What do you do to make edh as fun as possible?

[Tortuga]

Basically, what do you do either through deck-building, playstyle, and/or politicking to make the game more entertaining for yourself and/or everyone involved and what do you think are the biggest obstacles preventing people from having fun?

This is an opinion and the following posts, which I hope there will be many, are also opinions. It is fine to disagree with them. Just remember that whatever you believe is also an opinion and you should respect others’ opinions as you would have them respect yours.

I'll go first.

I enjoy pitting my overall strategy against my opponents' strategies. What does this really mean? Partially, it means that I follow a strategy based on what deck I use that is generally agnostic to the strategies that my opponents are using. In a given game I will advance my board position following my strategy without actively denying my opponent(s) the ability to do the same. I am not saying that do not interact with my opponents at all, I am saying that in a "fun" game I do not actively deny them the ability to participate in the game. This means no mind twist, myojin of the gay-gay, time stretch, mass land destruction, hard locks, etc. (I know some of my decks violate this, we'll get to that later). Decks that actively disrupt their opponents, and deny them basic resources to play the game may be the most powerful and likely to win; however, they will be the most unrewarding to play, and least fun to play against in my opinion. It gets worse when everyone is playing this type of deck as well. How much fun does everyone have when their resources are constantly attacked, no interesting or deviant strategy is present, and potentially one threat hitting the board will be what ends the game?

Good Examples:

Exhibit A (Aggro Example): Rafiq deck, interacts almost exclusively with cards on the battlefield. The deck has no discard, no land destruction and recently the last counterspell (mystic snake) was taken out of the deck as it did not fit with the deck's overall strategy. This deck simply follows its strategy of playing Rafiq and following up with supporting permanents. The deck is good, but would adding more disruption make it better? Probably. Would it make it more fun? No. By not playing counterspells and other disruption, I am not reducing the interaction between my opponents and I, in fact, I am encouraging it as I allow my opponents to interact with the board.

Exhibit B (Combo Example): Ertai deck, generates masses of tokens and loves to draw cards. The endgame strategy is to go infinite or nearly infinite with token generators winning in a variety of ways, day of the dragons (make tokens into dagrons), blade of the bloodchief (sac tokens for power), swinging with the tokens themselves, et cetera. The combos and synergies in this deck are plentiful but fragile; the deck requires a lot of infrastructure to actually win. It focuses much more internally than externally, allowing other players to develop their strategies as well.

Bad Examples:

Exhibit C (Control Example): Kiku deck, interacts with the board in so much as to deny opponents creatures or resources. Wins through pure card advantage and reducing the opponents’ abilities to react to whatever threats the deck decides to use to finish the game. The deck plays cards like Myojin of the gay-gay, curse of the cabal, crucible+strip mine, mind sludge, sorin (used to put people to 10), and more. More often than not the deck wins in completely non-interactive ways such as mass exsanguinate, or playing curse of the cabal following with myojin and blightsteel colossus (previously emrakul).

Exhibit D (Aggro Example): Godo deck, this deck would fall in the same category as Rafiq deck if it weren’t for its large and varied land destruction subtheme. Perhaps mass land destruction can be alright when everyone is affected equally or maybe it is never acceptable for fun games as it stifles individuals’ abilities to play their decks. Regardless, when the destruction is designed to be as one sided as possible, as is the case with Godo deck, you are actively preventing your opponents from playing the game at all. Cards like ruination, impending disaster, keldon firebombers, almost arbitrarily remove opponents’ ability to play the game.

Exhibit E (I <3 Chingali): Jhoira deck, suspend Ulamog, suspend Apocalypse/Decree of Annihilation/Obliterate. That is all.

Why does this style of play and deckbuilding make games fun?
People build decks with ideas of what they want to do with those decks in mind. They add synergies and themes while imagining how they will play out in a real game. With this style of deckbuilding and play, everyone gets at least an opportunity to play their deck as imagined. Additionally, I feel that more interesting interactions take place in these types of games.

What do I think is the biggest obstacle to having fun?
Some people prefer to be as competitive as possible, they may enjoy the type of game where resources are limited and disruption is prevalent, or they may just have the most fun when they win, and that is fine. I am not suggesting that these people represent any sort of problem. The real problem is that when these people play with the type of people I mentioned before, the two types of people cannot simultaneously have fun while playing in the same game (under most circumstances). The competitive type player may have fun but the other type of player will almost certainly not enjoy the game. The best solution that I see is for these two groups of people to try, whenever possible, to play with likeminded individuals.

[Deleted]

So we need a league or two.

[lightspvp]

This idea is the same in just about any game. In a strategy game, there are people who want to build an entire empire across the map before a final confrontation (aka nr20), and there are people who actively harass the opponent to gain an upper hand. In HoN/LoL/DotA, there are people who farm all game and others who actively deny and harass. In MMORPGs, there are people who have fun farming money/gold and building their items up, and others who simply like crushing other people. Even in games like pokemon, there are people who try to set up cute combos and use their cutest and fluffiest pokemon, and others who have no problem sending out a death machine that instantly one-shots every imperfect-stat pokemon. Of course the person who is on the receiving end of this harassment in any game will not have fun.
Naturally, the people who want to have 2-hour games of giganto-army clashing and cute pokemon will end up playing with other people who want the same. Simply put, people should just play with people who have similar playstyles or decks.

[Kyros Pyralis]

Mar 24, 2011 16:35:07 GMT -5 @lightspvp said:

<snip>

Simply put, people should just play with people who have similar playstyles or decks.

I think what Tortuga is saying is that we have very little choice in the matter. People will often insinuate themselves into games, bringing decks that don't entirely fit.

This goes both ways, for both high-power and low-power decks. To put forth an example: Chingali, Tortuga and I decided to play a game with some of our "not entirely nice" decks. Nicole joined in with a very casual deck. We did our best not to target her, but the disrepancy in power levels cause her deck to be neutered simply by the collateral effects.

This scenario is not fun for anyone, as she did not get to play and we felt bad for playing our decks the way they were built. It is not entirely different from the person with the Zur/Rofellos/Arcum deck playing in a casual game.


As for making the game fun, I prefer to have a game where everyone builds and the players that pull ahead are cut back, but not ground into the dust by the 3-5 other players. Not everything needs retaliation; sometimes you have to understand that your deck needs to be disrupted (my graveyard being removed, someone's engine being disassembled) and shouldn't hold a grudge. The best games are wars of attrition (a small amount of resource deprivation is acceptable), players shouldn't sit down to a game knowing that they will have to use every resource they have just to stay in the game, without being able to impact the other players.

[tehwerr]

the problem is this will sort of divide the club up. and some times your friend (not mentioning any names here) who is the uber-denier. doesn't have any one to play with so you are forced into a game with him. ya know taking a bullet for the team or some such. I would put it less blatantly but that's what it feels like: getting shot.

for all of my decks, not just EDH, they have some specific goal to them. yes, some of them are built to deny recourses in one way or another. but others are built to do something entirely different. for instance my deck which it's goal is to give recourses. whether or not I win or lose is irrelivant if I do that cool thing my deck is supposed to do. though a lot of the time it's cause and effect.

good example: patron of the moon: my game is validated if I can draw 15-30 in a single turn. also laugh at how bad moonfolk are. I originally built the deck with no particular win condition other than "If I got lots of cards in hand, eon chronicler is really big! herp derp"
but I recently been noticing several infinite combos that ended up in there without be meaning too. I'm considering taking them out.

bad example: garza zol: what the fuck does this deck do anyway, it wasn't that bad of deck regardless? currently out of commission because I didn't like it. by the way does any one have any black cards that make it so that you end up controlling something that isn't yours. anything will do

[Mike]

I don't know if I actively try to do this, but I tend to like to place very large restrictions on myself and then build the deck to be as good as possible within that restriction. (Example: Kiki-Jiki forces Mono Red, Karn forces mono-can't-even-play-basic-lands). A deck that is built around its general tends to play more bad cards that promote an exponential game state while a deck that rarely remembers that it can cast its general is more likely to play a meaner game.

Decks I play tend to play out like this:
1) Get ~100 mana
2) Try to kill everyone before they take away my 100 mana

This leaves a lot of the process of winning to the actual gameplay, since you need to time your spells and politic correctly in order to prevent your opponents from stopping you.

Strategies I frown upon:
1) Strategies that focus on hurting just 1 player at a time.
2) Effects that can only be beaten by counterspells, since counterspells are inherently bad in multiplayer (unless you're a dirty combo player).

Otherwise, multiplayer tends to self correct (if the decks in play are at least on the same order of magnitude).

[Tortuga]

I just wanted to add that when I differentiated between the two groups of players by calling one group "competitive", I did not mean to say that the other group was not or could not be competitive but that it makes a good distinction as the "competitive" group will not limit themselves in any way that affects their chances of winning.

Also, I endorse the competitive pokemon comparison.

[Mike]

Oh, I forgot the most important part. You should enjoy the company of the people you play with. That goes a long way. I don't mind as much when Max infinite combos me with Arcum, because Max is awesome. True story.

[lightspvp]

I usually play my weaker decks (slivers/rafiq) when playing simply because playing solitaire isn't all that exciting.

[Kyros Pyralis]

Mar 24, 2011 17:17:54 GMT -5 Mike said:

Oh, I forgot the most important part. You should enjoy the company of the people you play with. That goes a long way. I don't mind as much when Max infinite combos me with Arcum, because Max is awesome. True story.

I wasn't talking about Max's Arcum deck. That is all.

[Kino]

I tend to view my decks as being along the lines of Mike's description. Uril is an enchantress deck, Reaper King EDH plays every single crappy scarecrow ever printed, Lorthos is a long way from the best available blue general. I think a big part of it is that none of them actively take steps to ruin everyone else's game. There's a big difference between playing path to exile and Spin Into Myth. One is a good utility removal spell, the other has a very good chance of screwing over a deck built around its general. Planar Cleansing is powerful, but frequently a way to deal with problem cards and large armies. Obliterate is akin to casting Coalition Victory with Pact of Negation backup.

I feel it comes down to intention. I try to build my decks well, so thta they can win and can deal with threats, but I try not to play things that screw people over. To this end I decided not to cut Kozilek and Ulamog form my decks because all they do is screw one person really hard. It's why I don't kill land with Reaper King. Painter's Servant is in the deck despite being banned, but he's needed to fulfill the every scarecrow requirement, and I left out anything he combos with. In play I'll take pains to not use him if someone does have something he'd make go berserk, but this is rare. It's a matter of intention.

[fredcoleaa]

What do you do either through deck-building, playstyle, and/or politicking to make the game more entertaining for yourself and/or everyone involved and what do you think are the biggest obstacles preventing people from having fun?

In deckbuilding I do what I find interesting and not boring to me. I like building good decks and dislike building bad decks. A thing I find interesting is to take a general that is strategically bad and build a good deck out of it. I find the challenge interesting. Another is to give myself specific restrictions, creativity thrives on restriction.

A thing I do in politicking is to stay out of other people's business and only act in my own rational self interest. For example, Player A and Player B are going at it, I'm not going to interfere unless it benefits me. Altruism has no place in Magic. So, I'm not going to wipe the board bc I think it'll be fun when it holds no strategic benefit for me. I'm not going to save some one unless it benefits me.

Does this make me a bad person? Not at all. It's really a case of me following the Golden Rule. So don't do that above defined shit to me PLEASE. And I'm not going to fault someone for making the right play if its in their rational self interest. Truthfully, "The Right Play," if you goal is winning (which it should be) is to always act in your rational self interest.

A thing I don't do is play fun suckers. A fun sucker is something that removes other people's ability to play their deck. This doesn't mean I won't go after people, its Magic, not a church picnic. If I'm attacking you and your deck collapses like a Chinese motorcycle, then you didn't build it correctly.

What it means is I'm not going to play land destruction and I'm not going to play discard, unless they're part of other cards, usually utility cards.

For example, I'd play Desert Twister (ffs, why wouldn't you?) but I won't play Armageddon.

I'm also not going to play specific, targeted discard. For example MIND TWIST (you know who you are). I'm not gonna use Duress or Hymn. I will, however, use Syphon Mind because it doesn't wreck people.

The third thing I'm not gonna play is infinate combos or locks. Both are fun suckers bc they keep people from being able to play their decks. I'll make two exceptions to this:
1. If it's actually finite and easily disruptable. (Niv-Mizzit and Curiosity, finate, and easily disruptable.)
2. It's a lock, but its hard to do. I've built a couple of Atogatog EDH decks (they usually don't last long since they're so bad) and I've sought to include every Atog (if you're playing Atogatog, no reason to be discriminating about bad creatures), including Chronotog. The only reason to ever play with Chronotog is Stasis. So I've included one Stasis. No reason to include Stasis and Chronotog w/o Kismet, so I'd include a Kismet and a Frozen Aether. This is easily disruptable, not the main plan of the deck, and if you lose to it, you deserve to lose.



Good Examples:

A couple of examples:

Two years ago, on St. Pat's day 2009, I wanted to build a mono green EDH deck, and I decided to use a Homelands general to make it interesting. The result is my Autumn Willow deck, which I've had together, regularly updating since then.

I have an Angus McKenzie deck with all pre-Ice Age cards. I wanted a challenge (and using the pre-IA card pool definatly is one).

I built a mono black vampire control deck with Baron Sengir as the general. There's better generals in mono black, even for generals. But I did it that way for style points.

I have a Szadek deck. I built it as a challenge. The whole point is to mill people out. It's 66% harder in EDH than in 60 card casual. It's also a horrible strategy for multi player. I built it as a challenge to myself to make it work. (And I have, fear it.)

Blue Braids - I built this because I wanted to build a big blue deck. She's inherently disadventageous in EDH because everybody gets free stuff before I do, if she even lives that long. I also got props from somebody once for not doing the predictable thing of adding Eldrazis. Of course not, they're fun suckers.

I built a Ghost Council EDH. For two reasons:
1. I didn't have a b/w EDH deck.
2. The card is unusual, an odd choice for a general, and begs to have a deck built around it.

I have to cut this short, but I have one additional note:

Mike said he doesn't play counters in multi player bc its a bad strategery. True enough. However, I do play with counters because I don't want to lose to dumb things. There are certain insane, dumb game changers that can only happen if no one has a counter.

[Eff]

I guess it's good that I waited to post because Fred saved me the time. I feel pretty much exactly the same way on every point that he made. Building interesting decks, creative challenges based upon restrictions, and especially the part about playing with winning as your goal.

While others do not feel this way (and have said so in this thread), I think it's disruptive to play a game just to watch your deck work, with no intention of following a plan towards winning the game. It's just not fun to pull off a win solely because there was some other player being totally random who happened to help you out more than they helped your opponents, and it sucks a lot more to lose in that way. No matter how much restrictive challenge or goofing off was involved in constructing the deck, I'd like people to play the deck as though their only goal was to win.

As far as LD and discard are concerned, I disagree a little bit but it's rooted in what I see as a fundamental problem in the format. Since it is multiplayer, singleton, and starts at 40 life, it's a format completely dominated by cards with long-term payoffs. Even cards in hand and lands in play are resources that need to stick around for a long time in order to pay off. EDH decks don't bother to play cards that are only immediately useful, like cheap efficient creatures that swing a few times before being outclassed. For this reason, I don't see LD/discard as stopping someone from playing their deck, I see people building decks that are easily stopped by LD/discard because they're filled with card that favor a long game with plentiful resources—which is what the format encourages.

Mar 24, 2011 17:17:54 GMT -5 Mike said:

Oh, I forgot the most important part. You should enjoy the company of the people you play with. That goes a long way. I don't mind as much when Max infinite combos me with Arcum, because Max is awesome. True story.

Also, this.

[Kiki]

I think it's disruptive to play a game just to watch your deck work, with no intention of following a plan towards winning the game. It's just not fun to pull off a win solely because there was some other player being totally random who happened to help you out more than they helped your opponents, and it sucks a lot more to lose in that way. No matter how much restrictive challenge or goofing off was involved in constructing the deck, I'd like people to play the deck as though their only goal was to win.

As far as LD and discard are concerned, I disagree a little bit but it's rooted in what I see as a fundamental problem in the format. Since it is multiplayer, singleton, and starts at 40 life, it's a format completely dominated by cards with long-term payoffs. Even cards in hand and lands in play are resources that need to stick around for a long time in order to pay off. EDH decks don't bother to play cards that are only immediately useful, like cheap efficient creatures that swing a few times before being outclassed. For this reason, I don't see LD/discard as stopping someone from playing their deck, I see people building decks that are easily stopped by LD/discard because they're filled with card that favor a long game with plentiful resources—which is what the format encourages.

Also, I don't like games boiling down to: "O look, I have a fatty, and no one else has removal-- I guess I win." Its more unfun for me to be on the side with the fatty. I'm somewhat disappointed if, after 3 or 4 turns, no one has found a way to kill my [insert problematic permanent here]. I'm perfectly ok with the inclusion of mass land D within edh decks. I think it helps shift the meta away from Bombs&CardAdvantage.dek

In edh, everything below 5 (sometimes 6) mana is early game. I think its good to encourage people to play a few early drops and whatnot.

[fredcoleaa]

Mar 27, 2011 11:32:07 GMT -5 Kiki said:

Also, I don't like games boiling down to: "O look, I have a fatty, and no one else has removal-- I guess I win." Its more unfun for me to be on the side with the fatty. I'm somewhat disappointed if, after 3 or 4 turns, no one has found a way to kill my [insert problematic permanent here]. I'm perfectly ok with the inclusion of mass land D within edh decks. I think it helps shift the meta away from Bombs&CardAdvantage.dek

In edh, everything below 5 (sometimes 6) mana is early game. I think its good to encourage people to play a few early drops and whatnot.

The thing about EDH is you still have to build a good deck. I get annoyed when my opponents build back decks too. If everyone died to me because no one had a Terror, I find a win like that unsatisifying.

So, yes, please include early game stuff. Even if its just Signets or land search. If you have to wait until your fifth land drop to play anything in your deck, please build a different deck.

[fredcoleaa]

That sounds really dickish. What I mean to say is:
If you have to wait until your fifth turn land drop to play anything in your deck, please come talk to one of us about how to build a deck.

[DazBoot]

I disagree. If you are going to build a deck that doesn't do anything until turn 5, please expect your deck to be slow and understand why you will sometimes lose games because your opponent moves faster than you.

That is one thing that I think people are misinterpreting a lot here. There is no "wrong" in EDH. The "official" EDH site painstakingly clear that almost everything on the site is "suggested". There is only appropriate and inappropriate, which is to be determined by the group.

[tehwerr]

If by "slow" you mean "I'm not running sol ring, mana crypt and mana vault in all my EDH decks" type of acceleration then yes.

[toastytoast78]

What do I do to make the game as fun as possible? I agree with a lot of what's been said above--the game is the most fun when everyone has a chance to do their thing. To this end, I try to limit what I remove. If it's not a ticking clock and I don't derive any benefit from its being destroyed, I leave it alone. When I need something destroyed for my own benefit but there's nothing that really warrants it, I'll go for tokens and less important stuff.

I also tend not to try to win at the first opportunity. I like to mess around and see as much of my deck as I can, even if I'm holding the cards that spell out victory in my hand for several turns. I have fun competing against the mono-red deck for the largest hand size--and losing. I have fun milling myself out. I have fun trying to keep the game as balanced as possible.

The best example of this, I think, is my Karona deck. It likes to play Karona and then watch everyone beat each other to death with her. It inspires plenty of politicking, and though it can backfire on me easily, I have lots of fun every time I play it.

What I don't like is to see someone completely cut out of the game. Land destruction, excessive discard/removal, and just plain getting mana screwed can all do this. The first two can be prevented by moderation. I'm not going to suggest that people don't play land D or removal at all, because there are plenty of things, including some lands, that beg to be blown up the second they hit the field. However, confining the destruction so that it only hits what needs to be hit is the key, at least in my opinion. As for discard, I don't play it, but I can agree that along with couterspells it has its use--stopping things that can't be stopped otherwise, not eliminating someone's hand entirely.

This is all just my opinion, but it's the way I most enjoy the game.

[DazBoot]

Mar 27, 2011 14:50:07 GMT -5 toastytoast78 said:

I also tend not to try to win at the first opportunity. I like to mess around and see as much of my deck as I can, even if I'm holding the cards that spell out victory in my hand for several turns. I have fun competing against the mono-red deck for the largest hand size--and losing. I have fun milling myself out. I have fun trying to keep the game as balanced as possible

I will agree with this whole heartedly. I don't do it all the time, but it's fun to every so often just go: I wonder what I can do. My past (successful) attempts:

Making a 5120/5120 Chameleon Colossus, swinging, and before damage sacing it to Momentus Fall....

Having Vincent take a creature (I think it was a Meglanoth or something) from me using Telemin Performance when I was playing his Mayael deck. Then me in turn jumping through hoops (Including a bit of mid-game trading) to in turn take control of every single on of his permanents.....

Drawing the rest of my deck with a 20+/20+ double striking Cold Eyed Selkie...

Needing to use my Dark Depths to kill Matt, even when I have all three legendary Eldrazi in play....

(Etc)

[Deleted]

Mar 27, 2011 14:50:07 GMT -5 toastytoast78 said:

However, confining the destruction so that it only hits what needs to be hit is the key, at least in my opinion.

Agreed. For me, one example of this is that even if someone is giving several players large boosts that they themselves might use for something strong or crazy through something like Rites of Flourishing, Font of Mythos, HIVE MIND, or Extraplanar Lens, I will go for destroying the Wastelands, Cabal Coffers, Sol Rings, Mana Crypts, Titans, and Skullclamps that are on the battlefield instead.

[Kiki]

Mar 27, 2011 16:52:21 GMT -5 @osieorb18 said:

Mar 27, 2011 14:50:07 GMT -5 toastytoast78 said:

However, confining the destruction so that it only hits what needs to be hit is the key, at least in my opinion.

Agreed. For me, one example of this is that even if someone is giving several players large boosts that they themselves might use for something strong or crazy through something like Rites of Flourishing, Font of Mythos, HIVE MIND, or Extraplanar Lens, I will go for destroying the Wastelands, Cabal Coffers, Sol Rings, Mana Crypts, Titans, and Skullclamps that are on the battlefield instead.

That just seems like poor play. Whether casually or not, destroying the most powerful permanent is probably the best play.

In order, i would put from most dangerous to least dangerous:
extraplanar lens & cabal coffers (these are tied as they both effectively double the mana of the monocolored deck using them), skullclamp (with the right creatures),depends upon the titan, hivemind, font of mythos, rites of flourishing, wasteland (don't bother killing when its untapped and can hit one of your lands), sol ring, mana crypt.

That said, while sol ring may be the best card in terms of utility per mana cost, once the card is on the battlefield, you have to look at how the card effects game state once its in play.

When you kill sol ring, you are killing mana. The same thing is true when you are killing extraplanar lens. The only real difference to me is that extraplanar lens makes a lot more mana.

[Deleted]

Mar 27, 2011 23:23:56 GMT -5 Kiki said:

That just seems like poor play. Whether casually or not, destroying the most powerful permanent is probably the best play.

And this is why people think that none of your decks nor your playstyle are casual. Because they obviously aren't.

[fredcoleaa]

Mar 28, 2011 0:18:43 GMT -5 @osieorb18 said:

Mar 27, 2011 23:23:56 GMT -5 Kiki said:

That just seems like poor play. Whether casually or not, destroying the most powerful permanent is probably the best play.

And this is why people think that none of your decks nor your playstyle are casual. Because they obviously aren't.

I'm sorry, as much as I dislike the kid, I have to disagree with him. Casual play and bad play are not synonymous. He is fully in the right if he makes the correct play. I cannot fault him for acting in his own rational self interest in the game.

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2011 8:38:16 GMT -5 fredcoleaa said:

Mar 28, 2011 0:18:43 GMT -5 @osieorb18 said:

And this is why people think that none of your decks nor your playstyle are casual. Because they obviously aren't.

I'm sorry, as much as I dislike the kid, I have to disagree with him. Casual play and bad play are not synonymous. He is fully in the right if he makes the correct play. I cannot fault him for acting in his own rational self interest in the game.

Ok, that wasn't the best way for me to put it. My point is that sometimes the most unfun permanent out there isn't the strongest one.

[tehwerr]

that's one of the problems with sol ring is it's crazyly powerful to an unfair extent. but if you destroy it you just got the short end of the stick.

also I agree with toasty. even though there are situations that apply to what he said that I do not agree with. there is a such thing as leaving things well enough alone. while it is true that it is important to destroy dangerous permanents. it is not important to end someone's game by destroying something not threatening. you know what the wonderful part of destroy spells is? you can choose when to play them. for instance even though it is strictly a worse play if you opponent extra-planared his 3rd land you could wait until he gets like 6 mana before you knock him down to 3. so that they aren't just left out of the game entirely. even though if you were interested only in winning the smartest choice is to get rid of any competition possible. but then again why isn't everyone just running the best generals (Zur, Wrexial etc) and having all the most brutal cards. we know that if you guys were so inclined you could build a deck that just breaks the format and just kills everyone quickly and goes infinite quickly, and stops people from playing quickly. but you guys don't have decks like that. obviously winning isn't the only thing on your mind.

[Eff]

Mar 28, 2011 9:33:16 GMT -5 tehwerr said:

also I agree with toasty. even though there are situations that apply to what he said that I do not agree with. there is a such thing as leaving things well enough alone. while it is true that it is important to destroy dangerous permanents. it is not important to end someone's game by destroying something not threatening. you know what the wonderful part of destroy spells is? you can choose when to play them. for instance even though it is strictly a worse play if you opponent extra-planared his 3rd land you could wait until he gets like 6 mana before you knock him down to 3. so that they aren't just left out of the game entirely. even though if you were interested only in winning the smartest choice is to get rid of any competition possible. but then again why isn't everyone just running the best generals (Zur, Wrexial etc) and having all the most brutal cards. we know that if you guys were so inclined you could build a deck that just breaks the format and just kills everyone quickly and goes infinite quickly, and stops people from playing quickly. but you guys don't have decks like that. obviously winning isn't the only thing on your mind.

Because there is a difference between deckbuilding to win and playing to win. Even in a casual game with nothing on the line, I would like for my opponents to play their deck to the best of their ability and take full advantage of their resources. It's up to the deckbuilder to decide which cards go in the deck, but once they are in, there should be no qualms about using them.

I don't like the idea of having unspoken rules that some kinds of cards should only be used to a certain level of effectiveness. To me, if someone says "You only won that game because you used Card X in a situation that was more game-changing than usual", that should always be a compliment and never a condemnation.

[tehwerr]

Ahh the block quotes they are killing me!

I have no problem with cards that are more useful in a situation than usual, and that wins the game. I have problems with cards which are always game breaking, and that wins you the game.

those are the ones that should be used in moderation.

[akshay4876]

Kill the asshole first and he will think twice. No joke. I made Palladia mors because meriki ri berit died too often.
Everyone wants to win->Making your deck better->being competitive
EDH=FUN
FUN != Competitive
Well that's the problem. The problem is always good to know.
I think that it would be good to be a bit lighthearted and play some insane EDH games.
I am talking about Archenemy EDh with planechase. Or just adding planechase or chaos to an EDH game. These formats reduce the deckbuilding stratagies of your decks and therefor give you a more even footing.

[toastytoast78]

Mar 28, 2011 12:06:33 GMT -5 Eff said:

Because there is a difference between deckbuilding to win and playing to win. Even in a casual game with nothing on the line, I would like for my opponents to play their deck to the best of their ability and take full advantage of their resources. It's up to the deckbuilder to decide which cards go in the deck, but once they are in, there should be no qualms about using them.

I don't like the idea of having unspoken rules that some kinds of cards should only be used to a certain level of effectiveness. To me, if someone says "You only won that game because you used Card X in a situation that was more game-changing than usual", that should always be a compliment and never a condemnation.

This is a very good point. My sliver deck is a good example of this; I put in the infinite combo but when I get it I'm often hesitant to play it. That's why I tend to only use that deck in more competitive games where it doesn't feel as unfair to pull it off.

However, sometimes I try to keep the game going just because I'm having more fun than I would if I ended it, even if I win.