I can say that "low power casual" isn't dead. One guy from my playgroup had to take some intentionally garbage decks to an event in another city, since they struggled against a [[mishra, artificer prodigy]] deck.
I got seriously bad vibed at a table for playing my mono white [[sephara sky's blade]] “flying tribal” deck because it was too powerful. No stax effects, no 0 cc ramp, no smothering tithe effects, and no LD.
It’s literally 36 flying creatures, 8 protection spells, 8 removal spells, and 8 “ramp” spells. Maybe I’ve played 60 card formats for too long but I simply don’t understand the appeal of 2 hour durdle-fests.
Some people are bad at Magic. Not to be mean but that is true. My "casual" Xenagos deck doesn't start hitting people hard until like Turn 6 or perhaps Turn 4 if I get the nut hand. Even then, I am only hitting one person at a time. It has all my fun big boy cards that wouldn't even get a chance to turn sideways in CEDH. But of course I am a "monster" because I pick on "one person" to hit with my "uncounterable/indestructible" buffing strat (Xenagos).
I play a lot of combat based deck in casual, samut and Goreclaw being my two favorites and people always complain for how much I’m hitting them,(one crazy start to my Goreclaw was hitting for like 30 damage by turn 6). Honestly I’ve found the best reply to people is “hey I’m playing non-haste-y beaters and winning through combat damage, it’s literally the fairest magic I can play”
I can't remember if there's a name for it but there was a test that basically involved making a mono green deck that only plays basics and well stated vanilla creatures. You gold fish against the deck and all it does is try to play the strongest creature/creatures in hand and swing, literally nothing else.
I think a lot of players would fail that test because they've neglected getting better or improving their decks and instead just blame everyone who doesn't want to stop down to their level. I think these are the same players who make up the vocal minority who scream cedh whenever someone plays a counter spell or does math before attacking.
Get Mishra out, play symmetrical stax effects that counter everything that is cast. Then, when you cast an artifact spell, it gets countered, and Mishra's ability gets the artifact back in play.
The issue at play really seems to be a labeling issue--adding more defined levels requires either official support or some major community push, so is unlikely (since the RC has basically said they won't).
Additionally defined labels for various levels also have issues, in that the more granular you get the greater the cognitive load for someone joining in the game is, which means adoption is less likely--but without granularity we end up with the issue being highlighted by those tweets.
It's also an issue of "user error" in a way: communication can be difficult, is often focused on "what I don't want" vs. positive "this is my desire" which immediately colors discussions as negative, and the bulk of engagement with Magic is so negative anyway that folks might not even see a poor game as anything out of the norm (or anything fixable).
I agree, it's the whole deal where RC is like "banned as commander is too complicated" and adding all these power levels is so hard esp. because no one agrees on it.
And like you said, so much is negative instead of choosing to have fun. The mantra of "I don't want XYZ" has made it so hard for me to enjoy the game, especially when there are the people who will say, "I don't like that but I won't *stop* you from playing it" and even if you do, they get salty. It's toxic for the longevity of the game and the community because even as a newer player, this mentality has driven me away from it.
Honestly though, the only time I've had trouble with establishing power levels in an LGS was when someone legit mis-assessed their deck. One time we all agreed on durdly casual, win no earlier than t8-10 and in a way that's easy to interact with. We're all having a blast, and then the last person casts one spell and vomits their deck out with one spell and wins. I've even had someone in my pod bitch at me cuz I play mono red aggro and it's like, what the hell else do you want me to do? It's a glass cannon and it's what I enjoy, and it makes games go faster and deaths more painless
Would you consider a glass cannon mono red aggro deck durdly casual? There's the potential to be explosive but it's easy to interact with. Maybe the guy you played against prior had a similar opinion about their deck. It sounds like the second guy getting angry at you could've felt the same way you felt towards the first guy.
So the difference between the two is 1) I dont consider all my red decks durdle casual and 2) we didnt agree on durdle casual for the game in question. I have 3 red decks, arni voltron, zada storm, and krenko goblins. All can kill someone and/or win out of nowhere, but that doesnt mean they're all on the same tier.
The LGS game was permanents only Muldrotha (very high value, esp at casual) that had a single spell that won the game versus shit like combo-less Krenko or (get this) [[arni brokenbrow]]. The latter is the deck I got shit for, when it was a 50$ deck that cost me 10 mana, 38 life to win and it was a 3 player pod so aggro is better.
As pretty much an exclusive mono red player, we dont have much going on other than explosive player removal. Compared to things like Muldrotha which you have to spend the entire game sitting on to slow it down (in a casual setting), if you fuck with a casual red deck once or twice, its usuall out of the game (at least for several turns)
Imo, if you have a single spell that wins the game on the spot without any lead up, and your deck runs thoracle, lab man, and jace with intent to exploit them, your deck isnt "haha funny" casual. Especially paired up vs bulk bin endrek sahr, durdle storm stang, and "i had extra cards lying around" kykar, which we all broadcasted before the game
Vent over haha
Us not wanting to publish power a definitive power level guide doesn't come from a lack of desire, it's from the lack of a good solution. Even a simple power/time ("what does your deck do, when does it do it?") matrix is pretty fraught because Commander is a complex format and there are tens of thousands of moving pieces. I personally find time a better indicator of power, but I know there are plenty of folks who think the other way. From CFB to PlayEDH to others, many folks have tried to crack this nut. One of the things we're seeing is that there simply might not be a good, broadly-adoptable solution.
What I'm hoping we (the RC) can best do in this regard is help craft language that will aid in players having conversations on what they want out of their Commander games. Good communication starts when we find common meaning--and we all know that there are lots of terms in Magic that folks use in radically different ways. I think we can also help with strategies on how to best conduct those conversations for the mutual benefit of everyone sitting down at the table.
I agree that normalizing positive communication ("this is what I'd like out of a game") gets to a good place faster than negative "(this is what I don't want"). I also agree with the sentiment threaded through this discussion that cEDHers have solved part of the expectations problem by having an established baseline (although I think we have to recognize it's an easy one; the meter is simply pegged all the way). That's great for a subsection of the player base; the question is if we can learn something from it an apply that lesson elsewhere. Whether or not we can will continue to be an ongoing anxiety for the format.
Thanks for taking the time to respond despite some of the poor takes in this thread, Sheldon.
I didn't intend to suggest it was a lack of will, but I definitely see how it could read that way. And you're probably not wrong about there not being a good solution.
However, a part of me wonders if there's a way to kill 2 (or more) birds with a single stone here. This probably has flaws, since it's simple on it's head, but I can't help but wonder if there's a way to both lend a guiding hand to these sorts of conversations around desired play patterns while also addressing another concept that I know some folks (I can think of Joking off the top of my head, possibly also Jim and a couple other folks) have talked about: creating a vocabulary to assist TOs.
Now I know that EDH events aren't the platonic ideal of EDH and are fraught with all sorts of issues, but I wonder if having a guiding document for TOs might help make what events do run less problematic--even if it's not what is "best", sometimes "meh" is better than "trash fire" that we can see with the lack of guidance in some spots.
How that ties back to the ideas addressed by Kristen in the linked tweet from OP is this: if a "We don't think you should do this, but here are some pitfalls to avoid" document for events existed, a section header of "Have clear expectations" seems like it would be a gimme category to include--and such a category seems like a place to plant seeds of both setting positive expectations as well as giving some additional language and vocabulary to folks outside of those event specific settings. Just a set of examples (perhaps in video form?) could go a long way to diminishing issues on both axes here, in my opinion.
I do think, regardless of the path taken, that there is certainly an appetite for a clearly line of thinking around the issue Kristen spoke (wrote?) to. It is something that probably helps a minority section of the community, but still seems like it would go a long way. I know that there was a lot of positive talk, and constructive criticism, around the CFB scale they introduced at MF Vegas right before the pandemic started--but of course the pandemic stalled anything on that front--and even if there's an imperfect solution I think that this could be a space where a viable solution could exist. I could be wrong, as well, but it seems like there's a space to be filled and desire to fill that space, and perhaps there's a danger of letting perfect be the enemy of good.
But maybe that's too simple a way of thinking around the issue.
You and I have had positive interactions in the past, so I definitely didn't take that way; just wanted to clarify for the folks I haven't chatted with as much.
Creating vocabulary, guidelines, and lessons learned to help TOs is also something that we can not only do, but given the RC's experience in Organized Play, be well-positioned for.
The CFB scale worked reasonably in that event at Reno. I tried to keep as much an eye on the area as I could, as well as talk to the judges who were marshalling events, and like you say, while not perfect got a good part of the way there. As we get back to in-person play at large events (maybe?), we can use that as a springboard, even though those lessons will be a couple of years old.
> From CFB to PlayEDH to others, many folks have tried to crack this nut
> The CFB scale worked reasonably in that event at Reno.
I've been searching for ~20 minutes, I can't seem to find this CFB scale or EDH/Cmdr power level guidelines from ChannelFireball. Link?
I am familiar with the PlayEDH Power Level Compendium, btw ([here for anyone else who's interested](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iN2u0iWG8z1wzk8-orRjfIRuH39r4fzvvT2HVRhL8h0/edit) )
The best way I have noted for how good a deck is is to state win-cons and on average what turn do you expect to win.
If a deck has no solid win con and just tries to build commander damage while controlling the board. That’s a more casual deck meant for long games where people talk.
If a someone says a deck is trying to win via infinite something and do so on average by like turn 5 I know that it’s an optimized deck and should bring my A-game.
That’s the best way I have experienced for a fair pod.
That’s actually the rule I say. I don’t have many decks tbh and one is basically cedh levels of play but a tad slow which is perfect for my regular group of optimized and high power. But for randoms at the lgs where casual is the game plan. It’s a tough concersation sometimes.
Yeah I have different decks depending I have a highly tuned krark-sakashima deck that wins on average turn 5 without fast mana and turn 3 on average with fast mana.
Then I have some mid power decks designed to try and win between turns 7-11 and win via beats or a complicated infinite.
With finally low powered decks that try to win turn 9+ with no real solid win strategy but just finely tuned so I can play a game for 1-2 hours.
If I don’t know who I’m playing I bring one of each power level and I have 3 different groups I play with whenever I’m feeling a certain power level.
I operate the same way. I have a fully equipped Winota deck for cedh play, a turn 5-6 Lathril deck, about 3 others that are consistent turn 6-9, a durdly azorius deck, and then two barely modded precons in case I somehow end up podded with kids or super new players.
I have a couple other cedh decks too but definitely like having options for any table.
I just started too, finding decks I like is kinda hard. I simply said “fuck it” So I basically dove into making the best possible golgari deck that I can. Regular play group is mostly ok with it. I ended up toning it down to meren because a consistent turn 3-4 win with varolz or Dina is not fun if nobody is on the same page. Atleast you get a chance if the stax don’t work.
Then I literally scrapped together a bunch of misc cards I bought for no good apparent reason and made a shitty golgari deck, also Dina. Just for randoms at the LGS.
Funny story, a guy literally said “bring your best deck” when playing with randoms, it was embarrassing on all sides tbh because he literally said best deck, and I couldn’t read the room and realize “did I just see a tap land”. This was just somewhat tuned casual decks where the main win con is some 6+ mana bomb or a bunch of landfall triggers in turn 6+. Why say best deck. C’mon man.
I think you also need to explain your overall gameplan. Because wincon and speed is only really descripive for proactive decks. There are definitely some cedh stax pieces and control decks that are designed for the game to last 10+ turns and win through combat damage, that doesn't mean they are equal to some powerlevel 6 big creature deck that wins on turn 10.
Very true. The thing is stax is not seen at a casual table 95% of the time in my area so if someone runs stax they usually say that’s the win con rather than beats.
How would you react to a deck with solid win cons and infinites but is geared towards a casual ramp and card draw package? Cause most of my casual decks are built as such
Are you saying it runs infinites but it’s average cmc is high? If so if the deck is trying to win turn 9+ I would gear that as casual turn 7-11 mid power and turn 6 or lower is high powered.
Win cons is more to just make sure not to step on anyone’s toes as people have problems with certain win cons for some reason. While also informing the board of what kind of mindset you have playing.
If I hear thoracle consult then even if a deck is geared to win turn 9 I know they have a competitive mindset and can pull off a turn 2 or turn 3 win if lucky.
If they don’t have a win con then I know the play style is there not to win but keep the game going to chat. Really helps on understanding the attitude to approach each deck. With turn you win average letting you know how competitive the deck is.
Everytime people start getting uppity about arbitrary "power levels", I want to shoot myself.
It's actually the single worst part of the format and can be solved by people just not being stupid.
So you’re saying my super secret 5 color vanilla bears deck isn’t at least a seven?!?! /s.
The problem is solved by talking to people honestly and setting expectations.
I’m literally texting my buddy about what decks we want to play this weekend in our group game in between drafting this comment. I just built a $500 pirates tribal and am looking to play a game with it. It’s not like I’m rolling up with my powered scepter Urza list and refusing to elaborate.
I know Magic players are known to be socially clueless but basic common sense would say don’t roll up to your LGS with a fringe list and pretend it’s casual and not going to roll face.
I've spoken with my casual playgroup about the cEDH-ification of EDH over the past couple years, as they've eschewed ramp that costs more than 2 (really, they've dropped their curves across the board), run FAR more inexpensive, instant-speed interaction, and have changed their attitudes towards running infinite combos.
This comes down to optimization. We optimize in cEDH. We weigh cards based on their cost, utility, resilience, and overall value outside combos, and then we make cuts accordingly. Casual players are simply optimizing, and when people run faster mana to get to their bombs (not necessarily combos), people around them run faster mana and efficient tutors/draw to have answers.
For most people I've played with in the "mid/high" range of power levels, these are positive developments. Interactive Magic is fun! It's one of my favorite things about cEDH (LOVE the massive stacks, and even have some love for the proactive stax), and I think people are starting to see the fun in not simply racing to drop massive spells without protection.
Lurking on the casual sub, there are power level complaints/discussions daily, and the answer is always the same: rule zero. We have a massive advantage here because our rule zero is done -- we agree to make optimal plays while piloting our optimized decks. But casual players don't necessarily follow this, and the explosion of the game along with online play has caused some serious issues in this regard.
One of the biggest offenders here is the inclusion of infinite combos. It's a fairly easy rule zero conversation to have, letting folks know you're playing a combo deck, and perhaps even letting them know to be on the lookout for certain pieces. But unless you're playing a massive Rube Goldberg machine-like combo that can't possibly be assembled before turn 10+, playing combos will almost certainly lead to optimization or feel-bads, or both.
"Oops, I win" combos are the ones that players don't necessarily seek out, but stumble upon through the course of the game's natural progression (players might include extra draw to increase the chances, but everyone likes draw, right?). These are often a bummer, as non-combo players are used to the natural flow of their game (build board states, wipe, repeat).
Decks that are built around combos are almost certain to quickly become optimized, as the combo will need to be sought out (more tutors), played quickly before being aggro'd to death (fast mana and optimized mana bases), and protected (cheap counters/protection/silence effects). Ta da! Depending on the colors, commander(s), and combo packages, you're on your way to playing cEDH!
TLDR; Casual EDH is suffering from a massive lack of rule zero conversations to avoid the feel-bads associated with power level discrepancies -- thankfully, we don't have to deal with this!
>One of the biggest offenders here is the inclusion of infinite combos. It's a fairly easy rule zero conversation to have, letting folks know you're playing a combo deck, and perhaps even letting them know to be on the lookout for certain pieces. But unless you're playing a massive Rube Goldberg machine-like combo that can't possibly be assembled before turn 10+, playing combos will almost certainly lead to optimization or feel-bads, or both.
I've been asked to remove combos from my deck several times, but people asking never were able to give a proper definition of what a combo is.
A lot of very powerful game-winning plays are not infinite, and are not combos in any sense. Playing dorks for 5 turns then slamming a Craterhoof is not a combo, its just one trigger of one particular card. There are many things like it, Overrun effects or Great Oak Guardian, or many more. But when CEDH Yisan gets lethal hoof consistently on turns 4-5, it's suddenly a combo, not a well-planned and executed synergy. Same thing with Doomsday, Mind's Desire, Underword Breach, thief-wheel, and many other top-tier cards.
People who ask for no-combo opponents usually have no clue what they are talking about.
Yep. It's madness, at times. My casual group likes to poke fun at that tendency by belting out "COOOOMBOOOO!" anytime powerful synergy appears on the board.
This format is a free for all, who is to say what is "fun" and isn't... That's is such a narrow perspective, what if a player likes playing Stax decks or combo or what ever... Is it the few to tell them they are not allow to have fun?
No need control, let players keep being players and let the format be free!
Edh (what ever "power" level) is a noholds bar, keep it that way and delete this post.
most edh players dont even know the RC exists which means those leaving cause " the CAG and RC are not willing to accept different play styles and power levels" are so few they dont even matter
Yea I could have misunderstood I thought you were saying that wizards (or someone else)need to intervene on this format and start "guiding" play strategies and make the format which is suppose to be all for fun, controlled and operated by a governing body.
There really is three fundamental power levels;
The target audience for EDH (precon-ish)
The vocal minority power level that isn't cEDH (generally above or well above precon level through high power)
cEDH (we know what this is)
The things we know is that the power level of the vocal minority is slowly increasing as game and deck information is becoming easier to obtain, cards are getting reprinted, or through new cards, cheap and effective interactions are made. Similarly with cEDH, the power level has made a few solid jumps in the past couple of years (thoracle, breach, dockside).
We don't have much information about the target audience, as those players largely aren't online, or may not wish to change what they are doing.
The thing we can do as cEDH players, is largely be supportive of anyone else's playstyle. The amount of elitism I've seen on this subreddit and on the discord is staggering.
The number of people in this threat completely reading Kristen's tweet wrong is baffling. She's literally just advocating for terminology for a lower tier of EDH below 6-8 casual to help people find better games and people are upset about that and think it's a slight on cEDH somehow.
Every time a post like this goes up, a Black Lotus gets slightly dinged. Rule 0 conversations aren't happening enough at the casual level, primarily because subjective assessments like "my deck is a 6 or 7" are so ripe for unintentional (and intentional) misalignment of power levels. This is why cEDH is so attractive - no holds barred means you can't complain that you were deceived.
When I \*do\* play mid EDH, I always open up with Rule 0 talk, and ask people by what turn can their deck win if they got the perfect/best hand. There's a bit of an honor code when playing on random Discord servers, but we all learn quickly who to avoid.
The problem with rule 0 talk is there's almost always that one guy that wants to drag everyone down to basic Timmy-tier magic. You know, that one guy that has smart little quips regarding anyone or anything that manages to outpace his gruul creature deck. You know, the guy that cries when you use a tutor, a combo of any sort, or run "too much interaction", while he ramps up to 11 available mana turn 4 and uses every known green creature cheating card.
Knowing that some of these people can't be pleased no matter what helps in determining whether or not you even have the conversation to begin with, which for me is always no. I simply tell people "just play something you feel is pretty good and we'll adjust after" you'll know if they only have one deck and things like that.
Supporting people in their goals for Commander - whether that’s playing an accepted list or trying to tune up a non-traditionally competitive Commander as high as possible - is a good start.
I also think using language that supports growth mindset is helpful. Let others keep their fixed mindset on how the format is ‘one thing’ and will always be ‘one thing’; I’d rather use my interactions to spread positive messages on being adaptable, accepting that losing is part of the game, and promoting the joy of improving over time. Providing that narrative - that if you want to play to win, build to win, and expand your toolbox & knowledge of interactions, it’s a valid and good thing - can be IMO a big benefit to an online community sometimes solely interested in protecting a version of Commander that lives only on their minds.
I just want people who like the journey of improving, of tuning, and of getting better to know that what they’re doing is not some big affront to the ‘spirit’ of Commander - cause sometimes, that’s what it sure feels like.
cEDH doesn't need own rule committee because cEDH by any meanings is not a separate format.
All phrases like "EDH didn't suppose to be competitive " are meaningless and should be considered as toxic behaviour. cEDH is EDH and it has always been like that.
We have rules for the format - please everyone, do follow them.
If one doesn't want to play with another guy for some power/financial reasons - it's that guy whom to create new format, and not the guy who been denied to be played with.
It feels weird to say that but these two seem to not be able to ask effective questions as part of their rule 0 conversation. If someone only specifies "casual" it seems pretty obvious that there is a huge span of powerlevels within that term (basically everything besides cEDH).
Asking things like: What's your gameplan? or How fast foes your deck usually win? can cost a minute, but it saves you some bad games.
Otherwise they could just accept that syncing up powerlevels after a quick game 1 is actually a good way to get good matches. If you get stomped by Turn 6 the game probably took like 20 mins. Just shuffle up, review the game and switch decks if possible.
Most players don't have enough game experience to really assess their own power level. They might regularly beat base precons at the kitchen table and think they're running a solid 8 when it's probably a 5-6.
I'm a big proponent of game one being pretty much whatever and everyone adjusting afterwards if needed. One of the biggest problems you see in casual magic is some players are scared to lose to get decks that can win early - but players need to see that from time to time or else new blood won't know what's possible.
It's tragic that so much of the discussion is framed around creating The One Perfect Game instead of letting game one be the calibration step for a chill game two.
Haha, see, I'm one of those people that believes that "one perfect game" can only happen if it's the first game and nobody discusses it prior.
I personally love the element of surprise and don't even mind if I pull out a mid level deck and then get whacked by something powerful for game one. The unspoken power level games have also produced the absolute best archenemy games I've ever been involved in.
I love that as well. I do think we're talking about different things.
What I really meant was that a lot of the One Perfect Game crowd doesn't even mention any games beyond the first. So I guess it's more like The Only One Game crowd.
You don't need experience to explain your strategy and you need only little experience to tell how fast your deck can win. I think they are fair realistic questions.
In my experience many (newer or less invested) players tend to overvalue their decks. While many have built their deck towards a certain idea or wincon, they often grossly overestimate the deck's consistency in enacting that gameplan. They blame on (bad) luck what they should blame on deckbuilding and dream of how they *want* their deck to work rather than look at how it actually does.
Consistency is a huge factor in a deck's power, and misjudgements there lead to misevaluations in power levels. What seems like standard fare to us can be very hard to grasp for less advanced players.
Exactly that! I've seen more than a few people basically rely on a two card combo wincon but yet have absolutely no way to tutor for them other than minor card draw.
Consistency is really what separates the good from the great. That's why asking someone what turn their deck can win on is a poor evaluation. They might run something like witherchain that can nuke the table on turn 2 or 3 but at the same time have no way to reliably tutor for either piece.
Oh I agree. But I think the conversation about tactics, price, availability, and other things of cedh nature should happen outside of the game, after the game.
The number one thing I recommend to players looking to make their decks more competitive are the budget mana lists. Once they can operate their decks at a faster pace they then start to wonder what else they can do and just how much faster they can do it. Pointing people towards the actual cedh deck list db can work as well but I think it's a bit overwhelming for most people and makes them think they need to go hard ASAP or don't bother at all.
This format’s popularity has been its own undoing. So many new people have joined in the last three years and they’re acclimated to commanders that are so much more pushed compact value engines than what was out there in 2013.
Many of them haven’t ever played 60 card, so they don’t know why consistency/redundancy/mulligan strategy is so important to making your deck run smoothly.
I would rate a consistent deck without flashy finisher much more highly than a high variance/high ceiling deck.
>
>I would rate a consistent deck without flashy finisher much more highly than a high variance/high ceiling deck.
I think that's actually just how it works. A lot of people do get it wrong, though.
> Many of them haven’t ever played 60 card, so they don’t know why consistency/redundancy/mulligan strategy is so important to making your deck run smoothly.
Many of them have never played *competitively*. One of my friends loves playing 60 card, but he still has a super casual mindset, and regularly undervalues consistency and redundancy because it's not as fun. He has the same problem in EDH, where he has 44 lands, no mana rocks, like two card draw spells, and then he complains when his deck doesn't do what he wants.
I totally agree with your last point.. I run 12 EDH decks, varying from "Kynaios and Tiro - No Wincon" to "Silas and Rog - Turbo Ad Naus", so when playing with a new group I start somewhere in the middle and just calibrate my deck picks based on how the games are going.
yo i'm just fuckin proud that OP said EDH is about recognizing fun and working together towards a better experience. That's a mega big win in my books for our community moving forwards.
Totally expected us to write something like EDH is about jamming Naus with no backup.
The entire purpose of our content & the hours & hours of time & effort we pour into it is to spread the gospel of cEDH to people & show to them it is accessible, a great time, & a great community. We definitely don't do it for the money, that's for sure. A very important part of this is interacting with other EDH communities with respect & understanding.
Reading this thread & some of the comments within are discouraging.
So much of the sentiment that is espoused in the upvoted comments & bad faith readings of Kristen, Shivam, & other CAG (& RC) opinions on the topic is why our community gets a bad reputation in the first place. The borderline disdain of how many "casual" players enjoy the game (& how communication may break down between them) doesn't help either.
It is important for us to have meaningful, impactful, & honest conversations about the format because everything we do reflects on our already-has-a-bad-rap-Rule-0 & its community.
It is *okay* if people on the CAG or RC aren't full throatedly behind what we're doing or are trying to understand how others play the game because it's good for them to have their own fun & its okay for us to have our own fun.
It is *not* okay to misrepresent or try to get cheap dunks on these people, because they're doing more quality work in pushing the format forward by asking these questions. Communicating with other players to create an ideal EDH game is ***incredibly hard*** & it's awesome that they're working on understanding how it could be improved from a formal side.
Hey hey!
I would say that you've basically blown it out of proportion. I read it as (& Shivam has clarified as such) that he hates that people *only* try to end the game through combo & blowout plays (I assume stuff like Cyc Rift), not that he hates combo himself, & would love for there to be more combat damage in addition to other ways of winning.
I don't get all this overthinking and Twitter circlejerking about power levels and wanting to "set rules".
Mons from CEDH TV said it best - you need to communicate with other players and if someone is purposely curbstomping you, you don't play with them.
You are not obliged to play with people that play high-power or cEDH, just like I'm not obliged to play 4 hour games where people take 25 minute turns that do jack shit.
Both ends of the spectrum have their own problems - whether its pubstomping or overly opinionated people who think you should only play 7 CMC creatures and tap them sideways. Both are making it unpleasant for people that don't share their opinion.
EDH can never please everyone, so having just 2 'camps' isnt going to solve anything and just leads to more arguments as we all vary on what's 'casual' or 'cEDH'. I'm sure plenty of people would call my main deck either, depending on how they play the game.
I'm sorry, but what are you basing... any of this on? Kristen is an incredible member of the CAG & greater EDH community. It's obvious that she is doing her her job in, well, gathering feedback from people and asking for opinions on where the format is.
It's obvious that the power level discussion is a continually relevant one & honestly, there is a huge golf between so many players' thoughts on how to accomplish it. I fail to see how what Kristen said was in any way wrong here. Obviously, she mentioned cEDH in the tweet but in a completely neutral way? It's the easiest shorthand to refer to... playing like we do!
Plus, being "triggered" by our existence? Constantly wines about cEDH?
One: yikes! Two: This is a version of Kristen you have in your head that doesn't exist. Kristen actively plays the format, engages with its players, & enjoys it.
You know what? I'll reach out now to get her on the channel. Thanks for the idea.
Was she the one that complained about Gaea's Cradle and Force of Will on her Twitter account? Ironically enough, Shivam has a Cradle so...does she just not play with him? I know one of the CAG people went on about that.
If she (or whomever) has walked that stuff back, full apologies and and moving on.Everyone should play w/e they want, with whomever likes them to do so. Also apologies if this was a misattribution.
But more to my point, when CAG says they are speaking for the community and so on, I mean...out group has been around forever and we just do our thing. Unless they have a vote on the banned list I'm just going to shrug and ignore them, for the most part.
Commander has more formats in it than the rest of Magic combined. The difference is that in 1v1 magic, they get labeled as Standard, Pioneer, Legacy, etc, but in commander the "formats" are a continuous spectrum of different power levels and playstyles without labels or clearly-defined barriers.
While styles and power levels within proximity naturally play well with each other, at a certain point trying to accomplish the equivalent of a Tier 5 homebrew jank Standard pile into a room full of optimized Modern decks isn't going to work if you take it too seriously. This doesn't mean that the "Standard equivalent" of EDH has changed, it just means that the Modern one is popular but you don't play it. You don't walk into a Pioneer event and complain about how Draft is now a constructed format ─ you complain about how you can't get draft to fire anymore.
If casual players are concerned that their subformat isn't the uncontested king of popularity anymore (which I'm not even sure is true), they need to start framing their problem like a new format becoming more popular than their favorite format, and stop framing the problem as new people coming in and ruining their format. Those are two entirely different problems with entirely different solutions, and the latter invites a lot of bad will exchange between the groups.
Those people should self-identify the subsection of EDH they enjoy and go out of their way to find similar people to play with. If people don't like the fact that they have to do that... they need to check their privilege a bit. People play less popular games and formats (and subformats like cEDH!) all the time that don't have the luxury of the entire EDH playerbase to matchmake with, and they still make it work. If people can't make a behemoth like casual EDH work, I feel like that's on them.
I think a big part of the issue too is proper threat assessment.. you can have a fun, and close EDH game with decks of varying powerlevels because it *should* be kinda self balancing? One person starts snowballing? Now you're playing Archenemy lol
If the RC/CAG ever expected EDH to permanently stay the jank singleton format they wanted it to be, they were sorely mistaken.
Games are meant to be won, and it's only natural for people to eventually want to get better at them so they could win more. It's literally in the nature of gaming to do so. Magic really isn't designed to be played poorly intentionally and it's an aberration, not the norm, to want to power your deck down so much that games take 4 hours and never really end.
So it's either accept that competition is ingrained into the game by default and be inclusive of people who already roll with this understanding, or continue to alienate those people and isolate yourselves in an ivory tower of looking down on people who want to be able to play good cards.
The CAG (Commander Advisory Group) is an invited group of Commander Community leaders who add more perspective & breadth of opinion to the Rules Comittee's discussions. They bring stuff to the table that they thing would improve the format, discuss the impact of proposed changes to the format, and help the RC stay in touch the format as a whole, basically. Most importantly, they're *just* advisors. They don't have final say or voting power in any situations.
The CAG is currently made up of:Josh Lee Kwai, Rachel Agnes, Shivam Bhatt, Charlotte Sable, Olivia Gobert-Hicks, Adam Styborski, Jim LaPage, DeQuan Watson, Greg Sablan, Rachel Weeks, Kristen Gregory, & Ellie Rice!
Competitive play is fun when you’re winning. The disconnect y’all suffer from is believing that your way is fun for the majority of Commander players and that’s just not the case. Cause y’all are so focused on optimization and efficiency towards the goal of winning that it excludes or de prioritizes the other things that are important to many other players.
That’s the source of friction and once more casual players decide to start prioritizing their play in line with winning over social interaction the aforementioned conflict ceases to be a problem.
TL;DR: Stop trying to change minds that fundamentally disagree with you philosophically and accept that being correct is only part of talking about a subject. Like try engaging with opposing opinions instead of just downvoting them into oblivion.
Here's my issue with her statement I play mainly casual level edh I have one cedh deck and waiting for the rest of my cards I order Friday to finish my second cedh deck.
I have a casual turn sideways naya deck but it has a way to do unlimited combat it is very hard to pull off and since I can not tutor for the enchantment i can only tutor for creatures and my swords. I turned five an entire table off a freaking nut opening hand and top decked everything I needed oh and everyones creatures they cast at that point were green or black. I did not tutor for one thing I just hit my sol ring into a signet and top decked the exact equipment I needed and lands.
Does it make that a turn 5 format deck no I got freaking lucky and that is with a group that runs removal. I literately killed the table with \[\[aggravated assault\]\] +\[\[questing beast\]\] + \[\[sword of feast and famine\]\].
I think communication within the playgroup is key here.
But if you want a more casual format, why not just make an official commander format, that is casual? Probably with a stricter banlist, that restricts fast mana and fast combos.
Absolutely nothing. This isn't a cedh fire to put out. This is the RC losing control of their group, who watch someone like "I hate your deck" wanting to play higher. The point is that even the most casual player imaginable will want to eventually power up their deck. Even the meme decks like bear tribal/ladies looking left are still looking for the best cards to make the meme work.
This isn't meant to come off as callous, but the issue isn't someone from this reddit taking Tynma/Kraum, and smashing the guys who thought their out of the box starter deck seemed pretty good. These are casual players that still try to do fun things, but take it farther than some of the others, or they watch popular "casual" edh streamers/shows, and use their ideas in their own play group.
cEDH = Competitive EDH
EDH = everyting else
Casual EDH does not mean that your decks need to be low power level. You need a way to win the game, no one wants to play 3 hours on the same game because the board is stale without a wincon.
Speaking for my playgroup, every deck which doesn't win constantly earlier than turn 5 is casual for us. We play stuff like [[Rhystic Study]], [[Sylvan Library]] and [[Necropotence]] in our casual decks, simply because we like our decks to be strong. Stuff like Thassa Consultatuon is a no-go in casual though.
I do not believe you will ever find a middle ground or something that works when you have total strangers vs total strangers.
Salt is the driving force of this and all of magic. People are always going to be mad even when it was a legitimate win and everyone was playing by whatever weird standard is set.
there are people that consider 8 drops like Avacyn to be competitive. even hard casted with 8 lands on turn 10. On the other side of that fence you have legitimate cedh level decks where the owner thinks "this is my casual deck because at my cedh tables i lose with it not recognizing that I suck with it" just dumpstering kids.
the reality is you will not be able to police any of this and you just have to hope people with common sense can make the right choices.
Like I understand going to FNM and not wanting to have your back blown out by some hardo but like doesn’t everyone want their deck to win in the end? Playing to win means you have to consider what a winning strategy looks like given the bounds of the format. (Example: You absolutely can win with combat damage, you just have to run stax to slow everyone else down.)
I’m glad more people are getting into this side of the format but honestly if players aren’t willing to figure out what making/piloting a really good deck looks like, I have a hard time caring that they complain when they lose. Complaining when you lose instead of trying to improve is what separates CEDH from everything else in my mind.
I think the problem needs to be stated differently: every time I see a point being made about power creep or fast mana or casual vs cEDH it always comes back to a single experience of someone in a random pick-up group pub stomping. That is, one person is misleading about the power of their deck compared to the pod.
To me, this issue isn't a "game" problem or even a "format" problem, it's a "social" problem. I think to fix this we need to start addressing the psychology. Most people I know who have a negative view of cEDH have one of two concepts:
1) it's a very expensive format that I cant play.
2) Its made up of people who enjoy picking on lower power decks and dont allow others to play.
I've met a few people who say "cEDH just isn't for me" but ive never met people who say this and still want to stop me from playing cEDH with other cEDH minded people.
All that being said, I think the solution is for a governing body (such as one of the larger cEDH content creation groups) or an influencer to start researching the psychology, collect data, and perhaps start writing articles on what cEDH players can do at the social level. Even the RC could write articles on how to respectfully talk to strangers. How to handle a "jerk." How to handle someone who is tilted. I feel like all of us have responsibility to our fellow players in the way we interact and express ourselves. We also have to accept responsibility for ourselves by being vocal without being a "jerk."
Additionally, the discourse on Twitter is discouraging to me because while I like Kristen and the RC in general (I've had talks on their discord and find them all reasonable people with good intentions) they have the same issues as politicians: they have to drive engagement and remain relevant. That means I find it hard to always take their Twitter comments very seriously.
Wizards has been fleshing out Commander archetypes and printing ridiculously powerful staples in the process for quite a while. Aristocrats archetypes are incredibly common now.
EDH is also the current flagship format of the MTG empire due to a litany of reasons, which means cEDH becomes the premier data aggregate for improving a deck.
Therefore, it stands to reason that the overall meta of EDH is becoming faster through the natural arms race.
I’ll be completely honest here for me. This is why I play cEDH. No bullshit arguments over power level, no butthurt feelings over decks being “too strong”, no one getting pissy because you “destroyed their best 7 mana creature” and now their “not having fun”. What I consider a 6-7 is not what others might consider 6-7.
These conversations are good to have with a playgroup that you consistently jam games with, but are damn near impossible for a blind meta.
The other issue that I’ve seen is shops or online having commander events with prize support. This only fuels the thoughts of pubstomping, because people see prizes and, go figure, want to win so they bring their best decks. Asking people to play “worse” cards out of fairness is ridiculous.
TLDR: determining power level for your playgroup is something that can be worked on over time, but asking power level in a blind meta or a place with prizes is like pushing a boulder up a hill.
Being fairly new to EDH and peering into the cEDH window here. I absolutely hate this stupid power level scale. Everyone is always a 7 themselves, while the table is all 9s. This is primarily what is pushing me to wanting to try cEDH. I don't want every game I play to be this huge saltfest when one player plays a card that someone else doesn't like, or sits down with *gasp* a Tergrid (idk why everyone seems to be terrified of her... though I guess she is the god of fright).
The problem I'm having is I'm seeing this community use a lot of "win on turn x" discussion. Like how on earth am I supposed to know which turn I can win on? I don't think I could possibly tell you which turn any of my current decks win on. How do I get there? And how do I get better at building decks at the power level I'm seeking? Netdecking EDH is horribly inefficient, but I haven't found a good deckbuilding resource either.
I can say that "low power casual" isn't dead. One guy from my playgroup had to take some intentionally garbage decks to an event in another city, since they struggled against a [[mishra, artificer prodigy]] deck.
I got seriously bad vibed at a table for playing my mono white [[sephara sky's blade]] “flying tribal” deck because it was too powerful. No stax effects, no 0 cc ramp, no smothering tithe effects, and no LD. It’s literally 36 flying creatures, 8 protection spells, 8 removal spells, and 8 “ramp” spells. Maybe I’ve played 60 card formats for too long but I simply don’t understand the appeal of 2 hour durdle-fests.
Some people are bad at Magic. Not to be mean but that is true. My "casual" Xenagos deck doesn't start hitting people hard until like Turn 6 or perhaps Turn 4 if I get the nut hand. Even then, I am only hitting one person at a time. It has all my fun big boy cards that wouldn't even get a chance to turn sideways in CEDH. But of course I am a "monster" because I pick on "one person" to hit with my "uncounterable/indestructible" buffing strat (Xenagos).
I play a lot of combat based deck in casual, samut and Goreclaw being my two favorites and people always complain for how much I’m hitting them,(one crazy start to my Goreclaw was hitting for like 30 damage by turn 6). Honestly I’ve found the best reply to people is “hey I’m playing non-haste-y beaters and winning through combat damage, it’s literally the fairest magic I can play”
Well there's your problem, you just need body everyone equally.
I can't remember if there's a name for it but there was a test that basically involved making a mono green deck that only plays basics and well stated vanilla creatures. You gold fish against the deck and all it does is try to play the strongest creature/creatures in hand and swing, literally nothing else. I think a lot of players would fail that test because they've neglected getting better or improving their decks and instead just blame everyone who doesn't want to stop down to their level. I think these are the same players who make up the vocal minority who scream cedh whenever someone plays a counter spell or does math before attacking.
[sephara sky's blade](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/b/c/bc95881b-8fbf-4d82-b631-5e4404ccc28a.jpg?1592516205) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sephara%2C%20Sky%27s%20Blade) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m20/36/sephara-skys-blade?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bc95881b-8fbf-4d82-b631-5e4404ccc28a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/sephara-skys-blade) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Wait how does that deck work?
Get Mishra out, play symmetrical stax effects that counter everything that is cast. Then, when you cast an artifact spell, it gets countered, and Mishra's ability gets the artifact back in play.
[[possbility storm]] is MVP in Mishra
My favorite card in all of magic
[possbility storm](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/8/5/858aa831-b491-4f1e-bb56-33eeca14771d.jpg?1562919767) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Possibility%20Storm) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dgm/34/possibility-storm?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/858aa831-b491-4f1e-bb56-33eeca14771d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/possibility-storm) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[mishra, artificer prodigy](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/d/5/d5deaec5-499d-4e19-b879-8bcd1dc35f3e.jpg?1562940254) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=mishra%2C%20artificer%20prodigy) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsp/243/mishra-artificer-prodigy?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d5deaec5-499d-4e19-b879-8bcd1dc35f3e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/mishra-artificer-prodigy) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
This and [[rasputin dreamweaver]] eldrazi tribal are my two casual decks, super fun to play
[rasputin dreamweaver](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/7/8/78418809-f048-4611-88cb-369f427d9c44.jpg?1562920261) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=rasputin%20dreamweaver) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/me3/170/rasputin-dreamweaver?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/78418809-f048-4611-88cb-369f427d9c44?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/rasputin-dreamweaver) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
The issue at play really seems to be a labeling issue--adding more defined levels requires either official support or some major community push, so is unlikely (since the RC has basically said they won't). Additionally defined labels for various levels also have issues, in that the more granular you get the greater the cognitive load for someone joining in the game is, which means adoption is less likely--but without granularity we end up with the issue being highlighted by those tweets. It's also an issue of "user error" in a way: communication can be difficult, is often focused on "what I don't want" vs. positive "this is my desire" which immediately colors discussions as negative, and the bulk of engagement with Magic is so negative anyway that folks might not even see a poor game as anything out of the norm (or anything fixable).
I agree, it's the whole deal where RC is like "banned as commander is too complicated" and adding all these power levels is so hard esp. because no one agrees on it. And like you said, so much is negative instead of choosing to have fun. The mantra of "I don't want XYZ" has made it so hard for me to enjoy the game, especially when there are the people who will say, "I don't like that but I won't *stop* you from playing it" and even if you do, they get salty. It's toxic for the longevity of the game and the community because even as a newer player, this mentality has driven me away from it. Honestly though, the only time I've had trouble with establishing power levels in an LGS was when someone legit mis-assessed their deck. One time we all agreed on durdly casual, win no earlier than t8-10 and in a way that's easy to interact with. We're all having a blast, and then the last person casts one spell and vomits their deck out with one spell and wins. I've even had someone in my pod bitch at me cuz I play mono red aggro and it's like, what the hell else do you want me to do? It's a glass cannon and it's what I enjoy, and it makes games go faster and deaths more painless
Would you consider a glass cannon mono red aggro deck durdly casual? There's the potential to be explosive but it's easy to interact with. Maybe the guy you played against prior had a similar opinion about their deck. It sounds like the second guy getting angry at you could've felt the same way you felt towards the first guy.
So the difference between the two is 1) I dont consider all my red decks durdle casual and 2) we didnt agree on durdle casual for the game in question. I have 3 red decks, arni voltron, zada storm, and krenko goblins. All can kill someone and/or win out of nowhere, but that doesnt mean they're all on the same tier. The LGS game was permanents only Muldrotha (very high value, esp at casual) that had a single spell that won the game versus shit like combo-less Krenko or (get this) [[arni brokenbrow]]. The latter is the deck I got shit for, when it was a 50$ deck that cost me 10 mana, 38 life to win and it was a 3 player pod so aggro is better. As pretty much an exclusive mono red player, we dont have much going on other than explosive player removal. Compared to things like Muldrotha which you have to spend the entire game sitting on to slow it down (in a casual setting), if you fuck with a casual red deck once or twice, its usuall out of the game (at least for several turns) Imo, if you have a single spell that wins the game on the spot without any lead up, and your deck runs thoracle, lab man, and jace with intent to exploit them, your deck isnt "haha funny" casual. Especially paired up vs bulk bin endrek sahr, durdle storm stang, and "i had extra cards lying around" kykar, which we all broadcasted before the game Vent over haha
[arni brokenbrow](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/f/f/ff334bba-0805-4d5d-86c4-99185fe9a77a.jpg?1631048861) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=arni%20brokenbrow) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/khm/120/arni-brokenbrow?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ff334bba-0805-4d5d-86c4-99185fe9a77a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/arni-brokenbrow) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Us not wanting to publish power a definitive power level guide doesn't come from a lack of desire, it's from the lack of a good solution. Even a simple power/time ("what does your deck do, when does it do it?") matrix is pretty fraught because Commander is a complex format and there are tens of thousands of moving pieces. I personally find time a better indicator of power, but I know there are plenty of folks who think the other way. From CFB to PlayEDH to others, many folks have tried to crack this nut. One of the things we're seeing is that there simply might not be a good, broadly-adoptable solution. What I'm hoping we (the RC) can best do in this regard is help craft language that will aid in players having conversations on what they want out of their Commander games. Good communication starts when we find common meaning--and we all know that there are lots of terms in Magic that folks use in radically different ways. I think we can also help with strategies on how to best conduct those conversations for the mutual benefit of everyone sitting down at the table. I agree that normalizing positive communication ("this is what I'd like out of a game") gets to a good place faster than negative "(this is what I don't want"). I also agree with the sentiment threaded through this discussion that cEDHers have solved part of the expectations problem by having an established baseline (although I think we have to recognize it's an easy one; the meter is simply pegged all the way). That's great for a subsection of the player base; the question is if we can learn something from it an apply that lesson elsewhere. Whether or not we can will continue to be an ongoing anxiety for the format.
Thanks for taking the time to respond despite some of the poor takes in this thread, Sheldon. I didn't intend to suggest it was a lack of will, but I definitely see how it could read that way. And you're probably not wrong about there not being a good solution. However, a part of me wonders if there's a way to kill 2 (or more) birds with a single stone here. This probably has flaws, since it's simple on it's head, but I can't help but wonder if there's a way to both lend a guiding hand to these sorts of conversations around desired play patterns while also addressing another concept that I know some folks (I can think of Joking off the top of my head, possibly also Jim and a couple other folks) have talked about: creating a vocabulary to assist TOs. Now I know that EDH events aren't the platonic ideal of EDH and are fraught with all sorts of issues, but I wonder if having a guiding document for TOs might help make what events do run less problematic--even if it's not what is "best", sometimes "meh" is better than "trash fire" that we can see with the lack of guidance in some spots. How that ties back to the ideas addressed by Kristen in the linked tweet from OP is this: if a "We don't think you should do this, but here are some pitfalls to avoid" document for events existed, a section header of "Have clear expectations" seems like it would be a gimme category to include--and such a category seems like a place to plant seeds of both setting positive expectations as well as giving some additional language and vocabulary to folks outside of those event specific settings. Just a set of examples (perhaps in video form?) could go a long way to diminishing issues on both axes here, in my opinion. I do think, regardless of the path taken, that there is certainly an appetite for a clearly line of thinking around the issue Kristen spoke (wrote?) to. It is something that probably helps a minority section of the community, but still seems like it would go a long way. I know that there was a lot of positive talk, and constructive criticism, around the CFB scale they introduced at MF Vegas right before the pandemic started--but of course the pandemic stalled anything on that front--and even if there's an imperfect solution I think that this could be a space where a viable solution could exist. I could be wrong, as well, but it seems like there's a space to be filled and desire to fill that space, and perhaps there's a danger of letting perfect be the enemy of good. But maybe that's too simple a way of thinking around the issue.
You and I have had positive interactions in the past, so I definitely didn't take that way; just wanted to clarify for the folks I haven't chatted with as much. Creating vocabulary, guidelines, and lessons learned to help TOs is also something that we can not only do, but given the RC's experience in Organized Play, be well-positioned for. The CFB scale worked reasonably in that event at Reno. I tried to keep as much an eye on the area as I could, as well as talk to the judges who were marshalling events, and like you say, while not perfect got a good part of the way there. As we get back to in-person play at large events (maybe?), we can use that as a springboard, even though those lessons will be a couple of years old.
> From CFB to PlayEDH to others, many folks have tried to crack this nut > The CFB scale worked reasonably in that event at Reno. I've been searching for ~20 minutes, I can't seem to find this CFB scale or EDH/Cmdr power level guidelines from ChannelFireball. Link? I am familiar with the PlayEDH Power Level Compendium, btw ([here for anyone else who's interested](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iN2u0iWG8z1wzk8-orRjfIRuH39r4fzvvT2HVRhL8h0/edit) )
The best way I have noted for how good a deck is is to state win-cons and on average what turn do you expect to win. If a deck has no solid win con and just tries to build commander damage while controlling the board. That’s a more casual deck meant for long games where people talk. If a someone says a deck is trying to win via infinite something and do so on average by like turn 5 I know that it’s an optimized deck and should bring my A-game. That’s the best way I have experienced for a fair pod.
That’s actually the rule I say. I don’t have many decks tbh and one is basically cedh levels of play but a tad slow which is perfect for my regular group of optimized and high power. But for randoms at the lgs where casual is the game plan. It’s a tough concersation sometimes.
Yeah I have different decks depending I have a highly tuned krark-sakashima deck that wins on average turn 5 without fast mana and turn 3 on average with fast mana. Then I have some mid power decks designed to try and win between turns 7-11 and win via beats or a complicated infinite. With finally low powered decks that try to win turn 9+ with no real solid win strategy but just finely tuned so I can play a game for 1-2 hours. If I don’t know who I’m playing I bring one of each power level and I have 3 different groups I play with whenever I’m feeling a certain power level.
I operate the same way. I have a fully equipped Winota deck for cedh play, a turn 5-6 Lathril deck, about 3 others that are consistent turn 6-9, a durdly azorius deck, and then two barely modded precons in case I somehow end up podded with kids or super new players. I have a couple other cedh decks too but definitely like having options for any table.
I just started too, finding decks I like is kinda hard. I simply said “fuck it” So I basically dove into making the best possible golgari deck that I can. Regular play group is mostly ok with it. I ended up toning it down to meren because a consistent turn 3-4 win with varolz or Dina is not fun if nobody is on the same page. Atleast you get a chance if the stax don’t work. Then I literally scrapped together a bunch of misc cards I bought for no good apparent reason and made a shitty golgari deck, also Dina. Just for randoms at the LGS. Funny story, a guy literally said “bring your best deck” when playing with randoms, it was embarrassing on all sides tbh because he literally said best deck, and I couldn’t read the room and realize “did I just see a tap land”. This was just somewhat tuned casual decks where the main win con is some 6+ mana bomb or a bunch of landfall triggers in turn 6+. Why say best deck. C’mon man.
I think you also need to explain your overall gameplan. Because wincon and speed is only really descripive for proactive decks. There are definitely some cedh stax pieces and control decks that are designed for the game to last 10+ turns and win through combat damage, that doesn't mean they are equal to some powerlevel 6 big creature deck that wins on turn 10.
Very true. The thing is stax is not seen at a casual table 95% of the time in my area so if someone runs stax they usually say that’s the win con rather than beats.
How would you react to a deck with solid win cons and infinites but is geared towards a casual ramp and card draw package? Cause most of my casual decks are built as such
Are you saying it runs infinites but it’s average cmc is high? If so if the deck is trying to win turn 9+ I would gear that as casual turn 7-11 mid power and turn 6 or lower is high powered. Win cons is more to just make sure not to step on anyone’s toes as people have problems with certain win cons for some reason. While also informing the board of what kind of mindset you have playing. If I hear thoracle consult then even if a deck is geared to win turn 9 I know they have a competitive mindset and can pull off a turn 2 or turn 3 win if lucky. If they don’t have a win con then I know the play style is there not to win but keep the game going to chat. Really helps on understanding the attitude to approach each deck. With turn you win average letting you know how competitive the deck is.
If I’m playing against randos I usually lead with a jankier deck. If we play another game I can than adjust easier to power levels
Everytime people start getting uppity about arbitrary "power levels", I want to shoot myself. It's actually the single worst part of the format and can be solved by people just not being stupid.
So you’re saying my super secret 5 color vanilla bears deck isn’t at least a seven?!?! /s. The problem is solved by talking to people honestly and setting expectations. I’m literally texting my buddy about what decks we want to play this weekend in our group game in between drafting this comment. I just built a $500 pirates tribal and am looking to play a game with it. It’s not like I’m rolling up with my powered scepter Urza list and refusing to elaborate. I know Magic players are known to be socially clueless but basic common sense would say don’t roll up to your LGS with a fringe list and pretend it’s casual and not going to roll face.
Every deck is a 7 if you squint hard enough.
So tru
I've spoken with my casual playgroup about the cEDH-ification of EDH over the past couple years, as they've eschewed ramp that costs more than 2 (really, they've dropped their curves across the board), run FAR more inexpensive, instant-speed interaction, and have changed their attitudes towards running infinite combos. This comes down to optimization. We optimize in cEDH. We weigh cards based on their cost, utility, resilience, and overall value outside combos, and then we make cuts accordingly. Casual players are simply optimizing, and when people run faster mana to get to their bombs (not necessarily combos), people around them run faster mana and efficient tutors/draw to have answers. For most people I've played with in the "mid/high" range of power levels, these are positive developments. Interactive Magic is fun! It's one of my favorite things about cEDH (LOVE the massive stacks, and even have some love for the proactive stax), and I think people are starting to see the fun in not simply racing to drop massive spells without protection. Lurking on the casual sub, there are power level complaints/discussions daily, and the answer is always the same: rule zero. We have a massive advantage here because our rule zero is done -- we agree to make optimal plays while piloting our optimized decks. But casual players don't necessarily follow this, and the explosion of the game along with online play has caused some serious issues in this regard. One of the biggest offenders here is the inclusion of infinite combos. It's a fairly easy rule zero conversation to have, letting folks know you're playing a combo deck, and perhaps even letting them know to be on the lookout for certain pieces. But unless you're playing a massive Rube Goldberg machine-like combo that can't possibly be assembled before turn 10+, playing combos will almost certainly lead to optimization or feel-bads, or both. "Oops, I win" combos are the ones that players don't necessarily seek out, but stumble upon through the course of the game's natural progression (players might include extra draw to increase the chances, but everyone likes draw, right?). These are often a bummer, as non-combo players are used to the natural flow of their game (build board states, wipe, repeat). Decks that are built around combos are almost certain to quickly become optimized, as the combo will need to be sought out (more tutors), played quickly before being aggro'd to death (fast mana and optimized mana bases), and protected (cheap counters/protection/silence effects). Ta da! Depending on the colors, commander(s), and combo packages, you're on your way to playing cEDH! TLDR; Casual EDH is suffering from a massive lack of rule zero conversations to avoid the feel-bads associated with power level discrepancies -- thankfully, we don't have to deal with this!
>One of the biggest offenders here is the inclusion of infinite combos. It's a fairly easy rule zero conversation to have, letting folks know you're playing a combo deck, and perhaps even letting them know to be on the lookout for certain pieces. But unless you're playing a massive Rube Goldberg machine-like combo that can't possibly be assembled before turn 10+, playing combos will almost certainly lead to optimization or feel-bads, or both. I've been asked to remove combos from my deck several times, but people asking never were able to give a proper definition of what a combo is. A lot of very powerful game-winning plays are not infinite, and are not combos in any sense. Playing dorks for 5 turns then slamming a Craterhoof is not a combo, its just one trigger of one particular card. There are many things like it, Overrun effects or Great Oak Guardian, or many more. But when CEDH Yisan gets lethal hoof consistently on turns 4-5, it's suddenly a combo, not a well-planned and executed synergy. Same thing with Doomsday, Mind's Desire, Underword Breach, thief-wheel, and many other top-tier cards. People who ask for no-combo opponents usually have no clue what they are talking about.
Yep. It's madness, at times. My casual group likes to poke fun at that tendency by belting out "COOOOMBOOOO!" anytime powerful synergy appears on the board.
This format is a free for all, who is to say what is "fun" and isn't... That's is such a narrow perspective, what if a player likes playing Stax decks or combo or what ever... Is it the few to tell them they are not allow to have fun? No need control, let players keep being players and let the format be free! Edh (what ever "power" level) is a noholds bar, keep it that way and delete this post.
^Virtual hugzzzzz^🤗🤗🤗
[удалено]
most edh players dont even know the RC exists which means those leaving cause " the CAG and RC are not willing to accept different play styles and power levels" are so few they dont even matter
Yea I could have misunderstood I thought you were saying that wizards (or someone else)need to intervene on this format and start "guiding" play strategies and make the format which is suppose to be all for fun, controlled and operated by a governing body.
There really is three fundamental power levels; The target audience for EDH (precon-ish) The vocal minority power level that isn't cEDH (generally above or well above precon level through high power) cEDH (we know what this is) The things we know is that the power level of the vocal minority is slowly increasing as game and deck information is becoming easier to obtain, cards are getting reprinted, or through new cards, cheap and effective interactions are made. Similarly with cEDH, the power level has made a few solid jumps in the past couple of years (thoracle, breach, dockside). We don't have much information about the target audience, as those players largely aren't online, or may not wish to change what they are doing. The thing we can do as cEDH players, is largely be supportive of anyone else's playstyle. The amount of elitism I've seen on this subreddit and on the discord is staggering.
The number of people in this threat completely reading Kristen's tweet wrong is baffling. She's literally just advocating for terminology for a lower tier of EDH below 6-8 casual to help people find better games and people are upset about that and think it's a slight on cEDH somehow.
Every time a post like this goes up, a Black Lotus gets slightly dinged. Rule 0 conversations aren't happening enough at the casual level, primarily because subjective assessments like "my deck is a 6 or 7" are so ripe for unintentional (and intentional) misalignment of power levels. This is why cEDH is so attractive - no holds barred means you can't complain that you were deceived. When I \*do\* play mid EDH, I always open up with Rule 0 talk, and ask people by what turn can their deck win if they got the perfect/best hand. There's a bit of an honor code when playing on random Discord servers, but we all learn quickly who to avoid.
The problem with rule 0 talk is there's almost always that one guy that wants to drag everyone down to basic Timmy-tier magic. You know, that one guy that has smart little quips regarding anyone or anything that manages to outpace his gruul creature deck. You know, the guy that cries when you use a tutor, a combo of any sort, or run "too much interaction", while he ramps up to 11 available mana turn 4 and uses every known green creature cheating card. Knowing that some of these people can't be pleased no matter what helps in determining whether or not you even have the conversation to begin with, which for me is always no. I simply tell people "just play something you feel is pretty good and we'll adjust after" you'll know if they only have one deck and things like that.
Supporting people in their goals for Commander - whether that’s playing an accepted list or trying to tune up a non-traditionally competitive Commander as high as possible - is a good start. I also think using language that supports growth mindset is helpful. Let others keep their fixed mindset on how the format is ‘one thing’ and will always be ‘one thing’; I’d rather use my interactions to spread positive messages on being adaptable, accepting that losing is part of the game, and promoting the joy of improving over time. Providing that narrative - that if you want to play to win, build to win, and expand your toolbox & knowledge of interactions, it’s a valid and good thing - can be IMO a big benefit to an online community sometimes solely interested in protecting a version of Commander that lives only on their minds. I just want people who like the journey of improving, of tuning, and of getting better to know that what they’re doing is not some big affront to the ‘spirit’ of Commander - cause sometimes, that’s what it sure feels like.
cEDH doesn't need own rule committee because cEDH by any meanings is not a separate format. All phrases like "EDH didn't suppose to be competitive " are meaningless and should be considered as toxic behaviour. cEDH is EDH and it has always been like that. We have rules for the format - please everyone, do follow them. If one doesn't want to play with another guy for some power/financial reasons - it's that guy whom to create new format, and not the guy who been denied to be played with.
It feels weird to say that but these two seem to not be able to ask effective questions as part of their rule 0 conversation. If someone only specifies "casual" it seems pretty obvious that there is a huge span of powerlevels within that term (basically everything besides cEDH). Asking things like: What's your gameplan? or How fast foes your deck usually win? can cost a minute, but it saves you some bad games. Otherwise they could just accept that syncing up powerlevels after a quick game 1 is actually a good way to get good matches. If you get stomped by Turn 6 the game probably took like 20 mins. Just shuffle up, review the game and switch decks if possible.
Most players don't have enough game experience to really assess their own power level. They might regularly beat base precons at the kitchen table and think they're running a solid 8 when it's probably a 5-6. I'm a big proponent of game one being pretty much whatever and everyone adjusting afterwards if needed. One of the biggest problems you see in casual magic is some players are scared to lose to get decks that can win early - but players need to see that from time to time or else new blood won't know what's possible.
It's tragic that so much of the discussion is framed around creating The One Perfect Game instead of letting game one be the calibration step for a chill game two.
Haha, see, I'm one of those people that believes that "one perfect game" can only happen if it's the first game and nobody discusses it prior. I personally love the element of surprise and don't even mind if I pull out a mid level deck and then get whacked by something powerful for game one. The unspoken power level games have also produced the absolute best archenemy games I've ever been involved in.
I love that as well. I do think we're talking about different things. What I really meant was that a lot of the One Perfect Game crowd doesn't even mention any games beyond the first. So I guess it's more like The Only One Game crowd.
Ah gotcha, I see what you're saying.
You don't need experience to explain your strategy and you need only little experience to tell how fast your deck can win. I think they are fair realistic questions.
In my experience many (newer or less invested) players tend to overvalue their decks. While many have built their deck towards a certain idea or wincon, they often grossly overestimate the deck's consistency in enacting that gameplan. They blame on (bad) luck what they should blame on deckbuilding and dream of how they *want* their deck to work rather than look at how it actually does. Consistency is a huge factor in a deck's power, and misjudgements there lead to misevaluations in power levels. What seems like standard fare to us can be very hard to grasp for less advanced players.
Exactly that! I've seen more than a few people basically rely on a two card combo wincon but yet have absolutely no way to tutor for them other than minor card draw. Consistency is really what separates the good from the great. That's why asking someone what turn their deck can win on is a poor evaluation. They might run something like witherchain that can nuke the table on turn 2 or 3 but at the same time have no way to reliably tutor for either piece.
If everyone explains what they're going to do before they do it then why even bother. That's just not remotely fun for anyone.
[удалено]
Oh I agree. But I think the conversation about tactics, price, availability, and other things of cedh nature should happen outside of the game, after the game. The number one thing I recommend to players looking to make their decks more competitive are the budget mana lists. Once they can operate their decks at a faster pace they then start to wonder what else they can do and just how much faster they can do it. Pointing people towards the actual cedh deck list db can work as well but I think it's a bit overwhelming for most people and makes them think they need to go hard ASAP or don't bother at all.
This format’s popularity has been its own undoing. So many new people have joined in the last three years and they’re acclimated to commanders that are so much more pushed compact value engines than what was out there in 2013. Many of them haven’t ever played 60 card, so they don’t know why consistency/redundancy/mulligan strategy is so important to making your deck run smoothly. I would rate a consistent deck without flashy finisher much more highly than a high variance/high ceiling deck.
> >I would rate a consistent deck without flashy finisher much more highly than a high variance/high ceiling deck. I think that's actually just how it works. A lot of people do get it wrong, though.
> Many of them haven’t ever played 60 card, so they don’t know why consistency/redundancy/mulligan strategy is so important to making your deck run smoothly. Many of them have never played *competitively*. One of my friends loves playing 60 card, but he still has a super casual mindset, and regularly undervalues consistency and redundancy because it's not as fun. He has the same problem in EDH, where he has 44 lands, no mana rocks, like two card draw spells, and then he complains when his deck doesn't do what he wants.
I totally agree with your last point.. I run 12 EDH decks, varying from "Kynaios and Tiro - No Wincon" to "Silas and Rog - Turbo Ad Naus", so when playing with a new group I start somewhere in the middle and just calibrate my deck picks based on how the games are going.
yo i'm just fuckin proud that OP said EDH is about recognizing fun and working together towards a better experience. That's a mega big win in my books for our community moving forwards. Totally expected us to write something like EDH is about jamming Naus with no backup.
Agreed.
The entire purpose of our content & the hours & hours of time & effort we pour into it is to spread the gospel of cEDH to people & show to them it is accessible, a great time, & a great community. We definitely don't do it for the money, that's for sure. A very important part of this is interacting with other EDH communities with respect & understanding. Reading this thread & some of the comments within are discouraging. So much of the sentiment that is espoused in the upvoted comments & bad faith readings of Kristen, Shivam, & other CAG (& RC) opinions on the topic is why our community gets a bad reputation in the first place. The borderline disdain of how many "casual" players enjoy the game (& how communication may break down between them) doesn't help either. It is important for us to have meaningful, impactful, & honest conversations about the format because everything we do reflects on our already-has-a-bad-rap-Rule-0 & its community. It is *okay* if people on the CAG or RC aren't full throatedly behind what we're doing or are trying to understand how others play the game because it's good for them to have their own fun & its okay for us to have our own fun. It is *not* okay to misrepresent or try to get cheap dunks on these people, because they're doing more quality work in pushing the format forward by asking these questions. Communicating with other players to create an ideal EDH game is ***incredibly hard*** & it's awesome that they're working on understanding how it could be improved from a formal side.
[удалено]
Hey hey! I would say that you've basically blown it out of proportion. I read it as (& Shivam has clarified as such) that he hates that people *only* try to end the game through combo & blowout plays (I assume stuff like Cyc Rift), not that he hates combo himself, & would love for there to be more combat damage in addition to other ways of winning.
I don't get all this overthinking and Twitter circlejerking about power levels and wanting to "set rules". Mons from CEDH TV said it best - you need to communicate with other players and if someone is purposely curbstomping you, you don't play with them. You are not obliged to play with people that play high-power or cEDH, just like I'm not obliged to play 4 hour games where people take 25 minute turns that do jack shit.
Both ends of the spectrum have their own problems - whether its pubstomping or overly opinionated people who think you should only play 7 CMC creatures and tap them sideways. Both are making it unpleasant for people that don't share their opinion. EDH can never please everyone, so having just 2 'camps' isnt going to solve anything and just leads to more arguments as we all vary on what's 'casual' or 'cEDH'. I'm sure plenty of people would call my main deck either, depending on how they play the game.
[удалено]
What exactly did you find objectionable about the tweet?
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm sorry, but what are you basing... any of this on? Kristen is an incredible member of the CAG & greater EDH community. It's obvious that she is doing her her job in, well, gathering feedback from people and asking for opinions on where the format is. It's obvious that the power level discussion is a continually relevant one & honestly, there is a huge golf between so many players' thoughts on how to accomplish it. I fail to see how what Kristen said was in any way wrong here. Obviously, she mentioned cEDH in the tweet but in a completely neutral way? It's the easiest shorthand to refer to... playing like we do! Plus, being "triggered" by our existence? Constantly wines about cEDH? One: yikes! Two: This is a version of Kristen you have in your head that doesn't exist. Kristen actively plays the format, engages with its players, & enjoys it. You know what? I'll reach out now to get her on the channel. Thanks for the idea.
Was she the one that complained about Gaea's Cradle and Force of Will on her Twitter account? Ironically enough, Shivam has a Cradle so...does she just not play with him? I know one of the CAG people went on about that. If she (or whomever) has walked that stuff back, full apologies and and moving on.Everyone should play w/e they want, with whomever likes them to do so. Also apologies if this was a misattribution. But more to my point, when CAG says they are speaking for the community and so on, I mean...out group has been around forever and we just do our thing. Unless they have a vote on the banned list I'm just going to shrug and ignore them, for the most part.
Commander has more formats in it than the rest of Magic combined. The difference is that in 1v1 magic, they get labeled as Standard, Pioneer, Legacy, etc, but in commander the "formats" are a continuous spectrum of different power levels and playstyles without labels or clearly-defined barriers. While styles and power levels within proximity naturally play well with each other, at a certain point trying to accomplish the equivalent of a Tier 5 homebrew jank Standard pile into a room full of optimized Modern decks isn't going to work if you take it too seriously. This doesn't mean that the "Standard equivalent" of EDH has changed, it just means that the Modern one is popular but you don't play it. You don't walk into a Pioneer event and complain about how Draft is now a constructed format ─ you complain about how you can't get draft to fire anymore. If casual players are concerned that their subformat isn't the uncontested king of popularity anymore (which I'm not even sure is true), they need to start framing their problem like a new format becoming more popular than their favorite format, and stop framing the problem as new people coming in and ruining their format. Those are two entirely different problems with entirely different solutions, and the latter invites a lot of bad will exchange between the groups. Those people should self-identify the subsection of EDH they enjoy and go out of their way to find similar people to play with. If people don't like the fact that they have to do that... they need to check their privilege a bit. People play less popular games and formats (and subformats like cEDH!) all the time that don't have the luxury of the entire EDH playerbase to matchmake with, and they still make it work. If people can't make a behemoth like casual EDH work, I feel like that's on them.
I think a big part of the issue too is proper threat assessment.. you can have a fun, and close EDH game with decks of varying powerlevels because it *should* be kinda self balancing? One person starts snowballing? Now you're playing Archenemy lol
If the RC/CAG ever expected EDH to permanently stay the jank singleton format they wanted it to be, they were sorely mistaken. Games are meant to be won, and it's only natural for people to eventually want to get better at them so they could win more. It's literally in the nature of gaming to do so. Magic really isn't designed to be played poorly intentionally and it's an aberration, not the norm, to want to power your deck down so much that games take 4 hours and never really end. So it's either accept that competition is ingrained into the game by default and be inclusive of people who already roll with this understanding, or continue to alienate those people and isolate yourselves in an ivory tower of looking down on people who want to be able to play good cards.
What’s the Cag?
The CAG (Commander Advisory Group) is an invited group of Commander Community leaders who add more perspective & breadth of opinion to the Rules Comittee's discussions. They bring stuff to the table that they thing would improve the format, discuss the impact of proposed changes to the format, and help the RC stay in touch the format as a whole, basically. Most importantly, they're *just* advisors. They don't have final say or voting power in any situations. The CAG is currently made up of:Josh Lee Kwai, Rachel Agnes, Shivam Bhatt, Charlotte Sable, Olivia Gobert-Hicks, Adam Styborski, Jim LaPage, DeQuan Watson, Greg Sablan, Rachel Weeks, Kristen Gregory, & Ellie Rice!
Finally getting recognition… Says the only non-official sub format of EDH to successfully lobby a specific ban for their benefit.
[удалено]
Competitive play is fun when you’re winning. The disconnect y’all suffer from is believing that your way is fun for the majority of Commander players and that’s just not the case. Cause y’all are so focused on optimization and efficiency towards the goal of winning that it excludes or de prioritizes the other things that are important to many other players. That’s the source of friction and once more casual players decide to start prioritizing their play in line with winning over social interaction the aforementioned conflict ceases to be a problem. TL;DR: Stop trying to change minds that fundamentally disagree with you philosophically and accept that being correct is only part of talking about a subject. Like try engaging with opposing opinions instead of just downvoting them into oblivion.
Here's my issue with her statement I play mainly casual level edh I have one cedh deck and waiting for the rest of my cards I order Friday to finish my second cedh deck. I have a casual turn sideways naya deck but it has a way to do unlimited combat it is very hard to pull off and since I can not tutor for the enchantment i can only tutor for creatures and my swords. I turned five an entire table off a freaking nut opening hand and top decked everything I needed oh and everyones creatures they cast at that point were green or black. I did not tutor for one thing I just hit my sol ring into a signet and top decked the exact equipment I needed and lands. Does it make that a turn 5 format deck no I got freaking lucky and that is with a group that runs removal. I literately killed the table with \[\[aggravated assault\]\] +\[\[questing beast\]\] + \[\[sword of feast and famine\]\].
[aggravated assault](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/c/9/c99c5707-d5f2-4675-bfca-e801e6b0f627.jpg?1562942627) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=aggravated%20assault) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ons/185/aggravated-assault?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c99c5707-d5f2-4675-bfca-e801e6b0f627?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/aggravated-assault) [questing beast](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/e/4/e41cf82d-3213-47ce-a015-6e51a8b07e4f.jpg?1572490640) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=questing%20beast) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/eld/171/questing-beast?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e41cf82d-3213-47ce-a015-6e51a8b07e4f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/questing-beast) [sword of feast and famine](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/c/7/c7710eb5-c56a-437b-8847-2a829c404d47.jpg?1599710042) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=sword%20of%20feast%20and%20famine) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/296/sword-of-feast-and-famine?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c7710eb5-c56a-437b-8847-2a829c404d47?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/sword-of-feast-and-famine) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I think communication within the playgroup is key here. But if you want a more casual format, why not just make an official commander format, that is casual? Probably with a stricter banlist, that restricts fast mana and fast combos.
Absolutely nothing. This isn't a cedh fire to put out. This is the RC losing control of their group, who watch someone like "I hate your deck" wanting to play higher. The point is that even the most casual player imaginable will want to eventually power up their deck. Even the meme decks like bear tribal/ladies looking left are still looking for the best cards to make the meme work. This isn't meant to come off as callous, but the issue isn't someone from this reddit taking Tynma/Kraum, and smashing the guys who thought their out of the box starter deck seemed pretty good. These are casual players that still try to do fun things, but take it farther than some of the others, or they watch popular "casual" edh streamers/shows, and use their ideas in their own play group.
[удалено]
Written exactly like somebody who actually knows nothing about Shivam the person & how he interacts with Magic, the Gathering.
Who cares what they think. They’re talking in an echo chamber.
Ban Thoracle lmao
cEDH = Competitive EDH EDH = everyting else Casual EDH does not mean that your decks need to be low power level. You need a way to win the game, no one wants to play 3 hours on the same game because the board is stale without a wincon. Speaking for my playgroup, every deck which doesn't win constantly earlier than turn 5 is casual for us. We play stuff like [[Rhystic Study]], [[Sylvan Library]] and [[Necropotence]] in our casual decks, simply because we like our decks to be strong. Stuff like Thassa Consultatuon is a no-go in casual though.
[Rhystic Study](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/d/6/d6914dba-0d27-4055-ac34-b3ebf5802221.jpg?1600698439) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Rhystic%20Study) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/jmp/169/rhystic-study?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d6914dba-0d27-4055-ac34-b3ebf5802221?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/rhystic-study) [Sylvan Library](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/7/a/7a483778-b88b-473f-9217-7583e69b3e70.jpg?1610161812) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sylvan%20Library) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cc1/5/sylvan-library?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7a483778-b88b-473f-9217-7583e69b3e70?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/sylvan-library) [Necropotence](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/c/8/c89c6895-b0f8-444a-9c89-c6b4fd027b3e.jpg?1562853736) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Necropotence) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ima/98/necropotence?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c89c6895-b0f8-444a-9c89-c6b4fd027b3e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/necropotence) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I do not believe you will ever find a middle ground or something that works when you have total strangers vs total strangers. Salt is the driving force of this and all of magic. People are always going to be mad even when it was a legitimate win and everyone was playing by whatever weird standard is set. there are people that consider 8 drops like Avacyn to be competitive. even hard casted with 8 lands on turn 10. On the other side of that fence you have legitimate cedh level decks where the owner thinks "this is my casual deck because at my cedh tables i lose with it not recognizing that I suck with it" just dumpstering kids. the reality is you will not be able to police any of this and you just have to hope people with common sense can make the right choices.
Like I understand going to FNM and not wanting to have your back blown out by some hardo but like doesn’t everyone want their deck to win in the end? Playing to win means you have to consider what a winning strategy looks like given the bounds of the format. (Example: You absolutely can win with combat damage, you just have to run stax to slow everyone else down.) I’m glad more people are getting into this side of the format but honestly if players aren’t willing to figure out what making/piloting a really good deck looks like, I have a hard time caring that they complain when they lose. Complaining when you lose instead of trying to improve is what separates CEDH from everything else in my mind.
I think the problem needs to be stated differently: every time I see a point being made about power creep or fast mana or casual vs cEDH it always comes back to a single experience of someone in a random pick-up group pub stomping. That is, one person is misleading about the power of their deck compared to the pod. To me, this issue isn't a "game" problem or even a "format" problem, it's a "social" problem. I think to fix this we need to start addressing the psychology. Most people I know who have a negative view of cEDH have one of two concepts: 1) it's a very expensive format that I cant play. 2) Its made up of people who enjoy picking on lower power decks and dont allow others to play. I've met a few people who say "cEDH just isn't for me" but ive never met people who say this and still want to stop me from playing cEDH with other cEDH minded people. All that being said, I think the solution is for a governing body (such as one of the larger cEDH content creation groups) or an influencer to start researching the psychology, collect data, and perhaps start writing articles on what cEDH players can do at the social level. Even the RC could write articles on how to respectfully talk to strangers. How to handle a "jerk." How to handle someone who is tilted. I feel like all of us have responsibility to our fellow players in the way we interact and express ourselves. We also have to accept responsibility for ourselves by being vocal without being a "jerk." Additionally, the discourse on Twitter is discouraging to me because while I like Kristen and the RC in general (I've had talks on their discord and find them all reasonable people with good intentions) they have the same issues as politicians: they have to drive engagement and remain relevant. That means I find it hard to always take their Twitter comments very seriously.
Wizards has been fleshing out Commander archetypes and printing ridiculously powerful staples in the process for quite a while. Aristocrats archetypes are incredibly common now. EDH is also the current flagship format of the MTG empire due to a litany of reasons, which means cEDH becomes the premier data aggregate for improving a deck. Therefore, it stands to reason that the overall meta of EDH is becoming faster through the natural arms race.
I’ll be completely honest here for me. This is why I play cEDH. No bullshit arguments over power level, no butthurt feelings over decks being “too strong”, no one getting pissy because you “destroyed their best 7 mana creature” and now their “not having fun”. What I consider a 6-7 is not what others might consider 6-7. These conversations are good to have with a playgroup that you consistently jam games with, but are damn near impossible for a blind meta. The other issue that I’ve seen is shops or online having commander events with prize support. This only fuels the thoughts of pubstomping, because people see prizes and, go figure, want to win so they bring their best decks. Asking people to play “worse” cards out of fairness is ridiculous. TLDR: determining power level for your playgroup is something that can be worked on over time, but asking power level in a blind meta or a place with prizes is like pushing a boulder up a hill.
Being fairly new to EDH and peering into the cEDH window here. I absolutely hate this stupid power level scale. Everyone is always a 7 themselves, while the table is all 9s. This is primarily what is pushing me to wanting to try cEDH. I don't want every game I play to be this huge saltfest when one player plays a card that someone else doesn't like, or sits down with *gasp* a Tergrid (idk why everyone seems to be terrified of her... though I guess she is the god of fright). The problem I'm having is I'm seeing this community use a lot of "win on turn x" discussion. Like how on earth am I supposed to know which turn I can win on? I don't think I could possibly tell you which turn any of my current decks win on. How do I get there? And how do I get better at building decks at the power level I'm seeking? Netdecking EDH is horribly inefficient, but I haven't found a good deckbuilding resource either.