other players impede you. So the inherent conflict of interest is that anything you say is trying to help you get the win. Even if someone else is more of a threat, wanting another player to target them instead of you is helping you to get closer to the win. If only one person can win, then kingmaking is not a bug, but a feature. Is it wrong if 2 players start off in collusion to run the table? I think that is worse than a player being in a losing position, and choosing to affect the outcome of the game according to their own desires. This issue is inherent to multiplayer magic, not just Commander. I have a bigger problem with all the rules and balancing that was done for 20 life one on one Magic, being ported over to multiplayer 40 life Commander, with no adjustment. I'm actually kind of rolling back to 60 card 20 life formats as a result, though I am experimenting with Block formats. Maybe Limited is the ultimate form of Magic after all.
@FinetalPies you don't have to view it that way though. When you get kingmade you were already slated to be 2nd place. The face that the third place player chose you likely came from your own game actions and even just personal actions. Maybe you were nice to that player and helped them out while the player in first place rushed to take the lead and then was pompous and smug about it. You played good enough magic to get in second place + nice enough politics to win the favor of the 3rd place player in order to secure your win. You. Earned. That. If you were going to be first place and the kingmaker chose the other player you should just take pride in the fact that you played so well your opponents made you the archenemy and had to team up to take you down. And if you really do care about winning, you need to factor emotional appeal into your strategy so the kingmaker has a desire to make you the winner. Personally, I'm happy to be on the other end of an underdog situation and just generally make a great story about how "she always wins every game but we managed to work together and catch up to get 5 vp lead in Catan and beat her." It's a game people are going to remember and talk about compared to yet another one where I stomp everyone.
"variance is the enemy of competitiveness" I thought there was this talk from Richard Garfield about how variance and skill required are not necessarily linked. For example, one can play competitive chess and poker, one has high variance, the other does not, yet both have competitive scenes. That ban list though, ahhhhh.
What I meant is variance inherently causes power spikes and wells in a deck's performance. The more the game comes down to chance, the less player skill is involved in deciding a game win. The more luck based the format, the less skill leads to a win (a small % of difference, but still a difference!)
The variance of Poker never changes every few months though changes in how you interact with game pieces and rule addenums. In any TCG, you're playing with a ever growing pool of cards, however small or large, while the game is in it's supported lifespan. Commander is a format with over 10,000 legal cards, being conservative with that number, and that dwarfs the number of potential poker hands (1,326 in Texas Hold 'Em). Good players have a skillset that allows them to weed though not only bad card choice but good deckbuilding and battle planning. The more outside factors you bring in to a game (Taking the base of a 1v1 balanced game and adding more people, removing redundant cards, larger deck size) introduces variance that even if you're good at deckbuilding and playing the game of Magic, you'll just not get there sometimes through no fault of your own. Somebody could just get to their wincon faster than you.
@@33elk For real, lands and the mana system alone is Major variance. Drawing the right cards, variance. A less skilled player can beat a more skilled player if they curve out and the other guy mana floods or mana screws. And that is a good thing to me. There needs to be a balance. In a lot of competitive hobbies, they will need to rebalance things to shake up the meta, because a solved meta is boring. Whereas if it is too random, then no one cares about winning or losing. It is basically gambling. In Magic, there is a lot of variance, but you have the tools to address it. However, you can't eliminate it.
@@shorewall Yeah I go into that in my video I love that a newer player still has a chance, but inherently thats not entirely competitive is my point (so yes magic in general is bad for comp to some extent its just commander exacerbates this tenfold by being singleton). Once again reference my disclaimer at the start of the video that magic does take skill if you wanna maintain a winrate hahaha
@@33elk @larvatar2387 I agree that higher variance causes imbalance, and can determine games. I however think that regardless of this, it makes the skill ceiling higher. In some games, it is possible to play near perfect. In cedh and the likes, the amount of skills needed between deckbuilding, politics, threat assessment, game knowledge, card prediction etc. Means that the game is, and will be unsolved in a way, and allowing for expression by what strategy you think best. This is why I think it is a great format. (I do admit that if there is a prize pool, I might feel different, there is a point there)
I've personally always sided with blocking in favor of devaluing the player killing me, not out of spite but as a deterrent. Politically I will declare that "If you want to kill me, that is the cost. I will go down swinging." If they kill me, I stick to my word and die. If them attacking and losing creatures to blocks would cost them greatly or even the game, then do not blame yourself for them over extending. Blocking is a natural part of combat and the math of how blocks can play out is important for attackers to consider. Love your vids Elk
For real, this. I guess a lot of competitive types are the type to concede or drop out when they know they can't win, so they can get into another round quicker. But I was raised on Rocky and Shonen Anime, and I believe in fighting to the end. :D
I despise intentional kingmaking and i still believe that optimally blocking against lethal is logically sound. Another opponent could fog or gain you life or remove an opponent's creature because they have some interest in keeping you alive. There's a world of difference between doing things optimally to the very end and just making a pointless spite play at the end.
Agreed. Format that is aggressively accommodates casual play was always needed. I recall long ago when magic was introduced to the gaming club I was in, and it was the early sloppy, super casual period was the period where ALL people had most fun. Eventually, most people started to take magic very seriously, and grim spite began to creep in around the edges which kinda dispelled all the early charm of the communal fun.
I used to be a sore loser in Commander. What helped me learn to lose gracefully was focusing on the next game. Because I would always play multiple games, I could look forward to better results in the next game rather than dwell on the current one. I also learned to play faster despite the risk of making a mistake because I could fit in more games that way. This lesson turned out not to be specific to Commander, since I now find Prerelease tournaments to be more easygoing as well
It's still funny they tried adding commander to sixty card with companions and I don't think a single commander player was like, "oh boy I'm gonna start playing standard and modern now!" Oh and they had to nerf the mechanic because it warped all the formats 😊
I've lost 99%of my games with my friends, it's just the way I play, but I have the most fun out of everyone on my table. I've lost so much it doesn't matter anymore to me, instead I just love trying out different decks, different strategies, weird ideas, and just the atmosphere. I love playing either my friends and that's why I play commander, because I don't have to use the meta staples, I don't have to use the cruel strategies and give up everything to win. I get to play my Renata, Called to the Hunt tribal (it's not the commander, it's the thing that i get lots of) deck, and I get to have fun without the fear of losing.
similar situation, me and my pod typically play with pre-cons or slightly upgraded ones. Every deck in my group that isn't a pre-con is one that I made for myself or my husband. The only game of magic I've ever won at that table was when we were playing the Clue ruleset and I won by guessing the thing correctly lol
I remember when I was in high school, I played a guy at the card store. We played like 4 or 5 games. He creamed me in all but one. When I won, I was happy. Dude asked me why I was happy, since I only won one game. I told him I like making my own kind of decks, and if I can win about 1 in 5, that's enough to make me happy. He was kinda impressed with that, because I guess it is pretty different from a lot of more serious Magic players.
@@joedoe7572 you mean my Renata tribal? If so I make a lot of copies of Renata, whether good old helm or legend rule shenanigans, and they buff each other so it kinda becomes a tribal
One of the problems with the competitiveness in commander is not a problem with commander itself, but more so a mindset within some members of the playerbase. I've met and had the misfortune of playing against players who take the competitiveness aspect of the game to such a degree that they are focusing on bar stomping, or deliberately going up against players who have only precons, or similarly powered decks. Not a problem with the game itself, but again it's something i've seen really cause problems within our community, even with healthy discussion.
I have recently been thinking about the difference between Commander and 1v1 with the games speed. I have noticed in casual commander, even though ramp is very popular, the format because of the multiplayer aspect, plays much slower as well as being less competitive in nature, which allows players to play bigger more explosive fun spells that would never or rarely see play in a more fast paced competitive environment. As a person who is aiming to get more of a social experience and just enjoyable games rather than always going for the win, I prefer the slower paced gameplay of commander and the ability to play larger more fun explosive cards, but I do enjoy looking into the other formats and seeing what different kinds of experiences they provide.
Yeah I pretty much agree with all of this. Just by playing MtG I'm agreeing to leave some things up to chance, so having a format emphasize that can be a fun thing. There will also always be a type of person who will try to turn anything they like competitive, which is usually cool when done right! I like seeing limits pushed.
this is what makes me feel stuck. I want to take the game seriously. when the game starts to revolve around being broken and casual... it's an awful place to be.
Another great video. As a purely casual player (attitude issues with competitive players in the past really burned me on magic for a long time) I find myself nodding along to a lot of what you are saying in this and your last video.
this vid aswell as the comments made me realize the thing i like about a lot of the "casual" games that ive played competitively is the variance those games have. getting good at playing around rng is one of my favorite skills in any game so im suprised it took me this long to notice the link between these games.
Sure, these videos are well-structured and involve good reasoning and examination of the format, but I feel like there's something that isn't commented enough on, and that is the fact that Elk cute.
I think a lot of this I already knew, but it gives me hope that I can look at my next loss a little differently. And maybe I'll start enjoying play with my usual pod again
Hey heck sometimes their commander counters yours, and its something they have on demand. A friend of mine plays must kills commanders in a table where noone else does so everyones just holding removal for him. With 4 players it gets real tought. There is something I find interesting when they talked about duskmourn tho. The new nemesis gamemode and the mention that the red black commander is a table enemy commander. I wonder how they will implement that when having 4 players hate on you is definitely unfun. On the other hand goad is really fun in commander especially. In our table we also just agreed on allways doing proper blocks even if youre gonna die. After all if we didnt then as soon as we have lethal its like they have no blockers which nullifies the risk of attacking and losing pieces.
Same in my play group with the blocking. It just makes sense like that. I disagree with you about being archnemesis not being fun. If you're the most powerful player at the table, it can be very fun to try to win through all that adversity. Heck, there's a whole format built around that concept (Archenemy, very fun by the way. Try it out)
@@joedoe7572 yea that's what I meant when I said nemesis, I forgot if there was a term. And it depends on how well you can deal with it really. When I'm playing a goad deck I'm technically the archenemy anyways, I'm just curious how they're gonna do it in duskmourn.
Commander is kinda odd for jank. In some parts 40 life and multiplayer prevent you from being run over so you can use silly cards like Eye of the Storm, but the singleton hurts when some decks lack enough redundancy (i wanna make a UR delver work but there just aren't enough playable 1 cost cantrips imo) or some decks just dont function (Karn sideboard, lessons, etc)
on kingmaking and politics, i actually really enjoy both those aspects and don't see them as detractors. kingmaking is definitely something that some people get salty about, but honestly it's the kind of thing a losing player can do to strike back at the person who knocked them out, and makes for a fun sort of "with my dying breathe i curse thee!" moment. and it should be something available to players, because it deters players who just roll into the game looking to knock everyone out as fast as possible. if each player you remove also takes away a major board piece for you when you knock them out, you really have to think about when and how to remove players. which leads me to the larger picture of politicking; i think the political meta game of commander is one of my favorite aspects that i regularly build my decks around, with cards like folio of fancies and spectral searchlight. i think the option to incentivize players to keep you in the game longer is absolutely part of the fun. I'm not sure citing losing the thread of the card's mechanical function actually gives any weight to an argument against politicking, as it's almost the same as saying "bluffing in poker loses the thread of how the game is supposed to be a randomized number value exercise." like i see where you're coming from but the political game is part of what determines the player's skills, on top of managing card effects or understanding priority.
Yeah, but I think there is a disconnect between people like you and me, who value the social aspect of the game, and those who just want to grind wins. And I don't mean that in a bad way. I've noticed in Competitive Pokemon, Magic, Total War, or anything that is competitive, that as soon as they feel they can't win, they concede or drop, so that they can get to the next game. They are grinding wins, because winning is the fun part. I've never felt that rush when I win. I enjoy talking with my opponent, the back and forth, building personal decks, and doing my thing every couple of games. I remember going to an FNM one time, and trying to talk to my opponent during our match, and he wouldn't even look me in the eye. I don't hold it against him, he was probably shy, but that wasn't fun for me. I think the problem is just two incompatible types of player, and a format that really isn't made to grind wins in. It's multiplayer, so you can win or lose due to actions outside of your control. And it's casual, so often players are motivated by other things than just the highest value play, which can confuse those who are. Like a blackbelt being jumped by an amateur. That's why they say Rule Zero discussions are so important, but that's also the problem for socially awkward Win grinders, who aren't good at communicating.
Only thing I disagree with is about banlist and staples. I think taking toys away is never the solution, and staples are the only reason messy jank can actually exist. Efficient interaction means you don't immediately fold to the better deck assembling its stuff first, and good ramp and tutors allow janky overpriced cards to actually ever get in a deck, and subsequently on the stack. A current example I have is a shark typhoon estrid deck I'm brewing, the goal is to make a shark ballistic missile, clearly not a broken concept. If we ban tutors, the deck straight up cannot exist, as I cannot consistently find my central card. Then I need to cast that thicc cmc enchantment. Then I need to live after sinking a late-ish turn into a permanent that does nothing immediately. Maybe I even need to protect it. And then I need to pop a shark and make it good, the ceiling of it being plea for guidance searching enchanted evening and ancestral mask. None of this pile ever does anything without a solid staple framework around it. Sure others can enable better gameplans with all those cards available. But them being able to do so by the rules, is the only reason I get to put a shark in a rocket launcher.
Yeah I’m not saying to ban them! But to create a healthier competitive format there would need to be a lot of bans. That was my point, it enables jank but undermines commander’s competitive viability as a format (which is fine, because we play it casually). That’s the entire point of the video!
@@33elk ... I'm too used to people mentioning banlists to push the point for more bans I knew there was something odd, you're the only casual edh channel I keep agreeing with
@@33elkthe thing is, the competitive environment is very healthy, the format is constantly being experimented with at the top level as well Staples are a feature competitively not a bug, banning staples just creates more, slightly worse versions of the same staples
I personally like a points system where strong cards are given points and you have a maximum of X points. But then you'd require a lot more time and effort to be put in.
I feel pretty strongly that any kind of etiquette expectations around game actions when you're no longer able to win takes away from what makes Commander interesting; I played a game several years ago where an opponent was running a Norin the Wary deck designed to shut down the game and prevent anyone else from accomplishing anything; one of my opponents was able to stabilize, and I ended up finding a line that didn't benefit me in any way but allowed that opponent to win. now, granted, I'm biased in favor of the thing I did being acceptable, but one of the key skills in Commander is managing how other players feel about what your deck is doing at any given moment, and if you're running a deck designed to keep other players from being able to meaningfully play the game, it's totally reasonable for them to respond by taking agency in the only viable way. recently, I played a game with an opponent playing the Ms. Bumbleflower precon, and I had a deck that runs a substantial amount of targeted removal and board wipes. the most important skill in that game for me was identifying the turns when my removal would be most acceptable to the player giving me extra card draw; if I had gone out of my way to keep the other players from being able to do *anything*, my opponent would've rightfully declined to ever let me draw extra cards. I think having that skill exist in the game is a lot more interesting than trying to eliminate it with etiquette.
What's interesting here is if you have a long standing play group, this topic eventually comes up. Commander forces everyone to learn a bit about each other and pushes people to their limits as they come to terms with what's being talked about in this video. Have someone who hates politics? They have to come to terms that it happens in EDH, be it a little or a lot. Have someone who only enjoys magic when they win? EDH will humble that. Have someone who builds deck after deck and gets frustated that they never learn the lines of play with that deck? It teaches them to stick to a deck for a bit and see what can be done to upgrade or change the way they play it. I love EDH because of the lessons it's taugh me and my playgroup. I feel my playgroup knows me in ways no one else does because of how we've had to adapt to each other's playstyles, temperments, personalities, and salt levels. In the end, the decks/cards arent the most important thing, it's the group/social aspect of it, and EDH will always remind you of it in some shape or form.
I am an avid enjoyer of both cEDH and casual. They are basically different formats (and probably need to be treated thusly). Truly, though? Competitive is more rewarding for me, though. The expectation is that I’ll play well and play to win. If I’m salty, that’s my problem. And I try not to be salty. I try to learn. I’m casual the expectation is very different. “Maybe I shouldn’t play this card because everyone at the table will gripe and moan” is a common thought I have. And the power level conversation was had and expectations are known. That’s not to say I don’t have fun. It’s just that what I’m policing changes between the two “formats”. In competitive I'm policing my plays for optimization and my opponents for the same. In casual the plays are policed for how my opponents might feel about a particular card and that’s not a particularly fun way to play magic. You wouldn’t expect that in any other format. Especially after a “this deck does these things. Will you still play?” talk occurs.
I think you gotta pursue what you like. Even before Commander, competitive never appealed to me. I don't get the rush from winning that I know other people do. My favorite part of Magic was talking to my opponents and enjoying the back and forth. Plus brewing off-meta decks. Playing a meta deck was just the most boring thing to me, even if it was stronger. So I wanted different things from the game. I think a big problem is WOTC "designing" for Commander now, so that feels like the only important format. I think Commander is a terrible format for people who want to win, since it is a 1v3, at least, for that win. It is meant to be social, to be about reading the table, and playing your opponents as much as playing the cards. Like the difference between poker night with the boys, vs those high stakes poker games where everyone is wearing sunglasses and hoodies, and don't talk. :D I love the idea of cEDH, and I think it was inevitable. Casual Commander and cEDH is different intended play experiences, and people will gravitate towards one or the other. I think if there was a Modern style cEDH format, or some other type of restricted cEDH, it could actually take off like crazy.
It’s not about winning for me. It’s about playing to the best of my ability given my situation. It’s like a puzzle where the puzzle fights back. Because it does. And that fight is asymmetric between all 4 players, making it incredibly difficult to parse out “correct” plays. It’s an excellent metaphor for daily living frankly. Do I sacrifice resources now for immediate gain? Is the spire play correct? If I sit and wait will I get more value from this spell? Is now my time to capitalize on my opponent’s weakness?
I don't think I've ever heard an argument where an attacker said the defending player shouldn't block because they already have lethal, especially if those blocks could have a noticably negative impact on the attacker's board. That's some next level entitlement.
you only lightly touched on it but the real main reason why commander is bad competitively is that the people in charge of the competitive health of EDH have a well-known and stated stance that they don't really care about the competitive health and cEDH exists partially in spite of that stance and partially because of it. i don't think there's a single cEDH player alive that wants the format to change to something more objectively healthy because the CRC changes this stance and makes sweeping changes to the banlist targeting the competitive health of commander.
4:20 cEDH players have found an excellent (sarcastic) solution to this problem: Simply eliminate whichever opponent doesn’t agree to an intentional draw in this position! Problem solved 🙂
Absolutely true. I used to be obsessed with deck making in EDH. It was a form of expression. But even then, casual decks just perform so badly , it made me realize there were certain card interactions I wanted to pull off but don’t really win the game. And the people I have seen playing it don’t really seem to actually enjoy it either. It’s like some kind of ritual or obligation that seems to end in most people tired and bitter. Even winning feels bad Now I play Dandan variants. I’m currently trying to brew some kind of shared deck format that accommodates multiplayer and plays the fun splashy cards that got me into the game.
There's a couple problems with an argument about variance in edh. Superficially, it would seem that all non-basic land cards in the deck would be wholly unique in what they do, but that's not reality. Edh's card pool is so vast that its incredibly easy to have redundancy in effects in such a manner that you approach the same kind of performance consistency of 60 card formats. This is especially true when accounting for the commander being constantly available. Also the presence of variance doesn't disqualify a game from a competitive arena. Many competitive games are built around some degree of variance, and in those spaces the skill of a plyer is partly determined by how they manage and leverage that variance. When it comes to edh, most of those "issues" ultimately come down to a play group's informal rules like enacting power levels or "soft-banning" cards or playstyles.
Kingmaking is pretty much the reason and the main strategy I play in Commander, when I do. Getting to choose who wins, and biding my time while doing politics from that power is the only way I can see the Magic ruleset working in a multiplayer format where people are not trying to win ASAP.
Kingmaking is inherent. Everything in a multiplayer format is kingmaking. If you remove someone's stuff or not, if you counter it or not, if you attack them or not, all of that has an effect on the outcome. There is this weird preoccupation with kingmaking after you know you'll lose, which is up to the person's board assessment, which may not align with yours. And there is a conflict of interest, because each person wants to win, and therefore will potentially accuse of kingmaking or unfair or unskilled threat assessment to give themselves an advantage. A lot of competitive types are grinding for wins like a junkie. And I don't mean just in Magic. If they think they can't win, they will just concede and go for another round. They are trying to get in as many games and potential wins as they can. Whereas to a lot of other players, the gameplay, the politics, the social aspect, is the fun part of the game. So of course I'm gonna king make even if I can't win. Of course I'm gonna block your attacks even if you have fatal no matter what. Because that's what's fun. It's like Vegeta focusing only on being the best, vs. Goku who just likes fighting.
Commander is a format that's up to the opinions/oversights of those who play it, not as a whole, but from the 4 weirdos who happen to be in once place to play. There is too good and too bad, different answers that are better answers, not from a gameplay perspective but from a social perspective. That's what makes it so difficult because the best answer to you is the worst answer to another player.
This might be a stupid question, and really doesn't have anything to do with the video's content (sorry about that 😅- I'm a fan of your deck builds/discussions). But on your intro screen, is there a reason you wrote 2$/3$ rather than $2/$3? I've been seeing the former a lot recently. I'd assumed that it was either very young people or international users' comments when I've seen it; because it's otherwise standard to put the dollar sign before the amount. But from your accent I'd guess you were North American. I'm just curious to find out whether putting the symbol after the amount has recently become the norm somewhere, and why that is?
its *techincally* incorrect i suppose! the shift recently is probably just because in american english you say "it is 2 dollars" so it feels natural to go from that to 2$ instead of $2 you know? haha. that's my theory for how that typing quirk has come around
8:22 100% true. I’ve lost to literal precons this week, and it’s not bc i didn’t try, it’s bc i left them for last and didn’t take them seriously the whole game. Anyone in commander can win. Even newer players with no real experience. That being said it does feel a bit bad when that one guy that did nothing all game comes out with a big play out of nowhere and steals the game. Or maybe im just salty lol. Back to the ban list, apart from high power casuals being salty over losing their favorite toys (the most popular and powerful cards in the format: tutors, fast mana, and other staples.) I often truly wonder what would happen to cEDH if the top 20 or 30 most played cards were banned. Would their mana bases be like casual mana bases? Would they play less generically strong cards and play more synergies? Would their commander choices matter more? Would they be more land focused rather than mana rocks and therefore MLD would be a winning strategy there? I don’t know but I would like to see what it means to have the highest levels of play with essentially a brand new card pool opened up by the lack of auto-includes.
I love theory crafting offshoots of Commander. Because Commander isn't really a format, more like almost a whole new game, using the same pieces. It's like if you played Risk with Chess pieces. :D I think some type of restricted format for EDH is a really good idea. Maybe Modern Commander. Except that I want to put the cutoff that cards from after a certain date are excluded, since WOTC is power creeping the hell out of Commander, and most older cards aren't a problem. I've also thought of Basic Lands only, and how that might affect what decks people build (Most likely Green in every deck, lol). No tutors, especially since they trivialize the singleton nature of the format. Maybe no ramp cards, so that you can't be so greedy. One idea I came up with was Game emblems, which imitate a card or mechanic, and last for the whole game. Aven Mindcensor Emblem (which deals with searching your deck), Blood Moon Emblem (which deals with the prevalence of non-basic lands). Commander is a fan made format, so is cEDH, so is Pauper, so we fans need to take this into our own hands, and it may catch on.
honestly hate this mentality, that the competitive side of a game/format is somehow the 'best', and by effect, THE side that's considered the 'right' way to play. the amount of times I've seen a game try to pivot to balanceing for competitive, and then just eating itself alive and dying is too many.
But because Magic has separate ban lists for different formats WotC does not need to pivot the game anywhere. They could simply design cards separately for commander and standard (as they already do with non-standard sets). The problem is standard cards (or cards that rotated out of standard) that are too good in commander. This is usually self balanced through the table saying "we don't want you to play this deck again because nobody is having fun playing against it", which is kind of a painful thing to everyone involved. There is a reason why there is a commander ban list and it should be used more often.
For most of Magic's history, it was designed for Limited. Mark Rosewater has said this many times. Then those cards would be played in standard, and some rare cards would be good enough to be played in Modern or Commander. Now Magic is being "designed" for Commander, an eternal format, and that is power creeping the whole game and every format, as well as hurting Commander. For real, those WOTC and Hasbro suits are just trying to cash out the game. We as fans need to take ownership of the Formats, and preserve Magic from the nihilism of the Corpos.
Yeah... thats why is a "CASUAL" format. People gets angry of how absurd a commander game can be and how "unbalanced" it is, but thats the point is funny because everything can happen without restriction. You don't play mario party because is a fair game, you play it because you know that you and your friends will kick their asses off😂😂😂.
My issue with Commander is less the format itself and more the players. I actually enjoy Commander a lot, but a lot of the Commander players I know tend to take offense when I make the Mario Party comparison (or anything similar), or even more nuanced critiques of the format (banlist, disadvantaging certain archetypes, etc.). It's the only format they've ever played, and even though they're very casual in the grand scheme of things it's deadly serious to them. I think the freeform nature of the format contributes heavily to it. If you go "Pioneer is an absolute shitshow right now, I'm tired of Sorin Tell," no one bats an eye because it's a competitive format. But EDH players aren't really playing "EDH", they're playing their curated, Rule 0'ed version of EDH. It almost feels like when you go "Yeah it's kind of weird that the most popular casual format that all the new players start with just has Sol Ring and Necropotence," to them you're not attacking EDH, you're attacking their precious beautiful baby. I think the lack of experience in those other formats also gives them a really weird tolerance for stuff. A friend watched me play a matchup against Dimir Control on Arena the other night and was flabbergasted by the slow pace and the sheer volume of disruption available. I don't think a lot of casual EDH players really understand the full breadth of the strategies available in Magic at large, so they have a much lower tolerance for things like getting boardwiped, counterspelled, etc. tl;dr old man finds casuals more toxic than sweats.
I don't think that there are 7 auto-includes per se in every vintage deck. The vintage format has evolved to the point that you can play manaless dredge, in which you no longer need these includes because you are no longer relying on mana as a resource to cast your spells (cards in grave are the resource instead). And I don't think that expropriate was well-designed in the 4-player limited format it was supposed to be a part of, as it was intended to be an expensive blowout that finishes when you cast it and was balanced by being actually pretty hard to cast. It just had the problem of being completely broken in a format where 9-mana isn't as tall of an order. I personally think that fast-mana like sol ring or cards that are practically unplayable like Rhystic Cave are way worse designs.
I personally don't get people's anger towards "king making" or as I think of it "securing 2nd place". it's not something that comes up in 1v1 formats but just last FNM I played in a pod with really nice guys. I stepped away to do some trades but stayed within ear shot and someone else took my place to keep the pod at 4. at the end of the game one player had a massive lead, two other players were sub 10 life and the final player had enough damage to kill the lowest players then board wipe and try to make a comeback but out of courtesy for everyone's time at the table he swung for lethal at the two lower opponents and chose to pass without board-wiping so he would die without the other two people just becoming spectators (for 10+ minutes while he tried to rebuild a boardstate just to potentially still lose). The player who took my spot was infuriated that he was playing sub optimally and that if he wasn't going to try to take first he shouldn't bother taking them out at all. I guess that really is just how some see it. but not me I prefer high power because I'd rather have somebody win because the table is out of interaction and we shuffle up and play again within 1-2 turns of someone presenting a threat to the table.
one thing to note I guess is that he did politic and basically ask if the other two players were going to do anything about the threat's board state. they said no, so he gave a chance to make deal's etc before making his decision. but things really just seemed inevitable.
I struggle to understand what people dislike about this sort of blocking, honestly. Not blocking seems way stranger to me, like, letting them keep an attacking creature that would otherwise definitely die, just because you're out of the game? If you didn't immediately die then you would block best you could, right? I don't get what makes it different. If someone loses the game after attacking because you can block them, then surely it would be a strategic decision to... ya' know, NOT attack?
The variance argument is less true than it seems A lor of lists in competitive edh have an average variance similar to a 60 card 4 of deck, simply due to redundancy, while yes, the exact line i use to win is varied, the significant amount of cards in my deck that get me there are functional retools of the exact same card
That’s true to an extent but it’s still not 100% accurate. Most of the time combo pieces are 1 or 2 ofs and your extra copies of counterspells/removal get worse than the first copy. “If only this oust was a swords i would have won” etc. it’s still an increase of variance though you can combat it with what you said it isn’t perfect
Variance isn't what makes edh bad. What makes is bad is that you aren't always allowed to try to win, removal is disincentivized, and there's player elimination. During deck building you have to worry about "power level" and thun have to leave out the better cards and make a deck that's less likely to win. Then, during the game, you can't kill an opponent early because they'll have to sit out for an hour. Removal is also disincentivized because you go down in card advantage when playing it. And player elimination means that someone knowed out early has to sit out for a long time with nothing to do. Cedh solves the first and third issues but the card disadvantage from removal still makes games way to swingy.
honestly my least favorite part of it is when its down to 1v1v1, and everyone has lethal on board. its in everyones 'best' interest to hold back blockers and wait for something to break parity, but no one wants to do that cuz an opponent might get their perfect card before they do.
I really think Commander needs to get rid of the Last Man Standing emphasis. Because that is what creates pointless stasis. I think there should be a point system, and that can be curated however you like. Eliminating a player should give points, being the last man standing can give some points. But I think there should be a way to win without being the last man standing, if you accomplished enough. And I think there should be a good sport award, that gives a lot of points to the one who was voted by other players to have done the most to make the game fun. Basically, let's make this thing like Mario Party already.
I'm very new to MTG and obviously I started playing Commander, though not immediately as I actually learned how to play via modern first. Commander is really fun and lax compared to a lot of other card games but I do find how common certain cards are to be kind of annoying much like I found it annoying in Yugioh which is where I come from really. Yugioh has a HORRIBLE staples problem and I quit it because of that and the insane power creep. The last thing I want to happen now that I got into Magic is for it to suffer the same problems.
Enlightened tutor is an insane card that clears worldly and mystical. Maybe I’ll talk about it someday as a short but at the end of the day i could only pick 5 cards to go there and i decided enlightened.
@33elk enlightened tutor Is white, has limited targets and shunts it to the top. The most important part of this being that it's white. Blue has access to better cards, and green is in a better color
Honestly no, ive been surfing youtube too see if and how many people share the opinion that commander is in all likelyhood magics worst format, but that core truth is hidden behind the veil of "fun" "casual" and "timmies".... commander is unique and it allows a social aspect to the game witch is good, but that only thinly hides the facts that players often get upset if you actively try to win, play cards they dont like or view as oppressive... You also dont have much say over weather you win or not as if the 3 other players decide your not gna win, well your not gna win (an issue you litterally cant have in 60 card). As a comptetaive person i simply dont understand why people like a format where before the game starts you litterally have a talk about how toxic and broken you want to be in that game. The fact its the most popular format blows my mind as a "spiky" player who only cares about winning. (Now i love to brew and try decks and have fun but the goal of winning is always on the table)
Ah yes, MTG's best casual format turns out to be not good for competitive players. Shocking to hear. In all seriousness, there are two main reasons commander is so good for casuals. It kills the two main decks that hamper stupid decks everyone loves to see, in that aggro can't kill anyone fast enough to stop them from doing the fun stuff, and variance and the lack of 1 for 1 trades makes control a bad idea. So your dumb(affectionate) deck can't be stopped by dying too fast or having all your stuff taken away. Also, as you mentioned, variance has so much bigger of a role to play. It makes competitive play's desperate need for micro advantages, perfect play, and concise gameplans crumble under a lack of consistency. There's a reason every pro player's first commander deck is a nightmare stax control deck with a combo and a million tutors thrown in for good measure. There's also a reason they very quickly stop doing that.
I'm not sure if it came across that way but I'm not trying to be a dick with that first sentence. I do think you go into more depth than most people will even begin to think of.
I moved from Standard to Legacy to Modern and now to Commander. I found the least amount of toxicity in EDH compared to others. We have houseruled out non-land tutors and sol rings.
I think what you bring up about unwinnable games is true in every single format. I disagree with you however about not banning cards that are too good. Maybe not Swords to Plowshares, but cards that scale incredibly well with the number of opponents like Rhystic Study, Citadel, Esper Sentinel, etc. to the point where they are "auto includes" in decks of their color identity should indeed be banned in my opinion, because it directly contradicts the variance (why the format is singleton in the first place). Also, everything you say in this video is exactly why I think cEDH is wrongly named "competitive" EDH, it should be named "broken EDH" or something...
I'm honestly getting a little tired and confused over people's obsession with it, we'd get way more games in if we just played 4 player FFA Standard. I have most of my fun in the format building decks
Honestly, why make a channel about commander when you’re so obviously lukewarm on the format? Honestly your last few videos have been nothing but complaining about commander and it’s a little off putting.
@@cjhui7633 these last few videos have been about: - cube - why commander games stall - why commander is bad competitively Commander isn’t my absolute favorite way to play magic but i still love it a lot! Being critical about something’s flaws should hopefully show I care about it, no?
@@33elk to be fair, the cube video was how cube was better than commander casually. And you’re right, being critical isn’t a bad a thing and does show that you care but when most of your discussions videos are being critical of something it really does give the vibe you don’t like it, and as a technically commander channel it’s just kinda confused me.I poorly worded my original comment and that’s on me. I was just honestly curious on why make a commander focused UA-cam channel when clearly you like and enjoy other formats more?
@@cjhui7633 Commander just has so much to talk about, to me a lot of other formats feel "solved" (never true with this much card board being printed but still) whereas commander and cube and such is a lot more player driven (well used to be more player driven in commander's case wince wotc has a lot more of a grip on it). Most of the games I get to play in paper are commander since that's all my lgs plays so I am very well versed in it as well and I don't own a lot of 60 card decks in paper because of it. Originally this channel was just going to be showing off the decks I play but I kinda ran out LOL so those are the reasons for the so-far heavy commander focus. I'm glad you are curious about the reasons though! Promise less dreary videos in the future i just kinda wanted a nice trilogy of criticism to make it feel complete haha
@@33elk It's funny, I am not a competitive Commander player, but all the channels I watch on Commander are more or less competitive, like yours. I think it's funny to see them struggle with the format, but I also think that competitive players are more likely to make interesting videos in the first place, which is why I watch. :D
![[EDH] Lessons from Decks I’ve Dismantled](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D5RvQLD0f84/mqdefault.jpg)
![[EDH] Lessons from Decks I’ve Dismantled](/img/tr.png)
![[EDH] Avoiding Slogfests in Commander](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TGhktWWBlZs/mqdefault.jpg)
![[EDH] What you NEED to make a Commander deck](/img/n.gif)
who gave the elk myriad?
these sharpie alters are really getting out of hand
I think someone kicked Rite of Replication
I did
The issue with trying to formalise anything around Kingmaking is that a player in that position is *always* forced to kingmake one player - yes, they could take a game action that hands the win to one player. But refraining from taking that game action is the exact same - it hands the win to the other player, by conscious choice. It's the trolley problem of magic, and at the end of the day at least one opponent is going to walk away from the table having lost because of your decision, and it's GONNA suck for them.
The issue isn't kingmaking, the issue is getting mad you're not the one made king
@@GrayVMhan No the issue is still kingmaking, being handed a win robs you of the feeling that you earned it.
also dont forget that the kingmaker is in a game loss and there making a rock and a-hard-place decision so in the end all three players lose
Lol, being handed a win in a multiplayer format? Everything other players do affects your win. If they remove your stuff or let it stay, if they counter your stuff or let it pass, if they attack you or not. The idea that at some point that stuff becomes wrong or misplays is insane.
The issue with analyzing other player's faulty threat assessment and say that they're throwing is that there is a conflict of interest. You want to win, but you can't win if other players impede you. So the inherent conflict of interest is that anything you say is trying to help you get the win. Even if someone else is more of a threat, wanting another player to target them instead of you is helping you to get closer to the win.
If only one person can win, then kingmaking is not a bug, but a feature. Is it wrong if 2 players start off in collusion to run the table? I think that is worse than a player being in a losing position, and choosing to affect the outcome of the game according to their own desires. This issue is inherent to multiplayer magic, not just Commander.
I have a bigger problem with all the rules and balancing that was done for 20 life one on one Magic, being ported over to multiplayer 40 life Commander, with no adjustment. I'm actually kind of rolling back to 60 card 20 life formats as a result, though I am experimenting with Block formats. Maybe Limited is the ultimate form of Magic after all.
@FinetalPies you don't have to view it that way though. When you get kingmade you were already slated to be 2nd place. The face that the third place player chose you likely came from your own game actions and even just personal actions. Maybe you were nice to that player and helped them out while the player in first place rushed to take the lead and then was pompous and smug about it.
You played good enough magic to get in second place + nice enough politics to win the favor of the 3rd place player in order to secure your win. You. Earned. That.
If you were going to be first place and the kingmaker chose the other player you should just take pride in the fact that you played so well your opponents made you the archenemy and had to team up to take you down. And if you really do care about winning, you need to factor emotional appeal into your strategy so the kingmaker has a desire to make you the winner.
Personally, I'm happy to be on the other end of an underdog situation and just generally make a great story about how "she always wins every game but we managed to work together and catch up to get 5 vp lead in Catan and beat her." It's a game people are going to remember and talk about compared to yet another one where I stomp everyone.
"variance is the enemy of competitiveness"
I thought there was this talk from Richard Garfield about how variance and skill required are not necessarily linked. For example, one can play competitive chess and poker, one has high variance, the other does not, yet both have competitive scenes.
That ban list though, ahhhhh.
What I meant is variance inherently causes power spikes and wells in a deck's performance. The more the game comes down to chance, the less player skill is involved in deciding a game win. The more luck based the format, the less skill leads to a win (a small % of difference, but still a difference!)
The variance of Poker never changes every few months though changes in how you interact with game pieces and rule addenums. In any TCG, you're playing with a ever growing pool of cards, however small or large, while the game is in it's supported lifespan. Commander is a format with over 10,000 legal cards, being conservative with that number, and that dwarfs the number of potential poker hands (1,326 in Texas Hold 'Em). Good players have a skillset that allows them to weed though not only bad card choice but good deckbuilding and battle planning. The more outside factors you bring in to a game (Taking the base of a 1v1 balanced game and adding more people, removing redundant cards, larger deck size) introduces variance that even if you're good at deckbuilding and playing the game of Magic, you'll just not get there sometimes through no fault of your own. Somebody could just get to their wincon faster than you.
@@33elk For real, lands and the mana system alone is Major variance. Drawing the right cards, variance. A less skilled player can beat a more skilled player if they curve out and the other guy mana floods or mana screws. And that is a good thing to me. There needs to be a balance.
In a lot of competitive hobbies, they will need to rebalance things to shake up the meta, because a solved meta is boring. Whereas if it is too random, then no one cares about winning or losing. It is basically gambling.
In Magic, there is a lot of variance, but you have the tools to address it. However, you can't eliminate it.
@@shorewall Yeah I go into that in my video I love that a newer player still has a chance, but inherently thats not entirely competitive is my point (so yes magic in general is bad for comp to some extent its just commander exacerbates this tenfold by being singleton). Once again reference my disclaimer at the start of the video that magic does take skill if you wanna maintain a winrate hahaha
@@33elk @larvatar2387 I agree that higher variance causes imbalance, and can determine games. I however think that regardless of this, it makes the skill ceiling higher. In some games, it is possible to play near perfect. In cedh and the likes, the amount of skills needed between deckbuilding, politics, threat assessment, game knowledge, card prediction etc. Means that the game is, and will be unsolved in a way, and allowing for expression by what strategy you think best. This is why I think it is a great format. (I do admit that if there is a prize pool, I might feel different, there is a point there)
I've personally always sided with blocking in favor of devaluing the player killing me, not out of spite but as a deterrent. Politically I will declare that "If you want to kill me, that is the cost. I will go down swinging." If they kill me, I stick to my word and die. If them attacking and losing creatures to blocks would cost them greatly or even the game, then do not blame yourself for them over extending. Blocking is a natural part of combat and the math of how blocks can play out is important for attackers to consider.
Love your vids Elk
For real, this. I guess a lot of competitive types are the type to concede or drop out when they know they can't win, so they can get into another round quicker. But I was raised on Rocky and Shonen Anime, and I believe in fighting to the end. :D
I despise intentional kingmaking and i still believe that optimally blocking against lethal is logically sound. Another opponent could fog or gain you life or remove an opponent's creature because they have some interest in keeping you alive. There's a world of difference between doing things optimally to the very end and just making a pointless spite play at the end.
Agreed.
Format that is aggressively accommodates casual play was always needed. I recall long ago when magic was introduced to the gaming club I was in, and it was the early sloppy, super casual period was the period where ALL people had most fun. Eventually, most people started to take magic very seriously, and grim spite began to creep in around the edges which kinda dispelled all the early charm of the communal fun.
I used to be a sore loser in Commander. What helped me learn to lose gracefully was focusing on the next game. Because I would always play multiple games, I could look forward to better results in the next game rather than dwell on the current one. I also learned to play faster despite the risk of making a mistake because I could fit in more games that way. This lesson turned out not to be specific to Commander, since I now find Prerelease tournaments to be more easygoing as well
That's a cool takeaway.
Commander being a bad format is one thing, commander existing making all the other formats worse by influencing card design is another
Even commander players aren't happy about Uro, Nadu, or the Initiative.
@@greatbrandini3967 For real, as a Commander main, I feel like I'm being driven out of the format by WOTC "designing" for Commander.
@@shorewall1000%
It's still funny they tried adding commander to sixty card with companions and I don't think a single commander player was like, "oh boy I'm gonna start playing standard and modern now!"
Oh and they had to nerf the mechanic because it warped all the formats 😊
Ya as a commander I don't like it either I miss when it wasn't the case.
Midnight, perfect time for a new 3/3 Cervid video. :D
Oh god the elk are multiplying
Turn order and player position will change things so so much. Nobody wants to play after the blue player, haha. Great video as always !!
I've lost 99%of my games with my friends, it's just the way I play, but I have the most fun out of everyone on my table. I've lost so much it doesn't matter anymore to me, instead I just love trying out different decks, different strategies, weird ideas, and just the atmosphere. I love playing either my friends and that's why I play commander, because I don't have to use the meta staples, I don't have to use the cruel strategies and give up everything to win. I get to play my Renata, Called to the Hunt tribal (it's not the commander, it's the thing that i get lots of) deck, and I get to have fun without the fear of losing.
similar situation, me and my pod typically play with pre-cons or slightly upgraded ones. Every deck in my group that isn't a pre-con is one that I made for myself or my husband. The only game of magic I've ever won at that table was when we were playing the Clue ruleset and I won by guessing the thing correctly lol
I remember when I was in high school, I played a guy at the card store. We played like 4 or 5 games. He creamed me in all but one. When I won, I was happy. Dude asked me why I was happy, since I only won one game. I told him I like making my own kind of decks, and if I can win about 1 in 5, that's enough to make me happy. He was kinda impressed with that, because I guess it is pretty different from a lot of more serious Magic players.
What do you get lots of?
@@joedoe7572 you mean my Renata tribal? If so I make a lot of copies of Renata, whether good old helm or legend rule shenanigans, and they buff each other so it kinda becomes a tribal
One of the problems with the competitiveness in commander is not a problem with commander itself, but more so a mindset within some members of the playerbase. I've met and had the misfortune of playing against players who take the competitiveness aspect of the game to such a degree that they are focusing on bar stomping, or deliberately going up against players who have only precons, or similarly powered decks. Not a problem with the game itself, but again it's something i've seen really cause problems within our community, even with healthy discussion.
I have recently been thinking about the difference between Commander and 1v1 with the games speed. I have noticed in casual commander, even though ramp is very popular, the format because of the multiplayer aspect, plays much slower as well as being less competitive in nature, which allows players to play bigger more explosive fun spells that would never or rarely see play in a more fast paced competitive environment. As a person who is aiming to get more of a social experience and just enjoyable games rather than always going for the win, I prefer the slower paced gameplay of commander and the ability to play larger more fun explosive cards, but I do enjoy looking into the other formats and seeing what different kinds of experiences they provide.
Another fantastic episode 🎉
And boy do I love the way you say bye at the end of each of your videos! It's adorable and makes me smile every time 🥰
Yeah I pretty much agree with all of this. Just by playing MtG I'm agreeing to leave some things up to chance, so having a format emphasize that can be a fun thing. There will also always be a type of person who will try to turn anything they like competitive, which is usually cool when done right! I like seeing limits pushed.
I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no format I'd rather be than me.
= do not be surprised that Commander frustrates you if you take commander seriously, it is a broken and casual format
the whole game is broken and casual in every format tbh, but being multiplayer does lower the stakes IMO
this is what makes me feel stuck. I want to take the game seriously. when the game starts to revolve around being broken and casual... it's an awful place to be.
@@IanKernohan well just change Format. All others are serious
@@user-co6ww2cm9klowers the stakes until you realize cedh tournaments have better payouts than the entire protour
Another great video. As a purely casual player (attitude issues with competitive players in the past really burned me on magic for a long time) I find myself nodding along to a lot of what you are saying in this and your last video.
this vid aswell as the comments made me realize the thing i like about a lot of the "casual" games that ive played competitively is the variance those games have. getting good at playing around rng is one of my favorite skills in any game so im suprised it took me this long to notice the link between these games.
Sure, these videos are well-structured and involve good reasoning and examination of the format, but I feel like there's something that isn't commented enough on, and that is the fact that
Elk cute.
I think a lot of this I already knew, but it gives me hope that I can look at my next loss a little differently. And maybe I'll start enjoying play with my usual pod again
Thanks elk :)
Hey heck sometimes their commander counters yours, and its something they have on demand. A friend of mine plays must kills commanders in a table where noone else does so everyones just holding removal for him. With 4 players it gets real tought.
There is something I find interesting when they talked about duskmourn tho. The new nemesis gamemode and the mention that the red black commander is a table enemy commander. I wonder how they will implement that when having 4 players hate on you is definitely unfun.
On the other hand goad is really fun in commander especially.
In our table we also just agreed on allways doing proper blocks even if youre gonna die. After all if we didnt then as soon as we have lethal its like they have no blockers which nullifies the risk of attacking and losing pieces.
Same in my play group with the blocking. It just makes sense like that.
I disagree with you about being archnemesis not being fun. If you're the most powerful player at the table, it can be very fun to try to win through all that adversity. Heck, there's a whole format built around that concept (Archenemy, very fun by the way. Try it out)
@@joedoe7572 yea that's what I meant when I said nemesis, I forgot if there was a term. And it depends on how well you can deal with it really. When I'm playing a goad deck I'm technically the archenemy anyways, I'm just curious how they're gonna do it in duskmourn.
Commander is kinda odd for jank. In some parts 40 life and multiplayer prevent you from being run over so you can use silly cards like Eye of the Storm, but the singleton hurts when some decks lack enough redundancy (i wanna make a UR delver work but there just aren't enough playable 1 cost cantrips imo) or some decks just dont function (Karn sideboard, lessons, etc)
Another good vibes video to watch during lunch break. Thanks!
on kingmaking and politics, i actually really enjoy both those aspects and don't see them as detractors. kingmaking is definitely something that some people get salty about, but honestly it's the kind of thing a losing player can do to strike back at the person who knocked them out, and makes for a fun sort of "with my dying breathe i curse thee!" moment. and it should be something available to players, because it deters players who just roll into the game looking to knock everyone out as fast as possible. if each player you remove also takes away a major board piece for you when you knock them out, you really have to think about when and how to remove players. which leads me to the larger picture of politicking;
i think the political meta game of commander is one of my favorite aspects that i regularly build my decks around, with cards like folio of fancies and spectral searchlight. i think the option to incentivize players to keep you in the game longer is absolutely part of the fun. I'm not sure citing losing the thread of the card's mechanical function actually gives any weight to an argument against politicking, as it's almost the same as saying "bluffing in poker loses the thread of how the game is supposed to be a randomized number value exercise." like i see where you're coming from but the political game is part of what determines the player's skills, on top of managing card effects or understanding priority.
Yeah, but I think there is a disconnect between people like you and me, who value the social aspect of the game, and those who just want to grind wins. And I don't mean that in a bad way. I've noticed in Competitive Pokemon, Magic, Total War, or anything that is competitive, that as soon as they feel they can't win, they concede or drop, so that they can get to the next game. They are grinding wins, because winning is the fun part.
I've never felt that rush when I win. I enjoy talking with my opponent, the back and forth, building personal decks, and doing my thing every couple of games. I remember going to an FNM one time, and trying to talk to my opponent during our match, and he wouldn't even look me in the eye. I don't hold it against him, he was probably shy, but that wasn't fun for me.
I think the problem is just two incompatible types of player, and a format that really isn't made to grind wins in. It's multiplayer, so you can win or lose due to actions outside of your control. And it's casual, so often players are motivated by other things than just the highest value play, which can confuse those who are. Like a blackbelt being jumped by an amateur.
That's why they say Rule Zero discussions are so important, but that's also the problem for socially awkward Win grinders, who aren't good at communicating.
Only thing I disagree with is about banlist and staples. I think taking toys away is never the solution, and staples are the only reason messy jank can actually exist. Efficient interaction means you don't immediately fold to the better deck assembling its stuff first, and good ramp and tutors allow janky overpriced cards to actually ever get in a deck, and subsequently on the stack.
A current example I have is a shark typhoon estrid deck I'm brewing, the goal is to make a shark ballistic missile, clearly not a broken concept. If we ban tutors, the deck straight up cannot exist, as I cannot consistently find my central card. Then I need to cast that thicc cmc enchantment. Then I need to live after sinking a late-ish turn into a permanent that does nothing immediately. Maybe I even need to protect it. And then I need to pop a shark and make it good, the ceiling of it being plea for guidance searching enchanted evening and ancestral mask. None of this pile ever does anything without a solid staple framework around it.
Sure others can enable better gameplans with all those cards available. But them being able to do so by the rules, is the only reason I get to put a shark in a rocket launcher.
Yeah I’m not saying to ban them! But to create a healthier competitive format there would need to be a lot of bans. That was my point, it enables jank but undermines commander’s competitive viability as a format (which is fine, because we play it casually). That’s the entire point of the video!
@@33elk ... I'm too used to people mentioning banlists to push the point for more bans
I knew there was something odd, you're the only casual edh channel I keep agreeing with
@@33elkthe thing is, the competitive environment is very healthy, the format is constantly being experimented with at the top level as well
Staples are a feature competitively not a bug, banning staples just creates more, slightly worse versions of the same staples
I personally like a points system where strong cards are given points and you have a maximum of X points. But then you'd require a lot more time and effort to be put in.
Shark in a rocket launcher, you deserve a nobel prize for being so cool.
I feel pretty strongly that any kind of etiquette expectations around game actions when you're no longer able to win takes away from what makes Commander interesting; I played a game several years ago where an opponent was running a Norin the Wary deck designed to shut down the game and prevent anyone else from accomplishing anything; one of my opponents was able to stabilize, and I ended up finding a line that didn't benefit me in any way but allowed that opponent to win. now, granted, I'm biased in favor of the thing I did being acceptable, but one of the key skills in Commander is managing how other players feel about what your deck is doing at any given moment, and if you're running a deck designed to keep other players from being able to meaningfully play the game, it's totally reasonable for them to respond by taking agency in the only viable way. recently, I played a game with an opponent playing the Ms. Bumbleflower precon, and I had a deck that runs a substantial amount of targeted removal and board wipes. the most important skill in that game for me was identifying the turns when my removal would be most acceptable to the player giving me extra card draw; if I had gone out of my way to keep the other players from being able to do *anything*, my opponent would've rightfully declined to ever let me draw extra cards. I think having that skill exist in the game is a lot more interesting than trying to eliminate it with etiquette.
What's interesting here is if you have a long standing play group, this topic eventually comes up. Commander forces everyone to learn a bit about each other and pushes people to their limits as they come to terms with what's being talked about in this video. Have someone who hates politics? They have to come to terms that it happens in EDH, be it a little or a lot. Have someone who only enjoys magic when they win? EDH will humble that. Have someone who builds deck after deck and gets frustated that they never learn the lines of play with that deck? It teaches them to stick to a deck for a bit and see what can be done to upgrade or change the way they play it. I love EDH because of the lessons it's taugh me and my playgroup. I feel my playgroup knows me in ways no one else does because of how we've had to adapt to each other's playstyles, temperments, personalities, and salt levels. In the end, the decks/cards arent the most important thing, it's the group/social aspect of it, and EDH will always remind you of it in some shape or form.
100%. Commander is a social format, that is the point of it.
I am an avid enjoyer of both cEDH and casual. They are basically different formats (and probably need to be treated thusly). Truly, though? Competitive is more rewarding for me, though. The expectation is that I’ll play well and play to win. If I’m salty, that’s my problem. And I try not to be salty. I try to learn.
I’m casual the expectation is very different. “Maybe I shouldn’t play this card because everyone at the table will gripe and moan” is a common thought I have. And the power level conversation was had and expectations are known. That’s not to say I don’t have fun.
It’s just that what I’m policing changes between the two “formats”. In competitive I'm policing my plays for optimization and my opponents for the same. In casual the plays are policed for how my opponents might feel about a particular card and that’s not a particularly fun way to play magic. You wouldn’t expect that in any other format. Especially after a “this deck does these things. Will you still play?” talk occurs.
I think you gotta pursue what you like.
Even before Commander, competitive never appealed to me. I don't get the rush from winning that I know other people do. My favorite part of Magic was talking to my opponents and enjoying the back and forth. Plus brewing off-meta decks. Playing a meta deck was just the most boring thing to me, even if it was stronger. So I wanted different things from the game.
I think a big problem is WOTC "designing" for Commander now, so that feels like the only important format. I think Commander is a terrible format for people who want to win, since it is a 1v3, at least, for that win. It is meant to be social, to be about reading the table, and playing your opponents as much as playing the cards. Like the difference between poker night with the boys, vs those high stakes poker games where everyone is wearing sunglasses and hoodies, and don't talk. :D
I love the idea of cEDH, and I think it was inevitable. Casual Commander and cEDH is different intended play experiences, and people will gravitate towards one or the other. I think if there was a Modern style cEDH format, or some other type of restricted cEDH, it could actually take off like crazy.
It’s not about winning for me. It’s about playing to the best of my ability given my situation. It’s like a puzzle where the puzzle fights back. Because it does. And that fight is asymmetric between all 4 players, making it incredibly difficult to parse out “correct” plays. It’s an excellent metaphor for daily living frankly. Do I sacrifice resources now for immediate gain? Is the spire play correct? If I sit and wait will I get more value from this spell? Is now my time to capitalize on my opponent’s weakness?
I don't think I've ever heard an argument where an attacker said the defending player shouldn't block because they already have lethal, especially if those blocks could have a noticably negative impact on the attacker's board. That's some next level entitlement.
@@greatbrandini3967 I’ve seen arguments both ways like i said. I can see the merit in both but for me i tend to agree more with you
you only lightly touched on it but the real main reason why commander is bad competitively is that the people in charge of the competitive health of EDH have a well-known and stated stance that they don't really care about the competitive health and cEDH exists partially in spite of that stance and partially because of it. i don't think there's a single cEDH player alive that wants the format to change to something more objectively healthy because the CRC changes this stance and makes sweeping changes to the banlist targeting the competitive health of commander.
4:20 cEDH players have found an excellent (sarcastic) solution to this problem: Simply eliminate whichever opponent doesn’t agree to an intentional draw in this position! Problem solved 🙂
Absolutely true. I used to be obsessed with deck making in EDH. It was a form of expression. But even then, casual decks just perform so badly , it made me realize there were certain card interactions I wanted to pull off but don’t really win the game. And the people I have seen playing it don’t really seem to actually enjoy it either. It’s like some kind of ritual or obligation that seems to end in most people tired and bitter. Even winning feels bad
Now I play Dandan variants. I’m currently trying to brew some kind of shared deck format that accommodates multiplayer and plays the fun splashy cards that got me into the game.
you should check out my cube video if you haven't already. Sounds just right for you
took a solid minute trying to understand why Cruel Deceiver would be played in cEDH x)
Awesome video as usual
Commander is a kusoge.
There's a couple problems with an argument about variance in edh. Superficially, it would seem that all non-basic land cards in the deck would be wholly unique in what they do, but that's not reality. Edh's card pool is so vast that its incredibly easy to have redundancy in effects in such a manner that you approach the same kind of performance consistency of 60 card formats. This is especially true when accounting for the commander being constantly available.
Also the presence of variance doesn't disqualify a game from a competitive arena. Many competitive games are built around some degree of variance, and in those spaces the skill of a plyer is partly determined by how they manage and leverage that variance.
When it comes to edh, most of those "issues" ultimately come down to a play group's informal rules like enacting power levels or "soft-banning" cards or playstyles.
Good video :3
Kingmaking is pretty much the reason and the main strategy I play in Commander, when I do. Getting to choose who wins, and biding my time while doing politics from that power is the only way I can see the Magic ruleset working in a multiplayer format where people are not trying to win ASAP.
Kingmaking is inherent. Everything in a multiplayer format is kingmaking. If you remove someone's stuff or not, if you counter it or not, if you attack them or not, all of that has an effect on the outcome. There is this weird preoccupation with kingmaking after you know you'll lose, which is up to the person's board assessment, which may not align with yours. And there is a conflict of interest, because each person wants to win, and therefore will potentially accuse of kingmaking or unfair or unskilled threat assessment to give themselves an advantage.
A lot of competitive types are grinding for wins like a junkie. And I don't mean just in Magic. If they think they can't win, they will just concede and go for another round. They are trying to get in as many games and potential wins as they can. Whereas to a lot of other players, the gameplay, the politics, the social aspect, is the fun part of the game. So of course I'm gonna king make even if I can't win. Of course I'm gonna block your attacks even if you have fatal no matter what. Because that's what's fun. It's like Vegeta focusing only on being the best, vs. Goku who just likes fighting.
Commander is a format that's up to the opinions/oversights of those who play it, not as a whole, but from the 4 weirdos who happen to be in once place to play.
There is too good and too bad, different answers that are better answers, not from a gameplay perspective but from a social perspective. That's what makes it so difficult because the best answer to you is the worst answer to another player.
This might be a stupid question, and really doesn't have anything to do with the video's content (sorry about that 😅- I'm a fan of your deck builds/discussions). But on your intro screen, is there a reason you wrote 2$/3$ rather than $2/$3?
I've been seeing the former a lot recently. I'd assumed that it was either very young people or international users' comments when I've seen it; because it's otherwise standard to put the dollar sign before the amount. But from your accent I'd guess you were North American. I'm just curious to find out whether putting the symbol after the amount has recently become the norm somewhere, and why that is?
its *techincally* incorrect i suppose! the shift recently is probably just because in american english you say "it is 2 dollars" so it feels natural to go from that to 2$ instead of $2 you know? haha. that's my theory for how that typing quirk has come around
Commander would be far less annoying if the RC would do anything at all.
I never get upset from losing. Commander is the furthest thing from a balanced format and deck levels and luck cause for extreme variance in games.
@@devan9197 man tell that to some of the people i play with
The "goals of the table" should just be play game and win, unless it's for testing lol
good 3/3 elk video 👍
1:52 fout of them
8:22 100% true. I’ve lost to literal precons this week, and it’s not bc i didn’t try, it’s bc i left them for last and didn’t take them seriously the whole game. Anyone in commander can win. Even newer players with no real experience. That being said it does feel a bit bad when that one guy that did nothing all game comes out with a big play out of nowhere and steals the game. Or maybe im just salty lol.
Back to the ban list, apart from high power casuals being salty over losing their favorite toys (the most popular and powerful cards in the format: tutors, fast mana, and other staples.) I often truly wonder what would happen to cEDH if the top 20 or 30 most played cards were banned. Would their mana bases be like casual mana bases? Would they play less generically strong cards and play more synergies? Would their commander choices matter more? Would they be more land focused rather than mana rocks and therefore MLD would be a winning strategy there? I don’t know but I would like to see what it means to have the highest levels of play with essentially a brand new card pool opened up by the lack of auto-includes.
I love theory crafting offshoots of Commander. Because Commander isn't really a format, more like almost a whole new game, using the same pieces. It's like if you played Risk with Chess pieces. :D
I think some type of restricted format for EDH is a really good idea. Maybe Modern Commander. Except that I want to put the cutoff that cards from after a certain date are excluded, since WOTC is power creeping the hell out of Commander, and most older cards aren't a problem.
I've also thought of Basic Lands only, and how that might affect what decks people build (Most likely Green in every deck, lol). No tutors, especially since they trivialize the singleton nature of the format. Maybe no ramp cards, so that you can't be so greedy.
One idea I came up with was Game emblems, which imitate a card or mechanic, and last for the whole game. Aven Mindcensor Emblem (which deals with searching your deck), Blood Moon Emblem (which deals with the prevalence of non-basic lands). Commander is a fan made format, so is cEDH, so is Pauper, so we fans need to take this into our own hands, and it may catch on.
honestly hate this mentality, that the competitive side of a game/format is somehow the 'best', and by effect, THE side that's considered the 'right' way to play. the amount of times I've seen a game try to pivot to balanceing for competitive, and then just eating itself alive and dying is too many.
But because Magic has separate ban lists for different formats WotC does not need to pivot the game anywhere. They could simply design cards separately for commander and standard (as they already do with non-standard sets). The problem is standard cards (or cards that rotated out of standard) that are too good in commander. This is usually self balanced through the table saying "we don't want you to play this deck again because nobody is having fun playing against it", which is kind of a painful thing to everyone involved. There is a reason why there is a commander ban list and it should be used more often.
I don’t think cedh or casual players have a “right” way of playing. The right way is whatever is fun for you.
For most of Magic's history, it was designed for Limited. Mark Rosewater has said this many times. Then those cards would be played in standard, and some rare cards would be good enough to be played in Modern or Commander.
Now Magic is being "designed" for Commander, an eternal format, and that is power creeping the whole game and every format, as well as hurting Commander.
For real, those WOTC and Hasbro suits are just trying to cash out the game. We as fans need to take ownership of the Formats, and preserve Magic from the nihilism of the Corpos.
I think the different elks representing different players should have different antlers.
Or hats.
I like the effect of having 4 identical elks representing generic players.
I guess all 3/3 elks look the same. But if they were on thunder junction they would have cowboy hats.
Yeah... thats why is a "CASUAL" format.
People gets angry of how absurd a commander game can be and how "unbalanced" it is, but thats the point is funny because everything can happen without restriction.
You don't play mario party because is a fair game, you play it because you know that you and your friends will kick their asses off😂😂😂.
My issue with Commander is less the format itself and more the players. I actually enjoy Commander a lot, but a lot of the Commander players I know tend to take offense when I make the Mario Party comparison (or anything similar), or even more nuanced critiques of the format (banlist, disadvantaging certain archetypes, etc.). It's the only format they've ever played, and even though they're very casual in the grand scheme of things it's deadly serious to them.
I think the freeform nature of the format contributes heavily to it. If you go "Pioneer is an absolute shitshow right now, I'm tired of Sorin Tell," no one bats an eye because it's a competitive format. But EDH players aren't really playing "EDH", they're playing their curated, Rule 0'ed version of EDH. It almost feels like when you go "Yeah it's kind of weird that the most popular casual format that all the new players start with just has Sol Ring and Necropotence," to them you're not attacking EDH, you're attacking their precious beautiful baby.
I think the lack of experience in those other formats also gives them a really weird tolerance for stuff. A friend watched me play a matchup against Dimir Control on Arena the other night and was flabbergasted by the slow pace and the sheer volume of disruption available. I don't think a lot of casual EDH players really understand the full breadth of the strategies available in Magic at large, so they have a much lower tolerance for things like getting boardwiped, counterspelled, etc.
tl;dr old man finds casuals more toxic than sweats.
I don't think that there are 7 auto-includes per se in every vintage deck. The vintage format has evolved to the point that you can play manaless dredge, in which you no longer need these includes because you are no longer relying on mana as a resource to cast your spells (cards in grave are the resource instead).
And I don't think that expropriate was well-designed in the 4-player limited format it was supposed to be a part of, as it was intended to be an expensive blowout that finishes when you cast it and was balanced by being actually pretty hard to cast. It just had the problem of being completely broken in a format where 9-mana isn't as tall of an order. I personally think that fast-mana like sol ring or cards that are practically unplayable like Rhystic Cave are way worse designs.
I personally don't get people's anger towards "king making" or as I think of it "securing 2nd place". it's not something that comes up in 1v1 formats but just last FNM I played in a pod with really nice guys. I stepped away to do some trades but stayed within ear shot and someone else took my place to keep the pod at 4. at the end of the game one player had a massive lead, two other players were sub 10 life and the final player had enough damage to kill the lowest players then board wipe and try to make a comeback but out of courtesy for everyone's time at the table he swung for lethal at the two lower opponents and chose to pass without board-wiping so he would die without the other two people just becoming spectators (for 10+ minutes while he tried to rebuild a boardstate just to potentially still lose). The player who took my spot was infuriated that he was playing sub optimally and that if he wasn't going to try to take first he shouldn't bother taking them out at all.
I guess that really is just how some see it. but not me I prefer high power because I'd rather have somebody win because the table is out of interaction and we shuffle up and play again within 1-2 turns of someone presenting a threat to the table.
one thing to note I guess is that he did politic and basically ask if the other two players were going to do anything about the threat's board state. they said no, so he gave a chance to make deal's etc before making his decision. but things really just seemed inevitable.
I struggle to understand what people dislike about this sort of blocking, honestly. Not blocking seems way stranger to me, like, letting them keep an attacking creature that would otherwise definitely die, just because you're out of the game? If you didn't immediately die then you would block best you could, right? I don't get what makes it different. If someone loses the game after attacking because you can block them, then surely it would be a strategic decision to... ya' know, NOT attack?
The variance argument is less true than it seems
A lor of lists in competitive edh have an average variance similar to a 60 card 4 of deck, simply due to redundancy, while yes, the exact line i use to win is varied, the significant amount of cards in my deck that get me there are functional retools of the exact same card
That’s true to an extent but it’s still not 100% accurate. Most of the time combo pieces are 1 or 2 ofs and your extra copies of counterspells/removal get worse than the first copy. “If only this oust was a swords i would have won” etc. it’s still an increase of variance though you can combat it with what you said it isn’t perfect
Oh no my deckbuilding anxiety is playing up again
You’re fine because everyone has the same restrictions as you!
Variance isn't what makes edh bad. What makes is bad is that you aren't always allowed to try to win, removal is disincentivized, and there's player elimination.
During deck building you have to worry about "power level" and thun have to leave out the better cards and make a deck that's less likely to win. Then, during the game, you can't kill an opponent early because they'll have to sit out for an hour.
Removal is also disincentivized because you go down in card advantage when playing it.
And player elimination means that someone knowed out early has to sit out for a long time with nothing to do.
Cedh solves the first and third issues but the card disadvantage from removal still makes games way to swingy.
honestly my least favorite part of it is when its down to 1v1v1, and everyone has lethal on board. its in everyones 'best' interest to hold back blockers and wait for something to break parity, but no one wants to do that cuz an opponent might get their perfect card before they do.
Ah yeah I have a deck that seems to do this consistently gotta do find a way to fix it
I really think Commander needs to get rid of the Last Man Standing emphasis. Because that is what creates pointless stasis. I think there should be a point system, and that can be curated however you like. Eliminating a player should give points, being the last man standing can give some points. But I think there should be a way to win without being the last man standing, if you accomplished enough.
And I think there should be a good sport award, that gives a lot of points to the one who was voted by other players to have done the most to make the game fun. Basically, let's make this thing like Mario Party already.
New elk vid 🗣🗣🦌🦌🦌🔥🔥
NOOOOOOOO IT HAS TO BE A BALANCED HYPER COMPETITIVE FORMAT TO JUSTIFY MY INVESTMENT INTO A CHILDRENS CARD GAME /j
I'm very new to MTG and obviously I started playing Commander, though not immediately as I actually learned how to play via modern first. Commander is really fun and lax compared to a lot of other card games but I do find how common certain cards are to be kind of annoying much like I found it annoying in Yugioh which is where I come from really. Yugioh has a HORRIBLE staples problem and I quit it because of that and the insane power creep. The last thing I want to happen now that I got into Magic is for it to suffer the same problems.
Enlightened tutor is so far down the list that mentioning it shows off your biases
Enlightened tutor is an insane card that clears worldly and mystical. Maybe I’ll talk about it someday as a short but at the end of the day i could only pick 5 cards to go there and i decided enlightened.
@33elk enlightened tutor Is white, has limited targets and shunts it to the top. The most important part of this being that it's white. Blue has access to better cards, and green is in a better color
@@yugioh1870green is literally the worst color in edh
Outside of 5c decks and FUCKING NADU not a single top cedh deck is green
@@V2ULTRAKill kinnan?
Honestly no, ive been surfing youtube too see if and how many people share the opinion that commander is in all likelyhood magics worst format, but that core truth is hidden behind the veil of "fun" "casual" and "timmies".... commander is unique and it allows a social aspect to the game witch is good, but that only thinly hides the facts that players often get upset if you actively try to win, play cards they dont like or view as oppressive...
You also dont have much say over weather you win or not as if the 3 other players decide your not gna win, well your not gna win (an issue you litterally cant have in 60 card). As a comptetaive person i simply dont understand why people like a format where before the game starts you litterally have a talk about how toxic and broken you want to be in that game. The fact its the most popular format blows my mind as a "spiky" player who only cares about winning. (Now i love to brew and try decks and have fun but the goal of winning is always on the table)
At least it gives you a dude to start with.
honestly nothing makes me appreciate my commander group more than how much commander players cry about how other players play commander
Ah yes, MTG's best casual format turns out to be not good for competitive players. Shocking to hear.
In all seriousness, there are two main reasons commander is so good for casuals. It kills the two main decks that hamper stupid decks everyone loves to see, in that aggro can't kill anyone fast enough to stop them from doing the fun stuff, and variance and the lack of 1 for 1 trades makes control a bad idea. So your dumb(affectionate) deck can't be stopped by dying too fast or having all your stuff taken away.
Also, as you mentioned, variance has so much bigger of a role to play. It makes competitive play's desperate need for micro advantages, perfect play, and concise gameplans crumble under a lack of consistency. There's a reason every pro player's first commander deck is a nightmare stax control deck with a combo and a million tutors thrown in for good measure. There's also a reason they very quickly stop doing that.
I'm not sure if it came across that way but I'm not trying to be a dick with that first sentence. I do think you go into more depth than most people will even begin to think of.
I agree that aggro and one for one removal and counters are bad, but control decks in edh can just play board wipes which are more powerful in edh.
I moved from Standard to Legacy to Modern and now to Commander. I found the least amount of toxicity in EDH compared to others. We have houseruled out non-land tutors and sol rings.
I think what you bring up about unwinnable games is true in every single format. I disagree with you however about not banning cards that are too good. Maybe not Swords to Plowshares, but cards that scale incredibly well with the number of opponents like Rhystic Study, Citadel, Esper Sentinel, etc. to the point where they are "auto includes" in decks of their color identity should indeed be banned in my opinion, because it directly contradicts the variance (why the format is singleton in the first place). Also, everything you say in this video is exactly why I think cEDH is wrongly named "competitive" EDH, it should be named "broken EDH" or something...
Why not just bring better designed games to your 4 player game nights? This format is shit.
I'm honestly getting a little tired and confused over people's obsession with it, we'd get way more games in if we just played 4 player FFA Standard. I have most of my fun in the format building decks
If commander is bad, all other formats are horrendous and abysmal
Honestly, why make a channel about commander when you’re so obviously lukewarm on the format? Honestly your last few videos have been nothing but complaining about commander and it’s a little off putting.
@@cjhui7633 these last few videos have been about:
- cube
- why commander games stall
- why commander is bad competitively
Commander isn’t my absolute favorite way to play magic but i still love it a lot! Being critical about something’s flaws should hopefully show I care about it, no?
@@33elk to be fair, the cube video was how cube was better than commander casually. And you’re right, being critical isn’t a bad a thing and does show that you care but when most of your discussions videos are being critical of something it really does give the vibe you don’t like it, and as a technically commander channel it’s just kinda confused me.I poorly worded my original comment and that’s on me. I was just honestly curious on why make a commander focused UA-cam channel when clearly you like and enjoy other formats more?
@@cjhui7633 Commander just has so much to talk about, to me a lot of other formats feel "solved" (never true with this much card board being printed but still) whereas commander and cube and such is a lot more player driven (well used to be more player driven in commander's case wince wotc has a lot more of a grip on it). Most of the games I get to play in paper are commander since that's all my lgs plays so I am very well versed in it as well and I don't own a lot of 60 card decks in paper because of it. Originally this channel was just going to be showing off the decks I play but I kinda ran out LOL so those are the reasons for the so-far heavy commander focus.
I'm glad you are curious about the reasons though! Promise less dreary videos in the future i just kinda wanted a nice trilogy of criticism to make it feel complete haha
@@33elk you know what, that's fair enough. i look forward to watching whatever you have to talk about whether it by commander or anything else magic.
@@33elk It's funny, I am not a competitive Commander player, but all the channels I watch on Commander are more or less competitive, like yours. I think it's funny to see them struggle with the format, but I also think that competitive players are more likely to make interesting videos in the first place, which is why I watch. :D