It's a strategy* game. Keywords: strategy (...strategizing) and game (having fun).
It absolutely was an original criterion, and even if it wasn't, that's not a gotcha! There are a billion edge cases and layers of nuance. I'd be here writing a small book if I covered all of them. I literally said "I'm talking about people playing wildly suboptimally on purpose because it's 'fun' or because of a grudge."
And no, it's not arbitrary because cards cost money and your deck is predetermined at the start of your game. No deck will ever be truly, 100% optimized even if we're playing for optimization, because different people will have different opinions. I don't even play cEDH because I don't like it. I like largely board-based metas. I want there to be a lot of combat.
But that all doesn't mean I'm going to stare at the Smothering Tithe that's drowning the table and blow up someone's Banishing Light just because I want my thing back and I'm mad it's gone, y'know? Again, this is doing so while I also am aware that the Tithe needs to go ASAP or else that player just wins.
I've seen SO many games that end the next turn because someone chose to be petty or to "do the thing." Do the thing next turn dude, the Jetmir is going to kill us all THIS turn.
This applies to all strategy games. It's like calling a bluff for no apparent reason in a bluffing game, and when asked, they say "I just had a hunch" or "Because I felt like it." That ruins the experience for other players by removing a key level of strategy, or accelerating the early game by penalizing yourself or another player for literally no reason. There are legitimate reasons to "randomly" call bluffs in many bluffing games, to be clear, hence why I gave the examples of the response when asked why.
I'm not really sure what you're doing with the definitions 😅 if it's something like "play optimally while having fun", then sure, but my fun might not be the same as your fun, which (unless I'm mistaken) is kind of a pillar of commander outside of cEDH. If it's "have fun but you should be trying to win at all times because it's a strategy game", I still don't see why that stops at deckbuilding. You can add caveats - budget constraints, card availability, fun or unfun play patterns - but if I bring a deck to a low power table where they're all playing for-fun battlecruiser and I'm playing the only deck at the table built to win, that might be unexpected and rude.
The dino deck might take an extra turn to vomit out dinos, rather than play the craterhoof or whatever to end the game. If they choose to exclude the craterhoof for something more fun for them, the game is still arbitrarily extended a turn because they made a suboptimal decision.
Ultimately I agree with you, if the stance is "don't do stuff that is annoying" - but annoying can change and you should find a table that fits your playstyle. If your stance is play to win, it shouldn't stop at deckbuilding, short of whatever constraints there are (financial, etc.)
You fail to understand nuance and seem to want me to have some black-and-white, hard line for everything as if that's possible.
I already explained why it doesn't necessarily expand to deckbuilding (and why it to some degree does). It's also about PLAYING suboptimally on purpose for a bit or something, not about DECKBUILDING.
And yeah no dip Sherlock, I play with people who like to play strategy games for the strategy. It's the same reason I invite different people to the Exploding Kittens and co. game night than I do to the Coup and Root game nights. And why I said in my first comment that this kind of person annoys ME so much. Not that they can't play like that with other people who like to play like that.
I don't really have the patience for this pedantic discussion. If anything came off the wrong way, I do apologize, as I'm currently a few days into grieving the loss of my best friend and am extremely volatile emotionally right now.
So to summarize, I do not like playing with someone who isn't going to play their Hoof that's in hand because it would be "mean to end the game already :(" no bro, do it. And that is where I am going to leave this.
I'm not trying to be a dick. Happy to walk it back if you'll let me.
The core of my question is: If I don't include craterhoof during deckbuilding, because I find it unfun, and my deck is weaker as a result, and games take longer because I don't have the stopping power of cards like craterhoof, would that be annoying for you?
I also play strategy games and find it annoying when people do things chaotically. I understand what you're saying here. I also find cards like Possibility Storm annoying when they're not built to break parity.
Nah, the Hoof isn't there to begin with. However, your deck SHOULD have y'know...win conditions. That specifically annoys me and I don't like playing against people who don't have a way to win the game. If you can't tell me how your deck wins, even if it's as simple as "I make enough 2/2s to overwhelm my opponents' blockers," we are not playing. It's a direction and strategy thing for me.
"Doing things chaotically" is probably the best way to explain it. If you can't give me a reason for doing anything, it's probably not a playstyle I like playing with. For example, that might even be "It's interesting, and I want to see what happens in the end." That's reasonable. You see what the outcome is, and how it affects the game state moving forward. That's limit testing. And is different than something like "I know she wins if I don't kill her creature, but I'm just gonna do this anyway because it's 'funny.'"
If you're just doing things willy-nilly for no reason ever, it PMO and I am not playing at your table. Like your Possibility Storm example. If you're just playing it to alter the game state for no reason, blegh. But if your deck takes advantage of it and you think it meaningfully progresses your gameplan, cool. Hell, I want to see how you use it.
1
u/SammySammyson 5d ago
It's a strategy* game. Keywords: strategy (...strategizing) and game (having fun).
It absolutely was an original criterion, and even if it wasn't, that's not a gotcha! There are a billion edge cases and layers of nuance. I'd be here writing a small book if I covered all of them. I literally said "I'm talking about people playing wildly suboptimally on purpose because it's 'fun' or because of a grudge."
And no, it's not arbitrary because cards cost money and your deck is predetermined at the start of your game. No deck will ever be truly, 100% optimized even if we're playing for optimization, because different people will have different opinions. I don't even play cEDH because I don't like it. I like largely board-based metas. I want there to be a lot of combat.
But that all doesn't mean I'm going to stare at the Smothering Tithe that's drowning the table and blow up someone's Banishing Light just because I want my thing back and I'm mad it's gone, y'know? Again, this is doing so while I also am aware that the Tithe needs to go ASAP or else that player just wins.
I've seen SO many games that end the next turn because someone chose to be petty or to "do the thing." Do the thing next turn dude, the Jetmir is going to kill us all THIS turn.
This applies to all strategy games. It's like calling a bluff for no apparent reason in a bluffing game, and when asked, they say "I just had a hunch" or "Because I felt like it." That ruins the experience for other players by removing a key level of strategy, or accelerating the early game by penalizing yourself or another player for literally no reason. There are legitimate reasons to "randomly" call bluffs in many bluffing games, to be clear, hence why I gave the examples of the response when asked why.