The top three worst strategies to play against

[pokken]

Horobi is basically just a creature machine gunning deck, and there is one thing you have to keep in mind while playing a deck like that: you don't actually have to clear the board if that's just going to be helping another deck. That's just a failure of diplomacy if you do that. The ability to do it serves as a rattlesnake and deter attacks, and your creature based opponents should take the deal because it allows them time to try to find an answer. Sure, if it craps on all decks at the table you can just wipe the board and start beating face, so having to hold back so you don't just hand it to the obvious combo deck or the control deck does hurt you, but that makes the deal more attractive to the rest of the table if you can explain it. You're taking on a risk that they'll find an answer by letting them live, but your ok with that because you don't want to just screw up the game by blowing them out only to have the last player roll you.

Although Horobi is also more vulnerable than most of these sorts of decks, and also gives your opponents the ability to take advantage of it.

That's the political play pattern I think of as "mother may I?" where everyone who wants to develop their board has to ask for permission. It's kinda like back in the day where everything was so slow you could permission lock a board with the threat of counterspells, no one wanted to take a turn off losing their bomb

The political ramifications of these strategies are part of what makes them so lame. It's like, oh, okay, you're just going to kill anything that threatens you, so can I play a card advantage engine? no, if you do that you'll win. play something innocuous. okay, now I can win.

I would straight up get up and leave if someone pulled out Horobi, Death's Wail

[3drinks]

Horobi is basically just a creature machine gunning deck, and there is one thing you have to keep in mind while playing a deck like that: you don't actually have to clear the board if that's just going to be helping another deck. That's just a failure of diplomacy if you do that. The ability to do it serves as a rattlesnake and deter attacks, and your creature based opponents should take the deal because it allows them time to try to find an answer. Sure, if it craps on all decks at the table you can just wipe the board and start beating face, so having to hold back so you don't just hand it to the obvious combo deck or the control deck does hurt you, but that makes the deal more attractive to the rest of the table if you can explain it. You're taking on a risk that they'll find an answer by letting them live, but your ok with that because you don't want to just screw up the game by blowing them out only to have the last player roll you.

Although Horobi is also more vulnerable than most of these sorts of decks, and also gives your opponents the ability to take advantage of it.

That's the political play pattern I think of as "mother may I?" where everyone who wants to develop their board has to ask for permission. It's kinda like back in the day where everything was so slow you could permission lock a board with the threat of counterspells, no one wanted to take a turn off losing their bomb

The political ramifications of these strategies are part of what makes them so lame. It's like, oh, okay, you're just going to kill anything that threatens you, so can I play a card advantage engine? no, if you do that you'll win. play something innocuous. okay, now I can win.

I would straight up get up and leave if someone pulled out Horobi, Death's Wail

I remember morphing Vhati il-Dal into Horobi, Death's Wail just because I loved the visual of killing stuff with Flying Carpet

[Igzex]

I usually use my Dragon Tempests for burn OTKs so at least I'm not one of those people

[duducrash]

The new spider commander from LOTR will be a flavor of the month new spin on machine gunning thing

[DirkGently]

The Glissa machine Gun is specifically with Thornbite Staff - often recurring a sac-for-mana artifact or with either Ashnod's Altar or Krark-Clan Ironworks to sac the recurred artifact to make it "kill everything."

I mean, at that point we're talking about a ~4 card combo with pretty specific pieces (incidentally, I was thinking perhaps what was originally meant was thornbite staff + Viridian Longbow, which is simpler, but hasn't been mentioned). If that's considered the worst strategy to play against then I think y'all are playing in even more sheltered metas than mine.

The Line is (to me):
- Targeted removal = Kill the threat
- Wraths = Reset the threats
- One-Sided Wraths = WinCon (if not used to win in a turn - this is egregious)
- CMG = "Nobody but me gets to keep a creature and I still won't win for turns and turns"

I mean, a deck with 20 wraths is going to functionally prevent opponents from having any creatures on the board (presumably the controller is running planeswalkers or indestructibles or whatever so that they can break parity) even if they don't have a literal lock. But none of what has been described really seems like "CMG" is an archetype. It seems more like individual combos that might pop up on occasion. I haven't even heard anyone describe a deck where creating a CMG is the primary plan of the deck. Closest that's been mentioned is Grave Pact, but I was the one that brought that up and nobody else has really talked about it. And considering they're combos that don't necessarily win the game or even take an undue amount of time to resolve, that seems pretty tame to me?

The stranger assertion to me, though, is this one:

- One-Sided Wraths = WinCon (if not used to win in a turn - this is egregious)

So wait, if an opponent is dangerously ahead, it's okay for me to play Hour of Revelation but not Ruinous Ultimatum - even if I have zero or few permanents on board? Aren't those functionally nearly identical at that point?

Personally while repeated wraths can be pretty annoying, I don't think them being asymmetrical or not has much of an impact on how much enjoyment I get from the game. Ofc playing a one-sided wrath as a wincon is ideal, but if someone is far behind and risking losing the game, then I can't imagine why it would be an issue to fire them off defensively.

And that is why I would never play a second game against somebody piloting a CMG deck. Not as much the mechanic of killing all other creatures, but the sheer hubris of playing a deck that says loud and clear "I care about nobody else's enjoyment of the game - I am the only one that matters." (Other decks with the same message also garner the same response from me - "Good game* - but I will never sit down at a table across from you again")

*Obligatory white lie in the name of consideration

What is a CMG deck? All I've heard is occasional combos that might pop up in the context of decks typically doing other things.

I think it's unreasonable to refuse play to someone based solely on one deck. If you think that deck is unfun to play against or a poor match for the power level of the table, I think it's totally fair to say you won't play against that deck again, but if they're happy to switch decks I don't see the problem. Different people find different things enjoyable to play with and against. I think impugning their entire character based on one deck choice is an extremely hasty and unfair judgment. And doubly so if we're talking about a one-off combo in a deck with other goals.

I would straight up get up and leave if someone pulled out Horobi, Death's Wail

Damn no offense but y'all are whiny babies (I said no offense). It's one thing to dislike playing against a certain deck or archetype or commander, but outright refusing to play seems borderline childish. If someone pulls out horobi, probably just don't overcommit to the board? If it really bothers you so much, you could just ask them to switch decks?

If people are rolling the table with politics then counter with politics. Point out that they're going to win if nobody else is allowed to establish threats, get the table on your side, and solve the problem. I mean if it's Horobi, he dies to literally anything.

[pokken]

I got better things to do than waste my time on people who think sleeving up %$#%$#% like Tinybones, Trinket Thief is a good idea and no one is changing my mind.

If you bring horobi to play against casual players you don't know, I feel like I'm better off not sharing your air.

I straight up noped out of Leovold games a bunch of times and no regerts at all.

[DirkGently]

@pokken

You didn't mention discard in your top 3 though? I'd much rather play against horobi than tinybones or leovold. You just have to avoid overcommitting to the board.

Even if someone had a really egregious pubstomp deck, I'd probably at least give them the benefit of the doubt and ask if they have a different deck to play. If they refuse to switch, then sure, screw 'em, but at least then it's clear that they're the one being unreasonable.

[Treamayne]

The Glissa machine Gun is specifically with Thornbite Staff - often recurring a sac-for-mana artifact or with either Ashnod's Altar or Krark-Clan Ironworks to sac the recurred artifact to make it "kill everything."

I mean, at that point we're talking about a ~4 card combo with pretty specific pieces (incidentally, I was thinking perhaps what was originally meant was thornbite staff + Viridian Longbow, which is simpler, but hasn't been mentioned). If that's considered the worst strategy to play against then I think y'all are playing in even more sheltered metas than mine.

No meta. We just discussed that in this thread.

That said, sure you can reduce anything to "remove combo/synergy pieces." I thought the discussion was examples of the decks the OP referenced and why they are (or are not) annoying across a casual* table.

The Line is (to me):
- Targeted removal = Kill the threat
- Wraths = Reset the threats
- One-Sided Wraths = WinCon (if not used to win in a turn - this is egregious)
- CMG = "Nobody but me gets to keep a creature and I still won't win for turns and turns"

I mean, a deck with 20 wraths is going to functionally prevent opponents from having any creatures on the board (presumably the controller is running planeswalkers or indestructibles or whatever so that they can break parity) even if they don't have a literal lock. But none of what has been described really seems like "CMG" is an archetype. It seems more like individual combos that might pop up on occasion.

Emphasis mine - and this is what puts your example in the category discussed below.

I haven't even heard anyone describe a deck where creating a CMG is the primary plan of the deck.

Sounds like you play in a sheltered Meta. I routinely see decks on MTGO whose stated primary goal is "control" through the removal of all <permanent type> the player doesn't control (usually creatures) - where removal can be: kill them all, exile them all, steal them all, etc.

Closest that's been mentioned is Grave Pact, but I was the one that brought that up and nobody else has really talked about it. And considering they're combos that don't necessarily win the game or even take an undue amount of time to resolve, that seems pretty tame to me?

I can't speak for others, but I didn't feel there was a need to point out one of the most obvious offenders. Especially since you had already discussed it.

The fact that these decks don't close out the game quickly is one of their primary annoying traits. Again reference the next section.

The stranger assertion to me, though, is this one:

- One-Sided Wraths = WinCon (if not used to win in a turn - this is egregious)

So wait, if an opponent is dangerously ahead, it's okay for me to play Hour of Revelation but not Ruinous Ultimatum - even if I have zero or few permanents on board? Aren't those functionally nearly identical at that point?

Personally while repeated wraths can be pretty annoying, I don't think them being asymmetrical or not has much of an impact on how much enjoyment I get from the game. Ofc playing a one-sided wrath as a wincon is ideal, but if someone is far behind and risking losing the game, then I can't imagine why it would be an issue to fire them off defensively.

My apologies, I was not clear. There is an obvious difference between "I'm wiping because I'm behind" (one sided or otherwise) and what I was referencing - which is much more like your examples. "Breaking parity" (indes critters, Planeswalkers, etc.) to make one sided wraths just because the player thinks that EDH should be a Solitaire spectator sport is the problem with this category.

And that is why I would never play a second game against somebody piloting a CMG deck. Not as much the mechanic of killing all other creatures, but the sheer hubris of playing a deck that says loud and clear "I care about nobody else's enjoyment of the game - I am the only one that matters." (Other decks with the same message also garner the same response from me - "Good game* - but I will never sit down at a table across from you again")

What is a CMG deck?

Uh. . . Did you not just use the term two paragraphs ago? Creature Machine Gun. (TM Pokken - all rights reserved)

All I've heard is occasional combos that might pop up in the context of decks typically doing other things.

I think it's unreasonable to refuse play to someone based solely on one deck. If you think that deck is unfun to play against or a poor match for the power level of the table, I think it's totally fair to say you won't play against that deck again, but if they're happy to switch decks I don't see the problem. Different people find different things enjoyable to play with and against. I think impugning their entire character based on one deck choice is an extremely hasty and unfair judgment. And doubly so if we're talking about a one-off combo in a deck with other goals.

Please reference the thread linked above. When your only choice is "block the player with an obviously incompatible playstyle" or risk numerous soul-sucking wastes of time - well it's not really a choice. I will agree, however, that in-person or in-playgroup my response would be closer to your suggestion.

I would straight up get up and leave if someone pulled out Horobi, Death's Wail

Damn no offense but y'all are whiny babies (I said no offense).

Sorry to break it to you, but saying "no offense" while being offensive - is still offensive. There is no call for personal attacks in a reasonable discussion.

Ad hominem should be left to the politicians.

* All normal disclaimers on the inability to accurately form a consensual definition of casual are included.

[DirkGently]

No meta. We just discussed that in this thread.

Even if you're playing at a public LGS or online or whatever, there's still a meta. Some stores play higher power than others, even if there's no enforced power level. And very few environments play at a true cEDH power level ime.

An LGS with a lower power level than my meta would be unusual but I'm sure there are some out there.

Emphasis mine - and this is what puts your example in the category discussed below.

But any time you play Wrath of God and have noncreature permanents on the board (even lands, potentially), you're breaking parity to some extent. By that definition it'd be pretty hard to avoid an asymmetrical wipe unless you were playing WoG in an all-creatures no-indestructible deck (which seems ill-advised).

I agree with @pokken's earlier statement that the obnoxiousness is on a spectrum, but I think the frequency matters a lot more than how symmetrical or not the wipe is, personally. Decks that are good at breaking parity on creature wipes are more incentivized to run a lot of creature wipes, but it's ultimately the frequency and not the parity that's the issue imo. If you're running a no-creatures planeswalker deck, but only running 2 WoGs, I don't see that as a problem at all. Honestly if most any deck is running fewer than ~2 wipes of some kind I'd consider that a questionable decision. Wipes are pretty important to have available as an out when someone pulls too far ahead, and running ones that minimize impact to your strategy just make sense.

Sounds like you play in a sheltered Meta. I routinely see decks on MTGO whose stated primary goal is "control" through the removal of all <permanent type> the player doesn't control (usually creatures) - where removal can be: kill them all, exile them all, steal them all, etc.

Sure - I think, again, that's on a bit of a spectrum where the amount of control, and the meta it's in, are going to dictate how problematic it actually is - the 30 board wipe deck might be heinous in a precon meta, but it might be totally fine in a powerful meta with a lot of combo decks. Similarly, grave pact effects might completely lock some decks out, or might only be an inconvenience to a token deck, for example.

But all that aside, my main point of confusion here is that you keep bringing up really specific combos as "machine guns" - which tbf more aptly fit the metaphor of a machine gun - when it seems like the actual thing you're annoyed by is a much more broad category of "decks that are very good at creature removal (in whatever form)". So why do we keep talking about 4-card Glissa combos or Parallax Wave or whatever?

My apologies, I was not clear. There is an obvious difference between "I'm wiping because I'm behind" (one sided or otherwise) and what I was referencing - which is much more like your examples. "Breaking parity" (indes critters, Planeswalkers, etc.) to make one sided wraths just because the player thinks that EDH should be a Solitaire spectator sport is the problem with this category.

I think it's unfair to demand that any decks that focus around a type other than creatures not run board wipes, or not play them unless they're literally going to win off them. I do think it's fair to not want to play against a deck running a lot of them - with that amount being dependent on preference and power level. But c'mon, you're really going to say that a planeswalker deck player "wants to play a solitaire spectator sport" because they're running 2 board wipes? Interacting with your opponents is the thing that PREVENTS the game from being solitaire imo. Otherwise we're all just playing with ourselves and waiting to see who finishes first (finishes solitaire, i mean ).

Uh. . . Did you not just use the term two paragraphs ago? Creature Machine Gun. (TM Pokken - all rights reserved)

Yeah but the things he described were specific 2-card combos that do a Plague Wind (and sometimes require a ton of mana), which I don't really see being an archetype? And a lot of them weren't even terribly effective? Like...double strike + Sword of Fire and Ice = the worst strategy in the entire format to play against?

1) I don't buy that glissa capsule, let alone DS + SoFI, are the worst things that have ever happened in the format and

2) I don't think those are really strategies or archetypes. They're interactions, sure, but how many decks are built around containment priest + eldrazi displacer as their primary endgame? At most that seems like 2 individual cards in a deck that have a decent interaction when they come together, not an entire strategy.

I mentioned grave pact as a good faith attempt to help you guys out with something that at least approaches being an actual strategy. Which, okay, you consider that part of the archetype, great. Are there other examples though? Can we just replace #1 with grave pact decks? Or are we talking about all decks running a lot of creature removal, including board wipe heavy decks etc? I just don't understand what we're talking about, honestly.

Sorry to break it to you, but saying "no offense" while being offensive - is still offensive. There is no call for personal attacks in a reasonable discussion.

I thought it was funny and lighthearted enough to not be offensive. I apologize if I've misjudged.

[Treamayne]

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Final thoughts:

Even if you're playing at a public LGS <snip>

An LGS with a lower power level than my meta would be unusual but I'm sure there are some out there.

I never said LGS, just MTGO as previously discussed.

I agree with @pokken's earlier statement that the obnoxiousness is on a spectrum,

Concur

But any time you play Wrath of God and have noncreature permanents on the board (even lands, potentially),

Disagree. Breaking Parity is "destroy all <something>" and some portion of your <something> evades destruction (or it's a resource your deck doesn't require - like Superfriends).

Decks that are good at breaking parity on creature wipes are more incentivized to run a lot of creature wipes, but it's ultimately the frequency and not the parity that's the issue imo.

Concur - after all frequency was the original issue - you brought up parity.

But all that aside, my main point of confusion here is that you keep bringing up really specific combos as "machine guns"

No, I didn't. I saw multiple posts expressing confusion about a single example (Glissa) and I explained my experience with that one example. I then commented on your question of "where's the line" with my personal "lines."
Please don't speak on my behalf.

I think it's unfair to demand that any decks that focus around a type other than creatures not run board wipes,

I never said that

or not play them unless they're literally going to win off them.

I also never said that.

you're really going to say that a planeswalker deck player "wants to play a solitaire spectator sport" because they're running 2 board wipes?

Never said that either.

Interacting with your opponents is the thing that PREVENTS the game from being solitaire imo.

Concur asterisk

Like...double strike + Sword of Fire and Ice = the worst strategy in the entire format to play against?

I don't recall seeing that anywhere in the thread (but may have missed it). I certainly never said that.

1) I don't buy that glissa capsule, let alone DS + SoFI, are the worst things that have ever happened in the format

Never said that. Can't speak for @pokken, but I don't think he said that either.

I just don't understand what we're talking about, honestly.

I'll try to summarize my (possibly flawed) understanding and clarify my points:
- OP was a list of things Pokken does not like to play against
- Contention and misunderstanding about what was meant by his #1
-- Flowed into misunderstanding of examples as he tried to explain his #1
--- My belief (or at least my version of a similar concept) is that it sucks to play against decks that a) deny many/all creatures over multiple turns - while also b) not winning - causing c) Spectator magic because you sit and watch them durdle turn after turn while locked out of keeping creatures (in his example). Personal take: To me, this would be worded as "Stax Lite - denying a single resource (usually creatures) to everybody else, while not impeding your own use of that resource - but also not winning (either through a need to "show off" or "bad deck/no wincon cookie" or whatever reason)
---Corollary: I believe Pokken's point was that #1 is not as objectively bad/harsh/Staxy as other archetypes, it's nature as pertains to creatures means it is more ubiquitous in the casual setting - and those players are less often called on their shenanigans (for the same reason you cite - "it's only removal/interaction") Personal opinion: Sure, it's interaction taken to extreme and causing unfun games - generally because (as you said) they rarely describe their own deck that way before hand so it comes off as a pubstompy bait-and-switch waste of time.
-- Based on the confusion about the specific Glissa example (which, if you consider context he was referencing as his first strongest memory of this kind of deck - so consider EDH circa 2010 - not Commander circa 2023 for context) I was simply trying to help explain the example (and seemed to get attacked for it)
-- I also (same post, separate concept) replied to your question on where my personal line is in not wanting further games against a player/deck (which, on MTGO is synonymous since there is no rule 0 - you can't discuss and ask before hand - you can only avoid a player that has pubstomped casual games in the past. Personally I give most players three strikes - which may all be used up in a single game if they are verbally abusive while also piloting a pubstomp deck and playing like an [expletive deleted] - such as LD on the manascrewed player "cause he's weakest and first to go" (or some such nonsense)) I have very few hours for MtG - these games are not how I want to spend them.

I thought it was funny and lighthearted enough to not be offensive. I apologize if I've misjudged.

I'm sorry if that was your intention - but, to me, it came off as "you disagree with me so you are whining."
I felt nothing light-hearted in the comment.

I hope that clarifies somewhat.

[DirkGently]

Oh god we're spaghettifying.

Even if you're playing at a public LGS <snip>
I never said LGS, just MTGO as previously discussed.

Why did you <snip> when the next two words would have made clear my intention? "OR ONLINE" were my next two words. Kinda feels like you are intentionally trying to make me look bad.

I can't comment very directly on the MTGO experience because I have little interest in playing magic online, especially commander, so I primarily relate it to playing in public LGSs which is probably the closest analogue in paper. But I would define a meta as essentially synonymous with "environment". No matter how chaotic it may be, everywhere there is a finite number of people playing, there is a meta of some sort.

---

But any time you play Wrath of God and have noncreature permanents on the board (even lands, potentially),

Disagree. Breaking Parity is "destroy all <something>" and some portion of your <something> evades destruction (or it's a resource your deck doesn't require - like Superfriends).

That's such a fuzzy line though. My Nahiri deck still ultimately wins via beating down with creatures in combat - it does require creatures ultimately. It just doesn't put much weight on any individual one of them since it can replace them fairly easily. Usually when Nahiri board wipes, she does blow up some of her own creatures, she just doesn't care very much.

And even if you are blowing up permanents that you genuinely care about - say a superfriends deck with a decent number of real, valuable creatures - if you have significantly more value left behind after and/or are blowing up significantly more value in your opponents creatures than your own, I'd still say that's breaking parity, just to a lesser extent. It's not so black and white. Really, if you aren't breaking parity in some way, then you wouldn't bother playing the board wipe in the first place. Breaking parity is kinda the point of playing anything.

Your definition impugns a pretty high proportion of how people tend to use wipes.

---

Decks that are good at breaking parity on creature wipes are more incentivized to run a lot of creature wipes, but it's ultimately the frequency and not the parity that's the issue imo.

Concur - after all frequency was the original issue - you brought up parity.

- One-Sided Wraths = WinCon (if not used to win in a turn - this is egregious)

---

But all that aside, my main point of confusion here is that you keep bringing up really specific combos as "machine guns"

No, I didn't. I saw multiple posts expressing confusion about a single example (Glissa) and I explained my experience with that one example. I then commented on your question of "where's the line" with my personal "lines."
Please don't speak on my behalf.

What is a CMG deck?

Uh. . . Did you not just use the term two paragraphs ago? Creature Machine Gun. (TM Pokken - all rights reserved

1. Creature Machine Gunning, aka the Glissa, the Traitor effect
The first time I saw this deck was Glissa, the Traitor so I remember it from that, but I've seen a million scenarios of Goblin Sharpshooter, Dismiss into Dream, double striking Sword of Fire and Ice, Niv-Mizzet, Parun, and on and on and on. Containment Priest Eldrazi Displacer and Parallax Wave / Opalescence too.

If you're answering my question with Pokken's definition then I assume you agree with that definition, and his definition involved the things I described. If you disagree with his definition then you failed to make that clear.

---

I think it's unfair to demand that any decks that focus around a type other than creatures not run board wipes,

I never said that

- One-Sided Wraths = WinCon (if not used to win in a turn - this is egregious)

Disagree. Breaking Parity is "destroy all <something>" and some portion of your <something> evades destruction (or it's a resource your deck doesn't require - like Superfriends).

---

or not play them unless they're literally going to win off them.

I also never said that.

- One-Sided Wraths = WinCon (if not used to win in a turn - this is egregious)

---

you're really going to say that a planeswalker deck player "wants to play a solitaire spectator sport" because they're running 2 board wipes?

Never said that either.

My apologies, I was not clear. There is an obvious difference between "I'm wiping because I'm behind" (one sided or otherwise) and what I was referencing - which is much more like your examples. "Breaking parity" (indes critters, Planeswalkers, etc.) to make one sided wraths just because the player thinks that EDH should be a Solitaire spectator sport is the problem with this category.

Breaking Parity is "destroy all <something>" and some portion of your <something> evades destruction (or it's a resource your deck doesn't require - like Superfriends).

You said that wipes from behind are fine, but then I guess it's not fine if they break parity at all? It reads to me like if the planeswalker player has a couple planeswalkers on the board, using a wrath even when other players are ahead is breaking parity, and so they "think that EDH should be a Solitaire spectator sport". If there's more nuance to your position I don't think it's been conveyed. Every time you talk about breaking parity on wraths you seem to think it's bad, without mention of frequency or degree.

---

Like...double strike + Sword of Fire and Ice = the worst strategy in the entire format to play against?

I don't recall seeing that anywhere in the thread (but may have missed it). I certainly never said that.

1. Creature Machine Gunning, aka the Glissa, the Traitor effect
The first time I saw this deck was Glissa, the Traitor so I remember it from that, but I've seen a million scenarios of Goblin Sharpshooter, Dismiss into Dream, double striking Sword of Fire and Ice, Niv-Mizzet, Parun, and on and on and on. Containment Priest Eldrazi Displacer and Parallax Wave / Opalescence too.

You didn't say it directly, but you did redirect me to Pokken's definition when I asked you to clarify what you meant be a machine gun. If you don't agree with that definition then why direct me to it?

---

1) I don't buy that glissa capsule, let alone DS + SoFI, are the worst things that have ever happened in the format

Never said that. Can't speak for @pokken, but I don't think he said that either.

1. Creature Machine Gunning, aka the Glissa, the Traitor effect
The first time I saw this deck was Glissa, the Traitor so I remember it from that, but I've seen a million scenarios of Goblin Sharpshooter, Dismiss into Dream, double striking Sword of Fire and Ice, Niv-Mizzet, Parun, and on and on and on. Containment Priest Eldrazi Displacer and Parallax Wave / Opalescence too.

The definition that you referred me to. For the #1 entry in a thread titled "The top three worst strategies to play against".

You never ran Executioner's Capsule? sheesh what were you doin.

^After I asked him what the "glissa machine gun" was. And glissa was the thing he used to define the category.

---

--- My belief (or at least my version of a similar concept) is that it sucks to play against decks that a) deny many/all creatures over multiple turns - while also b) not winning - causing c) Spectator magic because you sit and watch them durdle turn after turn while locked out of keeping creatures (in his example). Personal take: To me, this would be worded as "Stax Lite - denying a single resource (usually creatures) to everybody else, while not impeding your own use of that resource - but also not winning (either through a need to "show off" or "bad deck/no wincon cookie" or whatever reason)

All of that is reasonable (dependent on meta), but saying things like

- One-Sided Wraths = WinCon (if not used to win in a turn - this is egregious)

Seems like a completely different thing. Using a wrath that doesn't dramatically effect your board in order to reign in your opponents boards as a one-time thing doesn't seem at all problematic to me. Wraths are important and using ones that minimize impact to yourself is just smart magic. The only way it becomes egregious imo is if you're running a ton of them, but there's no mention of frequency and the post you made - in particular, the "if not used to win in a turn" - implies that you're talking about a single use of a asymmetrical wipe, not an excessive number of them.

---

---Corollary: I believe Pokken's point was that #1 is not as objectively bad/harsh/Staxy as other archetypes, it's nature as pertains to creatures means it is more ubiquitous in the casual setting - and those players are less often called on their shenanigans (for the same reason you cite - "it's only removal/interaction") Personal opinion: Sure, it's interaction taken to extreme and causing unfun games - generally because (as you said) they rarely describe their own deck that way before hand so it comes off as a pubstompy bait-and-switch waste of time.

I mean honestly the number of times I've played against a deck looping removal is extremely rare but maybe y'all are seeing it more often. Decks running an abundance of control are more common though I don't typically find them a problem unless I'm running pretty low powered.

Btw I did try to get clarification on it and he said:

I think that's *part* of what makes creature machine gunning worse than sweeper tribal and even grave pact[...]

So it seems like he's firmly in the definition of machine guns as defined in the OP, not the broader "decks which are very hostile to enemy creatures" definition, and excludes grave pact.

---

-- Based on the confusion about the specific Glissa example (which, if you consider context he was referencing as his first strongest memory of this kind of deck - so consider EDH circa 2010 - not Commander circa 2023 for context) I was simply trying to help explain the example (and seemed to get attacked for it)

Well he had already answered my question (he meant capsule not thornbite staff). Given that, I took your explanation to mean the combo YOU find problematic with Glissa.

Honestly I think you two are basically talking about completely separate things. He's talking about specific machine-gun combos, and you're talking about any strategy that heavily controls creatures. So you referring to pokken's definitions etc just adds to my confusion.

---

-- I also (same post, separate concept) replied to your question on where my personal line is in not wanting further games against a player/deck (which, on MTGO is synonymous since there is no rule 0 - you can't discuss and ask before hand - you can only avoid a player that has pubstomped casual games in the past. Personally I give most players three strikes - which may all be used up in a single game if they are verbally abusive while also piloting a pubstomp deck and playing like an [expletive deleted] - such as LD on the manascrewed player "cause he's weakest and first to go" (or some such nonsense)) I have very few hours for MtG - these games are not how I want to spend them.

Sure, that all seems fair. But your post that I responded to explicitly said:

I would never play a second game against somebody piloting a CMG deck

Not 3 strikes.

I'm glad you've clarified these points (though I still don't think I follow where your line is for parity-breaking wipes), but I don't think I've put any words in your mouth. Maybe I'm interpreting your words too literally? I don't mind you clarifying your position, but I do find it frustrating that you completely deny having even said this stuff.

[pokken]

I thought about it a little more and I still think designing your deck with the focus of assembling a CMG is the worst overall thing you can do in commander. And here's why:

* People will still play with you if you do it because it's more subtle.
* It's really unpleasant
* It disproportionally punishes worse players and worse deckbuilders
* It is usually undetectable by the commander
* It's common, particularly amongst less seasoned players who're growing out of the precon phase
* edit from @PrimevalCommander's point: They drive people to less interactive win conditions to compensate. yay combo time.

I think that, sure, some stax lockdowns are a worse individual experience sometimes.

Your mileage may vary, but I really hate this strategy. If you play a Winter Orb everyone hates you; if you play CMG, less seasoned players will go "oh that was a strong interaction!"

That's pretty much all I have to say about it I think.

[PrimevalCommander]

Discard decks are unfun, as a deck design, not as a one-off.
Stax is unfun, as a deck design, not as a one-off.
MLD is unfun.
Fast combo is unfun, but I care less these days because at least the game is over.
Storm is generally meh because the winning turn takes up too much game time. But I'll sit through it once a night if I have to just out of curiosity.
Turns deck can be like Storm, monopolizing game time. But I don't see that much. I play a deck with a few extra turns generally for extra combats in blue so I try to play through it at a decent clip.

Heavy creature hate decks are unfun if you are not expecting it and walk into it with a combat oriented strategy. But generally the meta can adapt by either dog piling the control player early, playing more protection spells, or boarding in their storm/turns/combo/spell decks against the creature killing deck and not caring. I would adjust my deck choice against these to better suit the pod. But if Dirk was in my meta playing WIPE.dec 90% of the time I would have serious eye rolls and have to pivot away from my favored combat kill strategy for less interactive options. One I saw recently was the age old Nevinyrral's Disk + Darksteel Forge + Unwinding Clock that we tried to play through for 1 hour before he eventually found a Mycosynth Lattice after drawing 80% of his deck.

[pokken]

Dirk was in my meta playing WIPE.dec 90% of the time I would have serious eye rolls and have to pivot away from my favored combat kill strategy for less interactive options

Which is another major mark against them I forgot. The more you hate on creatures, the more you get Thassa's Oracle combos.

[yeti1069]

Interesting...

Could explain why I get so much hate sometimes.
1. I cut Jokulhaups from my Marchesa the Black Rose deck, because sometimes it won me the game in a turn or two, and sometimes it made the game take forever afterward.
...and I've been contemplating building a mana denial deck around Tameshi with a lot of "bounce a land when you do X" effects.
2. My Kadena deck plays Seedborn and a couple of other untap effects, along with a few flash enablers, which means I'm basically taking an extra turn during each other player's turn...hadn't thought of it that way, but can see why it generates so much hate. Kind of disappointing, since I like morphs, and they're so weak without a lot of support like this.
3. I don't have a machine gun deck right now (have never seen Glissa either), but I tend to run a lot of removal, which may feel the same.

[duducrash]

How do you feel about fight decks? They play somewhat similar, right?

[NZB2323]

I thought about it a little more and I still think designing your deck with the focus of assembling a CMG is the worst overall thing you can do in commander. And here's why:

* People will still play with you if you do it because it's more subtle.
* It's really unpleasant
* It disproportionally punishes worse players and worse deckbuilders
* It is usually undetectable by the commander
* It's common, particularly amongst less seasoned players who're growing out of the precon phase
* edit from @PrimevalCommander's point: They drive people to less interactive win conditions to compensate. yay combo time.

I think that, sure, some stax lockdowns are a worse individual experience sometimes.

Your mileage may vary, but I really hate this strategy. If you play a Winter Orb everyone hates you; if you play CMG, less seasoned players will go "oh that was a strong interaction!"

That's pretty much all I have to say about it I think.

What is CMG?

[yeti1069]

I thought about it a little more and I still think designing your deck with the focus of assembling a CMG is the worst overall thing you can do in commander. And here's why:

* People will still play with you if you do it because it's more subtle.
* It's really unpleasant
* It disproportionally punishes worse players and worse deckbuilders
* It is usually undetectable by the commander
* It's common, particularly amongst less seasoned players who're growing out of the precon phase
* edit from @PrimevalCommander's point: They drive people to less interactive win conditions to compensate. yay combo time.

I think that, sure, some stax lockdowns are a worse individual experience sometimes.

Your mileage may vary, but I really hate this strategy. If you play a Winter Orb everyone hates you; if you play CMG, less seasoned players will go "oh that was a strong interaction!"

That's pretty much all I have to say about it I think.

What is CMG?

I think it was Card Machine Gun, or something like that.

[pokken]

Creature machine gunning - setting up engines that repeatedly kill creatures. Derevi dismiss into dream was always my fave lol. But grave pact decks kinda apply, glissa stuff, toxrill, ghirapur aether grid, various basilisk collar stuff. Goblin sharpshooter shenanigans.

[yeti1069]

Creature machine gunning - setting up engines that repeatedly kill creatures. Derevi dismiss into dream was always my fave lol. But grave pact decks kinda apply, glissa stuff, toxrill, ghirapur aether grid, various basilisk collar stuff. Goblin sharpshooter shenanigans.

My current favorite is Prosper and Street Urchin.

[pokken]

My current favorite is Prosper and Street Urchin.

Yeah that sounds awesome!

[illakunsaa]

I really dislike EDHREC.dec. You rarely anything interesting brewed by people so I like build staxy decks to counter the meta. If you put zero effort building your deck you get zero play time.

[Cyberium]

Mana denial would be my pick. I'm not against strategy that target resources, though I found ones led by Derevi, Empyrial Tactician to be very difficult to handle. Not only does she turn the suppression one-sided, Derevi herself is almost impossible to remove under the said suppression.

[DirkGently]

I really dislike EDHREC.dec. You rarely anything interesting brewed by people so I like build staxy decks to counter the meta. If you put zero effort building your deck you get zero play time.

How can you tell if someone's deck is copied from EDHrec?

[pokken]

How can you tell if someone's deck is copied from EDHrec?

decks copied from edhrec smell like wet dog.