SCD: Demonic Tutor

[DirkGently]

The power level is a precon deck, or maybe an 8

I'm not choosing a random point in between those two - I'm saying that everywhere in between those two points - save maybe at the very upper end - DT is typically fine. Why would I evaluate the card only at one specific power level when the format is played at a range of power levels? Why do you want me to do that?

You don't have a way to measure whether or not a deck is the right power level, but you're sure you could find one if it wasn't so tedious

I don't think there's any good reason to bother trying to measure, because even without rigorous definitions people tend to settle within a certain band of power, within which DT isn't a major problem. And what does the "right" power level even mean? I'm considering the card within the range people typically play the format - descriptively. I'm not trying to prescribe what level they should play it at.

I really don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. I never said I was "sure I could find [a way to measure power level]". People have (pointlessly) struggled for over a decade to find the secret formula to mathematically determine power level. I have no interest in doing that. I'm just saying that I could get somewhat more specific about what I mean by an "8" if you thought it would be helpful.

That power level is better than any alternative because that's the majority of YOUR experience at YOUR game store when YOU exclude tables that are explicitly labeled cEDH

I have played many people in many games stores in many countries. Of course it's always theoretically possible that my experiences are anomalous but I think my sample size is statistically significant.

Again, I'm not cherry picking one specific power level to care about - though it seems that's what you are doing. I'm considering the entire range that people are playing commander at - setting aside cEDH because I believe it is antithetical to broader commander as a format - and judging the card based on all of it. I don't see any other sensible way to do it.

[Dunadain]

The power level is a precon deck, or maybe an 8

I'm not choosing a random point in between those two - I'm saying that everywhere in between those two points - save maybe at the very upper end - DT is typically fine. Why would I evaluate the card only at one specific power level when the format is played at a range of power levels? Why do you want me to do that?

Because its different at different levels. You already agreed that DT is problematic at a 8 power level, so if someone asks me "is DT a problematic card" I'm going to need to reply with "at what level" and if they reply "at all levels" then I'd have to reply, "it depends" and then talk about each individual power level. If you want to talk about every single power level, fine, but let's tackle them one at a time and only once we've made sure we're on the same page regarding what that level is.

You don't have a way to measure whether or not a deck is the right power level, but you're sure you could find one if it wasn't so tedious

I don't think there's any good reason to bother trying to measure, because even without rigorous definitions people tend to settle within a certain band of power, within which DT isn't a major problem.

I wish people tended to settle within a certain band of power! I'd say a healthy majority of my casual games have significant power imbalances.

I really don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. I never said I was "sure I could find [a way to measure power level]".

My apologies, that's how I interpreted:

we could drill down what a 6, 7, and 8 game looks like… but I think that would be pretty tedious

What did you mean?

People have (pointlessly) struggled for over a decade to find the secret formula to mathematically determine power level. I have no interest in doing that. I'm just saying that I could get somewhat more specific about what I mean by an "8" if you thought it would be helpful.

Somewhat more specific is a lot better than not at all more specific, but unless you can get more specific than everyone else who have "struggled for over a decade" then are going to end up in the same place all of them did, which is to say, nowhere..

That power level is better than any alternative because that's the majority of YOUR experience at YOUR game store when YOU exclude tables that are explicitly labeled cEDH

I have played many people in many games stores in many countries. Of course it's always theoretically possible that my experiences are anomalous but I think my sample size is statistically significant.

It's not a question of sample size, but whether your sample and my sample align, considering I play cEDH, and your sample systematically excludes cEDH, I can almost guarantee they don't.

Again, I'm not cherry picking one specific power level to care about - though it seems that's what you are doing.

Well, I'm picking the only power level that can be objectively measured.

Edit: I'm also picking the final "tier" if you take a precon and add some cards that are problematic at that level, it's not a precon any more. But optimizing a cEDH deck doesn't cause it to change power levels.

I'm considering the entire range that people are playing commander at - setting aside cEDH because I believe it is antithetical to broader commander as a format - and judging the card based on all of it. I don't see any other sensible way to do it.

I feel like a case be case basis for each level at which the game is played would be more sensible than making sweeping generalizations about how cards perform at power levels so disparate that they might as well be different formats.

[DirkGently]

Because its different at different levels. You already agreed that DT is problematic at a 8 power level, so if someone asks me "is DT a problematic card" I'm going to need to reply with "at what level" and if they reply "at all levels" then I'd have to reply, "it depends" and then talk about each individual power level. If you want to talk about every single power level, fine, but let's tackle them one at a time.

The graph of DT's problematicness isn't some high-order polynomial. It's totally fine from a 0 to a 7 and then at an 8 it's like...mildly problematic. I'm confident that you can navigate this theoretical conversation without a visual aid.

I wish people tended to settle within a certain band of power! I'd say a healthy majority of my casual games have significant power imbalances.

It's a reasonably wide band from top to bottom - the innate balancing of multiplayer does help, as do pregame talks, see also: the rest of this entire forum - but in terms of DTs problematicness it's fine pretty much across the board.

People have (pointlessly) struggled for over a decade to find the secret formula to mathematically determine power level. I have no interest in doing that. I'm just saying that I could get somewhat more specific about what I mean by an "8" if you thought it would be helpful.

Somewhat more specific is a lot better than not at all more specific, but unless you can get more specific than everyone else who have "struggled for over a decade" then are going to end up in the same place all of them did, which is to say, nowhere..

My Kagemaro, First to Suffer, Grist, the Hunger Tide, and Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief decks are about what I'd consider an 8. Basically a deck that got away from me a little bit power-wise, without being intended to be cEDH (i.e. my Slicer, Hired Muscle and Light-Paws, Emperor's Voice decks which are more like 9s).

If someone is playing a deck noticeably stronger than those, they usually describe it as being cEDH.

It's not a question of sample size, but whether your sample and my sample align, considering I play cEDH, and your sample systematically excludes cEDH, I can almost guarantee they don't.

Your cEDH samples are not relevant to whether the card is problematic in commander. Remove the irrelevant samples and I bet our data isn't that disparate.

Well, I'm picking the only power level that can be objectively measured.

Why is that so important to you? Chasing an "objective power level" has made your results irrelevant. You may as well tell me the card is problematic in vintage. Okay? What relevance does that have to commander?

I'm sorry if things suck in cEDH land, if you don't like it maybe you should stop playing it?

I feel like a case be case basis for each level at which the game is played would be more sensible than making sweeping generalizations about how cards perform at power levels so disparate that they might as well be different formats.

Just c/p my joke about higher order polynomials. It's really not that complicated.

[Dunadain]

Because its different at different levels. You already agreed that DT is problematic at a 8 power level, so if someone asks me "is DT a problematic card" I'm going to need to reply with "at what level" and if they reply "at all levels" then I'd have to reply, "it depends" and then talk about each individual power level. If you want to talk about every single power level, fine, but let's tackle them one at a time.

The graph of DT's problematicness isn't some high-order polynomial. It's totally fine from a 0 to a 7 and then at an 8 it's like...mildly problematic. I'm confident that you can navigate this theoretical conversation without a visual aid.

Ok, you're still going to have to explain why, and once again, not until you've laid out what 0-7, 8, 9, and cEDH are.

I wish people tended to settle within a certain band of power! I'd say a healthy majority of my casual games have significant power imbalances.

It's a reasonably wide band from top to bottom - the innate balancing of multiplayer does help, as do pregame talks, see also: the rest of this entire forum - but in terms of DTs problematicness it's fine pretty much across the board.

Sounds like our experiences are pretty different then.

People have (pointlessly) struggled for over a decade to find the secret formula to mathematically determine power level. I have no interest in doing that. I'm just saying that I could get somewhat more specific about what I mean by an "8" if you thought it would be helpful.

Somewhat more specific is a lot better than not at all more specific, but unless you can get more specific than everyone else who have "struggled for over a decade" then are going to end up in the same place all of them did, which is to say, nowhere..

My Kagemaro, First to Suffer, Grist, the Hunger Tide, and Ivy, Gleeful Spellthief decks are about what I'd consider an 8. Basically a deck that got away from me a little bit power-wise, without being intended to be cEDH (i.e. my Slicer, Hired Muscle and Light-Paws, Emperor's Voice decks which are more like 9s).

If someone is playing a deck noticeably stronger than those, they usually describe it as being cEDH.

that helps, bu tdifintions by examples aren't great, how do I apply your scale to a new deck not included in your examples.

It's not a question of sample size, but whether your sample and my sample align, considering I play cEDH, and your sample systematically excludes cEDH, I can almost guarantee they don't.

Your cEDH samples are not relevant to whether the card is problematic in commander. Remove the irrelevant samples and I bet our data isn't that disparate.

It's only irrelevant to YOU, it's relevant to me which is why we need a common ground if we want to reach a consensus other then "we cannot reach a consensus."

Well, I'm picking the only power level that can be objectively measured.

Why is that so important to you? Chasing an "objective power level" has made your results irrelevant.

Because how the %$#% else are we going to have a debate? You can say "In my experience DT isn't problematic in EDH" and I can say "In my experience DT is problematic" and if that's good enough for you then we are done here, if not, you got to define your terms.

You may as well tell me the card is problematic in vintage. Okay? What relevance does that have to commander?

cEDH is commander, vintage is not commander

I'm sorry if things suck in cEDH land, if you don't like it maybe you should stop playing it?

I don't believe they are, but even if I did, that's not really relavent…

I feel like a case be case basis for each level at which the game is played would be more sensible than making sweeping generalizations about how cards perform at power levels so disparate that they might as well be different formats.

Just c/p my joke about higher order polynomials. It's really not that complicated.

If it's not that complicated then why can't you explain power levels any better than "it is known"?

[DirkGently]

Ok, you're still going to have to explain why, and once again, not until you've laid out what 0-7, 8, 9, and cEDH are.

I gave an example of an 8 and a 9. If it's beyond an 8, it's generally in the realm of cEDH and thus no longer relevant so our graph stops at an 8 when evaluating the problematicness of the card in commander.

that helps, bu tdifintions by examples aren't great, how do I apply your scale to a new deck not included in your examples.

Play it against those decks and see if it wins. ez.

It's only irrelevant to YOU, it's relevant to me which is why we need a common ground if we want to reach a consensus other then "we cannot reach a consensus."

If you want to talk about whether the card is problematic in commander then we should already be on common ground in ignoring cEDH data. You're the one bringing in data from other formats.

Because how the %$#% else are we going to have a debate? You can say "In my experience DT isn't problematic in EDH" and I can say "In my experience DT is problematic" and if that's good enough for you then we are done here, if not, you got to define your terms.

This is such a silly tactic.

"Poverty is a problem in our country."
"Define poverty. Is it $10,000 a year? Is it $10,001 per year? It's impossible to have a debate until you objectively define every single atom of your argument."

You've presumably played this format a lot. I've played this format a lot. We both have a rough understanding of what we mean when we're discussing power level. Maybe there are slight discrepancies, but I've never met someone who didn't have approximately the same evaluation of the power scale give or take a point. You can keep pretending you don't know what I'm talking about if you want, but you're just dodging the core issue - which is that you think cEDH is relevant and I don't.

cEDH is commander, vintage is not commander

Commander is more than just the rules of the format. It's the norms built up around it. cEDH has the same rules but not the same norms.

cEDH is not commander.

If it's not that complicated then why can't you explain power levels any better than "it is known"?

I did explain it. If it's still unclear, go start playing decks against my Kagemaro and see if the results help clarify the issue for you.

[Dunadain]

This is such a silly tactic.

"Poverty is a problem in our country."
"Define poverty. Is it $10,000 a year? Is it $10,001 per year? It's impossible to have a debate until you objectively define every single atom of your argument."

That's an unfortunate analogy when poverty actually does mean different things…

To keep the analagy, you don't need to differentiate between 10,000 and 10,001, but you do need to differentiate between <1,000, <10,000 and <30,000.
Edit: Cost of living would also need to factor into the discussion, you're angry at me for making this complicated, but the real world is complicated.

You've presumably played this format a lot. I've played this format a lot. We both have a rough understanding of what we mean when we're discussing power level. Maybe there are slight discrepancies, but I've never met someone who didn't have approximately the same evaluation of the power scale give or take a point. You can keep pretending you don't know what I'm talking about if you want, but you're just dodging the core issue - which is that you think cEDH is relevant and I don't.

So we obviously don't have a rough understanding, at least not the same rough understanding…

cEDH is commander, vintage is not commander

Commander is more than just the rules of the format. It's the norms built up around it. cEDH has the same rules but not the same norms.

cEDH is not commander.

cEDH is commander is my opinion more factual now that I put it in bold? /s

Whether you like it or not, cEDH is growing, and fast, much faster than EDH as a whole. So even if you do want to define commander based on norms, cEDH is now norm. Heck the RC even acknowledges cEDH and has even allowed it to affect the banlist.

But we are getting lost in the weeds again, whether or not you like cEDH, how do we have a discussion when we can just throw out any data we don't like?

"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 did explain it. If it's still unclear, go start playing decks against my Kagemaro and see if the results help clarify the issue for you.

So your Kagemaro is the gold standard by which all decks ought to be measured? I suppose that's objective now.,..

[DirkGently]

That's an unfortunate analogy when poverty actually does mean different things…

To keep the analagy, you don't need to differentiate between 10,000 and 10,001, but you do need to differentiate between <1,000, <10,000 and <30,000.
Edit: Cost of living would also need to factor into the discussion, you're angry at me for making this complicated, but the real world is complicated.

It was an example to illustrate the point. And I agree with your assessment that we need to have a common understanding in the broad scale, not nitpick over tiny margins. If you can't extrapolate approximately what I mean by an "8" from my examples well enough to have the discussion, then you've either drastically overrepresented your familiarity with this game or you're being deliberately obtuse.

So we obviously don't have a rough understanding, at least not the same rough understanding…

On what basis do you say that? Do you think my Kagemaro deck is a 4? Even if you do think I'm way off base, are you incapable of extrapolating an approximation of my scale based on the information I've provided? Because I know grade schoolers who have no problem grading decks within a point of me, and they don't even need to playtest against my Kagemaro.

is my opinion more factual now that I put it in bold?

I put that part in bold so we could refocus on the actually relevant part of this discussion rather than wallow in this tedious charade you're pulling by pretending to have no idea how to evaluate the power level of any deck outside of cEDH, or that the discussion can only move forward once I've constructed a model to judge every potential deck's power level with triple-digit precision.

Whether you like it or not, cEDH is growing, and fast, much faster than EDH as a whole. So even if you do want to define commander based on norms, cEDH is now norm.

Bro...bro. You cannot be serious. I'm not talking about popularity. cEDH has its own norms, and the difference between those norms and commander norms is how we know which game we're playing. Even if there were 100,000,000 cEDH players and 4 commander players, the game those commander players would play would still be following different norms than cEDH. And vice versa.

Not that it's relevant, but where are you getting that data? I'm genuinely curious.

Heck the RC even acknowledges cEDH and has even allowed it to affect the banlist.

If you give a mouse a cookie, jfc. The RC chucked one bone to the leopards-ate-my-face format because they wouldn't stop whining and now they think they own the place.

But we are getting lost in the weeds again, whether or not you like cEDH, how do we have a discussion when we can just throw out any data we don't like?

"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"

The difference in norms between commander and cEDH make it reasonably easy to differentiate the two. If the deck is being built with a good-faith attempt to limit the power level so as to meet the power level of the other players, it's commander. If it's being intentionally built without any limitation for power level, it's cEDH. (If it's not being built with either intention, it's probably being built by a scrub so it's probably commander.) Other people might have slightly different views but I think that's a solid starting place. Right in the philosophy document, written by the RC of the format, we've got: "The format can be broken; we believe games are more fun if you don't." cEDH clearly does not subscribe to that norm.

Obviously that system could be abused - "I used one shockland instead of an ABU dual so it's not cEDH" - but in reality that's very rarely an issue (and also, obviously violates the "good-faith" bit). People are usually clamoring to label their decks cEDH in my experience. And if they want to identify them that way, then god bless. If you say it's cEDH, then it's cEDH because you've agreed to follow the norms of cEDH. And if you say it's commander, then you'd better follow the norms of commander, which include making a good-faith effort to temper your power level to meet the rest of the table (generally this falls primarily on the more experienced players at the table since the younglings don't know wtf they're doing).

DT seems like a difficult card to demonstrate being used "in a broken way". In the decks that it's strongest in, it's still usually worse than drawing the combo piece you want to tutor for, so it's less of a problem than the combo piece itself. Obviously there's power in the flexibility of searching up other things, but if you're searching for something other than "win the game rn" I think DT usually falls into the "fair" camp. Either way it's hard to imagine it being significantly more of a problem then whatever card you're searching for just because of the flexibility.

But if you've got some non-cEDH example where you think DT is a problem then tell me about it. That said, a single problem happening once isn't a very good argument for the card being broadly problematic. Paradox Engine was problematic basically every time it resolved ime. DT doesn't need to meet THAT high of a threshold for me to deem it problematic, but based on my experience I'd say its ratio for being problematic is probably in the low single digits so we've got a long way to go.

So your Kagemaro is the gold standard by which all decks ought to be measured? I suppose that's objective now.,..

You're the only one obsessed with objectivity. This format is built on a foundation of subjectivity. You can either accept that or keep playing the fool.

I gave kagemaro as an example so you could understand what scale I'm using in the broad strokes. I don't know why I bothered though, because clearly the only reason you wanted me to define my scale in the first place was because you were playing dumb, and of course you're going to continue to play dumb regardless of how clearly I illustrate what I'm talking about, because you're not interested in understanding. You just think you'll achieve a victory on a technicality because you've decided that perfect objectivity is the only acceptable measuring stick, and as long as you can keep saying "nope! not objective enough!" then I'll have to concede, apparently.

Let's focus on the "should cEDH count" bit, because the rest of this is a tiresome waste of time and I think we both know it.

[Dunadain]

You're the only one obsessed with objectivity. This format is built on a foundation of subjectivity. You can either accept that or keep playing the fool.

This is literally what I've been trying to say this whole time: casual commander is a format built on subjectivity. You can't have a meaningful discussion on the power of cards after they've been hobbled to match people's preferences.

Let's focus on the "should cEDH count" bit, because the rest of this is a tiresome waste of time and I think we both know it.

I can agree that this is tiresome, though i seriously doubt you %$#% on cEDH while I continue to repeat "that's just your opinion, I enjoy cEDH from time-to-time" will be much more invigorating.

[materpillar]

You're the only one obsessed with objectivity. This format is built on a foundation of subjectivity. You can either accept that or keep playing the fool.

This is literally what I've been trying to say this whole time: casual commander is a format built on subjectivity. You can't have a meaningful discussion on the power of cards after they've been hobbled to match people's preferences.

You can kinda can. The entire point of having a pregame discussion is to create meaningful discussion on the power level of the cards in your deck and how much you want people to hobble their cards to match each others play preferences.

CEDH pre-game discussion is just easy mode. "We're not hobbling at all"

Non-cEDH pregame discussion is a bit more nuanced. For example, if Demonic Tutor is a card that causes game play issues by pushing a decks powerlevel too high, thats a deck I'm personally not interested in playing against. It means it's doing degenerate combo stuff. I've got a fairly well cultivated playgroup and Demonic Tutor is run by several of us and wouldn't even be in the top 10 most game warping cards.

I stand by dirk on his assessment. Demonic Tutor has a negligible impact on the format for decks of powerlevels roughly 0-8. It might start showing its power at 9+, I dunno, I haven't played much at that level.

[DirkGently]

This is literally what I've been trying to say this whole time: casual commander is a format built on subjectivity. You can't have a meaningful discussion on the power of cards after they've been hobbled to match people's preferences.

That's why I've been arguing about whether DT is problematic, not whether it's powerful.

I can agree that this is tiresome, though i seriously doubt you %$#% on cEDH while I continue to repeat "that's just your opinion, I enjoy cEDH from time-to-time" will be much more invigorating.

The crux of my argument isn't that cEDH is bad, the crux of my argument is that cEDH, by virtue of following a different set of norms, is a different game. And while DT might be problematic in cEDH, it's not an issue in commander.

This isn't taken for granted. Other cards have been problematic in commander even with people mediating their power levels.

[Dunadain]

This is literally what I've been trying to say this whole time: casual commander is a format built on subjectivity. You can't have a meaningful discussion on the power of cards after they've been hobbled to match people's preferences.

That's why I've been arguing about whether DT is problematic, not whether it's powerful.

Ah, well I'm my eyes, problematic, and powered are roughly equal, so maybe that's the crux of the issue.

Like, theoretically, I can see how they are two different things, but is be hard pressed to find a powerful card that I didn't find problematic (I do think there are a number of problematic cards that aren't powerful though, pretty much anything that significantly slows the game down).

I can agree that this is tiresome, though i seriously doubt you %$#% on cEDH while I continue to repeat "that's just your opinion, I enjoy cEDH from time-to-time" will be much more invigorating.

The crux of my argument isn't that cEDH is bad, the crux of my argument is that cEDH, by virtue of following a different set of norms, is a different game. And while DT might be problematic in cEDH, it's not an issue in commander.

This isn't taken for granted. Other cards have been problematic in commander even with people mediating their power levels.

Dirk, I have had multiple discussions with you on cEDH, including in this very thread, and every single one (including this one) has been dripping in thinly veiled contempt for cEDH. I don't see how things will be any different this time.

[DirkGently]

Ah, well I'm my eyes, problematic, and powered are roughly equal, so maybe that's the crux of the issue.

Like, theoretically, I can see how they are two different things, but is be hard pressed to find a powerful card that I didn't find problematic (I do think there are a number of problematic cards that aren't powerful though, pretty much anything that significantly slows the game down).

I think DT is actually kind of a posterboy for cards that are powerful but not problematic. Any deck I can imagine where DT is problematically powerful, it's only problematic because the rest of the deck is also problematic. The root cause of the problem is the deck builder not following the norms of the format, not DT itself. Whereas anyone might put, say, Biorhythm into a deck and it might ruin the game in a way that wouldn't have happened without it.

Edit: another good example: Ancestral Recall .

Dirk, I have had multiple discussions with you on cEDH, including in this very thread, and every single one (including this one) has been dripping in thinly veiled contempt for cEDH. I don't see how things will be any different this time.

I'm not saying that I don't despise cEDH, I'm just saying that it's not the crux of my argument. Most cEDH players wouldn't sit down at a commander game with a cEDH deck, because they recognize that, by virtue of following different norms, they're playing a different game, and their cEDH deck wouldn't be acceptable. Sure, it's a fuzzier line than the line between vintage and standard, but it's still a line. DT is fine in commander, and (allegedly) problematic in cEDH. I won't contest the latter, but I'm only interested in discussing the former.

[Dunadain]

@DirkGently my concern isn't whether you like cEDH my concern is whether your going to respect my opinion or take every opportunity you can to %$#% on something I enjoy and, In general, just make talking to you about cEDH miserable, like it has been in the past.

But first of all, I don't think the cEDH line is as clear as you think it is. From a "norms" perspective, as moronic as it sounds, most of my cEDH games are "casual" cEDH, we're going in with a casual mindset, just with much more powerful decks, we're stricter on misplays, but I'm general we play pretty loose and I don't think you'd find the "vibe" too different from a normal game of commander, it just ends a lot quicker and the stack wars get more intense.
Conversely "competitive" casual edh is totally a thing, you see it all the time when game stores host tournaments and hand out prizes for commander games. I'm personally not a fan of these things, because there's an incentive to misrepresent the power of your deck, but they do exist, and run with enough frequency that I can only assume they are popular enough for some people.

Secondly, the power level isn't THAT disparate. Like obviously, a precon is pretty much irrelevant, but something I enjoy is playing Purphoros, God of the Forge in cEDH. I'm my eyes, purphy is probably an 8, I certainly wouldn't object if someone pulled out Purph at an optimized table. But he's difficult to interact with, reasonable fast, and attacks at a different angle than most cEDH decks, so I often find cEDH decks struggle to deal with him outside of racing with him (which they can probably do more often than not in a vacuum, but nor so consistently when you introduce multiplayer dynamics).

Honest to goodness elf-ball is also weirdly effective in cEDH. Both of these decks are disadvantaged against cEDH, you brought an 8 to a 10, but there not so far behind as to be irrelevant.

Additionally, whatever differences there are between casual and cEDH, they are less different from each other than they are between any other format. This means there's a natural overlap in their communities I think that counts for something.

Finally, the fact that they share the same ruleset is important, especially in a format with such a bizarre ruleset. If I enjoy a cEDH deck I can translate it to casual pretty easily, the gameplay would be the same, it'll just be a lot slower. Pretty much all cEDH decks started as casual decks that one or a group of people enjoyed enough to see how far they could push it.

It also means a lot of strategy translates between the two. I remember there used to be a time when cEDH players believed politics weren't that important, but as tournaments became normalized, those people were quickly proven wrong.

Also, I've played "Archenemy" games where I play a cEDH deck against some casual/optimized decks. That's not something you could do if they were two different formats.

cEDH does affect casual and vice versa. You can continue to thumb your nose at them, you can ignore them, or you can try to appreciate that being a part of a community means being a part of a diverse group, you don't have to agree, or even like them, but your hostility towards them is only feeding the problem.

[DirkGently]

@DirkGently my concern isn't whether you like cEDH my concern is whether your going to respect my opinion or take every opportunity you can to %$#% on something I enjoy and, In general, just make talking to you about cEDH miserable, like it has been in the past.

For someone who doesn't want to get bitten you've sure been throwing a lot of chum in the water. But I will do my best to temper my language.

But first of all, I don't think the cEDH line is as clear as you think it is. From a "norms" perspective, as moronic as it sounds, most of my cEDH games are "casual" cEDH, we're going in with a casual mindset, just with much more powerful decks, we're stricter on misplays, but I'm general we play pretty loose and I don't think you'd find the "vibe" too different from a normal game of commander, it just ends a lot quicker and the stack wars get more intense.

I agree that cEDH games and normal commander games aren't necessarily very different vibe-wise in terms of in-game play, but we've been talking primarily about decisions made before the game begins, which is the area where the formats differ most significantly.

Conversely "competitive" casual edh is totally a thing, you see it all the time when game stores host tournaments and hand out prizes for commander games. I'm personally not a fan of these things, because there's an incentive to misrepresent the power of your deck, but they do exist, and run with enough frequency that I can only assume they are popular enough for some people.

Again, I think you're talking about in-game play when the focus should be on deck decisions.

Secondly, the power level isn't THAT disparate. Like obviously, a precon is pretty much irrelevant, but something I enjoy is playing Purphoros, God of the Forge in cEDH. I'm my eyes, purphy is probably an 8, I certainly wouldn't object if someone pulled out Purph at an optimized table. But he's difficult to interact with, reasonable fast, and attacks at a different angle than most cEDH decks, so I often find cEDH decks struggle to deal with him outside of racing with him (which they can probably do more often than not in a vacuum, but nor so consistently when you introduce multiplayer dynamics).

Honest to goodness elf-ball is also weirdly effective in cEDH. Both of these decks are disadvantaged against cEDH, you brought an 8 to a 10, but there not so far behind as to be irrelevant.

That's fine - but cEDH, while often viewed as simply being "commander but with powerful decks", is primarily different in its philosophy. Commander says "the best way to create a fun game is for people to build decks with everyone's fun in mind" whereas cEDH says "the best way to create a fun game is for everyone to build as powerfully as they can". (For the record, I absolutely subscribe to that philosophy when I'm playing, say, limited - no way I'm pulling any punches in deck construction when I'm drafting.)

When you play purphoros in a higher-powered (non-cEDH) commander table, it's because you've decided that the power level of that deck is appropriate for the table, and won't ruin people's experience.

When you play purphoros in a cEDH table, the only consideration is whether you think it'll stand a chance. Same deck, but different considerations.

I think a good litmus test for whether a game is cEDH or commander is whether, at some point during the game, someone might say "hey, I don't really think it's fair for you to play that in this game." If that could conceivably happen, it's commander. If it couldn't, or would get laughed out of the room if it did, it's cEDH. So we don't need to split hairs over which power level is and isn't cEDH, because that's not the question. The question is what your considerations are for the deck you're choosing to play.

Additionally, whatever differences there are between casual and cEDH, they are less different from each other than they are between any other format. This means there's a natural overlap in their communities I think that counts for something.

We're talking about whether a card is problematic in a specific format. If there was a lot of overlap between modern and vintage players - even if it was somehow a 100% overlap - that wouldn't mean that a card's problematicness in modern suddenly became relevant to vintage.

Finally, the fact that they share the same ruleset is important, especially in a format with such a bizarre ruleset. If I enjoy a cEDH deck I can translate it to casual pretty easily, the gameplay would be the same, it'll just be a lot slower. Pretty much all cEDH decks started as casual decks that one or a group of people enjoyed enough to see how far they could push it.

And people turn standard decks into modern decks - or even play unmodified standard decks in modern tournaments - and yet those are still different formats, as established before the game begins. I'm afraid I just don't see the relevance.

It also means a lot of strategy translates between the two. I remember there used to be a time when cEDH players believed politics weren't that important, but as tournaments became normalized, those people were quickly proven wrong.

Of course, information is often shared between all formats. I'm happy to acknowledge that there are many similarities between cEDH and commander, only a fool would say otherwise, but that doesn't make them equivalent. cEDH is a variant of commander.

Also, I've played "Archenemy" games where I play a cEDH deck against some casual/optimized decks. That's not something you could do if they were two different formats.

And you can play a standard deck in a modern tournament even though those remain two different formats. You (presumably) chose to set up the game as archenemy because you determined that the game would be reasonably balanced, and thus fun, with a single high-powered deck against multiple low-powered decks. You making that consideration indicates that it is a commander game and not a cEDH game.

You can play extremely high-powered decks - even tiered "cEDH decks" - in a normal commander game, that's totally possible. The question isn't how powerful the decks are, the question is whether you're making pre-game decisions in order to intentionally create a positive experience, or if everything that's legal is acceptable and assuming that things should work out (which, again, isn't inherently a bad idea - it's the basis behind basically every format except commander).

cEDH does affect casual and vice versa. You can continue to thumb your nose at them, you can ignore them, or you can try to appreciate that being a part of a community means being a part of a diverse group, you don't have to agree, or even like them, but your hostility towards them is only feeding the problem.

Every format affects every other format. cEDH and commander have more in common than most, of course, but they're still meaningfully distinct.

What problem am I feeding exactly? cEDH affecting traditional commander? I find that hard to believe. Not that I think I'm having any real impact at stemming the tide, but I don't see why hostility, unproductive though it may be, would increase the overlap. Anyway IRL I'm much nicer online is where I go to vent.

Btw where is that data you mentioned earlier?

[Dunadain]

For someone who doesn't want to get bitten you've sure been throwing a lot of chum in the water. But I will do my best to temper my language.

Mate, I left this discussion a week ago and you dragged me specifically back in. Throughout this discussion I've continually suggested that we probably aren't going to see eye to eye on this, so it's probably best to drop it, and when you finally agreed that we were beating a dead horse, you suggested a new topic to debate.
Now, I have free will and am free to leave the conversation whenever, but I really don't feel like I'm the instigator here.

I agree that cEDH games and normal commander games aren't necessarily very different vibe-wise in terms of in-game play, but we've been talking primarily about decisions made before the game begins, which is the area where the formats differ most significantly… again, I think you're talking about in-game play when the focus should be on deck decisions.

I've been talking about the game as a whole. But you got me, if the only thing that "counts" as commander is the one thing that, by definition, doesn't apply to cEDH, then I suppose they are different formats.

We're talking about whether a card is problematic in a specific format. If there was a lot of overlap between modern and vintage players - even if it was somehow a 100% overlap - that wouldn't mean that a card's problematicness in modern suddenly became relevant to vintage.

I thought we agreed we weren't talking about that anymore.

Of course, information is often shared between all formats. I'm happy to acknowledge that there are many similarities between cEDH and commander, only a fool would say otherwise, but that doesn't make them equivalent. cEDH is a variant of commander.

Now I'm really lost, if you believe that cEDH is a variant of commander, then aren't we on the same page? I'm not saying the cEDH is identical to casual EDH (cause it's not… duh) but they are similar enough to both fall under the umbrella of EDH.

Every format affects every other format. cEDH and commander have more in common than most, of course, but they're still meaningfully distinct.

And precon level vs. power 8 have a lot in common, but are still meaningfully distinct.

What problem am I feeding exactly? cEDH affecting traditional commander? I find that hard to believe. Not that I think I'm having any real impact at stemming the tide, but I don't see why hostility, unproductive though it may be, would increase the overlap. Anyway IRL I'm much nicer online is where I go to vent.

I meant the growing antagonism between the two communities that no one profits from.

(And obviously you individually have next to no impact on these things, but you also have next to no impact on climate change, doesn't mean you shouldn't at least try).

Btw where is that data you mentioned earlier?

I was just continuing the lingo, you were talking about sample sizes.

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).

[DirkGently]

Mate, I left this discussion a week ago and you dragged me specifically back in.

I was going to post earlier but I was busy studying for my flight test.

Throughout this discussion I've continually suggested that we probably aren't going to see eye to eye on this, so it's probably best to drop it, and when you finally agreed that we were beating a dead horse, you suggested a new topic to debate.

Haven't we been talking about the same thing this whole time? Or do you mean other threads?

Now, I have free will and am free to leave the conversation whenever, but I really don't feel like I'm the instigator here.

I'm not saying you're the instigator - I made the thread, and chose to respond to your comment in the other thread - but saying that cEDH is the only valid metric for evaluating whether a card is problematic in commander...c'mon, you've gotta know that's pushing my "time to bash cEDH" button.

I've been talking about the game as a whole. But you got me, if the only thing that "counts" as commander is the one thing that, by definition, doesn't apply to cEDH, then I suppose they are different formats.

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.

Especially given that the context of this discussion is evaluating a particular card being problematic, which is generally a question for deck construction. I'm sure there are conversations focusing on the in-game play where cEDH and commander could be treated interchangeably.

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.

Now I'm really lost, if you believe that cEDH is a variant of commander, then aren't we on the same page? I'm not saying the cEDH is identical to casual EDH (cause it's not… duh) but they are similar enough to both fall under the umbrella of EDH.

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. The philosophy document isn't for "casual commander", it's for "commander". cEDH is a variation of commander that uses the same banlist and rules but has a different philosophy/norms. A variation existing doesn't change the nature of the base thing.

If a card was problematic in pDH, also a variation of commander, that also wouldn't be relevant to the root format "commander".

And precon level vs. power 8 have a lot in common, but are still meaningfully distinct.

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.

You could have a cEDH game where everyone is playing 3s in theory. (that would probably be pretty analogous to what my "standard" decks looked like back in 2003...) In reality most people with a deck above an 8 will self-describe as cEDH though.

I meant the growing antagonism between the two communities that no one profits from.

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.

I was just continuing the lingo, you were talking about sample sizes.

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?

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 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?

[Dunadain]

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.

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)

[DirkGently]

You also have free will, I didn't make you do anything XD.

But I'm not trying to avoid bashing cEDH. If that was something you wanted to avoid, provoking me seems like an inadvisable course of action.

Sure, but there's more to commander than just the things you have (correctly) identified as different.

And there are similarities between commander and vintage, so what? As long as they're different formats, something affecting one isn't necessarily relevant to the other.

But if we didn't doesn't the actual gameplay matter more, not less?

Sorry but what does this mean I'm lost.

And I sometimes say "casual modern" or competitive mondern" to clarify, but I could call either one modern and I would be correct.

If you had a "casual modern" night where everyone was expected to temper their decks to match the power level of their opponents to create a positive game experience, and playing a high-powered deck without considering what their opponent was doing was a faux pax, then sure I'd consider that a different format too. Probably not one with the popularity of commander ofc.

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.

I think I've already done that, many times, for commander. DT is a mirror etc.

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)

That seems like a silly pattern of reasoning to me. Where does that stop? "You're having a problem growing cabbages? Hang on, that might be relevant to commander, let me just identify a difference that would invalidate the experience."

Regardless of whatever logic you use to decide "yes, this problem in legacy should be relevant to commander" ultimately the rubber is going to meet the road and you have to actually look at what's happening in games of commander. And just because your logic says "yes, this SHOULD be a problem" doesn't mean it IS a problem.

Maybe DT is a problem in commander, but at least in my experience it is not. If your logic says that it should be, then I think your logic is probably wrong because it doesn't conform to reality (unless my experiences are anomalous ofc).

Sure and if that's the magical line that makes it not EDH for you, then We agree on everything except terminology.

What do you think is the difference, if you don't like my delineation?

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!"

I guess we're both inventing stories to justify our positions to a certain extent, but I don't buy this exchange at all. The typical criticism of techy commander players by cEDH players is that they are easily upset by people playing powerful things that they perceive as breaking the social contract, not that they say "cEDH is bad" without any rationale. Even if someone did decide to build a powerful deck and pubstomped inadvertently, the cEDH-disparagers would probably let them know about their transgression very quickly and disabuse them of their incorrect notions.

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.

In theory, having the two formats be on good terms is fine, but the infringement is typically occurring from aspiring cEDH players not following the lines of demarcation. Maybe a kind "maybe you should play that deck against that cEDH pod" would work for some, but "GET THAT DEGENERATE CRAP OUT OF THIS GAME" is a much more memorable deterrent.

(not that I'm saying abusing people is okay, I'm just using comic hyperbole - my point is that negative feedback tends to stick).

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.

Anecdotal data is still data. It's not the best form of data obviously but unless you've got a better alternative it's what we're working with.

"Whether you like it or not, cEDH is growing, and fast, much faster than EDH as a whole."

To be more charitable, I'd say this assertion is, unless you provide some justification, completely without evidence, and it seems like you knew it had no evidence. If someone knowingly makes a claim as fact without any evidence, personally I'd call that a lie.

I thought that was pretty clear that I was using the term data the same way you were using the term sample, aka experiences.

You were accusing me of no-true-scotsmaning, which I don't think is accurate. I've given a pretty clear criteria by which a game is commander vs cEDH. If you have a significant number of commander experiences where DT has been a problem, then that would be valid data against mine.

[Dunadain]

Sorry Dirk, but I'm done arguing about formats, I'm just tired of it, you win, I'll be avoiding arguments with you in the future.

The accusations that I am a liar however, I will not drop. I took your word for it when you said that I'm the one that brought up data because I didn't really remember, and why would you make that up, but I went back through the conversations and YOU are the one that brought it up, TWICE.

It's not a question of sample size, but whether your sample and my sample align, considering I play cEDH, and your sample systematically excludes cEDH, I can almost guarantee they don't.

Your cEDH samples are not relevant to whether the card is problematic in commander. Remove the irrelevant samples and I bet our data isn't that disparate.

If you want to talk about whether the card is problematic in commander then we should already be on common ground in ignoring cEDH data.

Only then did I use the word.

Now, I could take issue with your redefinition of the words "sample" and "data" (I do, anecdotes are, by definition, not data) but I just resolved to avoid arguments with you in the future, and I'm not going to break that resolution in the very same post in which I made it. So I will accept your definition.

However, if that is how you used those words in this very discussion, than how did you manage to misunderstand me when I used the word in the exact same way? Not only did you misunderstand me, you misunderstood me in a way that isn't even true if you DID take the face value definition of the word DATA.

The only way I'm able to understand your words is that you aren't, and never were, arguing in good faith.

You set a clever trap by introducing new vocabulary into the discussion, then pounced on me when I adopted the vocabulary. I'm not sure how conscious your actions were, nor do I care.


%$#% you.

[DirkGently]

@Dunadain i suspect we may be talking about different things. The data I was asking for was whatever evidence you had (anecdotal or otherwise) to support the claim:

"Whether you like it or not, cEDH is growing, and fast, much faster than EDH as a whole."

I asked for it several posts previous, and you didn't respond, so I asked for "the data" and I think you thought I was referencing something else (not sure what). So when you responded that you had no data, I found that strange - but again I think you were talking about some other mention of data.

I apologise for the misunderstanding. Can you clarify what information you have that justifies the claim about cEDH growing faster? I'm honestly just curious.

[Dunadain]

That would not explain how you jump from "I found that strange" to "you are a liar." Nor is that the explanation you gave earlier.

I'll be blocking you now, I value your perspective on the game, and I think your Phelddagrif list is brilliant, I honestly consider reading that primer to be a important milestone in my progress as a competent EDH player, but I won't stand bullying and name-calling.

[DirkGently]

That would not explain how you jump from "I found that strange" to "you are a liar." Nor is that the explanation you gave earlier.

to be clear, I did not call you a liar, I said that you lied. Everybody lies on occasion. Typically I find that you're a reasonable interlocutor and this instance doesn't completely discount that, but I'm not sure how else to respond to someone making a bold claim and then admitting they have no evidence..

"Jon Hamm once killed an alligator with his bare hands."
"Oh? What evidence do you have for that?"
"I do not have any evidence"
"Okay…so that was a lie?"

Does that seem like an unreasonable response to you?

I won't stand bullying and name-calling.

%$#% you

okay buddy.