Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Nov-13 7:57 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: cEDH should be it's own format
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-18 7:16 am 

Joined: 2019-Jul-18 7:14 am
Age: Drake
Hello! WOTC runs their MTGO Commander platform with a different list. Why is that insufficient to ease a lot of concerns? Thanks.


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cEDH should be it's own format
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-18 8:15 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
I think you're focusing way too much on the specific assessment of Thrasios and not the general trend I'm talking about. Although many of your examples prove my point further. The explicit goal of the format is to choose a commander and build a deck around it. Most cEDH decks, even the ones that do rely on the commander, go the exact opposite route. All of the partner combinations mentioned; they aren't chosen because those are the two cards you want at the helm of the deck, they just happen to be the best options out of the available color combination. Food Chain decks don't need their specific generals, they just need any 5c legendary creature which on cast gets another creature to hand. Godo and Teferi would probably not even be remotely viable if it weren't for 2-card infinite combos they create. And heck, you even mention two powerful generals suddenly becoming unviable because they lose a combo card.

And that's also not even mentioning the other ways in which cEDH very clearly conflicts with the rules of EDH. Commander damage might as well not even exist, and with the sheer abundance of tutors and "draw your whole deck" spells there might as well not even be a singleton rule. There's also the fact that the banlist is completely inconsistent with the cEDH point of view. Ignore all of the commonly complained about bans like the various Titans and Prophet and whatnot. In a format where broken shenanigans like Doomsday, Ad Nauseam, and FlashHulk are rampant, is an undercosted Time Warp spell really something that the format couldn't handle? Is Channel? Is Fastbond or even Time Vault?

All of these factors align to convince me that EDH and cEDH are not the same format. One is Elder Dragon Highlander as designed by the RC, and the other is a completely separate game that has co-opted the same rule system for the specific reason that it's easy to break.

The only way for players of both to be happy is for decisions that are made for one to not affect the other. And until that happens, the RC will (or at the very least should IMO) continue to make decisions for the format they designed, and cEDH players will feel left out and angry.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cEDH should be it's own format
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-18 8:28 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2019-Jul-16 9:21 pm
Age: Wyvern
Uktabi Kong sucks and everybody knows it. That is all.


Last edited by OldManJenkins on 2019-Jul-22 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cEDH should be it's own format
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-18 12:01 pm 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
OldManJenkins wrote:
I don’t mean to be mean about this, but I don’t think it’s fair to use your one individual experience with your LGS as a reflection of an entire community of players. 1v1 and French have their own formats that have been doing extremely well for the people who enjoy playing a more competitive one on one kind of EDH. I see no legitimate reason why that solution couldn’t work out for cEDH players as well.

My anecdote is not sufficient to to judge the entire community, which is why I also discussed the other variations in the same line. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that the other format variations are doing "extremely well".

Granted I am not invested in those communities so I dont seek out their content, but I an equally not invested in vintage, legacy or pauper, and yet by virtue of being part of the magic community I often see content about them. I dont see content about cEDH, I dont see people talking about 1v1 or French commander. What metric are you using to decide that they are successful, and successful to the extent that they could support a separate format?

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cEDH should be it's own format
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-18 12:02 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Dec-10 12:16 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
cEDHers - To foster understanding and out of curiosity* :

- Is not the point of the French Ban List to enable cEDH (or CC - Competitive Commander - as I prefer to think of it)?

- WRT "We're going to have fun by playing the best we can with the best deck we can" - What is the personal goal for the second half of that statement? i.e. Why use "the best deck you can?"
-- Would not "build casual, play competitive" not be a greater test of both your deckbuilding skills and allow better growth in playing experience?**

- Many posts mention "in paper," does that mean a lot of cEDH community is talking about playing EDH on MTGO?
-- On MTGO, do you make any effort to discuss options before the game begins or only build/join tables looking for similar games?***

- Do you also keep casual (untuned - or tuned theme) decks and choose a "lesser" deck when playing with a crowd that prefers a more relaxed game?

- What, precisely, is the draw of using EDH as a "competitive casual" format over something like Legacy Highlander? After all, Highlander (100 card, singleton) was the format from which EDH was born.



* for any/all cEDH players who want to answer

**
e.g. - anybody can win with the known combos; but can you, for example, make a viable non-infect proliferate deck? And would not something like that take greater deckbuilding skill and better playing skills?


***
My biggest gripe with "cEDH" is that my playtime is very limited, and almost exclusively MTGO. There are days when my entire allotted playtime (usually 2-3 hrs) is wasted because my casual table has at least one player trying to combo out or play cEDH type game, which results in me never finishing a game because either the casual players concede or the guy combos out before anybody else actually plays more then land. I don't want to spend my 2-3 hrs / week watching somebody else play, nor do I have the time or inclination to try to build those types of decks.

_________________
V/R

HK

Hazezon Tamar - Manland theme
Seshiro the Anointed - Snake Tribal
Jedit Ojanen of Efrava - Cat and Warrior Dual Tribal
Doran, the Seige Tower - Wall Tribal
Progenitus - Hydra themed Proliferate Deck
Karona, the False God - Backstabbing Hug


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cEDH should be it's own format
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-18 4:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2018-Nov-03 1:03 pm
Age: Wyvern
Uktabi_Kong wrote:
I think you're focusing way too much on the specific assessment of Thrasios and not the general trend I'm talking about.


You're probably right, I was just trying to clarify why Thrasios didn't fit your general trend. Got the rest of my response in the spoiler--but it's just my opinion based on what I've seen and experienced playing EDH at different powerlevels, and I don't claim to speak for anyone else in cEDH. Hopefully that, and my follow-up to Treamayne, helps clarify my thoughts some, even if you still disagree.

Quote:
Although many of your examples prove my point further. The explicit goal of the format is to choose a commander and build a deck around it. Most cEDH decks, even the ones that do rely on the commander, go the exact opposite route.


This is where I disagree with you. Although there are some "goodstuff" commanders in cEDH, there are even more that fill specific roles within decks (I'll go into more detail below). Likewise, there are "goodstuff" commanders across all parts of the EDH spectrum--heck, some commanders are just built in goodstuff machines (here's looking at you, Muldrotha). Likewise, many commanders are so integral to their respective decks that they can't just be swapped out. For instance, a Thrasios+Tymna Flash-Hulk deck could probably still function if you swapped either partner out for the other one that shares its color combination. If you swapped both out (to get Kydele+Ravos) it might still work, but wouldn't be very efficient. If you swapped partners out for Atraxa in the command zone, it'd probably work but much less efficiently. The choice of commander has a huge impact on the deck, even if they seem like "goodstuff" choices on the surface level.

Quote:
Food Chain decks don't need their specific generals, they just need any 5c legendary creature which on cast gets another creature to hand.


Here you make an assumption about the way that the cEDH Food Chain decks operate, and it's an incorrect assessment of those decks. The four major Food Chain commanders I know off the top of my head are Prossh, General Tazri, Niv-Mizzet Reborn, and First Sliver. In each case, these specific generals are chosen because they actively win the game, not because they just happen to get another creature. In the case of Prossh, it is an important combo enabler because it goes infinite off of Food Chain by itself, as well as a means to win the game via Impact Tremors or something similar. Tazri, Niv-Mizzet, and First Sliver are all outlets once a Food Chain infinite mana combo has been created (with Squee or Eternal Scourge or Misthollow Griffin), and each wins the game in different ways. Tazri specifically tutors for win conditions in certain Ally creatures, and allows you to win by triggering them an arbitrarily large number of times by recasting Tazri. Niv digs for specific cards like Sparkcaster to win the game, while First Sliver can just cascade into whatever to end up winning. Other win conditions can exist as well, like Walking Ballista (and the 5C ones usually have Lab Man as backup), but the commanders necessitate other choices as the primary lines.

Quote:
Godo and Teferi would probably not even be remotely viable if it weren't for 2-card infinite combos they create.


You're right. But most cEDH decks function off of compact combos, but a number of generals allow their own combos to exist. cEDH generals usually fall into one (or more) of three categories:

1) Generals that provide card advantage--These commanders help the player dig to a compact combo to win the game, such as Flash-Hulk or Consultation-Lab Man.

2) Generals that create a combo--Like the aforementioned Godo and Teferi, these commanders represent an important portion of a combo. A ton of commanders played in cEDH fit this category, like Gitrog Monster, Momir Vig, Yisan, mono-G Selvala, and so on.

3) Generals that provide an outlet for a combo--These generals provide a means to win once a combo like Dramatic Scepter has been assembled.

Lots of cEDH viable commanders fit into multiple groups. For example, Kess provides both card advantage as well as facilitating a combo (allowing you to Demonic Consultation twice for Lab Man and then to win). Thrasios is both card advantage and a combo outlet.

Quote:
And heck, you even mention two powerful generals suddenly becoming unviable because they lose a combo card.


You're right, I did. Tried to point out that many generals in cEDH were built around, but didn't do it well enough I guess.

Quote:
And that's also not even mentioning the other ways in which cEDH very clearly conflicts with the rules of EDH. Commander damage might as well not even exist,


I won't argue with you here, although I've rarely seen it matter in most non-cEDH games of commander as well.

Quote:
and with the sheer abundance of tutors and "draw your whole deck" spells there might as well not even be a singleton rule.


Consistency is important in playing tuned decks, which is why some borderline commanders (Naru Meha, for instance) that facilitate combos just aren't able to make the breakthrough into common adoption--but they're still fun to play! That said, choosing not to use tutors is entirely a decision you (or you and your playgroup) can make--and that's totally fine! Even with tutors, there's a lot of variance in games, and the additional decisions of what to tutor for, when to tutor for it, and why that card specifically actually create a lot of interplay in cEDH games. I know there's a lot of belief out there that cEDH games all end crazy fast, but the majority of games I've played of cEDH end after turn 10, and even the ones that end faster usually have a ton of interaction--it just happens on the stack, on the battlefield, with hands, with stax effects, and in a compressed window of time. This isn't also to say that cEDH games can't be runaways, because occasionally someone gets the nut, but it's far, faaaaar less common than one might think if they haven't dipped their toes into it (I don't know whether you have or have not, so this is intended as a general statement).

Quote:
There's also the fact that the banlist is completely inconsistent with the cEDH point of view.
.

This I fundamentally disagree with, because it presumes that cEDH is already a separate format than EDH. And it's not. To be honest, the "competitive" in cEDH is definitely a misnomer. Almost no one is playing any form of EDH with prizes on the line, and those that are generally do so in store leagues with flat-ish payouts. There's no monetary gain in playing cEDH, it's entirely for fun (I'd wager 99.99999%+ of all cEDH games have 0 stakes involved). I'd rather it be referred to as like...."tuned EDH" or something, but cEDH already has its place as the name, and tEDH sounds like some weird protein you'd find in nature. The tuned mindset isn't about stretching things beyond the currently set limits, it's about working within the limits. The banlist is a part of that.

Quote:
Ignore all of the commonly complained about bans like the various Titans and Prophet and whatnot. In a format where broken shenanigans like Doomsday, Ad Nauseam, and FlashHulk are rampant, is an undercosted Time Warp spell really something that the format couldn't handle? Is Channel? Is Fastbond or even Time Vault?


You may or may not be right about this, but I'd personally rather not explore those possibilities for any number of reasons (including my wallet).

Quote:
All of these factors align to convince me that EDH and cEDH are not the same format. One is Elder Dragon Highlander as designed by the RC, and the other is a completely separate game that has co-opted the same rule system for the specific reason that it's easy to break.


I disagree, but I doubt we'll find agreement on this portion, and that's ok.

Quote:
The only way for players of both to be happy is for decisions that are made for one to not affect the other. And until that happens, the RC will (or at the very least should IMO) continue to make decisions for the format they designed, and cEDH players will feel left out and angry.


I also think that the RC should continue to make decisions for the casual end of play. There are a couple things I think would make both ends of the spectrum better overall, and there's a single card I think could be added to the banlist with negligible impact to the more casual side but a very positive impact to the tuned side, but if nothing changes that's ok. I'm just happy that Sheldon, the rest of the RC, and the CAG are taking the time to at least hear from some of the cEDH folks--even if no changes come from it.


Treamayne wrote:
- Is not the point of the French Ban List to enable cEDH (or CC - Competitive Commander - as I prefer to think of it)?


So the French list (and Leviathan, and MTGO 1v1 lists) is designed for 1v1 EDH play. That's not what cEDH is looking for, as cEDH is still playing EDH, so it's still multiplayer. At it's heart, cEDH is still a casual format, in that the people playing it are looking to have fun with other players, rather than playing for prizes or qualifications or anything else. Although the definitions of what is fun undoubtedly differ between groups that don't want to play cEDH and groups that do, that's ok. That's why Rule 0 exists, and it's why most cEDH players seek out other cEDH players--it comes with a tacit agreement that says "we're going to have fun by doing the best we can with the best decks we can make, and then we'll shuffle up and do it again. No salt, please".

Quote:
- WRT "We're going to have fun by playing the best we can with the best deck we can" - What is the personal goal for the second half of that statement? i.e. Why use "the best deck you can?"


That part of this statement, which is entirely my own interpretation of a cEDH credo, is based on the idea that EDH is the best format for playing powerful cards together in interesting ways, and I (and other cEDH players I've played with) specifically want to do that. It's not that we don't also enjoy playing less powerful cards (in fact, almost all cEDH players I've met play less powerful EDH games pretty often), it's just that we also derive enjoyment from crazy stack interactions and the interplay of trying to stop 3 other players from going off while trying to go off yourself.

Quote:
-- Would not "build casual, play competitive" not be a greater test of both your deckbuilding skills and allow better growth in playing experience?**


As mentioned above, many players who enjoy cEDH also enjoy less-than-cEDH power games as well. cEDH is just one slice of the pie.

Quote:
- Many posts mention "in paper," does that mean a lot of cEDH community is talking about playing EDH on MTGO?


Because most communities have small or non-existent cEDH groups, many people who enjoy playing cEDH choose to do so online via webcam or third-party software. In fact, one of the largest cEDH content creation groups (the Lab Maniacs) films almost all of their gameplay footage via webcam and meet-up software due to the members living across the globe. I can't speak to the MTGO question because I've never played EDH on MTGO, nor do I know anyone who has.


Quote:
- Do you also keep casual (untuned - or tuned theme) decks and choose a "lesser" deck when playing with a crowd that prefers a more relaxed game?


Answered above, but yeah, absolutely.

Quote:
- What, precisely, is the draw of using EDH as a "competitive casual" format over something like Legacy Highlander? After all, Highlander (100 card, singleton) was the format from which EDH was born.


I think I've gotten to this in a couple places too, but for me (and others I know) it boils down to:
1) Being a social, multiplayer format, which brings new challenges and gameplay to the fore
2) Being able to play cards that are powerful or create interesting gameplay that might otherwise be unavailable (Hermit Druid, for instance)
3) Since cEDH is still EDH, most players at the tuned high power level started with a lower power level deck and either upgraded it over time, or fell in love with the higher power possibilities for whatever reason they have (or some combination of both)

_________________
Survivor of the EDH 32 Challenge.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cEDH should be it's own format
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-18 4:54 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-Jul-18 9:59 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
HoffOccultist - that is an incredibly well put together answer. I'd like to basically quote the whole thing and agree with all of it, but let's not and say I did, OK? That's not sarcasm. I mean it. I'm not a cEDH player at all but just by reading your post I've got a much better idea of the mindset of a cEDH player and of the style of play involved. Well done.

I think, for the purposes of other 10-page monstrosities that are floating around on this site, that this is the MOST relevant line:

HoffOccultist wrote:
I'm just happy that Sheldon, the rest of the RC, and the CAG are taking the time to at least hear from some of the cEDH folks--even if no changes come from it.

Which is something I think a lot of other posters are missing.

_________________
"Degenerate, unfun decks generally come from degenerate, unfun players in my experience." - Cthulus Thrall

"- if this spell is played ten times in a given game then I suggest you warm up the tar and pluck some chickens" - tarnar

The internet's great at making noise, and poor at operating pants. There's gonna be half-dressed mobs screeching half-assed arguments for the rest of the 21st century - Kemev


Top
 Online Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cEDH should be it's own format
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-22 12:56 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Jan-06 10:25 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Seattle
Would breaking cEDH off to it's own format, with their own banlist, and perhaps some fundamental deckbuilding/rules/commander damage changes make it easier to differentiate when sitting down at a table? Seems like it would at least help with the one cEDH player wrecking the three casual player's game. Do vintage players try to play vintage decks in a Modern group?

Other than not having a group prepared to take on the responsibility and work required, what would the drawbacks be?

_________________
Glissa, the Traitor -> Voltron
Mayael the Anima -> Flopping Fatties
Phenax, God of Deception -> Grave Rats
Starke of Rath -> Wrath of Starke: MRC

Proving Grounds: Drawmia-maro, Titania When Lands Attack, Tromokratis Read it Again, Kaalia's Klerics, Hordes of Tribes.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cEDH should be it's own format
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-22 1:32 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Dec-03 3:16 am
Age: Elder Dragon
scatteredsun wrote:
Would breaking cEDH off to it's own format, with their own banlist, and perhaps some fundamental deckbuilding/rules/commander damage changes make it easier to differentiate when sitting down at a table? Seems like it would at least help with the one cEDH player wrecking the three casual player's game. Do vintage players try to play vintage decks in a Modern group?

Other than not having a group prepared to take on the responsibility and work required, what would the drawbacks be?


Only other one I can think about is splintering the community, but I would say it is already pretty divided.

I have played my Vintage deck vs. whatever people bring (which ended up being Modern or Standard decks) as that was the only way I could break it out, people just don't play paper Vintage. I wsa upfront on what I was playing and sometimes even did a 3v1 from the get go game. I didn't always win, even when I t1 killed someone. And that is likely to happen when a cEDH player plays against 3-4 competent but more casual players as well.j

As far as the cEDH player wrecking traditional EDH games I think that is just going to happen no matter what people try to do, but we can certainly get better at communication and limit the amount that it happens. I know the 75% movement has probably helped and so maybe we need to set more tangible goal posts?

I have built decks in the past that I thought would be closer to casual but ended up being oppressive and I have build decks expecting them to be top tier and found them to be less than optimal (like when I built a mostly creatureless Kraum, Ludevic's Opus/Vial Smasher the Fierce deck, when he was legal for 1v1) but got wrecked by everybody.

_________________
Shabbaman wrote:
The usual answer is "the social contract", but I guess that is not what you are looking for. Try house rules.


With perfect mana, reasonable removal, disruption, and card advantage, we're back to pitchforks and torches. And it's about to get worse for those who do not enjoy the game as Richard Garfield intended, playing as few win conditions as possible and prompting concession after all hopes (and spells) are lost. - Shaheen Soorani


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cEDH should be it's own format
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-22 1:59 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2018-Nov-03 1:03 pm
Age: Wyvern
scatteredsun wrote:
Would breaking cEDH off to it's own format, with their own banlist, and perhaps some fundamental deckbuilding/rules/commander damage changes make it easier to differentiate when sitting down at a table? Seems like it would at least help with the one cEDH player wrecking the three casual player's game. Do vintage players try to play vintage decks in a Modern group?

Other than not having a group prepared to take on the responsibility and work required, what would the drawbacks be?


I'd expect that the issue of someone stomping a table with a much higher powered deck wouldn't really be fixed at all unless the RC chose to add a lot of cards to the current banlist (which seems incredibly unlikely to happen)--instead it'd just give those same players the excuse that "well, it's not a cEDH deck because it's not using the cEDH banlist/rules/etc".

There's also the idea of splitting the format being a longevity issue. Tiny Leaders is pretty much gone, Brawl's first run was a swing and a miss even with WotC backing (we'll see how this second attempt goes), there are so many different 1v1 Commander ban lists and rules set ups that it's hard to keep track of...splinter formats don't do as well. And while EDH started as a splinter format, it's a huge thing now--but that doesn't happen overnight.

As for a group, the EDH RC works because it's (mostly) the same group of people that originated the format. That comes with built-in authority on what the format is, to a certain extent, even if people disagree with some choices. There's no group for cEDH that has that level of inherent authority. There are popular content creators, but there's not necessarily any consensus that they'd be the best choice to run things--and those are the major faces of the format. Likewise, most of those groups also don't want to split formats, so there's not really a major desire to do so. At the end of the day, cEDH players are still playing EDH, just choosing to do so with tuned lists and a implicit agreement that games between those decks are played to be as tight as possible, and that's how the fun is derived.

_________________
Survivor of the EDH 32 Challenge.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cEDH should be it's own format
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-24 1:00 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Jan-06 10:25 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Seattle
While I agree that it won't completely fix power level mismatches. I still think it would at least help keep those incidents down. At this point, only a banlist would separate the two and I bet most cedh decks could be slotted into an EDH game with no changes but add in some fundamental change and you'd have something to point to and say "that's a cedh deck." I've heard cedh folk talk about changing amount of commander damage or tweaking the CI rule or allowing planeswalkers as generals, etc.

As for splintering, I think having a cedh identity would smooth the edges of the current split.

I don't know, interesting thoughts but it needs someone to step up and start the process of organizing it. I think there are some folk (Cameron and co.) that could possibly get it rolling but good points were made about tiny leaders (I still have my elf deck!) and brawl.

_________________
Glissa, the Traitor -> Voltron
Mayael the Anima -> Flopping Fatties
Phenax, God of Deception -> Grave Rats
Starke of Rath -> Wrath of Starke: MRC

Proving Grounds: Drawmia-maro, Titania When Lands Attack, Tromokratis Read it Again, Kaalia's Klerics, Hordes of Tribes.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cEDH should be it's own format
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-29 2:28 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-May-09 10:39 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Duel Commander is what I see as cEDH.
It's 1 v 1, 20 life, has its subset banned list, works perfectly for my cEDH needs.

_________________
Generals:
Jasmine Boreal - Flower power! Nature/Justice/Retribution themed casual fun.
Radha, Heir to Keld - All white-bordered!
Xantcha, Sleeper Agent - cEDH discard/attrition.
Pre-Modern:
A Denying Wind.
Duel Commander:
Nissa, Vastwoord Seer - Ramp ramp ramp into Ugin+Painter's Servant.
Kari Zev, Skyship Raider - Unbridled Aggro

Find me Saturdays at the Wizard's Tower - Ottawa and occasional Mondays at Westboro Legion for Duel Commander.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cEDH should be it's own format
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-29 3:05 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2014-Jul-28 8:30 am
Age: Dragon
CrazyPierre wrote:
Duel Commander is what I see as cEDH.
It's 1 v 1, 20 life, has its subset banned list, works perfectly for my cEDH needs.


I personally enjoy multiplayer competitive games more than 1 v 1. It's more of a test of skill when you're trying to eke out a win against three other players who are all trying to do the same. If EDH is battle cruiser magic, cEDH is the dogfight happening in the skies above. To blur my metaphor a bit, cEDH is like trying to strafe a Star Destroyer all by yourself against multiple TIE fighters. Plus, cards and strategies that are good in 1 v 1 don't always translate to multiplayer and vice versa.

_________________
specter404 wrote:
Basically, when it comes to commander, I want you to stab me through the heart, not cut off my balls.

Gath Immortal wrote:
Twenty Kavus and a Dream is not a legacy deck.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cEDH should be it's own format
AgePosted: 2019-Jul-29 10:35 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2010-May-09 10:39 am
Age: Elder Dragon
I will respectfully disagree.
I see cEDH more as who can hit the exhaust port as quickly as possible without anyone else doing anything about it. When all four players are on the same task, it's about who gets to the medal podium first.

That's why unless the RC is going to track event results (near impossible, as few report cEDH events to MTGTOp8), it's better to maybe design a product card here and there for the format, but just let the group thrive on its merits.

_________________
Generals:
Jasmine Boreal - Flower power! Nature/Justice/Retribution themed casual fun.
Radha, Heir to Keld - All white-bordered!
Xantcha, Sleeper Agent - cEDH discard/attrition.
Pre-Modern:
A Denying Wind.
Duel Commander:
Nissa, Vastwoord Seer - Ramp ramp ramp into Ugin+Painter's Servant.
Kari Zev, Skyship Raider - Unbridled Aggro

Find me Saturdays at the Wizard's Tower - Ottawa and occasional Mondays at Westboro Legion for Duel Commander.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cEDH should be it's own format
AgePosted: 2019-Aug-01 11:46 am 

Joined: 2019-Aug-01 4:00 am
Age: Wyvern
CrazyPierre wrote:
I will respectfully disagree.
I see cEDH more as who can hit the exhaust port as quickly as possible without anyone else doing anything about it. When all four players are on the same task, it's about who gets to the medal podium first.

That's why unless the RC is going to track event results (near impossible, as few report cEDH events to MTGTOp8), it's better to maybe design a product card here and there for the format, but just let the group thrive on its merits.


Upvote


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Viperion and 37 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: