What does "casual" mean to you?

[CleanBelwas]

Hey all,

So in a recent post, everyone's favourite statistician Morganator2.0 was asking about cultivate. Who is using it, in what decks etc.

In that post, they gave some interesting insight into their idea of a more casual deck. For those reading this who don't know, Morganator2.0 plays a fair amount of cEDH. Real high powered shit.

To quote from that post:

Every time I build a casual commander deck...

I'm aiming to get Pako, Arcane Retriever out by turn 3...

I found this very interesting. To me, Looking to consistently get my 5 drop commander out on turn three would be something my better decks would do, but for players such as Morganator, this is still considered to be more casual and toned down.

I like to play all manner of shite. I have a deck where every piece of art has a bird in it. I have a deck that only uses old frame cards. I have a deck that is based on Italian literature. They're all absolutely terrible. These I consider my more casual decks. My better, less casual decks are still probably only mid powered, but I daresay they wouldn't hold a candle to decks others who are used to playing high end EDH consider casual.

Naturally, "casual" will mean different things to different people, and nobody is wrong for having an opinion that is different to someone else's. It's as much about perspective as anything else.

To me, for example, a deck stops being casual when its main aim is to win the game. To others, it might be that a deck that is not fully optimised is considered casual.

What does casual mean to you?

[Akira Foxmind]

To others, it might be that a deck that is not fully optimised is considered casual.

That nails it pretty good for me. I mostly consider decks casual if there is much room for improvement and the used cards are mainly budget. If I think of 'casual decks' I always endup getting kitchentable magic into my mind. That would be playing for fun and absolutely not competetive at all. So I assume people don't buy for example a complete set of duallands in their 5-color-manabase for just having some fun on a friday evening with their friend(s), wife, husband or whoever. 

[Kale87]

I would call my Squirrel-Deck casual. Also my Storm-Crow-Commander-Deck. (even though it has some nice Blink-Synergies).

Gavi and Korvold are optimized in my Opinion - but far from cEDH.

[Aetherium Slinky]

For me tipping point from casual to mid power is in the win conditions. Decks that have a clear win condition aren't casual anymore. Let's take a few examples:

• Kinnan, Bonder Prodigy: crystal clear combo lines, tutors, no slack in the mana department => not a casual deck (probably a near-cEDH deck)
• Merieke Ri Berit: crystal clear combo lines, tutors a little slack in the mana department => not a casual deck (probably high power deck)
• Uro, Titan of Nature's Wrath: Thassa's Oracle, Triumph of the Hordes, Finale of Devastation + Pathbreaker Ibex => not a casual deck (optimised)
• Zur the Enchanter: just blinking Magister Sphinx, lots of draw but no way to tutor => borderline casual deck
• Barrin, Tolarian Archmage: no clear win condition => casual deck
• Zuberi, Golden Feather: smash face with a bunch of Griffins => definitely a casual deck (jank)

As we can see here the less focused the win state is the less powerful it makes the deck at winning.

To me, for example, a deck stops being casual when its main aim is to win the game. To others, it might be that a deck that is not fully optimised is considered casual.

I think we're onto something here. You can have a big impact on the board with the deck but if it's unable to win it cannot be anything but a casual deck. Casual is something you play with a group of friends when you don't want to close the game on turn 7 and you're enjoying a pizza or a beer at the same time. Optimised decks aim to win so your mindset needs to be on the winning, too. This is something you enjoy instead of a game of chess.

We can also look at the deck from a mechanical point of view: does it draw well, does it play things on curve, does it run answers to most common threats etc. There are lots of attempts to quantize deck power into numbers or words. We have our own and Morganator2.0 has also constructed a table of statistics revolving around power level assessment. Most commonly used resources are: playEDH, The Commander's Quarters and The Command Zone.

All in all I think "casual" is a very fluid term that doesn't describe everything that happens in a deck. For me it's the lack of distinct win conditions or a clear path to it.

[robort]

This is simply put. How much importance is the "win" factor. If the first goal of the deck is to "win" then to me it isn't casual.

[WWolfe]

I think you can be casual and still try to win the game. The difference in that respect to me is the turn you're trying to win on. If you're trying to win earlier than turn 7-9, I don't consider it casual. Turn 10+ I consider casual. Of course, some of that comes down to how optimized the deck is. Does it have the perfect mana base and ways to tutor for your win conditions? If so, you're probably not casual.

[WizardSpartan]

To me, casual is all about how/when you win. Casual decks can ramp hard, have good card advantage, good removal, etc. just like optimized/competitive decks.

A deck becomes competitive/optimized when it has a strong win condition supported by tutors. This can be as simple as a 2-3 card infinite combo, or simply the strategy of the deck. I'll try to explain using my decks:

Ezuri, Renegade Leader:
Wins through big mana and a 1 turn 1 shot of the entire table. While the main gameplan isn't an infinite combo, this deck is somewhere between optimized and cEDH in my eyes, as the gameplan of ramp->kill the table is simple, fast, and amply supported.

Kumena, Tyrant of Orazca:
Wins by out-advantaging opponents into either immediate win with Dramatic Scepter or a slower win with a few other single-card win conditions. This would be more on the casual side to me. The win conditions are subpar (outside of Dramatic Scepter) and are average consistency-wise as a result of my focus on card advantage but conspicuous lack of tutors.

Meren of Clan Nel Toth:
Wins by grinding out opponents with repeatable, recursive removal and melt their life totals with big token creators + Blood Artist effects. I would say that this is solidly optimized. The gameplan of this deck is backbreaking for my opponents, and I have a strong win condition supported by a decent number of tutors.

Alesha, Who Smiles at Death:
Win by assembling an aristocratic value engine into Karmic Guide + Reveillark loop. I would say this is on a very similar level as Meren. While Meren's win condition may not be as strong as Alesha's, I've found that Meren compensates with a stronger gameplan/setup.

Basically, casual to me means that you aren't "effectively" checking all the boxes in terms of ramp, card advantage, tutors, removal, and win conditions for whatever reason.

[courtjester12804]

Casual, in my opinion, is anything that you are not bringing to a competitive venue.  I only play kitchen table these days, every Saturday, so I consider all my decks to be casual.  I do, however, quite often build extremely strong decks, usually playing on the short end of a 2-on-1 handicap.  Regardless of whether I COULD play these decks competitively, I do not and therefore classify them as casual.

[Morganator 2.0]

Alright, time to explain myself.

First off, you're right; I do play a lot of competitive commander. I prefer the high end of things because it requires a lot more thought in both deck building and play. Everything you do matters, so there is less room for you to make mistakes. I do tend to carry over a lot of what I've learned from cEDH into my casual decks, especially with the support packages (mana ramp, removal, card advantage).

Now with respect to Haldan+Pako, I'm not doing the competitive build. That one tries to get Pako, Arcane Retriever out by turn 2. I'm aiming for turn 3, which assumes that I will play one ramp spell turn 1, and a second one turn 2. That's doable. My win-condition for this deck is also weak. I'm trying to play my opponent's cards and hope to win off of that somehow. It means I'm using a lot of sub-optimal cards like Reversal of Fortune and Wildfire Devils. So while the deck's mana ramp and support packages are strong, the core of the deck is not.

So, what do I consider casual? Honestly, it's not about the goal of the deck being winning, but rather it's effectiveness at winning. I don't know if you've ever read the blurb on the insert that comes with Commander pre-cons, but it gives a description of how to play the deck and how to win. These decks are made with winning in mind. They're not very good at it, but that is the goal, and I dare say that no one will ever say pre-cons aren't casual. To me, a deck is casual if it has a slow game-plan. If you're winning around turn 8 or later, it's casual. High-power tends to end games around turn 5 or 6, but they can go on longer. cEDH decks aim to win turn 3 or 4, but high interaction causes games to go on later.

Now is this skewed by my personal experience? Probably. I call Scarab God a strong casual deck. Back in February I beat someone with a Najeela deck, which he considers his strongest deck. Later in the commander group chat I set up he was talking about how Scarab God had to be a power level 10 deck, to which about three other people chimed in with "That's Morganator's weakest deck". You can see there how what I considered casual was someone else's version of top tier.

In short: I define a casual deck as one that is not cEDH or high-power. If your deck doesn't consistently try to win before turn 8, it's casual.

[Potato Chop]

To me, casual has two definitions:

1: "Casual," the format

    "Casual," or "Freeform" is a format where none of the deck-building rules apply. You can have any number of any card, a deck any size, no banned lists, and any amount of commanders you want. It is a platform to do whatever you want with.

2: "Casual," a Way to Play

    The word "casual," like other people have said, is a way of playing Magic that is non-competitive, and where the one goal is not to build the most powerful deck possible, but rather to have as much fun as possible. People don't play casual to beat each other quickly, because then it would become competitive. It is played to enjoy the game to its fullest, and it's a way to play that lets people do things like make a deck where the theme isn't the card names or types, but rather the contents of the art or the type of frame instead of going for effective ramp or destructive combos. In my opinion, combos are perfectly allowed in a casual game, as long as the spirit of the combo is to have fun. Destroying everybody else could be a side-effect

I think that sums it up pretty well...?

[ApothecaryGeist]

2: "Casual," a Way to Play

    The word "casual," like other people have said, is a way of playing Magic that is non-competitive, and where the one goal is not to build the most powerful deck possible, but rather to have as much fun as possible. People don't play casual to beat each other quickly, because then it would become competitive. It is played to enjoy the game to its fullest, and it's a way to play that lets people do things like make a deck where the theme isn't the card names or types, but rather the contents of the art or the type of frame instead of going for effective ramp or destructive combos. In my opinion, combos are perfectly allowed in a casual game, as long as the spirit of the combo is to have fun. Destroying everybody else could be a side-effect

I think that sums it up pretty well...?

I was going to chime in with my "casual" definition.  My colleague here has expressed it almost as I would have.

[stuffnsuch]

I feel like another aspect of casual that hasn't really been touched on is interaction.  I definitely believe that a casual deck is more about doing what the deck wants to do even if it means loosing most of the time (i.e. most of my decks) and a competitive deck is more about winning as much as possible, but competitive is not only about winning, it's also about not losing.  As you get more competitive and less casual, you will add more and more foils to your opponents strategies.  In casual, it's nice to see what your opponent's going for, even if it costs you the game.  You enjoy the experience of seeing other peoples' awesome win-cons almost as much as seeing your own, so you're willing to stop them if you can, but you aren't building a deck specifically to stop them.  In ultra-competitive decks, players can point out exactly which cards are designed to shut down which strategies in their meta.  You'll rarely find anything like that in casual.

[WWolfe]

I think you can be casual and still have interactions. For instance, if you're in a meta with a fair amount of graveyard based decks, then there's nothing wrong with including graveyard hate in your deck. Or even something as simple as wraths if there's quite a few creature heavy decks in your meta. Or even packing a Vandalblast if you know there's a couple artifact heavy decks.

I don't think casual means not having answers to buy you time to do what your deck wants to do even if that's not win.