What would be your reaction to this play?

[DirkGently]

The scenario:

Player 1: "kiki on board, cast zealous conscripts"
Player 3: "swords kiki in response"
Player 4: "Player 1, I'll counterspell that swords if you don't kill me this turn" (let's assume he has his own removal in hand)
Player 1: "ok."
Player 3: "why you do dis?"
Player 4: "better chance against 1 player than 3."
Player 4 counterspells the swords, player 2 and 3 die to kiki conscripts, player 4 removes kiki.

If you're player 2/3, how do you feel about player 4's play?

[toctheyounger]

It's a bit %$#%, but it's legal so what can you do? It's a social game at the end of the day, so bargaining with the devil is acceptable (said devil being Kiki/Conscripts in this case).

The game has to end one way or another, but it's pretty clearly a disappointing end to the game for 2/3, but it would've been disappointing without player 4's involvement either way.

[pokken]

That's politics. I'm always for people trying to get their mileage worth out of having removal, and bullying other people a little if they don't have answers is fine.

That said, if I'm kiki player I refuse the bargain because it's obvious that if guy wants you to kill the others for him you don't do it It means he knows he can beat you but doesn't think he can beat the rest of the table. Honestly you made a mistake playing conscripts into open removal if you got that far, but sometimes the gamble is right.

Usually it's the control player who wants to play 1v1 with the combo player rather than having to try to beat 2 other people.

[DirkGently]

That said, if I'm kiki player I refuse the bargain because it's obvious that if guy wants you to kill the others for him you don't do it It means he knows he can beat you but doesn't think he can beat the rest of the table.

If you assume 25% chance for each player beforehand, and 50% once two players are eliminated, then it would be better for both player 1 and 4 to go through with the deal. Obviously a real game isn't likely to have that even of odds, but you get the idea. Just because it's good for player 4 doesn't mean it isn't also good for player 1.

Not to say there aren't times when it would be correct to reject the deal - if player 4 is archenemy then killing players 2 and 3 might lower your odds of winning. But assume in this hypothetical that's not the case and the game is pretty even, with player 4 banking on the 25% vs 50% odds.

[pokken]

That said, if I'm kiki player I refuse the bargain because it's obvious that if guy wants you to kill the others for him you don't do it It means he knows he can beat you but doesn't think he can beat the rest of the table.

If you assume 25% chance for each player beforehand, and 50% once two players are eliminated, then it would be better for both player 1 and 4 to go through with the deal. Obviously a real game isn't likely to have that even of odds, but you get the idea. Just because it's good for player 4 doesn't mean it isn't also good for player 1.

More than likely player 1 has reduced his odds to 0% however vs. ~25% Every time I have made that kind of deal (in player 4's shoes) it was because I was 100% going to be able to beat the one player.

Giving the control player what they want is almost always wrong.

[DirkGently]

More than likely player 1 has reduced his odds to 0% however vs. ~25% Every time I have made that kind of deal (in player 4's shoes) it was because I was 100% going to be able to beat the one player.

Giving the control player what they want is almost always wrong.

I get what you're saying, but it's not part of the hypothetical.

In the hypothetical, everyone has exactly 25% chance to win pre-deal, and players 1 and 4 have a 50% chance each if the deal goes through. We're not looking too closely at the details, just the concept of making a deal to cut other players out of the game.

[toctheyounger]

Yeah, that sounds legit. The only reason player 4 makes the bargain is that he or she has the tools available to win, so player 1 was likely to be better off just taking their chances.

In terms of making a deal to cut other players out of the game, it feels lame being left out. But it is part of the game and it's one way to embrace the social aspect of the format even if it's one that is a bit rough to those left out.

[SquirrelToken]

I'd be irritated, but killing me is a fair move. I'll be a lot more irritated if Player 4 basically plays solitaire for half an hour while slowly grinding Player 1 out.

[pokken]

I get what you're saying, but it's not part of the hypothetical.

In the hypothetical, everyone has exactly 25% chance to win pre-deal, and players 1 and 4 have a 50% chance each if the deal goes through. We're not looking too closely at the details, just the concept of making a deal to cut other players out of the game.

OK, then obviously it's the right play and both players should take it. Since the scenario is never like that, though, I don't see the value add in approaching it from that perspective; typically when two decks face up one has an overwhelming chance to win given circumstances. So assuming equal chances is probably a mistaken assumption.

Even at the very beginning of the game just from deck composition one deck will always be significantly favored bordering on 75% in 1v1 if not moreso. Most decks are not constructed with 1v1 in mind and some decks have massive advantages just by nature -- any deck with counterspells has a massive edge against a non-counterspell deck for example.

Regardless of the above, I won't get upset if people are making political choices that they think will make them more likely to win; but I will definitely point out after the fact if someone got suckered, and kiki guy guaranteed got suckered here I tend to get annoyed when *one* person gets driven out of the game early on by choices like this but just commenting about it is as far as I'll go.

I'll usually try to give a better argument than "Why you do this" though.

[ISBPathfinder]

I think its fine. It sucks if you are one of the two dying but I think its valid for the two players who agreed to it. The player who controlls Kiki knows that the player offering the counter has an answer to him so there are dynamics in accepting that play as well knowing that you aren't going to keep the combo as well or might be combo killed yourself on their next turn.

It does REALLY suck to be one of the two dying but I think there is a lot of thought in both offering as well as accepting or declining that offer.

[RxPhantom]

I'm with most of the other respondents. It would be mildly annoying, but this format is all about wheeling and dealing. I can't begrudge a player for negotiating a situation to their advantage. In fact, this seems like a textbook example of the format's politics in action.

[Sinis]

If I were the Counterspell player, would have trouble trusting someone who had my life in their hands. If I were the Kiki player, I would not accept the deal the Counterspell player is offering (you can watch the heat turn up on the Counterspell player for entertainment; during the game, we like to pretend we're not mortal enemies, but, we are).

I think I'd be really annoyed as the player with the Swords, though.

---

Similar things have happened to me in games, and the reaction from a real-life scenario might prove informative. Recently, a player ulted Ob Nixilis Reignited with Rings of Brighthearth on the table targeted myself and the other player, and I cast Repudiate // Replicate to cancel the activation (or trigger) targeting me. I had an answer for Ob altogether (I had a creature and greaves in hand, and a clear path free of removal to just punch Ob), but I opted to let it happen knowing the other target at the table would be doomed under Ob's emblem. I went on to win that game, on account of a lot of resources being used to protect Ob and it only killing one of us.

The Ob player was annoyed that he couldn't stop my Repudiate and that it was such a risk because he could have had countermagic (i.e. his life could have been in my hands), but conceded it was a good play. The player to whom the emblem stuck conceded it was a good play, and was only mildly salty.

The main divergence from my experience and the proposed scenario is that there was no agreement; I just kind of let the other player die when I could have saved us both.

I think, in general, you're going to get some salt in this kind scenario, but I think the victims of political deals will always have some salt to offer because it feels like you're being ganged up on.

[hyalopterouslemur]

I'd just lol. But seriously, is this any different than everyone ganging up on a player who is either about to lose or about to win?

[onering]

More than likely player 1 has reduced his odds to 0% however vs. ~25% Every time I have made that kind of deal (in player 4's shoes) it was because I was 100% going to be able to beat the one player.

Giving the control player what they want is almost always wrong.

I get what you're saying, but it's not part of the hypothetical.

In the hypothetical, everyone has exactly 25% chance to win pre-deal, and players 1 and 4 have a 50% chance each if the deal goes through. We're not looking too closely at the details, just the concept of making a deal to cut other players out of the game.

That's technically correct but so broad as to be irrelevant. At that point you might as well argue that playing 1v1 is better than 4 player ffa because your chances of winning are doubled. Your original post concerned a specific situation so thats really the topic at hand, and that scenario is a pretty clear telegraph that player 4 has an answer that will stop player 1s Kiki, so chances are player 4 will have the advantage in that scenario. Kiki being dealt with means that player 1 is going to lose a primary wincon, and whether it's pathed or hit by whatever player 4 has that is happening. If my deck was going to be handled like that, I'd be more afraid of facing one person who wanted the 1v1 scenario than 3 who have to worry more about each other than me. I could see scenarios where the Kiki player could benefit (player 4 is mono blue and player 1 has red elemental blast in hand), but usually this deal is going to heavily favor 4, because even if he doesn't have an immediate way to pressure player 1 after removing Kiki lined up the 1v1 matchup once the game hits the mid rounds intrinsically favors the control deck.

[tstorm823]

People who are bad at multiplayer strategy are liabilities.
People who need to make verbal deals are doing politics badly.
This player is public enemy number one moving forward until proven otherwise.

[DirkGently]

People who are bad at multiplayer strategy are liabilities.
People who need to make verbal deals are doing politics badly.

Now that's a hot take.

I kinda get where you're coming from on the first bit, but how exactly do you figure the second part?

Say you're p1 at 10, p3 has a 10/10 unblockable, you have stp, and p2 tries to combo off with mike+trike or something. How exactly are you supposed to not lose unless you can broker a deal with p3 in exchange for dealing with p2?

[DirkGently]

That's technically correct but so broad as to be irrelevant. At that point you might as well argue that playing 1v1 is better than 4 player ffa because your chances of winning are doubled. Your original post concerned a specific situation so thats really the topic at hand, and that scenario is a pretty clear telegraph that player 4 has an answer that will stop player 1s Kiki, so chances are player 4 will have the advantage in that scenario. Kiki being dealt with means that player 1 is going to lose a primary wincon, and whether it's pathed or hit by whatever player 4 has that is happening. If my deck was going to be handled like that, I'd be more afraid of facing one person who wanted the 1v1 scenario than 3 who have to worry more about each other than me. I could see scenarios where the Kiki player could benefit (player 4 is mono blue and player 1 has red elemental blast in hand), but usually this deal is going to heavily favor 4, because even if he doesn't have an immediate way to pressure player 1 after removing Kiki lined up the 1v1 matchup once the game hits the mid rounds intrinsically favors the control deck.

I mean, if you goal is to win as often as possible then 1v1 is obviously the way to go. Although I'd say winning a 4 player game counts as doubly impressive, so it's twice as satisfying. Which is something close to my goal when I play.

You're implying a lot of stuff that's not part of the scenario.

Maybe p4 is playing a precon. Maybe p1 has a deck full of other wincons and Kiki conscripts is incidental. Maybe this is a slam dunk for p1.

Or maybe p4 has a cedh control deck and p1 has a glass cannon combo deck with no alt wincons, and this is a slam dunk for p4.

Orrrrr maybe p2 and/or p3 have 500 power on board and p1 and p4 are almost certainly dead without the deal, giving both a far better chance regardless.

You can accept the hypothetical as a hypothetical, or we can waste a bunch of time trying to fine tune a scenario that perfectly matches the percentages. I'm sure there's some situation where that would be true. But I don't know what the point would be to find it.

How about we try to think about the actual implications of this kind of scenario, broadly, rather than distract ourselves with a bunch of unimportant specifics?

Namely:

How do we feel about deals to cut people out of the game? Especially in the context of helping someone else combo through another player's answer?

I know for myself, while I think it's a legitimate play, I'd have a hard time not being upset that, despite having the answer, I lost because another player defended the combo player.

[pokken]

Doesn't how you feel depend somewhat on what the probabilities actually are and how the situation plays out?

If player 4 wins very quickly with no resistance, I'm fairly happy since we get to go to a new game. If player 4 wins in an hour long slog I might be annoyed. If player 1 has a secret trap card and wins (e.g. time warp kill you) I am giving him a high five.

I don't think it's worth pretending there's a clean cut rule or set of probabilities you can apply.

[DirkGently]

Doesn't how you feel depend somewhat on what the probabilities actually are and how the situation plays out?

If player 4 wins very quickly with no resistance, I'm fairly happy since we get to go to a new game. If player 4 wins in an hour long slog I might be annoyed. If player 1 has a secret trap card and wins (e.g. time warp kill you) I am giving him a high five.

I don't think it's worth pretending there's a clean cut rule or set of probabilities you can apply.

I think the only part of the hypothetical that I, personally, consider important is that it is, in the hypothetical, true that both P1 and P4 benefit from the arrangement (while P2 and P3 obviously lose out bigtime). Which is to say - it's the correct move for both P4 to make the deal, and for P1 to take it (assuming the goal is maximizing win%).

If your reaction depends on other factors then that's an interesting take, not one I considered though. It wouldn't matter to me personally. I'd be a lot more annoyed if P1 or P4 was making a mistake (i.e. if player 4 did win easily), because otherwise I'd still be in the game. Since it's just a personal reaction, though, there's not really a right or wrong answer. Just not something I considered.

Anyway this specific hypothetical is just to illustrate the concept that, while (1) you're trying to maximize win%, and (2) as long as you're operating on the assumption that spoken deals are binding, then the correct play can be to make a deal to cut other people out of the game, even if that means doing something that - without the option to make spoken deals - would be outright suicide.

In my experience most people don't try to make all that many spoken deals. But I think if you really think through a lot of scenarios, spoken deals can be INCREDIBLY powerful. I mean, in this circumstance, it could put P4 from a situation where he has very little going for him - a counterspell, a removal spell, and maybe not much else, in a game where possible P2 and P3 are extremely powerful - into a game where he's got a very strong chance. That sort of ability simply wouldn't be possible without a spoken deal. But it can also feel pretty icky, as P2 in this scenario, to lose to someone else protecting a combo player, especially someone without much going on. So it's really a big ol' bag of complicated, imo.

[tstorm823]

Now that's a hot take.

I kinda get where you're coming from on the first bit, but how exactly do you figure the second part?

Say you're p1 at 10, p3 has a 10/10 unblockable, you have stp, and p2 tries to combo off with mike+trike or something. How exactly are you supposed to not lose unless you can broker a deal with p3 in exchange for dealing with p2?

Politics that requires deal brokering is inelegant at best, insulting at worst.

Consider the inverse situation from your example. How do they take that offer? The offer is "do what I want or I'll make the guarantee'd losing play on purpose." That's not a person you want to cooperate with.

There's nothing wrong with the end result if you answer the threat and they don't take the free kill, but it should be a result of their good politics. They should have the sense not to immediately murder the player they have easily dead on board that just prevented the game from ending poorly for both parties. Someone who takes a free kill on a weakened player just because they can is also not doing politics right: any other player can be an ally, and allies are resources.

And if you're in a situation where you're the biggest threat to both those opponents and you can only stop one from killing you, then you die and shake their hands for beating you fair and square. It's ok to lose sometimes, and if you lose graciously, that's a good way to build trust with other players, which is a good way to get players to see your presence in future games as an asset for them.

[DirkGently]

Politics that requires deal brokering is inelegant at best, insulting at worst.

Consider the inverse situation from your example. How do they take that offer? The offer is "do what I want or I'll make the guarantee'd losing play on purpose." That's not a person you want to cooperate with.

There's nothing wrong with the end result if you answer the threat and they don't take the free kill, but it should be a result of their good politics. They should have the sense not to immediately murder the player they have easily dead on board that just prevented the game from ending poorly for both parties. Someone who takes a free kill on a weakened player just because they can is also not doing politics right: any other player can be an ally, and allies are resources.

And if you're in a situation where you're the biggest threat to both those opponents and you can only stop one from killing you, then you die and shake their hands for beating you fair and square. It's ok to lose sometimes, and if you lose graciously, that's a good way to build trust with other players, which is a good way to get players to see your presence in future games as an asset for them.

I guess this just comes down to philosophy, but when people are talking about 1v1 magic, no one says "sure, that play was the CORRECT play, it gave him the best chance to win...but it was inelegant, so he shouldn't have done it." The right play is the right play.

Imo, leave elegance for the ballet. I came here to win. Or at least, to play correctly and give it my best shot, not hold back because it's "inelegant".

No idea why any of this would be insulting. I think you'll need to elaborate on that one. I consider any play that isn't my opponents best effort to be insulting, personally (I mean, within reason, I'm not trying to turn this into chess).

Let's say, hypothetically, in this scenario that the combo player will be no threat whatsoever once the combo is disrupted - hellbent, very little mana, etc. Without a deal, it would 100% be the correct play for the 10/10 to attack you. It virtually guarantees a win for its controller.

Which also means, from your perspective, STP the combo or don't - without a deal, it's a guaranteed losing play either way.

To be honest, if I didn't make the deal but disrupted the combo anyway, I'd feel insulted if the 10/10 player DIDN'T attack me. At least try to play correctly, or go play with someone else.

"They should have the sense not to immediately murder the player they have easily dead on board that just prevented the game from ending poorly for both parties."

I would argue it's the exact opposite. Once you've done the benevolent thing (arguably - you're also saving yourself, however temporarily) and stopped the combo, they don't have any reason to help you anymore. They already got what they wanted. If you want to have a good bargaining position, you leverage your advantage first, before you've given it away. If you try to bargain after, or just hope they see you as friendly after you do it, then you have no leverage left to wield, and you deserve the swift death that's coming for you. It's an FFA game. No one is friendly forever. You've gotta re-calibrate your threat assessment after every play. P2 was obviously the threat while the combo was on the stack, but now that it's not, he probably isn't anymore, and P3 should very reasonably decide that you are. If you didn't put a deal in place while you had the leverage, then you've made a mistake and you're about to pay for it.

And sure, taking a kill on someone just because you can isn't NECESSARILY correct, but it certainly COULD be. If you're the archenemy and want to eliminate threats, or they're the archenemy and you want to take them down. Granted, if P2 is the threat, then it's probably not in P3s best interests to kill P1, but that isn't necessarily the case - and for sake of argument, that's not the case I'm talking about here. I'm saying that, in this hypothetical, it is 100% correct for P3 to kill P1, unless they've made some deal.

"And if you're in a situation where you're the biggest threat to both those opponents and you can only stop one from killing you, then you die and shake their hands for beating you fair and square. It's ok to lose sometimes, and if you lose graciously, that's a good way to build trust with other players, which is a good way to get players to see your presence in future games as an asset for them."

Of course there will be situations where P3 won't agree to a deal - maybe you have a huge army on board, and the only real chance he has to kill you is to attack on his next turn. In that case, yes, you'll lose (well...you could potentially try to broker a more complicated deal, but let's not get too far down that rabbit hole...unless you want to?). And of course, you should always lose graciously. No point to being a bad sport.

That said, I wouldn't consider trying to make a deal ungracious - and I'm not sure why it would be, so long as you hold to the terms of that deal. You offer "I'll block the combo if you don't attack me next turn?" And if he says no, then you say "okay then, good game" and the combo player wins. Nothing unsportsmanlike about it.

I personally dislike playing against people that refuse to make any deals, because it makes them much harder to collaborate with against a common foe. It's more likely to make me want to kill them even when we should, in theory, be allied against someone else, because they're a wildcard that I can't reliably predict. I don't consider them assets, I consider them to be unpleasant contrarians. If you don't want to make a deal in a certain circumstance, of course that's fine and your prerogative, but when you outright refuse to make any deals whatsoever, no matter how much it might benefit both parties? You've moved significantly upwards in my threat assessment, because you cannot be reasoned with.

And sure, if someone is making smart endgame deals to save themselves from otherwise certain death, I might consider them a bigger threat next game - but that's because they've proven that they're GOOD at the game. Given the choice between using my skill to win, and rolling over in a winnable scenario in order to look like an "asset"...I'm going to make the correct play, and if other players think I'm not an "asset" then maybe it's because they'd rather play with a scrub who won't challenge them to think too hard.

[tstorm823]

Imo, leave elegance for the ballet. I came here to win. Or at least, to play correctly and give it my best shot, not hold back because it's "inelegant".

I'm not talking about holding back, I'm talking about social strategy that extends beyond the immediate turn.

No idea why any of this would be insulting. I think you'll need to elaborate on that one. I consider any play that isn't my opponents best effort to be insulting, personally (I mean, within reason, I'm not trying to turn this into chess).

Because if the guy with the unblockable 10/10 takes the deal, the objective right play is for you to stop the combo. If he refuses the deal, the objective right play is still for you to stop the combo. You have no leverage to begin with, and it's insulting to the other person's intelligence to pretend otherwise. That's when it's insulting. Which is not to say there couldn't be other examples that don't fall apart like that, but good politicking is the art of constructing situations where someone else acting for their own benefit also benefits you. If you need someone to make a promise, that means you're asking them to do something they wouldn't do otherwise, which usually means they should decline. And at the same time, relying on a promise is a lot less reliable than relying on another player's self-interest. I really don't think brokering deals is good strategy at all.

I personally dislike playing against people that refuse to make any deals, because it makes them much harder to collaborate with against a common foe. It's more likely to make me want to kill them even when we should, in theory, be allied against someone else, because they're a wildcard that I can't reliably predict.

It doesn't make it harder to collaborate against a common foe. Not even a little bit. If you're working together against a common foe, you don't need to make a deal. You naturally cooperate if it's in both players' best interest, often without a word being spoken. You don't have to turn to someone and say "ok, we don't touch each other until that person can't kill us" because that someone already shouldn't be looking at you if someone else is about to win. People should be making the best play for themselves regardless of what you offer them. If anything, people brokering deals are less predictable than otherwise because that means that they'll take game actions complete outside their own self-interest.

Consider a theoretical game with both of us and a third player: I am furthest behind but have some removal in hand and some deathtouch creatures, you have an Kozilek, Butcher of Truth, and the 3rd player has like half their deck in play and is the clear favorite to win. If we're acting in our best interests using only game actions, we should be cooperating, there's no sense in swinging at me and destroying my board and probably losing your eldrazi in combat. I actively shouldn't kill that Eldrazi, it's effectively an asset to me and I should be focused on the player that's the biggest threat.

But if we take into account deal brokering, that confidence is gone. You could move to attackers and offer to attack me if they don't kill you for 2 turns or something. Or perhaps the other way, they offer not to attack you for 2 turns if you annihilate me for 4. You'd probably take that deal. And I'd get annihilated for 4. Bringing deals into it didn't make you more predictable to me, it made you less predictable. I now not only have to fear your resources coming against me when it's the right decision for you, I have to fear your resources coming against me for the benefit of someone else, which effectively means I can never, ever leave your stuff alone if it could work against me, even when you'd be a natural ally.

[pokken]

The issue with that whole line is that the goal in multiplayer is often to get someone else to spend their resources so you don't have to. Say there is a dark steel forge on the stack with a disk untapped in play. I have a counterspell, you have a return to dust, priority comes to me.

I'm fine with you killing forge in response to disk, and would rather save my counterspell. But I don't know you have an answer.

So if I ask you and you say you have an answer am I gonna burn my counter or let you do it?

And there are a million more layers there. Maybe you can afford to wait and let it go because you have answers but it'll hurt me etc.

That's where the politics and deals and discussion has to enter in. At the upper levels of play priority order becomes really powerful. Declining to answer something when you're first to act can be correct use of resources even if you would prefer the effect not resolve.

Stuff is complex and you have to talk imho.

[Pip_Maxwell]

Definitely: "well played sir".

If the 4th player got wrecked then my vote would be "I wouldn't want to play with that person in the future."

[Legend]

The play is legit. P1 got fooled into playing their turn instead of the game.

If I were P1, I would make the deal and then immediately break it by killing (or trying to kill) P4 first. Because they've telegraphed that they have an answer in hand and that's what they get for trying to fool me - that is, they expend their removal card or they lose on the spot. Or I'd pass turn without killing anyone. I never said I'd kill P1 & P2 immediately. Of course P4 will expend their removal card so the combo is gone for now, but I'm not the sole focus.