I also think trying decks designed to do a thing I want, and then seeing exactly how and why that thing doesn’t work, is the best way for me to learn to evaluate other decks. I expect to build decks which have real strengths other decks don’t have. I don’t think any of my decks are better than the best established cEDH decks. I tolerate it, but I prefer games where everyone’s really committed. The only thing that bothers me in cEDH is when someone gives up as soon as they fall behind. To me, if you’re trying to win and you want your opponents to also try to win, that’s cEDH. “That’s not cEDH” because it’s not a “database deck” or something like that. There’s a decent amount of gatekeeping around cEDH. I’m writing about my process and sharing some ideas I hope will offer new perspectives. I assume if you’re looking for a tournament-winning cEDH deck, you’ll look for cEDH tournament results. This isn’t a strategy column and this isn’t a strategy site. That means the articles are snapshots of an early time in my process, and the decks I write about are weak.Īn aside on that. I usually get excited about a new idea and then write an article about it, then move on to playing with it and iterating on it.
0 kommentar(er)
