Interesting post on r/EDH

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

Post by MrMystery314 » 3 years ago

Everyone loves preaching about the social contract and rule 0 when it comes to groups regulating what is or isn't seen as fun in their own metas, but I feel that far too often people ignore the fact that things like this are a two way street. Yes - it's rude for a player to sit on an oppressive or powerful deck all night long just so that they can continue to amass win after win with no regard for the rest of the group's enjoyment, but it's also equally as rude for a group to outright block someone from ever playing a deck that they are proud of and love playing. Group metas are just that - something that needs to be fostered equally and positively amongst everyone, and rule 0 is not an excuse to cut out anything and everything you deem "unfun." Cultivating an enjoyable environment for everyone means that there is always going to be a give in take involved for each player in the group. And yes, that means sometimes allowing your friend to play his stax deck once in awhile, even if you might not get to do as much in that game as you'd like to. The same goes for combo decks, control decks, or anything else a given person might have problems with. Every player is different and every player enjoys different things. Just because the EDH hivemind at large may frown upon strategies like stax or combo does not mean that you're allowed to lean on that to prevent someone from ever playing it at all.
As much as the quagmires of Rule 0 debates have died down here, I thought this was an interesting positive take on what is a hot-button issue for many. What I almost found more interesting was the wide range of comments found when I sorted by controversial, including such gems as:
You have a deck that no one wants to play against.

You are saying that it is the responsibility of the other players to sit through a game they don't enjoy so you can play a deck you made.

Surely you have other decks you enjoy to some degree. So you are getting some kind of enjoyment from every game.

Yet you are asking certain players to play into an environment that is frustrating/tilting for them so you can play a specific deck.

Will you honestly enjoy yourself while people suffer through a game they don't want to play?

Are you worried about building resentment?

Is it right to force players to play in a way they don't enjoy instead of finding a new group?

To be clear I'm not against any particular strategies but when 1 person wants to dictate how a group plays I tend to think the singular person should make the change or find a new group.
Which I found to be a bit hyperbolic, and also:
I'm going to use an analogy to hopefully illustrate why I think the OP's point is entirely wrong.

Say you're hanging out with 3 of your friends and you are all hungry and decide to do dinner together. The thing you are craving more than any other food at that particular minute is Pad Thai. However your 3 friends all want Pizza. And, you happen to know that none of them like Pad Thai. Like, at all. They hate it.

There is absolutely no scenario where getting Pad Thai for the whole group will ever bring anyone but you pleasure. The 3 other friends will NOT enjoy their meal, ONLY you. HOWEVER, on the flip side, just because you are craving Pad Thai and it's the food you really, really want doesn't mean you don't love Pizza too. So if YOU compromise and get pizza, all 4 of you will be happy, it's just that YOU won't be 100% the happiest you could possibly be. But you'll still ultimately enjoy the pizza.

However, if you force the group to compromise and get Pad Thai, even 1 out of every 10 times you have dinner together, you will ALWAYS be the only person happy, and that makes you the jerk, every single time.

Now, let's say you just had leftover Domino's for dinner the last two nights and the thought of pizza makes you wanna hurl (or, maybe your some kind of inhuman MONSTER who just hates pizza no matter what - but then again that kind of sociopath wouldn't have friends anyway). So there actually IS no way for you to enjoy pizza in this particular case? What then?

IMO there is only ONE solution: You get Pad Thai and let the other 3 friends have their pizza.

In case the analogy isn't clear what I'm saying is this: IF you can have some level of fun with a non-Stax deck, but your group CANNOT have any level of fun with a Stax deck in the mix, then insisting on playing Stax EVEN ONCE IN A WHILE makes your the jerk. Because all you are doing is saying to the group "Hey, I'm having SOME fun, but it would be MORE fun for me if you all had ZERO fun and I had ALL the fun." (And I should note here I'm not specifically saying it is impossible for ME to have any fun against Stax, I'm just following the OP's example usage).

But, if you HAVE to play Stax to have fun, then you and your group simply aren't compatible. At that point it isn't even a matter of you being a jerk or them being jerks. No one is a jerk if your tastes are simply too far apart for all of you to be happy with the outcome.

Go have your Pad Thai with people who appreciate Pad Thai and leave your friends to enjoy their Pizza, if that's what it takes to make everyone happy.
I think many playgroups would be happier if they aligned more with the OP.

User avatar
gilrad
Posts: 105
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by gilrad » 3 years ago

imo, necessary presumption must be made to all rule zero discussions (both in theory and in practicality): that rule zero is being observed in good faith.

What do I mean by "In good faith"? Let's take a commonly rule-0'ed house rule: no mass land destruction. The intent of the rule is to avoid single-spell blowouts based off board state alone, and games where everybody stops playing and the player who gets the luckiest on top deck land draws ultimately recovers first and the players who are unlucky on their draws die seven turns later on one or two lands without a single spell cast. Now, a "bad-faith" interpretation of this rule would be "play Maelstrom Wanderer ramp deck because the only reliable way to stop it is banned". In theory ramp decks like that seem like a really big problem, but in my experience in practice as long as everybody observes the rule in good faith, you don't really run into unstoppable land ramp decks like that.

Bringing "good/bad faith" rule 0 into this topic, I feel a lot of the times when you see people using rule 0 as a cudgel it's because those people see it as a rule in the legalistic/logical way (the rule is about preserving fun! X is fun for me, therefore the rule is about letting me do X!). To me, rule 0 is more about creating a framework to have a discussion about the metagame that best suits the people sitting down at the table, and a core aspect of a discussion (versus rules arbitration) is that disagreements are usually resolved through compromise.

So allowing the stax player to play his stax deck occasionally despite the fact that nobody enjoys it is an acceptable solution to the quandry, and hard rules such as "stax is always allowed" or "stax is never allowed" should only be reserved for when there is overwhelming support either way within the main playgroup.

User avatar
Sinis
Posts: 2042
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Sinis » 3 years ago

The original post is loaded with a hidden premise, that you are somehow the sole arbiter of fun in your group and that you are personally defining how others play ("you're a jerk if you won't let your friend play his stax deck"). Additionally, there's this idea that, despite all the Rule 0 conversations the group might have had, that someone still showed up with a stax deck that (presumably) no one would enjoy playing.

1. No, just no.

The answer is "If, in a hypothetical four-person group, three people absolutely despise playing against stax, you're obligated to not play stax." If, after discussion about what people like or don't like, someone INSISTS on playing stax, they're taking advantage of your pre-existing relationship to coerce your friends into playing something they absolutely don't want to play.

Basically, if a random at my LGS says "Hey I'm playing Stax" I decline to play with them. It's not personal, and I'm not a jerk for saying that; I find stax to be a miserable experience and I'm just not interested. If my friend comes up to me and says "Hey, I want to play stax tonight" I might indulge them because I care about them as a friend, but, I would really rather they not and I don't believe it makes me a jerk to decline that game, either. If I do assent to play, it's definitely not a regular thing, they don't get a free "play one stax" ticket a week, or whatever.

2. But how did we get here, anyway?

For the Nth time in my EDH play experience, I have cultivated a group from the ground up. Other groups have had people lose interest in the game, people move away, etc. etc. etc. There's churn in Magic, just like in business, as there is in any other game.

This might be stilted because I live in an enormous metropolis with plenty of candidates, but, when choosing people who I thought would be good matches, I took into account the obvious features of desired modes of play, how well they communicate, out-of-game camaraderie, and capability to play the game. My group is (for the most part) very agreeable and highly interested in maintaining a feels-good play experience. We often ask each other if individual cards are over the top, if people had fun during the last game, and have managed to find a rough framework to determine power levels so that no one is bringing a gun to a knife fight. No single person is the arbiter of any of these features; we genuinely are interested in the other players' fun.

At no point, during the selection process nor our individual evolution as a playgroup, would anyone have said "Hey, I'm going to play stax tonight." The whole selection process and every discussion we've ever had precludes that. IF someone wanted to, I wouldn't decline to play, but, it would be a) extremely odd, and b) if they so badly wanted to play stax despite everyone else's non-enjoyment, they would be a completely different person than the one I invited to regularly play with.

I'm not sure how the reddit poster arrived in his current predicament where a Stax player is somehow in a group not playing stax (and is somehow not enjoying themselves with their non-stax decks), and the only cure happens to be to let them play stax. How they arrived in that universe is beyond me.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6361
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

So my old group used to do this. We'd let people play their stupid stax nonsense once a night. You know what happened? Two scenarios.

1. Archenemy: They get driven out of the game by everyone else and lose early, then complain about it passive-aggressively or sometimes be good sports about it, either way it winds up being a 3-player game tilted by everyone burning their resources to combat stax.

2. Solitaire: They get the stax lock in and then grind out a victory, and we all look at our phones for an hour.

Nobody wins when you play stax in an unprepared meta.

ilovesaprolings
Posts: 1030
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by ilovesaprolings » 3 years ago

Why your friend should play a deck that brings enjoyment only to him and sadness to the whole rest of the table. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

By the way my experience with "friendly stax" has always been:
A: let me play this stax deck!
B: ok!
...
B: ugh, this deck is terrible. Don't play it anymore please
A: ok...
...
A: can i play my stax deck again? please only this time!
B: fine! just this once
....
B: ugh, terrible game, please stop
A: ok
(repeat some times)
A: can i play my stax deck again? please only this time!
B: sure! i made a deck prepared for that!
A: oh...
And suddenly player doesn't find his stax deck fun anymore

User avatar
Lifeless
Not here to contribute.
Posts: 652
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Lifeless » 3 years ago

Our group has a nice understanding that anything goes, but only once in a while. That is to say that if you build something degenerate you shouldn't be playing it all night - get your win, combo off, and then let's switch it up and play your other decks.

Admittedly this only works because we have a set group with similar goals and we each have a wide variety of decks with varied power levels. I get that we have a somewhat ideal group in the respect - these problems come up more frequently in sit and go store environments.

User avatar
Rorseph
Compleat Fool
Posts: 147
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: they / them
Location: The Sixth Sphere of Phyrexia
Contact:

Post by Rorseph » 3 years ago

pokken wrote:
3 years ago
2. Solitaire: They get the stax lock in and then grind out a victory, and we all look at our phones for an hour.
Do people not offer to concede/ask for concession when a lock/infinite combo happens?

My first move when I've got a win sealed is to point out the board state or explain what's going to happen, show my hand (if necessary), and ask "Would you like to concede so we can get in more games?" This has won me a lot of good will over the years because I don't like to goldfish when there are people sitting at a table with me. YMMV, of course.
"From void evolved Phyrexia. Great Yawgmoth, Father of Machines, saw its perfection. Thus The Grand Evolution began."
—Phyrexian Scriptures


Aurelia | Maelstrom Wanderer | Primer: Thassa | Uro | Primer: Volrath

User avatar
RxPhantom
Fully Vaxxed, Baby!
Posts: 1514
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Southern Maryland

Post by RxPhantom » 3 years ago

I suspect the OP of the Redditt post is a stax player whose group has soured on playing against them. Why should three or more other people sit through a slog of a game for just one person's benefit? If stax is the only way someone can get their MtG rocks off, then they need to find a group that is more amenable to that play style.

Forcing the issue will only result in the two scenarios outlined by @pokken above.
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 2/18/22 (Kamigawa: Neon Dynasty)

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6361
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

Rorseph wrote:
3 years ago
pokken wrote:
3 years ago
2. Solitaire: They get the stax lock in and then grind out a victory, and we all look at our phones for an hour.
Do people not offer to concede/ask for concession when a lock/infinite combo happens?

My first move when I've got a win sealed is to point out the board state or explain what's going to happen, show my hand (if necessary), and ask "Would you like to concede so we can get in more games?" This has won me a lot of good will over the years because I don't like to goldfish when there are people sitting at a table with me. YMMV, of course.
Yeah, sometimes people would concede (me, usually the most readily). The problem is it's usually wrong to do so. Most stax locks aren't hard locks. So in my experience it usually went on for quite a while -- perhaps an hour is an exaggeration :) Sometimes the solitaire game is quicker I guess but the scenario is the same.

Infinite combos and stax soft-locks are quite different in their potential outcomes of course nobody refuses to acknowledge actual infinites outside of real derps.
Last edited by pokken 3 years ago, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rumpy5897
Tuner of Jank
Posts: 1859
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Rumpy5897 » 3 years ago

This is a pretty common problem, and one I was also struggling with personally. Largely resolved by now, mostly by admitting I was the problem and opposing democracy less, but getting others to open up a bit towards the end. A lot of this sort of stuff ultimately boils down to spikiness, the reaction you feel when your deck does a stupid. Choose your adventure:
  • "Aw jeez, that was horrible, how do I make that not happen again?"
  • "Aw jeez, that was awesome, how do I make this happen more reliably?"
The answer is not as simple as segregation based on this, as the occasional weird tale of Calvinball where removal is banned as it's unfun shows up, and everybody knows the horror stories of uncontrolled arms races. The way forward is communication and concession. And trust me, I've done a lot of conceding. I've been in a group since 2014, and a common problem with my decks is that I'd start up with a rough draft that would play okay and get some level of approval from the others. I'd then follow "aw jeez, that was awesome" and end up with a more tuned up shell with a snappier game plan, and be an outlier within the group. Every single deck I built between late 2015 and spring 2019 ended up in this fashion, most aborted while still Cockatrice test builds, three making it to paper before tripping the wire. My enjoyment of them was outweighed by the group's disdain, and attempts at a compromised nerfed version would leave me unhappy. So they died.

However, at some point, once closer to the level of the others, I stood my ground. WAR brought Feather, and I fell for the deck in a manner I hadn't in years. The build turned out weaker than all its deceased predecessors, but still offered a pretty reliable turn seven clock. The most vocal complainer started vocally complaining. To what I actually properly barked back. I argued that there are other players' decks within the group at a comparable tempo, which for once gave me an actual concrete angle to work from. The complainer eventually balked. Feather lives, and I get to occasionally walk her. Not often, as she's still probably the strongest deck in the group. The games aren't guaranteed stomps though - last time she came out, Selenia swapped me down to one life on turn six and I had to win a Mana Crypt flip to avoid death. RNG was with me and Zada Hoof closed out proceedings, turn seven like clockwork. But this doesn't happen often, and the guys are warned in advance to pull out their big boy contraptions.

The fact that the concession went the other way for once has actually made it a lot easier for me to cooperate since. At some point last year, I actually realised I'm okay with not necessarily pursuing the ideal game plan always, which has led to a number of meta-specific cuts. Five years in, I took out Rule of Law effects from Daxos. A relatively fresh Ice Cream Monk deck realised how its power spikes and tempo shake out, tried to capitalise with Expropriate, met backlash and took it out. My primary decks are fully accepted by the group in their current form. The guys do offer some nods back, by the way - at some point most of the decks took out their Sol Rings, while I kept mine in most of my builds. However, if I've already won a game that night, I'll sandbag the Ring until turn four, and they're okay with this middle ground solution. I've managed to keep Teferi's Protection. A group member, just asked for comment on the phase-out, described it as annoying but not that bad. I'll take it :P

All in all, it takes effort and patience, from all parties. From my case it seems likely the outlier will be stuck putting in most of the legwork until the distance is closed, and then concessions can start coming in more readily from other players. The group's the healthiest it's ever been, and regular Cockatrice games have been happening for months. By contrast, we only used to play in paper once a week, and herding people together for Cockatrice would only happen when someone had a deck to test. If that person was me, I'd usually burn the guys out within a week or two. So yeah, I was the problem. But we eventually resolved it.
 
EDH Primers (click me!)
Deck is Kill Club
Show
Hide

onering
Posts: 1233
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 3 years ago

Its an easy fix I think. If there is a deck everyone hates playing against, but the pilot really wants to play it every once in awhile, the agreement should be that the pilot of the deck gets to play it every once in awhile but lets everyone know they will be, and lets everyone bring in decks that meta against it. If the pilot wants to play the deck that badly despite their playgroup hating it, this is a decent compromise. The playgroup is able to run decks that perform better against the deck they hate, making the deck they hate less toxic to them, while the pilot of the hated deck actually gets to play their deck, and while they face an uphill battle they are less likely to get arch-enemied because their opponents decks being better set to deal with them makes them less of a threat. This doesn't work for all decks, but its ideal for something like Stax. I play stax sometimes, and for me its always more fun when the lock doesn't come right away.

Mimicvat
Posts: 172
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by Mimicvat » 3 years ago

I play in two groups. In one, we all have a slightly competitive deck that we will bust out at the same time or in response to something really strong or with unfun play patterns. In the other there are more rule zero things, like no MLD, and as a result the best two decks are giant ramp piles and the only way to answer it is a ramp pile or to hardcore hate on those decks. Both groups can be fun but when I'm staring across the table at a pile of UG cards and 42 lands sometimes I wish I was just playing video games instead.
Currently building: ww Bruna, the Fading Light (card advantage tribal / reanimator)
Main decks;
r Neheb, Big Red Champion g Yeva's Mono Green Control, b Ayara's Aristocrats rb Greven, Predator Captain the One Punch Man, ugw Derevri, Empirical Tactician Aggro,rwbu Tymna & Kraum's Saboteurs, wbg Kondo & Tymna's Hatebears wugTuvasa's Silver Bullets, urBrudiclad does Brudiclad thingsgubSidisi, Brood Tyrant (lantern control)

User avatar
Dragoon
Posts: 417
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Dragoon » 3 years ago

Mimicvat wrote:
3 years ago
I play in two groups. In one, we all have a slightly competitive deck that we will bust out at the same time or in response to something really strong or with unfun play patterns. In the other there are more rule zero things, like no MLD, and as a result the best two decks are giant ramp piles and the only way to answer it is a ramp pile or to hardcore hate on those decks. Both groups can be fun but when I'm staring across the table at a pile of UG cards and 42 lands sometimes I wish I was just playing video games instead.
Natural Balance and Acidic Soil are your best friends in this kind of meta (back it up with Boseiju, Who Shelters All if needed) :P

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

Post by MrMystery314 » 3 years ago

Its an easy fix I think. If there is a deck everyone hates playing against, but the pilot really wants to play it every once in awhile, the agreement should be that the pilot of the deck gets to play it every once in awhile but lets everyone know they will be, and lets everyone bring in decks that meta against it. If the pilot wants to play the deck that badly despite their playgroup hating it, this is a decent compromise. The playgroup is able to run decks that perform better against the deck they hate, making the deck they hate less toxic to them, while the pilot of the hated deck actually gets to play their deck, and while they face an uphill battle they are less likely to get arch-enemied because their opponents decks being better set to deal with them makes them less of a threat. This doesn't work for all decks, but its ideal for something like Stax. I play stax sometimes, and for me its always more fun when the lock doesn't come right away.
Regardless if it's stax or anything else, I definitely agree. I've had some bad EDH experiences where someone decided to use us as the trial run for their new monstrosity of a deck, which generally ends up being pitiably weak compared to what everyone else is doing or an inconsistent loose cannon. As a pro tip for all you brewers out there, "this is the first time I'm playing the deck" is not actually a good indicator of power level.

Mimicvat
Posts: 172
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by Mimicvat » 3 years ago

Dragoon wrote:
3 years ago
Mimicvat wrote:
3 years ago
I play in two groups. In one, we all have a slightly competitive deck that we will bust out at the same time or in response to something really strong or with unfun play patterns. In the other there are more rule zero things, like no MLD, and as a result the best two decks are giant ramp piles and the only way to answer it is a ramp pile or to hardcore hate on those decks. Both groups can be fun but when I'm staring across the table at a pile of UG cards and 42 lands sometimes I wish I was just playing video games instead.
Natural Balance and Acidic Soil are your best friends in this kind of meta (back it up with Boseiju, Who Shelters All if needed) :P
My mono-green control deck runs natural balance lol. To their credit the group has no problem with this effect just with things that wipe 'all lands'
Currently building: ww Bruna, the Fading Light (card advantage tribal / reanimator)
Main decks;
r Neheb, Big Red Champion g Yeva's Mono Green Control, b Ayara's Aristocrats rb Greven, Predator Captain the One Punch Man, ugw Derevri, Empirical Tactician Aggro,rwbu Tymna & Kraum's Saboteurs, wbg Kondo & Tymna's Hatebears wugTuvasa's Silver Bullets, urBrudiclad does Brudiclad thingsgubSidisi, Brood Tyrant (lantern control)

User avatar
Dragoon
Posts: 417
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Dragoon » 3 years ago

Mimicvat wrote:
3 years ago
My mono-green control deck runs natural balance lol. To their credit the group has no problem with this effect just with things that wipe 'all lands'
Yeah, I can understand that. I also tend to dislike those type of effects when they aren't game-winning moves because they just tend to make the game go longer for no real reason. If everybody can keep some amount of lands (Keldon Firebombers is another example), then I think it's fine because people can still do stuff and aren't completely out of options for a while.

Mimicvat
Posts: 172
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by Mimicvat » 3 years ago

I'm on the same page, if they printed a half a dozen more semigeddons I would probably be playing them in many of my decks and would happily give up my full armageddon effects for them. I think this is a huge design gap in what is being made for EDH...
Currently building: ww Bruna, the Fading Light (card advantage tribal / reanimator)
Main decks;
r Neheb, Big Red Champion g Yeva's Mono Green Control, b Ayara's Aristocrats rb Greven, Predator Captain the One Punch Man, ugw Derevri, Empirical Tactician Aggro,rwbu Tymna & Kraum's Saboteurs, wbg Kondo & Tymna's Hatebears wugTuvasa's Silver Bullets, urBrudiclad does Brudiclad thingsgubSidisi, Brood Tyrant (lantern control)

User avatar
3drinks
Kaalia's Personal Liaison
Posts: 4869
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Ruined City of Drannith, Ikoria

Post by 3drinks » 3 years ago

It's r/EDH, any comments contrary to the %$#% hole of an echo chamber on that sub are downvoted to oblivion. You're wasting your time even participating in the discussions over there. They're all the "it's okay when I do X but the moment anyone else does X it's not okay" types. So just save your breath and do something constructive with your time.

And don't get me started on the massive circle jerk that is r/MagicTCG 🙄

Modern
R{R/W} 87guide Burn
Commander
WRKellan, the Fae-Blooded // Birthright Boon (local secret santa gift)
RTorbran, Thane of Red Fell (Red Deck Wins)
WBRAlesha, Who Smiles at Death (Slivers)
WBRKaalia HQ

User avatar
BeneTleilax
Posts: 1335
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BeneTleilax » 3 years ago

individuals also pick grops

UnNamed1
Posts: 146
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by UnNamed1 » 3 years ago

I will be the first person to admit that I absolutely hate land destruction. If you are playing it game after game, it's a tasteless way to try and win.

For example, one of the newest players to our high level group brought in land destruction because "its a legal way to play commander, deal with it". After essentially coming to a draw the other night, where said player couldn't win off LD but continued to do it anyway, the rest of us sat down and found our own ways to stop it from ever happening again. For example, I added Extract and Teferi's Protection into my cEDH deck. Completely a meta call as he was simply putting the board into a stalemate vs being able to win off it.

I won't stop you from playing stax or land-destruction, but you better have a way to win off the advantages that come from those play types, otherwise you won't be welcome long. In another example, There is someone else who plays a Sun Titan deck, that locks you out really easily. But unlike my previous example, he can win within two-three turns after establishing the lock vs forcing a draw where no one can win, except for people scooping.

TLDR; play what you want, but you better be able to win if you play something hated like LD or stax.

freelunch
Posts: 44
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by freelunch » 3 years ago

onering wrote:
3 years ago
the agreement should be that the pilot of the deck gets to play it every once in awhile but lets everyone know they will be, and lets everyone bring in decks that meta against it.
This sounds a lot like you're saying, "Play your stax deck, but only if you let your opponents pick magic bullets to deal with it beforehand." That really doesn't jive for me, at all. I even disagree with your assertion that this would make people more willing to play against stax or that the opponents would be less likely to arch-enemy against the deck they hate. My experiences have shown me otherwise.

Give me any boogeyman mechanic or archetype- and I will give you the same answer: The mechanic is necessary to the balance of the game. MLD balances ramp. Counterspells balance big swingy spells. Stax balances combo. Commander is an inherently broken format, we don't need to make it even more broken by socially ostracizing the play of certain mechanics or archetypes.

illakunsaa
Posts: 252
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by illakunsaa » 3 years ago

I think most people fail to realize that all decks are looking to stop other players playing the game not just "stax decks". Objective of the game is to eliminate the other players. Does it really matter how you do it?

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 1981
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 125
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 3 years ago

illakunsaa wrote:
3 years ago
I think most people fail to realize that all decks are looking to stop other players playing the game not just "stax decks". Objective of the game is to eliminate the other players. Does it really matter how you do it?
Everybody realizes that. We know it is a game that people are trying to win and every action a player takes is meant to be a reaction, or force a reaction, to/from other players.

With that in mind though: yes, it absolutely matters how you do it. I am not sure how that is even a question. In EDH (not cEDH) the idea is to play your decks. If I get into a game with someone who only has a Stax deck and that is all they play, I will likely lose the first game. Or, at least, if their deck works I probably will. So, good on them: they got their win. Then, the next game happens and the same result. During which time I am stuck not playing at all.

This isn't Modern or Legacy where the expectations are to outrace your opponent or try to win as fast as you can. If I end up in a pod with "the Stax" player I will likely just choose not to play with that person again if that is all they play. I don't want to be stuck doing nothing for an hour while they durdle trying to come up with their win and just locking everyone else out.

EDH is supposed to be social, it is meant to be more about the journey than the destination. Of course people want to win but only one person is going to be successful at that. The other 3 want to at least make a good showing of it and play the decks they spent time putting together.

I have played tons of EDH games without Stax (because it sucks) and no one was claiming the games weren't balanced. It is a ridiculous notion that in order for people to have fun Stax needs to be present. Players can have plenty of fun without Stax there to "reign in" certain archetypes.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6361
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 3 years ago

illakunsaa wrote:
3 years ago
I think most people fail to realize that all decks are looking to stop other players playing the game not just "stax decks". Objective of the game is to eliminate the other players. Does it really matter how you do it?
How much mana do your opponents get to spend on the way to the game ending? That's the main distinction. Stax usually denies resources to do things, vs. control answering the things that are done, vs. tempo trying to stall. There is a difference in how the game is played.

User avatar
Sinis
Posts: 2042
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Sinis » 3 years ago

WizardMN wrote:
3 years ago
Everybody realizes that. <snip> ... it is meant to be more about the journey than the destination.
This pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Commander”