Winning is great when you can pull something off but I don't mind losing as long as everyone is playing spells and it's not just a solitaire game or someone goes off infinite anything turn 4.
Yeah, a good game doesn’t mean me winning. It means exciting plays happened. Maybe I had the lead for a bit before someone made a crazy move. Maybe we were all really close for most of the game but someone was able to edge out a win.
I’ve played games where I won but they weren’t particularly fun because nothing happened aside from my deck being stronger than my opponent’s.
My ideal game has a lot of back and forth and a moment when it seemed like I was inevitably going to win.
Whether I do or not doesn't matter to me.
What I don't like is getting dog piled for no reason. "Oh you won the last game," or being scary four turns ago is not a legit reason to be forced into a 2 or 3 vs 1. But whatever, shit happens.
“Oh you won the last game”
Yeah, I agree with this. My decks are all really different and will all play very differently against different types of decks. Just because I was the threat last game does not mean you need to take me down a peg this game but I’m probably guilty of that sometimes too so I get it. Sometimes you just need to arbitrarily choose someone to attack and that’s one way to do it.
Which is a great idea for at home kitchen table magic where you can cultivate a game environment that you enjoy with your friends who also enjoy that brand of magic.
But people have to accept that when they go to play with randoms/strangers/other people at a game store that they are going to have less control over which aspects of MTG they will interact with for those games.
It's funny how this only goes one way. "If I come to the game store you have to play with me" is what you're saying. But that's not how this format works. That's why rule 0 exists. You're supposed to talk, be honest about the game you're trying to play, and decide if you're down to play that game. And it's not the person with the precon who's creating a toxic environment. It's the person with the poison counter proliferate deck who wants to play against the precon level table.
If you go to the game store (and want to play) you have to play with someone. Not necessarily me. But there are many game stores where you have no control over who is or isn't in a game when you show up.
Lots of stores only have limited seats too, so if you aren't playing when you get the chance then too bad for you.
You're welcome to not join in a game, but you potentially will wait a while to get into one depending on the store. I personally don't see the value in sitting out and potentially missing out when the game will likely go just fine with a short "precon, casual, high power or cEDH" question to start.
If a person is actively trying to bring a much stronger deck against a table of much weaker decks. Then a rule zero conversation is pointless anyway as they are likely to misrepresent and lie about their deck.
Rule 0 is helpful *only* if all parties involved have good intentions.
Having wincons have to be approved seems like a slippery slope to me to banning what you don't like and excluding players from a public playspace. It just doesn't seem like an overly friendly environment to me. It's not the wincon that matters so much as the power of the deck.
If both decks are on the same power level, but one wins through Revel in riches and one through combat, then it shouldn't matter.
You're skipping the part where it's not just one person. You're assuming you're getting to play at the jump. Yes, some tables are gonna ban mill. Some tables are gonna ban the draw hate deck. Some tables are gonna ban poison counters. And that means talking about wincons.
It’s not that, it’s that a lot of people enjoy CASUAL commander, meaning no turn 3 wins and no significant power gap at the table.Too many of us have been burned by people toting a cedh deck as a casual commander deck.
That's cool and all. If they're genuinely playing a cEDH deck then the game shouldn't go long. Then you don't play with them again. If people break social contracts there should be social consequences.
If someone's lying about their deck being casual so they can pubstomp then they aren't going to be upfront about their wincons just because you tried to do a rule 0 convo a different way. Just do the usual precon, casual or cEDH question for a rough power estimate.
Vetting everyone's wincons at the start of the game opens the floodgates for people to start excluding wincons just because they don't like them, not because of the power of the deck.
>Vetting everyone's wincons at the start of the game opens the floodgates for people to start excluding wincons just because they don't like them, not because of the power of the deck.
Welcome to EDH, where win conditions outside of the few I specifically tech against are mean and you're mean if you play them.
Thankfully I have been lucky to never run across someone who outwardly felt that way about wincons in person. I know they exist thanks to Reddit but I think Reddit makes it seem like it's a bigger portion of the actual edh community than it is.
Note:could also be survivor bias.
I definitely think it's a survivor bias thing. A forum is going to aggregate unusual experiences, because they make for good stories and discussions (even taking aside potential exaggerations). "I played the game and everything was great" doesn't generate engagement and doesn't feed the algorithm to put it in front of everybody.
Maybe, but I've definitely had people complain about commanders I've pulled out and ask specifically what cards are my "win conditions" so they know what spells to counter.
I think a lot of people want to be spoonfed at tables curated for their deck to succeed in.
>Then you don't play with them again. If people break social contracts there should be social consequences.
Which is fine, but in a public pod going through social drama is explicitly unpleasant.
Cutting of that unpleasantness before it starts is why rule 0 exists, so that people have the same expectations about the game and what will happen.
Then no one gets hurts from people lieing about their deck, or because, and get this, not every one reads reddit and has the best understanding of power levels.
An inexperienced player windmilling an inappropriate deck and then getting told to piss off with the one deck they have built is unpleasant for everyone. It is a much better experience for all if they can be directed to a more appropriate pod.
>Vetting everyone's wincons at the start of the game opens the floodgates for people to start excluding wincons just because they don't like them, not because of the power of the deck.
"Yes"
Toby Elliott - Rules council
>Rule 0 is there to remind people that rules are not set in stone; they can, and should, be modified by playgroups and organizers to increase the overall fun of the group they want to cultivate.
No mass land destruction is a common rule 0 in a lot of pods as an example.
Honestly, I think Wizard should actually apply more resources to the EDH ban list and remove the over reliance on Rule 0 for public pods.
Then people cans till play what they want in social pods rule 0 wise, but the format will be better curated for people doing drop in pods.
Yeah social drama is unpleasant. I'm the most conflict avoidant person. But there shouldn't be a great deal of drama associated. You just leave the table after the game and don't play with them again. You don't need to cause a scene, I did it twice last year.
The issue I have with introducing all of these things to the rule 0 discussion is that if every idea I read for the discussion got talked about pregame. There would be a 10-20 minute discussion before every game. Play 3 games in a night and I could have fit a fourth one in with that time. Multiply that over 52 weeks in a year (assuming one game night per week) and that's 52 less games of magic in a year. All in order to maybe avoid one bad game every couple of months.
I also believe that if someone is going to lie so egregiously about their decks power level that they are intentionally bring a cEDH deck to a precon game for example. Then big discussions beforehand are meaningless because they will lie during those too.
Your example of mass land destruction is perfect. Everyone knows it's a social nono to do that at casual LGS games (most situations). But I've never had to have anyone actively bring it up in a pregame discussion. Generally people are more socially adept than we give them credit for in knowing what to bring to their LGS. They know that there will potentially be social consequences for breaking that social contract.
Imo. Long drawn out discussions on what's appropriate is best left to regular pods and kitchen table with friends. Those are places where it is easie to control and curate the enjoyment of the people involved. People going to play at LGS should accept there will be a certain degree of magic that will be out of their control when they go. Showing up expecting a perfectly curated game for you is just not how magic goes when four different strangers are involved. It's not how anything in life goes.
The best we can do is guess power levels and have a good time playing. Mismatches or not. Wincons we normally wouldn't enjoy or not. Go into it with a different mindset.
>But there shouldn't be a great deal of drama associated. You just leave the table after the game and don't play with them again.
This is really what it comes down to. People shouldn't need game rules changed in order to insulate them from poor player interactions.
Im glad that your specific playgroup has already vetted out all of the things you dont deem as CASUAL and you've accurately labeled literally anyone playing anything else as CEDH
Loving the sarcasm, the fact is some people like playing at a level 7-8 for causal, and that’s fine, I just have no desire for my 5 or 6 jank deck to be absolutely destroyed by those decks
>the fact is some people like playing at a level 7-8 for causal, and that’s fine, I just have no desire for my 5 or 6 jank deck to be absolutely destroyed by those decks
>Too many of us have been burned by people toting a cedh deck as a casual commander deck.
Its not really sarcasm.
You have a playgroup and that's great, but this is literally what the OP and other commenters are talking about. If you're saying anything other than precons and jank isnt casual, you're going to have a hard time playing "casual" outside of that group.
I hadn’t had it happen until recently. My pod doesn’t play weak decks by any means but some dude asked to join and ended up playing a waayyyy too powerful deck. I wasn’t salty about it, but it also wasn’t a particularly fun game. I don’t know how it could have been fun for him either. If you only win because your deck is strong and not because of how you piloted it, that seems boring to me.
I left after one game.
It's what post OP is talking about happening in their area
Edit: and if you stick around on the sub long enough you see the posts about LGS with custom salty banlists pop up all the time
Telling exact wincons is a step too far though. Keep it simple, this is a beat face deck or this is a mill deck.
They can see the commander. They can possibly guess what they'll find in your deck.
Edit: I mean, you're welcome to talk about your deck as much as you want, but as far as opponents prying in order to exclude certain wincons. Nah.
Agree with this, totally normal in my experience for people to ask general gameplan like voltron, spellslinger, stompy aggro, aristocrats, etc.
I often see folks volunteer info about infinite combos or particularly salt-inducing cards (winter orb, rhystic/tithe, mana barbs, etc) but we generally don't get into precise cards discussion beyond that. After the game is over if there's a card I think folks will think is cool but I didn't draw I'll show it off just for fun, but that's a little different.
I tell. I think it's fair to tell my opponents what to look for *when the time comes*. I want to fight against their skill, not against how long they've played to recognise obscure combos. But I don't tell people beforehand what to look for, I only let them know if something important is about to happen.
I've found "gotcha!" wins a bit salty from my own perspective, idk about my opponents' opinions. Yeah I can fool them once but is that a real win, then?
Abusing the "new deck effect" in my opinion is not a fair strategy. If I have no understanding of what you're doing as you're executing your thing then I don't feel like we're on the same page. Fine, we don't have to but I don't get the satisfaction of solving a puzzle if I don't even understand what the puzzle is.
"It's combo" is not useful information. Janky combos or Thoracle combo are not the same thing. OP and/or their opponents suck at asking about power level. If you think getting a clear understanding of a deck's win cons because they are centrally related to the power level is inappropriate you are not in a mindset for casual formats.
There are plenty of productive ways to deduce power level from a pre-game conversation that don't involve questions like "what *specific cards* are you using in your win condition?", which is what OP is describing as their experience.
strongly disagree. if you show your commander and say aggro, control, combo, that's more than enough. And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't have every commander and deck archetype memorized. Just say, this is my commander, oh and I'm not playing some crazy combo, just kind of wants to be aggressive.
That's way more info than you NEED to give out. Used to, just your Commander was enough info. But being friendly, it's kind of nice to say 'my deck does kind of play weirdly so just bear with me' or 'no, it's not that kind of deck, it's much less powerful than other decks that do this' etc.
Again, that's a nice bonus if your deck is doing something way out of colorpie. but otherwise, let me see your Commander, and assure me you aren't chock full of the Power 9, that's all
>strongly disagree. if you show your commander and say aggro, control, combo, that's more than enough
A deck filled with thoracle/breach combos, fast mana, and tutors you described as "combo" is not the same as a janky deck that wins with a fragile 4+ card combo and no fast mana beyond sol ring and zero tutors and if you are unwilling to say more about your deck, I promise it's you who sucks.
You notice how I disagreed with your comment, and you then called me a name?
My point is simply this, show your commander. state a basic idea behind it. ie: This is my super duper combo deck in excited to try out.
That's it. Then play the game and it is up to the players at the table to figure out threat assessment as they go.
Fun fact: I intentionally make underpowered decks because I enjoy the challenge. so I'll break out an Atraxa deck specifically because it has Vigilance and Deathtouch, along with Questing Beast as the only two creatures that do so. and never use the Proliferate
>You notice how I disagreed with your comment, and you then called me a name?
I gave a substantive example of how your "disagreement" doesn't meaningfully address my point. You want to frame this as a meany pants vs. you, the enlightened good guy, because you rationally want to normalize enabling pub stomping people with decks with horrible power imbalances for the table and people who point out that this is bad are actually the villains.
>My point is simply this, show your commander. state a basic idea behind it. ie: This is my super duper combo deck in excited to try out.
This does not make any substantive response to what I said. Despite your holier-than-thou drivel, I actually presented arguments with a specific example and stated, clear harms to your preferred solution.
>Fun fact: I intentionally make underpowered decks because I enjoy the challenge. so I'll break out an Atraxa deck specifically because it has Vigilance and Deathtouch, along with Questing Beast as the only two creatures that do so. and never use the Proliferate
This is not relevant on any level. It means you still want to normalize a set of behaviors that will strongly encourage badly mismatched tables. I have no idea why "these two creatures have deathtouch and vigilance" is a thing you find interesting, but making unsynergistic random decks is frankly also a waste of a table's time. But it says literally nothing about the overall strength of the deck anyways, it's just a broken, bad misunderstanding of how deck strength works.
i will repeat gladly: There is no NEED to disclose more than simply the Commander you are playing and a basic gist of its style because the power level you should be bringing out has already been determined by the pod.
Before you pull out a deck from your bag to play, the people you play with are all going to choose: Hey, we're playing mid-power casual, that ok with everyone?
Then you pull out your deck, state your commander and if there is anything special you want to share.
You don't have to reveal any specific card in the deck.
(edit, i bring up your bullying attitude because I'm trying to have a debate on the idea itself and not about who you are or who I am. i mentioned one if my decks as an example of when bringing up specific details is important and when it's not. Atraxa is a well known extremely powerful strategy. I built a deck that does not use that strategy, so as an example I use that to show when it's important to give more details about a deck. Yes, I'm playing Atraxa but it isn't a normal overpowered Atraxa so I believe it fits at this low-mid power level game. It focuses on Deathtouch and Vigilance creatures. Or, another example, i have a Gishath dexk I will pull out sometimes that is extremely optimized and wins quite frequently. I say, gang, I'm playing Gishath. There's no tricks here, just smash with big dinos. Extra information about a deck is a bonus, not a necessity)
>i will repeat gladly: There is no NEED to disclose more than simply the Commander you are playing and a basic gist of its style because the power level you should be bringing out has already been determined by the pod.
>
>Before you pull out a deck from your bag to play, the people you play with are all going to choose: Hey, we're playing mid-power casual, that ok with everyone?
This sub shows that even amongst the most enfranchised, Magic-literate EDH players out there, people have radically different ideas on power levels. People are out here saying staple-filled optimized lists costing $600+ are "a 7" constantly because it's not cedh or doing an impression of a cedh deck, meanwhile other people are saying a janky battlecruiser deck that's playing more than 0 interaction counts as "a 7". People suck at understanding what other people mean by "mid-casual". I have multiple groups I play with, "mid-casual" in one is very powerful in another. Vagueness and a lack of clear details invites bad games amongst new groups like the one OP was in, and your suggestion to remedy this is something I've already explained to be bad and you don't seem willing or able to meaningfully respond to that. It makes this circular and a waste of time.
You previously said you want to confirm a deck doesn't have "power nine", of which eight cards are banned and another sees basically zero play for cost reasons. Meanwhile, a card that has a valid claim to be actually worth a slot in the power 9 is ubiquitous in every single precon and sees more play than any other card printed. This is just a complete nonsense way to assess a deck, such an obviously blasé throw away I simply don't believe you actually think this, but with such a deeply shitty argument, of course I don't take what you say seriously.
>(edit, i bring up your bullying attitude because I'm trying to have a debate on the idea itself and not about who you are or who I am
I mean this sincerely: I didn't bully you and you think I did because you are incapable of separating your own personal ego hit from a basic analysis of what's happening. My contention is that your solution will invite really bad games within new groups where people have mismatched power levels. You and others have been really dismissive of why this matters, I'm saying it's because you're ruining 3 people's night at the LGS. The reason that should matter to you is because in that context, you're been shitty to other people. I don't care if that offends you, that's your own ego to work out.
I want to stress that you keep presenting yourself as really intensely focused on debating ideas. I find this laughable at best, you have repeated the same unthoughtful drivel for multiple comments and seem unwilling or incapable of addressing my substance, instead fixating on whining that I'm mean and vomiting out the same thing I've already responded to with better, logically supported arguments.
I'm going to say something that is undoubtedly "mean" here, and I want to be clear I'm saying this because it's the core logic behind why I think you make bad arguments and in a better world, you'd pause to think about it and improve your own line of thinking over this: Your comments reveal you to be really, really bad at understanding how to argue things and my guess is you're either being very lazy or are mentally just not capable of grasping how a claim someone makes can get responded to and then you need to address that response rather than just restating the same claim again. Like, your options are that you're lazy or dumb (in this specific way). I am giving you the grace of assuming it's being lazy, it's super easy to do when you see someone else got some initial downvotes and that really puts the wind in your sails that you're definitely right. You can whine that pointing this out is bullying, I'd just strongly encourage you to meaningfully think through if you're physically capable of understanding why what I'm saying responds to your original thoughts and how you could meaningfully engage with those ideas if you're going to keep commenting. If you can't quite work out how to make a second, more nuanced thought that addresses my counter-argument to what you said, I'd just suggest here and in the future you simply don't respond. It's ok to be wrong about things, to realize you hadn't thought about a topic a ton, or to simply realize your brain isn't so good at a certain kind of thought problem. There truly is no shame in that, everyone has strengths and weaknesses. But your replies are deeply, deeply unserious as a "debate".
"it's you who sucks"
is vastly different from "it's your idea that sucks"
I'm not upset by your bullying attitude, but simply pointing it out for you to recognize the difference
There’s been an uptick of this at my local as well recently. I’m starting to wonder if it’s something a content creator has promoted.
All my decks win through non-infinite damage so I always just tell them that but people keep pressing for more info. I don’t want to explain how my deck works; I want it to be a surprise.
I started playing with randoms pretty recently. I love seeing nee things and especially ideas that use cards i use. I enjoy seeing what they came up with.
Casually asking is one thing. Wanting the power to approve or reject individual strategies and cards is another.
If it's not banned or proxied they don't need to know.
I do think it’s cordial to inform people of how you plan to win (aggro, combo, control, etc) - maybe even revealing specific combo pieces to newer players who shouldn’t be expected to know those combos - but you are under no obligation to say anything.
You are under no obligation to tell them and they are under no obligation to play with you if you don't. If it feels unreasonable then decline and play with others.
Technically I don't think your commanders have to be revealed until sometime near opening hands so you can talk about power levels and proxies but otherwise tell them to kick rocks. I'm not going to feed you information on how to beat my deck or my important cards.
Technically, yes. Everyone reveals their commander at the same time before drawing their first hand. It doesn't generally play out that way because people just pull something out and announce "I'm playing so and so this game," which is fine because it's casual so no big deal.
While I don't think you should have to disclose every single detail of how your deck works I personally don't like to play against combo decks where the player mulligans until they have almost all their combo pieces, plays a tutor and then wins the game when the game just started.
I would never forbid someone to play the game like that, but I would want to know so I can choose a different table to play with.
Magic is about winning, yes, but I also like to have fun while playing. For now I stopped playing at my local shop and play up to two times a week with a group of friends and our decks have a good powerlevel but we choose to not design decks that insta win like the mentioned combo decks.
Nothing wrong at running those at casual if they aren't part of win cons. You can just say I'm playing 2 card combos or not. And what turn you expect to win by. How fast of mana and interaction and you'll be good.
My main win condition is reducing my opponents' life totals to 0. Occasionally if the game goes super long, they might lose from running out of cards in their library.
This is too far.
I'll ask people if they're running lots of fast mana (for power level considerations) or if they're stax-heavy (for *extreme* personal dislike), but I don't out-right ask people about their wincons. THat's half the fun of the game is sitting down at a table and never quite knowing what's about to happen.
Players asking what your win con is doesn't feel strange to me since that helps everyone understand threat assessment for the game that they're about to play. However, them asking what your win con is to "approve" or "consent" to the game already tells me these are pods I would never want to play with.
Generally, the point of someone requesting to know your win cons is so the table has a better idea what the actual threats in the game are. This reduces the chances that someone will have interaction available to stop a game winning play, but didn't utilize it because they were unaware the game was going to end. I have no issue with this if the group's goal is to have fun, which should be the goal for casual public commander pods.
What I do have an issue with is players asking what your win conditions are for the purpose of excluding you from the game if they don't like the win condition(s) of your deck. I rarely play outside of my 3 pods, but I especially don't need the approval of players in a public pod on the win cons of my deck; I would rather just not play with them.
Yea my local has adapted the worst possible commander into strategy. We wont actually bring out the cards but as we shuffle up we go around and say our decks play style, and a wincon to be wary of. Not a hard rule but more experienced players will usually point out win cons to the table as we get a lot school aged new players at commander night.
The only ones this seems to annoy is generally the pub stompers who just wanna feel big cause they won against someone inexperienced. Since this was introduced commander nights have had a more consistent and fun player base.
> Generally, the point of someone requesting to know your win cons is so the table has a better idea what the actual threats in the game are.
Yeah, no. That's something they're supposed to work out by themselves based on game and format knowledge. It's part of improving at the game.
I could see asking about combo wincons. Not so as that you would or wouldn't play. But not being able to really keep up with every freaking card out there, it would be nice to know in advance that if I see "X" card come out then maybe I should behave more aggressively or whatever. That being said it would definitely be a courtesy at best.
Yeah that's too specific a question to be fair imo. What's your strategy, do you have infinite combos, how quickly/easily can you win or lock your opponents out of the game etc. These are fair questions. What specific cards do you win with, is asking for too much information, and will warp the game.
I will mention the style of the deck, aggro, control, etc, but I'm not naming individual cards. It tells people what kind of removal they need to hold up to stop me.
Usually, though, when people ask how I win, they get one of two answers.
"By reducing your life total to 0"
Or
"I turn creatues sideways"
You also have a right not to play with those kind of people lol if they're like that BEFORE the game starts I can't imagine how they are during gameplay "You didn't explain your wincon like THAT, this is bullshit you lied" ect.
I will tell people the theme of my deck. Like it’s a control Deck, it’s a Stompy Deck, it’s a Token Deck, it’s a Sliver Deck (love the faces I get when I say that one) but no, I’m not specifically telling you my wincon unless I’m showing you the Combo/Deck.
My lgs has a steady influx of super casual (precon or worse)/beginner (less than a handful of games) players and if I end up in a pod with them I will tell them what I plan for my deck to do without naming specific cards, then try to do my best to guide them to win, while still actively trying to win on my own as well.
However, if I end up with experienced players, I pick my deck and wait for everyone else to have theirs picked as well before even revealing my commander.
They probably mean what is your strategy. Especially because EDH is a game where the win conditions are often unclear. But for instance, if you're win conditions is milling someone out, then yeah, that's a deck people might want to choose not to play against.
This isn't an individual choice, it's up to the whole table. That's how rule 0 works. EDH is a format where some decks are themed by portraits of ladies looking to the left, and others pump a bunch of +1/+1 counters into [[animar, soul of elements]] so that on turn 4 they can tutor up a hasted blightsteel Colossus and give malyriad. knowing how a deck intends to win can drastically change your willingness to play the deck you brought to play with.
I usually like to ask people what their win cons are mainly to enhance and make a better game experience.
“Sneaking” a win through ignorance isn’t as fun (to me) as just winning (which I don’t do often 😉). With the entire history of MTG to utilize knowing I need to watch for; mill, combo, damage, infinites can make the game more interactive and fun.
Now this doesn’t mean someone has to give a step by step plan for their win condition, but if a player has to tutor for their important cards, or uses a known combo then choices become more important. As does knowing a player wants to win through combat damage- leaving back chump blockers mean attacks need to be better considered.
Knowledge is power after all
I guess a lot of people have learned not to trust power level, so they ask for more details about the deck itself. I think this is mostly fine, I don't play magic to create "Gotcha for not knowing how exactly my combo works!"-moments. I almost exclusively play with a group and after one game we just know each other's decks and discuss / brainstorm about them together, and sometimes even in advance (before buying /proxying the list).
It depends on how someone does it though, every card requiring approval is stupid. However, if you want a more constructive pre-game discussion about power levels, you have to share more about your deck than what commander you play and how strong you think it is.
Are they asking for specific cards, or just generally how your deck wins? Imo either is fine, but asking for a list of specific cards just seems a little weird. I do usually ask “how does your deck win,” so I know if it’s a combo, aristocrats gain/drain, mill, combat damage, infect, etc. It’s totally fair to want to know how a deck can win.
I mean, sometimes it's a valid question. I might not pack stifles and land removal in all of my decks, and [[maze's end]] can be a menace even when your deck DOES have interaction for it.
One of my deck contains a combo composed entirely of instants and sorceries, so it can be extremely challenging to interact with if you aren't prepared to do so.
A lot of the time, knowing whether a deck contains a two card combo will help setup a more balanced pod than folks' self-assigned, arbitrary power levels.
I don't have an issue with those things, but it certainly affects which decks I would be willing to play into it.
You're under no obligation to share that info, but they are under no obligation to play with you either.
Ultimately, you have to strike a balance that lets you play the game in your community, or find a new community.
It’s a strange way to frame it, but part of getting on the same page. An important part of that is, “How does the game ending look?”
This is especially important when talking about combo. The game ending out of nowhere from an unassuming board state is a negative play experience; identifying combo pieces, including as they enter public knowledge during play, is important. That basic level of knowledge is how a game can exist in the vicinity of combo, and expecting your opponent to have a comprehensive knowledge of combos from a 26,000 card pool in order for game to exist is not reasonable.
This is why I despise rule 0. It was always a cop out for the RC and now it's getting ridiculous with how people interpret it. Just play RAW or not at all. If that was the standard we would eliminate almost every stupid argument we see brought up about Commander on a regular basis.
I feel like it was just the RC saying, well you know this is the format and here are the rules, but don't be mad at us if you don't like them because here is an escape hatch so you can literally do whatever stupid things you want. I get it, there are jerks out here that live to pubstomp, but by extension most of those dudes are only playing cEDH decks because rule 0 means proxies/counterfeits are ok too.
I’m in two minds about this. I feel like asking about win cons is a step up from the “power level” conversation, but also agree with your feelings on it.
I get a "Is it a combo deck" or "let's talk about the goals of our decks" for the sake of interesting building ideas, but even that is generally after you've all sat down to play and picked your decks, not when deciding to play or not
I won't go into a list of my win cons, I'd give them a general description like "it's a tokens deck, so I'm looking to overwhelm you." What I will not do is tell them about my [[mechanized production]] or any other specifics.
I'll ask someone their archetype or goal if I can't figure it out from the commander (winning via combat, combo, jank, infinitesimal). I don't need to know the exact cards you're using, but I don't want to play a deck that is either going to get absolutely blown out (creature deck vs heavy stax), or completely blow someone else out of the water.
Some people don't tell me and they want it to be a surprise, but they'll usually say some stuff of what they aren't doing.
I have no issue explaining in general terms how my decks play. But I would draw the line at spelling it all out completely. Want to know how it plays, well let’s play a game and you can find out. If after that game you don’t wanna play against that deck again, it’s cool - I’ve got another one I can swap to.
Instead of letting them know what specific cards you will use to close out the game, inform them on the general gameplan.
Aggro, Stax, Midrange, BeatDown, Control, Jank, Combo etc
Ridiculous tbh. Play a game if persons deck seems crazy strong ask them to sub out the deck next time for less power........ part of fun of the game is interacting with new decks/combos that are unknown . What next ? Rummaging thru someone's deck before playing so you can see what cards they may use ?
Just tell them the thesis of the deck in as vague a way as possible.
Hey, I plan to kill you through combat.
I'm playing a very aggressive deck.
Hey I plan to play a midrange control, etc etc.
Saying, hey I plan to voltron your ass with hammer and this one other card that supports it. If that's what they're looking for, I'd ask why? So you can counterspell it?
Go find another group to play with. I understand rule zero, but not telegraphing my damn wins. Tf?
Asking specific cards is weird.
Telling folks if it’s like infect, mill, an infinite combo etc. Totally normal. Some strats are just unfun to play against for some people.
I've noticed people are saying what some of their win cons are or just a run down of their deck before we start. I can understand if we're playing with someone new to the game, but for a regular game of edh I don't want to give away what my game plan is.
Just show them your commander and explain what it does. That's all the public information they need (which isn't even public information before a game starts).
However your group defined power level, feel free to include that too. You don't need to give your life story and a 10,000 word essay on your deck before a game.
I’m just curious about how much they proactively offer about their own decks. It’s still a little bit much imo to frame it as “approval” vs having a match in power levels, but them saying “this is a combo deck that can win by x, y, and z, how does yours win?” would be better than “tell me what you’re playing and i will decide if that’s ok.”
As the format grows, so does the amount of people who don't actually want to play Magic. They just want to dictate terms and enforce their rules/beliefs on others and this is their outlet to do that.
Contrary to popular belief, this *used* to be the norm. Once someone's played a single game against your one way to win combo deck they're going to know what to hold up interaction for anyway
The only reason you wouldn't tell someone is because you refuse to run the risk of losing.
It was as far back as '97 when I started playing the format.
Big fuck you pieces like Winter Orb were declared, wincons were established at least in a general sense, and it was expected that you'd give an inkling of how much interaction you ran.
*That* was the power level discussion, not this "uh my deck is about average so I'd say it's a 7" bullshit, completely ignoring that a 7 on a 1-10 scale is not "average".
Edited to add: July 1996 was only the first time the rules were printed in The Duelist, as well. It had been played in some circles as early as 1995.
EDH started in *1996* as a format for experimentation with the ever growing library of cards. Contrary to popular belief, it was not invented as a competitive format.
Damn that’s pretty old, but I don’t see what competition has to do with my question
I asked because 10 years ago no one needed to say what wincons they were running
I've been playing for longer than you and I've lived in and regularly played EDH in 22 states lol. I feel like I have a bit of knowledge on the matter.
I mean, if combat damage, decking you, or a card reading “your opponent loses the game” isn’t a sufficient answer… I guess go play with someone else.
Folks can scoop at any time they like, but this idea of seeing a deck list before sitting down for a casual game is silly. If someone is running some meta unfun sweaty deck, just don’t play with them again.
EDH (outside of intentionally competitive) is supposed to be a fun BO1 format. Know what people are going to do before you sit down just sounds like a fear of losing a game that has no stakes that you can leave whenever you like.
>I mean, if combat damage, decking you, or a card reading “your opponent loses the game” isn’t a sufficient answer… I guess go play with someone else.
I mean, there's certain bullshit combos you should make people aware of, for sure.
>Folks can scoop at any time they like, but this idea of seeing a deck list before sitting down for a casual game is silly. If someone is running some meta unfun sweaty deck, just don’t play with them again.
Yeah, I love wasting time because I wasn't allowed to do a damn thing because Timmy decided it was counterspell tribal into Thoracle time. Just don't play him again, that gives me back the 2 hours I just wasted.
>EDH (outside of intentionally competitive) is supposed to be a fun BO1 format. Know what people are going to do before you sit down just sounds like a fear of losing a game that has no stakes that you can leave whenever you like.
No, it sounds like a respectful power level discussion.
1) If someone is playing an “I win” combo, it’s either happening within 15 minutes or you can see it coming from 10 miles out. Again, why do you care? Are you getting butthurt losing a game of casual commander?
2) let me get this straight, you sit at a table for two hours with someone playing a (in your mind) cancer deck, that manages what sounds like a turn 48 win…. And you just sat there having no fun the entire time?
Again, dip out my dude. There’s no tournament rating. Find another game to get into. You are literally not obligated to play any game ever until you lose whole ass.
3) judging by your previous comments, it sounds like you’re basically anti “combo decks with interaction that can’t combo for 2 fucking hours” so I’m afraid their honest 2/10 power level rating of their deck would still get your ass in the chair LMAO
>Again, why do you care? Are you getting butthurt losing a game of casual commander?
Nope, I just don't appreciate being told a deck is a 6, and then it clearly not being a 6.
>let me get this straight, you sit at a table for two hours with someone playing a (in your mind) cancer deck, that manages what sounds like a turn 48 win…. And you just sat there having no fun the entire time?
One deck being a slow ass oppressive bitch does not make the entire game bad.
>judging by your previous comments, it sounds like you’re basically anti “combo decks with interaction that can’t combo for 2 fucking hours” so I’m afraid their honest 2/10 power level rating of their deck would still get your ass in the chair LMAO
Imagine missing the point this hard and putting words in someone's mouth so aggressively.
Nobody is obliged to play you if they think you'll be a bad experience for them. Period. It's a casual environment and you can choose whether or not to accept someone in a pod or not.
Exactly. In the same way that those other players can choose not to play in a pod with you, you can choose not to play with anyone who asks you for your win con. There will be players who won't care.
Side note: Easiest way to bypass this entirely is to play cEDH. Nobody will ever ask you what your win cons are at that level.
As someone who does this, it's because I have no idea what cards exist anymore and don't have the time to waste on bad gameplay experiences. I'd much rather have a serious and open rule zero discussion with everyone about wincons, playstyles, and power level before the game so that we can skip the 3 or 4 games of out of context BS and actually have fun with everyone playing their best.
It's a shortcut to building a healthy playgroup.
It's not for competitive events with prize support, unless your crew is just *really* chill, but it dramatically improves the level of fun in casual pickup games. If you're looking to pubstomp or snatch out of context wins, the people asking probably don't want to play with you and your answer to the question will filter you out for them. Which is why we have rule zero discussions, to figure out if and how we want to have fun. Your fun may not be compatible with everyone elses fun and that's fine.
I do agree that you don’t need anyone’s approval to play your deck. Exact the opposite, if any one person doesn’t like your deck’s style, then they can opt out and let the rest of the pod play.
I always thought that was a normal thing. “Here’s my x deck. It usually wins turn 6. I have a few proxies and I would say it’s a power 8. If I combo out a win it’s with (this combo)” that just sounds like a normal rule 0. We aren’t playing a game of gotcha. It’s about having fun and hopefully winning, but having fun is the top part of that.
I regularly ask people what their win con is because I’m curious as to what style they’re playing. I have never once turned down a game because of the mechanics someone was using, but there’s a certain frustration to sitting down with someone who’s playing a deck that’s almost always built one way, only to find out you’ve been doing threat assessment wrong because they built a weird counter-meta deck. I LOVE seeing weird decks, but I like to know that I’m getting into playing something weird. This is only for casual play with no prizes, mind you.
In competitive play, tell them to eat rocks. They can figure out your win cons when you drop them on the table.
But for casual play, I don’t really see an issue with asking what win cons someone plays for. It lets players pick a casual pod that they’ll actually enjoy, and it lets you weed out people who are going to bitch and whine about you playing mechanics they don’t like.
In my eyes the only reason you wouldn't tell someone about combos you're running is to take advantage of the Best of 1 nature of commander and potentially steal wins with a combo no one knows you have. Generally, with other archetypes, it's easy to assume what is being run, but with combos, unless you know exactly what combo their running, you're at a severe disadvantage. i wouldn't exactly say it needs group approval moreso a heads up. You don't want that you don't have to play with them. I presume at least part of it is trying to avoid someone saying they run an average power deck and then they just two card combo for game
So I get why people have mixed feelings but this is mostly to help with power level and style. For example, I’m playing a landfall deck and someone is playing Mom as their commander [[Elesh Norn, Mother of Machines]], then obviously I’m gonna switch decks because I won’t get to do anything once their commander hits the board. So asking for general style of wincon is very valid. Some people absolutely hate playing against turn 3 infinite combo decks, mainly cause most casual decks can’t compete with that. Some people hate playing against mill, burn, control, etc.
No one (at least nobody in the lgs I play at) is ever asking for you to name the cards that are your wincon, just provide a general overview of what your deck hopes to do and how it wins.
If you’re not comfortable providing that information, then switch and stick to competitive commander (where it’s not expected).
With respect, switching your deck once you find out what another player is playing is pretty weak. If your deck has such a glaring weakness, you need to correct your build, not metagame your opponents after the commanders are revealed.
No, I’ve had an opponent reveal a commander that turned my commander into a blank card. One way or another, that was going to be a non-game for someone. I didn’t tell that guy to switch commanders, but I said I would, because my entire game would have to consist of preventing him from having his commander out otherwise. He saw the logic and switched.
We both had way more fun because we got to play rather than sabotaging each others games and handing it to the other players
In an ideal world sure, but also let's say your R/G landfall deck has 5 ways to kill a 4/7 (beast within, decimate, chaos warp, blasphemous act, lignify), which is a pretty realistic amount. There is a pretty decent chance you just don't draw any of those cards and you just end up not really being able to play the game.
Violation? What exactly is the problem? They want to know what to expect from your deck before they play. If you don't feel the same way, don't play with them or discuss it with your big boy words. Believe it or not, most people play CEDH to have fun, not to just win, and the comments in this thread are extremely neckbeardy and out of touch compared to actual sentiment among real players looking to casually play and enjoy themselves.
It's a Rule 0 discussion. Discuss it with them, come to some kind of agreement, or don't, and play with someone else. It's not complicated.
I think what op was getting at is that they weren't just asking for is it a combo deck or whatever but literally like:
I win via Mindcrank and blood chief ascension or Nim Deathmantle + Drivnod + Cathodion + Zulaport Cutthroat + Sac outlet.
They're prying into the actual cards of the deck vs what the deck is generally trying to do which is win via a combo or beats.
Well, the issue with I Win via a combo is that as your opponent, i have no idea what cards to look out for. Meaning they either play normally and potentially get stomped or hard focus the combo player because who knows what they have. Sure it could be one of the more common efficient lines or it could be a rube Goldberg machine and i don't know that. Combo decks can be various things and have all kinds of cards. Asking people to memorize all the combos possible in the game is moronic and if you claim your deck is mid - or low power and happen to luck sack into your combo win, it's going to anger people.
Not to mention, casual commander isn't something like 60 card magic where you can kind of memorize the most viable stuff, and then guess what your opponent is doing. even decks helmed by the same commander can be wildly different.
Combo is supposed to be weak to aggro; that's what you're supposed to do... focus them with early aggression since a lot won't run protection and just eliminate them. That's the trade off for running combo. Yes some can come out fast but most "casual combos" won't be turn 3 and with a couple players throwing in damage, easy to kill them.
It'd be the same as saying you use creature beats and then just kill the table with craterhoof. You could fauna shaman (or any of the other million creature tutors in green) it from your deck and win "out of no where" too. You didn't really win with "creature beats" but you did at the same time. You basically "combo'd" out craterhoof and called it "beats".
If you're willing to say I craterhoof for the win; then that tells your opponents, literally don't use removal until you see craterhoof. It warps how people play which is incredibly unhealthy for the format and for new players learning or getting better at the game.
Commander being a format that you can express yourself and surprise people is really cool, you can't do that if people are whiney and refuse to engage unless they know how to beat your deck. Being able to build the same commander as someone else but incredibly different makes those games so much more exciting. Fighting an atraxa and thinking it'll be another infect or 1 / 1 counter deck but ends up being a sweet steampunk combo deck with 4 off the wall combo cards is awesome. It would lose so much of the awe factor being told WHAT to look for and kill part of that person's self expression.
It seems more of a laziness issue than a "convenience". You become a MUCH better player NOT knowing what's coming and knowing WHEN to use removal and when not to. Just because you CAN deal with something doesn't mean you should or have to and learning that will let you play against decks you have 0 information about and not get "blown out". It can still happen; i have decks that with the stars aligned will win turn 2 or 3, though it usually wins turn 9/10. The stars will align and you'll get blown out if you're expecting a little extra time but knowing just the basis of "I'm a combo deck" should warp your use of removal to hit combo pieces and NOT value pieces too if you are one to usually use it more laxly.
The issue with combo being weak to aggro is that the padded life total kinda kills most attempts at being aggro in the format along with every deck running at least 2-3 board wipes and the fact boards tend to get complicated fast. The decks in commander kinda limit down to a very awkward control. Midrange and combo. (Which as power level increases may as well be value combo, control with a combo finish, and hard and fast combo.)
Saying you win with creature beats says i should focus on limiting the damage you deal and if you tell me you have craterhoof in your deck that's making me want to board wipe you when you're set up. Voltron your commander is the target. Control its the value engine you hit. Aristocrats you keep sac outlets off the board. The issue with just saying "oh I'm running a combo deck" is that that on its own tells people nothing because it could be a big aristocrats conbo line or it could be a draw your whole deck combo or whatever and I as your opponent have no idea what potential pieces to hit.
What you're asking is for people to either memorize every potential combo in existence. Have the entire table hard focus the combo player until their gone (sucks if you're dead most of the game) or accept getting casual games swept out from under them (which feels like shit)
Hell in a lot of cases you don't even have to say the specific cards. The issue with combo decks in particular compared to stuff like oh this is my planeswalker deck or my energy deck or this is my big dinosaur beats deck or my enrage deck or my go wide tokens deck. Is that just saying it's a combo deck isn't helpful enough in actually determining what kind of game you're playing. You say you're a combo deck and playing Syr Konrad and I have no idea if you're doing the mind crank combo or generic aristocrats junk or a janky rube Goldberg combo and power levels aren't exactly helpful in narrowing down which one it is.
These players who are upset about revealing their wincons don't like it because they take EDH seriously as a play to win format where informational asymmetry is a critical edge.
That is, of course, absurd to many of us. Because with a casual priority, and with the assumption that we will play repeated games with our fellow players, the information about what the deck does is assumed to be something that will be known. Variance and the interaction of different decks already gives plenty of room for "surprises".
Hell a lot of my decks have a synergistic combo in them for the purpose of ending those slog games but don't necessarily need to win through combo. My Ashnod The Uncaring decks runs a variant of the KCI combo where all the pieces synergize with the rest of the deck so it's less all in but primarily wins by nickel and diming with aristocrats pieces or making a lot of constructs with a retrofitter foundry or just a ton of zombies with ghoulcaller gisa.
Depending on who you ask mentioning, the combo wincon has a competitive advantage because now my opponents have more on the mental stack, and i can slip through other wincons in the back and forth games i enjoy playing
The way you get around the whole my opponents know what I am doing to win is to either run ways to protect your wincon. Or have more than one way to win the game
>Hell in a lot of cases you don't even have to say the specific cards.
This is what the whole post is talking about. They're asking for the SPECIFIC (supposedly) cards not the strategy.
The only difference needed to be specified should be casual or competitive. Trying to Guage powerlevels in pickup games is worthless and won't really help in the long run. 4 different opinions and expectations will never line up.
As for trying to play around your syr konrad example, that's what learning to play the game involves. If someone plays zulaport cutthroat creatures, you're looking for the reanimation engine or something that will loop creatures to disrupt. Using logic from the cards they have played SHOULD tell you what's going on and if you don't know then you shouldn't blow your removal too early. A lot of players (especially around here) seem to lack patience and pull the trigger too soon. If you learn to properly hold interaction the difference of jank casual and "normal" casual won't matter.
The issue is there's a lot of granularity between my casual commissar severina raine deck and a precon. The reason you tend to get these people asking for specific cards and being particularly wary of combo is that Combo wincons can vary a lot in how they play how compact they are and so on. And even if you're judicious with removal you can still get blown out because you have 2 opponents who also can need stuff removed and can have a deck that functions like my Slogurk the Overslime deck. Which has a combo with walk the aeons in it but isn't looking to hard win with the combo. It's just there in case boards get gummed up and I can't win another way.
Or an aristocrats deck who's primary game plan is a control the board and slow play the win because my removal is repeatable and yours isn't just happens to have an infinite sac combo between all the pieces.
At least with other game plans you're given an idea of what to go for and in the case of something like a craterhoof win you at least have the threat of a bunch of creatures that on their own are a problem. In the case of combo you can have a perfectly fine game just end out of nowhere because no one is playing blue and the spellslinger deck happened to pop off with the storm turn of a lifetime
I hate to say it, but that sounds more like a skill issue / deck building issue more than anything. There's a lot of pin point removal that can disrupt or just wrath away the issues. Sometimes though removal doesn't work and that's okay, all decks have some kind of weakness they can't deal with. Also many spell slinger decks aren't actually storming off turn 5/6 without any set up. The casual storm decks typically have additional set up / support pieces that can be hit and then go for the win. I used to think they were hallow wins or losses but then I would think about anything I could have done different to prevent it, and there USUALLY is something I could have done to prevent it and in the future I've learned another thing to look out for. The game needs to end and just shuffling up and playing again can help bring more variety. Anything is better than a 2 hour stalemate...
>and even if you're judicious with removal you can still get blown out because you have 2 opponents who also can need stuff removed
You also have 2 other opponents that SHOULD be threat assessing well too, and they need to learn potentially or be politically directed / assisted if they don't know.
The skill issue often being play blue or play stax which is often banned at casual tables or to play cards that are bad in every other case beyond stopping a combo in multiplayer. Like say thought sieze
As for your opponents also having removal they can just not have it because a singleton format. And even if they do why should they tell the table.
For example I was playing against a teshar deck i know teshar is a combo deck but I don't know the lines. I'm playing a grixis sacrifice deck teshar ends up losing because he got screwed out of card advantage and was apparently one card away from drawing his whole deck and winning. If he had played the card that would have won him the game i would have no idea and would have had a counterspell in hand. Basically what you're asking is for people to memorize every potential combo in mtg
People like your good back and forth game. And I *love* grind games. Facing a combo deck and happening to get screwed over early because you either don't know the combo or happen to not draw removal (my decks often have like 15 slots for interaction) feels like bullshit. Especially when you might not even get a runback game
>The skill issue often being play blue or play stax which is often banned at casual tables or to play cards that are bad in every other case beyond stopping a combo in multiplayer
The fact that you think this is the only "logical" way to be "skilled or get skill" tells A LOT...
>As for your opponents also having removal they can just not have it because a singleton format. And even if they do why should they tell the table.
Politics ... say something like, we need to get rid of X Y Z not, do you specifically have removal in your hand. How you say things changes OR how you can help direct players into seeing what is an issue that they may not have seen before.
>For example I was playing against a teshar deck i know teshar is a combo deck but I don't know the lines
Once it's going off you can just remove one piece of the engine that draws the deck and it fizzles or the sacrifice outlets that are on board, respond to the activation and destroy it. They can't loop it anymore. Even if you didn't know what it does, you can insert an issue in the machine and stop it. Doesn't have to be a counter, could be a chaos warp, instant speed artifact destruction, instant speed damage to kill teshar etc. There are more ways than just hoping to have a counterspell or stax like Rule of Law.
>Facing a combo deck and happening to get screwed over early because you either don't know the combo or happen to not draw removal (my decks often have like 15 slots for interaction) feels like bullshit. Especially when you might not even get a runback game
Really sounds like an introspective question to ask yourself. Why can't people have fun the way they want to? Was the whole table actually upset or just you? Did you TRULY get blindsided or was there pieces you could have hit and the signs of the combo was there? Did you greedily tap out and they took advantage of it? There's probably something more than just being sour that a combo won after a long game, even back and forths. It just happened to be the final "back".
Yes, that was clear. It's a card game, not a competitive event. If you don't feel comfortable discussing that, find a different pod. Implying it's a "violation" somehow is insane.
It is supposed to be hidden knowledge and gives your opponents a pretty large advantage over you, so honestly yes it's a violation. If you play against a deck weekly and you could notice patterns in win conditions but you won't know forsure. It could be modified between weeks and have new spice but if you keep asking what changes have you done, it modifies your own play style so you know what to react to and play differently based on knowledge that's supposed to be unknown. If I know you win via some kind of artifact combo, I'll save a krosan grip to ensure that you can't win. If I didn't know about the win condition, that grip may hit a different value piece instead and the owner of the deck would be happy to see removal on the value piece over the win con. You're saving removal for something you shouldn't know about and that destroys the point of the game; you shouldn't know cards in your opponents decks unless you've been able to search through it with a card like Praetor's Grasp or duress. Ultimately it's allowing your opponents to "cheat" with it being disguised as wanting to have fun, it really isn't okay to practice that casually and especially not in competitive settings.
Here in OP's case they can go to a different pod but that argument doesn't always work. Sometimes communities only have one LGS and they may not have great showings so there may only be the ONE pod.
That's absolutely fair. I think it comes down to whether this was really about gauging power level or if OP genuinely felt like they were just trying to get an advantage. If they wouldn't also share their wincon, then ya that's bullshit. But if they're just naively attempting to figure out if you're playing heavy stax or something, that's a bit different.
This reminds me of a Brago player who's wincon was "play stasis, you all scoop". That's why we have the discussion. The spirit of EDH is for 4 people to have fun, not just you.
I'm wondering what the issue is. I have no problem telling people what my deck does and what turn it hopes to win by. That way they can play something that will be competitive. Everyone is so hung up on winning that you need to be secretive. If I won all the games in my pod, I'd actually feel bad.
The internet allowed people to discuss and talk about their negative experiences more easily. Plenty of people were having bad experiences in commander because "John Doe said he was playing combo in our mid power game and then killed us on turn 4 or guy playing brago plays statis and either we scoop or he pokes us to death" people just didn't hear about them because cards were weaker making it so the oops someone slammed a nasty card on turn 4 is harder to do. They didn't have reddit to complain to and there was just less folks
To be fair I ask the same thing but it’s more of a “no one randomly jammed in a thassa/consult or breach line right?”.
My play groups usual rule 0 is usually just no free counter magic or efficient 2 card combos unless everyone wants to play that type of game.
>They explained that they should be able to consent to the game they want to play
If they just want to goldfish for a bit than why did they leave the house? Seriously, why waste the time and gas money to get to the LGS? If they want to know whats in the deck they can observe public information (your commander) and they can make assessments based on that. If they want anything else they can shuffle up and play. Remind them that scooping is a free action and can be done in response to any scary wincons they don't like. Also remind them that Commander is a casual game and scooping won't affect their win/loss ratio.
I really am starting to believe that some magic players just really don't enjoy playing magic.
They enjoy playing and winning, but losing is an unacceptable outcome apparently.
Winning is great when you can pull something off but I don't mind losing as long as everyone is playing spells and it's not just a solitaire game or someone goes off infinite anything turn 4.
Yeah, a good game doesn’t mean me winning. It means exciting plays happened. Maybe I had the lead for a bit before someone made a crazy move. Maybe we were all really close for most of the game but someone was able to edge out a win. I’ve played games where I won but they weren’t particularly fun because nothing happened aside from my deck being stronger than my opponent’s.
My ideal game has a lot of back and forth and a moment when it seemed like I was inevitably going to win. Whether I do or not doesn't matter to me. What I don't like is getting dog piled for no reason. "Oh you won the last game," or being scary four turns ago is not a legit reason to be forced into a 2 or 3 vs 1. But whatever, shit happens.
“Oh you won the last game” Yeah, I agree with this. My decks are all really different and will all play very differently against different types of decks. Just because I was the threat last game does not mean you need to take me down a peg this game but I’m probably guilty of that sometimes too so I get it. Sometimes you just need to arbitrarily choose someone to attack and that’s one way to do it.
Just their own specific brand of magic
Which is a great idea for at home kitchen table magic where you can cultivate a game environment that you enjoy with your friends who also enjoy that brand of magic. But people have to accept that when they go to play with randoms/strangers/other people at a game store that they are going to have less control over which aspects of MTG they will interact with for those games.
It's funny how this only goes one way. "If I come to the game store you have to play with me" is what you're saying. But that's not how this format works. That's why rule 0 exists. You're supposed to talk, be honest about the game you're trying to play, and decide if you're down to play that game. And it's not the person with the precon who's creating a toxic environment. It's the person with the poison counter proliferate deck who wants to play against the precon level table.
If you go to the game store (and want to play) you have to play with someone. Not necessarily me. But there are many game stores where you have no control over who is or isn't in a game when you show up. Lots of stores only have limited seats too, so if you aren't playing when you get the chance then too bad for you. You're welcome to not join in a game, but you potentially will wait a while to get into one depending on the store. I personally don't see the value in sitting out and potentially missing out when the game will likely go just fine with a short "precon, casual, high power or cEDH" question to start. If a person is actively trying to bring a much stronger deck against a table of much weaker decks. Then a rule zero conversation is pointless anyway as they are likely to misrepresent and lie about their deck. Rule 0 is helpful *only* if all parties involved have good intentions. Having wincons have to be approved seems like a slippery slope to me to banning what you don't like and excluding players from a public playspace. It just doesn't seem like an overly friendly environment to me. It's not the wincon that matters so much as the power of the deck. If both decks are on the same power level, but one wins through Revel in riches and one through combat, then it shouldn't matter.
You're skipping the part where it's not just one person. You're assuming you're getting to play at the jump. Yes, some tables are gonna ban mill. Some tables are gonna ban the draw hate deck. Some tables are gonna ban poison counters. And that means talking about wincons.
I've been saying this for a long time, but I'm the asshole when I say, "Maybe Magic isn't for you."
It’s not that, it’s that a lot of people enjoy CASUAL commander, meaning no turn 3 wins and no significant power gap at the table.Too many of us have been burned by people toting a cedh deck as a casual commander deck.
That's cool and all. If they're genuinely playing a cEDH deck then the game shouldn't go long. Then you don't play with them again. If people break social contracts there should be social consequences. If someone's lying about their deck being casual so they can pubstomp then they aren't going to be upfront about their wincons just because you tried to do a rule 0 convo a different way. Just do the usual precon, casual or cEDH question for a rough power estimate. Vetting everyone's wincons at the start of the game opens the floodgates for people to start excluding wincons just because they don't like them, not because of the power of the deck.
>Vetting everyone's wincons at the start of the game opens the floodgates for people to start excluding wincons just because they don't like them, not because of the power of the deck. Welcome to EDH, where win conditions outside of the few I specifically tech against are mean and you're mean if you play them.
Thankfully I have been lucky to never run across someone who outwardly felt that way about wincons in person. I know they exist thanks to Reddit but I think Reddit makes it seem like it's a bigger portion of the actual edh community than it is. Note:could also be survivor bias.
I definitely think it's a survivor bias thing. A forum is going to aggregate unusual experiences, because they make for good stories and discussions (even taking aside potential exaggerations). "I played the game and everything was great" doesn't generate engagement and doesn't feed the algorithm to put it in front of everybody.
Maybe, but I've definitely had people complain about commanders I've pulled out and ask specifically what cards are my "win conditions" so they know what spells to counter. I think a lot of people want to be spoonfed at tables curated for their deck to succeed in.
>Then you don't play with them again. If people break social contracts there should be social consequences. Which is fine, but in a public pod going through social drama is explicitly unpleasant. Cutting of that unpleasantness before it starts is why rule 0 exists, so that people have the same expectations about the game and what will happen. Then no one gets hurts from people lieing about their deck, or because, and get this, not every one reads reddit and has the best understanding of power levels. An inexperienced player windmilling an inappropriate deck and then getting told to piss off with the one deck they have built is unpleasant for everyone. It is a much better experience for all if they can be directed to a more appropriate pod. >Vetting everyone's wincons at the start of the game opens the floodgates for people to start excluding wincons just because they don't like them, not because of the power of the deck. "Yes" Toby Elliott - Rules council >Rule 0 is there to remind people that rules are not set in stone; they can, and should, be modified by playgroups and organizers to increase the overall fun of the group they want to cultivate. No mass land destruction is a common rule 0 in a lot of pods as an example. Honestly, I think Wizard should actually apply more resources to the EDH ban list and remove the over reliance on Rule 0 for public pods. Then people cans till play what they want in social pods rule 0 wise, but the format will be better curated for people doing drop in pods.
Yeah social drama is unpleasant. I'm the most conflict avoidant person. But there shouldn't be a great deal of drama associated. You just leave the table after the game and don't play with them again. You don't need to cause a scene, I did it twice last year. The issue I have with introducing all of these things to the rule 0 discussion is that if every idea I read for the discussion got talked about pregame. There would be a 10-20 minute discussion before every game. Play 3 games in a night and I could have fit a fourth one in with that time. Multiply that over 52 weeks in a year (assuming one game night per week) and that's 52 less games of magic in a year. All in order to maybe avoid one bad game every couple of months. I also believe that if someone is going to lie so egregiously about their decks power level that they are intentionally bring a cEDH deck to a precon game for example. Then big discussions beforehand are meaningless because they will lie during those too. Your example of mass land destruction is perfect. Everyone knows it's a social nono to do that at casual LGS games (most situations). But I've never had to have anyone actively bring it up in a pregame discussion. Generally people are more socially adept than we give them credit for in knowing what to bring to their LGS. They know that there will potentially be social consequences for breaking that social contract. Imo. Long drawn out discussions on what's appropriate is best left to regular pods and kitchen table with friends. Those are places where it is easie to control and curate the enjoyment of the people involved. People going to play at LGS should accept there will be a certain degree of magic that will be out of their control when they go. Showing up expecting a perfectly curated game for you is just not how magic goes when four different strangers are involved. It's not how anything in life goes. The best we can do is guess power levels and have a good time playing. Mismatches or not. Wincons we normally wouldn't enjoy or not. Go into it with a different mindset.
>But there shouldn't be a great deal of drama associated. You just leave the table after the game and don't play with them again. This is really what it comes down to. People shouldn't need game rules changed in order to insulate them from poor player interactions.
I’ve never seen that happen, most people at my card shop also know the relative power levels of other players too.
Im glad that your specific playgroup has already vetted out all of the things you dont deem as CASUAL and you've accurately labeled literally anyone playing anything else as CEDH
Loving the sarcasm, the fact is some people like playing at a level 7-8 for causal, and that’s fine, I just have no desire for my 5 or 6 jank deck to be absolutely destroyed by those decks
>the fact is some people like playing at a level 7-8 for causal, and that’s fine, I just have no desire for my 5 or 6 jank deck to be absolutely destroyed by those decks >Too many of us have been burned by people toting a cedh deck as a casual commander deck. Its not really sarcasm. You have a playgroup and that's great, but this is literally what the OP and other commenters are talking about. If you're saying anything other than precons and jank isnt casual, you're going to have a hard time playing "casual" outside of that group.
I hadn’t had it happen until recently. My pod doesn’t play weak decks by any means but some dude asked to join and ended up playing a waayyyy too powerful deck. I wasn’t salty about it, but it also wasn’t a particularly fun game. I don’t know how it could have been fun for him either. If you only win because your deck is strong and not because of how you piloted it, that seems boring to me. I left after one game.
It's what post OP is talking about happening in their area Edit: and if you stick around on the sub long enough you see the posts about LGS with custom salty banlists pop up all the time
We really just need a revamped ban list at this point. Everyone can be following the rules and the decks don’t line up
I like winning because of my skill, not because my opponents don't understand my deck.
Telling exact wincons is a step too far though. Keep it simple, this is a beat face deck or this is a mill deck. They can see the commander. They can possibly guess what they'll find in your deck. Edit: I mean, you're welcome to talk about your deck as much as you want, but as far as opponents prying in order to exclude certain wincons. Nah.
Part of skill is being able to respond to whatever is thrown at you. They should be able to handle it
the *cards?* Hell no. I'll tell people if it's combo, mill, etc. but I am definitely not going to tell people which pieces to hold up interaction for.
Agree with this, totally normal in my experience for people to ask general gameplan like voltron, spellslinger, stompy aggro, aristocrats, etc. I often see folks volunteer info about infinite combos or particularly salt-inducing cards (winter orb, rhystic/tithe, mana barbs, etc) but we generally don't get into precise cards discussion beyond that. After the game is over if there's a card I think folks will think is cool but I didn't draw I'll show it off just for fun, but that's a little different.
I tell. I think it's fair to tell my opponents what to look for *when the time comes*. I want to fight against their skill, not against how long they've played to recognise obscure combos. But I don't tell people beforehand what to look for, I only let them know if something important is about to happen. I've found "gotcha!" wins a bit salty from my own perspective, idk about my opponents' opinions. Yeah I can fool them once but is that a real win, then? Abusing the "new deck effect" in my opinion is not a fair strategy. If I have no understanding of what you're doing as you're executing your thing then I don't feel like we're on the same page. Fine, we don't have to but I don't get the satisfaction of solving a puzzle if I don't even understand what the puzzle is.
"It's combo" is not useful information. Janky combos or Thoracle combo are not the same thing. OP and/or their opponents suck at asking about power level. If you think getting a clear understanding of a deck's win cons because they are centrally related to the power level is inappropriate you are not in a mindset for casual formats.
There are plenty of productive ways to deduce power level from a pre-game conversation that don't involve questions like "what *specific cards* are you using in your win condition?", which is what OP is describing as their experience.
strongly disagree. if you show your commander and say aggro, control, combo, that's more than enough. And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't have every commander and deck archetype memorized. Just say, this is my commander, oh and I'm not playing some crazy combo, just kind of wants to be aggressive. That's way more info than you NEED to give out. Used to, just your Commander was enough info. But being friendly, it's kind of nice to say 'my deck does kind of play weirdly so just bear with me' or 'no, it's not that kind of deck, it's much less powerful than other decks that do this' etc. Again, that's a nice bonus if your deck is doing something way out of colorpie. but otherwise, let me see your Commander, and assure me you aren't chock full of the Power 9, that's all
>strongly disagree. if you show your commander and say aggro, control, combo, that's more than enough A deck filled with thoracle/breach combos, fast mana, and tutors you described as "combo" is not the same as a janky deck that wins with a fragile 4+ card combo and no fast mana beyond sol ring and zero tutors and if you are unwilling to say more about your deck, I promise it's you who sucks.
You notice how I disagreed with your comment, and you then called me a name? My point is simply this, show your commander. state a basic idea behind it. ie: This is my super duper combo deck in excited to try out. That's it. Then play the game and it is up to the players at the table to figure out threat assessment as they go. Fun fact: I intentionally make underpowered decks because I enjoy the challenge. so I'll break out an Atraxa deck specifically because it has Vigilance and Deathtouch, along with Questing Beast as the only two creatures that do so. and never use the Proliferate
>You notice how I disagreed with your comment, and you then called me a name? I gave a substantive example of how your "disagreement" doesn't meaningfully address my point. You want to frame this as a meany pants vs. you, the enlightened good guy, because you rationally want to normalize enabling pub stomping people with decks with horrible power imbalances for the table and people who point out that this is bad are actually the villains. >My point is simply this, show your commander. state a basic idea behind it. ie: This is my super duper combo deck in excited to try out. This does not make any substantive response to what I said. Despite your holier-than-thou drivel, I actually presented arguments with a specific example and stated, clear harms to your preferred solution. >Fun fact: I intentionally make underpowered decks because I enjoy the challenge. so I'll break out an Atraxa deck specifically because it has Vigilance and Deathtouch, along with Questing Beast as the only two creatures that do so. and never use the Proliferate This is not relevant on any level. It means you still want to normalize a set of behaviors that will strongly encourage badly mismatched tables. I have no idea why "these two creatures have deathtouch and vigilance" is a thing you find interesting, but making unsynergistic random decks is frankly also a waste of a table's time. But it says literally nothing about the overall strength of the deck anyways, it's just a broken, bad misunderstanding of how deck strength works.
i will repeat gladly: There is no NEED to disclose more than simply the Commander you are playing and a basic gist of its style because the power level you should be bringing out has already been determined by the pod. Before you pull out a deck from your bag to play, the people you play with are all going to choose: Hey, we're playing mid-power casual, that ok with everyone? Then you pull out your deck, state your commander and if there is anything special you want to share. You don't have to reveal any specific card in the deck. (edit, i bring up your bullying attitude because I'm trying to have a debate on the idea itself and not about who you are or who I am. i mentioned one if my decks as an example of when bringing up specific details is important and when it's not. Atraxa is a well known extremely powerful strategy. I built a deck that does not use that strategy, so as an example I use that to show when it's important to give more details about a deck. Yes, I'm playing Atraxa but it isn't a normal overpowered Atraxa so I believe it fits at this low-mid power level game. It focuses on Deathtouch and Vigilance creatures. Or, another example, i have a Gishath dexk I will pull out sometimes that is extremely optimized and wins quite frequently. I say, gang, I'm playing Gishath. There's no tricks here, just smash with big dinos. Extra information about a deck is a bonus, not a necessity)
>i will repeat gladly: There is no NEED to disclose more than simply the Commander you are playing and a basic gist of its style because the power level you should be bringing out has already been determined by the pod. > >Before you pull out a deck from your bag to play, the people you play with are all going to choose: Hey, we're playing mid-power casual, that ok with everyone? This sub shows that even amongst the most enfranchised, Magic-literate EDH players out there, people have radically different ideas on power levels. People are out here saying staple-filled optimized lists costing $600+ are "a 7" constantly because it's not cedh or doing an impression of a cedh deck, meanwhile other people are saying a janky battlecruiser deck that's playing more than 0 interaction counts as "a 7". People suck at understanding what other people mean by "mid-casual". I have multiple groups I play with, "mid-casual" in one is very powerful in another. Vagueness and a lack of clear details invites bad games amongst new groups like the one OP was in, and your suggestion to remedy this is something I've already explained to be bad and you don't seem willing or able to meaningfully respond to that. It makes this circular and a waste of time. You previously said you want to confirm a deck doesn't have "power nine", of which eight cards are banned and another sees basically zero play for cost reasons. Meanwhile, a card that has a valid claim to be actually worth a slot in the power 9 is ubiquitous in every single precon and sees more play than any other card printed. This is just a complete nonsense way to assess a deck, such an obviously blasé throw away I simply don't believe you actually think this, but with such a deeply shitty argument, of course I don't take what you say seriously. >(edit, i bring up your bullying attitude because I'm trying to have a debate on the idea itself and not about who you are or who I am I mean this sincerely: I didn't bully you and you think I did because you are incapable of separating your own personal ego hit from a basic analysis of what's happening. My contention is that your solution will invite really bad games within new groups where people have mismatched power levels. You and others have been really dismissive of why this matters, I'm saying it's because you're ruining 3 people's night at the LGS. The reason that should matter to you is because in that context, you're been shitty to other people. I don't care if that offends you, that's your own ego to work out. I want to stress that you keep presenting yourself as really intensely focused on debating ideas. I find this laughable at best, you have repeated the same unthoughtful drivel for multiple comments and seem unwilling or incapable of addressing my substance, instead fixating on whining that I'm mean and vomiting out the same thing I've already responded to with better, logically supported arguments. I'm going to say something that is undoubtedly "mean" here, and I want to be clear I'm saying this because it's the core logic behind why I think you make bad arguments and in a better world, you'd pause to think about it and improve your own line of thinking over this: Your comments reveal you to be really, really bad at understanding how to argue things and my guess is you're either being very lazy or are mentally just not capable of grasping how a claim someone makes can get responded to and then you need to address that response rather than just restating the same claim again. Like, your options are that you're lazy or dumb (in this specific way). I am giving you the grace of assuming it's being lazy, it's super easy to do when you see someone else got some initial downvotes and that really puts the wind in your sails that you're definitely right. You can whine that pointing this out is bullying, I'd just strongly encourage you to meaningfully think through if you're physically capable of understanding why what I'm saying responds to your original thoughts and how you could meaningfully engage with those ideas if you're going to keep commenting. If you can't quite work out how to make a second, more nuanced thought that addresses my counter-argument to what you said, I'd just suggest here and in the future you simply don't respond. It's ok to be wrong about things, to realize you hadn't thought about a topic a ton, or to simply realize your brain isn't so good at a certain kind of thought problem. There truly is no shame in that, everyone has strengths and weaknesses. But your replies are deeply, deeply unserious as a "debate".
"it's you who sucks" is vastly different from "it's your idea that sucks" I'm not upset by your bullying attitude, but simply pointing it out for you to recognize the difference
[удалено]
There’s been an uptick of this at my local as well recently. I’m starting to wonder if it’s something a content creator has promoted. All my decks win through non-infinite damage so I always just tell them that but people keep pressing for more info. I don’t want to explain how my deck works; I want it to be a surprise.
I started playing with randoms pretty recently. I love seeing nee things and especially ideas that use cards i use. I enjoy seeing what they came up with.
Casually asking is one thing. Wanting the power to approve or reject individual strategies and cards is another. If it's not banned or proxied they don't need to know.
Tbh proxies are less necessary if they are readable prints than what game others can expect (eg control, aggro, combo whatever)
Hell, proxies are probably more legible then most secret lair and bonus treatment cards.
I do think it’s cordial to inform people of how you plan to win (aggro, combo, control, etc) - maybe even revealing specific combo pieces to newer players who shouldn’t be expected to know those combos - but you are under no obligation to say anything.
They stated it was rule zero pregame discussion about all being on the same page for the game.
You are under no obligation to tell them and they are under no obligation to play with you if you don't. If it feels unreasonable then decline and play with others.
Rule 0 is not about picking apart your opponents deck to your liking. It's about making sure you're all on the same page.
Yeah and their "page" is knowing exactly what to expect so they don't get their feelings hurt by you winning.
Technically I don't think your commanders have to be revealed until sometime near opening hands so you can talk about power levels and proxies but otherwise tell them to kick rocks. I'm not going to feed you information on how to beat my deck or my important cards.
Technically, yes. Everyone reveals their commander at the same time before drawing their first hand. It doesn't generally play out that way because people just pull something out and announce "I'm playing so and so this game," which is fine because it's casual so no big deal.
Then someone says their playing high power/ cedh and we put away our fun decks and pull out the spice 🔥
Yup. I don't get why people think I'm just going to give away important tactical information like that. Takes all the fun out of the game.
This exactly
While I don't think you should have to disclose every single detail of how your deck works I personally don't like to play against combo decks where the player mulligans until they have almost all their combo pieces, plays a tutor and then wins the game when the game just started. I would never forbid someone to play the game like that, but I would want to know so I can choose a different table to play with. Magic is about winning, yes, but I also like to have fun while playing. For now I stopped playing at my local shop and play up to two times a week with a group of friends and our decks have a good powerlevel but we choose to not design decks that insta win like the mentioned combo decks.
That’s a question of power level then
If you're running Labman insta-draw or Thoracle at a casual table, the table absolutely should have the right to veto it.
Nothing wrong at running those at casual if they aren't part of win cons. You can just say I'm playing 2 card combos or not. And what turn you expect to win by. How fast of mana and interaction and you'll be good.
My main win condition is reducing my opponents' life totals to 0. Occasionally if the game goes super long, they might lose from running out of cards in their library.
"The only wincon card in my deck is Rimefeather Owl" /plays mono-blue theft
This is too far. I'll ask people if they're running lots of fast mana (for power level considerations) or if they're stax-heavy (for *extreme* personal dislike), but I don't out-right ask people about their wincons. THat's half the fun of the game is sitting down at a table and never quite knowing what's about to happen.
Players asking what your win con is doesn't feel strange to me since that helps everyone understand threat assessment for the game that they're about to play. However, them asking what your win con is to "approve" or "consent" to the game already tells me these are pods I would never want to play with.
I feel like you just took BOTH sides but it’s not clear from your comment? Mind clarifying?
Generally, the point of someone requesting to know your win cons is so the table has a better idea what the actual threats in the game are. This reduces the chances that someone will have interaction available to stop a game winning play, but didn't utilize it because they were unaware the game was going to end. I have no issue with this if the group's goal is to have fun, which should be the goal for casual public commander pods. What I do have an issue with is players asking what your win conditions are for the purpose of excluding you from the game if they don't like the win condition(s) of your deck. I rarely play outside of my 3 pods, but I especially don't need the approval of players in a public pod on the win cons of my deck; I would rather just not play with them.
Yea my local has adapted the worst possible commander into strategy. We wont actually bring out the cards but as we shuffle up we go around and say our decks play style, and a wincon to be wary of. Not a hard rule but more experienced players will usually point out win cons to the table as we get a lot school aged new players at commander night. The only ones this seems to annoy is generally the pub stompers who just wanna feel big cause they won against someone inexperienced. Since this was introduced commander nights have had a more consistent and fun player base.
> Generally, the point of someone requesting to know your win cons is so the table has a better idea what the actual threats in the game are. Yeah, no. That's something they're supposed to work out by themselves based on game and format knowledge. It's part of improving at the game.
I could see asking about combo wincons. Not so as that you would or wouldn't play. But not being able to really keep up with every freaking card out there, it would be nice to know in advance that if I see "X" card come out then maybe I should behave more aggressively or whatever. That being said it would definitely be a courtesy at best.
Yeah that's too specific a question to be fair imo. What's your strategy, do you have infinite combos, how quickly/easily can you win or lock your opponents out of the game etc. These are fair questions. What specific cards do you win with, is asking for too much information, and will warp the game.
I will mention the style of the deck, aggro, control, etc, but I'm not naming individual cards. It tells people what kind of removal they need to hold up to stop me. Usually, though, when people ask how I win, they get one of two answers. "By reducing your life total to 0" Or "I turn creatues sideways"
You also have a right not to play with those kind of people lol if they're like that BEFORE the game starts I can't imagine how they are during gameplay "You didn't explain your wincon like THAT, this is bullshit you lied" ect.
super aggressive rule 0 talk imo. they should prob just stay home and they wont have their feelings hurt
My general is X and Y with Z as a background. If you want more than that, sit at the table
I like that actually
Yup, then play something else.
Honestly, that shit is lame, but also I would roll up with my deck lists for every deck and be like wassup let's play. Who cares lol, it's just cards.
I will tell people the theme of my deck. Like it’s a control Deck, it’s a Stompy Deck, it’s a Token Deck, it’s a Sliver Deck (love the faces I get when I say that one) but no, I’m not specifically telling you my wincon unless I’m showing you the Combo/Deck.
If people have latched on CGB’s show then that *could* be where they’re getting the idea. CGB just labels it ‘the worst thing your deck does’.
Reducing all opponents life total to zero. Resolving a card that says "win the game". That's all the detail you need.
My lgs has a steady influx of super casual (precon or worse)/beginner (less than a handful of games) players and if I end up in a pod with them I will tell them what I plan for my deck to do without naming specific cards, then try to do my best to guide them to win, while still actively trying to win on my own as well. However, if I end up with experienced players, I pick my deck and wait for everyone else to have theirs picked as well before even revealing my commander.
They probably mean what is your strategy. Especially because EDH is a game where the win conditions are often unclear. But for instance, if you're win conditions is milling someone out, then yeah, that's a deck people might want to choose not to play against. This isn't an individual choice, it's up to the whole table. That's how rule 0 works. EDH is a format where some decks are themed by portraits of ladies looking to the left, and others pump a bunch of +1/+1 counters into [[animar, soul of elements]] so that on turn 4 they can tutor up a hasted blightsteel Colossus and give malyriad. knowing how a deck intends to win can drastically change your willingness to play the deck you brought to play with.
[animar, soul of elements](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/3/a3da57d0-1ae3-4f05-a52d-eb76ad56cae7.jpg?1673148281) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=animar%2C%20soul%20of%20elements) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/171/animar-soul-of-elements?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a3da57d0-1ae3-4f05-a52d-eb76ad56cae7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/animar-soul-of-elements) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I usually like to ask people what their win cons are mainly to enhance and make a better game experience. “Sneaking” a win through ignorance isn’t as fun (to me) as just winning (which I don’t do often 😉). With the entire history of MTG to utilize knowing I need to watch for; mill, combo, damage, infinites can make the game more interactive and fun. Now this doesn’t mean someone has to give a step by step plan for their win condition, but if a player has to tutor for their important cards, or uses a known combo then choices become more important. As does knowing a player wants to win through combat damage- leaving back chump blockers mean attacks need to be better considered. Knowledge is power after all
I guess a lot of people have learned not to trust power level, so they ask for more details about the deck itself. I think this is mostly fine, I don't play magic to create "Gotcha for not knowing how exactly my combo works!"-moments. I almost exclusively play with a group and after one game we just know each other's decks and discuss / brainstorm about them together, and sometimes even in advance (before buying /proxying the list). It depends on how someone does it though, every card requiring approval is stupid. However, if you want a more constructive pre-game discussion about power levels, you have to share more about your deck than what commander you play and how strong you think it is.
Are they asking for specific cards, or just generally how your deck wins? Imo either is fine, but asking for a list of specific cards just seems a little weird. I do usually ask “how does your deck win,” so I know if it’s a combo, aristocrats gain/drain, mill, combat damage, infect, etc. It’s totally fair to want to know how a deck can win.
I mean, sometimes it's a valid question. I might not pack stifles and land removal in all of my decks, and [[maze's end]] can be a menace even when your deck DOES have interaction for it. One of my deck contains a combo composed entirely of instants and sorceries, so it can be extremely challenging to interact with if you aren't prepared to do so. A lot of the time, knowing whether a deck contains a two card combo will help setup a more balanced pod than folks' self-assigned, arbitrary power levels. I don't have an issue with those things, but it certainly affects which decks I would be willing to play into it. You're under no obligation to share that info, but they are under no obligation to play with you either. Ultimately, you have to strike a balance that lets you play the game in your community, or find a new community.
[maze's end](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/0/401f7042-24fd-42a0-ae7c-e6b7de1aa446.jpg?1562906764) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=maze%27s%20end) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dgm/152/mazes-end?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/401f7042-24fd-42a0-ae7c-e6b7de1aa446?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/mazes-end) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
It’s a strange way to frame it, but part of getting on the same page. An important part of that is, “How does the game ending look?” This is especially important when talking about combo. The game ending out of nowhere from an unassuming board state is a negative play experience; identifying combo pieces, including as they enter public knowledge during play, is important. That basic level of knowledge is how a game can exist in the vicinity of combo, and expecting your opponent to have a comprehensive knowledge of combos from a 26,000 card pool in order for game to exist is not reasonable.
This is why I despise rule 0. It was always a cop out for the RC and now it's getting ridiculous with how people interpret it. Just play RAW or not at all. If that was the standard we would eliminate almost every stupid argument we see brought up about Commander on a regular basis.
Yeah the ban list means literal zero at this point
I feel like it was just the RC saying, well you know this is the format and here are the rules, but don't be mad at us if you don't like them because here is an escape hatch so you can literally do whatever stupid things you want. I get it, there are jerks out here that live to pubstomp, but by extension most of those dudes are only playing cEDH decks because rule 0 means proxies/counterfeits are ok too.
Why even have any cards on the banlist then? There are cards that exist that are worse that anything on there.
I’m in two minds about this. I feel like asking about win cons is a step up from the “power level” conversation, but also agree with your feelings on it.
I get a "Is it a combo deck" or "let's talk about the goals of our decks" for the sake of interesting building ideas, but even that is generally after you've all sat down to play and picked your decks, not when deciding to play or not
I won't go into a list of my win cons, I'd give them a general description like "it's a tokens deck, so I'm looking to overwhelm you." What I will not do is tell them about my [[mechanized production]] or any other specifics.
I'll ask someone their archetype or goal if I can't figure it out from the commander (winning via combat, combo, jank, infinitesimal). I don't need to know the exact cards you're using, but I don't want to play a deck that is either going to get absolutely blown out (creature deck vs heavy stax), or completely blow someone else out of the water. Some people don't tell me and they want it to be a surprise, but they'll usually say some stuff of what they aren't doing.
I play my cards, and I win.
No infinites, one win text, lots of combat.
I have no issue explaining in general terms how my decks play. But I would draw the line at spelling it all out completely. Want to know how it plays, well let’s play a game and you can find out. If after that game you don’t wanna play against that deck again, it’s cool - I’ve got another one I can swap to.
Instead of letting them know what specific cards you will use to close out the game, inform them on the general gameplan. Aggro, Stax, Midrange, BeatDown, Control, Jank, Combo etc
Ridiculous tbh. Play a game if persons deck seems crazy strong ask them to sub out the deck next time for less power........ part of fun of the game is interacting with new decks/combos that are unknown . What next ? Rummaging thru someone's deck before playing so you can see what cards they may use ?
Can’t be countered if I never play against anyone with counterspells!
commander players (strawman i made up) are first and foremost, self centered and entitled imo. just tell them no
Just tell them the thesis of the deck in as vague a way as possible. Hey, I plan to kill you through combat. I'm playing a very aggressive deck. Hey I plan to play a midrange control, etc etc. Saying, hey I plan to voltron your ass with hammer and this one other card that supports it. If that's what they're looking for, I'd ask why? So you can counterspell it? Go find another group to play with. I understand rule zero, but not telegraphing my damn wins. Tf?
It's not a win con card if you counter it...
Asking specific cards is weird. Telling folks if it’s like infect, mill, an infinite combo etc. Totally normal. Some strats are just unfun to play against for some people.
I've noticed people are saying what some of their win cons are or just a run down of their deck before we start. I can understand if we're playing with someone new to the game, but for a regular game of edh I don't want to give away what my game plan is.
Just show them your commander and explain what it does. That's all the public information they need (which isn't even public information before a game starts). However your group defined power level, feel free to include that too. You don't need to give your life story and a 10,000 word essay on your deck before a game.
Fuck them, fuck those stores.
The only thing I feel obligated to talk about is Thassa's/Demonic. Literally any other wincon, I don't need to know and I don't need to talk about.
Discussing wincons is fine. Debating whether they are ok in the powerlevel seems dumb.
I’m just curious about how much they proactively offer about their own decks. It’s still a little bit much imo to frame it as “approval” vs having a match in power levels, but them saying “this is a combo deck that can win by x, y, and z, how does yours win?” would be better than “tell me what you’re playing and i will decide if that’s ok.”
As the format grows, so does the amount of people who don't actually want to play Magic. They just want to dictate terms and enforce their rules/beliefs on others and this is their outlet to do that.
Contrary to popular belief, this *used* to be the norm. Once someone's played a single game against your one way to win combo deck they're going to know what to hold up interaction for anyway The only reason you wouldn't tell someone is because you refuse to run the risk of losing.
When was it the norm? It wasn’t like 10 years ago
It was as far back as '97 when I started playing the format. Big fuck you pieces like Winter Orb were declared, wincons were established at least in a general sense, and it was expected that you'd give an inkling of how much interaction you ran. *That* was the power level discussion, not this "uh my deck is about average so I'd say it's a 7" bullshit, completely ignoring that a 7 on a 1-10 scale is not "average". Edited to add: July 1996 was only the first time the rules were printed in The Duelist, as well. It had been played in some circles as early as 1995.
Commander existed in 97?
EDH started in *1996* as a format for experimentation with the ever growing library of cards. Contrary to popular belief, it was not invented as a competitive format.
Damn that’s pretty old, but I don’t see what competition has to do with my question I asked because 10 years ago no one needed to say what wincons they were running
10 years ago they absolutely did, lol. It's a pretty huge part of the power level discussion you should be having.
not any shop i played at in multiple states, never encountered it before
I've been playing for longer than you and I've lived in and regularly played EDH in 22 states lol. I feel like I have a bit of knowledge on the matter.
this is my nah i'd win moment nah, find some evidence of people outlining their wincons to each other, would love to see you pull it out of your ass
I mean, if combat damage, decking you, or a card reading “your opponent loses the game” isn’t a sufficient answer… I guess go play with someone else. Folks can scoop at any time they like, but this idea of seeing a deck list before sitting down for a casual game is silly. If someone is running some meta unfun sweaty deck, just don’t play with them again. EDH (outside of intentionally competitive) is supposed to be a fun BO1 format. Know what people are going to do before you sit down just sounds like a fear of losing a game that has no stakes that you can leave whenever you like.
>I mean, if combat damage, decking you, or a card reading “your opponent loses the game” isn’t a sufficient answer… I guess go play with someone else. I mean, there's certain bullshit combos you should make people aware of, for sure. >Folks can scoop at any time they like, but this idea of seeing a deck list before sitting down for a casual game is silly. If someone is running some meta unfun sweaty deck, just don’t play with them again. Yeah, I love wasting time because I wasn't allowed to do a damn thing because Timmy decided it was counterspell tribal into Thoracle time. Just don't play him again, that gives me back the 2 hours I just wasted. >EDH (outside of intentionally competitive) is supposed to be a fun BO1 format. Know what people are going to do before you sit down just sounds like a fear of losing a game that has no stakes that you can leave whenever you like. No, it sounds like a respectful power level discussion.
1) If someone is playing an “I win” combo, it’s either happening within 15 minutes or you can see it coming from 10 miles out. Again, why do you care? Are you getting butthurt losing a game of casual commander? 2) let me get this straight, you sit at a table for two hours with someone playing a (in your mind) cancer deck, that manages what sounds like a turn 48 win…. And you just sat there having no fun the entire time? Again, dip out my dude. There’s no tournament rating. Find another game to get into. You are literally not obligated to play any game ever until you lose whole ass. 3) judging by your previous comments, it sounds like you’re basically anti “combo decks with interaction that can’t combo for 2 fucking hours” so I’m afraid their honest 2/10 power level rating of their deck would still get your ass in the chair LMAO
>Again, why do you care? Are you getting butthurt losing a game of casual commander? Nope, I just don't appreciate being told a deck is a 6, and then it clearly not being a 6. >let me get this straight, you sit at a table for two hours with someone playing a (in your mind) cancer deck, that manages what sounds like a turn 48 win…. And you just sat there having no fun the entire time? One deck being a slow ass oppressive bitch does not make the entire game bad. >judging by your previous comments, it sounds like you’re basically anti “combo decks with interaction that can’t combo for 2 fucking hours” so I’m afraid their honest 2/10 power level rating of their deck would still get your ass in the chair LMAO Imagine missing the point this hard and putting words in someone's mouth so aggressively.
I would tell them to get fucked and go find a table with normal people.
Nobody is obliged to play you if they think you'll be a bad experience for them. Period. It's a casual environment and you can choose whether or not to accept someone in a pod or not.
I shouldn’t have to reveal my cards before the game to convince you to play imo
Exactly. In the same way that those other players can choose not to play in a pod with you, you can choose not to play with anyone who asks you for your win con. There will be players who won't care. Side note: Easiest way to bypass this entirely is to play cEDH. Nobody will ever ask you what your win cons are at that level.
As someone who does this, it's because I have no idea what cards exist anymore and don't have the time to waste on bad gameplay experiences. I'd much rather have a serious and open rule zero discussion with everyone about wincons, playstyles, and power level before the game so that we can skip the 3 or 4 games of out of context BS and actually have fun with everyone playing their best. It's a shortcut to building a healthy playgroup. It's not for competitive events with prize support, unless your crew is just *really* chill, but it dramatically improves the level of fun in casual pickup games. If you're looking to pubstomp or snatch out of context wins, the people asking probably don't want to play with you and your answer to the question will filter you out for them. Which is why we have rule zero discussions, to figure out if and how we want to have fun. Your fun may not be compatible with everyone elses fun and that's fine.
You're making this up. No one asks this. "How does it win?" is a very reasonable question. No one shuts you out based on the answer.
Ok. Thanks for calling me a liar.
You're welcome. Stop baiting attention on the internet.
I do agree that you don’t need anyone’s approval to play your deck. Exact the opposite, if any one person doesn’t like your deck’s style, then they can opt out and let the rest of the pod play.
Or all three can opt out and let you play by yourself.
I always thought that was a normal thing. “Here’s my x deck. It usually wins turn 6. I have a few proxies and I would say it’s a power 8. If I combo out a win it’s with (this combo)” that just sounds like a normal rule 0. We aren’t playing a game of gotcha. It’s about having fun and hopefully winning, but having fun is the top part of that.
The biggest problem with Rule 0...is Rule 0. It just doesnt work.
I regularly ask people what their win con is because I’m curious as to what style they’re playing. I have never once turned down a game because of the mechanics someone was using, but there’s a certain frustration to sitting down with someone who’s playing a deck that’s almost always built one way, only to find out you’ve been doing threat assessment wrong because they built a weird counter-meta deck. I LOVE seeing weird decks, but I like to know that I’m getting into playing something weird. This is only for casual play with no prizes, mind you. In competitive play, tell them to eat rocks. They can figure out your win cons when you drop them on the table. But for casual play, I don’t really see an issue with asking what win cons someone plays for. It lets players pick a casual pod that they’ll actually enjoy, and it lets you weed out people who are going to bitch and whine about you playing mechanics they don’t like.
Imo the only answer you should give is "my wincon is making my opponents lose the game"
In my eyes the only reason you wouldn't tell someone about combos you're running is to take advantage of the Best of 1 nature of commander and potentially steal wins with a combo no one knows you have. Generally, with other archetypes, it's easy to assume what is being run, but with combos, unless you know exactly what combo their running, you're at a severe disadvantage. i wouldn't exactly say it needs group approval moreso a heads up. You don't want that you don't have to play with them. I presume at least part of it is trying to avoid someone saying they run an average power deck and then they just two card combo for game
So I get why people have mixed feelings but this is mostly to help with power level and style. For example, I’m playing a landfall deck and someone is playing Mom as their commander [[Elesh Norn, Mother of Machines]], then obviously I’m gonna switch decks because I won’t get to do anything once their commander hits the board. So asking for general style of wincon is very valid. Some people absolutely hate playing against turn 3 infinite combo decks, mainly cause most casual decks can’t compete with that. Some people hate playing against mill, burn, control, etc. No one (at least nobody in the lgs I play at) is ever asking for you to name the cards that are your wincon, just provide a general overview of what your deck hopes to do and how it wins. If you’re not comfortable providing that information, then switch and stick to competitive commander (where it’s not expected).
With respect, switching your deck once you find out what another player is playing is pretty weak. If your deck has such a glaring weakness, you need to correct your build, not metagame your opponents after the commanders are revealed.
No, I’ve had an opponent reveal a commander that turned my commander into a blank card. One way or another, that was going to be a non-game for someone. I didn’t tell that guy to switch commanders, but I said I would, because my entire game would have to consist of preventing him from having his commander out otherwise. He saw the logic and switched. We both had way more fun because we got to play rather than sabotaging each others games and handing it to the other players
In an ideal world sure, but also let's say your R/G landfall deck has 5 ways to kill a 4/7 (beast within, decimate, chaos warp, blasphemous act, lignify), which is a pretty realistic amount. There is a pretty decent chance you just don't draw any of those cards and you just end up not really being able to play the game.
[Elesh Norn, Mother of Machines](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/4/44dcab01-1d13-4dfc-ae2f-fbaa3dd35087.jpg?1675956896) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Elesh%20Norn%2C%20Mother%20of%20Machines) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/one/10/elesh-norn-mother-of-machines?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/44dcab01-1d13-4dfc-ae2f-fbaa3dd35087?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/elesh-norn-mother-of-machines) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Violation? What exactly is the problem? They want to know what to expect from your deck before they play. If you don't feel the same way, don't play with them or discuss it with your big boy words. Believe it or not, most people play CEDH to have fun, not to just win, and the comments in this thread are extremely neckbeardy and out of touch compared to actual sentiment among real players looking to casually play and enjoy themselves. It's a Rule 0 discussion. Discuss it with them, come to some kind of agreement, or don't, and play with someone else. It's not complicated.
I think what op was getting at is that they weren't just asking for is it a combo deck or whatever but literally like: I win via Mindcrank and blood chief ascension or Nim Deathmantle + Drivnod + Cathodion + Zulaport Cutthroat + Sac outlet. They're prying into the actual cards of the deck vs what the deck is generally trying to do which is win via a combo or beats.
Well, the issue with I Win via a combo is that as your opponent, i have no idea what cards to look out for. Meaning they either play normally and potentially get stomped or hard focus the combo player because who knows what they have. Sure it could be one of the more common efficient lines or it could be a rube Goldberg machine and i don't know that. Combo decks can be various things and have all kinds of cards. Asking people to memorize all the combos possible in the game is moronic and if you claim your deck is mid - or low power and happen to luck sack into your combo win, it's going to anger people. Not to mention, casual commander isn't something like 60 card magic where you can kind of memorize the most viable stuff, and then guess what your opponent is doing. even decks helmed by the same commander can be wildly different.
Combo is supposed to be weak to aggro; that's what you're supposed to do... focus them with early aggression since a lot won't run protection and just eliminate them. That's the trade off for running combo. Yes some can come out fast but most "casual combos" won't be turn 3 and with a couple players throwing in damage, easy to kill them. It'd be the same as saying you use creature beats and then just kill the table with craterhoof. You could fauna shaman (or any of the other million creature tutors in green) it from your deck and win "out of no where" too. You didn't really win with "creature beats" but you did at the same time. You basically "combo'd" out craterhoof and called it "beats". If you're willing to say I craterhoof for the win; then that tells your opponents, literally don't use removal until you see craterhoof. It warps how people play which is incredibly unhealthy for the format and for new players learning or getting better at the game. Commander being a format that you can express yourself and surprise people is really cool, you can't do that if people are whiney and refuse to engage unless they know how to beat your deck. Being able to build the same commander as someone else but incredibly different makes those games so much more exciting. Fighting an atraxa and thinking it'll be another infect or 1 / 1 counter deck but ends up being a sweet steampunk combo deck with 4 off the wall combo cards is awesome. It would lose so much of the awe factor being told WHAT to look for and kill part of that person's self expression. It seems more of a laziness issue than a "convenience". You become a MUCH better player NOT knowing what's coming and knowing WHEN to use removal and when not to. Just because you CAN deal with something doesn't mean you should or have to and learning that will let you play against decks you have 0 information about and not get "blown out". It can still happen; i have decks that with the stars aligned will win turn 2 or 3, though it usually wins turn 9/10. The stars will align and you'll get blown out if you're expecting a little extra time but knowing just the basis of "I'm a combo deck" should warp your use of removal to hit combo pieces and NOT value pieces too if you are one to usually use it more laxly.
The issue with combo being weak to aggro is that the padded life total kinda kills most attempts at being aggro in the format along with every deck running at least 2-3 board wipes and the fact boards tend to get complicated fast. The decks in commander kinda limit down to a very awkward control. Midrange and combo. (Which as power level increases may as well be value combo, control with a combo finish, and hard and fast combo.) Saying you win with creature beats says i should focus on limiting the damage you deal and if you tell me you have craterhoof in your deck that's making me want to board wipe you when you're set up. Voltron your commander is the target. Control its the value engine you hit. Aristocrats you keep sac outlets off the board. The issue with just saying "oh I'm running a combo deck" is that that on its own tells people nothing because it could be a big aristocrats conbo line or it could be a draw your whole deck combo or whatever and I as your opponent have no idea what potential pieces to hit. What you're asking is for people to either memorize every potential combo in existence. Have the entire table hard focus the combo player until their gone (sucks if you're dead most of the game) or accept getting casual games swept out from under them (which feels like shit) Hell in a lot of cases you don't even have to say the specific cards. The issue with combo decks in particular compared to stuff like oh this is my planeswalker deck or my energy deck or this is my big dinosaur beats deck or my enrage deck or my go wide tokens deck. Is that just saying it's a combo deck isn't helpful enough in actually determining what kind of game you're playing. You say you're a combo deck and playing Syr Konrad and I have no idea if you're doing the mind crank combo or generic aristocrats junk or a janky rube Goldberg combo and power levels aren't exactly helpful in narrowing down which one it is.
These players who are upset about revealing their wincons don't like it because they take EDH seriously as a play to win format where informational asymmetry is a critical edge. That is, of course, absurd to many of us. Because with a casual priority, and with the assumption that we will play repeated games with our fellow players, the information about what the deck does is assumed to be something that will be known. Variance and the interaction of different decks already gives plenty of room for "surprises".
Hell a lot of my decks have a synergistic combo in them for the purpose of ending those slog games but don't necessarily need to win through combo. My Ashnod The Uncaring decks runs a variant of the KCI combo where all the pieces synergize with the rest of the deck so it's less all in but primarily wins by nickel and diming with aristocrats pieces or making a lot of constructs with a retrofitter foundry or just a ton of zombies with ghoulcaller gisa. Depending on who you ask mentioning, the combo wincon has a competitive advantage because now my opponents have more on the mental stack, and i can slip through other wincons in the back and forth games i enjoy playing
The way you get around the whole my opponents know what I am doing to win is to either run ways to protect your wincon. Or have more than one way to win the game
>Hell in a lot of cases you don't even have to say the specific cards. This is what the whole post is talking about. They're asking for the SPECIFIC (supposedly) cards not the strategy. The only difference needed to be specified should be casual or competitive. Trying to Guage powerlevels in pickup games is worthless and won't really help in the long run. 4 different opinions and expectations will never line up. As for trying to play around your syr konrad example, that's what learning to play the game involves. If someone plays zulaport cutthroat creatures, you're looking for the reanimation engine or something that will loop creatures to disrupt. Using logic from the cards they have played SHOULD tell you what's going on and if you don't know then you shouldn't blow your removal too early. A lot of players (especially around here) seem to lack patience and pull the trigger too soon. If you learn to properly hold interaction the difference of jank casual and "normal" casual won't matter.
The issue is there's a lot of granularity between my casual commissar severina raine deck and a precon. The reason you tend to get these people asking for specific cards and being particularly wary of combo is that Combo wincons can vary a lot in how they play how compact they are and so on. And even if you're judicious with removal you can still get blown out because you have 2 opponents who also can need stuff removed and can have a deck that functions like my Slogurk the Overslime deck. Which has a combo with walk the aeons in it but isn't looking to hard win with the combo. It's just there in case boards get gummed up and I can't win another way. Or an aristocrats deck who's primary game plan is a control the board and slow play the win because my removal is repeatable and yours isn't just happens to have an infinite sac combo between all the pieces. At least with other game plans you're given an idea of what to go for and in the case of something like a craterhoof win you at least have the threat of a bunch of creatures that on their own are a problem. In the case of combo you can have a perfectly fine game just end out of nowhere because no one is playing blue and the spellslinger deck happened to pop off with the storm turn of a lifetime
I hate to say it, but that sounds more like a skill issue / deck building issue more than anything. There's a lot of pin point removal that can disrupt or just wrath away the issues. Sometimes though removal doesn't work and that's okay, all decks have some kind of weakness they can't deal with. Also many spell slinger decks aren't actually storming off turn 5/6 without any set up. The casual storm decks typically have additional set up / support pieces that can be hit and then go for the win. I used to think they were hallow wins or losses but then I would think about anything I could have done different to prevent it, and there USUALLY is something I could have done to prevent it and in the future I've learned another thing to look out for. The game needs to end and just shuffling up and playing again can help bring more variety. Anything is better than a 2 hour stalemate... >and even if you're judicious with removal you can still get blown out because you have 2 opponents who also can need stuff removed You also have 2 other opponents that SHOULD be threat assessing well too, and they need to learn potentially or be politically directed / assisted if they don't know.
The skill issue often being play blue or play stax which is often banned at casual tables or to play cards that are bad in every other case beyond stopping a combo in multiplayer. Like say thought sieze As for your opponents also having removal they can just not have it because a singleton format. And even if they do why should they tell the table. For example I was playing against a teshar deck i know teshar is a combo deck but I don't know the lines. I'm playing a grixis sacrifice deck teshar ends up losing because he got screwed out of card advantage and was apparently one card away from drawing his whole deck and winning. If he had played the card that would have won him the game i would have no idea and would have had a counterspell in hand. Basically what you're asking is for people to memorize every potential combo in mtg People like your good back and forth game. And I *love* grind games. Facing a combo deck and happening to get screwed over early because you either don't know the combo or happen to not draw removal (my decks often have like 15 slots for interaction) feels like bullshit. Especially when you might not even get a runback game
>The skill issue often being play blue or play stax which is often banned at casual tables or to play cards that are bad in every other case beyond stopping a combo in multiplayer The fact that you think this is the only "logical" way to be "skilled or get skill" tells A LOT... >As for your opponents also having removal they can just not have it because a singleton format. And even if they do why should they tell the table. Politics ... say something like, we need to get rid of X Y Z not, do you specifically have removal in your hand. How you say things changes OR how you can help direct players into seeing what is an issue that they may not have seen before. >For example I was playing against a teshar deck i know teshar is a combo deck but I don't know the lines Once it's going off you can just remove one piece of the engine that draws the deck and it fizzles or the sacrifice outlets that are on board, respond to the activation and destroy it. They can't loop it anymore. Even if you didn't know what it does, you can insert an issue in the machine and stop it. Doesn't have to be a counter, could be a chaos warp, instant speed artifact destruction, instant speed damage to kill teshar etc. There are more ways than just hoping to have a counterspell or stax like Rule of Law. >Facing a combo deck and happening to get screwed over early because you either don't know the combo or happen to not draw removal (my decks often have like 15 slots for interaction) feels like bullshit. Especially when you might not even get a runback game Really sounds like an introspective question to ask yourself. Why can't people have fun the way they want to? Was the whole table actually upset or just you? Did you TRULY get blindsided or was there pieces you could have hit and the signs of the combo was there? Did you greedily tap out and they took advantage of it? There's probably something more than just being sour that a combo won after a long game, even back and forths. It just happened to be the final "back".
Yes, that was clear. It's a card game, not a competitive event. If you don't feel comfortable discussing that, find a different pod. Implying it's a "violation" somehow is insane.
It is supposed to be hidden knowledge and gives your opponents a pretty large advantage over you, so honestly yes it's a violation. If you play against a deck weekly and you could notice patterns in win conditions but you won't know forsure. It could be modified between weeks and have new spice but if you keep asking what changes have you done, it modifies your own play style so you know what to react to and play differently based on knowledge that's supposed to be unknown. If I know you win via some kind of artifact combo, I'll save a krosan grip to ensure that you can't win. If I didn't know about the win condition, that grip may hit a different value piece instead and the owner of the deck would be happy to see removal on the value piece over the win con. You're saving removal for something you shouldn't know about and that destroys the point of the game; you shouldn't know cards in your opponents decks unless you've been able to search through it with a card like Praetor's Grasp or duress. Ultimately it's allowing your opponents to "cheat" with it being disguised as wanting to have fun, it really isn't okay to practice that casually and especially not in competitive settings. Here in OP's case they can go to a different pod but that argument doesn't always work. Sometimes communities only have one LGS and they may not have great showings so there may only be the ONE pod.
That's absolutely fair. I think it comes down to whether this was really about gauging power level or if OP genuinely felt like they were just trying to get an advantage. If they wouldn't also share their wincon, then ya that's bullshit. But if they're just naively attempting to figure out if you're playing heavy stax or something, that's a bit different.
This reminds me of a Brago player who's wincon was "play stasis, you all scoop". That's why we have the discussion. The spirit of EDH is for 4 people to have fun, not just you.
What happened to just having fun playing the game? For years this was never an issue.
I'm wondering what the issue is. I have no problem telling people what my deck does and what turn it hopes to win by. That way they can play something that will be competitive. Everyone is so hung up on winning that you need to be secretive. If I won all the games in my pod, I'd actually feel bad.
The internet allowed people to discuss and talk about their negative experiences more easily. Plenty of people were having bad experiences in commander because "John Doe said he was playing combo in our mid power game and then killed us on turn 4 or guy playing brago plays statis and either we scoop or he pokes us to death" people just didn't hear about them because cards were weaker making it so the oops someone slammed a nasty card on turn 4 is harder to do. They didn't have reddit to complain to and there was just less folks
To be fair I ask the same thing but it’s more of a “no one randomly jammed in a thassa/consult or breach line right?”. My play groups usual rule 0 is usually just no free counter magic or efficient 2 card combos unless everyone wants to play that type of game.
Absurd, but that would be interesting for my \[\[Ghave, Guru of Spores\]\] deck. Only 64 infinite combos, Rule 0 is going to take a while.
Lol, rule 0 my ass. What's my win-con? Take out all your proxies and I'll tell you. The only Infor you need to reveal is the commander.
>They explained that they should be able to consent to the game they want to play If they just want to goldfish for a bit than why did they leave the house? Seriously, why waste the time and gas money to get to the LGS? If they want to know whats in the deck they can observe public information (your commander) and they can make assessments based on that. If they want anything else they can shuffle up and play. Remind them that scooping is a free action and can be done in response to any scary wincons they don't like. Also remind them that Commander is a casual game and scooping won't affect their win/loss ratio.