Well, I'm not going to give you a consensus on that point. Pot shots at players just because they are the softest target is bad politics. Like, there are certainly considerations that make that sensible, like the 6/6 vigilance at the player that can't effectively block is way more justified if they happen to be a deck that you expect to play Necropotence, for example. But again, that's just more example of it never being equal.
Then we've reached an impasse. I agree that my preferred target would be the biggest threat, but as long as the table is somewhat balanced I will absolutely attack soft targets if the preferred target is going to cost me too many resources, so long as I think I'll be able to finish them later.
I'd be happy to hear other people comment on this, because from where I'm standing, the idea that some switch is flipped when someone becomes just a teensy bit more powerful than the other players, and now they're the ONLY viable target and all other opponents are allies against them, is absurd. Too absurd to even really argue against, tbh.M
I tend to agree with tsstorm more here. I think a major point reason you guys aren't on the same page here is (from what I can tell) differing assumptions around deck strengths.
From my own experience my metagame is very combo-deck light. There's a handful of extremely low powered decks running around. There's a few super battlecruisers that become nigh unstoppable once they hit critical mass. There's also a spike, who doesn't play combo decks, but his decks time-to-kill is several turns early on average. His decks are also extremely resilient.
One game I remember specifically is one man was playing
Mowu, Loyal Companion draft chaff. There's was a couple other people playing various decks and the spike. Mowu has gotten up to being a 21/21 or bigger. I destructing remember using a StP on one of the spike's board state developing creatures even though that left my shields down for Mowu. I remember my logic very clearly.
- Mowu was currently the most efficient way to get spike dead
- every turn spike lives undisrupted his odds of winning the game go up noticeably
- once Mowu dies, his deck is going to be effectively crippled for the rest of the game
- I believe the Mowu player would be distrustful of any deal offered as he was a newer player
- my best line of play is to ignore the massive Mowu merely hoping it kills someone else and focus all my resources on the spike. If Mowu kills the spike now, all I need is to topdeck a removal spell to win. If I don't disrupt the spike, the line of play I need to win is dramatically more difficult.
This isn't an example of bartering or such. It's just to set the stage for my thoughts on the attacking a soft target.
If I have a 6/6 vigilance. There's a player with a 7/7 and a player with no creatures I don't necessarily always take the attack on the soft player. If spike player is the "soft player", I attack them 100%. They need dead now. If the "soft player" is Mowu I attack them 0% of the time. Their deck's win-percentage is likely so low that I want to have my opponents waste a maximum amount of their own resources on Mowu. Helping Mowu in anyway that I can (including not attacking so it has a higher life total) is going to be directly taxing my opponent (not a lot, but you got to grab every edge). This can also create a light alliance against the archenemy in certain situations. Obviously not something you can rely on but in can be a connivence. The thinner the disparity of my perceived differences in deck strength the more likely I am to take the free attack.
Another thing I consider a lot is making long-reaching metagaming decisions. It's not incredibly fun to be the "soft player" and to have everyone beating you down because it's free. I find that attacking primarily when you're going for the kill or during times when players more obviously feel like "they themselves deserved it" to build up less resentment towards you in the long run. Being a fun opponent to play against dramatically increases your win-percentage in the long run as opponents are less likely to kill you since you're fun to have around. For example, I think metagames spike player's win percentage would go up dramatically if he noticeably powered down his decks so everyone didn't target him right off the bat. The amount of removal I have to wade through to win is vastly different than he does based purely on metagaming decisions.