I am a Gavi player myself and Mark played it perfectly. Enjoyed his plays and decisions. I was however very surprised that he tapped out and didn't let any free mana left to counter Scapeshift. It was obvious/telegraphed and expected. With all the draws I am pretty sure he had one.
5:40 Mark doesn't get a draw from that because the ability that makes theros gods not a creature is a static that is active only while on the field, not the stack.
Good game and easy to follow on a cell. Thank you for stretching those shoelaces and going all in on the pocket lint; how do you determine the ratings of the various aspects of the decks for the graphic with the opening hands?
Thank you very much! And you'll have to excuse me as I copy my comment from above but here's the quick run down of the stat screens: Sorry for the delay on this information, I've been trying to work on the real framework for the reals, but it's more in-depth than initially expected. The framework started off as a joke, where none of the points mattered. And to be honest, that's close to it's current state. Right now it is based on my subjective knowledge on average decks, and I try to give an estimate of where the deck falls. As it stands right now the categories are based solely on my experiences and work as follows: >Power is an average of the other six stats. >Focus deals with how cohesive the deck plays into its themes vs. how many goodstuffs/pet cards does it run? >Speed takes a look at the fastest turn a deck can win by in a vacuum, assuming perfect draws and no interaction. >Consistency takes a look at the odds of speed happening by taking into account multiple copies of effects alongside the average proportion of any given effect in a deck. >Disruption deals with how well a deck handles other players' gameplans either re-actively or preventatively. >Resilience is basically how well you handle or recover from other players' reactions. >Commander choice is actually rated out of five rather than ten so that it has less of an impact on the overall ratings. It tries to take a look at the suitability of a given Legend for the deck a player is attempting to make and whether or not there is a better choice in terms of color combination or abilities. I have an idea for a more objective model which would look to set an average for decks dependent on their Archetype and Themes, and then compare any given decklist to that average to determine it's power level. But there are upwards of 100 combinations between Archetypes and Themes, and literally thousands of decklists to comb through, so it's been a slow process. Sorry for the novel, but hopefully that will clear up where I'm at in terms of the stat screen. TL;DR The stats started off as a joke, and are mostly intended as a rough estimate of the power of a deck. BUT I am slowly working on a framework to better analyze them.
@@TheCommanderGuys You have put much thought and effort into this and thank you for your clear answers. I will use your perspectives when I make my next deck.
I'm enjoying the gameplay videos but I just have a question. Can you explain, here in the comments, what each deck statistic is in further detail? For example, I'm confused by the Goreclaw deck's Commander rating. It's rated at a 3 but in the first bullet point it says that casting Goreclaw as quickly as possible is the game plan. So are you saying that the Commander rating is based on overall commander power or how integral the commander is to the deck's game plan? Power I'm also confused by. Are we going by the 1-10 power level loosely established by the community? Just a quick review of these ratings would be nice.
Sorry for the delay on this information, I've been trying to work on the real framework for the reals, but it's more in-depth than initially expected. The framework started off as a joke, where none of the points mattered. And to be honest, that's close to it's current state. Right now it is based on my subjective knowledge on average decks, and I try to give an estimate of where the deck falls. As it stands right now the categories are based solely on my experiences and work as follows: >Power is an average of the other six stats. >Focus deals with how cohesive the deck plays into its themes vs. how many goodstuffs/pet cards does it run? >Speed takes a look at the fastest turn a deck can win by in a vacuum, assuming perfect draws and no interaction. >Consistency takes a look at the odds of speed happening by taking into account multiple copies of effects alongside the average proportion of any given effect in a deck. >Disruption deals with how well a deck handles other players' gameplans either re-actively or preventatively. >Resilience is basically how well you handle or recover from other players' reactions. >Commander choice is actually rated out of five rather than ten so that it has less of an impact on the overall ratings. It tries to take a look at the suitability of a given Legend for the deck a player is attempting to make and whether or not there is a better choice in terms of color combination or abilities. I have an idea for a more objective model which would look to set an average for decks dependent on their Archetype and Themes, and then compare any given decklist to that average to determine it's power level. But there are upwards of 100 combinations between Archetypes and Themes, and literally thousands of decklists to comb through, so it's been a slow process. Sorry for the novel, but hopefully that will clear up where I'm at in terms of the stat screen. TL;DR The stats started off as a joke, and are mostly intended as a rough estimate of the power of a deck. BUT I am slowly working on a framework to better analyze them.
Poor threat assessment by the Goreclaw player with the Woodfall Primus. Sure, Gavi player had lots of stuff - but couldn't do anything because of Rest in Peace. That gate win was televised a mile away.
I can't speak for Michael directly, but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd assume he mis-remembered Woodfall Primus and assumed it read non-Land; non-Creature permanent. Outside of a mistake like that, hitting Maze's End was definitely the correct target, because as you said Alex definitely telegraphed the Gates win pretty hard.
This game definitely seemed a bit light on interaction. Not a criticism, simply an observation. Golos was hanging out on the board the entire game and Scapeshift resolved without any problem. I was a bit surprised.
Yeah, sorry about that! The thumbnails have sort of been changing at random over the past year as new ones are developed. There wasn't an intentional pattern to them. But all that said, I intend to go back and update all the old thumbnails to the new versions when I have a free day!
Yeah, as DeltaFiend Mentioned, Mark intentionally made the call to not run Decree of Annihilation! But I'll openly admit that when I first saw Gavi spoiled my mind immediately went that direction as well!
I was enjoying the game and think that gate finisher was quite boring... Just my opinion, but I'd rather have seen a "big spells" Golos that creates chaos and let's the game continue on a bit longer.
That's completely fair! For the most part I try to stray away from influencing my players on their deck-building, but I myself would be interested to see a big spells Golos as well! As far as the game, I try my best to just let whatever happens, happen! :D
![Commander Gameplay #32 - Gavi v. Goreclaw v. Heliod v. Golos [EDH Gameplay]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
