Most fun commanders/decks to play against

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

The Command Zone recently made a video about the most fun commanders to play against, as determined by themselves (I don't think the did any polling, although I didn't watch the whole video through so I might be wrong.

The ten they chose were:

Queen Marchesa
Ludevic, Necro-Alchemist
Ruhan of the Fomori
Phelddagrif (Woo! Although their endorsement is mostly vicious and misleading slander by calling him group hug)
Mayael the Anima (Specifically using a version that shuffles in a random selection of creatures)
Kynaios and Tiro of Meletis
Xantcha, Sleeper Agent
Grothama, All-Devouring
Braids, Conjurer Adept
Thantis, the Warweaver

Of the commanders they chose, I'd say they can be broken down into a few general categories (some fit more than one):

group hug - Ludevic, Phelddagrif (disputed), K+T, Braids, Xantcha (kinda), Grothama (kinda)
forced aggro - Queen Marchesa, Ludevic, Ruhan, Xantcha, Grothama (kinda), Thantis
self-imposed chaos - Ruhan, Mayael

Personally I think this is interesting since it stands in contrast to a lot of the less-fun to play against commanders, which often slow the game down, shut down aggression, and play very linearly.

That said, I don't entirely agree with their list.

Ruhan of the Fomori I often find frustrating to play against because he's a terrible teammate. When one player is playing some degenerate nonsense, you can count on Ruhan to be no help whatsoever, and likely another obstacle even when it's clear who the threat ought to be.

Ludevic, and Kynaios and Tiro, I don't dislike too too much, but in general I'm not a fan of group hug. Braids is much worse in this regard, as she's almost always kill-on-sight before something stupid happens. I like to build my decks to work well given no outside assistance, so an opponent constantly forcing advantages on everyone feels like it invalidates my good deckbuilding and favors the bad - either by rewarding players who have bad curves or not enough card advantage. I don't mind the idea of speeding up the game generally, but the way group hug speeds it up rewards bad deckbuilding imo, and also gives big advantages to the player to their left.

Most of the rest I think are pretty cool. Although I do agree with their overall assessment that most commanders are either "ugh" or "sure", with not very many being "ooh". To me, probably the thing I most want to play against is something I haven't seen before.

What would be on your top lists? Do you agree/disagree with the CZ list?
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6279
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

Ludevic creates ridiculously interesting games. He's like political Edric - Edric leads to ridiculous card explosions and encourages people to attack too much for a fun political game. Ludevic incentivizes chip shots. I really like him.

I expect I will make another Ludevic deck at some point.

Thantis is awful. I've played against it a bunch and it creates horrible stuck board states where people need to sweep or lose all their creatures making bad attacks. I have no idea how anyone would think this card was fun or well designed. Taking choices away is nothing good in commander for fun.

I also *detest* braids, conjurer adept. Much like group hug decks that ramp others it creates ridiculous board states if synergy isn't broken somehow, and if synergy is broken somehow it's just another stupid ramp deck basically. My buddy has this deck and it inevitably makes games go way faster than they should.

I hate Kynaios for the same reason I don't like Braids. It creates so much ramp for everyone that the games go crazy fast. Ephara always goes nuts if you give it extra land drops. Not sure if I have ever lost a game to K&T with Ephara. Maybe one?

Probably the only other card I do like on that list is Queen Marchesa but mostly because I enjoy monarch games. Much like Ludevic they get people swinging but doesn't force them to swing too much and incentivizes careful play.

User avatar
toctheyounger
Posts: 3984
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by toctheyounger » 4 years ago

I'd support Xantcha and Phelddagrif. Queen is great too. Thantis is just rough. It kind of slows the game to grind because no one can keep their board in play long enough.

K&T I enjoy playing against, but I don't think I've ever seen someone play that deck and win a game.

A lot of my picks for 'most fun to play against' assume some sort of restriction in building, so let's assume we're rule zero'ing to say 6-8 with relatively fair builds and no degenerately busted asymmetry of global effects.
Malazan Decks of the Fallen
| Shadowthrone/Lazav | Raest/Yidris | T'iam / The Ur-Dragon |

User avatar
Maluko
Posts: 137
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Maluko » 4 years ago

I have recently built Thantis, the Warweaver, and my experience is nothing like you two suggest. Quite the opposite, actually. Thantis breaks stalls and forces you to think how to play your creatures correctly and who to attack with them. Many of the creatures actually survive long enough to attack a second time. And, of course, my deck is designed to take advantage of all the forced combat by giving my opponents creatures and playing bigger creatures myself. My opponents have weaved (pardon the pun) very nice comments about the deck, saying it promotes interaction between everyone and pisses on the control players by forcing them to act, rather than to react. Basically, Thantis is the baby of Timmy players and Chaos players, and I think it was designed very well.

User avatar
Mookie
Posts: 3460
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 47
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: the æthereal plane

Post by Mookie » 4 years ago

Of the ones listed, I'll support Ludevic and K&T - both provide a bit of extra card draw to the table and keep things moving along. Howling Mine effects tend to make games more enjoyable, IMO. There are decks that may benefit from extra draw more than others, but when everyone at the table is already playing a bunch of card advantage, the net effect tends to just be they spend more mana on action instead of draw, which makes games a bit more proactive.

I definitely appreciate the Monarch mechanic, but my experience is that when playing against Queen Marchesa, that deck just keeps it a lot of the time, which means it doesn't help out the rest of the table quite as much. There does tend to be a lot of dealmaking for the crown though - 'if you let me hit you and be monarch, I'll do X'.

As for the others....

My experience playing against Phelddagrif is that it's either group hug of the 'let's play Heartbeat of Spring with a Storm deck at the table and not worry about the consequences' variety or kingmaker, both of which are sort of obnoxious. Turning all the decks at the table to 11 can be fun in small doses, but kingmaking is something I really dislike. I suppose part of the issue is also that mana doublers and Collective Voyage effects tend to make games end really fast - like, as soon as the next player gets an untap step.

Ruhan is more stressful than fun for me. Closer to Russian roulette than anything else, especially since the builds I've seen are voltron builds with lots of Unquestioned Authority effects.

I haven't played much against the other decks listed. I'll believe that Braids can be fun if played responsibly (read: actually lasts a full turn cycle without anyone cheating out something dumb). But a lot of games result in the player immediately after Braids playing something dumb and killing Braids. Which is just a fancy way to kingmake, again.

schweinefett
Posts: 114
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by schweinefett » 4 years ago

Of that list, I've only played against ruhan, phelddagrif, mayael, xantcha and braids. Braids especially i'm not 100% sure why anyone would consider it fun. It would seem to me that it's a sort of 'let the player with the best deck' win faster most the time. Mayael and ruhan are cool, xantcha is double-awesome, but it wasn't as effective as i'd wanna see her be.

That being said, I don't think any of them holds a candle to rakdos the defiler. It's more of the BR suicide aggro style build, kinda around the '95-'97 era mono black aggro. But this time with big demons. some reanimation shenanigans, some sprinkle of doomsday piles, some hellcarver demon piles. Most of the time, the deck goes from "small pile of lands in play" into some crazy all-out 'combo' like shallow grave for sower of discord, cast savage beating, pay 15 life into treasonous ogre to play world at war, and then smash in. like, all in.

Or even really simple plays like hellcarver demon trigger on stack, cast insidious dreams for whatever pile seems fun. Multiple big demons plus final fortune is a nice pile. Or how about lich, forbidden ritual, abhorrent overlord and stunning reversal... make some tokens, and then sac your whole board to whittle down the rest of your opponent's life total... while drawing back up to 7.

It's one of those decks where i'm given some number of choices to start with, but the deck kinda lends itself to going for a particular critical turn, where a couple of reanimates, a haste enabler, and then suddenly, my opponent is down 25 life. Sometimes, it manifests itself as multiple attack phases and/or double strike. That being said, if you don't like playing EDH to the edge of your life total/risk killing yourself out of the game, it might not be for you. I've never had anyone (be it from the local shop nor the local group) who'd ever complained about this deck though. Others i've whipped out, sure. But this one has been a real crowd/player pleaser every time it's come out.

Like ive recently discovered though, what I consider to be fun seems to be a long shot from what many other EDH players seem to think is fun. But as far as I can tell, suicide aggro is one of those less-played archetypes. I think these sorta less 'viable' or at least 'explosive' archetypes are really good fun. It also pushes the game from an early game to the mid-late game pretty quickly too; cuts those potential 2-3 hour slogs to half the time.

User avatar
Airi
Queen of Salt
Posts: 416
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: she / her

Post by Airi » 4 years ago

A lot of commanders in that list I actually despise playing against. Anything that can be used to give other people advantage (Xantcha, Phelddagrif, Blue Braids, Kings, etc.) or anything that is random to the point of being unable for the pilot to manipulate it (Ruhan, though I should note, I am super salty and the "random" element always picks me when someone's playing him; Mayael is different because you can adjust your list around her ability) I find utterly miserable.

The most fun decks to play against, to me, are the ones that their owners clearly have put a lot of love and thought in to, excluding group hug/giving people things and chaos decks.

User avatar
toctheyounger
Posts: 3984
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by toctheyounger » 4 years ago

Airi wrote:
4 years ago
The most fun decks to play against, to me, are the ones that their owners clearly have put a lot of love and thought in to
This is the real truth. You can tell when you're up against that sort of list, and it feels different, more engaging and more special.
Malazan Decks of the Fallen
| Shadowthrone/Lazav | Raest/Yidris | T'iam / The Ur-Dragon |

User avatar
Rumpy5897
Tuner of Jank
Posts: 1854
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Rumpy5897 » 4 years ago

Frankly, such lists make little sense. Most stuff can be built positively horribly, even the ones on the Command Zone list. I've met a Phelddagrif masquerading a blood-curdling bant hard control shell, I've gotten turn locked after an unceasing wrath crawl by Kynaios and Tiro of Meletis. After playing Xantcha, Sleeper Agent for a bit, I came to the conclusion that the way to make her viable involves never-ending wiping and/or infinite mana, as later backed up by a cEDH take on her surfacing. Queen Marchesa is also known for her wrath happy ways. I had a Grothama, All-Devouring, and she wasn't a "side quest" but rather a repeatable mega draw spell out of the command zone. Braids, Conjurer Adept reeks of fake hug, pooping out gigantic annihilator monstrosities and/or stealing anything notable the rest of the table does.

The key to enjoyable gameplay within my group has been finding that sweet spot of interaction. You still need to be able to wrench someone's key play to try and win, or wipe once in a while, but running a high density of various answers tends to slow the game down measurably. Games tend to be more pleasant if people are jamming compatible decks and focusing more on trying to win rather than not lose. A lot of commanders lend themselves to being built in this consciously mid-power fashion.
 
EDH Primers (click me!)
Deck is Kill Club
Show
Hide

User avatar
TheGildedGoose
HONK HONK
Posts: 1473
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: any/all
Contact:

Post by TheGildedGoose » 4 years ago

Rumpy5897 wrote:
4 years ago
I've met a Phelddagrif masquerading a blood-curdling bant hard control shell [...]
Blame @DirkGently.

I have the most fun against decks that are interactive and "fair," where "fair" is defined as a deck that doesn't combo out or lock the game down before turn, say, 5. Sort of an arbitrary definition, but it is what it is. Power level wise, I like decks in the 75% region. Any commander can be built in innumerable ways, so I think the commander aspect of the question is a little nonsensical.

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

Airi wrote:
4 years ago
The most fun decks to play against, to me, are the ones that their owners clearly have put a lot of love and thought in to, excluding group hug/giving people things and chaos decks.
As nice as that sounds, I find a lot of the time the lists people have put a lot of time into are often pretty unfun. Case in point, a local at my LGS has a marchesa (1.0) deck that I've ended up playing against a lot (pre-corona) which he's clearly spent a lot of time tuning, and it's pretty miserable because it usually becomes a game of "keep marchesa of the table forever, or he'll become unstoppable". Some players - a lot of players around here, I imagine - tune their lists expertly, trying to improve the fun things the deck does while cutting the parts that aren't fun, like the discussion about kraj on the other thread. Some players just try to maximize the power level as much as possible, and a lot of the time that can end up creating decks that aren't much fun at all. It takes an undervalued kind of skill to make those sorts of decisions well, imo, and simply caring about your list isn't enough.

I guess it's just a matter of opinion, but why the hate for Phelddagrif, or "giving people things" in general? I can certainly understand disliking decks that inadvertently kingmake by befitting someone who really shouldn't have been benefited, but with Phelddagrif, it's all controlled, and a skilled pilot should never be kingmaking anyone, only helping those who it benefits him to help. I don't really see a difference between that and swording something to take an opponent down a peg, except that it's inverted.
Rumpy5897 wrote:
4 years ago
Frankly, such lists make little sense. Most stuff can be built positively horribly, even the ones on the Command Zone list.
While that's certainly true, and I think some commanders are pretty open-ended, I think one could reasonable look at the EDHrec top cards for a given commander and assume that the average list in the wild would follow a similar strategy. Phelddagrif, for example, is technically pretty open ended, since there aren't really a ton of ways to synergize with it. but - much to my chagrin in this particular case - there's an obvious trend towards a particular(ly bad) archetype. So it's natural to assume that, if you sit down against Phelddagrif, you're most likely going to be playing against group hug - and if you like that sort of thing, you're going to consider it a fun commander to play against.

There are some commanders, like keranos, god of storms that really don't pull any specific direction terribly hard nor have particularly strong tendencies on EDHrec, so it'd be hard to guess what a keranos deck would look like if you sat down against one. But I think they're in the minority. Most commanders are built towards a certain way a high percentage of the time, even if that way is far from the optimal way to build it. arixmethes, slumbering isle is another one I noticed - sea monster tribal is, uh, very terrible. And besides being one, he doesn't have any specific synergy with them. But it's the most common theme for arixmethes decks, so you could naturally assume that a given arixmethes deck is likely sea monsters. Even if sometimes it'll be land-untapping tribal and you'll get REKT.

Anyway, they're clearly basing their favorites off the EDHrec, most-common-denominator lists. In a vacuum, I think that's the best way to go about it. Sure, you can build an un-fun deck for any of them, but if you want to make a fun deck, it's pretty easy to go look at EDHrec and figure out what they like about the commander.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
Airi
Queen of Salt
Posts: 416
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: she / her

Post by Airi » 4 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
As nice as that sounds, I find a lot of the time the lists people have put a lot of time into are often pretty unfun. Case in point, a local at my LGS has a marchesa (1.0) deck that I've ended up playing against a lot (pre-corona) which he's clearly spent a lot of time tuning, and it's pretty miserable because it usually becomes a game of "keep marchesa of the table forever, or he'll become unstoppable". Some players - a lot of players around here, I imagine - tune their lists expertly, trying to improve the fun things the deck does while cutting the parts that aren't fun, like the discussion about kraj on the other thread. Some players just try to maximize the power level as much as possible, and a lot of the time that can end up creating decks that aren't much fun at all. It takes an undervalued kind of skill to make those sorts of decisions well, imo, and simply caring about your list isn't enough.
That's fair enough. I enjoy playing against those style of decks though. It makes things challenging, and that's where I have the most fun. It doesn't matter if it's super try hard or something that someone tuned to be "fun for all" with careful thought to it's power level and interaction. I like seeing what people can do with something they clearly love.
I guess it's just a matter of opinion, but why the hate for Phelddagrif, or "giving people things" in general? I can certainly understand disliking decks that inadvertently kingmake by befitting someone who really shouldn't have been benefited, but with Phelddagrif, it's all controlled, and a skilled pilot should never be kingmaking anyone, only helping those who it benefits him to help. I don't really see a difference between that and swording something to take an opponent down a peg, except that it's inverted.
Most of the people I play with absolutely do not need any assistance getting off the ground in a game. The reason for giving someone resources doesn't much matter to me, whether it's because you're furthering your own game plan inadvertently, or because you're actually playing group hug, I now have to handle players who have advantages coming in from multiple sides. It's simply not an enjoyable facet of multiplayer for me to deal with, so if I see it happening, I'm going to remove it at the source.

It just is a matter of how I personally view and enjoy the game. If you asked Rumpy, or several other staff or psuedo-staff members who've seen more of my thought process when it comes to playing or deckbuilding first hand, they'd tell you that I'll gladly shoot myself in the kneecap to stop people from having nice things during a game (e.g. removing someone giving out resources that also benefit me), and especially to prevent someone from giving someone else anything. Very few things in this game feel worse to me than watching someone win off of the advantage they gained through another player's direct contribution, and that is not a switch I can turn off very easily. I'm not going to ban people from playing that style of deck, but I'm certainly going to make it public enemy #1 until someone else becomes a problem.

Edit: My greatest pride and joy is the fact that prior to us being under quarantine, I'd missed a game where my boyfriend decided to play the Kings and generally went on a rampage with it. My friend's responses? "If Airi were here, she wouldn't let this BS happen."

User avatar
Gashnaw
Posts: 318
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Gashnaw » 4 years ago

Anything that is not derevi...

Really though it is tough to decide what is fun and what is not as you can have two decks , one casual and one hyper competitive both using the same commander. Judging the most fun to play against is really up for debate. I feel decks are what matter and with so many archtypes and so many commanders, it is tough to narrow down to a solid pick.

So most fun for me are fair balance. Decks I can win against but also lose against. (Winning all the time gets boring, but so does losing all the time.)

MrMystery314
Posts: 64
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by MrMystery314 » 4 years ago

I agree with many of the ideas mentioned: any commander can be "fun" or "unfun," even if some lend themselves toward different styles. Pretty much any combination of colors can be turned into some sort of controlling list that wins simply by resolving its commander and patiently waiting; commanders like Golos can disguise a chaos deck, despite the commander often being associated with extremely "fair" strategies. Never judge a book by its cover.

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

Airi wrote:
4 years ago
Most of the people I play with absolutely do not need any assistance getting off the ground in a game. The reason for giving someone resources doesn't much matter to me, whether it's because you're furthering your own game plane inadvertently, or because you're actually playing group hug, I now have to handle players who have advantages coming in from multiple sides. It's simply not an enjoyable facet of multiplayer for me to deal with, so if I see it happening, I'm going to remove it at the source.
The bolded confuses me. I guess it's possible someone could accidentally further their own game plan, but wouldn't it be safer to assume they were doing it on purpose?

For example, say I'm P1, P2 is the archenemy, and is attacking P3 for lethal. If I give P3 hippos to block, or life to survive the hit, that's not "inadvertently" furthering my game plan. That's using basic threat assessment to realize that P3 is going to be more help to me alive than dead and using my resources to make it happen. The same would be true if I used removal to kill some of P2's creatures to keep P3 alive, or a fog to prevent the damage. In both cases, the situation is such that keeping P3 alive is beneficial to me, and I'm using my tools to make that happen. I don't see why the specific means of doing so would matter. The result is essentially the same.

In either case, if P3 later ends up winning the game, then that's life. Every play has its risks. That doesn't mean it was the wrong play to keep them alive given the information I had at the time.
It just is a matter of how I personally view and enjoy the game. If you asked Rumpy, or several other staff or psuedo-staff members who've seen more of my thought process when it comes to playing or deckbuilding first hand, they'd tell you that I'll gladly shoot myself in the kneecap to stop people from having nice things during a game (e.g. removing someone giving out resources that also benefit me)
I think it's perfectly reasonable threat assessment to kill something/someone providing a symmetrical boost to the table, especially if that boost is helping your enemies more than it's helping you. I wouldn't call that "kneecapping yourself", unless it was benefiting you more than your opponents.

I do find it strange how group hug players will use "but I'm helping you!" as a defense when attacked. If it's symmetrical, it's not helping me. Magic is a zero-sum game.
and especially to prevent someone from giving someone else anything.
Just so I'm clear on the distinction, in this case you're talking specifically about Phelddagrif-esque voluntary, targeted giving away of resources, as compared to font of mythos mandatory, untargeted giving away of resources?
Very few things in this game feel worse to me than watching someone win off of the advantage they gained through another player's direct contribution, and that is not a switch I can turn off very easily. I'm not going to ban people from playing that style of deck, but I'm certainly going to make it public enemy #1 until someone else becomes a problem.
P1 removes/counters several of P2s and P3 threats, then P4 wins after P1 runs out of answers.

P4 won because of an advantage they got from P1's plays - both because he didn't have those answers later, and because he prevented plays from P2 and P3 that might have hurt or killed P4 (as well as, presumably P1). Does that mean P1 shouldn't have answered P2 and P3s threats? Most well-balanced games are going to be won at least in part because of someone else's decisions. Every time you hurt one player, you're (usually, given a balanced-ish board state) benefiting the other two. Every attack you make, every removal spell you play. Imo, much of the fun of multiplayer, from a technical perspective, is navigating those plays skillfully, so that you benefit from your opponents as much as possible in order to win, rather than simply overpowering the table with a superior deck or better sequencing.
Last edited by DirkGently 4 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6279
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
Every attack you make, every removal spell you play
I'll be waaaaatching you

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

pokken wrote:
4 years ago
DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
Every attack you make, every removal spell you play
I'll be waaaaatching you
Every bond you break, every move you make...

Yeah I thought about that song too when I wrote that lol.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
TheAmericanSpirit
Supreme Dumb Guy
Posts: 2194
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Location: IGMCULSL Papal Palace

Post by TheAmericanSpirit » 4 years ago

Hot take: No commanders are inherently more "fun" or whatever than their peers, because one card =/= 99 other cards, player intentions, table mentality, game state, etc. "Fun" is a stupid metric anyway.

I think I enjoy seeing a wide and fluctuating field of commanders (preferably with the smallest representation of the EDHrec top commanders as possible) more so than seeking out a few specific commanders because I've arbitrarily attached prior enjoyable experiences to unrelated decks with familiar figureheads.

Hell, I'll even play against something I hate every once in a while rather than rehash it out for the Nth time with Jimmy Three-Precons and his infrequently updated Ur-Dragon list, just to feel something.
There's no biscuits and gravy in New Zealand.
(Except when DirkGently makes them!)

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6279
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

TheAmericanSpirit wrote:
4 years ago
Hot take: No commanders are inherently more "fun" or whatever than their peers, because one card =/= 99 other cards, player intentions, table mentality, game state, etc. "Fun" is a stupid metric anyway.
I don't know that I agree with this. I think there are designs that lead to more fun gameplay and some that are inherently going to lead to worse gameplay -- or at least gameplay that most people are going to dislike. Commanders that have to get driven off the board every time they hit or else overwhelm the game are the ones that always jump out at me.

And fun, really, is the only metric that matters with commander isn't it?

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

TheAmericanSpirit wrote:
4 years ago
Hot take: No commanders are inherently more "fun" or whatever than their peers, because one card =/= 99 other cards, player intentions, table mentality, game state, etc. "Fun" is a stupid metric anyway.
I kinda said this in the middle of the thread, but I think it's fair to evaluate a commander based off something close to its EDHrec top cards. So for Tazri, for example, it can be built as a nasty combo deck, but the most common cards are for ally tribal. So it'd be fairest to evaluate Tazri's funness as a commander based on how fun Tazri ally tribal is.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
TheAmericanSpirit
Supreme Dumb Guy
Posts: 2194
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Location: IGMCULSL Papal Palace

Post by TheAmericanSpirit » 4 years ago

pokken wrote:
4 years ago
TheAmericanSpirit wrote:
4 years ago
Hot take: No commanders are inherently more "fun" or whatever than their peers, because one card =/= 99 other cards, player intentions, table mentality, game state, etc. "Fun" is a stupid metric anyway.
I don't know that I agree with this. I think there are designs that lead to more fun gameplay and some that are inherently going to lead to worse gameplay -- or at least gameplay that most people are going to dislike. Commanders that have to get driven off the board every time they hit or else overwhelm the game are the ones that always jump out at me.

And fun, really, is the only metric that matters with commander isn't it?
See, I don't think the cardboard "inherently" does anything. You, the player, do things e.g. build/play your deck. Zur finds Astral Slide as easily as he does Necropotence and something dumb like Sygg, River Cutthroat can kill you on turn three with a solid consultation line and enough tutors. Very little of that has to do with the actual general of your deck, even in linear combo-centric decks. The other 99 cards you CHOOSE to include vastly outweigh the impact of the one you can always access, as those cards demonstrate literally 99% of your desired in-game intentions and possible strategic interactions.

To illustrate: I guarantee you would have little issue with fighting against Atraxa Banding tribal, right? No qualms with Korvold built with only Ice Age block cards? How about Ragnar Sacred Sushi Hulk, eh? You probably don't want much to do with that last one, and the issue is far from Ragnar.

If anything, people need to be more fun as opponents than they should try to let their cardboard mascots speak for them. (But again, what is "fun"?! How do we measure this so-called "fun"?!)
There's no biscuits and gravy in New Zealand.
(Except when DirkGently makes them!)

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6279
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

TheAmericanSpirit wrote:
4 years ago
See, I don't think the cardboard "inherently" does anything. You, the player, do things e.g. build/play your deck. Zur finds Astral Slide as easily as he does Necropotence and something dumb like Sygg, River Cutthroat can kill you on turn three with a solid consultation line and enough tutors. Very little of that has to do with the actual general of your deck, even in linear combo-centric decks. The other 99 cards you CHOOSE to include vastly outweigh the impact of the one you can always access, as those cards demonstrate literally 99% of your desired in-game intentions and possible strategic interactions.

To illustrate: I guarantee you would have little issue with fighting against Atraxa Banding tribal, right? No qualms with Korvold built with only Ice Age block cards? How about Ragnar Sacred Sushi Hulk, eh? You probably don't want much to do with that last one, and the issue is far from Ragnar.

If anything, people need to be more fun as opponents than they should try to let their cardboard mascots speak for them. (But again, what is "fun"?! How do we measure this so-called "fun"?!)
I had an Atraxa deck that was storage land tribal and it was still frigging oppressive and awful to play against on accident. I have never seen a fun atraxa deck. Her text reads "spend 10 minutes every turn flipping dice if you are having a moderately successful game, p.s. my commander is a functional ghostly prison that's nearly impossible to race with any casual deck."

That said, I think what you're presenting is a list of exceptions that prove the rule; there are always outliers that subvert expectations, but the fact that they are such serious outliers tells you something.

User avatar
TheAmericanSpirit
Supreme Dumb Guy
Posts: 2194
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Location: IGMCULSL Papal Palace

Post by TheAmericanSpirit » 4 years ago

pokken wrote:
4 years ago
TheAmericanSpirit wrote:
4 years ago
See, I don't think the cardboard "inherently" does anything. You, the player, do things e.g. build/play your deck. Zur finds Astral Slide as easily as he does Necropotence and something dumb like Sygg, River Cutthroat can kill you on turn three with a solid consultation line and enough tutors. Very little of that has to do with the actual general of your deck, even in linear combo-centric decks. The other 99 cards you CHOOSE to include vastly outweigh the impact of the one you can always access, as those cards demonstrate literally 99% of your desired in-game intentions and possible strategic interactions.

To illustrate: I guarantee you would have little issue with fighting against Atraxa Banding tribal, right? No qualms with Korvold built with only Ice Age block cards? How about Ragnar Sacred Sushi Hulk, eh? You probably don't want much to do with that last one, and the issue is far from Ragnar.

If anything, people need to be more fun as opponents than they should try to let their cardboard mascots speak for them. (But again, what is "fun"?! How do we measure this so-called "fun"?!)
I had an Atraxa deck that was storage land tribal and it was still frigging oppressive and awful to play against on accident. I have never seen a fun atraxa deck. Her text reads "spend 10 minutes every turn flipping dice if you are having a moderately successful game, p.s. my commander is a functional ghostly prison that's nearly impossible to race with any casual deck."

That said, I think what you're presenting is a list of exceptions that prove the rule; there are always outliers that subvert expectations, but the fact that they are such serious outliers tells you something.
I understand perfectly that these examples are serious outliers; hyperbole adds a nice dash of salience to a rhetorical point. That all being said, my point still stands: Just because you've never seen a fun Atraxa list doesn't necessarily preclude one from ever existing and if a fun one did exist, it would surely involve banding. Without her counter-laden deck though, she's just keywords and a 4/4 and if that's still "impossible to race", then there's some other serious issues at play in your meta beyond Atraxa being pushed stat-wise.
There's no biscuits and gravy in New Zealand.
(Except when DirkGently makes them!)

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6279
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

TheAmericanSpirit wrote:
4 years ago
I understand perfectly that these examples are serious outliers; hyperbole adds a nice dash of salience to a rhetorical point. That all being said, my point still stands: Just because you've never seen a fun Atraxa list doesn't necessarily preclude one from ever existing and if a fun one did exist, it would surely involve banding. Without her counter-laden deck though, she's just keywords and a 4/4 and if that's still "impossible to race", then there's some other serious issues at play in your meta beyond Atraxa being pushed stat-wise.
If you're playing at a power level where a banding tribal deck is playable, and you have Atraxa Praetors' Voice, she is going to do an absolutely unreal amount of work. Banding is actually pretty oppressive with her set of keywords -- it makes you immune to trample and kill anything that attacks.

Atraxa proved fairly challenging just by herself with my garbage tier deck against other 5/10 decks -- her power level actually inflates the worse your opponents are because her sack of keywords and lifelink makes all the medium power stuff look pathetic.

User avatar
Airi
Queen of Salt
Posts: 416
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: she / her

Post by Airi » 4 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
Airi wrote:
4 years ago
Most of the people I play with absolutely do not need any assistance getting off the ground in a game. The reason for giving someone resources doesn't much matter to me, whether it's because you're furthering your own game plane inadvertently, or because you're actually playing group hug, I now have to handle players who have advantages coming in from multiple sides. It's simply not an enjoyable facet of multiplayer for me to deal with, so if I see it happening, I'm going to remove it at the source.
The bolded confuses me. I guess it's possible someone could accidentally further their own game plan, but wouldn't it be safer to assume they were doing it on purpose?

For example, say I'm P1, P2 is the archenemy, and is attacking P3 for lethal. If I give P3 hippos to block, or life to survive the hit, that's not "inadvertently" furthering my game plan. That's using basic threat assessment to realize that P3 is going to be more help to me alive than dead and using my resources to make it happen. The same would be true if I used removal to kill some of P2's creatures to keep P3 alive, or a fog to prevent the damage. In both cases, the situation is such that keeping P3 alive is beneficial to me, and I'm using my tools to make that happen. I don't see why the specific means of doing so would matter. The result is essentially the same.

In either case, if P3 later ends up winning the game, then that's life. Every play has its risks. That doesn't mean it was the wrong play to keep them alive given the information I had at the time.
I worded that poorly, but my point was that it doesn't matter if it's because they're furthering their own plan, or just playing hug for the giggles. Both decks fall into the same category of my ire, and I don't find either fun.
I think it's perfectly reasonable threat assessment to kill something/someone providing a symmetrical boost to the table, especially if that boost is helping your enemies more than it's helping you. I wouldn't call that "kneecapping yourself", unless it was benefiting you more than your opponents.

I do find it strange how group hug players will use "but I'm helping you!" as a defense when attacked. If it's symmetrical, it's not helping me. Magic is a zero-sum game.
and especially to prevent someone from giving someone else anything.
Just so I'm clear on the distinction, in this case you're talking specifically about Phelddagrif-esque voluntary, targeted giving away of resources, as compared to font of mythos mandatory, untargeted giving away of resources?
No, I will get rid of both at the first opportunity available to me. And if there's enough people between me and the trigger, I'll get rid of it before even I get to benefit first. I dislike both styles of "hug", for lack of a better term.
Very few things in this game feel worse to me than watching someone win off of the advantage they gained through another player's direct contribution, and that is not a switch I can turn off very easily. I'm not going to ban people from playing that style of deck, but I'm certainly going to make it public enemy #1 until someone else becomes a problem.
P1 removes/counters several of P2s and P3 threats, then P4 wins after P1 runs out of answers.

P4 won because of an advantage they got from P1's plays - both because he didn't have those answers later, and because he prevented plays from P2 and P3 that might have hurt or killed P4 (as well as, presumably P1). Does that mean P1 shouldn't have answered P2 and P3s threats? Most well-balanced games are going to be won at least in part because of someone else's decisions. Every time you hurt one player, you're (usually, given a balanced-ish board state) benefiting the other two. Every attack you make, every removal spell you play. Imo, much of the fun of multiplayer, from a technical perspective, is navigating those plays skillfully, so that you benefit from your opponents as much as possible in order to win, rather than simply overpowering the table with a superior deck or better sequencing.
And that's fair of you to like that! I do not, I will actively remove things like hug (in the blanket sense, not in the actual dedicated group hug sense) or chaos with prejudice until I'm absolutely forced to deal with something/someone else instead. It just... isn't fun to me. I don't know if I can properly articulate why. But I don't like the 2v1 feeling it gives, and given that I mostly play aggro-style decks, my answer to that is to just kill it at its source.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Commander”