What would be your reaction to this play?

See below for scenario

Well played, sir
16
33%
I'm not happy, but I accept it
15
31%
I think it's unsportsmanlike, but it's technically legal
8
16%
I wouldn't want to play with that person in the future
2
4%
I don't think it should be allowed
0
No votes
I think it was a bad play because player 4 couldn't trust player 1
8
16%
 
Total votes: 49

User avatar
DirkGently
My wins are unconditional
Posts: 4538
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

tstorm823 wrote:
4 years ago
I mean, if you as the Rev player want to force the issue, you absolutely can:

Play the Fog for them. Now they are alive to have skin in the game, and have been messaged that you want them alive in the immediate future.
Now play Sphinx's Revelation. 1 of 2 players is now gonna draw a bunch of cards, and the Swords to Plowshares player can decide who. Who do you think draws the cards?

Politics.
I'm not sure I'd count on it, personally. As I said before, if you're drawing so many cards as to be the overwhelming threat, I don't think the stp player would be smart to assume your priorities will remain the same.

If I was the stp player, personally I'd think about trying to make a deal - who will make me the better offer for stp-ing or not stp-ing? Whoever makes the best offer gets to draw the cards.

But if we're assuming deals aren't an option, then I'd almost certainly keep the stp, seeing as SOMEONE is about to become very threatening, and I'd like to have some answers at hand in case they draw into a combo or jin gitaxias or whatever.

I think there's a version of this situation where that's a reasonable play - say the thief player is way ahead already, and stp-player would be well-served by keeping them from getting further ahead - but it's probably not this situation.
Perm Decks
Phelddagrif - Kaervek - Golos - Zirilan

Flux Decks
Gollum - Lobelia - Minthara - Plargg2 - Solphim - Otharri - Graaz - Ratchet - Soundwave - Slicer - Gale - Rootha - Kagemaro - Blorpityblorpboop - Kayla - SliverQueen - Ivy - Falco - Gluntch - Charlatan/Wilson - Garth - Kros - Anthousa - Shigeki - Light-Paws - Lukka - Sefris - Ebondeath - Rokiric - Garth - Nixilis - Grist - Mavinda - Kumano - Nezahal - Mavinda - Plargg - Plargg - Extus - Plargg - Oracle - Kardur - Halvar - Tergrid - Egon - Cosima - Halana+Livio - Jeska+Falthis+Obosh - Yeva - Akiri+Zirda - Lady Sun - Nahiri - Korlash - Overlord+Zirda - Chisei - Athreos2 - Akim - Cazur+Ukkima - Otrimi - Otrimi - Kalamax - Ayli+Lurrus - Clamilton - Gonti - Heliod2 - Ayula - Thassa2 - Gallia - Purphoros2 - Rankle - Uro - Rayami - Gargos - Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa - Ashling1 - Angus - Arcum - Talrand - Chainer - Higure - Kumano - Scion - Teferi1 - Uyo - Sisters
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote
Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena
Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6

User avatar
Ryder
Posts: 348
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Ryder » 4 years ago

Perfectly fine. I would go even further, as P1. I would let P4 counter Swords and attempt to kill everyone anyway :grin:
P4 took a risk and it paid off, P1 held up his end of the bargain, even when P4's leverage was already gone.

User avatar
materpillar
the caterpillar
Posts: 1299
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Ohio

Post by materpillar » 4 years ago

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.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6279
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

Ryder wrote:
4 years ago
Perfectly fine. I would go even further, as P1. I would let P4 counter Swords and attempt to kill everyone anyway :grin:
P4 took a risk and it paid off, P1 held up his end of the bargain, even when P4's leverage was already gone.
Are you guys seriously breaking agreements all the time? I ask because that's the second or third time I've seen that response. In every meta I've ever played in lying gets you put in the doghouse pretty hard.

Feels like once you break a single agreement no one would ever bother haggling with you again and that's what I've seen.

User avatar
Ryder
Posts: 348
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Ryder » 4 years ago

It's all about how badly they want to believe you and what is on the line. When you can win the game outright, you should. Mid-game bargains are a different story. they are usually worth upholding.

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 4 years ago

pokken wrote:
4 years ago
Ryder wrote:
4 years ago
Perfectly fine. I would go even further, as P1. I would let P4 counter Swords and attempt to kill everyone anyway :grin:
P4 took a risk and it paid off, P1 held up his end of the bargain, even when P4's leverage was already gone.
Are you guys seriously breaking agreements all the time? I ask because that's the second or third time I've seen that response. In every meta I've ever played in lying gets you put in the doghouse pretty hard.

Feels like once you break a single agreement no one would ever bother haggling with you again and that's what I've seen.

In that particular example though, everyone is going to be more pissed at player 4 for proposing the deal. Players 2 and 3's reactions to player 1 breaking the deal would probably be "serves player 4 right." They'd probably be more annoyed at player 1 for taking the deal, so I'd think he'd be doing himself more harm from a meta perspective by NOT betraying player 4. I know I wouldn't want to make that kind of deal with him in the future, but not necessarily that I wouldn't want to make other deals that are less extreme (of the I'll fog if you stp that threat variety).

User avatar
BOVINE
Legendary Creature – Ox
Posts: 147
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Nomadic

Post by BOVINE » 4 years ago

The original question seems silly almost. Each player say down to win. Each player ought to be considering how to at once gain advantage and limit their opponent's chances of winning. Don't see why anyone would be "validly" irritated by one of their opponents trying to win. I'd be more interested in how you and I would feel of player 1 lied to player 4 and attacks 4 too anyway — assuming 4 couldn't Swords anymore...
B O V I N E

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6279
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

BOVINE wrote:
4 years ago
The original question seems silly almost. Each player say down to win. Each player ought to be considering how to at once gain advantage and limit their opponent's chances of winning. Don't see why anyone would be "validly" irritated by one of their opponents trying to win. I'd be more interested in how you and I would feel of player 1 lied to player 4 and attacks 4 too anyway — assuming 4 couldn't Swords anymore...
Yeah that was a discussion I was really surprised about. Personally in all the playgroups I've been a part of that's the type of thing that gets you shut out of politics forever.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Commander”