Does Power Level Matter?

[@devforhire]

Mate your content is pretty much the best there is in terms of commander theory, love to see another post!

[@maxloveman3375]

This.

[@20x20]

The thing I hate about it is that it's so open-ended that my dumb self finds it hard to incorporate its abstract lessons into my concrete decks.

[@nuin99]

Use ya brain pal

[@yocowme]

@@20x20 he doesnt actually say anything concrete, its a lot of waxing poetic. Also, I dont always disagree with his core message in the title of his videos, but in this one he's completely wrong.

[@chubbybrock]

@@yocowmeI don’t have a huge stake in this race so Im more than willing to ultimately side with your opinion, but I personally believe that his videos provide a (albeit biased) theory breakdown that purposefully avoids telling people how exactly to play or what exactly to do, and more attempts to explain why people make certain decisions over others when it comes to Magic. I really appreciate them for that reason since while I’m not super new to magic, there’s a lot of concepts I still don’t fully grasp in relation to the psychology behind deck building.

[@MediumChungus223]

In my playgroup we all go heavy in removal/interaction, and we have a saying: "Confucius say: First man to pop off, eats early removal."

[@MadMage86]

I have always called it 'premature ejaculation', because I am still a child at heart and the metaphor stands up hilariously well in many aspects: for example, going off too early cuts out much of the enjoyment of the process for all involved. Hahaha...

[@futuretrunks9839]

Along the same vein I always use the old frieza quote about how the first to attain their strength usually gets picked off. Shifting my decks to a more grind oriented strategy had helped me come back and win games I’d otherwise have no business even being involved in.

[@knightslasher43]

one my playgroup members just plays boardwipes

[@nicodemuseam]

​@@knightslasher43 Got out the rag and disinfectant; "Keep that table *clean."*

[@knightslasher43]

@@nicodemuseam broooooo I try 😢

[@LibertyMonk]

So: Goldfish Powerlevel matters, but in an FFA environment, resiliency & disruption is a more important axis of power

[@NStripleseven]

More important probably isn’t the right way to put it, I’d say equally important but often overlooked.

[@Reluxthelegend]

Another reminder to play more removal and counter spells (don't forget that non-blue also gets counter spells)

[@atombased-m3d]

@@Reluxthelegend I heard that "run more removal" is the answer to every problem your deck has because it helps your deck solve problems. Too many of us are playing speed solitaire and it's whoever gets the wincon first

[@SenorCoupon]

I believe that more of what is being said is that resiliency and disruption allow for power to be realized. Power itself is a rather nebulous term and exists on multiple axes as well. Incorporating the mathematical concepts of mean, median, and mode are important for understanding a deck's "power". What is the difference between a good and bad draw? What does the most common hand look like? How easily can a bad draw convert into a decent or good draw? So I guess it's somewhat of how does it function when it gets going, how easy is it to get going, how consistently does it get going, how easy is it to convert from off to on, and how easy is it for your opponents to turn off? These all factor into "power". A bad deck with a copy of Omniscience doesn't instantly become a high powered deck, even though the high-end situations are now incredibly strong. Being efficient as a deck builder matters, as it allows for more slots for interaction. So using as few cards as possible to "do the thing" with consistency means that your deck can survive much harsher conditions. In a format where any style of deck is possible, adaptability and dynamism are imperative to navigate the unpredictable nature of the game states you will face.

[@jmanwild87]

@SenorCoupon basically it doesn't matter if your top end ends the world if you don't run the interaction to actually get to realize that strength. It's better to lower your ceiling a bit to raise your floor and also be able to interact with your opponents. Of course there's also the issue of 3 opponents and if they aren't doing the same your extra removal might help and might just get you killed

[@ericarvanitis2574]

I agree with you to some extent. If every single person in the playgroup is running lots of interaction then your point is 100% accurate, however, if ONLY YOU are playing interaction while others just sit on their "try to win and do my deck things" then you're be going to have a bad time

[@vileluca]

right. you end up being the kingmaker but never the king

[@dragonsauras]

​@@vileluca Could be fun if that was your goal.

[@thered1s276]

yeah, I get the feeling that you're dropping a single kill spell on the first decently-sized creature to get one attack through, and wondering why you didn't get anything done. You save that shit for win conditions and value engines.

[@Volkbrecht]

@@thered1s276 Nah, he has a point. I have played such games where I was the only halfway interactive player facing down three battlecruiser players. Not just will you be the only one who is not really getting ahead because a fair amount of your deck is designed to handle threats, these types of players tend to dislike you for messing with their solitaire game, so instead of trying to trade with the other battlecruisers they focus on kicking out the one player who dares to mess with their board. Plus, the way the format has evolved there is not a lot of stuff any more that you can leave unanswered for long.

[@robinros2595]

And this is why I like my Gluntch deck so much. People tend to play waaaayy too few removal, so my deck preys on those by giving the battlecruiser decks what they need to pop off, saying "Here buddy, do your thing, we all want you to see you do your thing, just kill me last please" baiting out the little removal the other players have and getting into the 1 v 1 in that way. Then, I'm the only deck playing removal in a 1 v 1, so more often than not, that's just a clear win. I've been putting 2 +1/+1 counters on my opponents Esper Sentinels on turn 2 in order to make them a threat, make myself an ally to the most powerful player and to bait removal from the others. People really don't know how to play around that :P

[@Ktjnn]

When I started around 2013 or so, it seemed like having a variety of power levels was the whole point of the format. Now, it feels like everyone gets mad when your idea of what an arbitrary number rating means is different from theirs.

[@rootfish2671]

That’s my whole issue with power level it’s open to personal interpretation so it’s ultimately a meaningless term.

[@Graemyr]

​@@rootfish2671 subjectivity =/= meaninglessness

[@The_Weirder]

I think a really underrated deck consideration not often talked about is 'multifacetedness'. Being able to dynamically pivot your strategy, envision alternative actionable wincons when one or more combo pieces aren't present -- is critical. If your entire deck is put on hold from accomplishing anything of note when Solemnity or Ashes of the Abhorrent comes into play -- it may be a sign you need other synergetic components. Obviously, the deck that sets out to do too many things at once accomplishes none of them, but if every single card feeds into one pipelined payoff, it's shooting yourself in the foot by sticking to your guns.

[@atombased-m3d]

Bingo. I call it flexibility vs. overfocus. Playing interaction or having multiple ways your deck will work well vs. playing solitaire and trying to get your wincon fast. I mean, both are viable builds and people play both ways and every way in between, and I say play the deck that is the style you like or are feeling in that moment. But don't be sad if your strat fails or you get totally shut down

[@sethb3090]

I find that three is a good number, especially if you can interweave them. One of my decks is a spellslinger deck with a cantrip focus, so it uses prowess to take things to combat, card draw synergies and storm to combo, and can do this while interacting because that's spells. The result is a deck that can turn around and win, even when I think I'm dead (also, Knowledge Pool is great into the average edh battlecruiser deck when you're focused on cheap cantrips).

[@rootfish2671]

So many games I’ve had my opponent complain that I’m unfairly targeting them in a group game when I throw a monkey wrench in their badass combo building. Ok let me just sit here so you can crush us all with your infinite damage combo

[@PaulGaither]

@@rootfish2671- Magic players and complaining. name a more iconic duo. Tell them to git gud.

[@atombased-m3d]

@@rootfish2671 I have said those exact words during a game on spelltable.

[@underscore_5450]

My favorite thing about interaction is that (in most cases) its power scales with the threat. A counterspell is strong but casting it in response to a rampant growth will probably annoy your opponent more than anything else. But if it's used to counter an extra turn spell, that may shift the whole outcome of the game. I always see casual players shying away from interaction because they think its mean or that it slows down a game, which is unfortunate bc interaction is the most fun part of the game imo. Especially in a multiplayer format.

[@rootfish2671]

I started playing magic in 3rd edition and stopped around Urzas Saga and just recently got back into the game. One thing I’ve noticed with players now is not attacking early or attacking when it’s to their advantage. I’ve been accused of being “mean” because I ran a goblin commander deck with a low cost goblin commander that has the ability that when I play an instant or sorcery I flip a coin and a opponent calls it. If I lose I choose another target and copy that spell, if I win the spell returns to my hand. The entire table freaked out when I got a bunch of lucky flips and just ran rampant with many lands, artifacts being destroyed and creatures being controlled then sacrificed. I thought the whole point of the game was to win but I was accused of playing too fast

[@jordanbanister1192]

​@rootfish2671 Krark right? Played against a guy using that. Was a fun guy to play against l. Absolute mayhem. He either popped off or was the worst on the field. Unless he had the thumb of course. Fun guy

[@rjhstuffs]

Something I really like about these videos that I think some people seem to miss in the wide, wide spectrum of EDH content is that you never seem to approach theory videos with the idea of "this will make your deck win more," but rather, "this is how you can negate the bad feelings of modern EDH decks and contribute to a more fun environment." Very cool, big fan :)

[@shuttlecrossing1433]

In my old playgroup, I was often the only player to run interaction and it typically made ME the focus of everyone rather than the other way around, because I was 'getting in their way'. I had toxic friends.

[@MadMage86]

The answer to Toxic friends when no one else will play removal: an 'oops, all board wipes!' deck. No need to worry about removing ONE thing when you can remove ALL the things.

[@seamusdaniels1185]

​@@MadMage86 then he has no one to play with lol

[@jeezuhskriste5759]

@@seamusdaniels1185 That’s why it’s an answer to toxic friends

[@vtlzunk]

yo this guy taught me magic in 7th grade and I still play to this day. these videos are sweet af. HE IS THE GOAT!

[@bladeworxgg]

This tracks with my experience sculpting my first deck. It started as majority good stuff engine pieces. After watching some deckbuilding vids and reflecting, I soon realized the games where I felt like "this deck doesn't do anything" were brought on by a lack of interaction and protection. I added 10 or so protection pieces, included stax permanents and swapped in a smattering of removal/counter magic. Now my games feel much less volatile in terms of bad for me (I was shut down completely) and bad for my opponents (I went unanswered and stormed off). Great content as always Alex!

[@Myrical32007]

This is the best content on commander that I enjoy! :D People really get mad when I am the only deck with interaction and get disappointed when I stop them from winning like wtfff.

[@Tehnameless1]

40% of the time, it works 100% of the time

[@casketbase7750]

Sal uploads at 12:30 AM while I have work in the morning? Splendid. Time to watch.

[@Byteside546]

Same, always worth it - so much more insightful than the average mtg video

[@thelastdankbender4353]

Here's a topic I'd like to see your take on: At multiple accounts, I've had harsh complaints about the amount of removal and stax I ran thrown my way. I lowered them to 6 slots total, yet the complaints emerged everytime I used one at rare occasions. I realized, that the complaints weren't actually about the quantity of removal and stax I ran, but the timing of when I used them. Essentially, I removed escalating threats early, before they had a chance to pop-off. While this was always the best play, it felt frustrating to my opponents, that meticulously planned their bad combos and didn't get to show them off. By letting them escalate a little, then checking them at eye level, we created a more wholesome table experience.

[@firestormingfox4169]

For me, it's always people forgetting what activated abilities my permanents have. I go out of my way to restate activatable abilities on my cards when I play them, even if it's a card that has already hit the board 30+ times in my Pod. Thassa, deep dwelling is an example in my omnath deck; 9/10 times she's just there to blink my permanents at the end turn... but if you blow out all your mana to get a trampling commander that can swing lethal during your main phase: imma use that activated ability to tap it down before it can swing Stack interactions trip up my play group as well 1 put something on the stack that would do lethal damage to a creature 2 opponent does something that would grant indestructible/hexproof/teferi's protection etc. 3 put something else on the stack that does lethal damage 4. Have to explain for the umpteenth time how the stack works and the difference between an ability being activated and how spending costs work compared to ability resolution A recent one was with my ghyrson deck (plenty of low tick damage sources both on board and off) vs a creature that can gain indestructible through discarding a card. After they discarded the third card to save the creature, they realized I was just trying to burn cards in their hand more than I was trying to kill their creature (after yet another stack explanation).

[@dancingmathusalem5451]

"Waah let my deck do its thing" "My brother in Christ your deck's thing is winning"

[@yurisei6732]

Plus, the happier your opponents are, the less likely you are to be targetted. Letting people have their fun for a while and only dealing with them when you need to, instead of when you can, means opponents spend more time fighting each other and you conserve resources, especially when players start to avoid pressuring you knowing that you'll be removing their things if they do.

[@XenoMike]

@@yurisei6732Thank you, this is actually incredible advice. I try to run a decent amount of removal in all my decks and get upset when I get targeted for using them to remove high-value targets quickly… I never considered that timing them so my opponents get to enjoy a little dopamine before it goes bye-bye might make all the difference. Also, it might help my ability to secure alliances and stave off nemeses.

[@thelastdankbender4353]

Precisely.

[@pauldyson8098]

I needed this. I'm a longtime player who understands the value of interaction. HOWEVER, I'm a Timmy at heart and I often build decks with best case scenarios in mind. Just yesterday, I re-built my Mina and Denn deck. Super explosive, splashy turns, etc. After I built the deck, I went back and counted my interaction cards: five--six, if you count Heroic Itenrvention. I love playing "Bumper Car EDH"--when everyone just jams fun cards and smashes into each other, but most of my best games (in terms of my performance in them and in terms of overall enjoyment by folks at the table) have been games with lots of interaction.

[@seveneightlp]

I mean, snail is right. Power level is less important if everyone is running interaction, but that will almost never happen without a dedicated play group, which will mean that you can just coordinate power levels anyway. But, the video does a good job of pointing out that even at very similar power levels, the games are better when nobody is playing solitaire.

[@matthewgagnon9426]

Higher power level decks SHOULD be more resistant to interaction. If your deck is hyper-vulnerable to single-target removal you aren't running a very powerful deck.

[@bmpixy]

I don't play mtg, let alone edh, but these analyses help me make sense of why certain yugioh decks end up strong, esp in this day and age. The fewer cards an archetype needs to come online, the more generic tools it can run to interact with and counter the enemy. And if an archetype has multiple one-card starters, that just cranks its consistency since now it can play around handtraps and negation. So all in all, good video.

[@felygu9268]

Shows how good his videos are, if you can even apply the theory to other tgc's like yugioh :D

[@ghostogresnowrabbit5812]

This is the main reason that Trickstar was as good as it was despite the main engine not really doing all that much.

[@takehirotaniguchi6271]

As someone who used to play yugioh casually before pendulums. For less then a year, I've been playing MTG recently and it's a fun game when you play commander. Its a casual format that lets you have 1 copy of a card per deck (except basic lands). It's fun until the point where you feel the need to look up these kinds of videos lol. I would suggest trying out commander if you know others that play and are also nice enough to teach you along the way.

[@bmpixy]

@takehirotaniguchi6271 unfortunately when i was a small child a curse was cast on me that made me unable to play card games with resource systems - magic, pokemon, hearthstone, shadowverse, whatever, if there's a resource system beyond raw cards i will get manascrewed/flooded 9 times out of 10. Even in a deck with 2/3 lands 1/3 other stuff, i frequently needed to mulligan multiple times due to lack of lands in my opening hand. it works out for me though, because i love yugioh even if yugioh hates me. it's the only card game that delivers that fast-paced back and forth i love of outmaneuvering your opponent's attempts to outmaneuver you

[@seifeldeensameh6661]

@bmpixy a fellow man of culture

[@iv9753]

God, this stuff is so fascinating. Krep up the good work snail!

[@seanedgar164]

"Play more removal" is great unless you're having to overcompensate for the pubstomper. The rest of my pod is low power, below the new precons, so the needed density doesn't fit a game without the pubstompee

[@seanedgar164]

For the record I've been recording our games since new years and we have a clear pattern in games. The pubstomper gets ganged up on and the next strongest deck cleans up once removal is used up

[@JadeIsBunny]

@@seanedgar164 "share these tips/videos with your playgroup" strikes again!

[@AnExercisInThought]

This is why some folks run 6+ board wipes. If you need to answer multiple cards per removal used, it either needs to be repeatable or a wipe.

[@Reluxthelegend]

It is not "overcompensating" it is just being willing to interact with the opponent.You should be running removal regardless of power level.

[@toppington4475]

​@AnExercisInThought I have an esper deck prepared for situations where I think I'm going to be the only one really handling threats, it runs I think 9 board wipes. My pod calls it the cop deck lol

[@vileluca]

This probably explains why I, as the only interaction player in my local meta of Timmy battlecruiser decks (I run 10-13 targeted removal and 3-5 board wipes in every deck) often feel like im the only one at the table capable of stopping people. So games when I dont get interaction, the board gets stomped, because nobody can pick up the slack

[@Strike-w6k]

Yeah. Me too. And im Always hated for removing their pieces.

[@m1gr3nA]

it's really disheartening to play in pods like that. if you are the only person with interaction you get all the hate "because you destroyed my thing". although "targeted removal" is not necesarily the most useful category. i prefer broadly speaking "interaction".

[@rootfish2671]

They need to adapt which is essential to being a better magic player. Stagnating and whining your killer combo was stopped is bad sportsmanship

[@vileluca]

​@@m1gr3nA it can definitely be. When the other players in the pod happen to draw their own rare removal cards, they also tend to have poor threat assessment with it too. A game i played in recently, one player Force of Will'd another player twice in the same game over silly stuff (i think he stopped a commander cast and a mana rock drop early on). Then another player dropped a Gray Merchant later on and the whole table died to it.

[@vileluca]

@@rootfish2671 I've had to adapt my gameplay to this stuff and it tends to lead to very unsatisfying wins when I get them. I have to devote so much of my decks to removal to compensate for the others that my win strategies usually revolve around 2-4 card combos that can be dropped in one turn for a win. Such as Peregrine Drake + Deadeye Nav. ie, i cannot play the arms race with the others, im stuck playing traffic cop until i can cobble together my combo. Which leads to me having a reputation of "winning out of nowhere". A subject of a previous one of Snail's videos.

[@ALWalserauthor]

I super agree!! Nearly all the bad games and player interactions I’ve had in casual EDH have come from a lack of removal in other decks

[@MageSkeleton]

From my experience, the reason why players reduced their "interaction" was because they'd use it to remove none sense. Would be one thing if they were removing a value engine card, but no. They'd use their removal just so they can push an attack through. Then someone throws down a combo piece and suddenly no one has a response.

[@vileluca]

@@MageSkeleton or counter something in the early game thats not important like a mana rock and then not have that counter later when an extra turn card is dropped

[@ALWalserauthor]

@@MageSkeletonOooh I've had this happen. Had a player targeta Ghostly Prison once so they'd stop getting attacked, I told them they should remove the Sigil of the Empty Throne instead so we didn't die to it. They destroyed the Prison, saved about six life on attacks, then we both died to Sigil XD

[@tinfoiledagain3411]

I definitely agree with this up to a certain point. My decks run more interaction than most casual commander decks for the reasons that you gave in the video. However, I recently had a miserable play experience where somebody lied about their power level at a local game store, having an actual cEDH deck. In theory, we were doing everything correctly. All three of us with casual decks banded together to take out the cEDH player, collectively having at least two removal spells per turn cycle, but the efficiency of the cEDH player's expensive cards was too much for our decks to keep up with. The end result was three players trying to remove the cEDH player's stuff without advancing their own game plan, but the cEDH player was able to counter most of the removal spells AND advance their own board state. It should have been an interesting "archenemy" kind of game, but instead it was just a painful grind watching helplessly as the cEDH player dug for their combo.

[@thebigsquig]

The response to that is to let them win with their combo, congratulate them, and then the other three players just keep playing like the combo never happened. The lying player can just sit there and watch the fun while the rest of you play the game you wanted to play.

[@tinfoiledagain3411]

​@@thebigsquig I like that idea actually. I'll keep that in mind for whenever it happens again. Thank you!

[@rootfish2671]

@@tinfoiledagain3411or just don’t play with problem players who must win all the time

[@jurenam]

I sometimes feel that some of my decks lacks to perform as I want to, your shared experience had made me more clear about what is happening in my decks and my playgroup. Thanks.

[@NARFNra]

Sometimes I feel like people don't always think through how the fact that different people at the table want to do different things is what actually affects Commander's quality as a game. For instance, if you're playing a deck with lots of interaction in theory, but you always tap out to progress your board state, you're actually going to just lose to someone's infinite combo the exact same way as if you weren't playing interaction. For some people I think the feeling of having to be the control player and sit back "doing nothing" while everyone else gets to make plays can be really frustrating, because if only ONE player is doing that, then it's like you're doing all the work while everyone else gets to have the fun because if you don't do it everyone loses and if you do do it one of the players with a poorly made pop off deck will eventually just win because you've exhausted yourself trying to manage everything. At the end of the day the most important part of anyone having a good time is for everyone at the table to be doing their job as a group...

[@WinterSaturn]

All hail the snail. Love the content! I've learned so much from bingeing your videos. I'm building my first "real" deck from scratch this weekend and am really looking forward to putting this theory into practice!

[@commanderpower99]

Dude, you have a lot of great ideas that can move the format in an entire different direction. I love your videos, man. And yes, Magic is a great game bc of interaction. This is what makes the game so thrilling.

[@matheuscomparini1663]

I own decks with both mentalities, i found out recently that if you're the only one at the table with heavy interaction two scenarios unfold: a) you get out of resorces because you have been dealing with 3 opponents by yourself, and then someone just pops off. b) your opponents use the few interaction they had on you because you're not "leaving them alone", then another player pops off while you get nothing on your board.

[@rootfish2671]

Yeah you automatically become public enemy #1 and it turns into a Mexican standoff

[@matheuscomparini1663]

@@rootfish2671 pretty much 😂

[@funsponge9099]

Also leave up mana to play your interaction, ive lost so many games making the "fun" (greedy) play and then lost cause i dont have the mana to interact with the win

[@XenoMike]

The amount of times I’ve been greedy and lost by not leaving just one mana open for Darkness/Holy Day…

[@MenaceLendil]

One issue i find with running more interaction is that the player who does in a pod that doesn't is that you can kinda end up as table police, never able to develop your own gameplan because everyone around you is playing bombs into bombs. You can run stax and a ton of boardwipes but that's usually not very fun for most people. And regarding table imbalance i think it works if the power level of decks is known in advance. In my experience the "low power" players will often use their interaction against each other not knowing that the "high power" player is up to destroying everyone. You could argue it's a failure of threat assesment but if you don't know what the other decks are able to achieve it's hard to do.

[@anoni2189]

I'm glad I found your channel. most channels just say put this, strong card that, combo with this, price something that but rarely gives perspective how to build with the idea of getting back or preventing other's win in mind. Recently I've been building themed EDH decks and question the need or ego to call a deck power level 7. Your videos have given me an idea that in order for my deck to be at a certain power level, it should be matched with others who think they are power level 7 with only limitation from official EDH banned cards. Meaning that strategies for land destructions, powerful mana rocks, Stax, and prison like interaction are not off limits. Its like a license test for my deck if I enjoy or think I have a realistic winning chance for that level. I just need a limit to where I can say a deck complete with its themed restrictions and budget.

[@deejayf69]

This is a phenomenal video. Mister Snail just never misses. It's funny this topic got brought up the day after I played with some of my friends. We have this one guy in our group that plays Atraxa, the Grand Unifier. On previous meet-ups, he would just win by turn 6/7/8 with Peregrine Drake and Flicker spells. It took some convincing for him to even realize that his combo was far too fast for our table, despite the results it produced. Athough he removed it, his decks never run enough interaction, and games with him always revolve around him in some way. He abuses the fact that WE load up on interaction to justify his rather poor deck building. I wish I would have been able to express my issues as well as this video on that day, since talking things out is always the best thing to do.

[@rootfish2671]

Tell him to get lost sounds like a problem player is ruining the fun

[@deejayf69]

@@rootfish2671 Idk. I'd prefer to find some kind of middle ground. Thankfully, he bought one of the Fallout precons. That's the one deck that's actually fun to play against. Mothman with +1/+1 counters can be a potent win con, but it's an easy-to-interact-with creature that presents problems honestly for us on the table and it's not built to rely on the Commander too much, unlike most his other decks. It may be a little light on interaction, but it's a decent experience. Perhaps I came on a bit too strong in my comment. He's a nice lad, just the deck building becomes a point of friction.

[@rootfish2671]

@@deejayf69ah I see i may have been too harsh in my assessment. At my card store there is a notorious problem commander player that just loads up his deck with expensive mythic rates that do all kinds of devastating things and an infinite mana damage combo and will whine loudly when they get attacked and to top it all off they will artificially prolong the game when they could win but we have no chance of winning. So next day I went through the stores binders and bought a bunch of cheaper blue white and red cards to lock him down counter spelling returning his permanents to his hand and stealing his creatures with red control and then sacrificing them with spells like anode alter and goblin bombardment. He freaked out and accused me of unfairly targeting him and I calmly said that’s how it feels when we play our lower powered less expensive decks against your invincible deck. Then he started complaining I unfairly made a deck just to counter his and then I said forget I’m never playing with you again because this isn’t fun. It’s crazy how this win at all costs crush new low power players attitude is in this hobby and his card stores allow this kind of bad behavior to run rampant

[@FightinTheGorlax]

My pod doesn't run anywhere near enough removal. So in order to get them to run more, I've started playing A LOT more Voltron. I try to meta my friends a little bit when I see glaring weaknesses in our pod, but I always explain to them what they could have run or played differently that would have stopped me.

[@temporaltomato3021]

I'm playing Yargle & Multani voltron right now in my pod for the same reason. It's just ramp + give Y&M at least 3 extra power + some protection/evasion, and it tends to win very quickly and efficiently in my group. I think that the more wordy and high-payoff ceiling commanders just tempt people into going for this dream game climax where they become gods, and they forget that all one actually has to do is: get to the finish line. To build on that metaphor, it's as though the celebration at the finish line becomes the goal, rather than the process of the "race" itself. Which is exactly in line with the points in the video.

[@blue-eyesdepresseddragon3753]

It sounds like you're a massive prick policing what your friends play.

[@gildeddrake1479]

I kinda had the opposite problem with my play group. We would go too hard on the interaction and end up just staring at each others with a full hand doing nothing waiting for other people to waste ressources on each other while we optimize our hand for the opportunity to strike. At some point we were not even playing cards, but just bluffing and negociating alliances with each others. Pretending not to hit your win condition or to have more removal that you actually have. It was fun but the games took waaaaay too long.

[@jordanburton9819]

the way you talk about the game is very real and also underrepresented in content!

[@bryanstrahm9961]

This is a really solid take and explains a lot about how some of my decks play out in my casual pods. I have been building decks for only a few months now and I'm running into an issue where it often feels like the decks I'm running end up kind of running away with the game and leave my opponents frustrated. With the exception of 1 deck which I only run with the permission of the table and automatically makes me archenemy, none of my decks are excessively powerful, probably a 6 on the scale, but I often end up overwhelming the other players. With your thoughts in mind, I thought back on a lot of recent games and realized that how my friends were playing their decks and how I'm playing mine are very different. My decks tend to have solid levels of interaction and decent resiliency. An example is my Treebeard Voltron deck. Sure if Treebeard gets removed despite his ward it sets me back a step, I have a lot of backup to keep me safe and going until I can get treebeard online again, and I have solid options for both single-target removal, or board wipes if my enemies get too far ahead. Meanwhile one of my most regular opponents plays a massive elfball deck with essentially no interaction and constantly just tries to overrun with elves, but I can regularly shut down the key pieces to their engine and they're left stalled out and unable to do anything while they watch my tree eventually just run them over. I'm going to share this video around with my playgroup and see if it helps.l

[@__8120]

New salubrious snail video! *Looks inside* "Run more interaction"

[@MrShinyObject]

I was JUST talking earlier today about that enabler-payoff problem, but you phrased it better than I did.

[@MageSkeleton]

i feel he missed the all important dynamic of competent players. Commander is meant to be a "casual format" and was never meant to be competitive. So players can make plays that benefit a single player (king making) through plausible deniability.

[@melonmaniac6503]

I love you channel so much. It feels like every time I watch one of your videos I learn something and especially this one taught me a lot. Thank you!!!!

[@fearghaill9738]

I misheard you briefly at 5:28, but now I want them to make a "Sword of All or Nothing"

[@selkokieli843]

When equipped creature deals combat damage to a player, flip a coin. If you win the flip, create a copy of each permanent you control. If you lose, sacrifice all permanents you control. Equipped creature gets +2/+2 and has protection from all colors and colorless.

[@Krikenemp18]

​@@selkokieli843 lol so really it's just the Sword of Nothing since the protection would immediately make the sword fall off. XD

[@selkokieli843]

@@Krikenemp18 haha true, well said 😁

[@teddyferguson3073]

Just wanna say I love your vids and you've been a great at helping me improve my mtg decks

[@KriskayART]

This video is going to help my deck building alot! Thanks for making it!

[@jmanwild87]

i feel like another issue with the interaction conundrum is if you're in a pod where you are playing a bunch of interaction and nobody else either drew into theirs or actually runs it at which point you either become table police and the other three players have a miserable game or you get overwhelmed and pummeled by the rest of the table because you're the one able to stop the nonsense but don't have enough to stop all 3 opponents by yourself without extensive setup. my decks often run 10+ pieces of interaction and 2-4 board wipes but without the right board state, because i don't tend to run outright denial pieces like say rule of law, i can't control a whole table. If my opponents aren't playing removal i still run into plenty games where someone runs away with the game because despite running removal i either drew the wrong one or got singleton diffed

[@urpalalis]

I really appreciate your channel. your videos put into words a lot of my feelings about the format in an easy to digest way. I'm also a firm believer that power level doesn't matter much as long as folks are building responsibly.

[@fenwayandwrigley]

Excellent content once again. Most players struggle to get the balance right in their decks and it definitely takes a few playthroughs to see what does and doesn't work. Also, it feels like all I hear about are these solitaire racing metas (like everyone just goldfishes not expecting to be interacted with) and that just doesn't exist with my meta. No one wants to play against 15 board wipes, but I treat my EDH games like the "current leader" is the blackjack dealer. Sometimes, for the good of the table you take one for the team and burn your cards, otherwise the game is just over.

[@greyaye8565]

I agree with all of this except the Teferi's Ageless Insight/Alhammarret's Archive since the only time people play these cards is if the commander draws extra cards or the deck's entire thing is drawing extra cards...and drawing extra cards is a well-known strategy to a more powerful and consistent deck since options = power. Similar for the life gain.

[@xxhellspawnedxx]

I have a similarly built Sygg deck - A bit higher budget, but still staying within the confines of ample interaction and so on - and I absolutely love it. Your list even brought some previously unknown cards into my own list :) I'd love to see more of the decks from that battlebox!

[@noahmegill3716]

Do you recall what sort of snags your college playgroups' Joira deck ran into that got her sent to the box?

[@Hank_E84]

I've been realizing more and more recently that all of my commander decks need significantly more interaction. Love your channel as well.

[@BeaglzRok1]

My only problem with removal is that the number also varies depending on powerlevel. I don't want to play in games where players are camping out some one-card combo with their commander and every other card is disruption/removal, because that's just looping back to playing solitaire and hoping you get there faster; you can only go through your deck so quickly before you become Necropotence Thoracle. Plus, if every other spell in your Dimir deck is counterspells, card draw, bounces, and kill cards, and everyone else at the table is playing exactly as fast with the likes of discard, board wipes, sacrificing, exile, et cetera, that just becomes a slog of waiting for your opponent to finally be empty-handed, with no relevant cards on board, and tapped out before you attempt to do anything that wins the game, AKA Yugioh. It also causes things to immediately becomes an arms race. Every commander that needs protection is getting Lighting Greaves. Every deck that needs non-pip ramp includes Sol Ring. Staples and staples and staples, until ultimately you get maybe fifteen cards for your actual game plan. This is supposed to be the format where you play garbage cards you'd never put in your four-copy-playset formats, not Singleton Vintage with better first-printing Companion rules. If it was, then the Power Nine sans Timetwister wouldn't be banned.

[@rootfish2671]

Yeah constantly resetting the game becomes a slog

[@Play_On_Sunday]

I would love a dive into/deck tech for some of the decks mentioned in the latter half of your video. It’s extremely interesting seeing your take on what makes a deck tick

[@lucisev]

babe wake up new snail video dropped

[@deifiedtitan]

Outside of running the appropriate amount of lands, I find “just run more X” is a bit of a thought-terminating cliche that leads down the route of less variance in a format made to take advantage of it being inherently varied. The better mindset IMO is that power level isn’t a good metric, but consistency/speed is. An incredibly fast and consistent deck is going dictate the game and would require a more “powerful” pod to get the games it needs. The solution isn’t for everyone to make their decks more consistent, it’s to have a variety of decks for the occasion. Every deck being your full 42 lands, the complete rock, ramp, and removal package, generic card draw, etc. honestly leads to every deck being the same shell with like 30-40% actual variance, and every game is just drawing through to those same gameplan pieces which gets very stale. Have some solid consistent decks that can compete. Have some stupid value piles that spin their tyres every now and then. Play them in the appropriate games. Solving every power level discussion with “just make your deck like every other deck” sucks and misses the wood for the trees a bit. We don’t necessarily want over-competing in a casual format. “Maybe you’re trying too hard” is a question people that aren’t playing cEDH need to ask themselves sometimes, too.

[@benjamintremoureux3786]

really interesting definitely need to look at this more when deck building. I am often limited by budget so its cool to see that decks can overcome this just takes more tweaking.

[@OverlyCriticalAnime]

The problem comes up if you play online on spelltable. While you can set your deck to do the same thing almost every time there is no way to adjust it for the playgroup since it changes.

[@TheGentleChu]

I'm so glad I found your channel. I love this kind of deck and meta analysis and reshaping some of the conventions around EDH with logic and sometimes scary math! I'm looking to make a rogues deck and am trying to site read your list to figure out the gameplan and how it wins games and am having trouble finding more than "ding people with evasive creatures and generate a lot of card advantage" ... I'm still learning the way of the Snail so I think I'm probably stuck in a more "Craterhoof is the wincon" mindset causing me to undervalue all the card draw and interaction. I would love to hear how this deck works to apply to my own deckbuilding!

[@DemonaruMusic]

I think there's argument against this encouragement of "more interaction neutralizes power difference". Let's say, for example, most lower power decks run a lot more removal to make sure they can slow down a deck if they're pub-stomping. Now, let's pit 4 of those lower power decks with no "pubstomper" in sight, no deck that's clearly more powerful. What happens? What happens is everyone has an excess of cards that do nothing for them or nothing sticks around the board. This is the problem we so often experience with precon-only games with repeated board wipes and slowing a game down to an exhausting crawl. More interaction is smart, but the lower the average level of a pod is, the worse interaction gets as it now sits with no real individual problem to deal with, or even worst, it gets used and nothing gets to stick around the board, making for an exhaustingly stale game. Second argument against it, including example from a game I just played yesterday; A player said "upgraded precons" for the power range of the game. obviously the other 3 of us assumed around 6 usually what that insinuates, his was Daretti artifact pl 8 shenanigans. He had suggested upgraded precons just meant high power version of precons. A weird assumption, but communication errors happen, no anger, no ill-intent. We played it out because I personally actually had a lot of removal on hand. I single-handedly exile over 4 pieces that were gonna let him win. Another player kills a damage engine, another does similar. 6 pieces of removal all at 1 player by around turn 6-7. And you know what happened? He won with excess and ease the turn after the 6th piece of removal. You know why? because removal solves individual threats. but if their entire deck is objectively far more efficient and consistent with winning faster with replaceable pieces for consistency, a slower deck could not possibly hope to catch up for the win, sometimes even if it's a 3v1. ESPECIALLY if the rest of us have to already play catch up while *also* not spending any of our resources to build our board state while there's continues to run rampant and out of control. I do run a lot of interaction in my lower power decks, definitely more than average, especially in any of my decks that include white. But I do not believe doing this solves a power difference. 8 or higher is when people should start being comfortable running 2-card infinite combos. I don't care how much removal is in my deck, a 5-6 is simply not equipped to deal with the level of efficiency that comes with power like that. I THINK, you're right about the core thesis that all levels should be running a lot more removal, a lesson we can all and should follow through on. Removal IS a great neutralizer. But I do strongly disagree that it's a good enough neutralizer to tame massive "power level" differences beyond 1 point maybe. Eventually there's not enough removal to deal with true hard core efficiency & value difference.

[@benballard5930]

“Power Level” isn’t real, but speed is. My rating system is essentially: assume you got an average hand, nothing amazing, just something you wouldn’t complain about. Now, when do you have 5 mana? Is it on turn 5, turn 3, or turn 1?

[@whorcares123]

3:40 Sorry, but wouldn't that scenario yield much more than just the single large Primordial Hydra? The formula for the value of X here is by default 2X because of Unbound Flourishing. Assuming Roaming Throne is naming Hydra, that means Zaxara would produce 2 hydra tokens with 2X +1/+1 counters, since you can stack the triggers for Zaxara to see the Unbound Flourishing 2X, which are then doubled by Corpsejack Menace again. So you are getting 3 Hydras (counting the original) all with P/T of 2(2X). This curve is greedy as all hell because there are three 4-drops here, assuming turn 2 acceleration into a turn 3 Unbound Flourishing, turn 4 Zaxara, and turn 5 Corpsejack and Roaming Throne and no missed land drops, you are looking at doing this as soon as turn 6 with 8 or 9 mana available, meaning all three Hydras are either 24/24s or 28/28s. Sure, Primordial Hydra justifiably gets instantly sniped by a Path to Exile, but they aren't left with nothing, the Zaxara player still has two beefy hydra tokens, which is surely not a "total non-threat."

[@tomyang1117]

Edh players will do literally anything to not play a proper board game instead

[@rootfish2671]

There is an actual magic board game

[@flocon9388]

I play both magic and other board games

[@bartoffer]

This applies well for the split between casual and non-combo "tuned," though it doesn't quite land against cEDH or tuned-combo. While it's true that even in these cases having appropriate removal and interaction is far preferable to the value-balls that people tend to build, the efficacy is more limited. cEDH decks are built on the assumption of other decks having interaction, and of that interaction being used intelligently, so are thus more resilient. Of course, you won't really see these decks banging up against casual, lower-powered ones anyways. But "tuned" combo still often enough wins from-hand while exploiting the format's social contract, requiring players to metagame the combo player and dogpile them early owing to out-of-game knowledge. This is fine within a pod, even if it leads to repetitive games - but you will often see tuned combo pubstomping casual, lower-powered decks. "Dude, my tivit deck is casual, it doesn't win on turn 3." Often enough the tools to properly deal with these decks are locked behind more expensive cards - like free or pitch spells - and so even within a pod you start to see the arms-race approach, as strategies that actually use most of the game's mechanics have to pivot themselves to not-as-often lose the game out of nowhere. It doesn't help that running a card like Ashiok, Dream-Render will often get whined at as "anti-fun."

[@willowparker-ct3pq]

One problem I’ve noticed that works to discourage players from running more interaction in casual Commander decks is that there’s a sort of prisoner’s dilemma at play. Spending a card to answer a threat “one-for-one” actually puts you at a card disadvantage in a multiplayer environment. So, while the overall gameplay experience may benefit from everyone playing a good amount of interaction, it’s always to your individual benefit to let someone else be the one to actually spend their interactive cards. And at a table where 3 out of 4 players are playing responsible amounts of interaction, but the fourth player spent those deck slots on proactive cards instead, that fourth player has a pretty significant advantage. I think you’ve touched on this phenomenon in another video, referring to it as “playing like a nerd.” It’s a difficult problem to try to resolve, when the gameplay actively disincentivizes the sort of deck building that would lead to a better overall gameplay experience if everyone did it.

[@DoomKaiserGliders]

Yea I think this is a good point. Another thing is that casual commander is more about snowballing so individual threats have less relative weight than say in cedh where if you dont counter something right there and then you just lose. So interaction actually has relatively less value because countering a single synergy piece is less valuable than stopping a combo win or other very immediate impact threats. So I think in casual interaction decisions are actually less clear to make because you have to judge a longer run of consequences that not interacting would have (you have to look farther in the future). And this is all on top of the deckbuilding considerations you pointed out

[@willowparker-ct3pq]

@@DoomKaiserGliders Yeah, very true. To add to that, I think a lot of the skill at making those kinds of assessments gets honed in more competitive 1v1 games, and that’s experience a lot of casual Commander players just don’t have. After years of weekly FNM, I have at least some skill at figuring out what’s likely to become a problem down the road, but I have coworkers I play Commander with sometimes whose only experience with Magic is Commander with lightly modified precons. They have a hard enough time figuring out how their own decks’ internal synergies work, let alone recognize what someone else’s deck is trying to do and decide where the key vulnerabilities are in their strategy to try to disrupt.

[@hughjass5494]

Absolutely true. This is why I don't run Swords to Plowshares in any of my white decks; it does too much work for everyone else at my expense. My answers have to be much more flexible, more beneficial to me and/or my allies of convenience, or - most preferable of all - reusable.

[@willowparker-ct3pq]

@@hughjass5494 Yeah, this is a spot where modal spells come in handy - if your cards can be interactive or proactive depending on what you need at the moment, it’s easier to justify the deck slots. And of course, as you say, repeatable interaction is ideal when you can get it.

[@DoomKaiserGliders]

@@willowparker-ct3pq I think mp threat assessment is also just harder as a baseline and there is more risk involved than in 1v1. Tbh the format is popular because it's not competitively geared so honestly most of the problems we're addressing probably aren't super prevalent anyway. Somehow millions of people are having fun in commander despite all the online arguments, they probably don't even care or think about prisoner's dillemma or interaction's relative expected values at all 😂

[@TheDoranMaster]

Do you have a list of all these decks? I want to build them all and we can all roll randomly each game for the deck we get. Awesome video btw

[@salubrioussnail]

That's exactly what my playgroup did, we built the pool after one of my friends bought the Ravnica dice set that comes with the 10-sided guild die. Some of the cards in the decks have spiked in price, but most of the decks are still not too far above their original prices. www.archidekt.com/folders/563240

[@AB-qp2tm]

Big problem with having lots of interaction in a power level differential game is if the others with scrub decks don't run it, and you blow your cards holding down one while the other to enjoy your removal on the arch enemy and then they stomp

[@otterfire4712]

I think a better angle to take "power level" is the X/Y axis, X being experience playing a deck/strategy and Y being budget/optimization of the deck.

[@swampybwoy]

Alternatively, everybody move to the goldfish / dragster race end of the spectrum , that’s also fun

[@anaskaadan7846]

You have to be on the same wavelength as a group for this to work. In my group, I'm usually the only one running more instant speed interaction, so I end up going down cards trying to stop one player from going off and I end up giving the game to another player who isn't interacting. This creates a lot of games where I'm king-making and that's not a fun place to be.

[@jutton11]

Listen man, when a guy kills me on turn three with reanimate + tainted strike + something to get his creature at power ten, its fucking bullshit.

[@kadavercade3597]

modern moment

[@MageSkeleton]

i dislike strategies that eliminate a single player at a time, those types of decks normally compete for third or make it easier for the remaining last player to win unopposed.

[@thebigsquig]

Isn’t that the point of this video? That infect creature wouldn’t kill you if you had a proper amount of interaction

[@valdranne]

@@kadavercade3597reamimate in modern?

[@jmantehguy]

@@thebigsquigyou’re always holding up mana for interaction on turn 3? If they’re ahead of you in turn order it would even be your turn 2.

[@alexscott8799]

I play cPDH so the $30 budget deck talk was exactly what I've been saying. The $70 combo decks in PDH that I've played against traditional EDH decks win with like a 80% win rate

[@dragonsauras]

I've long disliked the obsession with telling people to run more interaction. Snail gets lots of credit because this is the first time I've heard anyone give a reason as to why it should be done outside of 'you'll win more'. Consistency can be unfun and Interaction helps with consistency. Wonderful. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth that all the advice anyone ever gives is about how to win more. If casual is to mean anything it has to mean that people aren't trying to win at all costs. Otherwise, the only difference between EDH and cEDH is powerlevel. This is why I like Snail's videos so much. You aren't reinventing the wheel, but your analysis and explanations give completely fresh and unique perspective into these topics.

[@Ent229]

Since you wanted advice that was not motivated by "win more": More interaction increases the consistency of the game as a whole. This means there is a better chance to see everyone eventually contribute. If you are not playing a group hug deck, having enough interaction can help fill the same role.

[@dragonsauras]

@@Ent229 Well would you look at that. TWO reasons to play more interaction (that I found personally convincing) in one day. What luck!

[@firestormingfox4169]

@@dragonsauras In my experience, Running more interaction (between spells and activated abilities) leads to more pod conversations about niche mechanics and rules since it causes players to interact with the stack more often and in more varied situations; eventually leading to better play habits and IMO more fun game actions using the mechanical experience gained. (If I can attempt to give you a third reason today)

[@Nephalem2002]

I think the basic idea should be to have decks that are playable, BUT, have a ranging level of power levels for everyone.

[@gorethrax8348]

I love this breakdown. I think a huge problem i have in deck construction is i have so many cards i want to play with and its hard to have interaction over something that feels that it contributes to the deck game plan.

[@Gureiseion]

When building I have a strict 10+ interaction rule. If the card can function in another way (payoff, etc.) it doesn't count towards that number.

[@robertomacetti7069]

The multiplayer aspect also tends to balance power level differences out Of course if we have an extreme example like a cedh deck against precons not so much But generally speaking, when a player is ahead is also the archenemy And well, a 3v1 is a huge strain on a deck resources, so the table is bound to catch up eventually

[@hoodiegal]

I usually feel that if I run the amount of interaction people recommend, I don't have enough space left in the deck to reliable do the thing my deck wants to do. I'd rather play aggro mirror than winconless control.

[@camoking3609]

As a brainless gruul player i feel that

[@2424Lars]

From what I have been told, 8 pieces of targeted removal and 2-3 board wipes are a good number for a generic EDH deck, leaving you with 40-50 non-mana cards for your own gameplan, and half the deck should be more than enough to run that gameplan reliably

[@JadeIsBunny]

you are absolutely right it is now my life mission to cut a land for a single removal spell

[@camoking3609]

Mood

[@Silver_Chivalry]

This was quite enlightening. I'm glad I decided to check it out when it showed up in my recommended feed. :)

[@andreacallegari7137]

The Snail speaks the truth. I've played 9 games with a 30 euros Omnath, Locus of Rage Landfall/Aristocrats deck in a 200 euros budget pod. The challenge was to make a consistent deck where every card is 1 euros or less, but I was fully expecting to get outvalued and die before getting Omnath on the field. I've won 4 of those games, and even when I lose (a Massacre Girl deck with Syr Konrad and a Satoru Umezawa deck have been bad matchups), I still feel like I'm contributing something to the table. Turns out having cheap removal, getting your land count to the double digits faster than your opponents and eventually having lightning bolt on a stick are all powerful enough effects to be a pain in the ass of any non cEDH deck. This experience has made me reevaluate how much interaction I run in all of my other decks

[@McDankEntertainment]

So its okay if i bring a cedh deck to a edh table? Long as they have interaction?

[@shmergulflargamish524]

Depending on the cedh deck you're talking about and your ability to handle being focused 9/10 games, sure. Some of the more aggressive combo lists get reamed by a counter, let alone two. As long as you aren't playing against man-children who just want to play solitaire with dinos/dragons, you should be fine.

[@JuQmadrid]

The more powerful strategies/commanders will be able to spare more card slots to interaction and remain consistent than the weaker ones. Arcades, the Strategist will need to run 40+ walls in the deck and it will have very few slots left for all the others categories of the deck or otherwise hthey will wnd up having to kill their oponents with commander damage.

[@alcode3321]

Very well said. I still do think decks that take over games can be problematic but there absolutely are ways in which lower power decks can contest with high power ones for sure. This was a really cool video.

[@jinxed7915]

I mean, you bring up some good points, but your ability to interact and consistency IS part of a deck's power level, so that just brings us back to where we started. Conversely, how badly and consistently your deck needs to be interacted with in order to stop it is part of its power level, and so i would argue that the first scenario (featuring a seedborne muse lmao) is partially a deck building problem on the part of the 3 hypothetical opponents... But its still a power level issue, unless.... Also missing is a point that sometimes, a deck just performs way above its punching class for a game n goes off, and sometimes that's just how it is. Even a deck with just one of each payoff card will just hit and all there is to do is shuffle up and play again

[@raptorjesus7952]

While I mostly agree with everything said here, I think it gets muddier when you talk about fast mana. When someone starts consistently the mana crypts and the dockside, it can get really hard to stop, real fast

[@atheon8367]

A nother type of deck that works for almost all power levels is a group hug or slug deck

[@wazzledog1007]

I like the bit about thinking about a deck running at 25% and 75%. I do put more stock in what the 100% situation looks like though. Or more correctly, what ways can I run a mile when given an inch of favorable variance. For example, 2CC commanders coming in on turn 2 off sol ring or turn 3 off a rock were a huge deal for me when I started. Most of my friends played higher cost things in the command zone, so they couldn't get the same level of tempo off a lucky opening hand. (And to be honest, back in partial paris days, how lucky was it really?)

[@Mr_B_251]

Y'know... watching this video, I'm seeing a lot of my own deck building evolution happening. V1 of a deck is payoff city, V2 is "okay, I had too many payoffs, now let's do the other stuff better" with not enough payoffs; and V3 turns into "the balance is well struck." I've stopped evaluating cards based on their "when all is going great, this will be amazing" potential and I've honestly started looking at it as "When I have fallen so far behind that I am a speedbump, will this card be able to help bring me back from the brink." Payoffs, Amplifiers, and Resource conversion are cards I've started to use less and focused more on "what do I want to payoff" and running more of those. (To the end where my Preston the Vanisher deck no longer even runs Panharmonicon, for example.)

[@CapProminent]

I really appreciate this channel, thank you for the video. I'm now understanding more why some people have such swingy games

[@brunosassonetorcello444]

I would love love love a video showing the 10 decks you touched on, or the decklists if a video isn't an option

[@salubrioussnail]

Here's a folder with the lists: www.archidekt.com/folders/563240 I'm sure I'll talk about them at some point, but I've only talked about bits and pieces of a couple of them so far.

[@brunosassonetorcello444]

@@salubrioussnail ty very much! Like some others have said you're killing it with these videos and analysis

[@wilsonb1121]

Dude your channel is awesome! Just stumbled upon it!!

[@alexbandli]

Hey Snail. I think you should make a dedicated video talking about the "cold war" effect in pods. The idea of all players feeling like they need to run more and more removal and protection. My pod has a tendency to run a lot of interaction to the point where maybe it's too much? Not sure if anyone else knows what I'm talking about. It's like an arms race but instead of things like fast mana and powerful cards, it focuses on cheap removal and a major emphasis of interaction.

[@sp00n29]

That's why I love "Lord of the Nazgûl", because it gives payoffs for casting instants and sorceries, which contain most interaction cards. I run it with lots of instant speed removal, counterspells and draw spells + all the legal copies of the Nazgûl card and there you go: interaction, combos with commander and some way to build up even when your commander isn't out.^^

[@DoomKaiserGliders]

I think your videos are pretty in depth but I am always wary on what the takeaway should be. I think a lot of what you are saying can be good ideas to go and bring to a playgroup, since you can collectively increase the group's deck consistency and reduce the swinginess if that is a problem the group wants to solve. If you are playing with randoms all the time however, then following this advice will only create more swingy feels bad games with those randoms. If someone followed the advice in this video they are extremely likely to increase their winrate among randoms, ie. they will have increased their power level over the average edh player (i think powerlevel is heavily tied to winrate and decks would probably be in a normal distribution). So I think the title is kind of a misdirection then, because for low power high variance pods getting swingy games is still a better situation than one player with a low variance grindy deck (a higher power deck than the others) winning everytime. Since the latter situation is a shittier time all else equal, I worry that people will take away from your video (and other ones with similar power increasing advice) that increasing their own deck's consistency will somehow make their games with randoms less feels-bad when it probably would make them worse.

[@dragonsauras]

I think the takeaway is supposed to be that inconsistency is just as much to blame for unfun games as power level disparities. He talks about these low power, consistent, interaction heavy decks in a specific context where they are the weakest decks at the table. The point of that specific context is that if these decks can be fun when they are outclassed, then there must be something else making the games for the other decks unfun. I don't think his goal was to persuade people to make more consistent decks, he just had to explain the value of highly consitent, high interaction decks to make his point.

[@webbc99]

@@dragonsauras The problem is that reducing inconsistency does directly increase power level, so you actually are back at a power level mismatch.

[@dancingmathusalem5451]

@@webbc99 No it doesn't. High power means winning often, high consistency means participating often. A deck that turn 0 flips a coin, if you win you win the game, if you lose you lose the game, would be a lot more powerful than any cedh deck (a 50% win rate, a lot higher than most) but it would also be very inconsistent (Its worst performance and its best are miles apart, and there are no middling performances) The reason cedh decks are built for consistency is that they are already at near the maximum power (you can't get much better than a 2 cards, instant win combo)

[@DoomKaiserGliders]

​@@dragonsauras I don't think the specifc context rules out power level and isolates the problem to inconsistency like you're talking about at all, if we're talking about what makes unfun games in general. I think with unfun games there two scenarios being kind of interchanged here but they're kind of different. One is losing all the time to more powerful decks (being pubstomped), and the only way out of that is to resolve the power disparity by making everyone more equal in power. The other scenario is swingy, i did nothing games. This problem is only solved by everyone increasing deck consistency (powerlevel) to at least a baseline level. So the solution to the second is a possible solution to the first, but for the first one you can also make everyone play at a lower powr and remove the strong deck. Whether or not your group dislikes swingy games after solving the first issue is a separate question than power level alone. Either way, to solve any of these problems, everyone in the group has to be on board or it won't work well, and that is very hard to do when playing with randoms. Idk how many snail watcher have random play groups but i essentially think much of his content and advice is pretty useless to them and more meant for people with consistent playgroups

[@BlueGlassesVIDS]

Both in commander and 60 card decks, I try to build them versatile. I always get into deck building discussions with a friend who insists I run 4 copies of the key cards to make my decks more consistent, but I prefer to run 3 copies and fill the new slots with more interaction, or in commander have different interaction cards and tutoring, so that in a pinch I can pull out a good answer to a threat. That keeps the Powerlevel of my decks down a bit, but I have more fun that way.

[@slimeproject2868]

This video strongly resonated with me, simply because after playing with the same playgroup for almost over 3 years now, during which we've powercreeped all our decks to mid/strong 8, there is this one friend that seems to handle our pods with some decks he builds even though they are a weak 7 sometimes just because he uses more removal and interaction. Most games are decided because one guy storms off and nobody at the table has interaction to do something against it, mainly due to the fact that there is almost none in the deck. TLDR: Play more removal

[@Belvayne]

My latest deck is a Marath +1 counter deck with a budget of 40 euros. It's performed pretty well because the commander himself already allows for interaction and most of the cards are there to support him. I have a lot of recursion to get my combo pieces back. Using Marath to kill off my own creatures to prevent them from getting exiled was also pretty fun. It's fought and won in a group with a 250 euro Omnath, locus of creation landfall deck and 2 precons.

[@lokiwiFruit]

I try encourage and communicate speed as a better method.

[@tomc.8860]

Sal doing his level best to take the "Casual" out of Casual EDH.

[@claiming1isdumb40]

These are the kind of Commander Deck/Games that make the format fun! It was probably like this with original EDH.. and not when WotC started to make "poorly-designed cards" for what Players thought Commander was supposed to be like.

[@kozad86]

If a deck is consistently popping off, make mental notes on which cards seem to come up over and over, early and late too. If the deck looks to be stacked, they aren't shuffling very well and it could be deliberate - be very liberal when cutting their deck.

[@uphillwalrus5164]

Blud thinks this is Las Vegas

[@axismtg]

I became a fan after watching 'The Problem with cEDH' video. I love how the vid is so simple but explains the most crucial points needed to get across. Really intuitive and not boring. Thanks and hope you make more.