Philosophy feels like such a strong word to apply to a game that I play casually. Perhaps it’s fitting though. For most people, there is probably a some underlying philosophy to why they enjoy any hobby. The difficulty comes when trying to extrapolate that into a short sentence that can be explained clearly and succinctly. I can’t determine precisely when I figured out what my sentence was, but it’s been the driving force behind my deck building for at least the last couple years. The philosophy itself is pretty simple. I feel like most people would agree that anytime they sit down to play a game they want to play as much as they can. Most people play the game because they like it. So why spend time writing a post about playing a game people like to play? Magic, in most forms, is a zero sum game. Meaning, both players can’t get what they want. In limited, standard, or any other 1v1 format, the goal is to win the game. If you win the game, you are rewarded and incentivized to continue winning. If you lose the game, it does not necessarily ruin your experience, but it isn’t the desired outcome. Commander is unique in that aspect. Most people play without a reward for winning. A group sits around a table, plays a game, and the only thing at stake is bragging rights. Yet commander is still dominated by discussions of power level, “casual vs. competitive”, pub stomping, and the social contract. This is not me saying that all of that should be thrown out the window. All those conversations are important. Instead, this is my way of answering those question efficiently and with some nuance. For me, “playing magic” breaks down into four main points:
HAVE SOMETHING TO DOIf I want to play as much magic as I can, it’s important that I can actually play magic. To do so, that means two things: making land drops and drawing cards. I personally do not play mana rocks. I don’t like the playing a resource that isn’t thematic, doesn’t give me a card back, and doesn’t answer a threat from my opponents. This also leaves me plenty of room for lands to be included in my deck. My personal preference is to start between 38 and 39 lands. I think my Kwende list I posted last week only has 36 lands and I’m working to rectify that situation as I’ve definitely found that to be too low. I also think that going below 36 lands generally will result in mostly unkeepable hands and doing so is taking advantage of unrestrictive mulligan rules. I prefer to try and avoid taking advantage of these friendly rules because when they are abused is when they need to be changed. Alongside those 38 lands, I also try and play a fair amount of consistent card draw. This is important because I think the most important thing anyone can do to ensure they can play the game is to hit every land drop. The one land drop a turn rule is frequently taken for granted. Players see a land in their hand and they play it if they can. It’s second nature. If they can’t, most people don’t think twice, but spending mana is, in most cases, the way to win the game. Ensuring I’m taking advantage of my free land drop each turn guarantees I’m not missing out on that crucial advantage. A constant source of card advantage, such as Phyrexian Arena, is the best way to hit these land drops. In the absence of card draw, cards like land tax put lands into its controllers hand. Effects like this should not be undervalued. I’ve found focusing on hitting land drops does two things. Firstly, drawing cards is good even if you don’t find a land because it means that you’ve put spell into your hand. Secondly, commander can be as much a game of attrition as it can be of big flashy spells. By taking advantage of this free resource, one can also conserve resource that are more valuable late in the game. YOUR OPPONENTS SHOULD PLAY TOOMagic is not a single player. That statement is even more true for commander, where there isn’t just one opponent but three. So when I play magic, I want to interact with my opponents, and I want my opponents to have a chance to interact with me. This isn’t to suggest that I think playing stax, storm, combo, or any other manner of deck is intrinsically wrong. However, I don’t intend to set up a lock, or combo out on turn three or four. I don’t think a game, in the context of casual commander, ending on turn three is a game that allows me to play the most magic I can. Most games of commander don’t feature the interaction I enjoy by that turn. Now there are obviously exceptions. Hyper-efficient decks can absolutely have interactive, decision intensive games in only a few turns. This is where the conversation of power level becomes crucial, and honesty is important. The conversation of of power level has gone on ad nausem, but my opinion boils down to this. If the goal is to play as much magic as possible, then it is in anyone’s best interest to be clear about and match the groups power level. DO WHAT YOU WANT, JUST BE SURE YOU CAN DO ITThis, is in some ways, the inverse to my previous point. The previous section puts the responsibility of my opponents’ enjoyment on myself. However, the opposite is not true. When I sit down to play commander, I put the obligation of playing the game on my shoulders. If my opponents want to try and combo as fast as possible, it is my responsibility to stop them so I can play the game. This means, that if I want a game that lasts till turn nine or ten, I have to run the proper answers to ensure I survive for that long. Additionally, if I want to play an under-supported tribe, like nomads for example, I have to be sure I can put up enough of a fight to actually play my deck. Building a deck that can survive till turn 9 or 10 is somewhat simple. It requires running efficient answers and efficient card draw to get to those answers. The nuance comes in when you combine the previous section with this one. Building a deck that can both function in your play group while not suppressing your play group requires a delicate touch. What I’ve personally found is that playing less ramp and fast mana and more answers can have a positive influence on this goal. Sol Ring is the example I like to use for this. Only one of my paper decks plays Sol Ring and it’s not because I think the card is bad. It’s because the card doesn’t do anything for me. Fast mana is great if you want to win the game quickly, but my goal is to play as much as I can. I enjoy when games take twists and turns as they go to later turns like nine, ten, and beyond. In these games, a Sol Ring isn’t actually that exciting of a draw, and the allure of a turn one Sol Ring isn’t actually alluring to me at all. So, I took the card out of any deck that doesn’t actively care about artifacts. In general, I don’t emphasize ramp. I play the occasional land ramp, but I don’t follow a strict guide for how many ramp cards I should include in my deck. I’ve found that I enjoy games more when I’m playing plenty of efficient answers. These answers allow me to survive to the later turns of the game. When paired with card draw, this ties into the game of attrition I referenced earlier, and land drops become more and more valuable. However, once again, this requires nuance. I’ve definitely played decks that don’t allow my opponents to do anything. Avoiding this is about finding the right balance for your playgroup. SECOND PLACE IS THE SAME AS FIRSTNow, if your goal is to play as much magic as possible, then why would there ever be incentive to stop the game? For me playing magic means trying to play it well. When I play a game of commander, I’m trying to win and I’m trying to play as optimally as possible. Where this philosophy may suggest non-optimized deck construction, it still emphasizes optimized play. Many people have been in a game where someone is just toying with them. The opponent has the win in hand but isn’t play it. This may come from a place of genuine kindness or maniacal joy. Either way, to me, it isn’t “playing magic”. To me, magic is about trying to make the perfect decision with imperfect information. This goal of making the correct decision is paramount to not only playing but winning a game of magic. However, whether I come in first or second, I’ve played all the magic I can. This philosophy emphasizes going for win without making winning the singular goal. That, I think, is the biggest take away I’ve gotten from focusing on this mindset. My opponent winning doesn’t mean that I failed. If my opponent plays an infinite combo on turn 6, I still played the most magic I could that game. Even if I come in third or fourth, this philosophy emphasizes the decisions I made that put me in that position. This isn’t a cure all to “salt”. There can still be frustration when you just don’t get to play, but the frustration doesn’t come from your opponents simply trying to do what they are supposed to do: win. I don’t necessarily think one has to apply this philosophy in the same way I do, but I do think the mindset creates a healthier environment for magic. It fosters a mentality where the emphasis is both on having fun and testing your skill. Hopefully this post will be helpful in understanding some of the deck building decisions I make as I continue to post list on this site and discuss the format in general.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorMonoWhiteBorder -- A man who loves MtG and his small dog. Archives
June 2021
Categories"MonoWhiteBorder" and corresponding content is unofficial Fan Content permitted under the Fan Content Policy. Not approved/endorsed by Wizards. Portions of the materials used are property of Wizards of the Coast. ©Wizards of the Coast LLC.
|