EDH vs cEDH
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Jan. 30, 2020, 6:07 p.m. by DrukenReaps
The idea that cEDH and EDH are separate or should be separated is beginning to really annoy me... It relies too much on the idea of power level being something that is concrete rather than fluid.
At my current table my decks are pretty strong and I might label them at a 7 or so (assuming 1 to 10 with 10 being the best). If I sit down at another table my '7' could turn out to be a '3'.
Do you guys put much faith in power level? Do you seriously think there could be a separate format made specifically for competitive play? What ends up being the cut off? 8.675 out of 10?
If you don't use power level to determine the difference are there specific cards? How many of those kinds of cards do you ban before you are happy with the result?
I realize this is more of a rant than anything useful... Sorry about that.
Wolfsbane706 says... #2
Group Hug is interactive. Locking down creatures instead of destroying them outright is also interactive. Fogs are interactive. Basically, if you're playing a response to something, it's interactive.
February 2, 2020 12:57 a.m.
That kind of wall of text is what I was hoping to avoid. As Wolfsbane706 concisely states -- with the inclusion of punishment cards. It feels that the most competitive philosophies don't include this wider spectrum of interaction, only the most efficient of 1:1 removals or boardwipes (direct interaction)... Now where this Turn0 philosophy gets shot is with more midrange, responsive, & indirect interaction. I've seen several Marchesa decks beat Turn2 decks.... but they are built in this fluid, response-based way such that you could call them "competitive" but you can't really put them in a TurnXYZ class.
I've heard it verbatim so many times: "that card won't help you win" - "I don't like playing with people who don't play to win" just because it is indirect or relies on politics... or the rest of the deck, then I somehow end up winning. Goofy stuff like: Evolutionary Escalation, Oath of Druids, Captive Audience, Frenzied Fugue. Several of which are either exchange-based or cause a cascade of indirect interaction. All cards with Panache. In response to your competitive Force of Will I will yawn. "Competitive" or "win-now" decks certainly have "interaction" but it is so narrow in scope compared to what the game has to offer. The challenge lies in being a champion of the pet cards & still managing to beat high-end, narrow interactions. & DrukenReaps you aren't wrong, I am a little dismissive of those 2 interactions, probably because I do tend to get-wrecked by the same darn suite of cards - but I just look at that as a challenge to be overcome :) - without "doing as the Romans do" to overcome them.
Gidgetimer - condescension is a response to feeling patronized -- Being told that a narrow host of interactions is how the game works, then having how the game works explained to me. Then being asked to go on a defensive with a list of cards.
Wall of text not avoided.
February 2, 2020 9:40 a.m.
Shorter clarification on the thread topic: it is really difficult to rank "competitive" deck scales d/t philosophy. Some philosophies are not "win now" or "win direct/goldfish/in a vacuum" & they rely on opponent strategy as to when they win. They cannot be adequately placed on a scale because they play up to the level of the competition.
February 2, 2020 9:47 a.m.
GhostChieftain says... #5
When you say that the interaction is narrow in scope are you trying to say that it is a small section of the cards available that can be used in commander, or is it saying that removal and counterspells only get rid of things in few situations? The things that are played in the strongest decks are only played because they can interact with the widest variety of things while being mana efficient. The other cards that could be considered interaction have much more narrow uses, i.e. if someone plays oath of druids it doesn't stop most other players strategies and in fact turboes out things like reanimator decks and gitrog combos. Honestly getting wrecked by the same suite of cards multiple times just goes to show exactly how powerful having good interaction is
February 2, 2020 10:34 a.m.
A little bit of both (it is a narrow sweet of cards), except it was never about the amount of cards/situations these strategies interact with. More that it is a narrow TYPE of interaction, yes it interacts with a large host of cards; but is still typically exclusively, removal or counters, the rest of the deck typically is comprised of various tutors & game-enders. Interaction doesn't have to be subtractive or one-sided to be competitive, it just sounds weird to conventional wisdom & the majority playstyle. & decks with more indirect & opponent-based interactions can be competitively viable, but difficult to rank on a more Goldfish/turn-based scale... Sure a good amount of decks utilizing conventional wisdom can be...but this dismisses more unconventional, yet "competitive" playstyles; This is my opinion on why a good part of competitive scales are difficult to apply universally.
February 2, 2020 11:41 a.m.
GhostChieftain says... #7
What about graveyard exile effects a la Deathrite Shaman or Rest in Peace? Those are pretty common in competitive lists. And we play things like Aven Mindcensor and Cursed Totem that affect how our opponents can play. Opus theif lists run as many Wheel of Fortune effects as they can reasonably jam and I would say that is interacting in the way you are speaking about. Even extra turns spells could have a reasonable case made to say that they are interactimg with the table by changing the turn order temporarily. Najeela can interact by making more combat steps and dealing more damage to opponents, even without making them infinite. Kenrith with his ton of abilities can make all sorts of things happen to interact. Brago bounces his own permanents that make it so a creature cant attack or is exiled or any number of degenerate things one can bounce. Oona can mill players straight to exile and get attackers out of doing so. Blood pod decks toolbox out hatebears. There are so many great ways to interact in a competitive environment. Not all are the same, it is just currently being homogenized by the near unstoppable sheer power that is sushi hulk. #banflash
February 2, 2020 12:45 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #8
So my ISP is being crap and a lost a whole thing I typed up. Thank you Wolfsbane706 and Gleeock for providing me with a few examples of what other things people consider to be interaction. I still find it unfair to characterize decks that contain a lot of cards that interact as "non-interactive" just because one prefers a different style, but at least can understand what other styles of interaction people use.
February 2, 2020 3:07 p.m.
GhostChieftain - I'll be darned... Guess I don't know it all. Those are pretty solid examples of more diversified interactions found in more "competitive" decks. I think you took the homogeny idea right out of my head though. I'm probably looking through the lens of what I typically see the most at tables when talking about the categorized cEDH decks. Najeela (which I see plenty of) has been a bit of an oddball. & as I was leaning to earlier, I think designers have been using all sorts of creativity to make new design spaces viably competitive. Look at Grismold, the Dreadsower, token gifting interaction would have never kept up with the big boys before, now it's an option.
As for the Oath of Druids example, it's all part of more gamble-focused playstyle. I had to call-out a buddy who did the ole' "that's not fun! Why would you play to not win" when I was enabling the Jodah player next-in-order to slap down a turn 4 Timmy-titan. Then I showed him the Thieves' Auction in my hand. Just another philosophy of gameplay that has a wild Turn-wincon variance & would be hard to rank how competitive it truly is: if you are scaling by turn-wincon consistency & efficient one-sided direct interaction then it shows pretty unfavorably. If ranking by resilience & destabilization, then it is tops.
February 2, 2020 5:21 p.m.
GhostChieftain says... #10
There is actually a very wide variety of decks in the realm of competitive with so many great interactive pieces and a variety of win cons. I am glad we have had this conversation to introduce you to the variety of options available in our format that are considered competitive.
I will post some lists of decks so you can get a look at some of the interactions in other decks. Maybe even implement a few if you like.
Lincoln Commander league database (this is my local league, not all are competitive)
Gidgetimer says... #1
You see, that is the response I always get. I try to have a discussion and figure out what people mean by "interaction" if not removal (interaction with the board) and counter magic (interaction with the stack) as I understand it to be. They then provide no insight as to what they mean, and try to condescend to me hoping that by acting superior people will assume that the other person is in the right. Well I'll be your Huckleberry in the condescension department.
If you had the reading comprehension of a 13 year old (the card packs to do say 13+ after all) you would see that I said nothing of "competitive" interaction spells. Avatar of Woe and Counterlash exist after all and are interaction and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks either card is competitive.
I simply observed that I didn't understand what people meant by interaction if not what I call interaction. When you decided to simply say "they exist" instead of taking a rather obvious hint I simplified it to two words and a question mark so that it was unmistakable what my intent with the post was. You still prove unable or unwilling to provide me with a single example of what is interaction if not counters and removal. Let's add discard, mill, and opponent deck manipulation to the list that I understand to be interaction as well. They are more niche and not really viable outside of dedicated decks, so they don't enter the discussion as much.
You also make the mistake of assuming that I play primarily "competitively". I am actually one of the die hard "EDH is, in fact, a casual format" players. (I know the arguments that people try to make to the contrary. I just think they are flawed as is the common thinking that "casual=low power and competitive=high power". It is another discussion that I am willing to get into if someone wants to actually discuss and not talk at/condescend to me.)
As I said in my very early post in this thread, the state of discourse surrounding EDH, and in fact all of MTG, is poor. People will not discuss or consensus build, they just want to parrot things they have heard and agree with hoping that this makes them seem intelligent. True intelligence comes not from being always right, but from learning from when you are wrong. And that is what I am trying to do here. Learn what others consider to be interaction.
So to not only Gleeock, but anyone who cares to stay civil and explain what they mean outside of the things I have listed above:
Besides removal and counters, what do you consider to be interaction?
Since I have now ranted for a good deal instead of just complaining about the state of discourse as I did in my first response, I should probably speak to the original post.
I put no faith in power level, no faith in "75% decks", and no faith in go/nogo checks of if X card is in the deck. As many people have said before in this thread; a turn 0 discussion is the best way to coordinate all players' expectations. The things I like to discuss include but are not limited to: basic archetype (combo, aggro, control etc.); median goldfish win turn; best goldfish win turn; consistency; level of interaction; and resilience. If you haven't played the deck enough to know all of these things, best guesses are absolutely acceptable. If you are unwilling to give this information it is probably best if we not play together.
February 2, 2020 12:27 a.m.