Do These Decks Just Build Themselves? | EDHRECast 271
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июл 2023
- As commander designs get more niche, does that make their build paths more restrictive? How can you make your deck stand out when all the other 99s look the same? Let's take a look!
Want access to exclusive content, the Challenge the Stats spreadsheet, EDHRECast Discord, and more? Support the cast on Patreon! / edhrecast
Want to see the decks we play? Check them out here: edhrec.com/articles/edhrecast...
Check out the EDHREC collection at Coalesce and use code 'EDHREC' for 10% off! www.coalesceapparel.shop/sear...
Follow the cast on Twitter:
@EDHRECast
@JosephMSchultz
@danaroach
@mathimus55
This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at www.betterhelp.com/EDH and get on your way to being your best self.
General: bit.ly/EDHRECast
Apple Podcasts: bit.ly/EDHRECastApple
Spotify: bit.ly/EDHRECastSpotify
Google Podcasts: bit.ly/EDHRECastGoogle
Do you all ever feel like EDHRec contributes to homogeny in the format?
I would like to see less legendary cards per set. A commander that bounces permanents on it's own is a "energy" commander.
So after I finished watching this episode, I switched over to a set review from (unnamed popular Commander podcast) and not to throw hate, but it seems like a lot of big EDH content creators tend to pigeonhole cards into only belonging in certain decks, and I think all the viewers that take those opinions as doctrine might also affect the similarity between decks nowadays
Wizards are creating a problem nobody asked for. They could so easily go back to making legends rare-only and I don't think anybody would care that there are no uncommon legends in a set.
I agree that it's a bit boring with that many overlaps, but the EDHRec site itself must be a huge part of why we have so many overlapping EDH decks in the first place, right?
hey guys, love the podcast, but I'd encourage you to look into some of the scandals surrounding betterhelp. I'm all for therapy, and go to it myself,, there's just some morally questionable things about that company I doubt you want to support
Could it be that as Commander grows in popularity and draws more players from other formats that the data gets skewed to reflect that? I started with Commander, but the impression I get from people new to the format is a much bigger emphasis on winning being the sole enjoyment to be had in a game. This probably comes from the fact that other formats are 1v1 and the social aspect isn't really emphasized as much. That being the case, these players are going to try to "solve" these commanders for optimized performance in terms of wins rather than with an emphasis on uniqueness or personality. Just a thought.
love this topic guys. more people need to talk about it.
If they ever make a dedicated energy commander, I will immediately lose interest in building an energy-themed EDH deck.
Another factor that I feel like wasn't touched on was how many reprints for commander we've had within the last 2 or 3 years. People have been able to get alot of these staples now from price reduction due to list reprints, precons, and supplementary/premium sets that got more copies out there for people who wanted it.
I totally agree that R&D have a really hard job creating new cards.
Two things:
The nice thing about very obvious build-around set mechanic commanders is that it gives you a reason to play those set mechanic cards -- things like Verazol, Kadena, Gavi, Ranar, etc. There are plenty of "set mechanic" cards that I will run as pet cards or as a sidegrade to the standard disenchant, counterspell, etc. but having a strong reason to run a large mass of those cards is fun, even if it's not challenging. Plus, it doesn't mean there's no need to discriminate -- there's plenty of optimization to be done. You don't just run any card with adventure in Gorion, only those that have enough utility to reasonably cast most games. So it scratches a lot of the same itch that non-build around niche commanders have -- you get to play cards that otherwise would languish in your collection. Another benefit is that since you're supplementing a lot of generic good stuff with more niche versions that synergize with the commander, the deck has little overlap with other decks you're running, even if it's remarkably similar to every player's deck of that commander. It's also nice to see those decks use cards from multiple blocks as time goes on and mechanics get revisited.
I think the main issue I would have is not that a Commander is niche, but it is the obvious singular choice Commander for that style. So, if you are playing a shrine deck, why wouldn’t you be playing Go-Shintai or for a saga deck, why wouldn’t you use the new Tom Bombadil. Everything else would just be vastly inferior.
I think having more narrow commanders is fine as long as those arent the only commanders they are printing. Having a mix so people can build to their taste is great.
46:40
Challenge the stats: Ruthless Technomancer in Urza, Chief Artificer. Sac a construct to double the amount of artifacts you control, and a lot of treasure. Shows up in only 83 urza decks, or 0.003%
You get people saying a deck is 'solved' because there are 100-150 alleged 'auto-include' cards for the commander. If you have more 'auto-include' cards than there are nonland slots in the deck, you have a construction challenge immediately, building down instead of up.
The way you guys present information is the best on the tube!
Definitely agree with and appreciate the comment about people just not having time, and people like the illusion of the challenge. Personally think a bigger issue is just the face roll easy commanders (Korvold, Aesi). Too many of those is probably worse for the format than a mild power level saga deck with ole Tom that all look similar.