[Off-Topic] Community Chat Thread

User avatar
Ulka
Posts: 486
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Post by Ulka » 2 months ago

DirkGently wrote:
2 months ago
Random thing I'm annoyed about today is the "SECRET LAIR: THE UNFATHOMABLE CRUSHING BRUTALITY OF BASIC LANDS" (I know all caps is annoying but I c/p'd it and I don't want to retype it). I kinda dig the art and I almost want to consider getting some, but the distribution model is so stupid. Who is going to spend $30 to have non-matching basic lands? I can't imagine hardly anyone buying just 1 of these, so you're paying a ton of money and getting a bunch of big-ol-boxes shipped to your house individually, each of which has five cards. What a dumb waste of packaging and shipping to get cards in increments hardly anyone wants. To replace the basic lands in my collection I'd have to pay $900+ (plus shipping lol) and rip open 30 godforsaken packages. And that's an especially lucky situation since at least I want an even distribution, someone who wants a dozen islands for a mono-blue deck is shelling out essentially $30 per land.

I guess I'll just add them to the list off "stuff I'll buy at an insane markup on ebay one day when I've become the next JK Rowling (minus the kid-friendly stories and transphobia) and money has no meaning anymore".
Or do what I do: buy 1 copy of them. frame them and hang them on a wall after taking detailed scans and printing copies to sleeve over my other basics.
Modern: Goryo's Gifts | Heartless Architect | Soul Sisters | MonoGreen Devotion
Pauper: Blackened Eggs | Zombies | Zoo | Sultai Teachings
EDH:Bladewing | Blind Seer | Zuberi | He Who Hungers
EDH continued:Mishra | Kynaios and Tiro | Dosan | Zedruu | Mikeaus | 4 color ZadaMayael

User avatar
Dunharrow
Posts: 798
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Montreal

Post by Dunharrow » 2 months ago

Toshi wrote:
2 months ago
pokken wrote:
2 months ago
It's also rather unfortunate that they have packed so much utility into Snow, as I'm even less interested in non-snow basics these days, because most 1-2c decks (which I seem to be finding myself preferring) will have small advantages from playing snow at no downside. :P
A few more years - and significant interactions - and we could go full circle, where it could be witty to play Extraplanar Lens with non-snow basics. I'd find that hilarious.

Or we're going to see more distorted landtypes with own interactions? Withered, drowned, ablaze, ... who knows?
I am really hoping that they print a snow-hate card soon. Reidane, God of the Worthy // Valkmira, Protector's Shield doesn't really cut it. I think we should have gotten a "Destroy target snow permanent" and a "counter target snow spell" card.
The New World fell not to a sword but to a meme

User avatar
Toshi
ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
Posts: 361
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Freiburg, Germany
Contact:

Post by Toshi » 2 months ago

Dunharrow wrote:
2 months ago
I am really hoping that they print a snow-hate card soon.
Maybe something among the lines of Return to Nature?
Destroy Artifact/Enchantment/noncreature permanent if it is snow

User avatar
Lifeless
Not here to contribute.
Posts: 125
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Lifeless » 2 months ago

The game needs a snow Armageddon TBH. There has to be some opportunity cost to playing snow lands. I'd also love to see a very aggressive legend with snow landwalk.

User avatar
toctheyounger
Posts: 2216
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by toctheyounger » 2 months ago

Hard agree with everything about snow so far. With no opportunity cost and minimal to significant upside depending how far you lean into it, there's no reason not to change every land base to basic snows in every deck I own and that's just....silly. I refuse to do it on principle, and also, with a limited budget there's no way that's where I'm dropping my cash. The only deck I run snow in currently is Nissa, Vastwood Seer // Nissa, Sage Animist to leverage Field of the Dead, and if it weren't a mono colour deck I still wouldn't (I also run Field in an Abzan Tayam, Luminous Enigma build and don't run snows - I don't intend to either).

I definitely want to either see further variation or more variant basic hate/control. It's a bit of a shame we don't already have desert basics from Amonkhet as is, but I guess it would've just put us in the same boat needing ways to nip it in the bud.
Malazan Decks of the Fallen
| Shadowthrone/Lazav | Raest/Yidris | T'iam / The Ur-Dragon |

User avatar
bobthefunny
Resident Plainswalker
Posts: 417
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by bobthefunny » 2 months ago

DirkGently wrote:
2 months ago
Random thing I'm annoyed about today is the "SECRET LAIR: THE UNFATHOMABLE CRUSHING BRUTALITY OF BASIC LANDS" (I know all caps is annoying but I c/p'd it and I don't want to retype it). I kinda dig the art and I almost want to consider getting some, but the distribution model is so stupid. Who is going to spend $30 to have non-matching basic lands? I can't imagine hardly anyone buying just 1 of these, so you're paying a ton of money and getting a bunch of big-ol-boxes shipped to your house individually, each of which has five cards. What a dumb waste of packaging and shipping to get cards in increments hardly anyone wants. To replace the basic lands in my collection I'd have to pay $900+ (plus shipping lol) and rip open 30 godforsaken packages. And that's an especially lucky situation since at least I want an even distribution, someone who wants a dozen islands for a mono-blue deck is shelling out essentially $30 per land.
Yeah, the distribution model of these lands is pretty bad. Even UN lands at full art only ever hit peaks of about $3-4 per land. There are some lands (guru, arabian mountain, etc) that have reached astronomical heights, but those are exceptions rather than the rule.

Even Jumpstart lands (with the exception of the Phyrexian text swamp), only reach a max of just under $3 per land, and that's because of some idiotic constraint of putting only 1 jumpstart land per booster, and filling the rest with m21 lands, making the special art lands exceptionally rare - in fact, they are effectively another rare slot in the booster, since there's only one, and they can only show up in their specific themed boosters.
pokken wrote:
2 months ago
DirkGently wrote:
2 months ago
I can't imagine hardly anyone buying just 1 of these, so you're paying a ton of money and getting a bunch of big-ol-boxes shipped to your house individually, each of which has five cards.
They still haven't twigged to how EDH players use basic lands. Fewer than 20 of each in a package might as well not exist for me, I just write them off instantly. But I do play a lot of 1 and 2 color decks these days.

It's also rather unfortunate that they have packed so much utility into Snow, as I'm even less interested in non-snow basics these days, because most 1-2c decks (which I seem to be finding myself preferring) will have small advantages from playing snow at no downside. :P
To be fair, there are a number of EDH players who actually take pride in not playing basics... I personally don't understand that mentality (I ramp... a lot.), as basics remain an incredibly powerful and important tool. On my end, I typically run about 14-20 basics per deck, at the least. Some (mono G) which ramp super hard run much more. I think my lowest is 12, as Trostani has a lot going on with lands, but I question some of my nonbasic choices at every turn.


====


As far as snow-hate goes, I agree there needs to be an opportunity cost... I disagree with some of the methods. A "Snowmageddon" solution would be incredibly unhealthy, turning snow lands into a binary option. I think whatever hate card gets printed would need to be strong enough to be a hindrance, but not so absolute to simply be an outright punishment/destruction. It would also need to be useful outside of snow, as you wouldn't want it to be a dead card either.

There are plenty of cards that turn things into snow, and I think we wouldn't want to give ways to hose/grief players in that method either.
  • "Whenever a land an opp controls is tapped for {s} or {c} for the first time each turn, draw a card"
  • "At the beginning of each player's turn, they put a frostburn counter on target nonbasic or snow land that does not have a counter already. It gains 'Whenever you tap this land for mana, lose 1 life.'"
would maybe be two possible options?

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 3196
Joined: 1 year ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 2 months ago

bobthefunny wrote:
2 months ago
To be fair, there are a number of EDH players who actually take pride in not playing basics... I personally don't understand that mentality (I ramp... a lot.), as basics remain an incredibly powerful and important tool. On my end, I typically run about 14-20 basics per deck, at the least. Some (mono G) which ramp super hard run much more. I think my lowest is 12, as Trostani has a lot going on with lands, but I question some of my nonbasic choices at every turn.
Right there with ya, I usually have 10-15 basics in any deck, sometimes as much as 20 in a budget 2-color deck on the rare occasion I sleeve one of those up.

I think mostly that if you're not running fetches you're going to be pushed to run more non-basics. I'm kinda lookin forward to everyone having access to fetches when MH2 comes out.
bobthefunny wrote:
2 months ago
As far as snow-hate goes, I agree there needs to be an opportunity cost... I disagree with some of the methods. A "Snowmageddon" solution would be incredibly unhealthy, turning snow lands into a binary option. I think whatever hate card gets printed would need to be strong enough to be a hindrance, but not so absolute to simply be an outright punishment/destruction. It would also need to be useful outside of snow, as you wouldn't want it to be a dead card either.
I really have no idea how to apply a cost there, but I wouldn't mind if they just put some cards in that were a positive reason to use normal basics. The issue with snow right now is the same reason they have never wanted to reprint the original duals -- snow basics are strictly better than normal basics, and per the guidelines of the game lands should not be strictly better than a basic.

What I think they need is a keyword that describes 'supertyped basics' in the event they add something other than snow, so they can say make a Prismatic Vista that can't fetch supertyped basics or something.

I really do not like any kind of Verity Circle for snow or whatever effects, or Winter Orb for snow, because they become basically sideboarded cards. There's enough of that metagaming stuff in EDH already, I really don't want to see people building their decks assuming people will have snow basics. Y u c k YUCK. Not sure why I hate that idea so much but I just find it really distasteful.

Give us a bunch of good things that normal basics do, vs. putting in hate cards for snow.

Maybe finish the Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth cycle but make them exclude snow (e.g. "All non-climate-typed lands are Islands") :P

User avatar
lyonhaert
Posts: 557
Joined: 1 year ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: they / them

Post by lyonhaert » 2 months ago

bobthefunny wrote:
2 months ago
To be fair, there are a number of EDH players who actually take pride in not playing basics... I personally don't understand that mentality (I ramp... a lot.), as basics remain an incredibly powerful and important tool. On my end, I typically run about 14-20 basics per deck, at the least. Some (mono G) which ramp super hard run much more. I think my lowest is 12, as Trostani has a lot going on with lands, but I question some of my nonbasic choices at every turn.
Even my 5C deck, I intend to fix it to be running 9-10 basics eventually. Wave of Vitriol is a painful way to get locked out of a game when not running enough basics.
Rebuilding
r Zada Arcane Storm
rbu Marchesa
To-Build Pool
gwu Estrid
gwr Samut?
urb Kess
{r/w}{u/b} Akiri & Silas
bwr Alesha
r Neheb Dragons
g Nylea Wurm/Hydra
w Darien
u Tetsuko
b The Abyss — a mono-black EDH Discord b

User avatar
toctheyounger
Posts: 2216
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by toctheyounger » 2 months ago

lyonhaert wrote:
2 months ago
bobthefunny wrote:
2 months ago
To be fair, there are a number of EDH players who actually take pride in not playing basics... I personally don't understand that mentality (I ramp... a lot.), as basics remain an incredibly powerful and important tool. On my end, I typically run about 14-20 basics per deck, at the least. Some (mono G) which ramp super hard run much more. I think my lowest is 12, as Trostani has a lot going on with lands, but I question some of my nonbasic choices at every turn.
Even my 5C deck, I intend to fix it to be running 9-10 basics eventually. Wave of Vitriol is a painful way to get locked out of a game when not running enough basics.
Can confirm. I love crushing expensive manabases with that card. The hubris is palpable, like Icarus plummeting to earth.
Malazan Decks of the Fallen
| Shadowthrone/Lazav | Raest/Yidris | T'iam / The Ur-Dragon |

User avatar
lyonhaert
Posts: 557
Joined: 1 year ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: they / them

Post by lyonhaert » 2 months ago

toctheyounger wrote:
2 months ago
lyonhaert wrote:
2 months ago
bobthefunny wrote:
2 months ago
To be fair, there are a number of EDH players who actually take pride in not playing basics... I personally don't understand that mentality (I ramp... a lot.), as basics remain an incredibly powerful and important tool. On my end, I typically run about 14-20 basics per deck, at the least. Some (mono G) which ramp super hard run much more. I think my lowest is 12, as Trostani has a lot going on with lands, but I question some of my nonbasic choices at every turn.
Even my 5C deck, I intend to fix it to be running 9-10 basics eventually. Wave of Vitriol is a painful way to get locked out of a game when not running enough basics.
Can confirm. I love crushing expensive manabases with that card. The hubris is palpable, like Icarus plummeting to earth.
lol - That is not the sentiment I was going for.
Rebuilding
r Zada Arcane Storm
rbu Marchesa
To-Build Pool
gwu Estrid
gwr Samut?
urb Kess
{r/w}{u/b} Akiri & Silas
bwr Alesha
r Neheb Dragons
g Nylea Wurm/Hydra
w Darien
u Tetsuko
b The Abyss — a mono-black EDH Discord b

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 1727
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 2 months ago

bobthefunny wrote:
2 months ago
To be fair, there are a number of EDH players who actually take pride in not playing basics... I personally don't understand that mentality (I ramp... a lot.), as basics remain an incredibly powerful and important tool. On my end, I typically run about 14-20 basics per deck, at the least. Some (mono G) which ramp super hard run much more. I think my lowest is 12, as Trostani has a lot going on with lands, but I question some of my nonbasic choices at every turn.
Is it really a pride thing? I frequently run few basics in a lot of my decks (obvious exceptions being mono-colored decks that get benefits from basics, such as cabal coffers or Emeria, the Sky Ruin), but that's just because fixing has such a low opportunity cost in commander. Any 2-color deck has at least 8 slots for fetches, more if you're running the weaker options. Then there's ABU duals and shocks which have little downside, filters are really strong too (both types), painlands are great, battle lands are excellent...command tower ofc...lots of others I'm forgetting...not to mention utility lands...if I'm going 2-color with minimal fixing requirements and low desire for land utility (i.e. because my commander is a mana sink) then I might end up as high as 14 basics, but usually my 2-color decks have 3 of each or so, with anything 3+ colors usually having just 1-2 of each unless I have a specific reason for wanting more (i.e. a lot of basic land ramp). Hell, my 4-color 98 land special only had a couple of each basic iirc. And even for mono-color decks that don't have a coffers-style benefit to basics, I'll often end up with just-barely-double-digits number of basics just because there's a lot of good utility lands with very low opportunity cost in mono-color.

It's not pride, it's just optimization.

That said, because sometimes I do end up with decks that need a lot of one basic (i.e. my Tergrid deck I just assembled wanted 31 basics for coffers-related reasons, plus my commander being a mana sink) I need to have a lot available just in case.

User avatar
RxPhantom
Pharmacist
Posts: 622
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Southern Maryland

Post by RxPhantom » 2 months ago

If this snow discussion has taught me anything, it's that it's time to buyout Melting and Arcum's Weathervane. Right? Amitrite, guys? Hello?
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 3/14/21 (Kaldheim).

My (inactive) 720 Peasant Cube

User avatar
Hermes_
Posts: 703
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Hermes_ » 2 months ago

I ran the snow/lens combo in my RW Akiri, Line-Slinger [/card] voltron deck, otherwise if i run snow,it's either due to not finding my box of basics/not caring or liking the art.
The Secret of Commander (EDH)
Sheldon-"The secret of this format is in not breaking it. "

User avatar
Dunharrow
Posts: 798
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Montreal

Post by Dunharrow » 2 months ago

Here are two example of viable snow hate cards:

2GB
Instant
Choose one
- Destroy target snow permanent
- Destroy up to one target creature and up to one target enchantment

1U
Instant
Choose one
- Counter target snow spell
- Return target non-land permanent to its owner's hand

Snowmageddon would not be fun - as stated it would be an oppressive sideboard card.
We need something more like Swan Song from Theros. A versatile card that hits the set's main theme while still having good value in other formats.

Reidane, God of the Worthy // Valkmira, Protector's Shield is pretty fine insofar as hating snow lands. The main detractor from playing snow will always be that you have terrible fixing.

I just think we need above-average removal for snow permanents too.

But maybe there should have been a colorless artifact to hose snow lands
Something like

2
Artifact
During your turn, all mana generated by snow permanents is colorless.
The New World fell not to a sword but to a meme

User avatar
Dunharrow
Posts: 798
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Montreal

Post by Dunharrow » 2 months ago

I'm surprised nobody brought this up from Maro's article yesterday. In response to a tweet saying "Why are there so many cards designed for EDH? The fun of discovery for the format is gone."
Maro replied:
There are ramifications to being the most played format. R&D is going to design cards for it. However, that doesn't mean there isn't room for a lot of discovery. The key is to give yourself constraints for your deck that force you to look places you might normally not. For example, try playing a legendary creature that you've never seen played as a commander before. Pick a piece of pop culture you adore and use that as inspiration for a theme. Limit yourself to only ten sets to pull from. A lot of fun can come from giving yourself constraints.

I do hear the larger note that we could be less prescriptive with the cards we design with Commander in mind. That is a note we've heard from numerous players and are taking to heart. The goal is to make more cards that let you explore cool things in Commander and less that force you to have to play a card if you're playing a certain theme.
It gives me hope that they hear what we are saying a bit.
I find Animar, Soul of Elements and Rakdos, Lord of Riots more interesting morph commanders than Kadena, Slinking Sorcerer, for example. I hope they will really be less prescriptive going forward.
but also hope they give us a legendary creature that cares about energy in the future.
The New World fell not to a sword but to a meme

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 1727
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 2 months ago

Dunharrow wrote:
2 months ago
I find Animar, Soul of Elements and Rakdos, Lord of Riots more interesting morph commanders than Kadena, Slinking Sorcerer, for example. I hope they will really be less prescriptive going forward.
but also hope they give us a legendary creature that cares about energy in the future.
Yes, can't wait for more Animars and Rakdos LoRs in the future.

Wait... :thinking:

User avatar
Lifeless
Not here to contribute.
Posts: 125
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Lifeless » 2 months ago

I suggested snow Armageddon because while it is an extreme option it's one of the only effects I can think of that's severe enough to independently give people pause when deckbuilding with snow lands. Even then it's not like Ruination or Wave of Vitriol have prevented most people from playing optimal manabases. A lot of people are just going to yolo snow lands because the odds of getting blown out by a single card are relatively low. As others have mentioned if we really want to make an impact on the format we'd need a suite of cards with fairly high impact effect that aren't dead outside snow lands. Maybe something like Tsabo's Webbut for snow lands, or an enchantment that provides all players a benefit when a snow permanent is tapped for mana.

User avatar
Dunharrow
Posts: 798
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Montreal

Post by Dunharrow » 2 months ago

DirkGently wrote:
2 months ago
Dunharrow wrote:
2 months ago
I find Animar, Soul of Elements and Rakdos, Lord of Riots more interesting morph commanders than Kadena, Slinking Sorcerer, for example. I hope they will really be less prescriptive going forward.
but also hope they give us a legendary creature that cares about energy in the future.
Yes, can't wait for more Animars and Rakdos LoRs in the future.

Wait... :thinking:
haha, true.
I was just talking in terms of making a morph deck. Rakdos and Animar obviously have other issues! In any case, I just would rather commanders be more open ended.
Lifeless wrote:
2 months ago
I suggested snow Armageddon because while it is an extreme option it's one of the only effects I can think of that's severe enough to independently give people pause when deckbuilding with snow lands. Even then it's not like Ruination or Wave of Vitriol have prevented most people from playing optimal manabases. A lot of people are just going to yolo snow lands because the odds of getting blown out by a single card are relatively low. As others have mentioned if we really want to make an impact on the format we'd need a suite of cards with fairly high impact effect that aren't dead outside snow lands. Maybe something like Tsabo's Webbut for snow lands, or an enchantment that provides all players a benefit when a snow permanent is tapped for mana.
If it were printed in a commander precon, maybe it would be feasible.
But in a standard set, forget about it! It would make games after sideboarding brutal for snow decks.
The New World fell not to a sword but to a meme

User avatar
RxPhantom
Pharmacist
Posts: 622
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Southern Maryland

Post by RxPhantom » 2 months ago

I rarely build decks from new commanders these days, as most designs fall under one of three categories for me:

1. Obscene, self-sustaining value machines (Golos, Tireless Pilgrim, Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy, Chulane, Teller of Tales, etc.)
2. Narrow to the point of every deck being identical (Gavi, Nest Warden, Feather, the Redeemed, Kadena, Slinking Sorcerer, etc.)
3. Generic/boring.

I'm currently assembling a Ghen, Arcanum Weaver list that I'm pretty excited about. I've also realized that my most recent decks are helmed by Core Set commanders, probably because they're open-ended enough to be interesting and don't only lend themselves to a "just use everything with mechanic X" approach to deck building that seems to dominate design lately.
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 3/14/21 (Kaldheim).

My (inactive) 720 Peasant Cube

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 1727
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 2 months ago

It's interesting trying to figure out what makes a commander "click". It's kind of funny to read what people hate about modern commander design because it's often somewhat contradictory. We don't like extremely narrow, obvious designs...but we also don't like extremely open-ended designs. We don't like super powerful designs, but we also don't like super weak designs.

Obviously everyone is different, lots of people love Golos. Personally I loved Golos for roughly 1.8 seconds, between reading his first ability and the second. Lands matter is fun, toolboxes are fun. Throwing all the biggest dumbest bombs in a deck...not fun. To me.

Looking back through commanders I've played and liked in the past, a few patterns emerge.

Some aren't necessarily connected to the actual designs themselves. I like obscure commanders, I like finding offbeat builds. Of course some commanders lend themselves to obscurity or build flexibility, but it's hard to pin down exactly what.

Power level is important. The most powerful are rarely interesting to me. If they are, it's probably because I have a really offbeat build for it. For example, Brago is certainly an obscene commander, but I remember being very enamored with my build because it was all about blinking PWs and I thought I was pretty clever for it (this was somewhat before everyone built superfriends and we all got sick of PWs...I no longer find this build compelling and don't intend to build brago ever again).

I like builds that are very focused but aren't too obviously dictated by the commander. For example, my Depala build uses vehicles and dwarves, sure, but the main focus is on board wipes, using Depala to build up a fleet of vehicles to pulverize post-wipe. Wipes obviously have synergies with vehicles, but not directly with Depala. That 2-degree separation is often what hooks me with a build.

I like commanders that force me to think about multiple things at once. For example, Glissa, the Traitor provides a few angles of attack depending how much you want to focus on making the trigger happen, or what to get back from the trigger. Do you run a lot of removal, with a few reliable artifacts to recur? Do you run dredge to have more targets to hit? Do you play ways to give enemies creatures to ensure triggers? It's a surprisingly complicated trigger that I really like, and for what seems pretty directed and simple provides a lot of variation between builds.

I favor control, though these days I'm pretty big on aggro too. Midrange durdly value can die in a fire. I build them sometimes but almost always hate playing them. Combo can die in an even bigger fire.

If I see a political angle, I'm almost always interested. WotC sucks at making political cards though so it's a rarity.

Especially these days, I like to see a complete plan, from start to finish. I don't usually build decks in the vein of "well, my commander is good with X so I put a bunch of X in there and hopefully it wins." I want to know how I plan to win, what I plan to do to stop my opponents from winning, and how to get there. Point to almost any of my decks and I can give you a pretty detailed game plan, before I even play it.

It often surprises me how often my opinion can change on a commander. Knowing it's getting underplayed will often raise my interest, as well discovering that most builds are different than how I'd build it, so sometimes a commander that doesn't hook me initially will catch my attention later while browsing EDHrec. Or sometimes a build just isn't immediately obvious to me, and it takes me a few times thinking about the card to find the angle.

That's all I can think of right now. As much as I wish I could come up with a simple checklist for "things that will interest me", I've been unable because so much depends on the finer details. If there's one thing I think is actually potentially useful to designing interesting commanders, it's that 2-degree design. Synergize obviously with a few things, but then those things can synergize with a wider array of things. Part of where something like, say, Gavi or Kadena kinda falls down for me is that morph and cycling are too diverse of groups to have a lot of 2-degree synergies. Cycling cards don't really have much in common except having one keyword printed randomly on them. Morphs are at least all creatures, but they're still a very diverse group, but at the same time too small of a group to be able to select a narrow subset and fill out a deck. What's more, both Gavi and Kadena both want you to be able to do (keyword) once per turn, which usually means having a high density of them, which doesn't leave room for a lot of other synergies, and tends to force a "fill the deck with a bunch of X" build, which just isn't very coherent to how I like to build.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 3196
Joined: 1 year ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 2 months ago

I'm...not very complicated at all :P The closer a commander is to:
2-4 mana value
Play the game slightly differently, draw some cards at a stately pace that doesn't overwhelm the game
Maybe be resilient somehow or encourage a style of play where commander tax doesn't add up too badly
The more likely I am to like it.

And I'm a man of simple hates as well. If I can't let it sit on the board for a turn without it dominating the game, it can kiss my grits. It's almost always some kind of massive mana or card generation or both that pisses me off.

User avatar
Hermes_
Posts: 703
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Hermes_ » 1 month ago

Everytime I see How do i play X on reddit,i wanna respond "with cards"
The Secret of Commander (EDH)
Sheldon-"The secret of this format is in not breaking it. "

User avatar
Hermes_
Posts: 703
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Hermes_ » 1 month ago

We all know that person
Attachments
Euuty_BVkAUUMkp.jpg
The Secret of Commander (EDH)
Sheldon-"The secret of this format is in not breaking it. "

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 1727
Joined: 1 year ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 1 month ago

That always drives me insane.

Also drives me insane:

me: "I want this card, it's worth 38 cents. Here's my binder, take a look."
them: *spends 3 hours agonizing over this crucial decision*

And

me: "I want this card, it's worth $5 and I know you don't plan to play it. Here's my binder, take a look."
them: "I don't see anything in your binder I want."
me: "Ok, well how about $10 worth of other cards for value?"
them: "no."
me: :\

User avatar
EonAon
Posts: 38
Joined: 2 months ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by EonAon » 1 month ago

OK maybe I'm missing something but whats up with all the snow hate? Until VERY recently there were very few things that cared about snow more than oh look snow mana symbol on slightly bad card and the strionic resonator/snow lands thing has been out for ages since this is not the first time snows been played. Scrying sheets been out for a decade at least and until now never been seriously played. None of the new cards that care about snow seems THAT broken. I really dont understand.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Commander”