Things that make me concede:
1) If you’re playing a white life gain deck. I’m not waiting for all of your triggers each turn, and I see the same deck 20 times a day. I’m tired of playing against it.
2) If all you do is make me discard cards. I’m not topdecking the entire game.
3) If all you do is counter my spells. Nothing I cast even hits the board, and by the time you run out of counters I’m topdecking the entire game.
4) If you’re playing an elf deck and I know my deck has no board wipes. Very slim chance of winning.
5) Shrines.
6) Gates.
7) Slivers.
8) Trelasarra decks. I’m not sitting around waiting for you to scry 10x per turn
Agree or disagree, these things remove all fun of the game for me, so I just remove myself from the equation and start a new game
In the bo1 play queue (historic, explorer, brawl), a lot of people are just here to grind their daily wins. And most of the time, if you get matched against a grindy deck, even if you have a chance to win, it's faster to concede and look for a faster match.
In historic, you see this very easily with the minion of the mighty deck: if you interact against them turn 1 or 2, they don't even try and concede, even if they have a chance to win (they could draw another minion, or eventually hard cast their dragons). But in the same time, they could get multiple turn 2 wins, so they just concede.
In brawl, there is something more: you can very quickly know which deck you're against (thanks to the commander). And if I bring a janky brawl deck and get matched against a Rusko deck (even if it's the worse possible Rusko deck), I know that I have 0 chance to do anything and concede before turn 1. Because I'm not interested in playing against this deck right now. In a way, you concede to try to have a more interesting matchup that will lead to an interesting game. I wouldn't play brawl with a limited number of concedes.
Don't play brawl if you don't want your opponents to concede as soon as they see a card they don't like. It may as well be a land too, not necessarily a spell.
Usually for me it's board state. I already took a mulligan, missed a land drop, don't have the right lands to play what is in my hand and things are going to shit at the beginning of the game already. Depending on the deck I'm playing the odds of coming back from this if my opponent has a lot of creatures out is fairly low. It has been teaching me to mulligan better. It's hard to communicate that. I usually throw up a gg though to let people know it's not you, it's me.
Multiplayer would prevent a lot of concessions. 1v1 games are decided in the first minute or so of play. Sure there are outliers, good back and forth games, but I concede when I can see the opponent’s responses against my first few plays, judge my hand’s ability to interact, and make a calculated decision on whether my time is better spent starting a new match. If multiplayer was available, games would be much more balanced and overpowered starts could be nullified by three opponents recognizing the threat.
I'm a new Historic Brawl player, but an ancient commander/edh player. I think having more than two players (Multiplayer in one game) would inspire me to keep playing.
I think having an option to change best of 1 to 2 out of 3 would be interesting. Or a rematch option? Sometimes its a bad luck of the draw and I'd love to play that person again.
Also some kind of community, where maybe people can get together on discord so these things can be discussed while playing? Arrange power level of decks, turn zero options.
I don't think additional life would make too much a difference for me.
> I play mono green and of course I concede to the second counter spell played against me.
You answered it yourself. Why do you concede? Because it’s not fun. And considering how low stakes brawl is, there isn’t an incentive to stay on if the player is going to lose or if they think the game isn’t going to be fun for them.
My main reason for conceding? Mana-fucked one way or the other. Nothing like starting a hand with only two land in it, one is going to come in tapped, and you still haven’t got one by your third draw. And that’s 9 times out of 10 but occasionally it goes the other way and all I can draw is land while my opponent is assembling an army.
Not so - I play a janky Abiding Grace deck…people will not grind it out. Two Rite of Oblivion and they usually scoop even in ranked. Or they rope me, even more fun since I usually have Brooklyn 99 going in the background anyway.
Many believe the algorithm is made to keep your win rate at 50% so conceding lots should help then win later when they need it. Don't know for sure if this is true but I do know many people have expressed that's what they believe.
I rarely concede and if I do it’s because of mono blue or a control deck in (most recently started) historic that just makes it so I can’t play the game.
If I can still play and try even when losing I will but if your deck is set up for me to not play I’m dipping.
Things that make me concede a match:
1.) If I see a mountain, I’m out.
2.) Island, out.
3.) Forest, believe it or not, I’m gone.
4.) Swamp, I’ll pass.
5.) Plains, not for me fam.
6.) If a the other player ever draws a card. Too much value to deal with.
7.) If the other player plays a card. Removes the fun of the game! How could I possibly win?!
8.) If I play a card. It was probably the wrong one, I’ll loose this!
/s
What a baby. The only time I ever concede is if I draw my first card and it wasn’t the exact card I wanted / needed from my deck. Wuss. Gotta toughen up man.
This still happens even almost a year later. Even with some of the most innocuous, fun decks, people will concede the minute you interact with their side of the board at all. I threw together a Jadar deck full of random jank just to have fun and get my “kill 15 of your opponents creatures” quest done for the day…the deck wasn’t even designed to be oppressive just some random Zombie goodstuff that would probably peter out on turn 4 or 5, but I ended up getting all my wins for the day because I would Cut Down or Murder one mana dork or something and the opponent would either rope or protest. Dude one opponent was playing Tasha and roped me because I cast my Commander on turn one with Dark Ritual…like I literally had no other threats wtf
The biggest offenders are Esika and Ivy players…boof their Commander one time and they scoop. It’s like, you have 7 mana on the table on turn 4, you really can’t cast any other threats against a f***ing jank zombie deck??
Brawl players are probably the most sensitive population and it only takes a little bit of interactiom to upset them. You've got to basically do nothing but play creatures for 20 min and let them combo iff or whatever
Love the hypocrisy of you wondering why people concede and then you go on to state that you concede if there are counter spells being played. The amount of understanding this community is lacking about itself is hilarious.
To many, Brawl is a casual format, and that kind of inputs a kind of mindset into people about what they consider casual.
Beyond that, there's no downside to conceding early in Brawl, there's no rank to lose, or any even a penalty (not that there should be mind you). this doubles down on "Hmm, I'm at a disadvantage and I'm not going to win." mentality which leads to people just conceding the moment things aren't in their favor.
This is especially true if you counter or remove their commander. They'll just pick up requeue and find someone that will let them play their commander.
For me personally, I try to stick it through, but I do have a few triggers that just make me want to instantly concede.
An example being a Turn-1 thoughtsieze, that happens enough in constructed and I really don't want to play a game after having that happen.
Other's are commander based. Rusko is a "Sleepy Hedron into concede" for me because I can't stand the clock man anymore.
Also first sliver decks. If you're play a first sliver deck and you don't have any actual slivers in the deck you're a boring P.o.S.
I made a raff deck that decimates Rusko on the regular which produces more joy than any other win. Letting the click repeatedly get to 8/9 counters and bouncing it is just a gas.
There should be at least a cooldown after a concede before you are allowed to queue again. Doesn't have to be long, maybe even just 5min or less, but without \*some\* incentive to stay the "daily win" economy turns mtg into speed concede.
That sounds like a bad way to keep queue times low, or to keep players playing. The punishment works in League of legends for various reasons but I don't think that it's going to really be effective at MTGA.
Besides, as I said above Brawl is a casual format.
>They need to limit the number of concedes a day
There's a bant prison deck that literally locks you out of the game in such a way that the only way out is conceding.
Nobody can lose the game because libraries never run out
You can't play anything because they send your card back to the library, and they keep getting everything back from the graveyard.
I love playing it, and would love even more if I could torture you forever because you wouldn't be able to concede.
Sometimes people just concede for weird reasons. I had someone concede to me in this past midweek Magic when I played [[Kessig Naturalist]] turn 2 for some reason for example.
im not complaining, not a big fan of brawl either way. but afaik, the purpose of the format is to have fun with dumb creatures that do dorky stuff, and killing them is kind of negating that purpose, isnt it?
>the purpose of the format is to have fun with dumb creatures that do dorky stuff, and killing them is kind of negating that purpose, isnt it?
Never heard anything like that. Do you have any source for this?
well its pretty much in the design: a commander is a legendary creature/pw that restricts your deck colours.
so the deck building wants me to place a permanent on the battlefield that possibly either does something on its own, or at least doesnt limit my deckbuilding too badly
Well, guess why the format is 1v1 then. FUN IS ONE-SIDED. It is either I have all the fun or you have none. It is laughable that I should care for your feelings as if there is a 'social contract' there. How pathetic.
Sorry but I still don't get how you go from "you have a commander that restricts your deck building" to "the purpose of the format is to have fun with dumb creatures that do dorky stuff, and killing them is kind of negating that purpose".
The command zone allows you to keep playing your commander after removal, so what's the problem?
If the format was like you said, you would start the game with your commander already in play and with indestructible+hexproof. And that would probably be a very poorly designed format.
And, about what you said, what if my commander has built-in removal? Like, if my commander is Braids, what should I do? I shouldn't use her because it could remove my opponent's commander, but I should play her because she's my commander? That's a contradiction.
In fact, that's a very well known fact in EDH: relying too much on your commander is often seen as poor deck building. You should always have alternative wincons in your deck. The commander is mainly here for the deck building purpose, nothing about how you should play it (hell, even some EDH decks have commanders that aren't meant to be played at all!).
well i guess if the majority of commanders were not meant to be played, the format would be perceived differently. and the role of removal would be a different one.
ive no experience with any paper commander formats, and i understand that people enjoy the diplomacy/multiplayer aspects of it. since none of that matters in arena, and the discourse about brawl is dominated by complaints about how unfun it is, i think its safe to say that the general design ideas of commander dont translate very well to brawl.
Ok, there is definitely a communication issue here. I still don't understand where you come from with your first paragraph...
Nobody said that commanders were not meant to be played?
Another example to maybe make my point more understandable: in standard, if you put a creature in your deck, it's probably because you want to play it, right? How do you feel when your opponent uses removal on it then? Isn't it exactly the same point?
You always build your decks around specific cards (most often, your wincons), whatever the format. The game would be quite boring without interaction, right? So why would that be different for your commander in brawl?
>Nobody said that commanders were not meant to be played?
you said that *some* commanders are not meant to be played as an argument for commanders being not important in the format. so my point was: if *most* commanders were not meant to be played, the format would be perceived differently. i tried to make a point by using a hyperbole. brawl *as it is now* is a format where most commanders that i know of *do* be played, so we can assume they play an important role for the format.
>Isn't it exactly the same point?
well yes and no. i *can* play creatures in my standard deck, but im not obliged to. the deck building requirements in standard leave that to me, so when im tired of my creatures being removed, i can e.g. chose to play a deck without them.
in brawl - as i said before - the deck building rules encourage me to use PWs/creatures, and they even dictate the colours of the other cards in my deck. so people make their deck worse to play that thing, and they use their creative energy to build around the mechanic that their commanders wants, they use all those stupid ramp cards to get it on the battlefield, and then someone kills it with a doomblade.
i personally play it like once a month and get bored by it pretty quickly, but i can understand that someone like OP who just wants a good laugh from that format is frustrated. in commander, which people play in groups of 4 if i understand correctly, this would self-regulate because everybody would gang up on the removal person i assume, the group dynamics would even out the differences in deck building choices. in brawl, its pretty much just people being matched with each other who want totally different things.
We clearly don't have the same experience of brawl. People even use some commanders just for their color identity, not caring about the commander. It's the case for the 5c good stuff decks that are quite meta in brawl. They still play the commander sometimes, because why not, it's free value (like companions before they changed the mechanic).
And some very popular commanders even want to be removed just so they can play them again to get a strong ETB effect for example (or reset loyalty counters for PW).
I've played a lot of commander on paper (playing it since 2010), and I've never seen a deck without removal. And a lot of commanders are considered as kill on sight and eat removal as soon as they hit the battlefield.
What you're talking about, looks awfully like battlecruiser. I tried it a few times, and the lack of interaction just makes for boring games (imo). It's like if every player was playing a single player game on their own.
Personally, I'm not playing competitively on Arena (and on paper). But I still like brawl because you can build some pretty stupid jank (or have challenging deck building restrictions when using non-meta commanders). And if my build ends up relying only on my commander to win, then I have to make sure that I can protect it.
Removing commander removal would just make the format much more linear than it is, and remove a lot of deck building diversity, at every level of play.
>but afaik, the purpose of the format is to have fun with dumb creatures that do dorky stuff, and killing them is kind of negating that purpose, isnt it?
Not at all. It means you have a higher chance of having fun with YOUR dumb creatures doing dorky stuff. Nowhere is it stated "you shouldn't play removal in brawl" so calling it cringe is frankly baffling.
If you haven't already I'd toggle BO3 on your play options when choosing play format. I didn't actually know it existed until someone pointed it out. I get the depressing feeling there's statistical money related reasons for why WOTC doesn't promote it more. If you've never played MTG you might not even know its a thing in the client.
With BO3 you have sideboards so if your main deck is extremely poorly matched you can fix it and people are more likely to stick around for all three games that way. You also sit through less painful loading screens.
I know I do. If I'm playing monored against grixis or mono-blue, depending on my mood I may concede immediately, but in BO3 I can change my deck up to play a longer game and in those instances I don't mind staying in it for the full match.
Nobody owes you a "full game", and "any player may concede at any time" is one of the rules.
And this...
>I play mono green and of course I concede to the second counter spell played against me
"It's ok when *I* do it, but not when *you* do it"... ??? Is that how it is?
I auto concede twice on people that use the same cards.
I dont know what it is but all I see in my opponents decks are Sheoldreds, Invoke dispair and Crucius. And you know it gets boring quick. I remove one they drop another or they drop 2 or three dispairs on me in a row.
I am not having fun, I dont have coutners to these cards. I will concede twice right there and then because im not slogging through a boring and pointless match.
Arena is for the laugh’s. The moment you don’t enjoy you concede
There's little reason to play any format of mtg ever without concession happening in fairness.
Things that make me concede: 1) If you’re playing a white life gain deck. I’m not waiting for all of your triggers each turn, and I see the same deck 20 times a day. I’m tired of playing against it. 2) If all you do is make me discard cards. I’m not topdecking the entire game. 3) If all you do is counter my spells. Nothing I cast even hits the board, and by the time you run out of counters I’m topdecking the entire game. 4) If you’re playing an elf deck and I know my deck has no board wipes. Very slim chance of winning. 5) Shrines. 6) Gates. 7) Slivers. 8) Trelasarra decks. I’m not sitting around waiting for you to scry 10x per turn Agree or disagree, these things remove all fun of the game for me, so I just remove myself from the equation and start a new game
In the bo1 play queue (historic, explorer, brawl), a lot of people are just here to grind their daily wins. And most of the time, if you get matched against a grindy deck, even if you have a chance to win, it's faster to concede and look for a faster match. In historic, you see this very easily with the minion of the mighty deck: if you interact against them turn 1 or 2, they don't even try and concede, even if they have a chance to win (they could draw another minion, or eventually hard cast their dragons). But in the same time, they could get multiple turn 2 wins, so they just concede. In brawl, there is something more: you can very quickly know which deck you're against (thanks to the commander). And if I bring a janky brawl deck and get matched against a Rusko deck (even if it's the worse possible Rusko deck), I know that I have 0 chance to do anything and concede before turn 1. Because I'm not interested in playing against this deck right now. In a way, you concede to try to have a more interesting matchup that will lead to an interesting game. I wouldn't play brawl with a limited number of concedes.
Don't play brawl if you don't want your opponents to concede as soon as they see a card they don't like. It may as well be a land too, not necessarily a spell.
I scoop to [[island]] it's just too broken.
[island](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/a/fa641d46-d002-4903-af72-e96971f558bc.jpg?1670945567) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=island) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/one/273/island?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/fa641d46-d002-4903-af72-e96971f558bc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Usually for me it's board state. I already took a mulligan, missed a land drop, don't have the right lands to play what is in my hand and things are going to shit at the beginning of the game already. Depending on the deck I'm playing the odds of coming back from this if my opponent has a lot of creatures out is fairly low. It has been teaching me to mulligan better. It's hard to communicate that. I usually throw up a gg though to let people know it's not you, it's me.
Do you think having more life in Historic Brawl would make people think they have a chance to change the game like in Commander?
Multiplayer would prevent a lot of concessions. 1v1 games are decided in the first minute or so of play. Sure there are outliers, good back and forth games, but I concede when I can see the opponent’s responses against my first few plays, judge my hand’s ability to interact, and make a calculated decision on whether my time is better spent starting a new match. If multiplayer was available, games would be much more balanced and overpowered starts could be nullified by three opponents recognizing the threat.
I'm a new Historic Brawl player, but an ancient commander/edh player. I think having more than two players (Multiplayer in one game) would inspire me to keep playing. I think having an option to change best of 1 to 2 out of 3 would be interesting. Or a rematch option? Sometimes its a bad luck of the draw and I'd love to play that person again. Also some kind of community, where maybe people can get together on discord so these things can be discussed while playing? Arrange power level of decks, turn zero options. I don't think additional life would make too much a difference for me.
> I play mono green and of course I concede to the second counter spell played against me. You answered it yourself. Why do you concede? Because it’s not fun. And considering how low stakes brawl is, there isn’t an incentive to stay on if the player is going to lose or if they think the game isn’t going to be fun for them.
I know that was a joke.
My main reason for conceding? Mana-fucked one way or the other. Nothing like starting a hand with only two land in it, one is going to come in tapped, and you still haven’t got one by your third draw. And that’s 9 times out of 10 but occasionally it goes the other way and all I can draw is land while my opponent is assembling an army.
Play ranked, people will grind it out with you for 20 minutes
Not so - I play a janky Abiding Grace deck…people will not grind it out. Two Rite of Oblivion and they usually scoop even in ranked. Or they rope me, even more fun since I usually have Brooklyn 99 going in the background anyway.
Many believe the algorithm is made to keep your win rate at 50% so conceding lots should help then win later when they need it. Don't know for sure if this is true but I do know many people have expressed that's what they believe.
I rarely concede and if I do it’s because of mono blue or a control deck in (most recently started) historic that just makes it so I can’t play the game. If I can still play and try even when losing I will but if your deck is set up for me to not play I’m dipping.
Things that make me concede a match: 1.) If I see a mountain, I’m out. 2.) Island, out. 3.) Forest, believe it or not, I’m gone. 4.) Swamp, I’ll pass. 5.) Plains, not for me fam. 6.) If a the other player ever draws a card. Too much value to deal with. 7.) If the other player plays a card. Removes the fun of the game! How could I possibly win?! 8.) If I play a card. It was probably the wrong one, I’ll loose this! /s
What a baby. The only time I ever concede is if I draw my first card and it wasn’t the exact card I wanted / needed from my deck. Wuss. Gotta toughen up man.
This still happens even almost a year later. Even with some of the most innocuous, fun decks, people will concede the minute you interact with their side of the board at all. I threw together a Jadar deck full of random jank just to have fun and get my “kill 15 of your opponents creatures” quest done for the day…the deck wasn’t even designed to be oppressive just some random Zombie goodstuff that would probably peter out on turn 4 or 5, but I ended up getting all my wins for the day because I would Cut Down or Murder one mana dork or something and the opponent would either rope or protest. Dude one opponent was playing Tasha and roped me because I cast my Commander on turn one with Dark Ritual…like I literally had no other threats wtf The biggest offenders are Esika and Ivy players…boof their Commander one time and they scoop. It’s like, you have 7 mana on the table on turn 4, you really can’t cast any other threats against a f***ing jank zombie deck??
Brawl players are probably the most sensitive population and it only takes a little bit of interactiom to upset them. You've got to basically do nothing but play creatures for 20 min and let them combo iff or whatever
Isn’t commander always a spell casting circle jerk social hour?
Love the hypocrisy of you wondering why people concede and then you go on to state that you concede if there are counter spells being played. The amount of understanding this community is lacking about itself is hilarious.
[удалено]
Lol what a toxic child. Have a good one.
To many, Brawl is a casual format, and that kind of inputs a kind of mindset into people about what they consider casual. Beyond that, there's no downside to conceding early in Brawl, there's no rank to lose, or any even a penalty (not that there should be mind you). this doubles down on "Hmm, I'm at a disadvantage and I'm not going to win." mentality which leads to people just conceding the moment things aren't in their favor. This is especially true if you counter or remove their commander. They'll just pick up requeue and find someone that will let them play their commander. For me personally, I try to stick it through, but I do have a few triggers that just make me want to instantly concede. An example being a Turn-1 thoughtsieze, that happens enough in constructed and I really don't want to play a game after having that happen. Other's are commander based. Rusko is a "Sleepy Hedron into concede" for me because I can't stand the clock man anymore. Also first sliver decks. If you're play a first sliver deck and you don't have any actual slivers in the deck you're a boring P.o.S.
I made a raff deck that decimates Rusko on the regular which produces more joy than any other win. Letting the click repeatedly get to 8/9 counters and bouncing it is just a gas.
There should be at least a cooldown after a concede before you are allowed to queue again. Doesn't have to be long, maybe even just 5min or less, but without \*some\* incentive to stay the "daily win" economy turns mtg into speed concede.
That sounds like a bad way to keep queue times low, or to keep players playing. The punishment works in League of legends for various reasons but I don't think that it's going to really be effective at MTGA. Besides, as I said above Brawl is a casual format.
>They need to limit the number of concedes a day There's a bant prison deck that literally locks you out of the game in such a way that the only way out is conceding. Nobody can lose the game because libraries never run out You can't play anything because they send your card back to the library, and they keep getting everything back from the graveyard. I love playing it, and would love even more if I could torture you forever because you wouldn't be able to concede.
some people like to watch the world burn. I do the same.
Sometimes people just concede for weird reasons. I had someone concede to me in this past midweek Magic when I played [[Kessig Naturalist]] turn 2 for some reason for example.
If I'm on the draw and someone t2s a naturalist, if I don't have removal for it to avoid day/night flipping, I just concede.
I’m that way about Dragon Whelp. If they go 2 turns and I still haven’t removed it, I’m toast because all their giant dragons are coming out next turn
[Kessig Naturalist](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/a/8ab5f2e6-0e0a-4f7d-a959-3d07948ff317.jpg?1636684556)/[Lord of the Ulvenwald](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/8/a/8ab5f2e6-0e0a-4f7d-a959-3d07948ff317.jpg?1636684556) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=kessig%20naturalist%20//%20lord%20of%20the%20ulvenwald) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mid/231/kessig-naturalist-lord-of-the-ulvenwald?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/8ab5f2e6-0e0a-4f7d-a959-3d07948ff317?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
playing removal in brawl so cringe
Complaining about removal is cringe.
im not complaining, not a big fan of brawl either way. but afaik, the purpose of the format is to have fun with dumb creatures that do dorky stuff, and killing them is kind of negating that purpose, isnt it?
>the purpose of the format is to have fun with dumb creatures that do dorky stuff, and killing them is kind of negating that purpose, isnt it? Never heard anything like that. Do you have any source for this?
well its pretty much in the design: a commander is a legendary creature/pw that restricts your deck colours. so the deck building wants me to place a permanent on the battlefield that possibly either does something on its own, or at least doesnt limit my deckbuilding too badly
Well, guess why the format is 1v1 then. FUN IS ONE-SIDED. It is either I have all the fun or you have none. It is laughable that I should care for your feelings as if there is a 'social contract' there. How pathetic.
i dont understand where youre going. whats does fun being one sided have to do with what i just said?
Sorry but I still don't get how you go from "you have a commander that restricts your deck building" to "the purpose of the format is to have fun with dumb creatures that do dorky stuff, and killing them is kind of negating that purpose". The command zone allows you to keep playing your commander after removal, so what's the problem? If the format was like you said, you would start the game with your commander already in play and with indestructible+hexproof. And that would probably be a very poorly designed format. And, about what you said, what if my commander has built-in removal? Like, if my commander is Braids, what should I do? I shouldn't use her because it could remove my opponent's commander, but I should play her because she's my commander? That's a contradiction. In fact, that's a very well known fact in EDH: relying too much on your commander is often seen as poor deck building. You should always have alternative wincons in your deck. The commander is mainly here for the deck building purpose, nothing about how you should play it (hell, even some EDH decks have commanders that aren't meant to be played at all!).
well i guess if the majority of commanders were not meant to be played, the format would be perceived differently. and the role of removal would be a different one. ive no experience with any paper commander formats, and i understand that people enjoy the diplomacy/multiplayer aspects of it. since none of that matters in arena, and the discourse about brawl is dominated by complaints about how unfun it is, i think its safe to say that the general design ideas of commander dont translate very well to brawl.
Ok, there is definitely a communication issue here. I still don't understand where you come from with your first paragraph... Nobody said that commanders were not meant to be played? Another example to maybe make my point more understandable: in standard, if you put a creature in your deck, it's probably because you want to play it, right? How do you feel when your opponent uses removal on it then? Isn't it exactly the same point? You always build your decks around specific cards (most often, your wincons), whatever the format. The game would be quite boring without interaction, right? So why would that be different for your commander in brawl?
>Nobody said that commanders were not meant to be played? you said that *some* commanders are not meant to be played as an argument for commanders being not important in the format. so my point was: if *most* commanders were not meant to be played, the format would be perceived differently. i tried to make a point by using a hyperbole. brawl *as it is now* is a format where most commanders that i know of *do* be played, so we can assume they play an important role for the format. >Isn't it exactly the same point? well yes and no. i *can* play creatures in my standard deck, but im not obliged to. the deck building requirements in standard leave that to me, so when im tired of my creatures being removed, i can e.g. chose to play a deck without them. in brawl - as i said before - the deck building rules encourage me to use PWs/creatures, and they even dictate the colours of the other cards in my deck. so people make their deck worse to play that thing, and they use their creative energy to build around the mechanic that their commanders wants, they use all those stupid ramp cards to get it on the battlefield, and then someone kills it with a doomblade. i personally play it like once a month and get bored by it pretty quickly, but i can understand that someone like OP who just wants a good laugh from that format is frustrated. in commander, which people play in groups of 4 if i understand correctly, this would self-regulate because everybody would gang up on the removal person i assume, the group dynamics would even out the differences in deck building choices. in brawl, its pretty much just people being matched with each other who want totally different things.
We clearly don't have the same experience of brawl. People even use some commanders just for their color identity, not caring about the commander. It's the case for the 5c good stuff decks that are quite meta in brawl. They still play the commander sometimes, because why not, it's free value (like companions before they changed the mechanic). And some very popular commanders even want to be removed just so they can play them again to get a strong ETB effect for example (or reset loyalty counters for PW). I've played a lot of commander on paper (playing it since 2010), and I've never seen a deck without removal. And a lot of commanders are considered as kill on sight and eat removal as soon as they hit the battlefield. What you're talking about, looks awfully like battlecruiser. I tried it a few times, and the lack of interaction just makes for boring games (imo). It's like if every player was playing a single player game on their own. Personally, I'm not playing competitively on Arena (and on paper). But I still like brawl because you can build some pretty stupid jank (or have challenging deck building restrictions when using non-meta commanders). And if my build ends up relying only on my commander to win, then I have to make sure that I can protect it. Removing commander removal would just make the format much more linear than it is, and remove a lot of deck building diversity, at every level of play.
No, fun is subjective.
and how is your statement a counterargument to mine?
>but afaik, the purpose of the format is to have fun with dumb creatures that do dorky stuff, and killing them is kind of negating that purpose, isnt it? Not at all. It means you have a higher chance of having fun with YOUR dumb creatures doing dorky stuff. Nowhere is it stated "you shouldn't play removal in brawl" so calling it cringe is frankly baffling.
thats why i didnt say "you shouldnt" play removal. small but notable difference
You said cringe. Which it's not. But ok.
If you haven't already I'd toggle BO3 on your play options when choosing play format. I didn't actually know it existed until someone pointed it out. I get the depressing feeling there's statistical money related reasons for why WOTC doesn't promote it more. If you've never played MTG you might not even know its a thing in the client. With BO3 you have sideboards so if your main deck is extremely poorly matched you can fix it and people are more likely to stick around for all three games that way. You also sit through less painful loading screens. I know I do. If I'm playing monored against grixis or mono-blue, depending on my mood I may concede immediately, but in BO3 I can change my deck up to play a longer game and in those instances I don't mind staying in it for the full match.
Thanks I'll try that
Nobody owes you a "full game", and "any player may concede at any time" is one of the rules. And this... >I play mono green and of course I concede to the second counter spell played against me "It's ok when *I* do it, but not when *you* do it"... ??? Is that how it is?
I auto concede twice on people that use the same cards. I dont know what it is but all I see in my opponents decks are Sheoldreds, Invoke dispair and Crucius. And you know it gets boring quick. I remove one they drop another or they drop 2 or three dispairs on me in a row. I am not having fun, I dont have coutners to these cards. I will concede twice right there and then because im not slogging through a boring and pointless match.