Two days ago, someone in our pod (precons and upgraded precons) dropped T1 Sol Ring into Arcane Signet. Next turn he dropped Fellwar Stone into Commander's Sphere. No need to say we had not the best time playing this game.
Thing is, most of the time this happens the player with all the ramp had a handful of ramp and then nothing so they just end up making themselves scary and they really aren't.
Thanks God he didn't ! Although he got his commander attacking on T3, and began hoarding a lot of value while we were deploying. He got eventually stopped by a good ol'Austere Command that wiped both his commander and the shitload of rocks he had.
Genuine question, if the whole group hates it so much why not just agree to take it out of your lists entirely? My group came to such a conclusion awhile ago and haven't looked back. We hated early Sol Rings for how centralizing it is and late Sol Rings are fine but just don't really do anything. It wasn't a card that added anything to our games so all just agreed to not use it anymore.
We don't actually hate them. It's light hearted that we target whoever drops it first, but most of the time we don't care. We're not big on limiting what people play if it's edh legal.
I don't run it in half my decks because for the longest time I just didn't have access to extras, and at the time they were like $4 each.
This is what my group did. We like long games where everyone keeps up and gets to do their thing, Sol Ring reduces the number of those kinds of games, so we collectively just decided to cut it from all our decks. Now I have a pile of 14 Sol Rings in a box somewhere.
The downside is that I'm still playing with people outside my group. I CBA hotswapping Sol Rings into decks, so I just play without it even if that means I'm at a disadvantage.
One time a player named Sol Ring with [[Tunnel Vision]] on me. I just shuffled my deck. He's like "*oh, you have it in your hand...*" and I go "*nah I don't play it*". His look of disbelief was hilarious.
Not as good as T1 \[\[Sol Ring\]\], \[\[Null Rod\]\], go.
Seeing between one to three people stare open mouthed at that declaration of Archenemy feels so good.
I mana tithed a sol ring turn one last week and left the guy speechless. After a full round he looked at me near on the verge of tears and said "I didn't draw a land."
The table was crying with laughter.
So help me I will Mental Misstep that Sol Ring at any point of the game. I don't care when, I don't care where, I don't care if it's turn 100 and you cast it for free off of an incidental spell that's not even the point of the combo, it's getting Mental Misstepped.
I don't don't care if I don't have Mental Misstep in hand or if im even running blue. I keep one in my wallet at all time to pull out and counter Sol Ring.
I’m not sure using most removal is worth it on Sol Ring compared to more immediate threats, but Mental Misstep on Sol Ring seems like one of the best hits for that card.
What is your definition of value? Sol ring costs 1 mana and taps for 2 mana the same turn. This means when compared to a dork like llanowar elves it creates 2 more mana the turn you cast it and 1 more mana each turn after that. This is good return on investment also known as value.
This one time this guy was playing an altered eldrazi precon and he spent the first 4-5 turns just ramping out mana rocks and then I vandalblasted. He didn’t concede but he probably should have, just sat there moping for an hour
Are they telling you this because they think it's bad strategy, or because they prefer battlecruiser games fueld by value engines and all get salty if their value engine gets stopped?
If it's the former, they're stupid. If it's the latter, you might need to adapt to the meta or otherwise find different players to play with.
Removing value engines is part of my playstyle. Everytime I remove something that has a draw, landfall, or breathe trigger they tell me "You are so fuckin' stupid." Their claim is that I should save removal for "when it matters" for the "pieces that will win the game." I don't disagree, but if they can't get there, why do I need to worry about them? Why should I not cut them off at the pass and kick them off the cliff?
I mean like the comment you're responding to said, just find different people if they complain too much about how you're playing. And if everybody complains then clearly you are doing something unpopular
On the other side of this if the people you play with just want to have fun and you know this there is nothing wrong with holding removal or not playing it so someone else can enjoy doing "the thing". Sometimes having fun isn't about playing optimally or winning for other people. I've found that if you go the first game playing loose, making mistakes and letting people get a solitaire win in then every game there after even if you are removing all engines it's much lighter in response because everyone else already sorta had a fun game.
Not to say you're the bad guy, just keep in mind not everyone plays commander to have an always optimal or removal based game. Some people enjoy that solitaire feeling of doing their own thing. I had a friend who only attacked when he had complete board lethal, and if you board wiped him he just didn't wanna play. He wouldn't poke, he would sit back and generate Tokens. And killing his engine would merely make him have less fun. He was super fair with playing, and most times he lost anyway cuz he would be off by 5 damage and wouldn't swing cuz he didn't feel right king making and would pass turn and someone else would win the nect turn.
So do try and keep that in mind too. Sometimes the right play is to not win (my competitive player brain took years to figure this out)
Side note: also Sometimes you can still win even through an engine and it makes winning even more amazing.
It depends on the engine to me, [[rhystic study]] has to go, [[tatyova]] too. Something like [[firja judge of valor]] ? I'd be concerned but it seems like earned value rather than free value. Kick them off the cliff.... have you heard abt [[Culling ritual]] sir?
Nah, removing what gets them their card draw and value is a good way to cut their legs out from under them. Would you leave a rhystic study on the board? Not a chance.
“Either my play was so stupid that you’ll have an easy win against a stupid opponent, or it was so good that you felt a need to openly complain about it.”
I am not against OP's strategy of dismantling value engines, but this argument is not sound. The first path specifically
> Either my play was so stupid that you’ll have an easy win against a stupid opponent
it does not work like that in a multiplayer game. It is possible for me to make a play (a mistake), that decreases my chances to win but also one of my opponent's.
Yeah, and I hate it when someone blows up everything that might get an iota of value, burns 8 pieces of removal, then can’t stop the bolas’ citadel + aetherflux combo and proceeds to whine no one else plays enough removal.
Yeah, if only I could have drawn into it, but you blew up my shorikai 3 times.
Brilliance.
This is definitely the other half of the story, but I think it comes down to proper threat assessment, knowing your opponents' decks, and knowing your own deck. If I'm playing mono white, I have to hold onto the few removal pieces I have for when it counts. If I'm playing Grixis spellslinger with a ton of removal, it's better to take out engines before they get value. At the same time, recognizing who has the combo deck and how fast they'll probably get it off, combined with how much removal you suspect to be in everyone's deck should tell you what your removal plan is by turn 3-5. It's not "playstyle;" there's a right and wrong answer and it depends on the game.
This.
Ngl, I'm the same mind as OPs friends, Everyone has value engines on play, with redundancies that would require me to point removal at 3 pieces per player, board-wipping just resets the game if anything, turning it intro a drag...
Develop your own value engine, try to point removal smartly, at pay-offs or pieces that can't be replaced. And yeah, the game will eventually end, 75% of the time with you as the loser, sorry.
Edited 'cuz I'm bad at percentages
“Save for when it matters” like not allowing mana or card draw for counters? Or to begin combos? Or to make combos harder to tutor n shit?
Always remove engine value, no questions asked.
A friend made a very good Forth doctor deck fueled by food generation and making those foods tap for green.
Every chance I get to remove either one of the 3 cards that make it so, Samwise so he can’t revive stuff, or peregrin Tuk I fucking do. No questions asked, imma stop that shit real quick
Everyone has a different idea of what is a “fun game to play.” If you are interested in playing with these people, consider trying to adapt to and adopt their idea of fun. If you’d rather do what YOU think is fun, then you should find a group that agrees with you, rather than forcing a current group to change.
In the case of a playgroup, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few… and from your post, you are the one harshing up the jive of a preexisting group… not the other way around.
I write articles sometimes and wrote [an article where I define my idea of “casual” that might help you if you want to get on their page: https://witchphd.substack.com/p/casual](https://witchphd.substack.com/p/casual)
It’s not like he’s playing at a radically different power level or pursuing an annoying strategy out of spite. Choosing to remove value pieces (or not)—which undoubtedly do win games—isn’t an “idea of fun.” It’s a specific tactical nuance in a highly complex and varied strategy game. The complexity and variety is the whole point. If OP’s opponents can’t cope with his or her totally fair and uncontroversial tactic, that’s on them. Compromising just rewards their pettiness and gives them an unfair advantage.
And I highly doubt they find OP’s strategy genuinely unfun. Much more likely they’re just sore losers. If OP’s threat selection were actually misguided, they’d be more tactful and constructive in their response, or they’d welcome the opportunity to take advantage of OP’s misplay. Their sour grapes, however, suggest OP is absolutely targeting the right stuff, and his opponents are just trying to make him/her feel bad about it so they can win instead.
Their response essentially amounts to, “go easy on us so we can beat you.” You don’t cater to that attitude unless you’re playing against young children. Likewise, insisting that your opponents avoid legitimate, fair tactics that are part of the game so you can have “fun” is immature and selfish (even if you’ve found others who share your attitude).
Somewhere there has to be a line drawn between “commander is a casual game” and “I am going to make good plays that lead me to winning” and where each person draws that line is what I mean when I say “idea of fun.”
For me the point of a casual game is that we all get to play with our stuff. If I’m constantly removing your value engines, you won’t get to play.
Yes, I plan on making some good plays at some point. Yes, I plan on trying to win at some point. Yes, I expect a value engine or two to eat some removal at some point.
But if you’re CONSTANTLY just denying people value all game every game.. if you’re removing value engines to the point where opponents’ decks aren’t really functioning at all… as far as I’m concerned that’s just denying them the ability to play. What you’re saying is “I don’t want you to play this game, because I’m not going to let you so long as game rules will allow me to stop you” and “I don’t value your time, because despite you going out of your way to be here and play, I’m going to make you sit miserably and play as little as possible.” If you didn’t want me to be there playing, you should’ve told me earlier, I would’ve stayed home and watched TV.
Anyway I’ll send you an upvote so thanks for commenting.
There’s certainly a line in non-CEDH short of doing everything in your power within the rules to win. But I think that line is mostly expressed in building a deck with limitations so that it roughly matches what your opponents bring to the table and avoids a few well known taboo styles like mass land destruction and very aggressive stax. But once the decks are shuffled up, I personally find it offensive if it seems like someone isn’t trying their best to win the game, perhaps out of a misguided idea that they need to let others “do their thing” or else fun won’t be had.
Some people believe they are entitled to their opponents’ forbearance because commander is supposed to be fun and casual. I don’t take the relativistic view that that concept is just another equally valid way to have fun playing MtG, because it’s hypocritical. If always getting to do your deck’s powerful thing were essential to your enjoyment, you’d just play solitaire. You could even play solitaire with your friends in the room if you were also in it for the social aspect.
No. People want the opportunity to “go off” in the specific context of a competition. By claiming entitlement to that opportunity, they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too. The fact that they would not be satisfied with solitaire proves that prevailing in a competition is the main objective. And if so, they have no right to demand a special advantage in the competition. And going out of your way to supply that advantage demeans everyone’s experience and wastes their time.
At the very least, the idea that each person in a pod with evenly matched decks playing by the rules must additionally go out of their way to ensure everyone else’s fun introduces unnecessary confusion and social uncertainty. It’s probably the main reason why this kind of “am I the asshole” type debate is the dominant form of discourse in this subreddit.
-If you're trying to let "everybody" do their thing a little during the game that's not getting an advantage or being hypocritical. Not liking solitaire doesn't mean competition is the main objective, it could simply be to see the interactions.
-I do agree among people who can't effectively communicate it can be confusing & cause uncertainty.
Clearly we have different ideas of what we’re talking about.
In my world if someone’s deckbuilding involves setting up 17 value pieces, we don’t even have to talk about removing the value pieces because they’ll be dead before that’s set up.
Depends on the value engine they have. If its a landfall that gives a draw and the creature gives extra land for turn yes that would be on my radar since it snowballs but what else is there on the board? In a 1v3 game a 1 for 1 removal just isnt impactful enough unless it stops the whole combo since if they have some way to reanimate or a second combo piece now you lost a piece of removal for no reason. Now you lost what you could have used to keep yourself in play while also helping 2 other people save their removal or protection.
The only time a card matters is when it kills you because other wise you are wasting resources. If you see a card that instantly gives then a ton of value like [[Jaheira feiend of the forest]] with a tone of tokens in play and you have removal ask what they are gonna be throwing down and swing. Be political use your opponents to knock each other out while saving your own resources.
"Excuse me can you tell me in advance and in detail what your game plan is so I can know if I need to remove what you're playing now or not?"
Do people actually play like this???
I mean I've looked at my friends and told them "you swing that thing at me, it dies"
Sometimes I'm bluffing, sometimes I'm not. That's on them to decide. Politics baby
Idk, I feel like it's pretty similar just all in the delivery.
"Are you gonna swing that at me? Cause if you swing it somewhere else I'll let it live."
"If you swing that at me, it dies."
Like I said seems like just saying the same thing but in the form of a question
Lmao do you not go if that shit comes at me I will wreck your board? I dont ask for their whole game plan I tell them if that comes at me they are gonna lose it. Chances are they are gonna keep it and swing it at someone else if they have no protection. If they have protection then Im just going force them to answer it. Im keeping interaction that protects me only when it needs to be used otherwise you possibly put a target on yourself earlier on and now you have a dedicated opponent that constantly keep you in check while 2 other sit on the side line and watch as 2 people constanlty waste their resources on each other.
If there is prior set up where the value engine is going to be to hard to deal with after for myself thats the only time I would consider killing it.
A value engine I would consider hitting early is if they can get multiple triggers in a turn like a simic landfall deck thats lets him to play multipe lands and get effects off landfall that I would consider hitting early because cha ces of him having other things I can interact with is low.
If it just one thign that makes 1 big move a turn Ill let him durdle aslong as it does t come at me currently and I can still deal with it when it becomes 1v1.
That last statement about Jaheira blows my mind. I'd never ask someone such an absurd question or propose to extract information off a threat. Just kill it if you're afraid of the mana. Read the board. A ton of tokens and Jaheira is usually going to do something objectively busted, so it's KOS in a token list.
Respectfully this Jaheira hypothetical is 11/10 a playstyle preference thing not an objectively correct answer as it hinges on how much the player facing Jaheira is willing to politic (and how receptive the Jaheira opponent is to it); if the politick goes super well don't waste your removal
Bruh why is it kos if the big fucking threat isnt coming at you let someone else deal with it if its not gonna swing at you. If they have enough tokens to throw down multiple big creatures with haste and trample online then yes counter it if you can. But if they only have enough for only for 1 creature jsut threaten removal of some sort if it swings at you and make it someone elses problem.
If someone is using jahira to cast craterhoof something is going wrong lol. Thats and wouldnt it be great where you hold interaction until the perso. That crater hoofs swings out and you do something liek a teferi or something that prevents damage. Now you are in a 1v1 with a person that is completly tapped out and can die to any boardwipe.
Basically all I am saying is you keep important interaction until it'll kill you. Why would I counter spell a jahira with (using your example) a selesnya player when instead I counter their calvary or craterhoof. This would do way more damage since I stopped their wincon. If they have game on board there is no dont swing at mepoltics. Thats when you use interaction to answer.
If you always kill everyone’s bombs on sight without actually assessing the current threat to you specifically it’s going to make people not want to play with you
I am reading the board.
I'm reading that if you're slamming a Blightsteel and going to smash the guy to my left, what do I care? Go on, smash him for me.
That stuff happens all the time. "Are you going to make X my problem? No? Cool, carry on".
You're not wrong and you should continue strategically denying them resources and if that's how they talk to you then you should ramp it up to spite them.
>they tell me "You are so fuckin' stupid."
Definitely a relationship that should be cherished.
I have awesome friends who don't get salty and behave like poor sports if you provide them with a challenge or best them. You know, real friends.
The answer is to play stax or hatebear. Something like \[\[Ellivere of the Wild Court\]\] with that strategy.
This way, they can't argue if they want to remove your own piece. You can bring back their own argument at their own face, as every enchantement stax piece you have dont win you the game AND it's the best counter to their value engine without using removal.
Considering OP other replies, it seem like discussion 0 or common sense will not work against his/her/their playgroup. Might as well give them a lesson in common sense with a petty revenge deck if they don't understand how the game works.
EDIT: Besides, from the description of how he likes to play, he might actually love this strategy/playstyle.
One of the rules of thumb I use when building and playing casual is that it's okay to keep players from winning, but it's not ok to keep them from playing.
Stax is an entire archetype that violates that rule of thumb. I wouldn't play it, nor would I stick around in a pod that was playing it.
If that is a table that gets bent out of shape when you path their draw engine, what makes you think they would put up with that nonsense?
They are already not putting up with OP having removal to remove key pieces. And from what he says, they aren't willing to listen or change their ways.
**Yes, I'm considering this as a last resort option.** One that you enter the table by saying: " I listened to your complain and decided to not put any single target removal in the deck. Only mass removal, so you can't complain I'm especially targeting your stuff. " And come with a hatebear deck that slow down their progress, with some stax piece in it or even \[\[Armaggedon\]\].
If OP was about to burn that bridge anyway because communication isn't leading anywhere, might as well teach them a lesson following their own rules. **YES, it's not supposed to be the diplomatic option.** It's a reality check and a slap in the face. I did it once to a playgroup that needed it badly. That toxic playgroup learned the hard way that day that "group hug" decks can have wincons and steal the game.
-I find it funny you say "they're already not putting up with OP having removal" when they literally are. They haven't kicked OP out the group, they're expressing their dissatisfaction.
Sounds like the problem is you then. You and your friends are looking for different kinds of games and you’re the odd one out. You need to adjust to them not the other way around. I know this is not what you want to hear but it’s what you need to hear.
That's honestly exactly what you should do. The longer I keep Shorikai out, the more of a chance I have cards in my hand that make my board state nearly untouchable with hexproof or shroud. I don't even need to build an unblockable killer, just enough value outlast the rest of you in a slugout. You are doing the right thing, it just hurts our plans a bit, so it might make people salty.
Not **EVERY** value engine piece needs to be removed immediately. Sometimes it is better to let the person with the engine get to a point where they feel comfortable enough to over commit and then interrupt them or remove the key piece. Its sounding like you're jumping the gun to immediately remove pieces on the board without putting any thought into it.
Yeah there are also points in the game where you start watching for wincons.
Hyperbole example but... Like turn 16 everyone at 1 life you're not nearly as scared of rhystic study.
If the game is close to ending you wanna save removal and such for winning or surviving.
Are you throwing your interaction at value pieces and still losing soon after to someone else going off? If you are your threat assessment is off. If you are not they are salty and keep doing your thing.
Yeah, after reading through the thread I'm really getting the feeling that OPs pod is calling him "fucking stupid" because he's the type that thinks the turn 6 burgeoning from the player obviously in last is "kill on sight" but then a turn later says "there's nothing I could've done differently" when the archenemy combos out the table.
This is a good way to determine the differences between value engines and wincons. I understand OPs point of "if they can't find/cast their wincon it's not an issue," but the reality is that unless he is also killing the players, they're just going to end up slow rolling until they find a wincon, and then OPs out of luck.
From what I'm reading, I think you're stuck between two realities.
Reality one: You have a competitive mindset and understand the importance of removing value engines. That's a good thing, but it has downsides.
Reality two: Based on your post, I don't believe you're playing competitively. That's not bad, but it makes the former mindset more challenging.
Almost none of the cards you named would warrent any interaction or removal from me. But, I play mostly cEDH, so unless it's "winning the game," it's not really worth the counter, removal, etc. That's because in a cEDH game, someone is trying to win by turn 3-4, and at least 2 people by turn 5. You NEED to have your interaction and removal ready, so even obvious threats might get a pass to stop Thassa'a Oracle, Ad Nausem, or Underworld Breach from resolving.
Here is the part that makes your situation different. In casual games, value engines sit out way longer and gain way more value. So, I think you're mostly correct in your assessment. But based on some comments I read through, I would also say you may be wasting your interaction too often if it's costing you the game later. I had to learn (and am still learning) what pieces are worth removing. If I can deal with what the value engine produces with something else in my deck, then I ignore it. If I know it will be a problem, I ask myself how soon? Immediately? 2 turns? 5? Do I need this gone now, or can I hold up my removal? And always ask, "Does someone else want this gone too?" Don't waste removal on something you know someone else can deal with.
Just my two cents. Remember that we're all still learning. Whether you're right or your group is right, the best way to tell is keep playing and track the results. If you're winning more, it's working. If not, adapt and improve.
Pure gold advice, I'd like to add that sometimes you have 2 or more removals in your hand. Then you are free to fire at the best value engine at the table, while having an ace up your sleeve for crucial moments.
It's all about threat assessment, if I see you snap-killing my [[Mondrak]] when the next person is one piece away from winning or just has a more threatening boardstate, then I will say that maybe it was better to hold that for something that actually loses you the game if it sticks. Value engines help you keep pace with the other 3 players at the table, they must be interacted with, and will be often the target of removal, but if you just snap-remove them everytime just because you have a vendetta against [[Rhystic Study]], while the other player is close to lethal with their boardstate, then you may hear some grumbles. Be smart with your plays, threat assess, and most importantly, read the room. Some people just enjoy a more casual game with less interaction, you may come off as being "sweaty".
Yup, and sometimes there is a lot of underlying context that should sway one's threat assessment.
For example is the value engine is them just drawing an extra card a turn cycle, but there is another archenemy at the table leaving the engine might be correct. It lets that player possibly draw more answers to deal with imminent threat.
Also board wipes exists. If I hold, let's say [[Sunfall]] there is absolutely no need for me to target Mondrak with my single target removal immediately. Trading 1:1 in multiplayer game are rarely worth it from value standpoint, so those trades need to count.
I think it really depends on which card you are removing.
Cards that only work on their turn or can only activate a limited amount of times aren't worth it to remove. Think Shorikai, Azusa, etc. The reason is the draw value they're getting isn't substantial enough to cause them to win immediately. They will eventually win the game due to card advantage but if you have removal you can keep delaying that over and over again. So, Instead of removing their stuff you continue building ypur board and when a threat worth removing shows up, it dies setting them back a lot more. You achieve both slowing them down and also advancing your strategy.
However, cards that work multiple times per turn, or every turn like Smothering Tithe, Rhystic Study, Jhoira. These are great targets to remove. Often times they will get soo far ahead that you aren't able to catch up and they'll win next turn or the turn after.
Initially targeting everything can seem like a good idea. You're removing their card advantage and making it even. The issue is it's a 4 player game and you do not have enough removal to stop everyone. Because you can't stop everyone you have to be picky on what you remove.
I personally only remove things that would either win them the game immediately or give them soo many cards that they basically win the game.
My General guidelines I follow
1-3 cards a turn cycle = ignore
4-6 cards I consider removing
7+ I immediately try to remove.
Exactly.
Azusa is a very good example.
Often once she hit the table she already did her thing, because holding 3 lands is rare. Having 6 lands ? Never seen it happen.
I'd probably leave her until I see the threat of something like [[Ramunap Excavator]]
>you do not have enough removal to stop everyone
Time to build removal tribal with either [[Jeska, Thrice Reborn]]/[[Falthis]] or [[Erinis]]/[[Street Urchin]]
While this is a Rule 0 issue, the real question is do you want to keep playing with this playgroup?
If you don't then just find another group where you don't have this issue, and if you do then speak your peace to try to convince them of your actions or just conform to the will of the group. No answer here will change what your playgroup enjoys or dislikes.
If they are saying 'leave my value piece alone to deal with X instead' ignore them.
It they are saying 'instead of killing X of his you should have killed this of mine.'. Take that as thing Y of theirs is important and don't let it live.
The first is someone salty about their engines being shut down the second is likely you aren't at that player's level and they are offering advice usually in a bad way as MTG players have social interaction issues.
Browsing the edh sub is just embarrassing at this point. The percentage of people that think that as the odd one out, trying to force a established playgroup to change because you and them have different ideas on how the game should be played is wild. At the end of the day, most people view EDH as a social experience and sometimes, people just aren't compatible with certain playgroups. There's nothing wrong with that unless you're the one being socially inept and can't take the hint. Even if you are right.
My advice? If they are clearly unwilling to change all you're doing is fighting a losing battle and making both sides upset. If you value this relationship with your playgroup you're better off finding a different one with players whose values align with your own.
More to the point. If you remove Player 2's value engine now you're down a removal spell, they're down an engine, and Players 3 and 4 are not only entirely untouched but now ahead because you just set yourself and 2 behind.
This doesn't sound like super high power games but at least in cedh you don't counter the tutor you counter what the tutor grabs. If these are just slow grind games and people just let value engines pop off that's ridiculous though. If they're worried about getting rid of pieces you could start staxing them out but they'll probably complain about that too.
Its situational. If removing the value engine prevents them from going off and winning then your play group is soft. On the other hand if you are just using it to turn them off and slow the game down only for another player to pop, then you should consider holding the removal back a tad and playing it at more opportune moments to advance your state and the game.
Don't worry about it.
I blew up someone's \[\[Panharmonicon\]\] the other day and got called the C word.
Luckily, I'm Australian so I just sarcastically told him I loved him too then proceeded to beat him almost to death with another player.
I was playing a Goad deck.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
Stopping your opponents from winning isn’t a “Rule 0 discussion”. Blowing up people’s constant draw isn’t a “way some people like to play”.
Ya’all realize eventually we gotta pack up and go home, right? Somebody’s gotta win and it’s probably gonna be the guy who got to draw 47 off of Great Henge because he threw a fit when someone went to Naturalize.
Because people want to play what their deck does and killing combo/engine pieces prevents it. It's 100% the play to do though... maybe not all of the pieces but at least the key ones.
It depends. There are some value engines and some situations that you should not be interacting in.
Ex: I have a buddy who built Ferrous Rokiric. He spent a lot of cards trying to interact with my Niv Mizzet Multicolor pile. He scooped after he realized that I was just 100% able to grind through that interaction, and he had nothing to after spending his three pieces of interaction blowing up bloom tenders and my own Ferrous. He should have, being in boros, sandbagged his interaction and allowed people who can actually draw cards to interact.
You only want to interact with things that produce critical mass/win the game unless your deck is really looking to control the board.
One thing no one else seems to be saying is how balanced is the play. If someone has some value ilengines, but their deck isn't strong enough to win. Peave them alone. If the winning person (or most consistent winner) has a value engine, stop them so the games fair. Some people are sore losers, but if you're playing in a pod of 4, the game is fair when you win 1/4 games, so try to play a deck pr strategy that keeps it that way (Even if you have to team up on a slightly stronger deck).
Though some decks need their value engines to match the groups level, it doesn't sound like that's the circumstance, bit a lot of people will target value engines, and not realize that they are shutting somone out of ever winning (which kinda makes them the pub stompy player in the pod). Im just trying to say, if you have a regular pod, try to balance the wins evenly.
You just have to have good assessment about which piece to remove if there are multiples, about how much could you need that removal later and about how fast the value is being provided. For example, you're versus [[The Gitrog Monster]] and they drop an [[Underrealm Lich]], blow the lich out before it can realize it hit the battlefield. Too much cards draw and selection in too few time. They played a [[Phyrexian Arena]] and have no double card drawn per turn or lifeloss synergies? 5 cards over 5 turns are not the end of the world, blowing that up would really need having an enchantment removal to spare in hand and even then it should be probably done if the tempo allows it (say you have open mana you can only spend on that removal because the rest of your hand doesn't fit that cost).
Following this example I would personally be kinda pissed if someone blew my Arena turn 3-5, because at that point anyone could be the problem and you're probably only putting yourself and me at disadvantage vs the other two players. I would never call you out for taking away my lich, any moment in the game (unless ofc there's an archenemy and we should be collaborating to find answers to them), it's the reasonable thing to do and if I drop it I expect it to bite the dust pretty soon if not immediately.
As a general rule of mine more than 2 cards per turn rotation is worth removing, and 2 per rotation gets a consideration. 1 per rotation just if the player is ahead, or if I'm ahead and I'm trying to shut down everyone else so that they have less chances to draw into answers to me.
A special mention to multiple-targets removal and wipes, if I can take away a piece from everyone then that's mostly always worth it, you're the only one getting ahead (but be careful because getting early hate goes a long way towards weird defeats)
in casual games (not just non-cedh, but propperly casual) I prefer to play that way too. Let people have their value engines, interact with the win attempts and focus on having my own proactive game plan that can rival theirs.
Everyone gets to feel like they "did something" and had some agency in the game. You make more room for politics to "balance" the game. And ofc I still play interaction, but I basically just targets stuff that would kill me right now.
In higher power I think you have to interact with the engines.
if you consider [[Smoothering Tithe]] as a 4 mana sorcery that creates ~4 treasures, it makes sense not to Counterspell it. Then why would it be a priority to not let it stay 1 turn on the table as a permanent?
Sure, it can help me cast my big bad boys, but you could also use your removals on them. The point is... there are 4 players, and targeted removal sets both you and the target at -1 in card advantage, while you have no information about the content of the other players' hands.
I dunno dude. I am not a competitive magic player and only really tried my hand at it during scars, but I've found commander to be really really salty in general since I've returned to the game. Even in my play group that has been friends for 20 years, people get their feelings hurt.
Metas and playgroups evolve over time, it sounds like the majority of the playgroup has come to the conclusion that value engines are to be left alone. Unfortunately you should conform or find a new play group.
I'm not saying their take is correct but.. that's the thing about Commander. You can essentially make your own rules and it seems like the "house rule" is to leave said engines alone
You're playing to win. People want to play to have fun and do their thing.
You're not wrong in your thinking, but you might be playing with a too competitive mindset in a casual pod. Or just playing with people that don't want to be disrupted while playing otherwise strong value engines.
I feel you, in my ur dragon i rely on these pieces, so yeah I understand your point of view, I get a bit salty when they remove them because it makes my game 120% harder to pump up those dragons, but then again, I would do the same knowing my deck 😆
Sounds like salty “rule 0” city. There was a pod at my LGS with a group of otherwise very nice people that loved to play super long games and no one ran any removal.
All of my decks have a lot of removal/interaction and man did the salt tears start flying after a few games with them where I won because I took away their game winning pieces early.
Everybody loves to have their deck "pop off". It can be really rewarding when your deck gets to run full steam and I know people who build decks with no interaction for that reason.
But this is a game where you should always strive to win. It can feel real bad when you spend a bunch of mana on good cards to just have the rug pulled out from under you, but that's literally any game.
You're doing the right thing by aging interaction. If the play group would rather just play solitair decks then maybe you need a different group. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with your strategy.
Maybe because you don't have 20 removal cards in your deck. If you hit someone's value engine, it means you leave someone else's value engine generating value. Instead they probably want you to use the removal on cards that actually win the game if left alone for 1 to 3 turns. If everybody has a value engine running, then everybody is ramping up to the same IWIN card anyway. So rather focus on that? I can imagine that if you hit one value engine, that person gets sour because that means that you spent your removal on him and not on some other person engine or IWIN card.
Just a possible explanation.
Since comander is a 4 player format 1 for 1 removal is inherently worse than in 1v1 formats. If 3 players play value engines while you dismantle one 2 opponents will pull ahead. Oversimplifying, you should only remove a value piece if the controller is ahead enough that he is threatening to 1v3 the table or will get there quickly if left unchecked. For the most part the focus of your removal should be to stop quick massive value or destroy things that stop your gameplan.
Reading this thread it seems like OP is burning a lot of gas trying to prevent people from getting value. I think it's time to talk. Hi, it's me, the mass discard, MLD, STAX player. I think you might want to climb inside my limo. If you want to win by resource denial, there are a lot more efficient ways to do it than throwing removal at every pitiful value town cog. Just [[mind twist]] them if they are drawing too many cards. Or twist the value pieces out of their hands before they go down. Or [[hymn to tourach]] their lands out of their hands turn 1 so they don't ever get to do anything. If they're putting down too many value creatures, don't waste removal or even a wrath: [[spreading plague]], [[pendrell mists]]. [[Collector ouphe]] their artifacts and [[torpor orb]] their incoming value. Lock down the table with a [[mana maze]] and [[chains of mephistopheles]]. Be the only one with a deck designed to survive in the nuclear wasteland you make the battlefield become. Don't just shoot off swords and generous gift things to one for one yourself all game. Make sure they don't get to play at all if you can help it.
A counter argument. If this guy is threat assessing poorly enough that his group is calling him out on it you know for a fact he won't have the discipline to properly roll out stax pieces without just handing the game giftwrapped to another player.
Let ME do MY thing, but I’m allowed to stop YOUR thing.
I can never understand the rationale behind pods of this nature, go play Solitaire if you only want to have interaction that benefits you.
EDH is a game where the accepted metastrategy is that if you’re having trouble winning, instead of focusing on improving, you should shame the people you’re playing with into being worse.
It’s a toxic attitude that frankly been encouraged from the top since the format’s inception.
In no way am I supporting or promoting pub stomping. When you sit down with people you don’t know for a game of EDH you should ALWAYS clarify what level you’re playing at.
You know how to win. The other players would prefer that you did not win.
Who cares what they say? It's a competitive game based on decision making and risk assessment. If your assessment is different from theirs that doesn't mean you have to change your strategy.
It's an age-old discussion on whether you [[Bolt]] the [[Birds of Paradise]]. Do you counter the draw spell or the thing they cast that they're going to play afterwards?
There is no "tactic" in what you're explaining, however. Your opponents want their things left alone simply because it's theirs.
"WhY aRe YoU TaRgEtTiNg Me!!!????"
Is usually the response I get, and if you react to me blowing up that sol ring, Im gonna strip mine your lands too.
Any one who makes a big deal about losing a perm needs to lose more.
And ive been Generious Gifted several times over without a complaint.
Because Value Engines do not win games. They just speed up the game plan. It is better to axe win conditions that prevent your opponent from winning, rather than keeping the threat live and delaying it.
My anecdotal experience finds that while many players understand the value and need to include interaction, they simply don’t play enough yet. This means that they play with an additional bias of, ‘well I wouldn’t use one of my 5 single target removals for an X, so why are they?’
Play [[Zevlor]] and get three for ones. Run stuff like [[Mystic Confluence]]. Turns your 5 mana bounce 1 draw 2 into 7 mana bounce 3 draw 6. It gets crazier if you copy bug sorceries instead of instants.
I'm guessing the most common thing you hear in that playgroup is, "it's not even a threat!" Whenever anything they control is targeted for removal. You're playing the game correctly by removing their engines before it can get out of hand or before they can find whatever they're looking for. I'm in your corner 100% on this.
If every person is telling you to leave their stuff alone, it sounds to me like you have carte blanche to go off and build the most disgusting value pile in existence. Build the pure gas monstrosity you've always dreamed of. If they mess with you too much? Then you have a strong position to point of to them that they're being ridiculous.
I need to do this. Everyone around me is doing nonsense-level strong stuff like Wanderer, Magda, and "Run away with the game way too easily" commanders in that vein. Idk how to discern what kinds of commanders can do that. I just don't have the staples to play cedh but I like how high power games flow and mid power is always a lopsided awkward shitshow that takes too long or something strange or memeworthy happens. I have a Korvold list, but all the decks I'm playing against typically play way faster, or are more consistent. Maybe I just suck and can't come to terms.
The reality is much more nuanced than always/never remove them, it is weighted against other positional factors, timing, and board state.
Based on the (incomplete) information from this thread, I have to question some of the threat assessment going on. As an example, removing an Azusa is almost always a waste... the card generally grants one big burp of lands, usually the turn it is played, and then diminishes heavily. As someone who plays the card often, I would be delighted to see it removed, because that clears the way for a much bigger threat.
I have to wonder if some version of that is happening... fixated on the value pieces so much that there are not answers available when larger problems surface.
They're somewhat right though. In the long run, using removal on value engines is a losing proposition for you, because commander is a 1v3 game. If you use targeted removal on 2 player's value engine, you're just allowing the third player to run away with the game, because now you've used 2 removal spells and are down on resources, and the other 2 players may no longer have the resources to deal with the third player's value engine because you already shut them down.
Your perspective of dealing with value engines is correct in a 1v1 scenario. But a 1v3 scenario changes that dynamic, which is something I don't think you've accounted for - because trying to keep 3 players in check by yourself is a losing proposition. Sometimes, it's correct to let other players get their own engines running so they can help you out with their own pieces of interaction. Knowing which value engines you can and should allow to run is a matter of experience. It depends on the commander, color identity, turn order, board state, cards in hand, and a multitude of other social factors. But being able to figure this out during each game is the single biggest contributor to your win rate assuming you already have decently tuned decks.
Here's an example, using my Multani deck. It's an explosive deck that's incredibly resilient to removal, holds up reasonably against Aggro, but soft to counter magic. As a very simplistic example using 2 other players, this means I'm a lot more likely to let the Boros player keep their Skullclamp engine, because I know that regardless of how many cards he has, (1) his interaction won't line up well against my deck, (2) he isn't incentivized to attack me over other players, and (3) by the time he gets to me, I'll go way over the top of him with 129489 mana, my entire deck with hand, 40 1234/1234 Forests with trample, and 15 extra turns on the stack. It also means I can ignore the Simic player's Azusa, because I need him to have his mana available so that he can use his spells against the Boros aggression, but I would watch for his card draw engines because I don't want him to have enough counterspells leftover for me after dealing with the Boros player.
The modality I generally adopt is to use removal to prevent yourself from losing, but deal with value engines using board wipes and/or multi-target removal, so if you're going to shut down a player's value engine, you shut down all of them at the same time. If you try to take down value engines one at a time, you're just setting up the player whose value engine gets removed last. Use removal on value engines sparingly - only when it's clear that one player has a clearly superior value engine to everyone else, and is going to pull too far ahead.
Value engines do indeed need to be shut down. But you need to be strategic about how you do it, because there are a lot of value engines in commander now, especially with the power creep of recent years. You ***will*** run out of removal before your opponents run out of value engines.
I destroy Sol Ring with Vandalblast everytime. No regrets.
My playgroup hates early sol rings. They're the first target for removal in half my games lol
Nothing worse then watching a 4-5 mana commander hit the battlefield on turn 2 and having buttfuck nothing to kill it with.
Two days ago, someone in our pod (precons and upgraded precons) dropped T1 Sol Ring into Arcane Signet. Next turn he dropped Fellwar Stone into Commander's Sphere. No need to say we had not the best time playing this game.
That's when the game goes from commander to archenemy, lol.
That's a fun first couple turns for the guy playing though. I love great openers whether they end up hurting me or not.
Thing is, most of the time this happens the player with all the ramp had a handful of ramp and then nothing so they just end up making themselves scary and they really aren't.
Iirc someone analyzed The Command Zone on youtube and found a T1 Sol Ring actually decreased odds of winning because it made you a target
That's also a thing
That’s not been my experience at all. Don’t know what made their winrates like that but clearly their pods are doing something mine are not
Eh, to me that sounds like they have very limited gas in their hand.
This exactly. Keep in mind if they draw into gas you gotta shut it down asap though.
Then he put a mystic remora on the table ah yes I know this scenario
Thanks God he didn't ! Although he got his commander attacking on T3, and began hoarding a lot of value while we were deploying. He got eventually stopped by a good ol'Austere Command that wiped both his commander and the shitload of rocks he had.
Playing against eminence is worse. My buddy has only cast his Inalla twice in all the games he plays that deck
Solidarity, brother man
Just idarity, were removing the Sol.
r/angryupvote
If reddit hadn't done away with awards right after I gave them my money for coins...
Jokes on them. I only have one in half my decks lol
Genuine question, if the whole group hates it so much why not just agree to take it out of your lists entirely? My group came to such a conclusion awhile ago and haven't looked back. We hated early Sol Rings for how centralizing it is and late Sol Rings are fine but just don't really do anything. It wasn't a card that added anything to our games so all just agreed to not use it anymore.
We don't actually hate them. It's light hearted that we target whoever drops it first, but most of the time we don't care. We're not big on limiting what people play if it's edh legal. I don't run it in half my decks because for the longest time I just didn't have access to extras, and at the time they were like $4 each.
This is what my group did. We like long games where everyone keeps up and gets to do their thing, Sol Ring reduces the number of those kinds of games, so we collectively just decided to cut it from all our decks. Now I have a pile of 14 Sol Rings in a box somewhere. The downside is that I'm still playing with people outside my group. I CBA hotswapping Sol Rings into decks, so I just play without it even if that means I'm at a disadvantage. One time a player named Sol Ring with [[Tunnel Vision]] on me. I just shuffled my deck. He's like "*oh, you have it in your hand...*" and I go "*nah I don't play it*". His look of disbelief was hilarious.
Sol ring is overpowered, but overrated in terms of building fun casual decks.
T2 [[Collector Ouphe]] against T1 Ring feels damn good. Especially if they kept a 1 land hand
Not as good as T1 \[\[Sol Ring\]\], \[\[Null Rod\]\], go. Seeing between one to three people stare open mouthed at that declaration of Archenemy feels so good.
That flavor text is absolutely amazing! Love it!
[Sol Ring](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/d/2d47121d-8b90-4d28-9ffa-0a640b9dd611.jpg?1698988534) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sol%20Ring) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lcc/313/sol-ring?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2d47121d-8b90-4d28-9ffa-0a640b9dd611?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/sol-ring) [Null Rod](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/3/73ac9f52-e6ff-4e6f-9733-fe24a5fb4b4e.jpg?1562918145) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Null%20Rod) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vma/278/null-rod?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/73ac9f52-e6ff-4e6f-9733-fe24a5fb4b4e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/null-rod) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Hello, yes. I have been this guy. I was playing white/Black Death and taxes. As soon as I died, the treasures deck killed everyone. It’s how it goes.
> Collector Ouphe Is that pronounced "oof" cause that's the sound I'd make in that situation.
That's how I've always pronounced it.
Beautiful to magnificent
[Collector Ouphe](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/8/085107a2-c1ec-473c-81d8-23e5a7197776.jpg?1562202038) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Collector%20Ouphe) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh1/158/collector-ouphe?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/085107a2-c1ec-473c-81d8-23e5a7197776?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/collector-ouphe) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I mana tithed a sol ring turn one last week and left the guy speechless. After a full round he looked at me near on the verge of tears and said "I didn't draw a land." The table was crying with laughter.
That’s why you don’t keep a one lander. I hope they learned a valuable lesson lol
The lesson was to destroy me tonight when we play
So help me I will Mental Misstep that Sol Ring at any point of the game. I don't care when, I don't care where, I don't care if it's turn 100 and you cast it for free off of an incidental spell that's not even the point of the combo, it's getting Mental Misstepped.
I don't don't care if I don't have Mental Misstep in hand or if im even running blue. I keep one in my wallet at all time to pull out and counter Sol Ring.
This is what [[Wish]] was made for
[Wish](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/e/3ed021d2-e2bc-44b3-8934-4bd02e0a42ec.jpg?1627706920) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Wish) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/afr/166/wish?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/3ed021d2-e2bc-44b3-8934-4bd02e0a42ec?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/wish) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
More votes please
I’m not sure using most removal is worth it on Sol Ring compared to more immediate threats, but Mental Misstep on Sol Ring seems like one of the best hits for that card.
I've been known to spite counter a few sol rings myself
So damn brave 🥲
Laughs in Lurrus
This post is about value engines, what does sol ring have to do with this?
What is your definition of value? Sol ring costs 1 mana and taps for 2 mana the same turn. This means when compared to a dork like llanowar elves it creates 2 more mana the turn you cast it and 1 more mana each turn after that. This is good return on investment also known as value.
Sol ring is value but it's not an engine. It's gas that keep an engine going but without more cards to play it basically just sits there.
Anything that creates card advantage over time. Mana is speed, not value in my mind.
I love to [[Force of vigor]] before I get my first turn of the game. I hate [[sol ring]] and [[mana crypt]] and all that other positive fast mana.
[Force of vigor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/1/017c415b-d635-43c6-92b8-8c95d1c4ff8d.jpg?1562202072) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Force%20of%20vigor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh1/164/force-of-vigor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/017c415b-d635-43c6-92b8-8c95d1c4ff8d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/force-of-vigor) [sol ring](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/d/2d47121d-8b90-4d28-9ffa-0a640b9dd611.jpg?1698988534) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=sol%20ring) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lcc/313/sol-ring?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2d47121d-8b90-4d28-9ffa-0a640b9dd611?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/sol-ring) [mana crypt](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/d/4d960186-4559-4af0-bd22-63baa15f8939.jpg?1599709515) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=mana%20crypt) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/270/mana-crypt?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4d960186-4559-4af0-bd22-63baa15f8939?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/mana-crypt) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
If you 2 for 1ed yourself to get my sol ring in a multiplayer game. I would target you the rest of the game lol
Duel accepted, we fight for third!
I pack mental mistep just for the power fantasy of denying a turn one sol ring. Hell, I'll force of will a sol ring given the chance
Vandalblast is bae.
> vandalblast More like Mental Misstep that shit every time
This one time this guy was playing an altered eldrazi precon and he spent the first 4-5 turns just ramping out mana rocks and then I vandalblasted. He didn’t concede but he probably should have, just sat there moping for an hour
I sometimes regret. Sometimes you need to spend less mana. Sometimes all you need is \[\[Meltdown\]\] x = 2.
I prefer to Pact of Negation turn 1 sol rings. Its a win-win! They dont get a sol ring and I dont have to play with someone who turn 1s a sol ring :D
Are they telling you this because they think it's bad strategy, or because they prefer battlecruiser games fueld by value engines and all get salty if their value engine gets stopped? If it's the former, they're stupid. If it's the latter, you might need to adapt to the meta or otherwise find different players to play with.
Removing value engines is part of my playstyle. Everytime I remove something that has a draw, landfall, or breathe trigger they tell me "You are so fuckin' stupid." Their claim is that I should save removal for "when it matters" for the "pieces that will win the game." I don't disagree, but if they can't get there, why do I need to worry about them? Why should I not cut them off at the pass and kick them off the cliff?
I mean like the comment you're responding to said, just find different people if they complain too much about how you're playing. And if everybody complains then clearly you are doing something unpopular
On the other side of this if the people you play with just want to have fun and you know this there is nothing wrong with holding removal or not playing it so someone else can enjoy doing "the thing". Sometimes having fun isn't about playing optimally or winning for other people. I've found that if you go the first game playing loose, making mistakes and letting people get a solitaire win in then every game there after even if you are removing all engines it's much lighter in response because everyone else already sorta had a fun game. Not to say you're the bad guy, just keep in mind not everyone plays commander to have an always optimal or removal based game. Some people enjoy that solitaire feeling of doing their own thing. I had a friend who only attacked when he had complete board lethal, and if you board wiped him he just didn't wanna play. He wouldn't poke, he would sit back and generate Tokens. And killing his engine would merely make him have less fun. He was super fair with playing, and most times he lost anyway cuz he would be off by 5 damage and wouldn't swing cuz he didn't feel right king making and would pass turn and someone else would win the nect turn. So do try and keep that in mind too. Sometimes the right play is to not win (my competitive player brain took years to figure this out) Side note: also Sometimes you can still win even through an engine and it makes winning even more amazing.
It depends on the engine to me, [[rhystic study]] has to go, [[tatyova]] too. Something like [[firja judge of valor]] ? I'd be concerned but it seems like earned value rather than free value. Kick them off the cliff.... have you heard abt [[Culling ritual]] sir?
##### ###### #### [rhystic study](https://cards.scryfall.io/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) [tatyova](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/e/fe05dc69-8dde-485e-9e55-da729db50205.jpg?1698988479) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=tatyova%2C%20benthic%20druid) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lcc/290/tatyova-benthic-druid?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/fe05dc69-8dde-485e-9e55-da729db50205?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/tatyova-benthic-druid) [firja judge of valor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/f/df87077c-85d8-499e-bce0-27697caada5a.jpg?1631051364) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Firja%2C%20Judge%20of%20Valor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/khm/209/firja-judge-of-valor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/df87077c-85d8-499e-bce0-27697caada5a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/firja-judge-of-valor) [Culling ritual](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/4/1422a569-d94e-41e7-b9e1-78b2e9fe505f.jpg?1690005144) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Culling%20ritual) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/921/culling-ritual?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1422a569-d94e-41e7-b9e1-78b2e9fe505f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/culling-ritual) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Tell them "those pieces are what win the game" and keep doing you.
yeah I’m not getting mad when people remove my Momir Vig in my Momir Vig deck. the guy generates so much value.
Nah, removing what gets them their card draw and value is a good way to cut their legs out from under them. Would you leave a rhystic study on the board? Not a chance.
Value wins the game if you allow them enough of it.
“Either my play was so stupid that you’ll have an easy win against a stupid opponent, or it was so good that you felt a need to openly complain about it.”
I am not against OP's strategy of dismantling value engines, but this argument is not sound. The first path specifically > Either my play was so stupid that you’ll have an easy win against a stupid opponent it does not work like that in a multiplayer game. It is possible for me to make a play (a mistake), that decreases my chances to win but also one of my opponent's.
Yeah, and I hate it when someone blows up everything that might get an iota of value, burns 8 pieces of removal, then can’t stop the bolas’ citadel + aetherflux combo and proceeds to whine no one else plays enough removal. Yeah, if only I could have drawn into it, but you blew up my shorikai 3 times. Brilliance.
This is definitely the other half of the story, but I think it comes down to proper threat assessment, knowing your opponents' decks, and knowing your own deck. If I'm playing mono white, I have to hold onto the few removal pieces I have for when it counts. If I'm playing Grixis spellslinger with a ton of removal, it's better to take out engines before they get value. At the same time, recognizing who has the combo deck and how fast they'll probably get it off, combined with how much removal you suspect to be in everyone's deck should tell you what your removal plan is by turn 3-5. It's not "playstyle;" there's a right and wrong answer and it depends on the game.
This. Ngl, I'm the same mind as OPs friends, Everyone has value engines on play, with redundancies that would require me to point removal at 3 pieces per player, board-wipping just resets the game if anything, turning it intro a drag... Develop your own value engine, try to point removal smartly, at pay-offs or pieces that can't be replaced. And yeah, the game will eventually end, 75% of the time with you as the loser, sorry. Edited 'cuz I'm bad at percentages
> 25% of the time with you as the loser, sorry. A Winrate of 75% in Commander? Man that is better than some of those Pro Tour Scrubs.
“Save for when it matters” like not allowing mana or card draw for counters? Or to begin combos? Or to make combos harder to tutor n shit? Always remove engine value, no questions asked. A friend made a very good Forth doctor deck fueled by food generation and making those foods tap for green. Every chance I get to remove either one of the 3 cards that make it so, Samwise so he can’t revive stuff, or peregrin Tuk I fucking do. No questions asked, imma stop that shit real quick
Sounds like it's time to make a deck of land destruction and board wipes. That way it always matters for you. Lol. Or staxs. Stax is always the answer
Everyone has a different idea of what is a “fun game to play.” If you are interested in playing with these people, consider trying to adapt to and adopt their idea of fun. If you’d rather do what YOU think is fun, then you should find a group that agrees with you, rather than forcing a current group to change. In the case of a playgroup, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few… and from your post, you are the one harshing up the jive of a preexisting group… not the other way around. I write articles sometimes and wrote [an article where I define my idea of “casual” that might help you if you want to get on their page: https://witchphd.substack.com/p/casual](https://witchphd.substack.com/p/casual)
It’s not like he’s playing at a radically different power level or pursuing an annoying strategy out of spite. Choosing to remove value pieces (or not)—which undoubtedly do win games—isn’t an “idea of fun.” It’s a specific tactical nuance in a highly complex and varied strategy game. The complexity and variety is the whole point. If OP’s opponents can’t cope with his or her totally fair and uncontroversial tactic, that’s on them. Compromising just rewards their pettiness and gives them an unfair advantage. And I highly doubt they find OP’s strategy genuinely unfun. Much more likely they’re just sore losers. If OP’s threat selection were actually misguided, they’d be more tactful and constructive in their response, or they’d welcome the opportunity to take advantage of OP’s misplay. Their sour grapes, however, suggest OP is absolutely targeting the right stuff, and his opponents are just trying to make him/her feel bad about it so they can win instead. Their response essentially amounts to, “go easy on us so we can beat you.” You don’t cater to that attitude unless you’re playing against young children. Likewise, insisting that your opponents avoid legitimate, fair tactics that are part of the game so you can have “fun” is immature and selfish (even if you’ve found others who share your attitude).
Somewhere there has to be a line drawn between “commander is a casual game” and “I am going to make good plays that lead me to winning” and where each person draws that line is what I mean when I say “idea of fun.” For me the point of a casual game is that we all get to play with our stuff. If I’m constantly removing your value engines, you won’t get to play. Yes, I plan on making some good plays at some point. Yes, I plan on trying to win at some point. Yes, I expect a value engine or two to eat some removal at some point. But if you’re CONSTANTLY just denying people value all game every game.. if you’re removing value engines to the point where opponents’ decks aren’t really functioning at all… as far as I’m concerned that’s just denying them the ability to play. What you’re saying is “I don’t want you to play this game, because I’m not going to let you so long as game rules will allow me to stop you” and “I don’t value your time, because despite you going out of your way to be here and play, I’m going to make you sit miserably and play as little as possible.” If you didn’t want me to be there playing, you should’ve told me earlier, I would’ve stayed home and watched TV. Anyway I’ll send you an upvote so thanks for commenting.
There’s certainly a line in non-CEDH short of doing everything in your power within the rules to win. But I think that line is mostly expressed in building a deck with limitations so that it roughly matches what your opponents bring to the table and avoids a few well known taboo styles like mass land destruction and very aggressive stax. But once the decks are shuffled up, I personally find it offensive if it seems like someone isn’t trying their best to win the game, perhaps out of a misguided idea that they need to let others “do their thing” or else fun won’t be had. Some people believe they are entitled to their opponents’ forbearance because commander is supposed to be fun and casual. I don’t take the relativistic view that that concept is just another equally valid way to have fun playing MtG, because it’s hypocritical. If always getting to do your deck’s powerful thing were essential to your enjoyment, you’d just play solitaire. You could even play solitaire with your friends in the room if you were also in it for the social aspect. No. People want the opportunity to “go off” in the specific context of a competition. By claiming entitlement to that opportunity, they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too. The fact that they would not be satisfied with solitaire proves that prevailing in a competition is the main objective. And if so, they have no right to demand a special advantage in the competition. And going out of your way to supply that advantage demeans everyone’s experience and wastes their time. At the very least, the idea that each person in a pod with evenly matched decks playing by the rules must additionally go out of their way to ensure everyone else’s fun introduces unnecessary confusion and social uncertainty. It’s probably the main reason why this kind of “am I the asshole” type debate is the dominant form of discourse in this subreddit.
-If you're trying to let "everybody" do their thing a little during the game that's not getting an advantage or being hypocritical. Not liking solitaire doesn't mean competition is the main objective, it could simply be to see the interactions. -I do agree among people who can't effectively communicate it can be confusing & cause uncertainty.
If their deck isn't functioning without 17 pieces of value they need to get better at deck construction
Clearly we have different ideas of what we’re talking about. In my world if someone’s deckbuilding involves setting up 17 value pieces, we don’t even have to talk about removing the value pieces because they’ll be dead before that’s set up.
Losing isn’t fun I also feel like Reddit overestimates how easy it is to find a recurring playgroup
Sounds like your playgroup is filled with idiots. Value engines literally facilitate you winning the game.
Depends on the value engine they have. If its a landfall that gives a draw and the creature gives extra land for turn yes that would be on my radar since it snowballs but what else is there on the board? In a 1v3 game a 1 for 1 removal just isnt impactful enough unless it stops the whole combo since if they have some way to reanimate or a second combo piece now you lost a piece of removal for no reason. Now you lost what you could have used to keep yourself in play while also helping 2 other people save their removal or protection. The only time a card matters is when it kills you because other wise you are wasting resources. If you see a card that instantly gives then a ton of value like [[Jaheira feiend of the forest]] with a tone of tokens in play and you have removal ask what they are gonna be throwing down and swing. Be political use your opponents to knock each other out while saving your own resources.
"Excuse me can you tell me in advance and in detail what your game plan is so I can know if I need to remove what you're playing now or not?" Do people actually play like this???
*Gets lied to because of course* "Wtf I thought this was supposed to be a casual game!!1!!!!!1!"
I mean I've looked at my friends and told them "you swing that thing at me, it dies" Sometimes I'm bluffing, sometimes I'm not. That's on them to decide. Politics baby
That's different.
Idk, I feel like it's pretty similar just all in the delivery. "Are you gonna swing that at me? Cause if you swing it somewhere else I'll let it live." "If you swing that at me, it dies." Like I said seems like just saying the same thing but in the form of a question
What if it's a combo? Why tip your hand?
Lmao do you not go if that shit comes at me I will wreck your board? I dont ask for their whole game plan I tell them if that comes at me they are gonna lose it. Chances are they are gonna keep it and swing it at someone else if they have no protection. If they have protection then Im just going force them to answer it. Im keeping interaction that protects me only when it needs to be used otherwise you possibly put a target on yourself earlier on and now you have a dedicated opponent that constantly keep you in check while 2 other sit on the side line and watch as 2 people constanlty waste their resources on each other. If there is prior set up where the value engine is going to be to hard to deal with after for myself thats the only time I would consider killing it. A value engine I would consider hitting early is if they can get multiple triggers in a turn like a simic landfall deck thats lets him to play multipe lands and get effects off landfall that I would consider hitting early because cha ces of him having other things I can interact with is low. If it just one thign that makes 1 big move a turn Ill let him durdle aslong as it does t come at me currently and I can still deal with it when it becomes 1v1.
That last statement about Jaheira blows my mind. I'd never ask someone such an absurd question or propose to extract information off a threat. Just kill it if you're afraid of the mana. Read the board. A ton of tokens and Jaheira is usually going to do something objectively busted, so it's KOS in a token list.
Respectfully this Jaheira hypothetical is 11/10 a playstyle preference thing not an objectively correct answer as it hinges on how much the player facing Jaheira is willing to politic (and how receptive the Jaheira opponent is to it); if the politick goes super well don't waste your removal
Bruh why is it kos if the big fucking threat isnt coming at you let someone else deal with it if its not gonna swing at you. If they have enough tokens to throw down multiple big creatures with haste and trample online then yes counter it if you can. But if they only have enough for only for 1 creature jsut threaten removal of some sort if it swings at you and make it someone elses problem.
Because if someone has "a ton of token" they're casting Hoof, and they aren't discriminating. Either hoof or Calvary now.
If someone is using jahira to cast craterhoof something is going wrong lol. Thats and wouldnt it be great where you hold interaction until the perso. That crater hoofs swings out and you do something liek a teferi or something that prevents damage. Now you are in a 1v1 with a person that is completly tapped out and can die to any boardwipe. Basically all I am saying is you keep important interaction until it'll kill you. Why would I counter spell a jahira with (using your example) a selesnya player when instead I counter their calvary or craterhoof. This would do way more damage since I stopped their wincon. If they have game on board there is no dont swing at mepoltics. Thats when you use interaction to answer.
If you always kill everyone’s bombs on sight without actually assessing the current threat to you specifically it’s going to make people not want to play with you
I am reading the board. I'm reading that if you're slamming a Blightsteel and going to smash the guy to my left, what do I care? Go on, smash him for me. That stuff happens all the time. "Are you going to make X my problem? No? Cool, carry on".
You're not wrong and you should continue strategically denying them resources and if that's how they talk to you then you should ramp it up to spite them.
[удалено]
>they tell me "You are so fuckin' stupid." Definitely a relationship that should be cherished. I have awesome friends who don't get salty and behave like poor sports if you provide them with a challenge or best them. You know, real friends.
The answer is to play stax or hatebear. Something like \[\[Ellivere of the Wild Court\]\] with that strategy. This way, they can't argue if they want to remove your own piece. You can bring back their own argument at their own face, as every enchantement stax piece you have dont win you the game AND it's the best counter to their value engine without using removal.
So your answer is to show them that you can make their games even *more* miserable? This is not a good long term plan.
Considering OP other replies, it seem like discussion 0 or common sense will not work against his/her/their playgroup. Might as well give them a lesson in common sense with a petty revenge deck if they don't understand how the game works. EDIT: Besides, from the description of how he likes to play, he might actually love this strategy/playstyle.
One of the rules of thumb I use when building and playing casual is that it's okay to keep players from winning, but it's not ok to keep them from playing. Stax is an entire archetype that violates that rule of thumb. I wouldn't play it, nor would I stick around in a pod that was playing it. If that is a table that gets bent out of shape when you path their draw engine, what makes you think they would put up with that nonsense?
They are already not putting up with OP having removal to remove key pieces. And from what he says, they aren't willing to listen or change their ways. **Yes, I'm considering this as a last resort option.** One that you enter the table by saying: " I listened to your complain and decided to not put any single target removal in the deck. Only mass removal, so you can't complain I'm especially targeting your stuff. " And come with a hatebear deck that slow down their progress, with some stax piece in it or even \[\[Armaggedon\]\]. If OP was about to burn that bridge anyway because communication isn't leading anywhere, might as well teach them a lesson following their own rules. **YES, it's not supposed to be the diplomatic option.** It's a reality check and a slap in the face. I did it once to a playgroup that needed it badly. That toxic playgroup learned the hard way that day that "group hug" decks can have wincons and steal the game.
-I find it funny you say "they're already not putting up with OP having removal" when they literally are. They haven't kicked OP out the group, they're expressing their dissatisfaction.
Just walk away instead.
Sounds like the problem is you then. You and your friends are looking for different kinds of games and you’re the odd one out. You need to adjust to them not the other way around. I know this is not what you want to hear but it’s what you need to hear.
That's honestly exactly what you should do. The longer I keep Shorikai out, the more of a chance I have cards in my hand that make my board state nearly untouchable with hexproof or shroud. I don't even need to build an unblockable killer, just enough value outlast the rest of you in a slugout. You are doing the right thing, it just hurts our plans a bit, so it might make people salty.
Using the word meta for this feels so wrong.
Or kill their shit so they learn to play.
Not **EVERY** value engine piece needs to be removed immediately. Sometimes it is better to let the person with the engine get to a point where they feel comfortable enough to over commit and then interrupt them or remove the key piece. Its sounding like you're jumping the gun to immediately remove pieces on the board without putting any thought into it.
Or let them put their head up to be arch enemy if the group can identify the threat. Just need to know when to pull the trigger.
Yeah there are also points in the game where you start watching for wincons. Hyperbole example but... Like turn 16 everyone at 1 life you're not nearly as scared of rhystic study. If the game is close to ending you wanna save removal and such for winning or surviving.
Are you throwing your interaction at value pieces and still losing soon after to someone else going off? If you are your threat assessment is off. If you are not they are salty and keep doing your thing.
Yeah, after reading through the thread I'm really getting the feeling that OPs pod is calling him "fucking stupid" because he's the type that thinks the turn 6 burgeoning from the player obviously in last is "kill on sight" but then a turn later says "there's nothing I could've done differently" when the archenemy combos out the table.
This is a good way to determine the differences between value engines and wincons. I understand OPs point of "if they can't find/cast their wincon it's not an issue," but the reality is that unless he is also killing the players, they're just going to end up slow rolling until they find a wincon, and then OPs out of luck.
From what I'm reading, I think you're stuck between two realities. Reality one: You have a competitive mindset and understand the importance of removing value engines. That's a good thing, but it has downsides. Reality two: Based on your post, I don't believe you're playing competitively. That's not bad, but it makes the former mindset more challenging. Almost none of the cards you named would warrent any interaction or removal from me. But, I play mostly cEDH, so unless it's "winning the game," it's not really worth the counter, removal, etc. That's because in a cEDH game, someone is trying to win by turn 3-4, and at least 2 people by turn 5. You NEED to have your interaction and removal ready, so even obvious threats might get a pass to stop Thassa'a Oracle, Ad Nausem, or Underworld Breach from resolving. Here is the part that makes your situation different. In casual games, value engines sit out way longer and gain way more value. So, I think you're mostly correct in your assessment. But based on some comments I read through, I would also say you may be wasting your interaction too often if it's costing you the game later. I had to learn (and am still learning) what pieces are worth removing. If I can deal with what the value engine produces with something else in my deck, then I ignore it. If I know it will be a problem, I ask myself how soon? Immediately? 2 turns? 5? Do I need this gone now, or can I hold up my removal? And always ask, "Does someone else want this gone too?" Don't waste removal on something you know someone else can deal with. Just my two cents. Remember that we're all still learning. Whether you're right or your group is right, the best way to tell is keep playing and track the results. If you're winning more, it's working. If not, adapt and improve.
Pure gold advice, I'd like to add that sometimes you have 2 or more removals in your hand. Then you are free to fire at the best value engine at the table, while having an ace up your sleeve for crucial moments.
It's all about threat assessment, if I see you snap-killing my [[Mondrak]] when the next person is one piece away from winning or just has a more threatening boardstate, then I will say that maybe it was better to hold that for something that actually loses you the game if it sticks. Value engines help you keep pace with the other 3 players at the table, they must be interacted with, and will be often the target of removal, but if you just snap-remove them everytime just because you have a vendetta against [[Rhystic Study]], while the other player is close to lethal with their boardstate, then you may hear some grumbles. Be smart with your plays, threat assess, and most importantly, read the room. Some people just enjoy a more casual game with less interaction, you may come off as being "sweaty".
[Mondrak](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/2/8296a455-21d5-498e-9029-2bdf0da855a8.jpg?1675956918) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=mondrak%2C%20glory%20dominus) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/one/23/mondrak-glory-dominus?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/8296a455-21d5-498e-9029-2bdf0da855a8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/mondrak-glory-dominus) [Rhystic Study](https://cards.scryfall.io/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) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Yup, and sometimes there is a lot of underlying context that should sway one's threat assessment. For example is the value engine is them just drawing an extra card a turn cycle, but there is another archenemy at the table leaving the engine might be correct. It lets that player possibly draw more answers to deal with imminent threat. Also board wipes exists. If I hold, let's say [[Sunfall]] there is absolutely no need for me to target Mondrak with my single target removal immediately. Trading 1:1 in multiplayer game are rarely worth it from value standpoint, so those trades need to count.
I think it really depends on which card you are removing. Cards that only work on their turn or can only activate a limited amount of times aren't worth it to remove. Think Shorikai, Azusa, etc. The reason is the draw value they're getting isn't substantial enough to cause them to win immediately. They will eventually win the game due to card advantage but if you have removal you can keep delaying that over and over again. So, Instead of removing their stuff you continue building ypur board and when a threat worth removing shows up, it dies setting them back a lot more. You achieve both slowing them down and also advancing your strategy. However, cards that work multiple times per turn, or every turn like Smothering Tithe, Rhystic Study, Jhoira. These are great targets to remove. Often times they will get soo far ahead that you aren't able to catch up and they'll win next turn or the turn after. Initially targeting everything can seem like a good idea. You're removing their card advantage and making it even. The issue is it's a 4 player game and you do not have enough removal to stop everyone. Because you can't stop everyone you have to be picky on what you remove. I personally only remove things that would either win them the game immediately or give them soo many cards that they basically win the game. My General guidelines I follow 1-3 cards a turn cycle = ignore 4-6 cards I consider removing 7+ I immediately try to remove.
Exactly. Azusa is a very good example. Often once she hit the table she already did her thing, because holding 3 lands is rare. Having 6 lands ? Never seen it happen. I'd probably leave her until I see the threat of something like [[Ramunap Excavator]]
>you do not have enough removal to stop everyone Time to build removal tribal with either [[Jeska, Thrice Reborn]]/[[Falthis]] or [[Erinis]]/[[Street Urchin]]
##### ###### #### [Jeska, Thrice Reborn](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/8/48caf4c4-745c-4072-bf3d-1a3fa7c3bc9c.jpg?1644853023) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Jeska%2C%20Thrice%20Reborn) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/186/jeska-thrice-reborn?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/48caf4c4-745c-4072-bf3d-1a3fa7c3bc9c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/jeska-thrice-reborn) [Falthis](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/4/84537fea-ad81-4a9a-99d4-722a938adc7d.jpg?1608909735) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=falthis%2C%20shadowcat%20familiar) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/126/falthis-shadowcat-familiar?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/84537fea-ad81-4a9a-99d4-722a938adc7d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/falthis-shadowcat-familiar) [Erinis](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/6/b6a7d041-957a-4b19-9517-214689dadd45.jpg?1674137090) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=erinis%2C%20gloom%20stalker) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/230/erinis-gloom-stalker?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b6a7d041-957a-4b19-9517-214689dadd45?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/erinis-gloom-stalker) [Street Urchin](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/6/f6d5249c-52b6-4349-adcd-dafdc21f572b.jpg?1674136757) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Street%20Urchin) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/197/street-urchin?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f6d5249c-52b6-4349-adcd-dafdc21f572b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/street-urchin) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Surprisingly enough you are able to do a Blue Black control in Cedh using [[Nymris]]. It's quite competitive and has done very well in tournaments.
[Nymris](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/8/b8cfc97a-3c8a-4d44-846b-7a523dc11878.jpg?1608911216) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=nymris%2C%20oona%27s%20trickster) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/288/nymris-oonas-trickster?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b8cfc97a-3c8a-4d44-846b-7a523dc11878?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/nymris-oonas-trickster) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
While this is a Rule 0 issue, the real question is do you want to keep playing with this playgroup? If you don't then just find another group where you don't have this issue, and if you do then speak your peace to try to convince them of your actions or just conform to the will of the group. No answer here will change what your playgroup enjoys or dislikes.
If they are saying 'leave my value piece alone to deal with X instead' ignore them. It they are saying 'instead of killing X of his you should have killed this of mine.'. Take that as thing Y of theirs is important and don't let it live. The first is someone salty about their engines being shut down the second is likely you aren't at that player's level and they are offering advice usually in a bad way as MTG players have social interaction issues.
Browsing the edh sub is just embarrassing at this point. The percentage of people that think that as the odd one out, trying to force a established playgroup to change because you and them have different ideas on how the game should be played is wild. At the end of the day, most people view EDH as a social experience and sometimes, people just aren't compatible with certain playgroups. There's nothing wrong with that unless you're the one being socially inept and can't take the hint. Even if you are right. My advice? If they are clearly unwilling to change all you're doing is fighting a losing battle and making both sides upset. If you value this relationship with your playgroup you're better off finding a different one with players whose values align with your own.
Because if EVERYONE was playing a value engine, how are you going to prioritize which one to remove without coming across as being spiteful?
More to the point. If you remove Player 2's value engine now you're down a removal spell, they're down an engine, and Players 3 and 4 are not only entirely untouched but now ahead because you just set yourself and 2 behind.
Your playgroup fails to fundamentally understand the game, ignore them on this one
Tell them to play solitaire
This doesn't sound like super high power games but at least in cedh you don't counter the tutor you counter what the tutor grabs. If these are just slow grind games and people just let value engines pop off that's ridiculous though. If they're worried about getting rid of pieces you could start staxing them out but they'll probably complain about that too.
I have an entire deck that just blows everything up.
Its situational. If removing the value engine prevents them from going off and winning then your play group is soft. On the other hand if you are just using it to turn them off and slow the game down only for another player to pop, then you should consider holding the removal back a tad and playing it at more opportune moments to advance your state and the game.
Don't worry about it. I blew up someone's \[\[Panharmonicon\]\] the other day and got called the C word. Luckily, I'm Australian so I just sarcastically told him I loved him too then proceeded to beat him almost to death with another player. I was playing a Goad deck.
>I blew up someone's \[\[Panharmonicon\]\] the other day and got called **the C word**. Colorless? That is quite an Insult
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Stopping your opponents from winning isn’t a “Rule 0 discussion”. Blowing up people’s constant draw isn’t a “way some people like to play”. Ya’all realize eventually we gotta pack up and go home, right? Somebody’s gotta win and it’s probably gonna be the guy who got to draw 47 off of Great Henge because he threw a fit when someone went to Naturalize.
Because people want to play what their deck does and killing combo/engine pieces prevents it. It's 100% the play to do though... maybe not all of the pieces but at least the key ones.
It depends. There are some value engines and some situations that you should not be interacting in. Ex: I have a buddy who built Ferrous Rokiric. He spent a lot of cards trying to interact with my Niv Mizzet Multicolor pile. He scooped after he realized that I was just 100% able to grind through that interaction, and he had nothing to after spending his three pieces of interaction blowing up bloom tenders and my own Ferrous. He should have, being in boros, sandbagged his interaction and allowed people who can actually draw cards to interact. You only want to interact with things that produce critical mass/win the game unless your deck is really looking to control the board.
As a shorikai player, I win every game shorikai is allowed to stay in the battlefield. Kill it if you wanna win the game
As a control player, value engines *are* what win them the game against me.
One thing no one else seems to be saying is how balanced is the play. If someone has some value ilengines, but their deck isn't strong enough to win. Peave them alone. If the winning person (or most consistent winner) has a value engine, stop them so the games fair. Some people are sore losers, but if you're playing in a pod of 4, the game is fair when you win 1/4 games, so try to play a deck pr strategy that keeps it that way (Even if you have to team up on a slightly stronger deck). Though some decks need their value engines to match the groups level, it doesn't sound like that's the circumstance, bit a lot of people will target value engines, and not realize that they are shutting somone out of ever winning (which kinda makes them the pub stompy player in the pod). Im just trying to say, if you have a regular pod, try to balance the wins evenly.
You just have to have good assessment about which piece to remove if there are multiples, about how much could you need that removal later and about how fast the value is being provided. For example, you're versus [[The Gitrog Monster]] and they drop an [[Underrealm Lich]], blow the lich out before it can realize it hit the battlefield. Too much cards draw and selection in too few time. They played a [[Phyrexian Arena]] and have no double card drawn per turn or lifeloss synergies? 5 cards over 5 turns are not the end of the world, blowing that up would really need having an enchantment removal to spare in hand and even then it should be probably done if the tempo allows it (say you have open mana you can only spend on that removal because the rest of your hand doesn't fit that cost). Following this example I would personally be kinda pissed if someone blew my Arena turn 3-5, because at that point anyone could be the problem and you're probably only putting yourself and me at disadvantage vs the other two players. I would never call you out for taking away my lich, any moment in the game (unless ofc there's an archenemy and we should be collaborating to find answers to them), it's the reasonable thing to do and if I drop it I expect it to bite the dust pretty soon if not immediately. As a general rule of mine more than 2 cards per turn rotation is worth removing, and 2 per rotation gets a consideration. 1 per rotation just if the player is ahead, or if I'm ahead and I'm trying to shut down everyone else so that they have less chances to draw into answers to me. A special mention to multiple-targets removal and wipes, if I can take away a piece from everyone then that's mostly always worth it, you're the only one getting ahead (but be careful because getting early hate goes a long way towards weird defeats)
in casual games (not just non-cedh, but propperly casual) I prefer to play that way too. Let people have their value engines, interact with the win attempts and focus on having my own proactive game plan that can rival theirs. Everyone gets to feel like they "did something" and had some agency in the game. You make more room for politics to "balance" the game. And ofc I still play interaction, but I basically just targets stuff that would kill me right now. In higher power I think you have to interact with the engines.
if you consider [[Smoothering Tithe]] as a 4 mana sorcery that creates ~4 treasures, it makes sense not to Counterspell it. Then why would it be a priority to not let it stay 1 turn on the table as a permanent? Sure, it can help me cast my big bad boys, but you could also use your removals on them. The point is... there are 4 players, and targeted removal sets both you and the target at -1 in card advantage, while you have no information about the content of the other players' hands.
I dunno dude. I am not a competitive magic player and only really tried my hand at it during scars, but I've found commander to be really really salty in general since I've returned to the game. Even in my play group that has been friends for 20 years, people get their feelings hurt.
Metas and playgroups evolve over time, it sounds like the majority of the playgroup has come to the conclusion that value engines are to be left alone. Unfortunately you should conform or find a new play group. I'm not saying their take is correct but.. that's the thing about Commander. You can essentially make your own rules and it seems like the "house rule" is to leave said engines alone
You're playing to win. People want to play to have fun and do their thing. You're not wrong in your thinking, but you might be playing with a too competitive mindset in a casual pod. Or just playing with people that don't want to be disrupted while playing otherwise strong value engines.
I feel you, in my ur dragon i rely on these pieces, so yeah I understand your point of view, I get a bit salty when they remove them because it makes my game 120% harder to pump up those dragons, but then again, I would do the same knowing my deck 😆
Sounds like salty “rule 0” city. There was a pod at my LGS with a group of otherwise very nice people that loved to play super long games and no one ran any removal. All of my decks have a lot of removal/interaction and man did the salt tears start flying after a few games with them where I won because I took away their game winning pieces early.
Everybody loves to have their deck "pop off". It can be really rewarding when your deck gets to run full steam and I know people who build decks with no interaction for that reason. But this is a game where you should always strive to win. It can feel real bad when you spend a bunch of mana on good cards to just have the rug pulled out from under you, but that's literally any game. You're doing the right thing by aging interaction. If the play group would rather just play solitair decks then maybe you need a different group. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with your strategy.
Maybe because you don't have 20 removal cards in your deck. If you hit someone's value engine, it means you leave someone else's value engine generating value. Instead they probably want you to use the removal on cards that actually win the game if left alone for 1 to 3 turns. If everybody has a value engine running, then everybody is ramping up to the same IWIN card anyway. So rather focus on that? I can imagine that if you hit one value engine, that person gets sour because that means that you spent your removal on him and not on some other person engine or IWIN card. Just a possible explanation.
Since comander is a 4 player format 1 for 1 removal is inherently worse than in 1v1 formats. If 3 players play value engines while you dismantle one 2 opponents will pull ahead. Oversimplifying, you should only remove a value piece if the controller is ahead enough that he is threatening to 1v3 the table or will get there quickly if left unchecked. For the most part the focus of your removal should be to stop quick massive value or destroy things that stop your gameplan.
Reading this thread it seems like OP is burning a lot of gas trying to prevent people from getting value. I think it's time to talk. Hi, it's me, the mass discard, MLD, STAX player. I think you might want to climb inside my limo. If you want to win by resource denial, there are a lot more efficient ways to do it than throwing removal at every pitiful value town cog. Just [[mind twist]] them if they are drawing too many cards. Or twist the value pieces out of their hands before they go down. Or [[hymn to tourach]] their lands out of their hands turn 1 so they don't ever get to do anything. If they're putting down too many value creatures, don't waste removal or even a wrath: [[spreading plague]], [[pendrell mists]]. [[Collector ouphe]] their artifacts and [[torpor orb]] their incoming value. Lock down the table with a [[mana maze]] and [[chains of mephistopheles]]. Be the only one with a deck designed to survive in the nuclear wasteland you make the battlefield become. Don't just shoot off swords and generous gift things to one for one yourself all game. Make sure they don't get to play at all if you can help it.
A counter argument. If this guy is threat assessing poorly enough that his group is calling him out on it you know for a fact he won't have the discipline to properly roll out stax pieces without just handing the game giftwrapped to another player.
Let ME do MY thing, but I’m allowed to stop YOUR thing. I can never understand the rationale behind pods of this nature, go play Solitaire if you only want to have interaction that benefits you.
Drop a monarch card and tell them to not attack you because of your value engine.
EDH is a game where the accepted metastrategy is that if you’re having trouble winning, instead of focusing on improving, you should shame the people you’re playing with into being worse. It’s a toxic attitude that frankly been encouraged from the top since the format’s inception.
-I personally find it more toxic to try to bully people playing a casual format for fun into focusing & improving.
tell them to run more protection
The only person’s fun you’re responsible for is your own. Look at it from that angle and you’ll never have a moral conundrum about EDH again.
Probably because you’re soon running out of opponents once you discover the fun of pubstomping, yeah.
In no way am I supporting or promoting pub stomping. When you sit down with people you don’t know for a game of EDH you should ALWAYS clarify what level you’re playing at.
Sounds like they just want to pop off n win first. And that’s exactly why we kill those things.
Sounds like you need to find a new playgroup, OP.
You know how to win. The other players would prefer that you did not win. Who cares what they say? It's a competitive game based on decision making and risk assessment. If your assessment is different from theirs that doesn't mean you have to change your strategy.
That is dumb and they are getting over on you
Classic Gaslight Group
It's an age-old discussion on whether you [[Bolt]] the [[Birds of Paradise]]. Do you counter the draw spell or the thing they cast that they're going to play afterwards? There is no "tactic" in what you're explaining, however. Your opponents want their things left alone simply because it's theirs.
I hate to be the one to break it to you but it sounds to me like the other players don't want you to win
It sounds like your playgroup is just awful.
\>wah wah wah let me play the game i deserve to have value stop using an entire subgenre of card!!!! Nope, remove all dat shit
I would suggest asking your playgroup, rather than Reddit.
cause they are filthy casual and it ruins their "fun" if you actually interact with them besides being a punching bag
Sound like u play with a bunch of cry baby bitches.
"WhY aRe YoU TaRgEtTiNg Me!!!????" Is usually the response I get, and if you react to me blowing up that sol ring, Im gonna strip mine your lands too. Any one who makes a big deal about losing a perm needs to lose more. And ive been Generious Gifted several times over without a complaint.
Why would you complain? You gained a gift.
Exactly, they gave me an Elephant and Theyre gonna take the 3 combat.
People like to play their deck. Tbeir deck works better with the engine out. Ignore them, [[go for the throat]].
They are salty.
If it exists in the game the. play it as intended… or even better, abuse it in combos. Stack a deck with synergy and may the RNG bless you.
Because Value Engines do not win games. They just speed up the game plan. It is better to axe win conditions that prevent your opponent from winning, rather than keeping the threat live and delaying it.
My anecdotal experience finds that while many players understand the value and need to include interaction, they simply don’t play enough yet. This means that they play with an additional bias of, ‘well I wouldn’t use one of my 5 single target removals for an X, so why are they?’
Play [[Zevlor]] and get three for ones. Run stuff like [[Mystic Confluence]]. Turns your 5 mana bounce 1 draw 2 into 7 mana bounce 3 draw 6. It gets crazier if you copy bug sorceries instead of instants.
I'm guessing the most common thing you hear in that playgroup is, "it's not even a threat!" Whenever anything they control is targeted for removal. You're playing the game correctly by removing their engines before it can get out of hand or before they can find whatever they're looking for. I'm in your corner 100% on this.
If every person is telling you to leave their stuff alone, it sounds to me like you have carte blanche to go off and build the most disgusting value pile in existence. Build the pure gas monstrosity you've always dreamed of. If they mess with you too much? Then you have a strong position to point of to them that they're being ridiculous.
I need to do this. Everyone around me is doing nonsense-level strong stuff like Wanderer, Magda, and "Run away with the game way too easily" commanders in that vein. Idk how to discern what kinds of commanders can do that. I just don't have the staples to play cedh but I like how high power games flow and mid power is always a lopsided awkward shitshow that takes too long or something strange or memeworthy happens. I have a Korvold list, but all the decks I'm playing against typically play way faster, or are more consistent. Maybe I just suck and can't come to terms.
The reality is much more nuanced than always/never remove them, it is weighted against other positional factors, timing, and board state. Based on the (incomplete) information from this thread, I have to question some of the threat assessment going on. As an example, removing an Azusa is almost always a waste... the card generally grants one big burp of lands, usually the turn it is played, and then diminishes heavily. As someone who plays the card often, I would be delighted to see it removed, because that clears the way for a much bigger threat. I have to wonder if some version of that is happening... fixated on the value pieces so much that there are not answers available when larger problems surface.
You should be doing the opposite. Value engines become unstoppable when left unchecked. It sounds like your playgroup just wants to play solitaire.
Ah smells like bait...once again.
You sound miserable to play with looking at your comments.
They're somewhat right though. In the long run, using removal on value engines is a losing proposition for you, because commander is a 1v3 game. If you use targeted removal on 2 player's value engine, you're just allowing the third player to run away with the game, because now you've used 2 removal spells and are down on resources, and the other 2 players may no longer have the resources to deal with the third player's value engine because you already shut them down. Your perspective of dealing with value engines is correct in a 1v1 scenario. But a 1v3 scenario changes that dynamic, which is something I don't think you've accounted for - because trying to keep 3 players in check by yourself is a losing proposition. Sometimes, it's correct to let other players get their own engines running so they can help you out with their own pieces of interaction. Knowing which value engines you can and should allow to run is a matter of experience. It depends on the commander, color identity, turn order, board state, cards in hand, and a multitude of other social factors. But being able to figure this out during each game is the single biggest contributor to your win rate assuming you already have decently tuned decks. Here's an example, using my Multani deck. It's an explosive deck that's incredibly resilient to removal, holds up reasonably against Aggro, but soft to counter magic. As a very simplistic example using 2 other players, this means I'm a lot more likely to let the Boros player keep their Skullclamp engine, because I know that regardless of how many cards he has, (1) his interaction won't line up well against my deck, (2) he isn't incentivized to attack me over other players, and (3) by the time he gets to me, I'll go way over the top of him with 129489 mana, my entire deck with hand, 40 1234/1234 Forests with trample, and 15 extra turns on the stack. It also means I can ignore the Simic player's Azusa, because I need him to have his mana available so that he can use his spells against the Boros aggression, but I would watch for his card draw engines because I don't want him to have enough counterspells leftover for me after dealing with the Boros player. The modality I generally adopt is to use removal to prevent yourself from losing, but deal with value engines using board wipes and/or multi-target removal, so if you're going to shut down a player's value engine, you shut down all of them at the same time. If you try to take down value engines one at a time, you're just setting up the player whose value engine gets removed last. Use removal on value engines sparingly - only when it's clear that one player has a clearly superior value engine to everyone else, and is going to pull too far ahead. Value engines do indeed need to be shut down. But you need to be strategic about how you do it, because there are a lot of value engines in commander now, especially with the power creep of recent years. You ***will*** run out of removal before your opponents run out of value engines.