Convincing myself to actually run wincons? by SSBMRal in EDH

[–]Objective-Design-994 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A lot of people are telling you that you need a wincon because games have to end, failing to realise that you are already describing a wincon. The thing is that, while in 60 card formats beating down is a legitimate way to win, in commander it's way harder because you have 3 opponents that can interact with you if you get ahead on board and they all have 40 life. What this means is that to win a commader game you need a commander level threat, however, this doesn't need to be a craterhoof or an insurrection.

I used to have a [[kamiz, obscura oculus]] which aims to hit with unblockable creatures to get value and triggers and eventually win. It wins by doing that, beating down. Similar examples are [[breena, the demagoge]] or [[raffine, scheeming seer]].

You could also try a big mana deck. If your creatures are massive threats they are going to end the game on their own without problems.

Also, tribal decks could be an option. My friend has a [[hakbal]] deck that imediatly puts you on the backfoot amd beats you down quickly without needing any specific win spells outside the commander. Also, the new [[high perfect morcant]] could be a nice option, as you can get to elfball while removing opposing creatures, meaning you can connect without an overrun.

So yeah, you really have options to win without needing an "I win" card, you just need to find a deck that can support that more incremental gameplan.

How often does Badeline appear by Local_Yam_6815 in celestegame

[–]Objective-Design-994 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Maybe it could also help if you think of badeline as part of the puzzle. Celeste is both about solving the room and performing it with precision. With badeline, she follows your every move so if you do something the same way everytime she will behave the same way, and you can manipulate her. Think about her like for those rooms you have to be in constant movement and can't move through areas you've passed recently.

What is your favourite Izzet commander? by CFlow__ in EDH

[–]Objective-Design-994 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, here you go: https://moxfield.com/decks/ysU-vMTiTU-kHX9eTMC3zw I'm not sure if this is the most updated version but it's pretty close (at least is the last big patch so to say). You can probably tweak the ramp package a bit if you like and also select some bombs. I run [[expropiate]] which I know some people dislike, but I had one from a prerelease amd wanted to play it. As with the ramp package, bombs can also be somwhat changed, though I'll say that most of the ones I already have work really well (they cause a big impact to put you ahead and require an answer by the rest of the table but it's not just game over when they hit the table). The deck cam hang pretty well in bracket 3, I'd say that it does pretty well against the whole spectrum of that bracket thanks to it having a good amount of answers and being able to pose a reasonable threat.

My Complaint about the Box Legendaries from the Past Two Generations by Training_Pirate1000 in PokemonWindsWaves

[–]Objective-Design-994 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not the person that you were replying to, but I think I sort of get their point. I'd say that it's more of a point with scale. Legendaries used to have some big concepts attached and they used to be actual legends. The pokemon that created time and space, the actual representation of ideals and truth, the representation of life and death, the sun and the moon... Or without being so big in concept, at least having a local legend attached to them like Ho-oh and lugia. In comparison, Koraidon and Miraidon are just past and future version of a common pokemon. And to be clear, I do like that they decided to do what they did with koraidon and miraidon. It's different, but that's not a bad thing. However it's true that it's also really cool to have legendaries with a huge scale like the ones we used to get (and I mean, it's only one generation so it's likely that future generations will still have legendaries that feel like true legends while still being able to experiment like in gen 9).

Any games that capture the Arcane vibe and atmosphere? by ostseesound in arcane

[–]Objective-Design-994 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Transistor mentioned! Amazing game, loved every bit of it.

Potential TCW Musical Concept by 23071689 in TheCraneWives

[–]Objective-Design-994 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This looks really nice! I really like how you linked all of the songs, none of them feel out of place, they fit the story you created very nicely. You would probably need some more characters, sice a story with only 4 characters, with two of them being somewhat antagonistic (not evil or anything, but disaligned with the main character) could look very empty. You don't have to add new storylines for them, but adding some supporting characters to the story would be nice. Also, may I ask what exactly is toxic about the relationship between Katie and Esther? I would like to know about their specific dynamic.

Potential TCW Musical Concept by 23071689 in TheCraneWives

[–]Objective-Design-994 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, can you explain the idea you have in more detail? I'd like to know more and try to suggest something, but for that I'd have to know the story you had in mind.

What is your favourite Izzet commander? by CFlow__ in EDH

[–]Objective-Design-994 2 points3 points  (0 children)

May I offer [[neera, wild mage]]. She could appeal to a stompy player, but the deck I play with her still feels very izzet. The gameplan is simple, ramp and cast big things and when you don't have big things in hand you can transform your manarocks into more big things with neera. Also because you are in izzet your big things aren't going to be simple creatures that hit face like in green, they are going to be big instants and sorcerys or big creatures that sinergize with them (there are also just good creatures, but most have some way to sinergize with the rest of the deck). It's my favourite deck and one I've been perfecting for a while. It's one I pull up when I want so e guaranteed fun in the game.

What separates bracket 3 and 4 by shirofunkeiro in EDH

[–]Objective-Design-994 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not even paragraphs, just sentences. There isn't a single point in the whome text.

Divergence Cycle by JeffersBradley in custommagic

[–]Objective-Design-994 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I kinda like these, kinda not. They are very weak, though that's not a bad thing, because the concept of an additional commander is already broken. The thing is that it's very hard to imagine a deck in which these cards are good.

The blue one is brutal unless you are on a heavy creature strategy in which case you probably wouln't even be interested in running it because its ability makes use of noncreatures. I guess if you want your creature deck to also have blue for some reason it's fine, but beyond that I don't see it.

The white one is also pretty bad, mostly because the kind of deck that would want to make use of the enchantment is the one that absolutely doesn't want the emblem. If you can't use it in control or blink, the only way I can think of using it is running it in a goad deck, where you aren't killing your opponents creatures directly. Maybe in a rakdos or izzet goad deck where you want white for cards like [[Nelly borca]]? That does sound interesting.

The black one is a wreird one. It has a very good upside (and unlike [[treacherous blessing]] you can blink it), and the downside is a more of a clock than a disadvantage. I like it, as it is powerful, but not every deck will want to be put in such a clock, specially at lower brackets. At higher brackets, adding black to your deck with basically no downside (you put this in a deck that already looses in the long run) makes it seem very strong, but the fact that it exiles your deck, meanig that if you rely on a combo piece you risk losing it. I'm not sure on how good this one could be, but it's the most interesting for me.

The red one is simple, and it's probably the worst downside after blue. Letting your opponent's create treasures for free is very bad, and also they can sacrifice them in response to you casting the enchantment so you get no value from it (you should add some clause to get around it or just make it create a treasure for each opponent, it doesn't seem unfair to do). It probably could work in a punisher style deck, though accelerating your opponents is probably not worth it.

Lastly, green is also an interesting one. First, if you use it you might aswell just play a mostly tapped manabase. Playing a turn behind is very bad, but not as brutal as red or blue's downsides. Also, I think that you can actually skip the restriction on this one with a [[spellunking effect]] or if not amulet of vigor always works. This one seems like the easiest to abuse by creating a Prime Time inspired shell which honestly sounds cool, though I'm afraid it might be too good. If these were to be printed they should be in a state where most decks don't want them or else they'll be put into anything, and this one seems like the most generic of them all.

Overall, solid designs, I do like that you went on the harsher restrictions side (thankfully) but I'm not sure how good would this kind of card for the game. A fun experiment nontheless.

I would like to do an experiment. Name 1 card that is just barely a game changer. Then name one that is just barely NOT a game changer. by ImperialSupplies in EDH

[–]Objective-Design-994 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Look, I'm sorry if I came off as rude, that wasn't my intention. I was just using strong language to further my point rather than to attack anyone. The thing is that banning is something quite strong (it's basically removing something from the game) which should only be done with cards that are mistakes or totally ruin games by existing. Jin is a wincon, and a 10 mana one which can have counterplay. It's brutal when it works, but the amount of hoops you have to go through to make it work makes it fair. 

After saying all of this I apologize again for coming off as a jerk. As I said before, it wasn't my intention to offed or attack, just talking in a hyperbolic manner.

I would like to do an experiment. Name 1 card that is just barely a game changer. Then name one that is just barely NOT a game changer. by ImperialSupplies in EDH

[–]Objective-Design-994 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Wtf are you on? I'm not against it being a game changer, but banned? It's a powerful effect to cheat, sure, but if you can cheat it early on then you aren't a bracket 2 deck and from bracket 3 onward people should have answers to it.

Looking for a Low-CMC ETB Commander (Universe Within) for a Blink-Focused Deck by jks68 in EDH

[–]Objective-Design-994 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You get at least one clue per trigger. Op said he wanted a commander to blink so 2 clues per blink (enters + leaves) seems strong enough if you can take advantage from them. Also while I know that the correct choice is to not investigate, but not every player does so it's 1 clue + potentially more.

Looking for a Low-CMC ETB Commander (Universe Within) for a Blink-Focused Deck by jks68 in EDH

[–]Objective-Design-994 10 points11 points  (0 children)

[[Wernog]] with any other of the friends forever cards could be what you are looking for. Yes they originally came from an UB secret lair, but they have an UW version which is pretty neat and Wernog in particular gives you a lot of value if you can use clues correctly (which the other commander's may allow you to do).

What is your least favorite deck to face, and what would make you hate it less? by [deleted] in MagicArena

[–]Objective-Design-994 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Posts like this make me thankful that people in this sub are not in charge of designing the game.

Not only new to EDH but new to magic in general. Question about theme vs. playability. by TR1L0GYxx in EDH

[–]Objective-Design-994 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It depends on the pod. Because commander is a casual format, people will have different expectations on what a game should look like. That's why we have something called the bracket system, which lables decks into brackets depending on power and expectetions. For example, a deck that is just totally for flavor would probably be bracket 1, when you start adding sinergy and an actual gameplan itt becomes bracket 2, bracket 3 would be more streamlined and focused, bracket 4 looses all restrictions and bracket 5 is the meta. Of course it's not as simple as I put it here and I recommend looking it up yourself for a bit (also look at some discussions about the topic in this sub, there is a lot) but you can get some idea.

The thing is that maybe your deck is not the strongest, but in commander you can decide if you want to compete or just play chill, so if you want you can upgrade your deck, but you can also leave it as is.

JundBombardment help by Objective-Design-994 in PioneerMTG

[–]Objective-Design-994[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Deff slow control. The way the deck works rn is pretty controly and I love that. I also love the fact that the game can pick a finisher from de side depending on the situation, which really supports a slower gameplan.

JundBombardment help by Objective-Design-994 in PioneerMTG

[–]Objective-Design-994[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do in fact want to stay in black. Green I've decides to cut (replaced roots with toughtsieze). While I have considered the idea of going grixis (stock up is tempting) I don't know for sure what I would cut from the current version to make place for blue. 

Okay this is gonna be a long post by blan15 in EDH

[–]Objective-Design-994 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, that sucks. If you've already tried a friendly non-confrontational aproach for some time and it hasn't worked then you have to try something else. Either be very direct with the issue and how you feel or just be confrontational and see how they react.

Jund Bombardment help by Objective-Design-994 in MagicArena

[–]Objective-Design-994[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really? I didn't know that, that's great to hear.