Like the video, Turn rotation can be reversed though, and thus is not a stable factor Similarly, the deck randomness is probably a few orders of magnitude smaller, not that it is relevant, since its still big. This is because the order of the top 7 cards is irrelevant, as they will all be drawn, it only matters what cards total are there. In addition, if it comes to games played, a big part of the library simply does not matter order wise, as those cards never get seen or used. In addition, I would like to say that tutors make games feel more similar. I think there might be a lot of forces that make games similar, for example, a commander is a constant, and if a deck has many cards that have interchangeable effects, the possibility space really shrinks. For example, A Sram equipment deck does the same every game: It plays Sram, and gives him some amount of protection, stats and offensive keywords. The individual cards or narrative can lose some meaning to the general feel of "Sram is a big thing with a lot of keywords and protection" Similarly, tutors have a tendency to find a small subset of cards, between the best win condition, interaction and value engine, that makes games play out the same in a lot of scenerio's

Good video :) Well presented and I really like your approach. I think most arguments fall apart though, once you move from casual commander to cEDH, as the number of possibilities drastically reduces, when one is only concerned with playing optimally, as it not only reduces the ammount of realistic targets, for a spell that chooses targets, but also the ammount of tutors creates a lot of redundancy and you see the same cards way more often. (That doesnt mean your point doesnt hold, its probably the main reason most people prefer casual over cEDH)

@CommanderPhilosophy

Ай бұрын

I would definitely agree that optimal play makes a huge difference in any game. I think it’s a sign of a well seasoned player, but to bring it back on itself that Players bring their own understanding of the game and what to do in any given situation. However, thank you for the feedback and support on the video! It was a cool project to try and deconstruct into something cohesive (though it took a bit of time 😅)

@dezsomodos1314

Ай бұрын

Minimal issue about calculating number of possible deck orders: you simplified that with each card is unique in your deck. That is not the case in most commander table. Basic lands are not unique and you have around 10-35 cards which are exactly the same. Hovewer this does not invalidates the conclusion (no chance to sit with exactly the same deck twice).

@CommanderPhilosophy

Ай бұрын

@@dezsomodos1314 I thought about that as well but thought more on the lines of each individual card being it’s own unique entity, for example, two basic Mountains having their own placements/order post-shuffle rather than just lumping them together as Basics. Now, more realistic, inclusion of Basic lands attempts to create redundancy, increasing the probability that you find a Basic Land, making the math a little more complex post shuffle, and makes the deck a little less random, but still highly improbable that you would ever have the exact same or “similar” structure. Great point to make though and completely valid to consider! On a side note, I think it’s really cool that the game can be talked about on such a complex level!