TheGildedGoose wrote: ↑1 year ago
I'm kind of surprised by this, honestly. I showed TATGM to a casual EDH friend of mine who quit playing years ago and he said he would just scoop if that resolved on turn 3, and I kind of can't blame him. On the one hand, TATGM aren't great to remove because we can just recast them if necessary, but on the other, this expectation is only good if your opponents are actually competent players making optimal plays. I suspect the stax-y nature of the card will make her a target for removal in a few months, but we'll see.
If your friend quit playing a few years ago they may not be privy to the level of power creep that has occurred on the format as a whole.
Atraxa, Praetors' Voice,
Yarok, the Desecrated,
Thrasios, Triton Hero,
Korvold, Fae-Cursed King,
Prosper, Tome-Bound are all hugely threatening commanders many which enable some pretty degenerate combos.
I think what TATGM has working in our favor is similar to the climate change conundrum
@DirkGently used in his Pheldda primer.
DirkGently wrote: ↑5 years ago
Phelddagrif, as a deck, is like climate change. Most people agree that climate change is a problem, and that something ought to be done about it. And we'll all piss and moan about how ridiculous it is that more isn't being done, and some people are telling us that, unless we make massive changes, we're all going to be dead in a few hundreds years or whatever, but nothing much ever seems to HAPPEN. Because even though we'd LIKE to help fix the problem, fixing the problem is a big personal inconvenience. If our countries were to institute the kind of sweeping legislation that scientists recommend, it'd really hurt competitively in terms of trade. Maybe we commit to doing a little teensy tiny something, but it feels like we're all playing a sort of game of chicken where no one wants to commit too much to doing anything until everyone else has already done more.
If you can't see the parallels, your opponents may know that you're a problem, that eventually it's very likely that you'll be the winner, but there's always more pressing problems to deal with, and if they dedicate a lot of resources to fighting you and the other players don't, they're going to be at a huge disadvantage because you can put them in a miserable spot competitively by removing everything they care about and funding their enemies who are more cooperative. Sure, if everyone collectively agrees not to be swayed by your bribes, to keep fighting you with everything they've got and not let up until you're really, truly dead, then they can take you out. And if the whole world could agree to put aside short-term gains in order to really commit wholeheartedly to combating climate change, we could probably solve it. But that doesn't seem too likely, now does it?
TATGM is a value engine, as well as the rest of the deck (and lands as an archetype). It doesn't scream burst win. I'm not going to combo in an untelegraphed way. Therefore when specifically evaluating your opponents threats your deck is there at the top but it's not "Immediate". You're not really a threat on the board state until you decide to make it appear as such. Your "looming threat" when coming to the table is just "overwhelming value + tokens". Not Combo. Which at a glance, seems pretty beatable, as long as you deal with it before it gets away from you.
For example, we've mentioned how TATGM can be a target, so someone can counter them or kill her on site whenever she is out. The thing is, it just slowed the value engine down. It didn't
do anything. Maybe it's specific to my meta, but removal is at a premium. I almost always want to save it for when I need to stop someone from winning, or not die myself. If I use it on a value engine like TATGM, all I felt like I did was slow that person down a little bit, however, they're a lands deck and probably have a ton more value on the way. At the same time I slowed myself down (tempo/card advantage) and my other 2 opponents are now up a card and tempo so I'm behind. It feels AWFUL.
Our percentages of winning go up or down in small increments as the game progresses, while other decks are more swingy. If
Korvold, Fae-Cursed King is out of the field saccing tokens you KNOW it. Every single action that player is taking is skyrocketing them ahead, it MUST be dealt with. Not only that but decks like that are often paired with infinite combos that can go off at any time. Not having access to a infinite combo lowers your threat profile, plain and simple. Sure having a hoof in your deck is scary, but you can't win with a hoof by itself, you need a bunch of tokens, it
usually takes at least a turn or 2 to get that set up. Gauging the exact turns that that will happen is sometimes difficult for an opponent. If I'm just playing some generically good land value, I may start turning the engines on on turn 6 and go for a win by turn 8. OR, I may draw out the game a little, bit extend my move, then wipe the board on 8 and win on 9/10. It's unknown knowledge and harder to assess as an individual.
However,
any opponent can do the math that "X player drew quite a few cards, and tutored once. I know they're playing infinite combos, so I'm going to try to kill them or win now instead." That type of knowledge is better known/shared/discussed throughout the game and often times used against the player in question. At the same time, other other players are flying under the radar, incrementally upping their win percentage like TATGM.
The best part is this isn't necessarily an incorrect assessment of the game. If you don't deal with that player who can combo, they can in fact just "have it" and end the game on the spot. Of course, just having the combo in your deck doesn't win it, but most decks I've played against that include effective 2/3 card combos often do a great job at making themselves a threat with the supporting cards they play. Heck, I am often times contributing to shutting them down I know it to be true as well.
I would be lying if I said this wasn't my absolute favorite way to play modern EDH as it's not overtly political but it's still very much there. You're relying on the humans piloting their decks to often make the correct plays, and think about the game at a macro level instead of micro. In a format of power creep and greedy plays/deckbuilding I believe that this is one of the most satisfying ways to play. It puts your opponents in a difficult position and punishes those who just want to play the most powerful deck or not really worry about what other opponents are doing. One of my other favorite decks is Marchesa Aikido, this deck functions similarly and there are
several,
excellent,
primers, describing as the playstyle.
TheGildedGoose wrote: ↑1 year ago
Lands is one of those decks that sits in an awkward spot between being too powerful for casual EDH and not good enough for cEDH. Whenever I'm punching up with one of my decks, I always target them first because I know I can't outvalue them in the long run, but a lot of players haven't figured that out yet.
I agree and I've actually had this exact same thought. Which is why I believe this deck is well positioned against a higher power meta where people are playing
some fast mana and efficient combos, but not necessarily playing "CEDH" level decks. I would also like to point out that targeting them like you mentioned is not
always the best option when there is a good/efficient combo deck also at that table. You can of course always hope, that other players will shut that player down while you slow down the value train, but that is sometimes a riskier line of play. I would say It's a 50/50 toss up on who to go after at that point then let the board state decide as the game evolves.
TheGildedGoose wrote: ↑1 year ago
Yeah, this is the deck I've been waiting for for years. Abzan strategies have been so stagnant for years. Seeing something not only new, not only incredibly strong, but also a Lands enabling commander is the Junk of my dreams.
Agreed. Even more reason to optimize and master piloting it as such. I say bring on the salt. The above descriptions in game play allows me enough flexibility through game politics to worm may way into a win percentage that I'm happy with. It also fits within the constraints of what I want a "powerful deck" to be, no combos (I have other decks that do that) the best removal, and consistent incremental value. Even if I'm not always winning, I have satisfaction in knowing that I can pull out a hyper consistent deck with some of the best damn value engines and removal in the format. If I can interact with my opponents meaningfully and gain value and cast powerful spells. I always feel like I made a significant impact on the game no matter the outcome which is a win for me. Every time I pull this deck out I want to feel like
Dominic Toretto talking about his 1970 Dodge Charger.
Here's the differences I have vs yours:
-1 Path to Exile
-1 Skeletal Scrying
-1 Elves of Deep Shadow
-1 Wasteland
-1 Generous Gift
-1 Cavern of Souls
+1 Deathrite Shaman
+1 Flagstones of Trokair
+1 Vesuva
+1 Despark
+1 Tear Asunder
+1 Elesh Norn, Mother of Machines
We're on the same count for card "types" (ramp/draw/etc). I have a few meta tweaks that I've made, the only change that i have that is not really 1:1 is that I have Norn instead of Skeletal Scrying. However, she does create extra value if she sticks around, so while not direct card draw it does gain me extra "stuff". I've also, been toying with some other removals that exile like Despark and Tear Asunder mostly due to seeing more indestructible effects. Gift and Path are obviously great cards this is probably just meta or sideboard-esque situation as you feel inclined.