MiHammett,

Thanks for clarifying. I'd misunderstood what you were saying about variance, but I agree that playing against the same Commander a lot makes games repetitive. However, I still hold the same view about weaknesses, though Lurking Predators probably wasn't the best example. Instead let's look at Future Sight: not only will this still have put them at significant card and tempo advantage if/when you deal with it, but it actively aids them in stopping you from killing them. It is certainly true that killing your opponent answers any threat, but that doesn't stop some decks from being weaker against certain cards/strategies than others.

Thanks for commenting!

I believe the variance is within the different generals. I mean there is only so much you can do with one general, and it's not variance if 3 people at a table of 4 are playing "different" sharuum decks. It's really just not that different.

I have to politely disagree with your comments on weakness of black. EDH is not a format similar to standard, and it's not necessary to deal with permanents that do not effect you in a negative fashion. Yes, lurking predators is really good, but why try and deal with the enchantment when you could spend your tutors on Sorin Markov and put them at ten? Now instead of you having to deal with lurking predators, they have to deal with your planeswalker or they die in a minimum of 5 turns. Though I guess that's just because of the power of Sorin, but the idea is the same. Use the amazing black tutors to find game winning plans that win faster, rather than playing the reactive game. You can just about goldfish most games in EDH. There really is not a NEED to interact with your opponent on a "destroy target artifact or enchantment" kind of way.

I whole heartedly believe that the best way to deal with things certain decks cannot deal with, is to just not deal with them. If someone has a hyper aggressive creature deck, and you are playing a slightly competitive combo momir vig deck, the best plan is to just try and win the game, and not deal with it, and just employ your own game winning plan. Although not the most exciting way to play EDH.

But now I getcha with the Glissa tokens thing I was kinda confused.

MiHammett,

Thanks for continuing to contribute to the discussion! I'll address your points in order: I think you're correct on the card availability issue; decks don't have to be inordinately expensive to compete. However, on the variance front I must contend otherwise. Just stopping Commander overlap is certainly a step in the right direction, but for the majority of people who don't have time to tweak their Commander deck constantly, it will be tough to maintain a high level of variance with only one general. Moreover, I have to disagree with you on the question of weaknesses: for instance, though black has a few ways to deal with enchantments, and lots of tutors to find them, a mono black deck will have a really tough time beating Lurking Predators. Sure, you do have ways to deal with enchantments, but to find them you'll have to tutor and spend more, putting you at a distinct tempo disadvantage and most likely card disadvantage. My point wasn't so much that there aren't answers, but that decks are weaker to certain strategies.

On the token makers in Glissa, I should have made that point clearer. The intention of those cards was not so much to block as to give all of your opponents creatures so that Glissa would get back all of your artifacts when you Damnation-ed. That aside, I agree that competitive Commander can draw players in, I just don't think it has as much utility because all of the tournament formats already lend outlets to that type of optimization.

Thanks for commenting, and please let me know if I failed to adequately answer any of your concerns or if you have any other ones.

That's an excellent point: having multiple decks certainly does make it easier to adjust to groups with differing levels of competitiveness.
Glad to hear you're exploring Commander. Have a great time!

As people have stated card availability is only a problem when card stores dont have good selections, but also when someone isn't willing to pay 15 bucks plus for a sol ring. But it's very possible to make a good EDH deck by spending 1 dollar per card for 50 cards 1-5 per card for 25 cards and 5-15 for the last 25. Obviously! depending on the deck and the colors! But that's up to the person whether they can trade for those cards or want to purchase them.

As for variance? I believe my play group has it right, we, for the most part, have been agreeing that you shouldn't use a general the same as someone else. Then we also have a knowledge of our metagame, we acknowledge when to "hate" on someone's deck because they combo out too much, but it's generally ok because when playing in multiplayer games you can just gang up on them if they are about to win, which obviously should happen a lot when you are understanding of the format.

As for Weaknesses? I don't find that to be a problem, if you build a deck that cannot handle an array of attacks, then you should probably fix it. I don't find this to be a format problem but a personal problem. If you cannot handle games because many different kinds of attacks beat you, then ask your friends what you should change. Specifically ask a competitive player what can be done and I think that is the best course of action.

As for finding new cards for decks. I do think it is important to find cards that work for your general. I do not however believe that making bad card choices because of flavor is a good idea. I don't think the idea of WOTC which is creatures should be the most important thing, is not the proper way to play magic, it should equally be spells and permanents. But for Glissa, what happens when you play those board cluttering creatures and someone just combos out instead of attacking you to death? Or if they are playing sharuum and have tons of large fliers? I'm just not sure exactly what card choices like that do. I feel like there are much better choices that you can make and still have fun and make the format interesting.

I actually find competitive EDH a good way to enter people into your play group. This is because you can have them play or help them play a match, they get hooked, and you have them build a deck or get a list. Then they go back to the competitive players and show them the list then they work together to get a good list going. Such as lately me and another competitive friend worked on a friends Isperia the inscrutable deck. And helping that new player out really made a difference in our meta and our playgroup. So I feel like it's more about connections and actually interacting with people is required for this to work.

But of course EDH is technically "casual" and decks are up to you and decks are up to your playgroup. But you shouldn't complain when your deck got stomped cause you played questionable cards and your teferi opponent played to win.

But that's just me.

Reason for me having so many decks, I am a local tournament organizer and I really want to punt the format without going broke doing it, so having backup decks is something that I must do. Another reason is that you cannot predict the power level of a new group, so the ability to switch up decks changes that as well as alleviates the boredom of playing with the same deck time and time again.

My players are for the most part casual, multi-player gamers and the commander format is new to all of us. Most of them do not even posses any sweeper type cards.

Bertrand,

While I agree that it's annoying to have to find obscure cards online, in general I find the commons/uncommons for a new deck for under $15 dollars, and can eventually trade for the rares (though often I'll just buy the junky ones). Anyway, I feel your more important point is that all of the cards you like it into one deck. I believe that if you try out a lot of strategies, you'll find other ways to play that you enjoy, but there's no need to shell out for a new deck based on my word. I would recommend that you ask people to let you play with their decks so that you can try out other modes of play. If you don't enjoy any of these, you'll have lost the opportunity to play a few games with a deck you like, but if you find something else to love, the effort will be well worth it.

Good luck finding new ways to play, and thanks for sharing your stance!