Hahaha, playing some mid-powered casual commander, and I pull out an izzet deck - I think it was [[Ghyrson Starn]] pingers. On turn one, I dropped a land, played a [[Sol Ring]], then an [[Isochron Scepter]] with [[Counterspell]]! I think I was the first player to play, as well, and there were only three of us in the pod. It was literally turn 6 or 7 before they could bait it and destroy it. Didn't matter that I probably lost that game - felt downright evil. It was great.

For myself, I use the phrase "based on what's on the board...". In your context, I might have said "well, based on the board state at the moment, while I have no obvious responses, but I also have 4 mana untapped and two cards in hand." While that CAN seem suspicious, it's become a bit of a standard in our group. It's late, you're tired, you want to swing, and you ask your opponent "hey, I'm tired, I can't remember your board - if I swing this at you, does it die?" and you get that kind of response - "well, based on the board, there's no way I could kill it. I've also got two mana untapped and cards in hand." Not saying that what you did was wrong - I think it would have been really problematic to say something a bit more leading, like "oh man, there's no way I'll be able to save my planeswalkers! You should swing, there's definitely no way I can save them!". But you explained the board state at that moment, so I think that's in a murky area. Go with what works in your playgroup.

For myself, I use the phrase "based on what's on the board...". In your context, I might have said "well, based on the board state at the moment, I have no obvious responses, but I also have 4 mana untapped and two cards in hand."

While that CAN seem suspicious, it's become a bit of a standard in our group. It's late, you're tired, you want to swing, and you ask your opponent "hey, I'm tired, I can't remember your board - if I swing this at you, does it die?" and you get that kind of response - "well, based on the board, there's no way I could kill it. I've also got two mana untapped and cards in hand."

Not saying that what you did was wrong - I think it would have been really problematic to say something a bit more leading, like "oh man, there's no way I'll be able to save my planeswalkers! You should swing, there's definitely no way I can save them!". But you explained the board state at that moment, so I think that's in a murky area. Go with what works in your playgroup.

I've got a deck called Sliver Snacks, which is all about making a limited but highly resilient sliver deck using [[Brenard]]. I used to have a [[Sliver Hivelord]] deck, but it felt to samey. This one is much less powerful, but much more silly. I also convinced an AI to make images of slivers made of gingerbread, and use those as tokens. It still functions as a sliver deck, and absorbs the appropriate amount of interaction, but it's such a fun and silly vamp on the concept, I really enjoy it. I've never gotten the engine going to do insane things, but it's a deck I always bring with me.

Decklist here, mostly accurate.

Oh man, I am physically excited by how cool these are. I am really, really impressed. Personally, I can learn what the card is - worth it to get to see those across the board. Amazing.

Oh man, building decks at an appropriate level for my table. My decks are not disproportionately monstrous, nor are the full of (proxies) high-efficiency cards. They are, however, very flexible, responsive, and effective. Usually somewhat challenging to interact with. And my pod never brings enough interaction.

Whatever the reasons, I suck at bringing appropriately powered decks. That's my confession.

I found the post I saw originally, titled "Rule of 8's", posted 5 years ago. Not sure, of course, if this is the original iteration of the strategy. I have liked it ever since as a way to structure my deck building! Helps to focus my priorities.

I like the theme you're going with here - it's kind of a riff on a [[Gargos]] fight deck with a voltron-y flavour. Legolas will count many kills.

For my own decks, I like the... Can't remember what it's called... 8 sets of 8 strategy? The idea that you have 35 lands, 1 commander, so that's 64 cards left to build, that's 8 sets of 8 cards. So you "allot" a theme of your deck one or more of those slots to "do the thing". For example, your deck might want to do 4 things: 1. Protect Legolas 2. Ramp 3. Bite and fight effects 4. Card draw. So you then you decide that, say, ramp and card draw are minimal needs, so they only get 8 cards each, but you then give protection and bite/fight 24 cards apiece (3 sets of 8 each), ensuring you have MAAAAANY instances of those mechanics.

I use this as a general strategy, and play around with it, but in your case, what I suggest is take a look at the different things you want to do, and then just reduce each of those things a bit. The cards you lose will be good, effective cards, but you know you've already got many other sources of those effects, so it'd be redundant to include them.

Anyway, hope that helps! Looks like a fun deck!

I mean, for you, anyway - your opponents are gonna look like pin cushions by the time you're done.

Also, [[Stuffy Doll]] seems like a weird include for me, IMO. Have fun!

[[Pyromancer's Swath]]

Oh man, Sliver Snacks - it's done. This is what I'm doing. Brenard Slivers. Thank you, that's an amazing suggestion.

Hahahaaa, this is hilarious. I might do that for fun once or twice.

Mmm, thanks for the suggestions. Perhaps going in a different direction would help. I also think Rukarumel might be the way to go. I'm considering a swappable Rukarumel deck with removable types, which could be fun!

Hahahaha, now THAT'S a Universes Beyond I want to see.

The owner of my LGS talks about making a [[Rules Lawyer]] deck that messes with state-based actions. I... Do not know enough about the rules to even understand how mind-melting that would be.

Well, if you're looking to play Magic and save the marriage, might I suggest a big, stompy green deck? Or the unbridled hilarity of a [[Yargle and Multani]] deck? Nothing complicated, but big bois go brrrrrr.

Genuinely, using mass destruction as a strategy is often a calculated risk - your ability to rebuild versus your opponents - so it's not the most straightforward strategy. Something like a generic Simic deck might be more satisfying to pilot. Or give her some suggestions for themes that she might like - even art - and just stick to the theme. In my opinion, that can be a lot of fun!

And, of course, if she wants to stick with mass destruction, good luck, I hope you signed a prenup :p

My wife wants a deck that just blows stuff up with lots of damnations. Ideas?

Yes, my friend, you're in good hands here. I know this can be a confusing moment, but you're in the right place.

...

Divorce is never easy, but when you're faced with a new aspect of your partner that is THIS reprehensible, there is little else to do. You've made the right choice, and I think the community stands behind you when we say you need to get somewhere you feel safe.

Given her, um, "proclivities", it may be wise to pack and leave the family home in the night, while she is well asleep. Once at a safe distance, continue the separation at a distance, speaking only through trusted middle-persons.

Needless to say, your possessions are forfeit - anything you can't take with you will be burned, publicly and with much accelerant.

I am sorry it has come to this. I wouldn't wish your plight on my worst enemy. I mean, come on, you could've handled it if she had a sneaky [[Bruvac]] deck hidden under the floorboards, or you caught her mid-pod with a [[Grand Arbiter Augustin IV]]... but this?

I'm truly sorry. Godspeed.

My favourite moment of a game is when an opponent is clutching a board wipe and thinking to themselves "But will it even matter?"

They had them in Dartmouth the other day

This is a more or less accurate list. I've got a very "swappable" sideboard.

https://www.moxfield.com/decks/IjBepmUMqkeVHbl1eAihhQ

For me, it's my [[Slimefoot and Squee]] deck. Years ago when I started playing Magic I built a golgari saprolings deck that I loved. It was my oldest deck. But as time went on, I, like many, switched over almost exclusively to Commander, so I made the effort this year to recreate my favourite 60 card deck as a Commander deck, and merged it with my favourite aspects of the format - volume, hijinks, and options. Thus my new deck was born! It's got scaleable power with graveyard tutors, and insanity like [[Ulasht, the Hate Seed]] with [[Ashnod's Altar]], and classic finishers like [[Overrun]], etc. It's my favourite. It might not win, but it can't really be taken out of the game.

For myself, I find the enemy of "newness" is winning. If you want a deck with a high likelihood of winning, you usually run a similar play pattern to achieve that goal.

However, if you're willing to sacrifice certainty of victory (read: consistency and tutoring up a typical plan), there are a couple of commander styles that I think might be more interesting.

1) The "How does this work again?" deck: First, I might suggest a deck that is so convoluted and interconnected that no matter what you get something. I hear that [[Ghave]] is a combo machine - slap in enough +1/+1 counter stuff, and eventually you'll find new and surprising value engines to do fun and exciting things with! For myself, I use [[Abdel Adrian]] and [[Far Traveler]] - while the inclusion of blue would make it more consistent, I love cobbling together immensely stupid value engines from mono W blink factories. It's lack of consistency makes each game new. But, how about...

2)Chaos/Coin flip deck: Try chaos decks! I don't have a ton of experience with this myself, but perhaps the solution to blandness is not knowing the outcome! Something like [[Okaun]] and [[Zndrsplt]] will roll chaos and coin flipping into one, and will make for an unpredictable outcome. Throw in allllllll the Baldurs Gate coin flip stuff, and you'll be essentially randomly determining victory! One liability of that is that it's kind of a consistency of play pattern, but with an inconsistency of result - I've heard folks speak of the frustration with the ill-fated coin flip deck WotC produced a while back, so perhaps that's less what you're looking for. But my best suggestion is...

3) Play your opponent's decks!: There are looooots of decks that bring nothing to the table, but leave with your opponents best! For example, [[Zedruu]], my personal favourite, stacked with exchanging cards like [[Cultural Exchange]] and [[Modify Memory]]. This means you bring gifts for your opponents, and you exchange them for their stuff! It's great fun. Also, there's an even more specific commander for this, the new [[Don Andres, the Renegade]], that explicitly rewards you for theft! This ensures that as long as your opponents bring something new to the table, so will you, haha. This kind of deck requires you to play in RL, rather than online, of course - this would be a nightmare to do at distance.

Anyway, I hope one of those suggestions helps! I can understand the frustration - for me, I just end up building more decks, but if you want to keep a tight collection, you're going to need something versatile.

One thing I'll mention, too, is that I just built a [[Slimefoot and Squee]] deck that, for me, is the locus of everything I like about Magic - a theme (fungus) that mirrors the first deck I ever built, a play style (obvious hijinks) that I really like, and a win con (alpha strike you can see coming from a mile away) that I enjoy bringing to the table. Plus, for that deck in particular, without graveyard hate it's very hard to shut down. For me, I like playing with this deck all the time, because it's, well, just my favourite! I don't really mind the outcome, but enjoy playing through it a lot. That could be the answer for you, as well, though that takes some time (and luck) to find.

In any case, good luck!!!

EDIT: Formatting

Ahhh, thanks for that breakdown. The part I was really grappling with was the nature of alternate casting costs, which I now understand there can be only one of. Thanks!

Thanks!