Recent Game Knights Episode (spoilers) and Commander Play Styles

[TheAmericanSpirit]

Also I really really hate it when people equate building high-powered decks with actual skill. Real men win with precons...and only because their chairs tribal is in the shop.

I know this was likely a joke, but that line of rhetoric annoys me. Power =/= skill, but you also don't see the best players in any card game slinging garbage to prove their testicular fortitude. They're playing the best cards, you know, to win that game they're supposed to be taking very seriously.

This ain't golf, man. You can't really handicap yourself into oblivion and just Tiger Woods your way out of it in magic. Taking an unaltered precon into the average game of edh (especially considering the past 2 years of power creep, but this is certainly anecdotal.) is normally suicide, and if it isn't by some miracle, you probably got lucky or benefitted from kingmaking/pity. Your Scaled Behemoth just ain't beating that Elesh Norn. You never will catch up to that "jeweled lotus → Azusa, 3 lands" start. And yes, that Korvold just drew 26 cards.

Not to say you can't have fun with weaker cards, but at some point, the cards to which you have access form a glass ceiling above which you cannot compete simply due to raw cost/effect efficiency, skill totally notwithstanding. Even Gabriel Nassif is a chump if all he's got are 99 squires.

[DirkGently]

I know this was likely a joke, but that line of rhetoric annoys me. Power =/= skill, but you also don't see the best players in any card game slinging garbage to prove their testicular fortitude. They're playing the best cards, you know, to win that game they're supposed to be taking very seriously.

You're equating the way pros play other formats to commander when they're not remotely equivalent.

Being serious, in commander power and skill don't really have any relation in either direction. Obviously plenty of good players prefer to play high-powered decks against other high-powered decks and that's great.

But I think it's a bit of a scrub mindset to know you're going on GK, which doesn't generally focus on high-powered decks, and bring a deck with palinchron combo, narset wheels, all the best tutors, thassa's oracle, etc. Even if everyone brought decks of a similar power level, you're dramatically increasing the chances that the game ends early and anticlimactically. The hypothetical game where he didn't walk into the misdirection would have made for terrible TV - even worse than it ended up being. And I find it annoying that they're acting like it's "just his thing" or fawning over his cards.

This ain't golf, man. You can't really handicap yourself into oblivion and just Tiger Woods your way out of it in magic. Taking an unaltered precon into the average game of edh (especially considering the past 2 years of power creep, but this is certainly anecdotal.) is normally suicide, and if it isn't by some miracle, you probably got lucky or benefitted from kingmaking/pity. Your Scaled Behemoth just ain't beating that Elesh Norn. You never will catch up to that "jeweled lotus → Azusa, 3 lands" start. And yes, that Korvold just drew 26 cards.

I play precons at my LGS occasionally, usually if I've been winning a lot and want to give other people a better chance. I win a decent percentage with them still. It's hard but it's not suicide. Most precons these days are pretty decent out of the box tbh - and none of them play scaled behemoth afaik. Yes, you generally need to exploit your lower threat profile, but that's always a good strategy. It's not kingmaking or pity.

If you've got opponents playing high-powered decks, then by all means play a high-powered deck...but I think a good player should try to aim at least a little under the power level to challenge themselves, rather than over to make it easy. This isn't a GP.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

Being serious, in commander power and skill don't really have any relation in either direction. Obviously plenty of good players prefer to play high-powered decks against other high-powered decks and that's great.

But I think it's a bit of a scrub mindset to know you're going on GK, which doesn't generally focus on high-powered decks, and bring a deck with palinchron combo, narset wheels, all the best tutors, thassa's oracle, etc. Even if everyone brought decks of a similar power level, you're dramatically increasing the chances that the game ends early and anticlimactically. The hypothetical game where he didn't walk into the misdirection would have made for terrible TV - even worse than it ended up being. And I find it annoying that they're acting like it's "just his thing" or fawning over his cards.

I don't think it makes Cassius a scrub, I think it makes GK poorly produced as a show. We already know he submitted his deck ahead of time, we know that the CZ people also have cards of that caliber and chose not to use them. If I show up with my cedh deck, sit down and ask if I can play it, and the table, knowing what the deck does, says "Sure, we can handle it" and I womp them anyway, that's not really on me. Scrubbing behavior would be downplaying or disguising that threat level imo, not providing honest foreward notice and playing to one's abilities.

I play precons at my LGS occasionally, usually if I've been winning a lot and want to give other people a better chance. I win a decent percentage with them still. It's hard but it's not suicide. Most precons these days are pretty decent out of the box tbh - and none of them play scaled behemoth afaik. Yes, you generally need to exploit your lower threat profile, but that's always a good strategy. It's not kingmaking or pity.

If you've got opponents playing high-powered decks, then by all means play a high-powered deck...but I think a good player should try to aim at least a little under the power level to challenge themselves, rather than over to make it easy. This isn't a GP.

Hard disagree on precon quality. I dunno what glue you've been sniffing, but aside from a few scattered exceptions, most of those decks are pretty trash out of the box. Maybe my meta (when it was open) was just vastly more competitive than yours, but those fish don't last long in shark infested waters, so to speak. Grow or die.

And it isn't a GP, no. But on the otherhand, I do not think crippling yourself in a foot race makes you a better jogger long term. Nor does it make you a paragon of masculinity to do so. Magic, especially edh, often requires developing lines of play that require memorization and practice to perfect. Precons a) give you no meaniful practice in the aforementioned regard b) usually if not always lack enough efficient interaction to stop nonprecon gamewinning plays c) are one-two turns behind the table due to their volume of tapped lands. All you've done is gimp yourself and set up a non-game for any real opponent, which is satisfying to none.

The only appropriate use of precons imho is playing them against one another in a controlled league or something. They just don't cut mustard otherwise.

[DirkGently]

I don't think it makes Cassius a scrub, I think it makes GK poorly produced as a show. We already know he submitted his deck ahead of time, we know that the CZ people also have cards of that caliber and chose not to use them. If I show up with my cedh deck, sit down and ask if I can play it, and the table, knowing what the deck does, says "Sure, we can handle it" and I womp them anyway, that's not really on me. Scrubbing behavior would be downplaying or disguising that threat level imo, not providing honest foreward notice and playing to one's abilities.

I'd say there's blame on both sides. I've criticized GK in plenty of posts on this thread for letting him play that deck. I suspect they're reticent to push back against celeb guests and it compromises the quality of the show imo.

Hard disagree on precon quality. I dunno what glue you've been sniffing, but aside from a few scattered exceptions, most of those decks are pretty trash out of the box. Maybe my meta (when it was open) was just vastly more competitive than yours, but those fish don't last long in shark infested waters, so to speak. Grow or die.

Obviously it's a matter of perspective. That said, I'm not speaking from experiences in a single meta, but experiences playing precons in multiple metas on 3 different continents, so I think my perspective is relatively wide. While it's a challenge to win with a precon, it's certainly not impossible. You might be surprised some of the things a precon can pull off. Even against relatively powerful decks, they often spend so many resources fighting each other and ignoring you that, if you wait for the right moment, you can clinch a sweet victory. It's really satisfying when it works, much more fun than an easy win.

And it isn't a GP, no. But on the otherhand, I do not think crippling yourself in a foot race makes you a better jogger long term.

I hate inapt metaphors.

Commander is, for the vast majority of players, not competitive in terms of deckbuilding. Everyone is already intentionally "crippling" themselves by choosing not to play a cEDH deck, assuming they have the budget to do so. Playing a precon is just a more extreme form of that self-limitation.

Your golf metaphor was much closer. A handicap lets you play a fair game against a weaker player by having a disadvantage at the start. Whether a precon is a workable disadvantage, or too much (or, I suppose, too little) depends on who and what you're playing against, and how skilled you are as a player (also which precon - some of the precons are much weaker than others in my experience).

Magic, especially edh, often requires developing lines of play that require memorization and practice to perfect.

baaarf.

This is pure opinion, but anything that's done with memorization - like how to goldfish a storm deck or whatever - is a pretty low-tier skill imo. And I find the desire to achieve 100% perfect play in a commander game to be a boring goal with no real purpose. If you want to spend a bunch of time getting really tight with your play, go play a format with actual tournaments, which 1) will provide you an endless source of people to play against with a similar goal, and 2) will give you an actual use for your skill in the form of major tournaments with prizes.

a) give you no meaniful practice in the aforementioned regard

Precons won't help you memorize specific plays (oh no, variety in MY commander?), but you can still learn plenty from the experience. I think you learn a hell of a lot more by winning by the skin of your teeth with a precon, using the minimal tools available to maximum effect, than by assembling the same cEDH combo game after game...but that's just me.

b) usually if not always lack enough efficient interaction to stop nonprecon gamewinning plays

Depends on the precon and the plays, but interaction can be limited, yes. All the more reason to make sure what answers you do have, count. I didn't say it was easy. If you're not up to the challenge I totally understand.

c) are one-two turns behind the table due to their volume of tapped lands.

Tapped lands force you to consider carefully which turns you want to play untapped lands to hit critical on-curve plays, and which turns you're ok playing a mana off. The manabase is a disadvantage, yes, but it's not a crippling one imo. Again, I understand if you find it too challenging.

All you've done is gimp yourself and set up a non-game for any real opponent, which is satisfying to none.

Assuming you're playing multiplayer, that's not really an issue since presumably the other players will be of similar power level. I don't think I've ever in my life heard someone say "man, I'm really sad that I won because one specific player didn't put up a fight". Actually, tbh I don't think I've heard hardly anyone except me say "oops, this deck was too strong for the table, I'll play another one." Most commander players I've met, when they crush someone else with a superior deck, are happy and see no problem with it, unless someone else at the table asks them to change.

If someone says "hey, don't play a precon, I don't want it too easy" then I'll be happy to play something else, but that's never happened and I don't expect it ever will. The most I've heard is "well, your funeral". I think I won that game too, lol.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing tbh. I'm sure there are metas where a precon really would be a waste of time - your meta may well be one. But based on my experience, there are many metas where a precon can put up a fighting chance in the hands of a skilled pilot. I definitely wouldn't expect someone to play a precon on GK, but I do think bringing a gun to a knife fight is poor form and, at least to me, makes the player look weak instead of strong.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

I'd say there's blame on both sides. I've criticized GK in plenty of posts on this thread for letting him play that deck. I suspect they're reticent to push back against celeb guests and it compromises the quality of the show imo.

Agreed.

Obviously it's a matter of perspective. That said, I'm not speaking from experiences in a single meta, but experiences playing precons in multiple metas on 3 different continents, so I think my perspective is relatively wide. While it's a challenge to win with a precon, it's certainly not impossible. You might be surprised some of the things a precon can pull off. Even against relatively powerful decks, they often spend so many resources fighting each other and ignoring you that, if you wait for the right moment, you can clinch a sweet victory. It's really satisfying when it works, much more fun than an easy win.

But that kind of victory falls under lucky/kingmaking/pity as I stated prior. You didn't really earn that victory, you didn't outplay anyone, you pulled a Fransico Franco and just happened to be the last man standing. Furthermore, just because winning with a precon is really hard doesn't diminish the relative difficulty of any other type of victory. Have yoy ever played cedh? I have. Those games are not "easy wins". But playing a precon against the field is definitely the shortest path to regular losses.

I hate inapt metaphors.

Commander is, for the vast majority of players, not competitive in terms of deckbuilding. Everyone is already intentionally "crippling" themselves by choosing not to play a cEDH deck, assuming they have the budget to do so. Playing a precon is just a more extreme form of that self-limitation.

Your golf metaphor was much closer. A handicap lets you play a fair game against a weaker player by having a disadvantage at the start. Whether a precon is a workable disadvantage, or too much (or, I suppose, too little) depends on who and what you're playing against, and how skilled you are as a player (also which precon - some of the precons are much weaker than others in my experience).

I'm sorry, do you mean "inept"? Just curious.

And I stand by all my metaphors, thank you very much. The best edh games are balanced in my experience. Playing a precon against real decks is crippling yourself. You don't have be Usain Bolt to run a 5K, but if you're going to try to run it in loafers, you're typically gonna have a bad time and you will not be viewed as taking the competition seriously.

baaarf.

This is pure opinion, but anything that's done with memorization - like how to goldfish a storm deck or whatever - is a pretty low-tier skill imo. And I find the desire to achieve 100% perfect play in a commander game to be a boring goal with no real purpose. If you want to spend a bunch of time getting really tight with your play, go play a format with actual tournaments, which 1) will provide you an endless source of people to play against with a similar goal, and 2) will give you an actual use for your skill in the form of major tournaments with prizes.

I thought the goal was too improve at the game. Perfect practice makes perfect. As for the "go play tournaments" argument, that's just classic gatekeeping and ignores the various reasons players enjoy edh. Why do you think cedh exists otherwise? Many people enjoy playing tight games, and no, not every player is just goldfishing storm. There's a fair amount of interesting, nonlinear decks that require practice and lines to play correctly. What with your meta globetrotting, I figured you would know that.

Precons won't help you memorize specific plays (oh no, variety in MY commander?), but you can still learn plenty from the experience. I think you learn a hell of a lot more by winning by the skin of your teeth with a precon, using the minimal tools available to maximum effect, than by assembling the same cEDH combo game after game...but that's just me.

You're entitled to that opinion, but I've never seen any professional players slinging precons for practice. If you want experience working with minimal resources, limited will teach you a whole lot more in that regard than getting stomped with a precon in hand.

Depends on the precon and the plays, but interaction can be limited, yes. All the more reason to make sure what answers you do have, count. I didn't say it was easy. If you're not up to the challenge I totally understand.

It's a "challenge" in the sense that you're fighting uphill from turn one, your opponents will remain largely unchallenged by your mediocre cards, and you've unbalanced the table (unless playing against other precons). I would 100% rather play with/against someone who contribute to board control, present legitimate threats, and won't flood out with their stock 41 land manabase. It's basically turning the game into 3 players and one who barely counts.

Tapped lands force you to consider carefully which turns you want to play untapped lands to hit critical on-curve plays, and which turns you're ok playing a mana off. The manabase is a disadvantage, yes, but it's not a crippling one imo. Again, I understand if you find it too challenging.

Again, limited will teach these lessons better. More likely, you will find yourself a mana short on several critical moments, and you will lose because of it.

Assuming you're playing multiplayer, that's not really an issue since presumably the other players will be of similar power level. I don't think I've ever in my life heard someone say "man, I'm really sad that I won because one specific player didn't put up a fight". Actually, tbh I don't think I've heard hardly anyone except me say "oops, this deck was too strong for the table, I'll play another one." Most commander players I've met, when they crush someone else with a superior deck, are happy and see no problem with it, unless someone else at the table asks them to change.

If someone says "hey, don't play a precon, I don't want it too easy" then I'll be happy to play something else, but that's never happened and I don't expect it ever will. The most I've heard is "well, your funeral". I think I won that game too, lol.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing tbh. I'm sure there are metas where a precon really would be a waste of time - your meta may well be one. But based on my experience, there are many metas where a precon can put up a fighting chance in the hands of a skilled pilot. I definitely wouldn't expect someone to play a precon on GK, but I do think bringing a gun to a knife fight is poor form and, at least to me, makes the player look weak instead of strong.

I really can't clarify anymore if your reading comprehension is really that bad. I have heard players express remorse for a pubstomp because they misread a table. Usually they want to catch another game and know that no one will engage again unless they acknowledge fault. Whether that's a selfishly motivated action or true remorse is subject to debate, but it happens.

I'm advocating for table balance in all forms. Precons do not belong against real, tuned decks and vice versa. Bringing a knife to a known gunfight is just depriving yourself and others of a satisfying gunfight, imo. You just end up like the Ugly and the end of Good, Bad, and the Ugly, without bullets and waiting to see if you luck out by everyone else killing each other. You are not giving yourself a meaningful amount of agency over the course of the game, and these games are best when interactive.

And seriously, lay off the condescension. You're not special, pretty, or charming because you think you can whoop anyone with a precon. You may be all those things in spite of that, but that tone is both unwarranted and unfounded.

[DirkGently]

But that kind of victory falls under lucky/kingmaking/pity as I stated prior.

Hard disagree on that one. Not sure how you'd argue that to be true. Correct threat assessment =/= pity or kingmaking. And every win is lucky to some degree. A good player can do better with worse odds, though. Playing a precon forces them to do so.

You didn't really earn that victory, you didn't outplay anyone, you pulled a Fransico Franco and just happened to be the last man standing.

Sometimes I'll play new players who don't know what they're doing and are (correctly) threat assessed as a low priority, and end up winning "by accident". That doesn't mean manipulating that situation to happen on purpose doesn't require skill.

Have yoy ever played cedh? I have.

against cedh, yes. With cedh, no. Well, except once - years ago there was a tournament at a GP or something so I put together a food chain tazri deck. Started with food chain in hand, and had like 20 tutors I could have hit for the instant combo win. Proceeded to topdeck nothing but lands and counterspells for 11 turns and lost to a table of 75%- decks. Lol.

But playing a precon against the field is definitely the shortest path to regular losses.

I'd put a skilled player with a precon over an unskilled player with a copypasta from edhrec any day.

I'm sorry, do you mean "inept"? Just curious.

Nope. Inapt means "not apt".

And I stand by all my metaphors, thank you very much. The best edh games are balanced in my experience. Playing a precon against real decks is crippling yourself. You don't have be Usain Bolt to run a 5K, but if you're going to try to run it in loafers, you're typically gonna have a bad time and you will not be viewed as taking the competition seriously.

I agree that the best edh games are balanced, but honestly most LGS commander players are (there's no way to say this without sounding like a prick) very bad at magic. Most games I play a precon, I think it's actually pretty even-steven in terms of overall chance to win (not always, ofc).

I thought the goal was too improve at the game. Perfect practice makes perfect.

There's many ways to practice. Repeating the same thing over and over sounds like a very boring way to practice to me, personally. You may have noticed I build new decks pretty frequently.

As for the "go play tournaments" argument, that's just classic gatekeeping and ignores the various reasons players enjoy edh. Why do you think cedh exists otherwise?

I don't think I should answer that question. :$

Many people enjoy playing tight games, and no, not every player is just goldfishing storm. There's a fair amount of interesting, nonlinear decks that require practice and lines to play correctly. What with your meta globetrotting, I figured you would know that.

I haven't played a deck in years that I didn't basically have down within a few runs or less. Probably my standards for "having it down" are looser than most though.

Everyone's entitled to their idea of fun, but I suspect that for a lot of people, it's less about finding the pursuit of perfect play "fun", and more about justifying how much money they've sunk into their deck by playing it ad nauseum. But maybe that's the armchair psychologist in me.

You're entitled to that opinion, but I've never seen any professional players slinging precons for practice.

Stop. Comparing. Tournament. Magic. To. Commander.

If you want experience working with minimal resources, limited will teach you a whole lot more in that regard than getting stomped with a precon in hand.

¿Porque no los dos?

It's a "challenge" in the sense that you're fighting uphill from turn one, your opponents will remain largely unchallenged by your mediocre cards, and you've unbalanced the table (unless playing against other precons). I would 100% rather play with/against someone who contribute to board control, present legitimate threats, and won't flood out with their stock 41 land manabase. It's basically turning the game into 3 players and one who barely counts.

Ok so three things:

1) I've told you that, when I've played precons, it's usually been a relatively even win% from where I'm sitting. If that isn't true for your meta, then ok, maybe it's not. Nobody is making you do it. But stop claiming it's impossible to have a reasonable chance with a precon. I've literally done it. In many metas, including every one I've been in, it is absolutely doable. Idk why you keep arguing about how hard it is when you've never even tried it, and I'm telling you I've done it and you're dismissing me.

2) Idk why it would "unbalance" the table more than a 3p game. Worst case scenario it's basically the same. We've all had games where one person got stuck on 2 land or whatever and it was basically 3p. The fourth player doesn't make it worse than none at all.

3) I do genuinely think you're underestimating the card quality of modern precons. They're usually a bit unfocused in their strategy (as are most peoples' decks tbh), but it's not like 2011 with Razorjaw Oni and other garbage bodies in the decks. Most cards make reasonable sense. I will say I've found the Ranar the Ever-Watchful precon to be a bit underwhelming, which is the first of the released-with-the-expansion precons I've bought, but the main series from ikoria last year felt relatively strong to me. I remember absolutely demolishing some people with the mutate deck.

Again, limited will teach these lessons better. More likely, you will find yourself a mana short on several critical moments, and you will lose because of it.

Why better? I'd say it manifests pretty differently between edh and limited.

But also I play a lot of limited and it's my favorite format (very close with commander ofc). It's a lot easier to find commander than limited around here, though.

I really can't clarify anymore if your reading comprehension is really that bad. I have heard players express remorse for a pubstomp because they misread a table. Usually they want to catch another game and know that no one will engage again unless they acknowledge fault. Whether that's a selfishly motivated action or true remorse is subject to debate, but it happens.

I'm glad people are doing that in your vicinity, but I can't personally recall anyone saying it in games I've been part of. But my memory does suck.

I'm advocating for table balance in all forms. Precons do not belong against real, tuned decks and vice versa.

Let me throw it back at you and say that skill mismatches can just as easily throw off game balance. Playing a weaker deck, such as a precon, is a way to counter that inequity. I don't generally play precons against skilled opponents. Though I do remember a skilled opponent beating ME with a precon - that was a brutal loss, lemme tell you.

Bringing a knife to a known gunfight is just depriving yourself and others of a satisfying gunfight, imo.

Are we talking about GK or precons? I was referring to GK with my knife/gun analogy. I wouldn't call GK a "known gunfight".

You just end up like the Ugly and the end of Good, Bad, and the Ugly, without bullets and waiting to see if you luck out by everyone else killing each other. You are not giving yourself a meaningful amount of agency over the course of the game, and these games are best when interactive.

Ofc you would reference spaghetti westerns but I do think you're underestimating precons here. Looking through the Jeskai cycling deck (the deck I've probably played most of recent precons) for interaction, there's:

• astral drift
• cast out
• lightning rift
• the 3 impetuses (which can be effective interaction in many games, especially of the sort where I'd bust out a precon)
• fierce guardianship
• neutralize
• zenith flare
• akroma's vengeance
• descend upon the sinful
• dismantling wave
• slice and dice
• chandra flamecaller
• mercurial chemister
• nimble obstructionist
• portal mage
• niv mizzet, the firemind
• surly badgersaur
• savai thundermane

I mean, I've built decks with more interaction, but that's still a pretty significant amount. More than most peoples' decks, from what I can tell.

And seriously, lay off the condescension. You're not special, pretty, or charming because you think you can whoop anyone with a precon. You may be all those things in spite of that, but that tone is both unwarranted and unfounded.

I definitely don't think I can beat ANYONE. I'm just saying they're a viable option in most metas.

You sure do leap to personal attacks quickly. I'll admit to being a bit sarcastic, but I'm not sure what you expect me to say. I start with "I've done this in many metas, and it's been a reasonable play experience" and then you come at me with "that's impossible, precons are trash". Ok, but I've already done it so...do you expect me to refute your theorycraft?

[BeneTleilax]

I was in a meta that was below precon-tier before the first precons, and fluctuated wildly before settling down at slightly above the level of precons. I've certainly seen folks who were particularly lucky or good win with unaltered precons. I still remember when we ignored a noob with a fresh primal fury deck until he ramped into some silly green beef and stomped everyone with an overrun.
My experience is narrower than Dirk's, but it backs him up. I don't like to play them personally because I tend to find them unfocused.

[DirkGently]

I was in a meta that was below precon-tier before the first precons

Damn do I miss those wild west days when nobody knew what they were doing. I'm pretty sure any of today's precons would blow most pre-2011 decks out of the water tbh (not that it's relevant to this discussion, it's just interesting to note).

[RxPhantom]

I was in a meta that was below precon-tier before the first precons

Damn do I miss those wild west days when nobody knew what they were doing. I'm pretty sure any of today's precons would blow most pre-2011 decks out of the water tbh (not that it's relevant to this discussion, it's just interesting to note).

Those were some wild and wonderful times. My mana bases were just shocks, checks, a lot of basics, and lots of stuff that entered tapped. Nothing felt solved or omnipresent. Innovation was rewarded with really fun games and maybe a few wins. I still try to retain the spirit of those halcyon days by not consulting outside sources when building decks for the first two drafts or so. This format is still great, but that old feeling of excitement is long gone. It was the Wild West!

[kirkusjones]

Question: is it more Cassius's personality that irks people or is it the gun-to-the-knife-fight issue? I only ask because I'm pretty sure Jesper Ejsing has brought multiple CEDH piles to Game Knights (or maybe Extra Turns?) and I don't recall there being this level of annoyance over it.

[JWK]

While it's a challenge to win with a precon, it's certainly not impossible. You might be surprised some of the things a precon can pull off.

Some precons are much stronger than others, but the overall power has been rising pretty dramatically. I have won several games playing the Aesi precon against tuned decks, due to the quality of ramp and all the bounce effects in the deck. I stopped playing it against other precons and decks of precon level in PlayEDH's Battlecruiser games because it literally never lost a game and felt too much like pubstomping. Unmodified, the Lathril precon probably won't beat a tuned table very often, but it won't be unusual for you to take at least one opponent out of the game pretty early.

[BeneTleilax]

I was in a meta that was below precon-tier before the first precons

Damn do I miss those wild west days when nobody knew what they were doing. I'm pretty sure any of today's precons would blow most pre-2011 decks out of the water tbh (not that it's relevant to this discussion, it's just interesting to note).

Those were some wild and wonderful times. My mana bases were just shocks, checks, a lot of basics, and lots of stuff that entered tapped. Nothing felt solved or omnipresent. Innovation was rewarded with really fun games and maybe a few wins. I still try to retain the spirit of those halcyon days by not consulting outside sources when building decks for the first two drafts or so. This format is still great, but that old feeling of excitement is long gone. It was the Wild West!

It was cool and all, but no-one ran enough interaction, so sometimes everyone would just sit there awkwardly while Uril gradually digested 120 life points. I do miss my Jarad Llhurgoyf tribal, though.

[JWK]

Question: is it more Cassius's personality that irks people or is it the gun-to-the-knife-fight issue? I only ask because I'm pretty sure Jesper Ejsing has brought multiple CEDH piles to Game Knights (or maybe Extra Turns?) and I don't recall there being this level of annoyance over it.

For me, it's the bringing a flamethrower-to-the-fist-fight mentality. I've enjoyed previous episodes with Cassius. He's the sort of guy he is. He's a pro football player who is obviously pretty competitive, but there's fair competitive and there's premeditated mass murder. I felt this episode crossed that line, but it's not just his fault. JLK is at least as much at fault for not either having the guts to ask Cassius to play a deck more in line with what others were running or asking the others to upgrade their decks to something that could better compete.

The only game I've seen Jesper play, he ran a hatebears deck. It screwed with his opponents pretty well, as they don't tend to build in ways that do well against that approach, but it wasn't an overpowered deck in terms of overall card quality being beyond that of his opponents. I don't recall it even reaching the level of some of the stax decks one will encounter in Mid decks on PlayEDH. It was probably only a little bit (if any) above the level of the Torbran deck I play in Low on PlayEDH.

[DirkGently]

Question: is it more Cassius's personality that irks people or is it the gun-to-the-knife-fight issue? I only ask because I'm pretty sure Jesper Ejsing has brought multiple CEDH piles to Game Knights (or maybe Extra Turns?) and I don't recall there being this level of annoyance over it.

I've only watched a couple episodes of GK in my lifetime so I don't know Jesper or those episodes. But I didn't find Cassius's personality particularly terrible. If anything the cringiest part was him pimping for his store.

[3drinks]

Why don't we just say screw this and make the @mtgnexus version of game knights but without the bad plays and allegations of fixed games.

I'm down to run WB Korvold through this.

[DirkGently]

People think they fix the games? If that was a game someone actually scripted out, that'd be a pretty pathetic effort.

Honestly I'll bet someone could script out a really cool magic game if they put their mind to it. It'd be like an episode of Yu-Gi-Oh or something. "You see, Jimmy, you've activated my TRAP CARD!!!"

[3drinks]

We could do this as a group effort, record batches of games since we've all got vastly different schedules and time zones, then record a 90sec - 2min intro for each player to help watchers know whom is whom. Add the intros in at post production and keep a cache of games such that we always have enough for a weekly/biweekly whatever schedule. We have spelltable to easily facilitate game play as well.

People think they fix the games? If that was a game someone actually scripted out, that'd be a pretty pathetic effort.

Honestly I'll bet someone could script out a really cool magic game if they put their mind to it. It'd be like an episode of Yu-Gi-Oh or something. "You see, Jimmy, you've activated my TRAP CARD!!!"

It's an ongoing reply in all of their game play videos, and among what bit of their social media followers I've found (though I'm completely isolated from the circle jerk that is magic twitter). Even if this one game is a poor representation herein (I haven't watched, it's very hard to take these guys serious with all the shilling and blatant WotC apologist tones), the allegations vs them are very real.

[kraus911]

There are times when we all need to step back and remember we're playing a game, that it's supposed to be an outlet and stress relief rather than the opposite. There's also nothing wrong in my mind in people making whatever kind of social media content they want regarding the game they like. Ultimately I'm glad the staff of GK is making some money doing what they're doing.

BUT!

I do think, if they ultimately love this game, they need to reevaluate their effect on the format and how people play it, and how they're implying players need to drop $$$ on the game to play it, even if they say otherwise. The cards they play and promote go up in price. The way they play the game translates to what people expect when they sit down to play. This is why I started this thread, because I think with the viewership GK has the community should use the show as a discussion point about what the format.

[Sinis]

Question: is it more Cassius's personality that irks people or is it the gun-to-the-knife-fight issue? I only ask because I'm pretty sure Jesper Ejsing has brought multiple CEDH piles to Game Knights (or maybe Extra Turns?) and I don't recall there being this level of annoyance over it.

It's a combination of the two. He's bringing a competitive deck to a casual table, and his pre-game talk is 'all about getting the win' (he may have literally said that).

I think it's fine to have a competitive mindset, but when that spills over into the deck you bring knowing what kind of decks you'll be facing, it's like lemon juice in the wound.

I do agree with some of the other posters, though; this is mostly on Game Knights for failing to negotiate with Cassius about what kind of deck he was bringing. I think if Cassius brought a deck that was on par with the other decks at the table, but was still primarily focused on winning, it would have been fine (or at least, less bad).

[PrimevalCommander]

I watched the Round Table yesterday describing the game. They did have Cassius' decklist pre-game and Josh told the other players to pump up their power level. Some maybe didn't take it to heart enough by still being removal light compared to a Tassigur control deck packing all the best toys. Also I think some of their play justification was quite weak and Jimmy's main phase Commune was one of the largest oversights. He knows it is already an instant right? Josh had to change his deck on the fly, and the others had to retool to get to Tassigur's level. Why couldn't Cassius just tone his down or play another commander? Any deck can be expensive, even without being over powered.

[DirkGently]

I do agree with some of the other posters, though; this is mostly on Game Knights for failing to negotiate with Cassius about what kind of deck he was bringing. I think if Cassius brought a deck that was on par with the other decks at the table, but was still primarily focused on winning, it would have been fine (or at least, less bad).

I suspect that GK is being a bit poorly managed as a "show". If that episode of GK had happened IRL at my LGS or whatever, I'll be honest - I would have played against Cassius's deck. I probably would have acted like JLK and being very threat-assessy on him, just like in the episode. And I probably would have lost. That sort of thing happens IRL and it's not a huge deal - just pick more balanced decks for next game. The problem is when you're doing the same degree of vetting for a show with a million views that most people are doing for a casual game of commander. There was a very real chance that game could have basically ended in 10 minutes and been a complete snoozefest, and they did almost nothing to prevent that from happening. They just got lucky that it didn't.

I have to say I don't really get the appeal of GK. The graphics and the format are cute I guess, but in terms of the actual gameplay I really don't see anything more interesting than what I get every time I play commander. There's no pro-level gameplay to be impressed by, or creative decks to be inspired by, or even just off-the-wall gameplay to be entertained by. It's just...normal commander games...but with fancy repetitive graphics and "the office" style talking heads. Put in more effort.

[pokken]

I have to say I don't really get the appeal of GK. The graphics and the format are cute I guess, but in terms of the actual gameplay I really don't see anything more interesting than what I get every time I play commander.

I think most of these shows are aimed at newer players with less refined palates than us, sir.

[Ertai Planeswalker]

I have to say I don't really get the appeal of GK. The graphics and the format are cute I guess, but in terms of the actual gameplay I really don't see anything more interesting than what I get every time I play commander.

I think most of these shows are aimed at newer players with less refined palates than us, sir.

image.png

I must admit that I also just watch it because I find it enjoying. I just love watching what happens and let it come as it comes. I never find myself really criticizing it or setting standards i want to be met beforehand. I like the special effects and lighthearted approach. I play magic since 1996 so it has nothing to do with being a newer player. I think it's more about appreciating the effort.

[Rumpy5897]

On a more positive note - I really like Extra Turns. I enjoy the pacing, there's room for table chemistry (which the Command Zone staff gang has plenty of) as the game moves along at a quicker tempo. The new game at hand is neat too, Medomai the Ageless is the haymaker for power context. This might well be my favourite gameplay series due to the pacing and production quality.

Also, I only started suspecting Game Knights rigging after Jimmy punted a game where he had a gross Golgari value setup going... against freaking Ayula bear tribal. That error was so monumental and unrealistic that it just smelled of poor staging. Since then any time anything of note happens, I can't help but wonder if it's coordinated to some extent. It probably isn't though, as there are games with guests doing nothing, and you don't fly someone out for them to do literally nothing in your EDH wrestling

[duducrash]

Somewhat of a tangent:

A thing I learned (that kinda surprised me) when doing that deck analysis project is that average CMC is by far the #1 indicator of what a deck is going to do. Nothing correlated more directly with power level than average CMC.

There were goofy exceptions like the high CMC tribal and karador mono-1-drops and whatever but those are pretty easy to suss out.

As to why, it's because your average CMC largely answers the question of what your deck thinks the critical turn is, in a roundabout fashion, which says a lot about how you want to play.

It's probably the first thing I would look at for an honest assessment of power level, and I'd say that decks that diverge seriously from a curve perspective are unlikely to play well together.

Can you elaborate? I'm really intereste in the idea but I feel I'm not goood enough of a player/deckbuilder to go trough with the idea.