The Problem With Rule Zero in commander | Commander Philosophy | Deck Driver MTG
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 авг 2024
- In EDH, casual settings all across the world are constantly blown out of whack because of a lack of communication before the game starts. This communication is called "Rule Zero" in most cases. "Rule Zero" is an attempt to establish a fair and fun playing field across a pod of 4 players, and Rule Zero often results in lapses in communication and Judgement from players which leads to conflict.
In this video I dissect why Rule Zero is usually a terrible process and how I would go about fixing it and how I approach the conversation.
If you enjoy this video please share it with a friend and subscribe to the channel! Thank you for all the support thus far!
Imo this sounds more like people need to change they way they convey what they are doing rather then a rule 0 issue, rule 0 to me has always been "Hey can I use my Dr. Julius Jumblemorph deck", "Are proxies fine?", or "Can I use MLD in my winning lines" rather then a "Hey I'm playing about a 6"
No the problem is, no matter what the player says people will never use rule 0 to veto their deck because they are afraid of making someone feel excluded.
The biggest problem is that the game is designed from the ground up with a simple goal in mind... winning. Stop treating Magic like an RPG, there is only one person who can come out on top and no one will ever agree on what they believe is fair.
@icholi88 Communication is key. The point of the game is to win, however, people do not necessarily play to win. Everyone has different reasons for playing magic, but for most people it ultimately means being able to get to play the game. People are complicated and have different reasons, with no one answer, but being able to communicate and give others options rather than forcing a single unmovable idea results in people having a better time.
@@DeathSpear That line of thinking is good for a cooperative game, not magic. It is, at its core, a competitive card game and no matter how much you want to invent a soft-paw format for it, it will remain such. If you want an easy way have fun with 4 people, just play a board game or TTRPG, TCGs are meant to be won.
I don't know why I have to keep reinterating this to people, Commander was never the expressed purpose of Magic. Commander was always just a game to play while waiting for pools to finish in competitive tournaments because you had extra cards on you. The game does not nor ever will fully support how people want to play it and Rule 0 is a tacit admission of this, if you can't deal with events like you describe happening from time to time...tough you can't solve it with any creative ruling unless you create your own card game.
@@icholi88 You might need to keep telling that to people because they don't agree. All competitive games from chess to football have meaning beyond winning. People might value exploration, socialising, wackiness, pure fun or even getting away with cheating over actually winning the game. Rule 0 is just a way to draw the magic circle for Magic, but it exists in many aspects of life.
@@nicolaim4275 Do you think grand masters of chess believe it isn't a competitive game? Do you think people who play football don't have the shared expressed goal of winning?
Fun is circumstantial, a product of the game but the games purpose is to win. There are plenty of co-operative or non-competitive games in the world, Magic was never designed to be one of them. Rule 0 is an admission that you are not playing the game toward its designed purpose, but you can only get away with so much. You are using watercolors to paint a fence.
Thats a "no rule 0 conversation" thats a power level conversation. Which everything is a 7.
What about the really weird decks? One commander I play is Laughing Jasper Flint. He is maybe a level 4 but can become level 7 or 8 based on what other decks are being played.
What about the really weird decks? One commander I play is Laughing Jasper Flint. He is maybe a level 4 but can become level 7 or 8 based on what other decks are being played.
@@afish2281Ooh, I'm interested in your decklist or advices! I also want to make a deckstealer edh deck
I think that Rule Zero and Power level are 2 fundamentally different conversations.
Rule Zero: U cards, Walkermanders, Custom Commanders
Power level: I play 17 tutors and could literally win on turn 3.
One is about doing something that isn't normally allowed, but is fine as long as everyone agrees, as opposed to the ceiling vs the floor of a person's deck.
Also yeah giving power level a number is meaningless without context.
I somewhat agree; I think the power level stuff can be packaged into a "Rule zero discussion" and some people might shortcut that to just calling it "The rule zero." "The talk." "Battle preparations."
I agree that the number stuff is pretty garbage and I've never been able to rate my own decks for sure, but I know kind of what to expect on MTGO if someone puts a number range on their game blurb.
I’ve always preferred to call a deck either casual or competitive. Numbers don’t work when everyone’s view on power can be different.
@@diabeticmonkeyespecially since 1-4 are unplayable and 9-10 near unmakeable so you have most decks at a "7" that range from junk decks that sometimes work to nearly competitive decks
Yeah, rule zero is "can I play with these banned cards"
@@grandpretredesalpagas4665 Exactly.
Typically our Rule 0 discussion focuses on:
1. Are there infinite combos?
2. Is there fast mana?
3. What turn are you trying to win by?
That *basically* helps inform the power level. But beyond that, things like what the game plan is, who the Commander is, how much/what style of interaction does the deck run, also help to inform how the deck plays and what we should all expect when going against it.
For example. My Zhulodok Storm deck is trying to get to infinite mana by turn 5, then storm off with Zhulodok and my card draw engines to draw and play my entire deck. It can be very fast, aggressively pitching cards and self-burning to gain mana advantage and search out my combos as quickly as possible. So I tell my pod that this is the goal of the deck, so they have an understanding of what to expect going into playing against it.
I have one with infinite mana and i have the joke that i dont even consider it a danger because it depends of 3-5 cards, and not been countered.
kinda weak in comparison with the 4-5 decks with wincon at 3-5 turn and the 6 voltrons that win around the same turns xD
From my experience, I agree with everything you said.
Interaction is the key. If you play a deck that can "consistenly" combo off by turn 4/5 it's a great deck, no doubts. But if you are playing against decks of the "same level", you should take into consideration that you are not going to combo on turn 5 without protection because people have counters/removals.
To me, interaction and consistency are what defines the level of a deck. Precons don't usually (except maybe some Universes Beyond decks) have efficient removal (and NO counters. Or maybe one in the whole deck). I suppose Wizards want people to have fun and don't get into the mud in a multiplayer game.
Yep. I get by on 2 questions: How does your deck win? On what turn does it typically win?
I run Gisela, Blade of Goldnight and bring out a Serra Avatar and Chandra's Ignition combo by turn 3 at the latest using lots of broken fast mana.
question, this doesnt really have anything to do with you specifically and isnt supposed to be a criticism. But what is peoples problem with infinite combos specifically?
Theres about 20 thoracle 2 card combos that just win on the spot, approach of the second sun, whatever.
Theres also decks that just go super hot and fast without any "combos". Ive seen people say they play high power but ban more or less only infinites.
I just.. yea i dont really understand that specific focus.
(it might sound like it but im not implying that you dislike infinites, i just saw this comment and kinda rambled. Sowy kthxbye)
If somebody sat down at the pods I play with, and said their deck was a 7, then proceeded to go infinite on turn THREE (when most of us are still playing 1 card per turn), we'd call them a filthy liar haha.
I would also be saying to the person "Hey, we're not playing with you, find someone else." That's the only way they learn.
@@Jeremvy You're either a troll or a really sad individual.
I have decks that do that but turn 3 in my case would be blind luck, one combo tossed in for giggles and no tutors lol
@Jeremvy EDH is the Lorcana version of Magic already buddy,
Sounds like people need to stop lying about their decks
huh. I'm only 2:10 into the video and I thought Rule Zero was a house rule allowing a subset of banned cards to be allowed in your playgroup
Got to 2.17, had to read comments, found this comment, I can now safely leave the video knowing I wont miss anything other than someone talking about things they don't even understand at all
I use rule zero to find out what everyone wants to play, explain my primary strategy, warn of infinite combos, and generally decide if the deck I'm wanting to play vibes with the rest of the pod. There are a few at my LGS that try using the number system and most of us stay away from them because it's just a total lie on there part(pubstomping true 7's with their cEDH fully proxied decks). I think your outlook has always been the most effective way to build a pod that everyone can walk away from feeling fulfilled by the experience.
Bro I hate people like this honestly cause I love cedh as a format but I will never play my cedh deck in a casual pod. They give cedh a really bad rep and all cedh is, is no bars held I’m going to try and win as fast and if possible on top of someone else’s win attempt which on a level playing field is really fun a salt free. The number system is completely arbitrary and garbage and generates so much unnecessary salt.
Even with a rule 0 discussion, I never expect the game to go perfectly.
If someone wins before turn 5, scoop and play again with different decks.
If one gets mana screwed or the game is taking too long and going no where, there's no issue scoping and waiting for next game/pod.
It's fun getting to play my decks and go off, but most of the time I dont, so I enjoy watching others do so.
Expecting a "fair" game of commander is commendable, but an overall flawed perspective.
I think this is def a problem some have. "I got mana screwed, time for next game" It perfectly acceptable I think, and not enough people do it.
Everyone keeps trying to "fix" the rule 0 conversation and power level balance of casual edh, but the problem has never been with the rule 0 itself. It always comes down to the players willingness to share honestly what their decks level is.
In my almost 10 years of playing this game, power imbalance is never an issue for the same player multiple times if they are an honest player. A newbie who didn't understand the power level of their deck, or an experienced player trying a new brew that was way stronger than they thought, learn from that and more accurately assess their decks level in the next game. I regularly even get apologies from these players for going off a little too early even if they don't win because they show they care about everyone's experience.
The problem will always be with the dishonest players. The people that keep hush about their deck. The people that have no issue regularly Pub stomping a table for easy wins. The players that give as few details as possible so their game plan isn't disrupted. These players have already made the decision on what they are playing long before anyone else has and will not adjust most of the time.
I don't mean for this to sound hateful or salty, I'm just very used to all the honest players blaming a system due solely due to the bad eggs that abuse it. We can't make bad eggs respect everyone else's time. So we can only try to avoid them in our pods or play according to the level they have already chosen to play at. Whenever I sit at a table of players that respect others time, I have never had an issue getting fun balanced games.
My issue is being told my decks are trash because they dont have removal, and regardless of what cards are in the deck or the decks theme a deck without removal is trash.
Then I tell people that apparently my decks are trash according to most players I run into, but quite often I wind up making people salty about how I lied about my deck power and my deck is clearly not trash.
So I wind up just letting them know that the popular belief about decks without removal is that they are inherently garbage, and I continue by pointing out that simply must not be the case and perhaps it is a mentality that people should stop spreading.
@Saphire_Throated_Carpenter_Ant Not an expert but isn't a deck without removal just hard countered sometimes?
@@Saphire_Throated_Carpenter_Ant One of the big reasons as to why decks without removal are "trash" is because, as johanloubser pointed out, they're almost always feast or famine.
For example, my brother runs a Hamza setup with practically zero interaction that can play it's entire deck onto the board relatively early into the game assuming he pulls the right cards. The problem is, when dealing with decks that can consistently remove his key pieces his engine melts like cardboard in water. When we play less optimised decks into him it easily has a 70-80%+ winrate, but he flat out refuses to play it against my Jeska/Falthis deck because he knows Hamza simply cannot win against it. Same goes for my mono-blue control deck.
This is what happens when you build "greedy" and refuse to dedicate enough card space to interaction. You end up with a deck that's probably really good at what it does, but completely falls apart against bad matchups. A deck with interaction can generally at least stop other players from winning long enough to maybe stall out and potentially make a comeback if whoever was countering them gets knocked out before them. Not to mention, a well timed counterspell or doom blade can give you control in a situation where otherwise you'd just be watching Player 1 go infinite.
I get trying to balance the game but im not telling people whats in the deck and usually I wont say what it does. The commander is exposed and that usually narrows down what i could be running/using
@@JohnDoe-og2btif you play enough at a place people will learn your decks anyway. Is it so important for you to get a win you would unbalance the pod for the first few rounds with a deck so you get your first few “gotcha” wins in? Or are you not running enough protection/interaction for your wincon you need people to not see it coming to pull it off?
I am coming in a late here, but I feel like this is less “rule 0 conversations are bad” and more “how can rule 0 conversations be meaningful”. Even in my regular pod where we’re pretty familiar with how we all think about deck building, we still have a “rule 0” conversation when bringing in new decks or when we have new players joining us. One thing I do agree with: power level judgments are meaningless and we do not ever assign them. They’re not only almost always misjudged even by extremely seasoned players, but they’re also heavily dependent upon match-ups that can completely change how a deck stands up against others. When we have these discussions it always boils down to these points:
1: how much of this deck is built with what we tend to term “power pushing cards”. Fast mana, tutors, other expensive and unusual cards that turn the deck into something wild. If you’re playing green/white token deck and you have Anointed Procession, ok. If you’re playing that deck and have Anointed Procession, Doubling Season, Mondrak, Ojer Taq, AND Parallel Lives, that’s another conversation.
2: what does your deck do, what does it NOT do. If you’re playing that token deck and I’m playing Judith, Carnage Connoisseur I’m a bad match for you. I’m the one at disadvantage if you’re playing an artifact deck or especially if you’re playing a blue counter spell deck. Can you go infinite with any of your combos? Do you have multiple ways to do so?
3: how long to you want the game to go? We tend to tune for plays that going to be 10-12 turns, maybe a bit longer, because that’s what we find fun. Faster than that, we’re not really interested. Slower than that, then we are going to leave you very frustrated.
Tl,dr: you don’t hate rule zero, you hate bad rule zero from idiots or liars.
This happened to me a few years ago, and it was when I thought Rule Zero was BS. I meet up with a few friends at an LGS to play in a pod, but they were full by the time I got there. One of my buds recommended to play in another pod with guys that he vouched for, so I took his word on their character. The pod introduce themselves, and two of the players tell me that they were teaching the 3rd player magic for the first time. I take that statement to bring out my weak/slow pirates deck, which I valued at a pre-con level. The other two players were on Captain Sisay and a Naya Partner Equipment deck. I thought sure, why not. Those two players forgot to mention they their decks were proxied to be cEDH level, meanwhile their "friend" who was there to learn didn't even get to play anything. I get mad and say "you're teaching a new player with Sol Ring, Arcane Signet, Mana Crypt, Jeweled Lotus, and a T1 Akiri, Line-slinger?" And then I die to that Naya player and I said "you're actually kidding me if you expect to play with you guys again at a pre-con level with your decks." At that point the 3rd player just scooped and said "yeah, magic might not be for me. It feels like Yu-Gi-Oh."
Nowadays I play with my close friends and our pod can range from jank to mid-range to combo decks and all sorts of fun across the board
i feel like proxies are a bane on non cEDH if you say no proxies it lowers the number of try hard decks and anyone that plays a deck that can win before turn 8 with a new player in the group is not someone i want to play with
@@certanmike 1. Allow proxies
2. Not allowing proxies for that reason is just being catty, just open your mouth and be verbose about what you want.
It also doesn't help that a lot of the time I secretly suspect someone is lying when they say "Oh I have the real card but just use proxies so I don't have to switch it out from deck to deck. Like I'm tempted sometimes to put them on the spot and say 'show me the card'. I won't do such an anti-social thing, but sorry I honestly think a lot of people are lying who say that's why they're using mostly proxies. @@certanmike
lol i have a small card binder i am planning on using for this just to free up 2 of my cavern of souls (out of 3) and so i dont need to buy more fetch and other lands @@ASymbolicSymbol
proxies arent the problem. People are@@certanmike
Player three just lied tho
Why? What is wrong with having a combo. If nobody has any interaction you are just gonna die if they luck into their combo
@@dreamlight7634 it’s the lying that made it wrong imo
Rule Zero for MTG is an adapted system that came from TTRPGs like dungeons and dragons, where a rule zero is where you discuss what your fine and okay with at the table what topics, what custom rules, etc. it is a lot more necessary in TTRPGs when considering the truly open factor of shared imagination.
for MTG it has been adapted in commander to mean a conversation about custom cards, proxies, and what kind of decks people are intending to play, to see if their power levels are well matched.
you hit the problem of communication issues many human beings have right at the start. "my deck is a 7" is not a rule zero chat. a rule zero chat is: "Im running tiny bones with quick discard, if you guys dont have a lot of interaction accessible on the fly, ill run away with the game purely due to removing your ability to play cards super quick" - while the rest of the group is running precons. Obviously the tinybones deck does not fit the power of the precons.
the only way rule zero works is when your open and honest about the big plays your deck can do, how quickly you are likely to run away with the game, and be alert of any super salt cards you have. playing against a graveyard deck with cards that permanently exile instead of touching the graveyard is a quick way to shut some decks right down.
Remember folks: a person who cant play the game is not going to have fun.
Reminds me of a game I play recently with people in my play group.
One of the only had two of his decks with him. The decks in question were Atraxa, Grand Unifier, and Atraxa, Praetor's voice.
What really offended me was that he compared his Atraxa, Grand Unifier deck, which wins by turn 6/7/8 to my Henzie "Toolbox" Torre deck.
Y'know, the Und Beat down deck that tries to grind you out in a long game gets compared to "oh, guess I'll just win"
They aren't even in the same ballpark when it comes to power.
I should have been more vocal that day. Remember kids, talking is a free action! Take it.
I know this is about mtg not d&d, but
The problem with "talking is a free action" is I eventually got tired of DMing endless conversation/argument
my question I ask is
"Am I here to play or am I here to WATCH YOU play?"
I'd simply retort that it's entirely dependent on the level of interaction you play.
I would say, if your entire deck has an appropriate amount of removal then you're here to play, otherwise you're definitely here to watch me play.
Rule 0 only works in a world where people are upfront and honest.
The problem is that people, especially nerds in a LGS, are not upfront and honest.
Rule Zero still worked. You've now weeded out a person who can't be trusted and know not to play with them in the future as they don't respect other people enough to be honest with them about a casual game to have fun. This isn't a tournament. If it's a tournament there is no Rule Zero and the kid gloves come off. EDH is casual.
You kinda went over the issue I have with "rule zero" being used to bandaid problems in the format.
I show up to my LGS, there's between 10-20 people there and most are already in pods and we form pods simply as people show up or drop out. This means that most of the time no one can afford to be picky apart from the few people who play cEDH who generally have their own pod.
Games can often go like this:
P1: I'm playing a deck I just put together and haven't played yet.
P2: I'm playing a precon I haven't made changes to.
P3: I'm playing a precon(heavily modified, but not stated).
P4: I'm playing [random commander] without mentioning power level.
P4 or P3 will usually dominate the game, but they don't see a power imbalance. They are happy to win, and get upset when focused or targeted. I'm often P1 and as I'm testing I don't mind much playing against stronger deck(as long as they let me play) but feel bad for P2 who is often new and half the time doesn't come back next week.
The core of the issue IMO is that the collapse of standard has caused people who would be playing a faster more competitive format to be lumped together with people who want a more casual and social game.
Competitive players, the bane of this game. That boils down, like any card game, to luck.
And don't forget the part that everyone at that 4 player pod legitimately think they are playing a casual game and everyone's deck at the table is a 7
This, the main reason I play commander is to get away from standards pace and just get to play jank/Timmy cards without having to worry about dying on turn 4-5 from monored aggro. Also table politics is kind of an inseparable part of the experince so if you go in unwilling to at least share what your deck is about you really shouldn't be playing commander.
On top of that, I seriously don't get how someone can get mad at getting targeted for having a strong deck/boardstate because unless they just pull an infinite out of their ass everyone is most likely just attacking whoever has the strongest board.
(Note this is very different for cEDH groups, I seriously think they should be considered entirely different formats alltogether)
This was what I had last time I played at LGS. I was the upgrade precon and two players had strong decks. I had a good start but got controlled and couldn't come back. The precon player couldn't do anything, so we basically just sat there while the other two had long impactful rounds.
step 1 don’t play against urza no Matter what power level they say it is
step 2 if you cannot avoid playing against Urza, make a naya or abzan "anti-urza" insta-cuck deck to make sure they regret ever playing Urza. It only works if you follow through with the design of the deck though.
Urza is at least an 8 on an 1-10 casual commander power level scale (where 9 and 10 still aren't CEDH because including different formats in the same scale is dumb) - unless it's a deliberate meme deck that doesn't build around artifacts. Jetmir is also at least a 7, even if it only includes random crappy creatures (which the vast majority will not, it's almost always tokens instead).
Even if its Urza Enchantments?
@@Nr4747cEDH is the same format... same ban list, same legal cards, same deck building restrictions. cEDH is just 4 10/10 decks going after eachother
@@AFailedTuringTestIt's not actually the same format despite the same cardpool, though, because casual Commander is about creating a fun social experience for all 4 players, CEDH is about winning. That's actually what the "C" in CEDH stands for, "competitive". A Korvold deck built fully around treasures and fetchlands is a 10/10 casual deck but still isn't a competitive deck because the aim is to still have a lengthy back-and forth where all 4 players get to have a good time while doing "their thing". A CEDH deck has the explicit goal to tutor for and win with a Thoracle or Breach combo on turn 1, 2 or 3. If other players had a good time or even got to play Magic doesn't matter.
"Aggro? Control? SPELLS? Idk what you mean, I only play land, my commander is an island"
In my experience, many people do this on purpose, pretending to be a weaker deck, because their only chance of winning is to pilot a deck that is noticeably stronger than their opponents' decks. In the conditions of equal decks, they are absolutely not competitive.
'I'm trying to win," is enough intentions stated for me. Anything else should be inferred from the commander that is played.
Training, testing and tinkering is sth I do with close mates only(because it's generally not even a real game, sometimes we even re-do turns bc you made a mistake or to try different plays)
i think about this a lot. IMO a 4 player game must require extra consideration compared to every mtg game except cedh. again, IMO, a lot of cards are not appropriate for a 4p game because a chunk of players are unable to comprehend what the word casual means. as a relatively newer player who only played 1v1 kitchentable mtg for years before my first 4p edh game, i understand how difficult to slowly teach myself how to respect people's time and consider which cards i use that i also hate playing against.
you have every right to play your miserable stax control deck that can't win but doesn't let anyone have creatures or tap my artifacts but you're stupid if you think i'm not just gonna grab my cards and look for a different game. if you don't want me to play my shit then i won't. i don't mind losing and i pride myself on giving complements when i see clever plays but i play so much now that i don't have any tolerance for casual decks that only stop others from playing IF it doesn't benefit their game. that's a completely legitimate strategy in every single mtg game EXCEPT casual edh. the cards themselves are usually fine but the problem is a complete lack of prefrontal cortex activity
a lot of words to say you're a bad player
Definitely going to need those pampers in your pfp, when I play my single copy of blind obedience, and you shit your pants, and accuse me of playing a stax deck.
OK..understood.
You are a extremely Bad Player and everyone that Plays better plays Stax
@@diskuslars7527 i play cedh and high power games all the time and i'm prepared to hopefully deal with or play around control decks and degenerate BS. there's a time and place for nearly every legal card but my issue is that commander games take a long time and you get to decide if you're having a good time.
Correct answer - Urza player explains how he wins then bow out to let the other three battle it out for second place.
The right way.
Fabulous. I'd also award the deck 2 power levels for winning so quickly
Yeah I haven't played commander in public after first time because I learned a couple things:
People way more prefer playing competitive than casual
People don't give a shit what you play sometimes, they'll just play whatever they want anyway
Had a WIP deck that'll have a back-pocket "won't lose" combo: if nobody stops it as it happens or don't have the silver bullet after, I'll assume I'm winning and just let the others play out the game for 2nd.
@@GeneralGGD Most of my time playing commander has been in public, never had competitive people, the ones i played were always very upfront about the powerlevel of their decks and more than willing to switch if needed. Don't know what kind of people you've played with.
Our rule of thumb for infinite in casual is = if you infinite win, you are counted for a win, but you scoop and the three finish out the pod
I like this for alt win conditions like second sun
Actually might start doing this, so in a situation where it's an infinite damage combo do you just write off the effects of the combo entirely?
I think that infinite combos are kinda shitty in commander. The point of commander is the interaction and the game, it's not about winning. If you have a player who's worried about winning all the time, that's someone you should drop because eventually it just turns toxic.
@@Rundvelt i agree to an extent, theres a line between edh and cedh. like with any game i think powerful maneuvers are ok depending on how much effort goes into them. if your combo involves like 5 separate permanents and doesnt even instantly win you the game thats fine, if you pull that off with nobody stopping you you earned it. then theres 2 card infinites that remove players. the only time that's welcome is hour 4 at 2am and the game needs to end so we can all go to bed
Ya’ll are kind of delusional, it’s 2024 my guys, everything combos now without trying. Just adding synergistic cards without any thought of combo, and in most archetypes you’ll end up with some unintended combos.
The fact you suggest I should ask people if they are trying to win is crazy to me.
I've always been under the impression that Rule 0 is where you discuss house rules such as: The legality of proxies, are any cards or strategies banned/restricted/or fully legal, is land destruction ok and other such things. I have never seen rule zero done the way you've described....
My least favorite kind of games are those where people aren’t trying to win, and I’ve expressed that in the past that I’d prefer the correct play over the polite one. It’s helped my little playgroup understand that we’re okay with a variety of power levels as long as we all have the same goal, to win and have fun trying to get there
Can I join with my cedh decks? Sounds like a fun group to stomp on.
So if they all jump you it’s cool?
what about the chaotic amusing play over the correct play? I far prefer the former, even if it costs me the game.
@@jben6 That's usually my favourite kind of move to make.
@@jben6 It's fine as long as you don't make it everyone but one player cost the the game which usually is what happens when people go for that.
I think one of the major problems is commander players referring to any amount of interaction or normal gameplay mechanics as “mean.” When you’re playing Sorry! and you draw a Sorry! card is it mean, or is that just how the game works? MLD isn’t mean. Board wipes aren’t mean. Counter spells aren’t mean. These are fundamental gameplay mechanics that are legal for anyone to play during a commander game. And the core goal of the game of Commander - and MTG in general - is to win. Commander has got to be the only iteration of a CCG where a large portion of the player base never actually plays the game to win it. Winning a game you’re playing is not mean. It’s an occupational hazard of playing that game.
My biggest problem with the rating system is that no one will ever come to a table and say “yea I’m rocking a 3” because no one wants to underbudget their deck and then in the same token no one will say yea I’m a 10 because they know it’s bad connotation to have a 10.
I think the problem is the format is so bloated just saying “oh I want to play commander” is not good enough anymore. I think there needs to be 3 formats: entry, mid, and high power commander. Each with 3 separate banlists then you have a basis of things to go off of. Oh we are playing mid power? Then you can’t play with these cards. It helps close the gap on a lot of these situations. Because I’ve been the person who was overpowered and I’ve been the person who was in the underpowered situation both of them suck and it would help the conversation a lot.
Or maybe instead of coming up with fifteen different formats. Find 4-5 people who have a similar play style to you and go with what makes everyone happy
@@johnnoreau3570 except that never works. i currently have 15 friends who play commander and each of them have a vast different style on how the format is played. not to mention this also doesnt work if your new to commander and going to say a card shop and your popping out your precon and chad mcgee decides to pull out his turbo naus deck. so having something like low, mid and high power solves that issue. an urza deck even built semi competently is going to trounce most gishath, go-shintai and isshin decks. it literally builts itself.
like i played in 3 pods within the last week. first pod was zhulodok, laura croft, and indominus rex, alpha. the second pod was blim, damia and saskia. the last pod i went into was strefan, burakos/folkhero, and dr. madison lee (precon)
thats 9 decks of varying levels of quality. tell me what you would do because im honestly curious as how to solve this.
@@DBDpurekillerSo far it worked for me. I have a play group of 8 people that all play slightly upgraded precons, or homemade decks of similar lvl. We also have settled that we can proxy cards, but high level mana rocks, infinite mana/combos, tutors and "taxes" cards (rhistic studies and so) are not allowed
The best playgroups are grpups that start with precons or a really low power deck and everybody upgrqdes over time. They become pretty spikey over tome but thebdeck powers stay similar. Always my favorite mtg dynamic.
Usually I ask for specific cards that are in a higher power list, like it varies on commander. Sometimes I’ll ask “what’s the earliest turn your deck is able to win on?” when I’m not familiar with the commanders more power game plan.
They aren’t perfect but they usually give me a pretty good idea
people talk about "rule zero" a lot, but somehow i've never heard anyone in a Magic context explain what the rule actually is. I first heard it in reference to other games, and particularly RPGs. The idea is that there is one rule in nearly all games that supercedes all other rules: the point of the game is to have fun. "Rule Zero conversations" are called that because they're supposed to be a discussion of what kind of fun everyone wants to have and decide how best to make that happen. Just explaining what your deck is and that's it isn't doing your due diligence.
I think the biggest thing is interaction, people think that lower power means no interaction, and that always leads to bad games
I feel like I do best by asking "What kind of game are we looking to have?" if nobody has anything in particular they want to play.
While we figure out what to do, I briefly describe the deck I want to play and what it does, and then I estimate how quickly it goes. I feel like that is a great way to set expectations and have a more balanced game as long as we can get everyone to reasonably participate.
Honestly sounds like you would be really into cedh, personally why I like cedh over causal. Even though I do have lots of good memories of causal I like the philosophy of cedh
cEDH basically just sets rule 0 to: "We're all trying to win as fast as possible by any means."
Which saves a lot of discussion or uncertainty.
hmm i thought rule zero was where you could play banned cards or like unset cards haha
No that's part of it tho, which lies in what the pod says.
My friends and I just have rule zero for using gimili and Legolas as partner commanders cuz it’s cool. It’s probably not even good lmao
@@datderpderping501 love it
Rule zero is fine when you are all having the same conversation. Power levels are pointless and hard to judge no matter how experienced you are with magic. I don’t think I have a single deck over a 7 or 8 but I’m sure some players would disagree. When asked about a decks power lvl I always respond with WHAT the deck does. It’s a weird Rube Goldberg machine, its a sac outlet combo deck, it’s korvold landfall, highly tuned locust god etc etc. Rule zero for me usually just involves me explaining I run proxies, many of which I design and make myself for theming purposes and I have the original versions of every card I proxy in a binder in my bag. If needed I can swap out the proxies for the real ones, but I don’t have the $$$ to have multiple copies of expensive cards for all the commander decks I make.
Best solution I've come up with in terms of scaling a deck's power level is actually taking the inverse of the standard "1-10", and asking, "Hypothetically, if you got your perfect starting hand and there was no interaction from the table, what turn could your deck soonest win on?"
Even if they do not present a solid numerical answer, that will tell you one of two things:
1) this isn't a deck they have tested before and likely isn't very well tuned to high power.
2) they don't have an idea of how their deck intends to "win", which will dramatically reduce the overall power of the deck.
As a general rule using this guide, I put CEDH at turns 0-4, High power at 5-7, average at 8-10, and anything 11 turns or more as casual.
How would that tell you a persons power level knowing what the fastest they would win if they got a god hand? and even then there are literal decks that are 6's or 7's and can win turn 1-3 if they got a literal god and and no interaction from the opponents. And even then people don't actually keep track of it so you can't even ask them what turn their CONSISTENT threat to win is, but even then you can't really translate gold fishing into actual magic playing as people have interactions usually.
Also the scale for your competitive is off as at times games do go on a bit longer than usual and end on turn 5 thanks to a good control player at the table. And even then control or disruptive decks in general do not follow that turn count as they are usually slower and slow the game down yet they can keep up with competitive decks and win, usually control or disruptive decks are rated competitively on if they can CONSISTANTLY stop someone from winning by turn 4 and preferably all 3 of the opponents. Like competitive control decks can actually make the game drag on for a long time before anyone wins, I have seen a 5 hour game condensed to about 30 min on RUclips that lasted for 21 turns because there were two control players in the pod at the time.
Then there are Stax decks which is literally the hardest thing to play in Competitive as it is a step beyond control which is already hard as you have to know the game and the Meta game as the wrong Stax Piece or even played at the wrong time literally can and usually do costs you the game. And no the goal of Stax is not to lock your opponents down it is to slow them down so you can win, the lock can happen after you know you can win on the next turn or two and at most 3 that way you ensure you won't be interrupted
Here is a far fetched example: Say you have Phage the Untouchable in your hand ready to come out with Dragon Shadow waiting to be cast on her giving her Shadow so she is unblockable but you know your opponents will play removal when you kill one person or someone will win the game after. And say you had a Karn the Great Creator because you played it when the blue player had no counter spells available (which slows the game down drastically as it is mostly a fast mana meta meaning artifacts like Mana Crypt, as this Karn disables activated abilities of artifacts even mana abilities) and then you cast Mycosynth Lattice. If that resolves you literally locked everyone out so you can just cast Phage and Dragon shadow and start killing people, or realistically everyone at the table agrees you win and you don't have to do the extra combat phases.
Like lockdown in stax should shortly follow you winning not take forever for your wincon while the other people just sit there. A bad competitive stax player is just a mild inconvenience that more than likely accidently king made while a good one actually brings the salt to the competitive players after the game. Like again for Disruptive decks you can't just rate them on how fast they can win as they intentionally slow everyone else down
Hell even with high power decks there are turn 1-4 god hands where they just win so you have to say "What turn does your deck present a threat to win on consistently without interaction?" and even then people don't gold fish like they they just check to see if they get mana flooded or screwed often
I'm so glad people are having these conversations more and more. Over communication in social games has many many more safety nets in it than under communication. Because under communication happens effectively with the lights off, and over communication happens with the lights on.
Very well put and great video. Rule Zero salt is one of the reasons I am moving towards playing CEDH. I like to play to win.
If you just tell people all your decks are cEDH nobody will give a fuck if you armageddon on turn four lol. conversely, i feel like if you if you are playing a precon you should expect your deck to suck. this is a chad mindset and will make you a better player. sure it feels good to win, but if you lose a lot until you figure out how to make your deck better, and then start winning, it feels way better.
The problem with that is that not everyone wants to play near cEDH. It's not uncommon for people to get really good at the game, perfect their decks, then start to focus on doing something strictly fun. I have 2 decks that are fairly optimized and hardly ever lose and one Tom Bombadil deck. There is no way to build Bombadil to near cEDH, but I like the deck. So I sit down and say "My deck is alright, it's optimized but that doesn't mean much when you have to wait three turns to do anything at all". People understand, pull out their upgraded precon and we play. My WUBRG Eldrazi deck, I'm very explicit that it is strong so people pull out their pet decks and we play that.
I agree with this. The WOTC. crafted a way so the MTG community and pods are not being honest to new players about their skill-level and their expensive underpowered decks, so everyone is telling a lie to them instead
@@thewheelsman29I got your point because I've been there way before commander existed (yes, there was a time before commander existed)
But you can't get angry with the other player deck if you choose to play your Tom deck or he wins. MOST players don't enjoy Tom decks or even match their decks to Tom's low level.
@@errrzarrr The only time I get angry when I play is when people lie during rule 0. If someone wants to play high power, I'll oblige. I've also actually taken apart the Tom deck because it felt too clunky and I could tell people didn't like to play against it.
Rule zero for me is not me telling people what the power level of the deck im playing is, but telling them if I have a combo (infinite mana/ game winning and if it is with 3 cards or less I tell them specifically with which cards I do that), how consistent the deck is and how much fast mana I have. Granted, I can’t expect everyone to like that- some people like to surprise people with their decks.
I feel like you don't understand rule 0. It's not about power level, that's different
If thats his case, iwould say it is a lot of People case
The best way to determine power level is to ask "When goldfishing, what turn do you usually pop off/win?"
Good advice. The LGS I've been playing at has a lot of casual players and I've been having a hell of a time making my decks to level where I feel like everyone is having fun.
All the reasons you give are the reasons Rule Zero is a good thing though. It seems what you're having a bad time at is power scales no one can agree on. Honestly even your first example is a pretty bad one. The last player having the information of what the other three people are playing is still agreeing to sit down and play rather then walk away or having further discussions about other commanders and there power level. With out rule zero you go in completely blind into that table example you gave and still have a terrible time.
Transparency about what your deck can do is a conversation that should continue throughout the game.
Granted, you can only do that if you've tested your deck thoroughly. But it's what I do, and it really tamps down the feel bads.
Only rule 0 situations I've ever personally experienced were "Hey, I find mill to be infuriating, could we not use that?" and "Hey I found this commander/commander pair that doesn't actually have partner, can I use it/them?" (I have a cool Jin Gitaxias/Urabrask partner deck focused around spellslinging)
The only questions you need to ask before a commander deck:
1. What the situation with infinit combos?
2. What the situation with proxies?
3. What do the commanders do?
4. Are the decks budget? If not, how much?
1. Fist one cuz not everyone is cool with that. I personally despise infinite combos. Having a "I press this button and I win" in casual commander is ridiculous to me.
2. Some people are not cool with that one. I personally don't care as long as it's not because he wanted to do some insane turn 1 win deck that would cost thousands of dollars.
3. Self explanatory, I think it's fair to have a picture before u start. But I don't think it's cool to switch decks after you find out cuz u can just counter the guy if you have the right deck with you. You pick ur deck and then u ask questions. I don't think it's ok to ask details about the decks, like combos, synergies or win conditions. Takes the fun out of the element of surprise.
4. This question you leave it for last cuz it's the most important one. Rating ur deck is stupid as hell. The price tells u most of what you need to know. If the dude is playing a 500-1000$ deck u know ur fucked even if they play no infinit combos. Even if you are the one with the $$ deck I think it's nice to ask anyway to let everyone else know what to expect.
This is why I play cEDH. This is the most powerful my deck can possibly be and I’m playing against other decks that are built the same.
What's your thought on a player scooping in the middle of a game because they're mana screwed? (Not drawing lands)
has the rule 0 conversation addressed 'tactical scooping' to prevent triggers? It took me a while to accept it, but sometimes, scooping is the only way to enjoy more than one game in a 3-hour play session.
I think part of rule0 is that people think it stops once you shuffle. I think in a casual setting (or if you feel like you're accidentally playing an overtuned deck) it helps the table have fun if you say, basically flat-out "fair warning, I'm two turns from popping off"
Rule zeros more than just power level, I mean I love my torens aggro deck but when I would walk up to a table I'd definitely let people know that I am an aggro deck that seeks to threaten life total super duper fast.
Then depending on the enemies decks, I might mention some of my extra spooky cards like genesis wave, itlamoc,etc.
I also like to make clear what I'm not playing that might make people think my decks scarier than it is (like craterhoof, overrun effects, etc).
Actual thoughts; Isn't this what Turn 0 is supposed to be? I mean, I don't want to give away all of my deck's secrets at the start of the game (I usually play oathbreaker as a multiplayer format), so I'll say, "This is my Tezz deck. It has a combo that insta-wins, but is shit at assembling it." Or "This is my Nissa Deck, if you're slow, you will be punished." without really going into the how and why, because information is *how* games are won and lost. On that note, I agree that the execution of the game is far more important than the results. I've never really gone to shops and played with random people or pods before, so that may be the reason for my naivety here.
Also, and correct me if this is nit-picky, but isn't having a detailed conversation *only* to be cynical about what they just told you kinda hypocritical? I don't play commander often (because of the shithead comment I will write below), but when I do people often see me use Breya from a really old Precon I used to have and just pubstomp me because "Well, she *can* be good" and that's never a feels good either.
Okay, shithead comment time: If you value your time, why do you play commander? :V .....I'll see my way out.
I *do* actually use a "power 6" urza deck- while it will "do the thing" I made an effort to avoid infinite combos, particularly non-deterministic ones. It was originally a Sai, Master Thopterist deck but with urza it's more consistently able to set itself up and start cranking out thopters.
I'd still going target you out first game however.
That hate just comes with some commanders ya know?
@@Seority Yeah, when I sit down at a pod like that I usually just Don't Play Urza. I use a powerful commander to make the jank work, but if I'm going to get stomped out before I play the game I'm going to use a more optimized deck with a less powerful commander. For example, I generally consider my Carmen deck to be significantly more powerful than my Urza deck. The urzacopter pile is a 3-4 with a 7-10 commander, so I call it a 6. My Carmen deck can comfortably rub shoulders with most power levels that run any sort of creature heavy strategy, despite being on a tight budget- it's extremely heavy on removal and threat management, because the commander benefits greatly from it.
With Urza, I just want to make funny tokens, and I'm using a strong engine to get that online.
With Carmen, I'm forcing asymmetrical sacrifice/boardwipe effects every turn, enabling swings for lethal commander damage across an empty board on turn six pretty consistently.
Different pods, different ideas of a fun deck.
The biggest problem with commander is the casual mindset , the only way to completely ensure balanced play is either to have no rules or to play precons . There’s too many variables involved.
Watching this video and reading comments made me feel more happy about my group. We play literally everything, even banned cards, and we always have fun. Sometimes someone stomps everyone and we laugh about those combos, sometimes we only play lands for 7 turns and enjoy the situation. Geez, I've even played a deck of Kwain, that's only a funny deck of giving opponents cards and protecting them and ended up winning for 2 cards of "if you have no deck, you win" and a leveler that we put there just if by chance you get that combo. I guess people just wants to win and not laugh about random situations, game resets by cards that exile everything on the table, things like that.
I never spoke in my group what our decks did. I was always the one experimenting, tweaking a deck until it won consistently. Then I'd go to the next. I think this perfectly explains how to have that conversation even in friend groups. Since I was in a group of cookers, we never said what we were doing. It led to us finding overperforming decks we didn't enjoy. I think this helps a lot with telling other people how powerful the cards I am using are.
Rule Zero actually doesn't refer to general pre-game discussions but rather to making exceptions from the normal rules of Commander. Being allowed to play one of the nephelims as your commander is a "rule 0", playing a partner commander with a background instead of another partner or playing a "partner with"-commander with a commander that isn't the other part of the pair are rule 0 things.
"My deck is not properly constructed in accordance with the rules of the format because I really want to play red this game and I do not put mountains in my deck in order to not run 4 lightning bolts. I know this sounds like a joke, but I'm dead serious. I tried really hard to to build the deck with no lands with a mountain subtype in a vain attempt to bypass my derangement, I promise."
I usually ask do you run tutors, combos, and fast mana to gauge what deck to play against.
That’s awesome, I’m not the only one who does rule zero this way.
I don’t care how strong your deck is. I wanna know: are we playing to win, or have fun? Are we playing tight or playing loose? Because it’s a good play or for the lols?
I've never been a fan of the number scale for Commander deck power levels; when someone asks me what the power level of my deck is, I say "precon", "mid-power", "high power", or "CEDH". I'm always descriptive about my deck's power level, because it will inform the other players at the table in the best way possible. As long as the game isn't CEDH, I am very descriptive about the game plan of my decks. I approach CEDH differently because the expectations that come with playing CEDH are very different than at casual tables, not to mention nobody would give away what their deck does at a competitive table just to hamstring themselves in the game.
Since I've mentioned CEDH, I just want to state an observation I've been having. From the various videos I've come across on channels featuring CEDH and playing with many people through Spelltable and IRL in LGS', I'm getting the impression that there's been an uptick in CEDH players and an increasing interest in CEDH partly because there isn't a Rule 0 discussion in CEDH. In fact, when players sit down at the table and agree on playing CEDH, those four letters ARE THE RULE 0 DISCUSSION because of the expectations people have when playing at that power level. You're expected to have your deck to be as tuned as possible, as powerful as possible, as fast as possible, be able to interact as early as possible, and to play to win. There is no salt at the CEDH table because of poorly communicated power levels in the pre-game discussion; it just doesn't happen.
To be fair a cEDH player would look at your commander and summarize what your decks wincon is. Also what you say is false people do give away what their deck does a lot in competitive unless going to actual tournaments because people take pride in their decks
@@JohnnyYeTaecanUktena What you're saying would be true if a CEDH player plays the popular metagame decks with all the typical meta-influenced deck constructions. However if you're playing a lesser known or even a never-seen-before deck for the top end of the format, people will not know what to expect most of the time and as a result will not know what your lines are, what your wincons are, what your engines are, etc. This is especially true if you are a brewer who seeks to diverge from the common play patterns seen in CEDH.
I myself am not at the aforementioned level of brewer, but I do seek to play less popular and heavily underrepresented decks, and withholding information before and during games works in my favor. I personally don't gloat about my decks, and for the most part the metas I've been a part of aren't big on divulging deck information, whether to gloat or to be informative. I am speaking from my own experience and observations; if you disagree that's fine.
@@InfinityRift7 those situations are rare though
From colors alone you can often scope out what a decks shell is, this is especially true in cases like rakdos, jund, grixis, naya, sans g, and mardu shells
Esper, sans u, and 5c shells however are often much more diverse
@@V2ULTRAKill It really depends on what you're referring to by saying "shell". If you're talking about packages and card choices in the 99, I feel like for many color identities there has been a branching-out in terms of strategies for EDH because of more unique commander designs being printed. There may be some overlap, but I'd still say that Baylen would play very differently from Atla Palani, Prosper plays extremely differently from Rowan, Scion of War; Yurlok is an entirely different deck than the Beamtown Bullies, etc.
You also have to factor in power level when it comes to sameness within color identities; CEDH plays much differently than the casual side of the format and thus there are color-specific staples that many if not most decks cannot escape.
Overall, very well put. Simply stating a number has never meant anything to me in this game. Early this year I had moved to a new city and checked out an lgs. I approached a worker at the counter and spoke with him about their game nights and how "hard" people go. Basically gauging if people are playing high-power/ cedh. Thankfully, for me, people didn't play these higher-power pods. After getting the sense that I'd fit in well with the store's vibe, I went to play quite a few times. After going 5 times and playing 13 games I have yet to lose. Every game I explain what my deck does, how it wins, and how quickly. Everyone has agreed and I rarely have issues socially. However, that doesn't mean I enjoyed the games I was playing. There were some of games where the decks felt even in strength/speed/etc, but there were far more that were borderline stomps. I make decks FAR more than I play the game, and while I think I'm a good player, I'm definitely not THAT good. Put simply, I think the 1-10 scaling is far too subjective. Most players I played against said their decks were a "7." Even after probing for more info about what their decks did, I still had about 8-9 games that were pretty imbalanced. I could have done more to ensure pod quality, I'm sure, but I have found that most pods that were unbalanced stemmed from players who used the 1-10 system, rather than those who dove into specifics.
Something else to keep in mind is that sometimes you get players/pods who are not on the same page no matter how specific you are. For example/context, I have a Rhoda and Timin partner deck. It's a UW control deck that slows the game down via tapping creatures, eventually growing one of the commanders large enough to 1-shot players. This deck is VERY strong against creature-heavy, Voltron, and overall combat-focused decks. Because I prefer more casual games, I rarely bring this deck out (the salt factor can go crazy because of it tbh). Before EVERY game I always say "Hey, here are my commanders. If you are a creature/combat-focused deck, then you are rarely going to be able to swing, I am looking to 1-shot players with my commander, and am a very heavy control deck. Is that ok? If not then I'll happily play another deck." I have rarely had anyone say "no" to me using the deck, and even if they do then that's fine and I'll just play something else.
But one time I had a guy, at the same lgs, whip out a Voltron deck. Again I tried to make it VERY CLEAR what my deck did, and the fact that it hard counters his deck, saying "You won't be swinging a single time with your commander this game, are you SURE that's ok? I don't mind playing another deck." He insisted so I moved past it and we played. everyone had a pretty typical start, turn 2 ramp, turn 3-4 commander with a supporting piece or 2 on the field. I had my tap-down engine online and thus, was tapping down many people's stuff constantly, including the Voltron guy's commander. Every combat step went like this:
Voltron-Guy: "Move to combat"
Me: "As you move to combat, I will tap down your commander with mine"
Voltron-Guy: "Are you #$%^ing kidding me? This is so #$%^ing AIDS!"
After about an hour of constant petty remarks, everyone at the table was getting pretty upset because VG was extremely and audibly tilted. So later in the game, when I take my turn I have a choice for, which player to kill. I knew that my other opponents, besides VG, were in very strong positions, but I was in such a strong position that I was pretty unlikely to lose the game if I swung at VG (Verity Circle op). So, I chose to 1-shot VG and he was... upset, to say the least. It was clear that I was killing him out of spite, but hey, I went WAY out of my way to inform you how the game would likely go for you, yet you still agreed to play against the deck and STILL got tilted. Your mental is out of my hands at that point, and you're kinda killing to vibe, so... bye. Anyways, VG was yelling and cursing at me because he clearly wasn't a threat. I just said, "If you knew what was in my hand then you'd have done the same." Which, admittedly, was a lie, but at this point, I could not care less. VG quickly packs his things, yells/curses some more, and finally storms out. Shortly thereafter I won the game, but I haven't seen him back since.
I do kinda feel bad about it, but honestly, I don't think that one was on me.
So if you don't want to be Voltron-Guy then don't use this arbitrary 1-10 power scale system. It's too subjective and broad. VG thought his deck was a 7 (likely because he hadn't played against decks/pods with high interaction). Nothing is a 1-10. The only power levels IMO are/should be: Jank (chair tribal), BC/Pre-con, Casual (no tutors, no fast mana, combat-focused wins), High-power (fast mana, 2 card infinites, heavy tutors, etc.), and finally Cedh (anything legal goes).
Even then, my system is still flawed. Everyone's is.
Just be open, be honest, be kind, and you'll typically find pods that align well with your ideal game. If someone is wanting to play a deck that either hard counters yours or is too high-powered for the pod then maybe ask them to play something else. If that doesn't work, there is no shame in saying "I'm good" and finding another table.
Commander should be what you want it to be. So be clear about your ideal game and stick to it.
I've had similar issues with my Wyleth deck.
I built it out of the precon, but I've changed at least 75% of the deck. I've put a lot of time and money into it, so it can be absurdly powerful. It also can be very much a glass cannon due to its reliance on the commander.
I tell people that it is a Voltron style deck. It literally runs no Auras and very few creatures. The goal is literally to take out my opponents with commander damage.
I run 30 equipment, with 11 of them being the Swords of X and Y. I also have multiple ways to tutor for equipment. I do run a decent amount of removal, though I tend to use it to keep my deck functioning.
As far as power level, I say it is a 7, but it is inconsistent. I ve had games that I've absolutely dominated, and then the next game wasn't able to play anything. The funny thing was it was against the exact same decks.
I shouldn't have noticed this so hard but...
The line crossing out "Rule Zero" seems to be a bunch of hyphens and dashes in bold. It could instead be a bunch of spaces with a strikethrough style, and it wouldn't have those little gaps.
It is fascinating how my experience with rule zero has evolved my deckbuilding philosophy. Particularly with decks that are otherwise normal and midrangey but have one or two cards or combos worth mentioning. Like how my Solphim burn deck used to have bloodmoon and then I realized it was the only card I would have to disclose so why not remove it and add more burn.
The point about asserting yourself is so key. The fundamental reason why rule zero is incapable of handling the range of problems it is expected to is because it fully offloads responsibility for the game being balanced on the players, many of whom were born without backbones (or lost them in some tragic backbone accident). I have been in pods where someone shows up with full-blown cEDH decks - not some fast mana, not combo wins, just a 1 to 1 replica of a moxfield primer on K'rrik creature combos or an outmoded but still cEDH Gitrog list. I have also been alone at the table in trying to put my foot down about our casual games not being the time or place for test-driving Godo.
The reality is that many, many players would rather avoid an uncomfortable conversation and complain after the fact than stand up for their desires. Like you said, if I committed 3 hours to a boardgame, I have some expectations for what that is going to entail. As much as I enjoy commander, it really showcases how important a rigid rules structure is in terms of its ability to bypass the need for 15 minutes of negotiations before I figure out if someone's Tivit deck isn't "like that," and how poorly signpost bans work, even within close-knit groups.
I play alot of online and this is why I don't play standard online bc the power level between that and Alchemy, what I usually play, is no where close.
Funny enough, my main commander deck is actually most of those things you mentioned at the why is it hard part of the video. My Galea Kindler of Hope deck is a Voltron aggro deck, but it does play a lot of value stuff, and it has a little bit of control and some blow out spells and infinite combos. It's not the deck I typically pull out at a table though, but it would be the deck I would grab to answer urza lord high artificer (he's in my Galea deck btw, because he works well with equipment). If I do pull it out, I generally say it's a 9 or it doesn't have a power limit so that people get the idea.
If you’re looking at an Urza and your opponent says it’s a 7, turn 3 might be a little soon, but turn 4 or 5 he’s going off if you don’t have anything to stop it
I agree with this, it's one of the reasons it upsets me that Commander is now the main format of magic The gathering. Commander is so absurdly complex while simultaneously being both casual and competitive. The social contract that you agree to when playing a game of commander is very different than when you play a game of normal magic. In normal magic a hundred times out of 100 the goal is just to win as best as you can. But because commander is supposed to be more fun and casual, a lot of times people don't like to follow that rule, so then the whole reason you're playing the game is different, but because you have four people, and because the game is still match at the gathering, you'll very often run into some people in a pod that just want to mess around for an hour and a half, some people that just want to win as fast as possible, some people that want to win but using a garbage deck, and someone playing group hug that literally does nothing but spim its wheels the whole game
I was playing with a friend yesterday and he was playing a Muldrotha commander deck.
After 2 games he decided that it wasn't exactly fun having that one card that exiles Muldrotha and brings it back constantly, creating an infinite mana loop.
It was also fun playing against them, but the difference it power level was exceptionally clear. His deck was actually quite good, even without infinite loop thing, and then here's me playing funny Gonti deck that tries (and honestly fails) at swarming the field with Eldrazi Scions and Thopter tokens.
I will note that we're both pretty new to Magic. His deck seems to have been made with a bit of research and all that, and mine started with a pre-con and was changed over time with cards that looked good and a very vague idea of what I wanted to do.
Either way, I plan on looking around a bit more, and as much as I love Gonti, I'll probably keep an eye out for a more fitting commander since he no longer really fits with how I want to play.
I can definitely resonate. There was one time I was playing in my lgs with a friend and against another guy. And this guy said he's gonna play a garbage deck he just threw together so my friend and I brought out our weeker decks. But somewhere during the game this other guy played a demonic tutor and my friend and I sort of rolled our eyes a bit. And it's not because we have problems with tutors or we so easily become salty whenever we see someone play a powerful card, it's that if you're truly playing a low power level (or "garbage") deck, D tutor should not be in there. Because if you're playing something like D tutor or V tutor that means there're some highly impactful cards in your deck that are worth tutoring for, otherwise, you're probably better off just playing some draw or value engine. And I don't even think this guy was actively trying to lie about his deck in favor of an easy win, because I met him a couple of times after that and found him to be a genuinely chill and nice person. Instead I think this might be a classic case of "fail to communicate". Maybe he was trying to modest, or maybe he's played in high-power pods a lot, but this was probably not how you should be communicating with strangers.
Its not a problem with rule 0. Having a discussion about your decks is never a bad thing. The problems are with people lying about their decks, no consistency among what is really considered a specific power level and other factors. What you can do in that rule 0 is also ask what combos anyone is running and if they are running tutors as well. Pretty easy to determine someone's deck is higher level than they are letting on the more you ask about it. I often ask people if they have specific combos that I know about for each deck they might be playing.
I actually had a similar issue to this in the most recent game of EDH MTG. I asked the player what level deck they were playing, out of 10, I said I had mostly 4 to 7 for my decks. they said yeah, that's about right, but also said they are never sure where their decks are at.
We played one game, with four players, and one of the players were new, so I played the lower end.
I was playing blue, and never really got to "go off", but I had interaction and it was fine.
After that game, the player who did well, but not crazy, played a different deck, but I say how good their previous deck was. Ask if this one was similar, and they said yes, so I played my hardcore deck in a few 1v1 EDH games.
There wasn't a single game, of something like 6, that lasted longer than turn 6. The new deck they were testing was an aggro deck, designed to win against three other players. My "Power 7" Karador deck never did anything.
So, if you are going to rule 0, a major aspect should instead be "If I did nothing, what turn would you kill me by?" That is a much better way to understand how fun the game will be.
I always ask "right, so no infinites? cool"
and if someone goes infinite anyways, cool, congrats, now leave so the 3 of us can continue this game.
also, count your wins, check your deck's winrate, use that instead of arbitrary "my deck's a seven"
I run a budget Yorion deck. It doesn't have a wincon, it doesn't have extremely fast mana, it doesn't win until like turn 40 and only does it by accident (it's meant to win by forcing everyone to scoop out of frustration). If someone asks me any rule 0 questions I just go "don't worry, this deck is not trying to win and won't win unless you scoop".
Most rule 0 questions are useless. The only questions you should be asking people are: "Is your deck fun to play AGAINST?" "How often do people complain about your deck and are backed up by the rest of the table?"
I agree with this take. I don’t have friends to play commander with so I play at my LGS at pods where we pay $2 and the winner gets a draft pack. Since there’s a prize, as much as I hate it, wouldn’t it be justifiable for someone to pub stomp me with their korvold every game? In the same vein, I should try to win but I’m mostly just there to play with ppl.
Also, In this video your P’s go hard. Do you have a pop filter? I think it would help with that. Keep going with the great content!
Rule zero has always been a joke. If you explain how the deck runs, eg "I'm running 2 infinite combos that could win turn 5 with the right setup, most of the time its a turn 8-9 win, its aristocrats, and I am not running proxies or banned cards."
I have almost always lost to a turn 2 win, a counterspell special, or to a stax complete lockout. Due to people thinking that the turn 5 is scary >.>
I thought rule 0 was "don't be on fire" ...
I guess commander has its own rule 0
I typically ask, how many infinite combos, when do they usually go off, what turn do you try to win by? Typically my decks are turn 5-7 wins in 1v1 sessions. Very rarely is it a turn 4 win. 0-10 power levels are too subjective and not transparent enough. I also usually keep 1 infinite combo in each deck limited to 3 or 4 cards so it's hard to set-up.
My deck is called "Everybody eats it."
in that situation in the start i would ask the table "were you okay with how that game went? if not why? is there some things you are not okay with? how long would you like the next game to go, and if it goes longer that that are you all okay with scooping?" to feel out what the table thinks.
my group's rule 0 is simple: Don't play a land destroyer deck (it's ok to have a few, but not having the deck centered around that. Cruxible+strip mine is really streatching the limit) And no infinite combo. Deck design gets really interesting when you build it willingly excluding possible infinite combo. The result is that the game often ends being fun. Oh we also excluded "win the game" cards. We aldo do frown upon Eldrazi deck that include Many Eldrazies with Annihilator of 3 and more. Annihilator 1 or 2 is manageable, more is a bit unsportmanship.
i can agree with a lot of your statements, but what i have come to realize is commander only works because we allow it to work. a recent example will be against a Voja deck they had a bunch of elves played Voja got board wiped now they do nothing the rest of the game.
I would have to say I disagree with that objective of commander is to win. the objective of MTG is to win, as It is inherently a competitive 1v1 game where the person who drew the best and played the best wins. Commander is multiplayer, which inherently relates itself away from its competitive nature. a perfect game of commander is a game where every player was able to play the game and have fun, where optimally each player was the threat at some point. yes of course someone has to win eventually, but to sit down and try to win as fast as possible is an also an option. CEDH, that what its for. in CEDH if you forget to play a land for turn, sucks. in casual people will often let you play it even if your turn has passed already, because they know what its like being mana screwed. Rule 0 is hard but sadly necessary.
I've been playing since Unlimited and I completely agree. I felt after awhile it was just people not liking certain cards bc they lost to it or not building decks properly / Game stores having house rules that usually consist of a ban list of cards that they lost against etc.
why would you also want to sit down and have to go through all of this BS before you begin. everyone likes to bring up the fact of time but sitting there having this discussion is time in itself... Like stop trying to make extra rules to protect peoples fee fees lol Also why would I want to tell you all the stuff in my deck and how I plan on winning? part of the game is information and surprise... So just throw that out the window , no thanks.
I moved to Japan 8 years ago and Thank god I've never had to deal with that here. People here sit down and play a game and thats it.
I remember a time on spelltable i made a room called "precon games". Bro came in with the prismatic bridge secret lair "precon" 💀
coming from someone who has a lower power edgar markov deck, I 100% agree. If I get good draws it goes from a decent deck to an insane deck instantly so people should always approach those commanders for what they could be despite what someone tells you it is.
This is why I love commander salts rule zero cards you can print. It is typically pretty good at evaluating power level on an equal basis while also giving basic details such as how many win cons, removal, counters, tutors, etc. should be expected for others to decide how powerful of a deck to run. Also, you don't even have to waste time and talk! Just show the little card off instead.
I generally agree, if someone starts off their pre-game conversation with "My deck's a 7", that's not what I want to know. Tell me what your deck's theme is, is it fast? Is it meant to slow the game down? If I'm asking the table what the game plan is, I want to know how fast you're trying to win.
For example, in my personal situation, I walk up to any table with three decks (I only have three); a "Nekusar, the Mindrazer" deck, a "Marwyn, the Nurturer" deck, and an unchanged "Abaddon" precon. They are three VERY different decks that fill very different purposes, but they're all roughly the same power level, surprisingly.
My Nekusar? very tuned, but because I'm not very good (and I lack the funds to purchase fast mana) it regularly takes me 6-10 turns to get the combo online and get to burning people for any amount of health that matters. Sometimes I can get it out faster if I get lucky, but often times it takes me a good chunk of the game to get started and my game plan requires me slowing other people down so I can get my stuff out and not have it countered.
My Marwyn? Relatively tuned, she's fast, she's consistent, BUT, it's elfball, and I don't have many (read: really any) protections. If you wipe my board twice, I'm out of the game and top decking until you take me out of the match. If I'm playing marwyn, my goal is to ramp her out fast and get a win before anyone can interrupt me, but if someone has a response early, then I get to sit there and watch someone else win. This isn't a flaw of the deck, it's a trade-off that's fun for me.
Finally, my Abaddon deck; Abaddon is a really good precon, not as good as the Necrons precon that came out at the same time, but I've won with him against my friend's more powerful deck; but he's still slow. I didn't change out a single card in him, so that if I'm showing up to a table with newer players, or players that want to play with lower power decks, I can pull him out and have a good chance to win, but not absolutely stomp the table with something like my Marwyn, or my Nekusar.
But like I said, they all average out to being relatively the same in terms of power level. None of them have really fast mana, my Marwyn has a jeweled lotus (that I was lucky to pull back when CMDLegends was new), and most of the cards that I run in those decks cost less than $15 per card. I bought budget versions of a lot of the effects that I want to run.
Speaking of which, really should look into Triumph of the Hordes for my Marwyn deck. Cheaper than craterhoof, and I don't have to break theme to add in a non-elf.
Years ago when I used to play casually at my LGS, when sitting down at a pod I would ask everyone one question, "Without interaction, on what turn can you deck win?" Then I pick a deck based on what feels fun with what the board says.
I like the idea of having a little discussion, but more than a seemingly casual question wasn't possible
The most success I’ve had navigating this conversation is “what does your deck look like on turn 6?” If by turn 6 you’re trying to win (or faster) -> high power, if by turn 6 you got an engine going but still not close to a win consistently -> medium power. If your engine isn’t consistently online or still building -> low power. Matching speed tends to lead to much more enjoyable games than matching power level since the two are loosely correlated and people are there to play and this ensures that reasonably enough.
Thank you to everyone for all the support thus far! This channel's main focus will be about Commander and MTG Philosophy as well as deck building/techs! If you enjoy this content please feel free to subscribe and share it with your friends!
commander is the worst format, you have to purposely power down your deck, or not play certain commanders like its the dumbest format, you never hear modern players or legacy players NOT making thier deck the most powerful they can, AND AFTER ALL THAT you still get situations of people politicking to win in every random pods i get in its ALWAYS 1v1v2 so you have to work with the other player to make 2v2 or you lose....yeah fun format
Rule zero isn't a flat "this is my deck, im going to play it." That isn't even a bad rule 0 conversation. That is the exact opposite of a rule 0 conversation. How tf was the urza person unhappy in this scenario, too. They saw people were playing low to the ground battle cruiser strategies, and then chose a high power combo. Ommander that is fully capable of winning on the spot if not interacted with, and then won the game with a deck they chose explicitly because they knew that it would win and that their opponents could do nothing to stop it. Rule 0 is there specifically to prevent that from happening.
In my pod we play two types of decks. The first type are tournament winning cedh decks such as tymna kraum, sisay or tayam. The other kind of decks are fringe competitive decks to allow for some more variety. I think for my group this was the best way to handle rule zero since we had a hard time balancing the power level.
My friends had this problem where some people loved playing casually while others become more and more cedh decks. We sat down and agreed to try out 25€ challenge decks in commander instead. Its really really funny and so much fair than who has the biggest wallet. We have a unspoken rule that no one plays infinite combos or combo decks
We should just say how much our deck costs.
“Yeah, each of my cards cost less than $0.10”
“My deck is full of proxies, and would be about $1,000”
“I’ve got 15 cards that cost more than $30”
I'm still new to the game. My rule zero convo goes, "uhhh.... I don't know how strong it is. It's something I guess."
Just ask 2 questions.
1. What is your average win turn
2. What is the average turn you hit an end board
The first question tells you when a normal player feels good with their deck.
The second question tells you when a stall player is going to have effectively won.
There you go it's that easy the end. No need for a big discussion if everyone is playing an average 10/5 play a 10/5 If everyone is playing a 5/3 play a 5/3 if everyone is playing 2/2 the get out of dodge. And if someone is playing a 15/3 then get out of dodge
My pod always keeps some board wipe cards in hand and usually when a person trys to pull an infinite mana play on anyone we board wipe then the other players destroy that guy so checks and balances comes into effect