Define "competitive" Commander Deck
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on June 11, 2016, 12:30 a.m. by Triton
So I've been playing commander for he past month or so (yeah I'm new to it and I love the format to death) and I noticed a lot of cards/commanders are considered "competitive," such as The Mimeoplasm. I was just wondering what the definition of a competitive commander deck is.
griffstick says... #3
A fully optimized deck that wins in your playgroup most of the time
June 11, 2016 4:51 a.m.
$1000 or more.
Alternatively, a deck that is optimized to the point that if you haven't won your game by a certain turn, generally anywhere from 5-8, if you're playing against another competitive deck, you've already lost.
Though to be honest, "competitive" commander, to me, is a counterproductive mindset. You can have a very powerful deck, but at the end of the day, if you're actually trying to compete with it, you shouldn't be playing commander. It's a community and social format.
June 11, 2016 7:46 a.m.
Comes down to a certain number of things.
How fast you can win. How resilient is your deck. How can it stop other decks winning. Etc.
So Zur is a very competitive commander because he can protect himself, provides a fast clock and UWB is the best colours for counters.
June 11, 2016 7:53 a.m.
mathimus55 says... #6
kanokarob that's a very closed minded view of the format. Dollars =/= competitive advantage. You could have all sorts of expensive do nothing cards or a 5 color/colorless mana base(before Wastes were a thing) and still not be a competitive deck.
Plus, different playgroups have different goals than your own. We have a competitive EDH night at my store and while those guys are cutthroat you still see them having just as much fun and having the crazy plays as the kids who play bulk rare decks. The guy who plays in Win-a-box pods at GP's has a brutal Tajic, Blade of the Legion control deck, far from what lots of people consider tier 1 commander. The point is Social norms vary from group to group and that includes EDH play styles. Shoe horning people into "you have to play the same way as me" isn't what the game in general is about, there are as many ways to play each format as there are people who play.
June 11, 2016 8:03 a.m.
shaistyone says... #7
Typically, it is just like a normal deck with a majority of the 'fun' and 'spontaneous' removed in favor of 'consistency' and 'efficiency'.
June 11, 2016 9:09 a.m.
Don't forget that a lot of the time when people are referring to competitive EDH decks they may also be talking about 1v1, since that is considered the more competitive format. When you can focus your deck on one opponent there's less of a social factor and no need for politics. There are also more tournaments geared for 1v1 play as the rules are more straight forward than trying to determine winners among players working together in a multiplayer format. Also, websites like MTGtop8 have a list of tournament results so decks that are consistently placing there could also be what they're referring to since they have a list of the most played aggro, control, and combo decks.
Like others have said, the term varies from person to person and playgroup to playgroup. For some it could just be a deck that is unbeatable among their playgroup. Others may participate in larger tournaments and have a different definition. You kind of just have to take what they say in context. It's like any other format, the more you research, read, and play, the more aware you become of of the staples in the format and the type of things you'll face in your playgroup. Then it becomes easier to judge the competitiveness of your deck because you'll know the power level of your playgroup if that's all you play with. Or, if you participate in more tournaments then you know more about the meta on the competitive scene and can prepare accordingly.
June 11, 2016 10:17 a.m.
It's any deck that's tuned to win games above other priorities. In order to do this is might favour consistency, resilience, redundancy, efficiency, speed and others over card choices that might traditionally be less expensive or more fun etc.
It doesn't necessarily have to factor in budget every time though because it is perfectly permissible to have, for example, a competitive budget deck. This would be a deck built to prioritise victory over everything else but would still have to make compromises in card choices due to financial concerns.
June 11, 2016 10:17 a.m.
Postmortal_Pop says... #10
The words "competitive commander" roll off my tongue like "Canadian hostility"
I agree with most that "competitive" commander is a deck that removes flavorful and fun choices for efficient choices. This also includes the commander itself. A few people I've met scraped their favorite colors in place of a deck that wins.
To be honest a great deck is fruitless if you actually play commander as it's multyplayer intention because everyone is going to gang up on the scariest member of the table.
June 11, 2016 12:02 p.m.
The money thing was clearly a joke.
And I didn't say some playgroups don't play "competitive" commander. I said it's counterintuitive and, as I understand the format, misses the entire point of its existence as a mostly casual, multiplayer game that lets everyone play and do well. Winning is a formality in this format.
June 11, 2016 12:33 p.m.
Maybe on the casual level. And that's totally fine. I love casual commander. But for me, a big part of Magic is playing as skillfully as I can, against others of same or greater skill. No matter if the deck is meant to fit a theme, is a "bulk rare" deck, or if it's optimized to win through to thee optimized decks, I would have fun. I like to win, and many competetive edh feel the same way. It doesn't mean if I don't win I'm salty. Playing a tight game against other players who are playing with the same mindset. Winning, to me, isn't a formality. It's the byproduct of playing to the best of your ability and coming out on top. playing cards at will and expecting my opponents to let it resolve in the name of "fun" is not as attractive to me as timing my spells and plays, fighting for any advantage. Edh is a flexible format, catering to all tastes and preferences. It's not yours to say that one person is playing it wrong or right.
June 11, 2016 1:08 p.m.
I'm not saying it's mine to say what's right or wrong. I'm not even saying your way is by default wrong. I'm saying it's counterintuitive to the format's intent and that pesters me.
June 11, 2016 2:01 p.m.
DERPLINGSUPREME says... #14
@kanokarob technically the format's intent was for a bunch of bored guys to role play as the original elder dragons :\
June 11, 2016 2:57 p.m.
Theoretically, a deck with 7 copies of Chancellor of the Dross is casual. If EDH wasn't meant to use some of the most efficient cards possible, they would be banned. As it is, most of the power nine are on the list, as well as cards like Demonic Attorney. People playing "competetive edh" are having fun, just like it was intended. They just do it in a different way. Doesn't seem so counterintuitive.
June 11, 2016 3:32 p.m.
sigh I can recognize when my arguments fall on deaf ears. Sorry for the intrusion.
June 11, 2016 3:47 p.m.
I am definitely a causally competitive edh player and deck builder. This is someone who finds joy in the challenge of winning a good game of edh, but goes out of their way to make sure that the decks being played are all evenly matched so everyone has fun.
I have been playing Magic since '95. My years of experience and natural tendency to build good decks pushes my creations into a competitive place. Plus I hate having cool cards rot in a binder. However right now I have 13 edh decks because I like to have appropriate deck options to play against any opponent I might find.
In one play group which I frequent that is slightly less powered, I wanted decks that were on the same level as everyone else. So I started building some decks that are more slow and durdley so it's more fun for everyone (including me, shooting fish in a barrel is not a sport). In another more competitive play group, I can play anything no matter what, and I still fit right in with all the other broken craziness at the table.
All that matters is that everyone enjoys the game while its being played...not what cards you use or don't use.
June 11, 2016 4:14 p.m.
DERPLINGSUPREME says... #18
@kanokarob no, we understand. you're just fundamentally wrong.
June 11, 2016 5 p.m.
Wolfsbane706 says... #20
Different strokes for different folks. Leave it at that.
June 11, 2016 5:19 p.m.
DERPLINGSUPREME says... #21
I'm talking specifically about how spending lots of money on a deck won't make it a powerful deck. you have to know how to play it and construct it as well.
June 11, 2016 5:47 p.m.
You missed the bit where I explicitly reminded everyone that my remark of $1000 or more was an intentional joke.
June 11, 2016 5:57 p.m.
Megalomania says... #23
Postmortal_Pop the only time a guy gets ganged on is if he has a competitive deck in a non-competitive group. In my experience, competitive groups are a mix of combo and stax decks. Sure there are aggro decks every now and then, but almost everyone plays combo so there isn't really that much reason to gang up on anyone.
I would also like to disagree with comments that say competitive play is less fun and more efficiency, consistency, etc. Remember that for some people, efficiency, consistency, etc., is fun. The challenge of coming up with a deck with these qualities in a singleton format is also considered fun for a lot of deckbuilders. Some guys would rather have spontaneity and randomness in their EDH games but if you're the only one doing this in a competitive group, then you become more of an odd guy in the game.
In short, "Fun" really depends on your group's appreciation of the game.
As for what is competitive, for me it is any deck which is able to impose its game plan quickly and consistently. This means combo decks winning from turn 3-6, stax decks setting up before turn 4, etc.
June 11, 2016 7:56 p.m.
DERPLINGSUPREME says... #24
@kanokarob that I did.
well played sir. Or more accurately, badly played, me.
i just took to "0" pile of a 5-0 Fact or Fiction
June 11, 2016 11:24 p.m.
shaistyone says... #25
To the competitive players, what is your experience like when you sit down at a casual game?
It seems like it would be pretty miserable for everyone..
June 12, 2016 11:26 a.m.
DERPLINGSUPREME says... #26
@shaistyone I personally carry around multiple decks, only 1 of which is competitive, 2 depending on how casual you normally are, so I just avoid playing them. there was 1 time, however, where everyone had tier 1 commanders out (zur, prossh, and damia) so I played The Gitrog Monster expecting to get rogged, but as it turns out, all the decks were just casual decks, so I just decided not to use my infinite and instead win off Centaur Vinecrasher, Titania, Protector of Argoth, and Worm Harvest.
June 12, 2016 11:30 a.m.
mathimus55 says... #27
I'm a pretty competitive player, I carry my 3 modern decks and 3 or so edh decks depending on what shows up. I have my Narset, Enlightened Master for my super competitive folks, Ezuri, Claw of Progress and Omnath, Locus of Rage for the multiplayer "typical" edh game and Sygg, River Guide(Merfolk tribal) and Alesha, Who Smiles at Death(bulk foil rares only) decks for my intro/super casual decks. Modern I only bring real decks though.
June 12, 2016 11:46 a.m.
mathimus55 says... #28
The main thing for me is I acknowledge and understand that the format means a great deal of different things to different people, and as a judge and ambassador for the game I try to make sure I have different types of people in mind when I come to play. If someone wants to throw down hardcore I love it, but if someone brings their "here are all my cards in a commander deck" deck then I can play with them and not completely ranch them and make them hate the game.
June 12, 2016 11:48 a.m.
As you've seen, OP, there's several definitions. I think the core of a competitive list are these two conditions:
The deck should be fully optimized. No direct upgrades to cards on your list should exist and there shouldn't be any fluff or amusing but inconsequential pet cards.
If your commander is important to your game plan, then they offer the best options for your game plan within their color identity.
You do not, however, need to be able to win by turn 5. You do, however, need to be able to disrupt anyone else who can combo out before you. This means that if your commander does not have blue in their color identity you had better be one of those players trying to combo out by turn 5, and you had better have a backup plan if/when your plan A is disrupted.
Realistically, this means that 99% of all Voltron or creature strategies that don't win on the spot will never be truly "competitive." While "Turn 5 or bust" is not true, you simply can't be tapping out to play cards that don't meaningfully affect the game state until they attack on your next turn. Compare a fair creature strategy to Derevi decks, which are creature-heavy, but which win by preventing everyone else from ever getting to really play the game so that they have time for the slow beatdown plan to see the distinction being made here.
Finally, it's not required that the deck cost $1000 or more to build. On the other hand, any deck optimized to meet the first point above will often end up leading to a deck costing at least that much. Optimizing your land base alone, unless you're mono-color, will cost several hundred dollars already.
June 12, 2016 9:21 p.m.
shaistyone - I bring a range of decks to FNM, from Patron of the Orochi ramp+stompy at one end to a fully tuned Meren of Clan Nel Toth or Derevi, Empyrial Tactician at the other. Having been on both sides of the "brought an overpowered deck to the table" situation, it's not fun for anyone to play when there's a single tuned deck at the table. This has only been a problem at my LGS when someone shows up for the first time, claims to have a good deck with a strong commander, but we then find out a few turns in that it's actually a work in progress... but everyone else at the table has been pulling out all the stops to deal with this "dangerous new threat."
On the other hand, it can be fun for everyone if your deck is only slightly stronger than the rest of the table and you warn them in advance this may be the case. The game will turn into Archenemy and that keeps things in check. Depending on your color identity you can also intentionally hold back and play politically for the fun of a more interactive game.
June 12, 2016 9:36 p.m.
"Competitive" to me has always meant decks that people take to GP side events and other EDH tournaments, rather than the run-of-the-mill kitchen table decks. I took my best cmdr deck to one of those tournaments once to see what it would be like. I lost every single game. What I had thought was competitive couldn't hold a candle to real "competitive" decks.
The difference I think is not just finding a theme for your deck ( this is my tokens-sacrifice deck) but actually forming a game plan and then having multiple ways to execute on that plan efficiently (I will control the board with Grave Pact effects while assembling one of multiple infinite combos), while being resilient to disruption and having ways to deal with opponents' win conditions.
While I've been able to improve my "best" deck to be more tournament-worthy, it's a little too aggressive for my regular Magic group. Fortunately I've a plethora of other EDH decks of varying power levels that I enjoy playing as well.
iLikeDirt says... #2
The definition really varies from player to player and playgroup to playgroup. I personally find competitive to mean you can consistently win any time before turn 5 through disruption, either before going off or during.
That being said, I've come across groups that would call winning before turn 8 competitive, it really depends on the group you're playing with.
June 11, 2016 2:13 a.m.