How to power down decks

[Avacyn Believer]

I know this topic comes up often enough in many different threads but I am hoping to consolidate ideas and theories here to help me out.

In my oldest playgroup we got to a point where one player is running off with games as early as turn 3, and it limits the variety of decks we can play as a group. I say it often that communication is key, but we've already had the talk, and for next time I want to offer more direct suggestions on what to do to power down decks. However, I never had this problem so I can't talk from experience.

This is where I hope you can help me out.

The most common things I see come up are to either remove tutors, or fast mana, or both. Is it that simple, or do you have other suggestions?

Thanks

[duducrash]

I feel less frustrated when powering down decks when I pick a theme and go hard on it. I have a deck everycard was traded for from other players binders. Some tribal decks, I feel like purposely making bad decisions is more fun when they are flavorful. Other than that I'd say, earch the average cmc and number of interaction pieces everyone is running. IMHO low cmc spells are a big indicator of power level and interaction a great indicator of the building

[pokken]

For me when I tune my decks down i play more redundant worse effects and cut tutors first. Usually that pass ends up with a deck like my Tivit, Seller of Secrets deck. Which is one of my more powerful builds.

(for reference) https://deckbox.org/sets/3391371

This deck still has fast mana, it's still very strong because the commander is strong and the things it's doing are fairly powerful.

Next pass I'll shave fast mana, that usually ends up in a deck like my Zimone deck -- you could call Arbor Elf fast mana I guess, but it's not even running Birds of Paradise, it just has a theme of tapping stuff that untaps other stuff. Almost n o tutors (I think only for lands and 1/3 cmc artifacts heh).

My Xenagos deck also falls on this tier - https://deckbox.org/sets/3373517 - no fast mana, no tutors, but tons of powerful cards and a consistent ramp package.

Then next I'll shave busted finishers.

that mostly winds up with a deck like my Breena deck (or for even further down, my Lae'zel/Master chef deck that I don't have online): https://deckbox.org/sets/3021277 (though Breena does have Akroma's Will, that's pretty much it). It wins by just cracking people for lethal damage over time and sometimes voltronning.


Then if I want to get really funky I'll tone down the card draw elements to be only on theme or even just actively bad.


I have a few kinda, sideways strategies, where I just cut almost all of the ramp out of a deck and play on curve
* see Varina: https://deckbox.org/sets/3016407 - an aggro-combo deck that tries to play on curve and achieve game ending mana through effects like Crypt of Agadeem or Phyrexian Altar but is rarely playing ahead of curve until turn 6-7
* see Feather: https://deckbox.org/sets/3039325 - an aggro-combo deck that tries to play on curve, and achieves game ending mana by blinking Dockside or Goldspan Dragon / etc. Similar to Varina, but has a bit more mid game ramp like Loyal Warhound and Knight of the White Orchid.


Bottom line: Yeah cutting tutors and fast mana usually does the ticket. That said, you need to be careful not to fall into the trap my buddy does; every time he builds a casual deck it involves figuring out a circuitous way to draw 30 cards and have a Reliquary Tower and a hand full of counterspells.

So you also need to watch for how you approach card draw and interactivity.

--

And a big fat last point I forgot:

PLAY A WEAKER COMMANDER!

A huge important axis of weakening a deck is to play a weaker general. So I try to remember that too.

[Mookie]

My default process for powering down decks:

• Identify the cards that seem to win a lot
• Replace those cards with new stuff that I want to test out

Cutting good cards in favor of bad cards feels bad - sure, I could cut Counterspell and add Cancel, but I don't think that is an interesting change. It's much more palatable if I'm instead retiring a strong card to the deck's 'Hall of Fame' and adding in Faerie Slumber Party or some other card in my backlog that I'm curious about.

Obviously, this doesn't just apply to win conditions - fast mana, tutors, and other strong cards can also be the enablers that are responsible for setting you up for a win with other cards.

[illakunsaa]

Ban ramp.

[Avacyn Believer]

Thanks guy, I'll try suggesting the things you've mentioned. I do love things like going for a theme. You'd think that in itself would help with keeping decks within reason, but whatever theme my friend picks always seems to end up doing the same thing; either make a ton of mana early or cheat in spells that chain into more "free" spells.

His current line up of The Ur-Dragon, Selvala, Heart of the Wilds, Birgi, God of Storytelling, Zhulodok, Void Gorger and Chainer, Dementia Master should give you an idea. There really isn't much difference playing against them

Ban ramp.

That is rather extreme approach

[ISBPathfinder]

See if you can get them to use combat in a non infinite situation as a wincon.

[kirkusjones]

The group I'm playing with now doesn't use tutors or fetches. You'll see the occasional random fetchland or terramorphic expanse, but not shuffling as much slows down games as people have to dig for answers without the extra help of frequent randomization and "find my out/combo" cards.

[Avacyn Believer]

See if you can get them to use combat in a non infinite situation as a wincon.

Worth trying, though I can already hear him saying that Dragons and Selvala are not infinite, which hardly matters when you getting hit by the Ur-Dragon on turn five

[DirkGently]

I think it depends a lot on what the issue is. Different people have different vices. For people who are addicted to combo decks, cutting tutors may well be a huge step towards depowering. But for value decks like Ur-dragon (typically) it might make a relatively minor difference. Conversely, losing ramp would slow down ur-dragon but might not matter at all to a combo deck. For this reason I don't think this is a good approach. You're just playing whack-a-mole with everything powerful in the format, and there's a lot of powerful things in the format. Plus the lines can be fuzzy about what constitutes a certain effect. Is rampant growth a tutor? Is Iceberg ramp?

Personally, as a player with a lot of potential to build powerful decks from a card availability perspective, I generally take a somewhat offbeat commander or deck idea and try to optimize it as much as I can. That does mean good tutors and fast mana, but I think I typically build to around a 7 or 8, sometimes a 6 or less if the idea is really janky. That might work if he's interested in being cooperative, though it might just not be the sort of thing he likes to do.

For a habitual optimizer like myself, I do think having a really nice, well-defined line between "allowed" and "not allowed" can be good, because then it becomes a challenge to try to optimize within those constraints and that can be a satisfying puzzle. But obviously you need to have pretty strict constraints or else they'll find a workaround. For example I don't think "only cards you traded for" is good, because then they can just spend hours flogging trade binders until they build an overpowered deck anyway. You want a constraint within which a deck cannot be broken.

My personal favorite is "only cards from the newest standard set" - I think it gives a nice low power level, while also giving me the opportunity to try all the new cards. That power level may be excessively low for your meta (or maybe still too high I suppose, just depends what y'all are doing, though it's certainly a big step down from "turn 5 ur-dragon"). You could loosen it up by allowing cards from the latest round of commander precons if you like. I think "only cards printed at common outside of the CZ" could potentially be good as well. That would be the sort of restriction I'd think about.

Another option that I don't think has been suggested - swap decks. When I'm feeling like I just don't have a deck that matches the power level of a table, borrowing a deck is a great way to go.

[Avacyn Believer]

Thanks @DirkGently, good suggestions. We'll give it another go at trying to explain to him that he doesn't need to always play the most powerful cards for every given deck, maybe he just needs to adjust his attitude while playing, just because you can drop everything onto the board much sooner than everyone else doesn't mean you should.

[DirkGently]

I wouldn't suggest he intentionally misplay by holding back. Personally I would find that a very unsatisfying way to play that made winning meaningless. Not that winning is super important but some amount of competition is what makes games fun imo.

Maybe he'll be different and it will go over well but personally I'd rather play draft chaff and play to win, even I can only win 1 game in a hundred, rather than play a strong deck and have to pull all my punches. I mean how's it supposed to feel when he does win - to me it would feel like I should have pulled my punch more, and I literally could never fully earn a victory. That sounds really unsatisfying.

[Avacyn Believer]

I wouldn't suggest he intentionally misplay by holding back.

You are not wrong, and misplay is not what I have in mind, more like waiting a turn with dominating the board when everyone else barely has a mana rock and some lands. At least the way I see it, there is "playing to win" and "not giving anyone a chance" (when not all playing at the same power level).

I would also prefer to just play with jank/chaff decks but we tried that approach and it didn't work, he is strongly behind the idea "if I am not building the most powerful deck, then what is the point?", so in that regard is not giving us much room to work with. It is the classic case of continuously escalating the power level, whenever we match his decks so we can all play to win, the next time his are stronger. If it continues we'll be at cEDH level next year and nobody else wants to play that level, hence the need for creative thinking and trying different approach.

[ISBPathfinder]

If you really want to prove a point you could always just build a deck on spot removal and counterspells and sit on their face all game. Its a rude thing to do and it mostly guarantees that neither of you will win. Most of these ramp hard decks fall apart when their draw and wincons get shot down.

[Avacyn Believer]

If you really want to prove a point you could always just build a deck on spot removal and counterspells and sit on their face all game. Its a rude thing to do and it mostly guarantees that neither of you will win. Most of these ramp hard decks fall apart when their draw and wincons get shot down.

That is kind of the plan I have settled on for our next session, to make a point of showing rather than just talked, and then hopefully we can have a productive discussion after nobody had fun.

[Dunadain]

If you really want to prove a point you could always just build a deck on spot removal and counterspells and sit on their face all game. Its a rude thing to do and it mostly guarantees that neither of you will win. Most of these ramp hard decks fall apart when their draw and wincons get shot down.

I find it really hard to believe this results in a productive discussion😬

[ISBPathfinder]

If you really want to prove a point you could always just build a deck on spot removal and counterspells and sit on their face all game. Its a rude thing to do and it mostly guarantees that neither of you will win. Most of these ramp hard decks fall apart when their draw and wincons get shot down.

I find it really hard to believe this results in a productive discussion😬

Sometimes you have to make someone mad to make them talk about it. Continued arms race isn't a great option either. I think this game needs to be talked about more. If something is going wrong we need to talk about it and if someone doesn't want to talk about problems others perceive it might be time to make them not have fun.

I am not saying this is a great option but sometimes you need to make someone really mad and ask why you are doing something to them to open up dialogue in a game of commander.

[Dunadain]

I don't usually find that anger prompts people to become open to dialogue.

I imagine the world would be a much less %$#% place if that was true.

[Avacyn Believer]

I don't usually find that anger prompts people to become open to dialogue.

I imagine the world would be a much less %$#% place if that was true.

I agree, and to be honest I am only bothering with this because the person is an old mate of mine, I wouldn't suggest on trying it with someone random I only see at an LGS once a week. When we pointed out that turn 3 combo win is pretty much cEDH, his counter point was that all we needed was one removal spell, so this kinda makes sense to me, run more removal But only to demonstrate that it won't lead to better games, and he'll at least try running his decks without tutors, for example. Dialogue with practical demonstrations, not aiming to make people mad.

[pokken]

The abruptness of wincons is a serious power level thing for sure. You can definitely power a deck down by not finishing abruptly (no combos, craterhoof, etc, just incremental stuff).

[duducrash]

You could all gang up and talk to him. It seem to work whenever they discuss movies on the off topic thread. It always gets somewhere constructive, right?

[ISBPathfinder]

The abruptness of wincons is a serious power level thing for sure. You can definitely power a deck down by not finishing abruptly (no combos, craterhoof, etc, just incremental stuff).

I like this angle but I rarely have dedicated wincons in my decks and people tend to get mad because I play heavy interaction until I strangle them to death. Apparently interacting too much is also something that makes people salty.

This weekend I made someone mad because I kept playing deathtouchers and interacting with them as they kept throwing huge hydras at me. I felt it was justified to try not to be hit by 10/10 creatures.

[illakunsaa]

Ban ramp.

That is rather extreme approach

It also works. Ramp is like a gateway drug to degenerate things. Things are lot more fair when people cast a 5 mana spell for 5 mana on turn 5.

[ISBPathfinder]

Ramp is also far more detrimental in commander because in a lot of cases your commander can be your payoff. In traditional 1v1 magic ramp has issues where it has to mix ramp and payoffs more and not getting the right mix of them is part of what ramp struggles with. When ramping to your commander who explodes in value is your gameplan its more of a problem.

There is also the issue of increased maximum life totals and multiplayer ffa which further incentive ramp because that red deck isn't going to just burn you down before you can use a payoff.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

My usual plan to power down decks is to jam more pet cards at the expense of staples. As the deck slides from "effective, efficient war machine" to "PT Cruiser with flames painted on the sides", I find it has a directly proportional effect on the power level.