DirkGently wrote: ↑5 months ago
c'mon, you've gotta know that's pushing my "time to bash cEDH" button.
You also have free will, I didn't make you do anything XD.
Maybe if bashing cEDH was relevent to the discussion, I'd accept partial blame, but the quality of the format isn't, and never has been, the discussion.
This is confusing to me. Of course when I'm describing the difference between two things that have some similar elements I'm going to focus on the elements that are different.
Sure, but there's more to commander than just the things you have (correctly) identified as different.
I thought we agreed we weren't talking about that anymore.
To talk about what? The card's problematicness? That's still the context for the conversation, I'm just using an example to draw the current node of discussion (whether cEDH is applicable) back to the root.
Oh, well, I've been speaking under the assumption that we dropped that "context."
But if we didn't doesn't the actual gameplay matter more, not less?
I sometimes call it "normal commander" or "traditional commander" or "casual commander" (or replace commander with EDH in any of those) just to clarify what I'm talking about, but "commander" is the proper name for the casual format.
And I sometimes say "casual modern" or competitive mondern" to clarify, but I could call either one modern and I would be correct.
If a card was problematic in pDH, also a variation of commander, that also wouldn't be relevant to the root format "commander".
This is a false equivalency because pHD IS a different format, but even setting that aside, my answer is actually still yes (with an sterisk).
If someone says "
Dreadhorde Arcanist is broken in legacy, therefore it's probably also broken in modern, right? I'd reply "
Dreadhorde Arcanist is broken in legacy because Legacy has
Brainstorm and
Ponder, Since those cards are not legal in modern,
Dreadhorde Arcanist is actually fine in modern"
My default assumption would be that a card behaves similarly across formats, If a card DOES behaves differently in two different formats, you'd be able to explain why the format itself causes the two cards to behave differently.
So yeah, if someone told me about their experience in pHD I'd assume the experience is relevant to casual EDH (or cEDH, or even Legacyu) unless I was able to identify a difference between the two formats that would invalidate the experience (now, pHD is very different than EDH, so there's a good chance it would be invalidated, but cEDH has no SYSTEMATIC difference)
Both a precon-level game and a 8-level game are playing within the same format, as defined by the rules, philosophy, and norms of that format. There's no hard line between those two. You could Ship-of-Theseus your way, upgrading 1 card at a time, from a precon game to an 8 or even higher without categorically changing what format you're playing. But as soon as you're no longer making deck decisions with the intent of creating a good game, you aren't playing commander anymore. That's the hard line between cEDH and commander.
Sure and if that's the magical line that makes it not EDH for you, then We agree on everything except terminology.
Personally I think antagonism towards cEDH helps make new players more aware of the difference between the formats and pushes them to consciously decide which side of the fence each game they play is on and what's appropriate, rather than blithely playing whatever with whoever. So I think it's profitable.
A: "Hey, I've got his cool idea for a deck, but it's a bit cutthroat, so I think I'll try out that cEDH thing"
B: "cEDH is for pussies too scared to play a real competitive format"
A: "Hm… well, okay, I guess I'll try to use the idea in a casual deck"
A: *proceeds to totally ruin the game
B: "How could this have happened? I'll need to be more disparaging of cEDH in the future!"
Now, I'm not saying pubstompers would entirely disappear, but surely holding up cEDH as a legitimate alternative to people that want to play with more powerful cards can only be a good thing for the casual crowd.
Okay......but I actually have those samples in my memory, I wasn't just inventing them whole cloth. I haven't claimed to have data outside my own experience. That's a pretty weird thing to make up. Why would you lie about that? Especially when it wasn't even relevant?
I'm a statistics minor, sample means a collection ofdata, you obviously don't have data of your experiences, so I assumed you were using it as an analogy and I did likewise.
Second of all, if you are going to accuse me of lying, at least have the consideration to say the lie was something I actually said.
Dunadain wrote: how do we have a discussion when we can just throw out any data we don't like?
I did not say I have data. You could reasonably argue I implied I have data except in the very next line I wrote:
"X isn't broken outside of cEDH"
"Well I've seen X used in a broken way in Y"
"Well then obviously Y must have been cEDH, please try to keep up"
I thought that was pretty clear that I was using the term data the same way you were using the term sample, aka experiences.
I'll take the blame for assuming you meant sample in a certain way, that's on me, but I can't see your accusations of me being a liar as anything but Ad-hoc, and an easily disproven attack on my character at that.
Again it feels like you're just pushing my buttons. Which, y'know, is fine (outside of the lying), I love a good argument, it's just weird that you'd then turn around and go "why are you always so mean about cEDH?" after provoking me.
I really wasn't trying to provoke you, I swear, and if I have, I'm sorry.
However, calling me a liar is a good way to provoke ME.
I don't actually have any data (though if you want to go back to talking about card power levels, I can pull up tournament results, which IS actual data).
I'm assuming you're talking about cEDH, so we both know how I feel about the relevance of that. Would you care about the results of pDH tournaments when evaluating a card in commander?
Again, yes* (see what I said above)