|
Aphrodite posted:...How? Because commander is a multiplayer game, and the traditional methodology of valuing cards and trying to win via card value doesn't work. If you're devoting scarce resources to hurting your opponents as opposed to helping yourself, then you'll probably come out behind. If one of your opponents has a creatureless deck or doesn't really care about the creature you just ate (like it's a token off a bastion of remembrance) then you've basically hurt yourself and 2 of your opponents but effectively helped the 3rd one.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
pseudanonymous posted:Because commander is a multiplayer game, and the traditional methodology of valuing cards and trying to win via card value doesn't work. If you're devoting scarce resources to hurting your opponents as opposed to helping yourself, then you'll probably come out behind. If one of your opponents has a creatureless deck or doesn't really care about the creature you just ate (like it's a token off a bastion of remembrance) then you've basically hurt yourself and 2 of your opponents but effectively helped the 3rd one. You probably aren't picking the token mode here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 23:40
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:You probably aren't picking the token mode here. But having it as an option for the edge case where you need to snipe a Marit Lage or whatever bumps it up a notch imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 23:56
|
|
|
That's awful logic in general and exactly why so many people lose hardcore in commander and get all salty (because they're not playing interaction and lose the race/lose to opponent's interaction). If you don't play interaction then you are asking to lose for the same reason you are arguing against it: there are more players than you. There are three players with the same or better chance of winning if everyone is playing solitaire, and if they are playing interaction there are 3 players who can all focus on and stop the frontrunner (i.e. the guy who is trying to race out his win).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2023 23:58
|
|
|
Sega 32X posted:That's awful logic in general and exactly why so many people lose hardcore in commander and get all salty (because they're not playing interaction and lose the race/lose to opponent's interaction). I can see how you would take that as arguing against interaction in general, which I am not. To me this card is decent and fun or good in certain decks, but it specifically isn't that strong as interaction because a) it can't protect your winning and b) it's very uncontrolled. The only time I see this stopping someone from winning is maybe they have a deck with almost no creatures and their commander does something that allows them to win the game or maybe they have only 1-3 creatures out and each is necessary for a combo win. This card is almost certainly a value play almost every time, and the usual magic paradigm of "I can win by going 1:1.25) consistently playing a mid-range or late game deck simply breaks down when you effectively need to go 1:3+ to break parity, and even breaking parity isn't that great because the card pool has cards of such varied effectiveness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 00:09
|
|
|
As usual, my perspective is more high power/cEDH inclined, where decks tend to run fewer creatures, and in many cases if they do, they're higher impact ones, so knocking three things out can be quite appealing, especially if you were only really wanting to knock out one opponent's single stax creature or commander or something-- the rest is just a bonus. That's kind of where it can fall flat though-- the ceiling's really high, but in the worse and more common scenario, you're more toward the floor of taking out mana dorks or something-- which still isn't bad but something I'd want targeted removal in place of. The instant speed does a lot of lifting for the card. If it were sorcery I'd not be giving it a second thought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 00:39
|
|
|
Framboise posted:As usual, my perspective is more high power/cEDH inclined, where decks tend to run fewer creatures, and in many cases if they do, they're higher impact ones, so knocking three things out can be quite appealing, especially if you were only really wanting to knock out one opponent's single stax creature or commander or something-- the rest is just a bonus. That's the perspective I'm viewing it from and I just don't see it as being worth a slot in a cEDH deck, like at all. Thassa don't care, and yes, occasionally you might knock out a random stax piece, but you're likely hitting ragavan or a noble hierarch or at best bob, if not them and you're hoping for a magistrate white now has tons of flash hatebears and value engines, krrrrriiikkkkkkkkk doesn't really care about sacrificing your creatures he can't force you to get rid of an archon, do I really care about adding 2 commander tax onto tymna? Maybe in response to Urza casting polymorph but that really doesn't do it for me. Najeela doesn't care (warriors), Pako doesn't care (elves), Opus thief might care, but probably has a commander to eat it, if it's in response to a wheel, turbo-naus eats itself anyways. Maybe people are playing totally different decks against you, local metas are weird. I see myself throwing this into my med/high Negan deck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
Thoracle doesn't care about removal, period, but yeah. Eh, sometimes I get too excited about the ceiling of a card that I forget that the floor can be low and pretty grimy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 00:54
|
|
|
It's good in Tergrid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 05:10
|
|
|
https://mythicspoiler.com/one/cards/staffofcompleation.html Not sure what you'd play this in. Beamtown Bullies to kill whatever you gave someone so it won't get exiled?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 06:00
|
|
|
Batterypowered7 posted:https://mythicspoiler.com/one/cards/staffofcompleation.html Pay 3 life and proliferate is something I can get on board with bigly. You could also put it into donate-lich-fuckyou.deck There's times where I'm easily willing to pay 4 life to draw a card, I eat 8 life on sylvan library regularly for 2 cards so... There are a lot of cards that allow you to trade permanents with someone, I guess this is a good way to make that situation even more unpleasant? There's also several, maybe 3-6 black permanents that are good upfront but bad later, enchantments that draw you cards then make you lose life, or things that uptick over time, choose one that hasn't been chosen before kind of things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 06:06
|
|
|
Batterypowered7 posted:Alright, I don't even know what to trim/add to make this deck do much of anything: If you want more flicker, there's the Golden Argosy on top of the instants mentioned. Glorious Protector as board wipe insurance/mass bounce, Lumbering Battlement likewise but not at instant speed (note that getting these two and Abdel out at the same time creates infinite 1/1 tokens and gives you infinite ETB triggers, as does two of these and Preston) MrL_JaKiri fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Jan 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 13:10
|
|
|
Batterypowered7 posted:Alright, I don't even know what to trim/add to make this deck do much of anything: Duplicant seems like it would get pretty nasty in a double-triggers flicker deck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 13:44
|
|
|
Does Mental Misstep see play in cEDH because it's free, or because it counters a lot of important spells? http://mythicspoiler.com/one/cards/minormisstep.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
Batterypowered7 posted:Does Mental Misstep see play in cEDH because it's free, or because it counters a lot of important spells? Yes, because it’s free.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
Batterypowered7 posted:https://mythicspoiler.com/one/cards/staffofcompleation.html It makes Covetous Jewel and Wishclaw Talisman better, plus it kinda hoses poo poo like Xanathar and other "this is mine now" cards It'll be a $30-50 mythic guaranteed
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
Batterypowered7 posted:Does Mental Misstep see play in cEDH because it's free, or because it counters a lot of important spells? Both. If it was missing either of those qualities it would likely not see much play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 19:37
|
|
|
Instead of arguing about cedh and edh you should be arguing about power levels! Everyone is obsessed with the upper end of the power level scale, no one is interested in the bottom. What is the difference between a 1, 2, or a 3, for example? Here today, I present for discussion what I think is a 2, or possibly a 3. https://www.moxfield.com/decks/joE8QGfEpEeM5DrR35TdNw i was recently organizing my collection, and i wanted to make a deck entirely out of bulk commons i've acquired since i've started playing. a special condition for card selection, was that I had to have at least 5 other copies of the card, before I could include it in this deck i haven't had a chance to play it yet. it doesn't have a win con outside of doing creature damage, i guess the goal would be looking like such a non-factor in the game you can hit someone with a large sea creature i dont want any tips on how to improve it or anything like that, i'm more interested in discussing what the bottom half of commander decks look like. In making this deck, I started trying to solidify why the 1 to 10 structure is bad, and why every deck ends up as a 7 unless its a cedh deck or a piece of garbage like the one i posted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 22:01
|
|
|
Legit, I don't feel like it's a complete waste of a deck. I think the issue with the 1-10 power delineation is that people look at the scale differently so a 3 might be a 7 to other people. For example, your deck has card draw and interaction. To me, that's a sign of a not low tier deck. The endgame may not be ideal or strong but you'll clearly be doing things for most of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
For me 1, 2, and 3 are roughly equivalent of objectively bad precon, ok precon and decent precon respectively.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 22:53
|
|
|
I'd call even the worst precon a 3 or 4. To have a 1 or 2, you really need to make a purposely stupid deck from scratch. For the most part, power levels of "equal to precon", "worse than precon" and "better then a precon" summarizes the casual power level balance in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 23:10
|
|
|
If I had to come up with a rough idea of what I'd explain the power levels as: 1- This deck has no strategy or synergy at all, it's just a bunch of jank cards that fit the colors that don't really accomplish anything. You have to actively try to make a deck this bad if you didn't just grab a pile of bulk commons and uncommons and call it a deck. 2- Probably where the memey "theme" decks go (dudes with hats, etc). At least there's some kind of concept going on and maybe some kind of game plan. 3- A deck that has an idea and tries to run with it, but isn't running efficient cards to synergize with that idea, or maybe has too many ideas going on to make any one strategy work well. Weak manabase and little to no interaction. 4- I'd say this is probably where most precons pre-2019 are. A solid theme and some good cards, but no real solid gameplan and probably inefficient interaction with a weak manabase. 5- Post-2019 precons go here. Solid theme with some good cards, better interaction, probably poor mana ramp and clunky interaction. 6- Starting to get a bit more polished. Upgraded precon that removes the janky cards and improves card quality (or a self-designed deck with same concepts in mind), maybe some more untapped lands, some 2-drop mana rocks, some staple interaction. "Mid-power". 7- A solid deck that may not have the strongest theme, but everything in the deck is designed well enough to synergize behind that theme and stick to it. Runs decent mana rocks, good interaction, maybe some game-closing combos. 8- "High-power". No more CIPT lands or rocks, a solid strategy, efficient cards. A well-designed deck that can probably hold its own against cEDH decks, but might struggle to keep up. 9- Unoptimized cEDH. Runs a strong, efficient strategy, has some fast mana, no CIPT lands, few to no dead cards. Built with its own weaknesses in mind and runs interaction to counter those weaknesses. Maybe has a few cards slotted in to replace really expensive cards. 10- Optimized cEDH. A polished version of the previous deck; no budget replacements. Should be running the best manabase possible and most efficient interaction possible, and either intends to close out games as fast as possible or can interact with all other decks well enough to neutralize them and then win. Takes metas into consideration and adjusts interaction accordingly. I'd honestly say it's more of a spectrum than a number scale (my cEDH decks would fall in between 9 and 10 generally since I don't really care to run the most popular "tier" decks, for example). Honestly though you could probably pop my 9 and 10 out and stretch 1-8 into 1-10, making cEDH into its own chart, since there's quite a bit of nuance there. Framboise fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Jan 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 23:18
|
|
|
Wurzag posted:For me 1, 2, and 3 are roughly equivalent of objectively bad precon, ok precon and decent precon respectively. I’ve seen a fair number of people base tne scale on precons, and they usually put current ones at 6-7 and the older bad ones at 4-5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 23:23
|
|
|
IMO: 1-2: Actively self-hindered decks for some reason, or literally random cards. Artist tribal, Creatures Facing Left tribal, Cards I like from 1998, etc. 3: What your average new MTG player would throw together from a limited collection/the worst Precons 4: Average Precons 5: The best Precons 6: Good Precons with 10 in/10 out or decently tuned original decks 7: Basically any deck that has good interaction and an achievable wincon 8: A 7 but with good ramp/card draw/tutors to make it quick and consistent 9: Borderline cEDH, probably some form of combo deck that just isn't fast/durable enough for the big leagues 10: cEDH meta But also I believe that "What turn could you reasonably win on" is a better pregame discussion point than arbitrary numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 23:24
|
|
|
The Command Zone put a video out a few years ago about what they thought levels 1-10 meant: https://youtu.be/mgGm_74Lc9M The video is an hour long so they talk about each level for a bit. E: I think they also gave a "threatens to win on X turn" estimate for some of the power level ranges. E2:  There are a bunch more ONE Commander cards on Reddit I won't link to individually. Batterypowered7 fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Jan 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 23:37
|
|
|
Batterypowered7 posted:The Command Zone put a video out a few years ago about what they thought levels 1-10 meant: https://youtu.be/mgGm_74Lc9M God, if only it didn't come in tapped, it'd be kind of neat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 00:04
|
|
|
If it didn't come into play tapped it'd be very strong. If your opponents have 2 poison counters on them it's a free proliferate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 00:10
|
|
|
Framboise posted:God, if only it didn't come in tapped, it'd be kind of neat. I understand why Corrupted needs three counters on a single opponent. I just wish it didn't mean they were already a third of the way dead. I guess you only need them to have two counters for it to come online, but it kind of feels like winmore, a little.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
It's a 3 mana colorless proliferate that gives you 1/3 colored mana every turn after the first that it shows up. This is not a weak card even with it coming into play tapped.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 01:10
|
|
|
Robviously posted:Legit, I don't feel like it's a complete waste of a deck. I think the issue with the 1-10 power delineation is that people look at the scale differently so a 3 might be a 7 to other people. For example, your deck has card draw and interaction. To me, that's a sign of a not low tier deck. The endgame may not be ideal or strong but you'll clearly be doing things for most of the game. Yeah that's why I wanted to do this exercise, and why I've settled on this deck being a 'three'. The card pool is incredibly limited, but I tried to meet a general deck building template, and I think that makes it better than a limited card pool and a bad template. If we have to use the 10 number ranking I think its something like this, into tiers that I think better represent the 'decks' we are playing. I think there are really only a 4 variables worth examining: card pool/budget, deckbuilding skill, player skill, and intent/gameplay style. # bad commander ( used perjoratively and objectively ) 1 - Theme Deck / Jank : Usually has a wide pool of cards to draw from, its trying to do the artist/chair thing or whatever. I think this is actually worse than random cards tossed together, because the player usually wants to faff about and not win. I do not think I've ever seen a 1 in real life. # newbie commander ( used perjoratively and objectively ) 2 - Ash Ketchum : So I think this is the 'random piles deck', but more realistically I think its 'terrible' card pool and 'bad' deck building. I do not think I've ever seen a 2 in real life. 3 - Gym Leader Brock : I think this is still a 'terrible' card pool, but applies 'good' deck building principles. I do not think I've ever seen a 3 in real life. 4 - Precon Commander : I think this is a 'medium/budget' card pool, but with 'bad' deck building principles. I think the overwhelming majority of precons are a four. I'm not really sure I've seen a 4 either. I have played against precons, but I don't think I've ever played against a designed deck that I'd say was 'worse' than a precon. 5 - Mitch from Commander's Quarters : I think this is a 'medium/budget' card pool, but with 'good' deck building principles. I know Mitch specifically is a knob, but I think this is the level of decks he's trying to make. I think very few precons start at this level, and is indiciative of the first 10 in/10 out tunes of a precon. I think I've seen decks at this level. I do not believe people actually make decks from 1 to 4, and those could probably be discarded. Perhaps the first tier is Jank, and that encompasses decks intentionally bad, and the next tier is Budget, which starts at 2 and lasts until 5. #sheldon mennery / old commander ( used perjoratively and objectively ) 6 - Battlecruiser/ Grandpa Commander. So I think this is the actual power level of most decks that are made for commander these days and are 'jank', assuming you are not building on a budget. I think this tier has access to the whole card pool, and then intent and deck building skill are what determines it. You play 6 level magic when you are willing to buy or play any card, but you are not willing to play any strategy and are probably worse at deck building. I think this is people who liked 'old' commander, and also represents a decent chunk of people who've just started playing. I think most people move off of 6 fairly quickly. #modern YouTube commander ( used perjoratively and objectively ) 7 - The Seven. So I think this is why every deck is a "7", a deck designed most of the card pool, and usually are decks people want to continue to play and upgrade. I think the differences between a 6,7,8 are largely around skill in how they are piloted, and the skill and intention around how they are built. I legitimately think most LGS decks fall into this, because its hard not to get to at least the 7 tier if you are willing to spend about 100 bucks on your deck and an hour or so thinking about it when putting it together. 8 - Game Knights - The difference between a "7" and "8" is likely the inclusion of a handful of very expensive cards. True Duals, Gaea's Cradle, etc... Could also be called influencer commander, the thing people want to play when they watch a Game Knights or other gameplay series with all of their favorite internet celebrities. There probably is better skill in deck building and piloting compared to the 7s in addition to the hand full of ultra expensive cards you are more likely to see. #competitive edh ( used perjoratively and objectively) i don't actually play cedh please take my assessment with a grain of salt. 9 - skrubs 10 - elites I'm assuming laregely the card pool/deck building/and intent of play are laregely equivalent at 9 and 10, there's just that little bit of extra edge that kicks it up to 10. I'm not going to evaluate either any further than that. I don't think 'Mean Turn to Victory' is a better metric of the power level of your deck than than 1-10. I do think using a Jank/Budget/Classic/Seven/GameKnights/cEDH tier system probably gets you to a better understanding of your deck and what you are trying to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 01:10
|
|
|
Including cedh decks in the power scale feels wrong because a whole lot of cedh is the metagame. Many decks that are very good in a cedh environment would see their win rate plummet dramatically if played as-is in a pod of three "7" decks because a bunch of their interaction and proactive hate cards are functionally useless and they have few if any answers to threats which are normally way too slow for cedh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 01:30
|
|
|
Tism the Dragon Tickler posted:Including cedh decks in the power scale feels wrong because a whole lot of cedh is the metagame. Many decks that are very good in a cedh environment would see their win rate plummet dramatically if played as-is in a pod of three "7" decks because a bunch of their interaction and proactive hate cards are functionally useless and they have few if any answers to threats which are normally way too slow for cedh. https://youtu.be/ahez8lidLbM
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 01:34
|
|
|
Silhouette posted:It makes Covetous Jewel and Wishclaw Talisman better, plus it kinda hoses poo poo like Xanathar and other "this is mine now" cards This might be a $5 mythic because aspiring Johnnies will buy them, but it's hot garbage, and almost never worth running, even at battlecruiser level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 01:35
|
|
|
Robviously posted:It's a 3 mana colorless proliferate that gives you 1/3 colored mana every turn after the first that it shows up. This is not a weak card even with it coming into play tapped. It's a bad manalith with proliferate stapled on. Decks that are trying to poison people out don't need a gilded lotus, they are trying to stay low, or KO with one shot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 01:37
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:It's a bad manalith with proliferate stapled on. Decks that are trying to poison people out don't need a gilded lotus, they are trying to stay low, or KO with one shot. Yeah, this is how I feel too. Like, three poison counters is already a good deal of the way to dead. You don't want to take a turn off of doing more poison poo poo to cast a 3cmc mana rock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 01:42
|
|
|
Robviously posted:It's a 3 mana colorless proliferate that gives you 1/3 colored mana every turn after the first that it shows up. This is not a weak card even with it coming into play tapped. I'd totally play it in a superfriends deck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
Tism the Dragon Tickler posted:Including cedh decks in the power scale feels wrong because a whole lot of cedh is the metagame. Many decks that are very good in a cedh environment would see their win rate plummet dramatically if played as-is in a pod of three "7" decks because a bunch of their interaction and proactive hate cards are functionally useless and they have few if any answers to threats which are normally way too slow for cedh. eh, I think it's fine/correct to include them - it's true that a decent number of tuned cEDH decks are giving up a few points to "oh poo poo why are there so many 6/6 fliers" or whatever, but that's often true of metagamed decks in other formats facing out-of-context problems, and as those decks should still have a strong gameplan that's capable of winning quickly it's often more of a piloting than deckbuilding issue (i.e. if you're rawdog going into a pod of 7's you should be valuing cards like mental misstep much lower in your openers) the decks are also (by definition) intended to be competitive, so it seems weird to ding them for having some specialized interaction pieces that can/would be easily swapped out if the context changed (especially given how decks lacking those pieces would do comparatively in their environment)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 02:28
|
|
|
Batterypowered7 posted:Yeah, this is how I feel too. Like, three poison counters is already a good deal of the way to dead. You don't want to take a turn off of doing more poison poo poo to cast a 3cmc mana rock. It does proliferate, so that is more poison poo poo to some extent
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 12:33
|
|
|
Give me cedh games where players use power 1 decks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 13:26
|
|
L
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
Level 1 decks have to be like randomly generated or some poo poo. I feel like even something like "chair tribal" has to have enough good cards to make it into a cohesive deck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 13:41
|
|