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
tstorm823
Knowledge Pool
Posts: 1041
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him
Location: York, PA

Post by tstorm823 » 4 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
The kozilek player has, to my thinking, 5 options.
1: agree, get hippos, smack someone else, we both benefit.
2: disagree - whether for good reasoning or not - I kill his kozilek, we both lose out.
3: refuse to answer, same as #2, we both lose out.
4: agree, get hippos, attack me anyway, I hurt him as much as I possibly can and never make a deal with him again. Presumably we both lose out.
5: demand more. That's where things get interesting.

I'm curious which option you'd be choosing. Or if you'd choose something else I haven't thought of. Or if you'll ignore the question, which I suspect is most likely.

At this point I know you read the scenario I outlined, about the player at low life and the player with Niv who couldn't make a deal, and you still haven't responded to it. So am I to assume you're conceding that point? Same for the "player with sphinx's rev offers to fog if you kill the notion thief" hypothetical. You know, it's funny, as soon as I manage to nail down the specifics enough on a situation that there isn't some way to weasel out of it, you suddenly get very quiet about it and try to move on to something else.
Nobody is dodging your questions, but as you yourself have acknowledged, these mega posts aren't necessarily conducive to keeping on track, and I'd prefer to keep at the heart of the matter. The answer is 6, something you haven't thought of apparently. I disagree, you kill Kozilek, I didn't really lose out. There is no prize for second place, I cannot win without killing you, I need to get through your answers eventually. Signing a deal with you to let me be arch enemy annihilating the other players while I still cant touch you helps you, and therefore hurts me. And if you don't have removal, even better, I must be targetting you for a reason.

I don't take the Notion Thief deal either. There are two possibilities: that player wants me alive as an ally, or the action of removing the Notion Thief is advantageous enough to make my continued presence a non threat. If the latter, I should treat my chances as effectively zero. If the former, I should be saved without a deal. And in refusing the deal, I put the deal offerer into the position of less trying to win at that moment and more just trying not to lose. Refusing the deal is my best shot.
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."

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

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

[mention]onering[/mention]

"That's a tad aggressive I think. I know it wasn't directed at me btw."

Probably, but after pages of positing hypotheticals and having people go "well, if X" and me go "let's assume not X", only for the conversation to abruptly end when there aren't any more X's to use as "get out of admitting deals can be useful free" cards left...well it's not my favourite. If you think your position is correct you should be able to argue any point, not look for the flimsiest one and focus on that while ignoring the others. It gives the impression that one is putting up a good fight because they keep having responses, even though there's lots of silently abandoned fights they've lost without telling anyone. If someone makes a good point and I have to concede it, I'll concede that point before arguing others, or at least I try to give that courtesy.

"3 hippos is nowhere near enough to stop an attack"

Well, 3 hippos is a bit of a placeholder - enough that I think, in an even game state (which is what I described) where kozilek was deciding mostly at random who to attack, it would be enough to push him elsewhere. In a state where I'm ahead, then it might take more of course. Also depends a lot on other things - if he has a skullclamp, hippo tokens might be very valuable. They also might be very valuable if he has no chump blockers and there are large, non-evasive creatures running amok. Of course I take these things into account when deciding how much I think is fair.

"If that's not you I'm taking the deal because it's free hippos for something I was going to do anyway even if you were giving me nothing."

I think you see this as a failure, but I'd consider it a huge success. Even if kozilek wasn't going to attack me, knowing that information with certainty is very valuable. Otherwise I might be in a position where I can't risk it, and would need to kill the kozilek pre-attacks just in case, which wastes my removal and a kozilek attack going at someone else, both of which I would very much like to have.

If I think an attack coming at me is very unlikely I might not bother with a deal, or might offer very little, it just depends. But even if all I get is information and not an actual redirection of the attack, that's still quite valuable.

"If your the biggest threat, I'm rejecting your deal because I need kozilek to hit you, and you'd need to pay steeply to change that (like offer up the secret removal spell against something another player has), and even then you might not be able to offer enough to change my calculus."

I've done deals like that too. Sometimes it can be worth it.

I think part of where we're butting heads is that everyone is arguing from the position that being the threat is a clear black and white position, where you either are or aren't the threat, and that's just not how the game goes - especially with Phelddagrif since all my power is in my hand and not my board. Often the board is balanced enough that it's not clear, especially from the perspective of a single player, who is in the lead. If I'm unquestionably far in the lead then of course I wouldn't expect to be able to redirect the attack for anything less than a fortune worth of hippos, but if I'm....maybe in the lead? Like...idk, he's got a big hand and quite a few lands, so I guess he's the threat even though he doesn't have any creatures in play except Phelddagrif? And that other guy is a bit low on resources, but he's almost comboed off a few times and Phelddagrif stopped him....hmmm...... Then we can maybe make a deal.

"Telling me you will kill kozilek if I attack you would actually keep me from attacking if I felt I needed him alive enough, and that's the sort of thing I'd consider a deal but others could consider merely sharing your plans to affect your opponents calculus."

I probably should have stated that explicitly in the deal, but yes that's usually implied when I play Phelddagrif. Unless I don't have a removal and I'm bluffing. I guess then it's still implied, just not followed through on - which is why I'd rather imply rather than state outright, lest I be proven a liar when I'm called out.

Anyway simply sharing plans doesn't work with annihilator because I need to know where he's going before he goes there. If it was just, say, blightsteel colossus then I could just wait and see what happens - and I'd be a lot more likely to do that rather than try to broker a deal, especially if I think I'm probably not the target. If I wanted I could reveal the removal spell and let BSC do what it thinks is best. But simply revealing the removal spell doesn't give me any of the juicy, juicy information, and I need the information to decide if I should kill kozilek pre-attacks to prevent annihilator, which is why I chose kozilek in the example.

"The sphinxes rev and fog example is a more clear cut deal where it's trading an action for an action. That's certainly a deal id normally take, but if I knew the playgroup generally frowned on such deals or it would be viewed as king making I'd take the L to build good will in future games and let sphinxes rev guy be a target for the next few games. But that's metagaming, and depends on how likely I am to lose anyway if I make the deal."

Yes, of course if your group frowns on deals you shouldn't make deals. I don't have a problem with that, so long as everyone's happy. As long as deals are fair game, though, I think it's interesting to explore the possibilities of how they can improve your winrate.

[mention]tstorm823[/mention]

"Nobody is dodging your questions, but as you yourself have acknowledged, these mega posts aren't necessarily conducive to keeping on track, and I'd prefer to keep at the heart of the matter."

I think we disagree on what the heart of the matter is, then - and I think I was pretty clear about what part I wanted a response to in the post you ignored. But whatever, water under the bridge as long as we're back to it now.

"The answer is 6, something you haven't thought of apparently. I disagree, you kill Kozilek, I didn't really lose out. There is no prize for second place, I cannot win without killing you, I need to get through your answers eventually."

Someone needs to get through them, sure. It needn't be you. Nor do you need to kill me - someone needs to kill me for you to win, but it needn't be you. We aren't talking 1v1. As long as there are other players then yes, you do lose out, because they'll have gained power relative to both of us.

If I'm the overwhelming threat then yes, absolutely you should sacrifice whatever needs to be sacrificed to breaking my shields, no question, and presumably you can count on the other players to make similar sacrifices so you don't fall too far behind them - hopefully they aren't too greedy, but we're talking optimal play so we'll assume they aren't. Phelddagrif generally tries to avoid being the threat for exactly that reason - it does not play well from ahead. Every card in the deck is chosen to avoid being threatening to avoid just such a situation - but it does still happen, of course.

"Signing a deal with you to let me be arch enemy annihilating the other players while I still cant touch you helps you, and therefore hurts me. And if you don't have removal, even better, I must be targetting you for a reason."

More of that 1v1 thinking. Something that benefits a single opponent can benefit you as well. You've said so yourself.

In this situation it's totally possible you're the biggest threat right now anyway - you do have an eldrazi after all, you're probably doing pretty well. You can choose to use that power while you have it, to take down some of your other enemies, or you can lose it without gaining much of anything except pulling my removal that would have likely hit someone else's creature had you left it alone. Of course, sometimes it'll still be correct to force my hand if the other players are way behind, but the scenario as stated was that the gamestate appeared pretty balanced.

"I don't take the Notion Thief deal either. There are two possibilities: that player wants me alive as an ally, or the action of removing the Notion Thief is advantageous enough to make my continued presence a non threat. If the latter, I should treat my chances as effectively zero. If the former, I should be saved without a deal. And in refusing the deal, I put the deal offerer into the position of less trying to win at that moment and more just trying not to lose. Refusing the deal is my best shot."

Let's focus on the critical bit of this, since the possibility of wanting you alive as an ally I've already said isn't true in this scenario:

"the action of removing the Notion Thief is advantageous enough to make my continued presence a non threat"

False. Let me fix that to make it true.

"The action of removing the notion thief is advantageous enough to make my continued presence less of a threat than the threat the notion thief posed (plus the benefit of keeping a fog)"

The notion thief is a huuuuge threat to the sphinx's rev player. That still leaves quite a bit of leeway for you to win the game. Realistically it's probably not high, but it's certainly more than zero. Here a few pages ago you were saying that you should disrupt a combo without a deal on the off-chance the other opponent has a massive brain fart and doesn't kill with an obviously correct on-board lethal attack, so idk why you're throwing away very real percentage points here.

If I'm the sphinx's rev player, sitting on 16 mana, a fog, and a sphinx rev, being held down by a notion thief, and the other players are mostly pretty low of resources - well, that is a lot of cards, true, and winning is certainly pretty likely. But it's still 12 random cards, whiffing is entirely possible. And in a relatively low-powered meta, where you're not likely to be running a bunch of tutors and combo pieces, fighting a 3v1 game can be pretty difficult, even with you having a lot of cards, many of which will likely be lands.

And the person you're probably least likely to be worried about, and thus least likely to hurt or kill, would be the one who couldn't save themselves from dying a minute ago. And the other players probably won't be pestering them either. Giving that player a small but very reasonable shot.

Or they could just die. I mean it's an option. I wouldn't call it your "best shot" though.
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
TheAmericanSpirit
Supreme Dumb Guy
Posts: 2195
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Location: IGMCULSL Papal Palace

Post by TheAmericanSpirit » 4 years ago

In response to the violent volley of essays into which this thread has devolved:

Dirk, do you remember Phil's stax guide over on MTGS? You should consider writing out a treatise on edh real politik (it would probably have a lower word count than your contributions to this thread lol). You seem to invest heavily into developing that playstyle and perhaps we need a dedicated place to discuss the veracity/ethics of politics, dealmaking, etc rather than potentially derail future threads like this one. Furthermore, I think it would be a lovely resource/recurring topic to have around the site and, if you're fortunate and talented, you might foster the same level of glorious, hyperbolic, psuedo-intellectual discourse as Phil's thread did way back when.

That all being said, do carry on, friends. I've always just played as the local Romans do, but the intensity of your philosophical conflict tickles me.
There's no biscuits and gravy in New Zealand.
(Except when DirkGently makes them!)

User avatar
tstorm823
Knowledge Pool
Posts: 1041
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him
Location: York, PA

Post by tstorm823 » 4 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
We aren't talking 1v1.
More of that 1v1 thinking. Something that benefits a single opponent can benefit you as well. You've said so yourself.
I'm not talking 1v1, you're talking 1v1v1v1, and games don't play out 1v1v1v1. Level playing fields are a minority of the time, but even in a level playing field, you don't just choose a target arbitrarily. Someone is going to be your enemy. It could be a 3v1 scenario because 1 player is the threat to win. You could also have 1 primary target and play as a 1v1 for a time because they have cards that uniquely cripple you. Even if everyone else is exactly identical, their impact on you is effected by turn order. There's always a reason to consider one person the biggest problem to you. Ignoring the biggest problem is wrong 100% of the time. Something that benefits a single opponent can benefit you as well so long as the opponent benefiting isn't your biggest obstacle. Again, I'm not attacking people for no reason, your deals shouldn't be dissuading any attacks with more thought put into them than rolling a die to see who to target.
You can choose to use that power while you have it, to take down some of your other enemies, or you can lose it without gaining much of anything except pulling my removal that would have likely hit someone else's creature had you left it alone.
If you can stop me, those players aren't enemies, they are allies. You're trying to tell me it's good strategy to take other players out of the game with my resources before turning on you because I can't kill you first. That's terrible strategy. That's "how to give someone else an easy win 101" stuff. That's "suicide attack one player in risk and then both die on the 3rd player's turn" level strategy. Power that I can only aim at weaker players isn't power at all. It doesn't matter if I literally control the threat, if you have the answer and are telling me where to attack, you control the threat. Especially if I make a deal to ally with you, that eldrazi is your threat. Attacking you and making you burn removal is robbing you of both the removal and the threat.
Let's focus on the critical bit of this, since the possibility of wanting you alive as an ally I've already said isn't true in this scenario:
It is true in this scenario. If the player about to die isn't agreeing to kill the Notion Thief, then the Sphinx's Revelation player isn't going to get to Rev. Period. So now reanalyze the situation: 1 player has a lethal board to the other and is attacking that player. So long as that player is alive and you (the rev player) haven't made yourself a bigger threat, they'll probably continue to try to kill that player. That gives you time. The player you saved is on the brink of death and will almost certainly pull the trigger on a boardwipe if they have one. That kills the Notion Thief. Even just keeping them alive to retain the status quo, the status quo looks pretty good for you. There are plenty of reasons to Fog without any deal. Alternatively, you don't Fog, you let the ally who might kill Notion Thief die so your Rev is a dead card unless you happen to topdeck your own removal, and there's one less player to distract the threat. That is a worse position for you. Saving them is your best interest.

And this is the scenario where offering the deal is gonna bite you. What I would do is Fog without a deal. That player now understands you are allying with them against the 3rd player, which bluffs that you aren't a threat yourself. They'll focus their efforts accordingly, the Notion Thief might just die in the process. I'd be patient, and not make myself the threat until it was gone naturally, and if in the meantime someone attempts to like combo kill the table, whenever I want, I can offer the information that I have Sphinx's Rev in hand and responses in my deck, and then I don't need a deal to get someone to kill Notion Thief. If you offer your deal, you take a game that was well in hand, and potentially just punt it away.

Edit:

To drill down into this further. If you're the player with Fog and Sphinx's Rev, saying for the moment that the only actual game action anyone will take is Fog, you have a few options. You can

A) Do nothing. Not a great option, you keep the Fog, but you're down another player and your Rev is a dead card unless you get removal. Let's call that 20% for you, 0% for the other player.
B) Fog for the player. Better option, you're down the Fog, but up an ally, and there's one more player who might kill the Notion Thief along the way. Let's call that 45% for you, 15% for the other player.
C) Offer your deal. That gives the other player a decision. They can:

1) Accept the deal. You go up to like 80%, they stay alive at like 5%.
2) Reject the deal. You're treating this as they go to 0%. But that's not what happens, because you can still Fog without a deal, so they can call your bluff, creating the next decision. You can:

a) Fog anyway. You're effectively at option B, except the table is less likely to kill Notion Thief for you, so probably more like 35% and 15%.
b) Don't Fog. You're effectively at option A, except now the remaining players know you have a Fog and a draw spell, your chances drop to like 10% and theirs goes to 0%.

If I'm the player you're offering the deal, I'm calling your bluff, because if you act in your own rational self-interest, you'll still Fog, and that lets me keep my removal and not have to worry about what you're going to do with the Notion Thief removed. So if I'm an intelligent person, and you're an intelligent person, and you aren't willing to throw the game out of spite for me turning you down, offering that deal did nothing but lose you percentage points by revealing information needlessly. And I would probably explain that to you when you offered the deal.
Last edited by tstorm823 4 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."

User avatar
lyonhaert
Posts: 641
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 4
Pronoun: they / them

Post by lyonhaert » 4 years ago

TheAmericanSpirit wrote:
4 years ago
That all being said, do carry on, friends. I've always just played as the local Romans do, but the intensity of your philosophical conflict tickles me.
I just want DirkGently to go back to using actual quote tags. :P
Chainer bbb
"Image"
(rebuild after Geth)
Other
r Lathliss
bw Breena
To-Build Pool
rb Obosh Burn
gw Dromoka

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

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

TheAmericanSpirit wrote:
4 years ago
Dirk, do you remember Phil's stax guide over on MTGS? You should consider writing out a treatise on edh real politik (it would probably have a lower word count than your contributions to this thread lol). You seem to invest heavily into developing that playstyle and perhaps we need a dedicated place to discuss the veracity/ethics of politics, dealmaking, etc rather than potentially derail future threads like this one. Furthermore, I think it would be a lovely resource/recurring topic to have around the site and, if you're fortunate and talented, you might foster the same level of glorious, hyperbolic, psuedo-intellectual discourse as Phil's thread did way back when.
I thought about doing that quite a few times, but ultimately that's what my Phelddagrif guide became. I feel like a general-purpose politics guide would mostly be repeating a lot of information from Phelddagrif.
tstorm823 wrote:
4 years ago
I'm not talking 1v1, you're talking 1v1v1v1, and games don't play out 1v1v1v1. Level playing fields are a minority of the time, but even in a level playing field, you don't just choose a target arbitrarily. Someone is going to be your enemy. It could be a 3v1 scenario because 1 player is the threat to win. You could also have 1 primary target and play as a 1v1 for a time because they have cards that uniquely cripple you. Even if everyone else is exactly identical, their impact on you is effected by turn order. There's always a reason to consider one person the biggest problem to you. Ignoring the biggest problem is wrong 100% of the time. Something that benefits a single opponent can benefit you as well so long as the opponent benefiting isn't your biggest obstacle.
This part of the conversation might be an impasse because I don't think I can keep going without a consensus on this point. Yes, I agree, there will always be a player that is, at least, very slightly more of a problem than the other players, it's not really possible - or at least plausible - to perfectly balance a table. And given the opportunity, that would be my preferred opponent to hurt. But there are two caveats - one is that you can't perfectly threat-assess unless all hands and libraries are revealed. There will always be error bars on how threatening each other player is. The person you think is low-priority might suddenly drop teferi into a combo on the next turn. That tends to make me want to default to removing players from the game, to reduce the possibility of getting blind-sided, unless I really need their help. The second caveat, and the one I think we're going to come to an impasse on, is that, within certain margins, I think it's absolutely correct to hurt someone who isn't your #1 priority.

If there are two opponents who are each pretty close to the same threat level - but one is slightly more threatening and has a 7/7, the slightly less threatening one has a 5/5, and you have a 6/6 vigilance - I would 100% attack the player with the 5/5, even though I'd rather attack the other player were it possible. If the 7/7 player is way ahead of both of us, and the 5/5 player and I need to work together, then of course I wouldn't attack at all, but within the right margins, where the 5/5 player is close enough to the 7/7 player I would definitely attack the 5/5 player.

And it seems you can't agree on this point, because attacking the 5/5 player in this situation benefits the 7/7 player, and they're the biggest obstacle, which you said could never be correct. So as I said, I think we might be at an impasse.

(It's also worth pointing out that your statement doesn't preclude the possibility that YOU are the archenemy. If I'm the archenemy, and one opponent is very prickly to attack - let's say they're playing hapatra and have a bunch of deathtouchy snakes - then I'd happily kill the other less-defended players first before making the painful sacrifices to kill the prickly player. Otherwise if I ram all my threats into snakes first, even if I kill Hapatra I might run out of juice and be unable to fend off the remaining players. Oftentimes if I'm in the lead, I'll take out the easy prey first, to reduce the number of loose ends before taking on the harder targets. The Hapatra player is roughly analogous to what Phelddagrif is trying to do, of course, except that removal is a lot more flexible than a deathtouch blocker.)
It is true in this scenario. If the player about to die isn't agreeing to kill the Notion Thief, then the Sphinx's Revelation player isn't going to get to Rev. Period. So now reanalyze the situation: 1 player has a lethal board to the other and is attacking that player. So long as that player is alive and you (the rev player) haven't made yourself a bigger threat, they'll probably continue to try to kill that player. That gives you time. The player you saved is on the brink of death and will almost certainly pull the trigger on a boardwipe if they have one. That kills the Notion Thief. Even just keeping them alive to retain the status quo, the status quo looks pretty good for you. There are plenty of reasons to Fog without any deal. Alternatively, you don't Fog, you let the ally who might kill Notion Thief die so your Rev is a dead card unless you happen to topdeck your own removal, and there's one less player to distract the threat. That is a worse position for you. Saving them is your best interest.

And this is the scenario where offering the deal is gonna bite you. What I would do is Fog without a deal. That player now understands you are allying with them against the 3rd player, which bluffs that you aren't a threat yourself. They'll focus their efforts accordingly, the Notion Thief might just die in the process. I'd be patient, and not make myself the threat until it was gone naturally, and if in the meantime someone attempts to like combo kill the table, whenever I want, I can offer the information that I have Sphinx's Rev in hand and responses in my deck, and then I don't need a deal to get someone to kill Notion Thief. If you offer your deal, you take a game that was well in hand, and potentially just punt it away.
You know they don't have a board wipe, or they presumably would have used it before they got attacked for lethal.

The distraction element I also think is a frivolous argument. Sure, if they topdeck into something maybe they become a good distraction, but otherwise they're presumably just taking lethal on the next turn. If you'd not fogged, you could have saved the fog to protect yourself. Either way you have the same number of turns, except if you keep the fog you might prevent more damage in the future (almost certainly, since every land gives them more attackers). And that's assuming the baloth player doesn't change his mind and start attacking you anyway. Like what if the "distraction" player topdecks a 7/7 and plays it. Now the baloths aren't coming at them, they're coming at you, and you wasted your fog saving someone who isn't helping you.

Are there situations where I'd save the attacked player? Yes, definitely. But there are plenty of situations where I wouldn't, and I'd say the situation as outlined is likely one of them. Either way, as the attacked player, if the other person is offering me such a deal, I think by far the safest assumption is that they are not bluffing and would not save me. If they were bluffing and save me anyway, they've just tipped their hand that they're sitting on a big draw spell, meaning the baloths are a lot more likely to attack them next turn, and all other players are a lot less likely to kill the notion thief - including the stp player. You might say the sphinx's player shouldn't have made such a deal in the first place, since it tips his hand, but from the perspective of the stp player, if sphinx has already offered the deal, I would assume he's serious about it. If he was going to save me either way, he'd just save me rather than tip his hand. If he's tipping his hand, it's because he WILL let me die otherwise.

And from the perspective of sphinx I think it's a smart deal to offer. Because making the offer signals that you're serious, it makes it the right play for the other person to take the deal. And if they take it, then you're in the money. If you don't commit to offering the deal, then you're just hoping on blind luck to kill the thief. And most likely the stp will go at the baloth, where you don't want it to go. Based on the situation, I don't think you want to wait around for luck to kick in, or else someone else might get something powerful enough that your draw spell won't save you, even if notion thief does die a few turn cycles later. Gotta seize that advantage while it's at its best.
Edit:

To drill down into this further. If you're the player with Fog and Sphinx's Rev, saying for the moment that the only actual game action anyone will take is Fog, you have a few options. You can

A) Do nothing. Not a great option, you keep the Fog, but you're down another player and your Rev is a dead card unless you get removal. Let's call that 20% for you, 0% for the other player.
B) Fog for the player. Better option, you're down the Fog, but up an ally, and there's one more player who might kill the Notion Thief along the way. Let's call that 45% for you, 15% for the other player.
C) Offer your deal. That gives the other player a decision. They can:

1) Accept the deal. You go up to like 80%, they stay alive at like 5%.
2) Reject the deal. You're treating this as they go to 0%. But that's not what happens, because you can still Fog without a deal, so they can call your bluff, creating the next decision. You can:

a) Fog anyway. You're effectively at option B, except the table is less likely to kill Notion Thief for you, so probably more like 35% and 15%.
b) Don't Fog. You're effectively at option A, except now the remaining players know you have a Fog and a draw spell, your chances drop to like 10% and theirs goes to 0%.

If I'm the player you're offering the deal, I'm calling your bluff, because if you act in your own rational self-interest, you'll still Fog, and that lets me keep my removal and not have to worry about what you're going to do with the Notion Thief removed. So if I'm an intelligent person, and you're an intelligent person, and you aren't willing to throw the game out of spite for me turning you down, offering that deal did nothing but lose you percentage points by revealing information needlessly. And I would probably explain that to you when you offered the deal.
All of that makes perfect sense...if I accept your percentages. Which I think are completely absurd nonsense. GIGO.

While I think they're almost all wrong to some degree or another, I think the biggest mistake is here:

a) Fog anyway. You're effectively at option B, except the table is less likely to kill Notion Thief for you, so probably more like 35% and 15%.

If you fog anyway, you've tipped your hand that you have some big scary draw spell. That likely makes you the threat, likely means the baloths etc are attacking you next turn instead of the stp player, and might even mean the stp player is ensuring you don't pop off your draw spell, by holding up a counter if they draw one before the thief dies. I'd say your chances are significantly LESS than if you just did nothing in the first place (Although I'd also argue that the stp player's chances rise considerably, since you've just painted a target on yourself and attacks are more likely you head your way, and less likely to head in theirs). I'd say it's less than if you don't fog even after offering the deal, since your "ally" is now wary of you, and has shown a strong disinterest in doing the one thing you want them to do - and you're down the fog. You have effectively nothing in hand, and you're possibly the archenemy. Your chances aren't 35%. They're probably more like 5%, depending on how likely topdecking removal on the next turn is.

I can imagine scenarios where it makes sense to save them without offering a deal - say, if they're playing boardwipe.dec, or have a tapped disk in play, or whatever. I'll give you that much. But in most situations, no way. If I offer that deal I'm 100% letting them die like a dog if they don't do what I want, and saving the fog to protect my own ass now that I've told the table what I'm up to.

To pick apart another:

B) Fog for the player. Better option, you're down the Fog, but up an ally, and there's one more player who might kill the Notion Thief along the way. Let's call that 45% for you, 15% for the other player.

15% to the player who MUST topdeck something or die the next turn? Really? And 45% to the player with literally nothing currently playable in hand, and nothing on board? I know you're picking these percentages to try to make your argument salient, but at least try to think realistically, holy cow.
lyonhaert wrote:
4 years ago
I just want DirkGently to go back to using actual quote tags. :P
uggghhhh fiiiiiiine. I wondered when someone would complain.

Not giving any of the tags in the fast reply box is super annoying btw. I should probably complain about that in the official forum...forum, but I'd rather just whine ineffectively here and wonder why nothing happens.
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
tstorm823
Knowledge Pool
Posts: 1041
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him
Location: York, PA

Post by tstorm823 » 4 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
This part of the conversation might be an impasse because I don't think I can keep going without a consensus on this point.
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.
It's also worth pointing out that your statement doesn't preclude the possibility that YOU are the archenemy.
That isn't worth pointing out, because the context of the conversation is dealmaking, and I shouldn't need to point out why agreeing to cooperate with the archenemy is dumb.
You know they don't have a board wipe, or they presumably would have used it before they got attacked for lethal.
I don't know that. They could have expected you to be attacked instead and were being strategic with the timing of their board wipe.
Either way you have the same number of turns, except if you keep the fog you might prevent more damage in the future
If someone else is archenemy, every other player alive is an extra draw toward an answer every turn they survive. 1 extra meaningful draw is more valuable than gain 4 life.
I think by far the safest assumption is that they are not bluffing and would not save me. If they were bluffing and save me anyway, they've just tipped their hand that they're sitting on a big draw spell, meaning the baloths are a lot more likely to attack them next turn, and all other players are a lot less likely to kill the notion thief - including the stp player. You might say the sphinx's player shouldn't have made such a deal in the first place, since it tips his hand, but from the perspective of the stp player, if sphinx has already offered the deal, I would assume he's serious about it. If he was going to save me either way, he'd just save me rather than tip his hand. If he's tipping his hand, it's because he WILL let me die otherwise.
Then taking your line, the Sphinx's Rev player is going to lose because they made a mistake and doubled down on it.
And from the perspective of sphinx I think it's a smart deal to offer. Because making the offer signals that you're serious, it makes it the right play for the other person to take the deal. And if they take it, then you're in the money. If you don't commit to offering the deal, then you're just hoping on blind luck to kill the thief. And most likely the stp will go at the baloth, where you don't want it to go. Based on the situation, I don't think you want to wait around for luck to kick in, or else someone else might get something powerful enough that your draw spell won't save you, even if notion thief does die a few turn cycles later. Gotta seize that advantage while it's at its best.
From the premise of the scenario, we know Swords on a baloth is meaningless for survival to them. If you're now both in trouble following the Fog and don't have an obvious out, they can still Swords the Notion Thief for you to find a solution. And chances are, they'd be particularly amenable to the request after you've fogged for them. That's honest cooperation. That line doesn't close the moment you stop them from falling off the cliff.
All of that makes perfect sense...if I accept your percentages. Which I think are completely absurd nonsense. GIGO.
Most of what follows this is you realizing slowly why offering the deal was a mistake in the first place while not acknowledging it, but if this is your response to me communicating with you on your own terms, it's probably wrong to dignify the rest with a detailed response.
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."

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
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.
That isn't worth pointing out, because the context of the conversation is dealmaking, and I shouldn't need to point out why agreeing to cooperate with the archenemy is dumb.
Whether I agree depends on terminology. If someone is far and away the biggest threat, then any deal-making with them is likely a mistake. If archenemy simply means whoever happens to be the furthest ahead to any degree, though, then I strongly disagree. Again, this flip-switching concept is absurd to me, especially in the context of a game where everyone's exact power is almost always unknowable.

Either way, you statement made no such caveat.
I don't know that. They could have expected you to be attacked instead and were being strategic with the timing of their board wipe.
I think the original hypothetical was that stp was their only card in hand. I'll grant that it's possible they saved one - but I'd say it's quite unlikely, especially since they also have an STP, so burning the wrath doesn't even leave them defenseless, and since everyone's low on cards anyway there's not much additional value to be grabbed by waiting.
If someone else is archenemy, every other player alive is an extra draw toward an answer every turn they survive. 1 extra meaningful draw is more valuable than gain 4 life.
If they draw a board wipe, sure. If they draw many, many other things, then not so much. I think most decks are playing more blockers, which will redirect the baloths next attack into your face, than board wipes.

Again, I'll concede that it could be a good move if I knew their deck had a lot of board wipes or other control - hey, like Phelddagrif! - but sight unseen I'd say a draw of theirs is probably worth a pretty small fraction of one of mine. Basically whatever the percentage of their cards are that are also useful to me - which is probably not super high (unless it's Phelddagrif).
Then taking your line, the Sphinx's Rev player is going to lose because they made a mistake and doubled down on it.
This may be another point where we just can't make any progress.

You are coming from the assumption that any deals will be met with extreme skepticism, that most people will assume the deal is a bluff and will be saved anyway, etc. Under those assumptions, I agree with you. Possibly this is true to your meta. It's never been true in mine. While bluffs are occasionally made and called, as the stp player I would almost always assume in this circumstance that the deal is not a bluff, and that I will die without killing the notion thief. Since that's how most players I play with would react, that also makes offering the deal a good move, because it's likely to get the desired result.

I can only really reiterate with onering said - deal-making, or lack thereof, is self-perpetuating. If players tend to offer and accept good deals, then deal-making becomes a useful and powerful tool. If players tend not to offer deals, and deals are met with extreme skepticism, then deals will likely not be useful and risk giving away information without benefit. Your meta is, presumably, closer the latter. Mine is closer to the former.
And chances are, they'd be particularly amenable to the request after you've fogged for them. That's honest cooperation. That line doesn't close the moment you stop them from falling off the cliff.
I don't buy into this at all. While I'll agree that, in a casual environment with casual players, someone helping them will make them want to help back - human nature being what it is - in a competitive sense of correct play, past favors are meaningless.

If I think killing the notion thief will maximize my win%, I'm going to do it.
If I think it won't, I'm not.
End of story.

I don't care how many favors the other player did for me, past favors don't change the win% of my plays now. If he wanted his favors to influence my behavior, he should have predicated them on me doing what he wanted before he did the favor.

The most you could say is that, at least at the time he fogged, he wanted me alive, which means that given the hidden information he has, he presumably thinks his best chance to win is to keep me alive. That could be because he's hoping I'll draw an answer to a problem of his, or because he just wants me as a distraction, or any number of things. He did it because he was trying to maximize his win% though, not to help me. It wasn't a favor, it was a calculated move towards HIM winning the game. And my decision to kill, or not kill, the notion thief would be the exact same thing for myself. It wouldn't be "honest cooperation". We're not building a house together. We're both individually trying to win. Maybe for a time our interests will align, but our end goals will always be at odds with each other.

If you want to talk about how people tend to play when they're slamming back drinks at a casual commander pub night, that's one thing, but I'm most interested in what moves are correct and which are not, personally.
Most of what follows this is you realizing slowly why offering the deal was a mistake in the first place while not acknowledging it, but if this is your response to me communicating with you on your own terms, it's probably wrong to dignify the rest with a detailed response.
I think likely this ties back to the second impasse. If you think the stp player will assume it's a bluff, then offering the deal is a bad move. If you think the stp player won't assume it's a bluff, then offering the deal is a good move. It's a self-perpetuating situation.

All your percentages are based on your view of dealmaking - that all deals will be met with extreme skepticism and are bluffs to begin with. That and some total nonsense, imo. Here's how I'd rack up the percentages, personally.

A) Do nothing. You keep the fog and your information, but rev is a dead card for the time being. I'd say 20%/0% seems fine, actually, gold star for that one.
B) Fog for the player. You're down a fog, and up an "ally" who will likely die next turn, and also has no real motivation to help you except that they probably assume you're less of a direct threat to them for the time being. The actual percentages depend a lot on what is likely for them to draw or have in hand, but sight unseen I think your odds are about the same, 20%, but maybe higher depending on stp player's deck. Of course the stp player's odds are significantly better, but still pretty terrible since they need a topdeck, so probably something like 5% - they need a topdeck and then they need to actually win a 4 player game. If we figure 1/5 draws stabilizes them (which is almost certainly overshooting it) and then they have on average 25% to win, that leaves 5%, generously.

You might point out that, after bricking both your topdecks, they might decide to go ahead and stp the notion thief on their next turn, let you off the chain, and see if you hit anything at that point. Except that (1) they don't know you have a draw spell, since you didn't offer the deal, and (2) once they do kill the thief, you have no motivation to save them (you likely want them dead since you're about to be archenemy), and in fact you probably want to pump all your mana into the rev, leaving no mana left to save them. Even if you create a deal NOW, that if they kill the thief, you'll do your best to hit/cast an answer off rev, any sorceries (i.e. most wipes) will be too late to save them, so you basically have to hit another fog, and leave up enough extra mana to cast it too. Much worse odds than if they'd stp'ed on their last turn and let you rev then, and then untap to cast any board wipes or other answers - or at a minimum, become the threat and draw the heat off them.
C) Offer your deal. That gives the other player a decision. They can:
D) secret bonus option I didn't think about until just now!: tell the stp player you have a fog in your deck, and will play it if you draw it, after casting sphinx's rev with 1 mana leftover if they stp the thief. This replaces the possibility that you're bluffing with the possibility that you're lying. But they won't know since you'll draw a bunch and then pull the fog out of the middle after a quick shuffle. Anyway, same odds as C but maybe it appeals to you more. It's basically the same situation as what you put them in next turn, if neither of you draws anything, anyway, except you don't waste a turn, and you can actually cast something on your turn instead of wasting 14 mana playing fog and nothing else.

1) Accept the deal. 12 cards is a lot but 80% seems high imo. I'd say 60%, although of course that'll depend a lot on your deck, some decks could get 80% I'm sure. But average decks I've played against, I'd say 60%. The stp player is probably no longer getting pounded on by the baloth player who has now turned on you, so they're actually doing relatively ok. Out of the remaining 40%, I'd give 20% to baloth player, and a 12/8 split to the other players, depending on specifics of course. 8% isn't amazing but considering they're at low life and low cards, in a 4-player game, it's probably as good as they can reasonably expect.
2) Reject the deal. I think the odds of you bluffing are quite low, but we're not really looking at those odds.

a) Fog anyway. You've revealed that you've got something nasty, thus demotivating everyone else from killing the thief, turning the baloths against you, and you have nothing relevant in hand and no real allies. Since the stp player probably won't be being attacked next turn, he doesn't even have good reason to kill the thief or the baloth, and will happily let them all ruin your life while he hopes to draw an answer amid the distraction. Your odds spike very low - generously 10%, and that's assuming you have quite a bit of life, otherwise it's more like 5%. stp player is probably sitting on a solid 10-15% thanks to the distraction, watching you and laughing while rebuilding their board and not lifting a finger to help.
b) Don't Fog. basically the same as a, except you still have a fog and you don't have a useless "ally" who is very unlikely to help in the present situation, and might become a problem later. You're still in deep trouble, but at least you can fog the last, biggest attack, which will probably prevent 20+ damage considering how much power the baloth is likely to churn out. At the least, you've bought an extra turn over (a). I'd say that kicks your odds to about 15% for the extra draw to hit removal, or some other bomb that puts you back into the running.

As we can see, given these odds, you aren't bluffing, and the stp player would be wise to take your offer since otherwise he'll die.

The percentages on A, B, C, and 1 are actually pretty much irrelevant though - all that matters is that we can agree that the highest chance of you winning is if stp player takes the deal - and both our percentages for those numbers agree on that. If he's going to take the deal, then you should follow that line and offer it. Whether he'll take the deal depends on whether he thinks you're bluffing, and he thinks you're bluffing if your win% in (a) is greater than your win% in (b). So the crux of the matter is - does keeping him alive help you more than holding up a fog, given that you've already revealed that you have a big draw spell of some sort? That's going to depend on a couple factors - how likely do you think everyone is to turn on you? Will they assume you have a terrifying, scary draw spell and try to kill you before the notion thief dies, or will they assume it's just a little divination you want to throw down? How many cards will stp player have that benefit you? In my opinion - if you're telegraphing that killing the notion thief is a big enough deal to burn a fog saving someone else over, people will assume it's a big draw spell and try to kill you. That seems like a good reason not to offer the deal at first blush, but again - what matters is (a) and (b). And if you're assuming everyone is turning on you in both cases, then a fog in hand is a lot better than another "ally" who might just be an enemy anyway. Which makes it not a bluff, and thus a good decision to take the deal, and thus a good decision to offer the deal.

At the end of the day, these are made-up percentages, of course. Which ones feel more realistic is going to be pretty subjective. Based on how wildly implausible I think your percentages are, though, I don't think we'll be able to come to any consensus on this front either.

EDIT: it's also worth keeping in mind that, even if the stp player thinks your win% in (a) is greater than (b), so long as you can convince him you'll still choose (b), he's still motivated to take the deal. It's like hostage negotiation - if you have a hostage, actually killing them would be a very bad move. But so long as the cops think you WILL kill them if your demands aren't met, you're a lot more likely to get those demands met. You've gotta make them think you're willing to do the dumb thing, regardless of whether you actually would.

The best way to do this in magic, deal-making wise, is not to bluff deals. If you say you'll do X if someone does Y, and they don't do Y, don't do X. Ever. Try to avoid making any offers where not doing X is worse than doing X without Y in the first place, of course, but if you have to and not doing X isn't that much worse than doing X without Y, then personally I'd usually take the short-term hit to show that I'm serious about my deals. I'll shoot those hostages, man, I'll do it. You better give me what I want. :dizzy:
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
tstorm823
Knowledge Pool
Posts: 1041
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him
Location: York, PA

Post by tstorm823 » 4 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
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.
Your logic falls into the same trap as everyone who has ever thought Howling Mine is a bad card in multiplayer because it gives your opponents 3 draws for every 1 you get. Good for another player isn't inherently bad for you, nor is bad for another player inherently good for you. If you give everyone 3 extra cards, and your opponents spend 2 each aimed at each other, you win in the exchange. Similarly, putting another player down on resources, and life is definitely a resource, diminishes their ability to push back at the other 2 players and shouldn't be done arbitrarily.

I feel like I shouldn't be explaining this to the deal-making Phelddagrif player. You should know this
I don't buy into this at all. While I'll agree that, in a casual environment with casual players, someone helping them will make them want to help back - human nature being what it is - in a competitive sense of correct play, past favors are meaningless.
They aren't meaningless. They are a message that you consider them an ally against a mutual opponent. Obviously that changes over the course of the game, but in the immediate sense, saving someone tells them "I am not strong enough now to handle this situation alone, I need a second player's assistance." Because if you were strong enough alone, you'd let them kill each other and just sweep up whatever was left. It's not friendship or generosity, it's strategy.
I'm most interested in what moves are correct and which are not, personally.
I'm trying to tell you correct plays, you're just not understanding.
D) secret bonus option I didn't think about until just now!: tell the stp player you have a fog in your deck, and will play it if you draw it, after casting sphinx's rev with 1 mana leftover if they stp the thief. This replaces the possibility that you're bluffing with the possibility that you're lying. But they won't know since you'll draw a bunch and then pull the fog out of the middle after a quick shuffle. Anyway, same odds as C but maybe it appeals to you more. It's basically the same situation as what you put them in next turn, if neither of you draws anything, anyway, except you don't waste a turn, and you can actually cast something on your turn instead of wasting 14 mana playing fog and nothing else.
See this. This is good strategy. I like this. You influence the person to your advantage without demanding anything. Just say "I have a draw spell that can dig for something to save you except the Notion Thief is stopping me." Nobody is tied down by a contract, it seems like a much less aggressive a stance, and from the other player's perspective they really are on actual 0% if they don't take the line. That's good stuff.
The percentages on A, B, C, and 1 are actually pretty much irrelevant though - all that matters is that we can agree that the highest chance of you winning is if stp player takes the deal - and both our percentages for those numbers agree on that. If he's going to take the deal, then you should follow that line and offer it.
You know what would be even better? If they just removed the Notion Thief for no reason. That would be a higher percent to win than anything else here, why not take that line? Because you don't get to decide the outcome yourself. The other player has a choice, and you can simultaneously offer an olive branch and play around that liability.
The best way to do this in magic, deal-making wise, is not to bluff deals. If you say you'll do X if someone does Y, and they don't do Y, don't do X. Ever. Try to avoid making any offers where not doing X is worse than doing X without Y in the first place, of course, but if you have to and not doing X isn't that much worse than doing X without Y, then personally I'd usually take the short-term hit to show that I'm serious about my deals. I'll shoot those hostages, man, I'll do it. You better give me what I want. :dizzy:
Remember when I called your strategies things like oppositional, transactional, perhaps aggressive? And you were like "what, me? Nahhhhh." Your happy little hippo deals are suddenly hostage situations when analyzed to their conclusion.
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."

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
Your logic falls into the same trap as everyone who has ever thought Howling Mine is a bad card in multiplayer because it gives your opponents 3 draws for every 1 you get. Good for another player isn't inherently bad for you, nor is bad for another player inherently good for you. If you give everyone 3 extra cards, and your opponents spend 2 each aimed at each other, you win in the exchange. Similarly, putting another player down on resources, and life is definitely a resource, diminishes their ability to push back at the other 2 players and shouldn't be done arbitrarily.

I feel like I shouldn't be explaining this to the deal-making Phelddagrif player. You should know this
How is that how you're reading what I said? I'm honestly baffled. I think I've been very clear that whether I'll attack someone is dependent on the board state, and very much not arbitrary. Deciding to never attack anyone unless they're my #1 threat - that's what sounds arbitrary to me.
They aren't meaningless. They are a message that you consider them an ally against a mutual opponent. Obviously that changes over the course of the game, but in the immediate sense, saving someone tells them "I am not strong enough now to handle this situation alone, I need a second player's assistance." Because if you were strong enough alone, you'd let them kill each other and just sweep up whatever was left. It's not friendship or generosity, it's strategy.
Without any words exchanged, I wouldn't read any more into it than what I already said in my last post:

"The most you could say is that, at least at the time he fogged, he wanted me alive, which means that given the (hidden) information he has, he presumably thinks his best chance to win is to keep me alive."

Clearly he thinks our interests align in some way, but without any specific direction towards what he wants, I'm just going to do what I'd naturally do to try to win the game. Presumably this involves trying to weaken our collective enemies, and probably not attacking him in the near future. That much he gets because of the board state, not because he fogged for me. That's all I'm assuming he wants, because that's all he'll be able to count on.

If he later wants me to stp the thief, I'm not going to just do it out of gratitude. I'm not going to assume that just because his interests and mine aligned in keeping me alive earlier, that they still align in killing the thief now, unless he can explain why they do, by explaining why he wants the thief dead and how I stand to benefit by doing so. Otherwise, if I don't apply this rigorous level of scrutiny and just do whatever my "ally" tells me to do, maybe I'll accidentally do something stupid, like unleash him to draw a dozen cards and become the overwhelming threat, which is exactly what you seem to think they're going to do, just because they've become "amenable" because you fogged for them.
I'm trying to tell you correct plays, you're just not understanding.
What a waste of words. What did you expect to accomplish by writing that out, besides giving yourself a smug pat on the back?
See this. This is good strategy. I like this. You influence the person to your advantage without demanding anything. Just say "I have a draw spell that can dig for something to save you except the Notion Thief is stopping me." Nobody is tied down by a contract, it seems like a much less aggressive a stance, and from the other player's perspective they really are on actual 0% if they don't take the line. That's good stuff.
Ah, I agree that it's a clever play, but I think you're being a bit optimistic in thinking that this can work smoothly without a deal, and thus have fallen into my little trap.

Because if I'm the stp player, the thing I'm going to ask before I just start doing someone's bidding on a hope and prayer is "so if I kill the notion thief and you draw a bunch of cards and you have this fog, are you going to actually cast it? Keeping in mind that if I'm dead I'm totally looking at your hand to see if you're a liar-pants." And if the sphinx's player won't commit to casting the fog, then I'm not doing %$#%.

Because if I'm the sphinx's player, and the stp player just stp's without getting a commitment from me, then there's no way in hell I'm actually casting that fog. For one thing, not leaving up mana to cast fog means I get to draw an extra card and gain an extra life with rev. For a second thing, I'm about to probably become the archenemy here, and the fewer opponents I have trying to stop me, the better.

So you're damn right I want a deal as the stp player. I can see that a big draw spell is likely going to put the other player way ahead, and demotivate them from actually playing the fog. And if they won't commit to playing the fog if they get it, well it's plain as day that they won't play it, isn't it? They know exactly what they're getting from me, why wouldn't they commit to the deal unless they were planning to backstab me?

A deal is needed.
You know what would be even better? If they just removed the Notion Thief for no reason. That would be a higher percent to win than anything else here, why not take that line? Because you don't get to decide the outcome yourself. The other player has a choice, and you can simultaneously offer an olive branch and play around that liability.
Wha...........

.....?

Yes, anticipating your opponents most likely choices based on their best possible chance to win and playing accordingly is exactly the same as assuming they'll do something completely random for no reason. Logic is a lie and strategy is dead. Let us all dance the nothing dance, feet in the air, knives in the ground.

"Playing around that liability" is a huuuge drop in win% compared to if you pull off a deal. Even if you think your opponent might have a wee bit of the ol' David Foster Wallace (too soon?) and there's some risk they'll choose death over helping you, unless you think that's very likely, I'd happily take the risk. You're sitting on next-to-zero relevant cards. You need to make some moves ASAP. And as soon as you manage to do the one thing likely to pull you back into the game - casting your huge draw spell and putting yourself in the lead - your olive branch is going to get rammed right up your butt anyway, so there's not much point to making an "ally". The only thing you really want them to do is kill the thief. They can either do that and live, or don't and good riddance.

Part of your resistance here might be that you're assuming this deal is going to be proposed coldly. Sure, you could say "If you kill notion thief and don't ask any questions, I'll save you for one turn, and then you're on your own". Or you could say "Hey, I'm stuck on this draw spell because of the notion thief - if you can kill the notion thief, I promise I'll fog to protect you this turn, and maybe I'll draw into a board wipe to save us both from this baloth situation." Hey, suddenly it sounds less like a nefarious "deal" and sounds a bit more like you're both just working together, doesn't it? Even though in the end it's the exact same thing, you're trading the fog for the stp. Doesn't make an actual difference in terms of correct play, but it definitely matters in terms of human nature in a casual game.
Remember when I called your strategies things like oppositional, transactional, perhaps aggressive? And you were like "what, me? Nahhhhh." Your happy little hippo deals are suddenly hostage situations when analyzed to their conclusion.
Jesus Christ, it's an analogy. I've never actually held anyone hostage.

...probably.

If I can't use a fun, colorful analogy without you assuming the unrelated trappings of that analogy, then I'm going to get very bored with this conversation, if I wasn't already.

The actual relevant context of my analogy is that, if you make an offer, don't fulfill your end of the bargain if they don't agree to it - so make sure you're willing to NOT do what you're offering before you make it part of the offer. "Make sure you're willing to kill your hostages - or at least make them think you're willing to kill your hostages." Is that transactional? Sure, what's wrong with transactions? I've never claimed it wasn't transactional, although you sure like to throw that word around a lot for some reason. It sure doesn't need to be aggressive. Oppositional...idk, depends on your definition of oppositional. The nature of the game is that everyone opposes each other on some level, even when they're "allied". That's not exactly avoidable. But any deal can be stated to sound friendly instead of hostile - see my above example.
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
tstorm823
Knowledge Pool
Posts: 1041
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him
Location: York, PA

Post by tstorm823 » 4 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
How is that how you're reading what I said? I'm honestly baffled. I think I've been very clear that whether I'll attack someone is dependent on the board state, and very much not arbitrary. Deciding to never attack anyone unless they're my #1 threat - that's what sounds arbitrary to me.
You're really not listening to me or yourself anymore. You suggested it might be right to ignore the biggest threat cause they'll let you keep your stuff longer if you attack other people, I said that's wrong, and somehow that became never attack anyone else? I never suggested you never attack anyone but the biggest threat. What I am suggesting is that sometimes it's bad to attack weaker players and sometimes it's right to go guns blazing into the person with removal. You've been expressing a desire to aim your threats wherever they'll do the most damage, and that gives no consideration at all for what other players resources are going to do. If I think you'll beat me in a 1-on-1 exchange, it's better to lose an eldrazi than annihiliate other players who might give me a better chance to beat you. In the 7/7, 6/6, 5/5 scenario, the free 6 damage might actually be damage working against me if it helps the 7/7 player kill them sooner and then I can't keep up after. You're not giving consideration to other people's resources working in your favor.
Without any words exchanged, I wouldn't read any more into it than what I already said in my last post:
Then you'd needlessly lose a lot of games in any environment where people aren't naively doing your bidding.
If he later wants me to stp the thief, I'm not going to just do it out of gratitude. I'm not going to assume that just because his interests and mine aligned in keeping me alive earlier, that they still align in killing the thief now, unless he can explain why they do, by explaining why he wants the thief dead and how I stand to benefit by doing so. Otherwise, if I don't apply this rigorous level of scrutiny and just do whatever my "ally" tells me to do, maybe I'll accidentally do something stupid, like unleash him to draw a dozen cards and become the overwhelming threat, which is exactly what you seem to think they're going to do, just because they've become "amenable" because you fogged for them.
In theory, you're dead on the next baloth player's turn. You don't have the option to shrug off suggestions that might prevent that.
What a waste of words. What did you expect to accomplish by writing that out, besides giving yourself a smug pat on the back?
Make you understand. You're dismissing my strategies as only appropriate for a silly casual environment while explaining your dealmaking powers that only work because people humor it and think it's fun. You need to come back to Earth. I'm talking politics and strategy here, and you're not understanding, and you don't realize you aren't understanding or you wouldn't keep thinking I'm just telling you to make friends and they'll let you win. That's never been what I'm saying.
Ah, I agree that it's a clever play, but I think you're being a bit optimistic in thinking that this can work smoothly without a deal, and thus have fallen into my little trap.
You didn't plant a trap, it would be a good play, you're just being contrarian here.
Because if I'm the sphinx's player, and the stp player just stp's without getting a commitment from me, then there's no way in hell I'm actually casting that fog. For one thing, not leaving up mana to cast fog means I get to draw an extra card and gain an extra life with rev. For a second thing, I'm about to probably become the archenemy here, and the fewer opponents I have trying to stop me, the better.
If you're not even leaving up a mana to cast Fog, you're just wrong. You're going to draw all lands and feel really dumb and lose and deserve it. You're still refusing to see other players as an asset, you're still taking win-or-lose gambles when you could gain easy marginal advantage and continue the game, and you're still suggesting you'd basically always take the antagonizing play.

But like, you're also contradicting yourself. You've said yourself that keeping your deals is the right thing to do, having a reputation for doing so is good politics, but now you're claiming you would suggest to someone that killing the Notion Thief might help them and then you'd screw them because they didn't get a figurative handshake on it? In what world is that the right answer? I don't think you would do that because I know you know this is just a dumb suggestion.
A deal is needed.
Incorrect.
Hey, suddenly it sounds less like a nefarious "deal" and sounds a bit more like you're both just working together, doesn't it?
We both know you're nefarious. You haven't been hiding it. Pretending you aren't in the game doesn't make it not true.
The actual relevant context of my analogy is that, if you make an offer, don't fulfill your end of the bargain if they don't agree to it - so make sure you're willing to NOT do what you're offering before you make it part of the offer.
Alternative theory: don't make the offers. Don't back yourself into a corner where you have to make the incorrect play because someone else isn't explicitly cooperating.
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."

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
You're really not listening to me or yourself anymore. You suggested it might be right to ignore the biggest threat cause they'll let you keep your stuff longer if you attack other people, I said that's wrong, and somehow that became never attack anyone else? I never suggested you never attack anyone but the biggest threat.
Let's go to the tape:

"Ignoring the biggest problem is wrong 100% of the time. Something that benefits a single opponent can benefit you as well so long as the opponent benefiting isn't your biggest obstacle."

Attacking anyone except the biggest threat is benefiting that player (if you're going to get technical about the "single opponent" bit, we could be talking a 3-player game).

-if another player is the biggest threat, attacking someone besides them benefits them.
-any move that benefits the biggest obstacle (threat) can't benefit you as well (your words)
-therefore, if you attack anyone except the biggest threat, you don't benefit.
-therefore, you should never attack anyone except the biggest threat.

explain where I'm wrong.
What I am suggesting is that sometimes it's bad to attack weaker players and sometimes it's right to go guns blazing into the person with removal.
As my fellow kids say, "no duh".

"If I'm the overwhelming threat then yes, absolutely you should sacrifice whatever needs to be sacrificed to breaking my shields, no question"

Who said that? Oh, right, that was me, agreeing with you ages ago, if you only read the words I write.
You've been expressing a desire to aim your threats wherever they'll do the most damage, and that gives no consideration at all for what other players resources are going to do.
No, Jesus Christ, No. I've been very clear, every time, that whether I'll attack a softer target is predicated on the board state - generally, a board state where it's balanced enough that our goals are not well-aligned. If the other player is a big threat and the soft target's resources are likely going to be fighting them, then I'm likely not attacking them, as I've said every damn time.

"within certain margins"
"as long as the table is somewhat balanced"
"so long as I think I'll be able to finish [the threat player] later."
"whether I'll attack someone is dependent on the board state"

Do you see why I might be frustrated, when I'm very careful to clarify that my decision is going to depend on a lot of factors, and then you come in spouting off "you said you'd just always attack the soft target no matter what :crazy: "?
If I think you'll beat me in a 1-on-1 exchange, it's better to lose an eldrazi than annihiliate other players who might give me a better chance to beat you. In the 7/7, 6/6, 5/5 scenario, the free 6 damage might actually be damage working against me if it helps the 7/7 player kill them sooner and then I can't keep up after. You're not giving consideration to other people's resources working in your favor.
Holy...that's literally all Phelddagrif DOES. Stop putting words in my mouth, it's driving up the wall.

Of course the 6 damage helps your opponent, which is why I've been extraordinarily clear that whether I'd make the attack depends on the balance of the board state. Given the situation: P1 with a 6/6, P2 with a 7/7, P3 with a 5/5, with overall threat order going P2 > P1 > P3, if I'm P1, I wouldn't always attack P3. I wouldn't always not attack P3, either. It depends on what the exact balance is, how far ahead P2 is, where P3s resources are most likely to go. If we're all pretty even, though, most likely I'm swinging into P3, because so long as things are pretty even, eliminating a player is going to improve my win%. If P2 is way ahead, almost certainly I'm not because I'm counting on P3's resources to be used against P2 and I can't beat them alone. I'm not offering an absolute answer about whether I'll attack. It depends on the specifics, whether I'd make the attack or not.

You're offering the absolute answer. "Ignoring the biggest problem is wrong 100% of the time." So you would never make that attack, no matter the board state, if P2 is even the tiniest bit ahead of P3. And as we all know...only a Sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.

As regards the Eldrazi scenario: let's say you think you'll lose a 1:1 exchange, but it's pretty close. 45:55. But if I kill your eldrazi because you get aggressive with it, the board state is even and we're all sitting on a roughly 25:25:25:25 chance. I would say it's correct to do some damage while you can, maybe even until the other opponents are dead, rather than run headfirst into the spikes until they've had their fill of bodies. 45 > 25.

inb4 "but those percentages are impossible!". Yawn.
Then you'd needlessly lose a lot of games in any environment where people aren't naively doing your bidding.
What exactly is the alternative you propose, if I've been saved by another person's fog, except do my best to win from here on out?

Honestly I'm not even sure how this quote makes any sense in the context it's in.
In theory, you're dead on the next baloth player's turn. You don't have the option to shrug off suggestions that might prevent that.
Dude, that's what he should have been saying when the smart player predicated the fog on the stp the turn earlier.
Make you understand.
And in your experience, when you tell the person you're arguing with, "I'm right and you just don't understand", that opens their eyes to your truth, does it? Or does it probably just annoy them and derail the conversation?
You're dismissing my strategies as only appropriate for a silly casual environment
I think I've been pretty clear that, if your meta already frowns on deal-making, then deal-making becomes a bad strategy.

That said, disallowing dealmaking is going to make certain circumstances unwinnable. If I'm the stp player and I can't offer to trade my stp for a fog, and have to just hope the fog player wants me alive as an ally...then if he doesn't want me alive as an ally, I'm just going to lose without the ability to make a deal. If that's how you prefer your games, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with it, it's just not how I play.

As far as assuming past favors will help convince your opponents to do you favors that are against their interests without a deal in place when you made the favor, though - yes, that's pure casual. Everyone should only be making the correct play for them at a given time. Previous actions are irrelevant. Let the past die.

Boom, two star wars quotes in one post. I'm on a roll.
while explaining your dealmaking powers that only work because people humor it and think it's fun.
They work so long as people are comfortable with dealmaking conceptually, and wish to maximize their win%. They don't accept deals that don't benefit them, generally. They don't accept deals just for "fun" or "to humor me" (Jesus Christ how condescending can you get?). They accept them because they're good deals that improve both our win%.

Maybe they also think deals are fun, but that's not why they accept mine (when they do).
You need to come back to Earth. I'm talking politics and strategy here, and you're not understanding, and you don't realize you aren't understanding or you wouldn't keep thinking I'm just telling you to make friends and they'll let you win. That's never been what I'm saying.
So you think I'm putting words in your mouth? Gee, I wonder what that's like.

This is what you said:

"And chances are, they'd be particularly amenable to the request after you've fogged for them. That's honest cooperation."

Explain to me why someone would be more amenable to doing something you want - against their interests, like freeing you up to take the lead with a huge draw spell - based on something you did in the past (and only because you were trying to improve your own win% anyway). And if you think stping the thief isn't against their interests, then why would they need to be made "amenable" in the first place? Wouldn't they just do it, fog or no fog?
If you're not even leaving up a mana to cast Fog, you're just wrong. You're going to draw all lands and feel really dumb and lose and deserve it. You're still refusing to see other players as an asset, you're still taking win-or-lose gambles when you could gain easy marginal advantage and continue the game, and you're still suggesting you'd basically always take the antagonizing play.
hahahahaha.....

Wait, like 2 posts ago didn't you say you had an 80% chance to win the game if you cast rev - not just "not totally brick" but actually win the game - and now you're assuming that you're going to draw THIRTEEN lands and lose? Wow, what an about face!

If I'm the archenemy, no, that's the one time that I don't see other players as an asset. I see them as obstacles to be eliminated ASAP before they manage to take me down. And if I've just drawn 13 cards in a game where everyone else is low on resources, then I'd certainly assume I'm the archenemy.

But fine, let's say you leave up the fog mana just in case of the...calculating...0.0016% chance that I manage to brick into all lands and want an ally alive for one more turn. Then if I look at my hand, and - wow, surprise, it's full of gas, and not a dozen lands! Enough gas to become the threat and likely win the game! Well, now that I know for sure I haven't hit a dozen lands, and I'm now angling to win instead of recruit allies - I'm definitely not casting that fog now. That player would for sure become another obstacle to my victory, so I definitely don't want them alive, let alone use a card to save them.

And if you take a "marginal advantage and continue the game", is that not a win-or-lose gamble? Sooner or later, you win or you lose. Personally, with the numbers we're talking about here, I'd be suuuuper happy to commit to this gamble. If I hit 13 lands, a 0.00067% chance, and lose, then I guess I lose. Why, do you think your winrate for continuing the game is going to be better than a 99.99933%?

(anyway it's not like you'd necessary lose anyway, you could just reveal your hand, everyone could have a good laugh at the absurd luck, and then you wouldn't be the threat and the game could progress as before)

I guess the stp player can hope that rev player decides to hedge his bets by leaving up the mana, and then manages to totally whiff on the rev, and then decides it's worth saving them with the fog. But if I were them...hell no, I don't want your .0016% chance (which is probably actually 0% since I think it's certainly correct to not leave up the mana in the first place). You can make a deal that you'll fog if possible, or I'm going to assume you have no interest in casting the fog, in fact you probably wouldn't even leave up the mana. And you can deal with the thief yourself.
But like, you're also contradicting yourself. You've said yourself that keeping your deals is the right thing to do, having a reputation for doing so is good politics, but now you're claiming you would suggest to someone that killing the Notion Thief might help them and then you'd screw them because they didn't get a figurative handshake on it? In what world is that the right answer? I don't think you would do that because I know you know this is just a dumb suggestion.
Is it a deal, or isn't it? If we're just people trying to make the right plays, then once the thief is out of the way, the right play is not to fog. If it's a deal - whether that's signed in triplicate and filed to the state attorney, or just a colloquial "I'll save you if I can", then that's a deal and I'd uphold it. If it's clearly not a deal, then there's nothing to uphold, just a misplay to make if I want to (and I don't want to).

You don't get it both ways. If it's a deal, then it's a deal, and if you agree to take part in it then you're making a deal, no matter how it's worded, and you have to admit that a deal would be useful here. And if it's not a deal, and your future plays aren't constrained by what someone else did, then you have no responsibility to play the fog, and it would definitely be a misplay to do so. Call it whatever you want, I don't care. It either is a deal, and it's binding, or it isn't and it isn't. Pick one.

Now personally, if I didn't have a deal, but was worried about looking like a bastard, maybe I'd leave up the mana for show but not cast the fog. I'd just make a sad face and go "aww, I'm sorry, didn't draw it. Now excuse me while I win this game, which just got easier now that you're no longer in it. Oh look, fog was my next topdeck" *quickly shuffle hand*
We both know you're nefarious. You haven't been hiding it. Pretending you aren't in the game doesn't make it not true.
Wat?

You found out my nefarious plot of trying to win games of magic, and sometimes talking frankly on the internet.

I don't say things in actual games in the same way I say them online. That would be stupid. But since we're not in a game and don't need to play nice, I think it's more fun to say what I mean.
Alternative theory: don't make the offers. Don't back yourself into a corner where you have to make the incorrect play because someone else isn't explicitly cooperating.
Of course you should avoid making offers where you're promising to do something you'd otherwise want to do anyway. I said:

"Try to avoid making any offers where not doing X is worse than doing X without Y in the first place"

If I'm in a likely-desperate situation where I think my only realistic chance to get back into the game is to threaten mutual destruction with someone - whether a minor misplay the only slightly hurts our chances, or an outright murder-suicide - personally I'll make the offer - and I'll stick to my guns and go down with the ship if I have to. If I'm already up a creek, and no one is willing to throw me a paddle, then I'm willing to throw away the slim chance that I could crawl back on my own in order to improve my chances of being taken seriously in future games.

That's my entirely subjective opinion, there's no truth or untruth to whether it's better to sacrifice the current game for potential future games. If someone else refused to ever make any deal in which they'd still want to do what they offered even without the deal, I think that's a very reasonable way to go about it. Under that code, you don't offer the fog in exchange for the stp unless you think your best play, if he refuses, is to deny the fog. If you think you should play the fog regardless, then you wouldn't offer the deal - you'd just do it. Either way, though, the result is the same - when you make someone an offer, they take you seriously, because they know they won't get what they want for free if a deal is on the table.
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
tstorm823
Knowledge Pool
Posts: 1041
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him
Location: York, PA

Post by tstorm823 » 4 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
Let's go to the tape:

"Ignoring the biggest problem is wrong 100% of the time. Something that benefits a single opponent can benefit you as well so long as the opponent benefiting isn't your biggest obstacle."

Attacking anyone except the biggest threat is benefiting that player (if you're going to get technical about the "single opponent" bit, we could be talking a 3-player game).

-if another player is the biggest threat, attacking someone besides them benefits them.
-any move that benefits the biggest obstacle (threat) can't benefit you as well (your words)
-therefore, if you attack anyone except the biggest threat, you don't benefit.
-therefore, you should never attack anyone except the biggest threat.

explain where I'm wrong.
You're wrong because you never take into account the relationships between other players from my statements. Yes, you put a whole lot of qualifiers on your own statements, but you treat my statements without any consideration for context. I've been very clear that attacking another player can be good or bad for you depending on context, it should be logically obvious that attacking another player can be good or bad for a 3rd player depending on context. There are certainly times, particularly when you're ahead, where attacking a soft target is bad for every player but you because their combined resources are pitted against yours. Attacking someone who isn't the biggest threat can benefit the biggest threat, but it doesn't always.

Therefore, there are times you should not attack the weakest target because you're actively hurting yourself in doing so. There are times you should because it helps your chances against the biggest threat anyway. Who you should attack depends on that context, but ignoring the biggest threat is a bad idea in any context. Getting back to the root of this argument, nobody should ever take the "you can keep Kozilek if you attack someone else" deal, ever.
What I am suggesting is that sometimes it's bad to attack weaker players and sometimes it's right to go guns blazing into the person with removal.
As my fellow kids say, "no duh".
You tried to put together a logical proof that I was saying something I wasn't, and the reason I wasn't saying it was this exact idea, you probably shouldn't "no duh" something you clearly forgot to apply.
Of course the 6 damage helps your opponent, which is why I've been extraordinarily clear that whether I'd make the attack depends on the balance of the board state.
No, not of course. It may or may not help the opponent. You have to consider these things.
As regards the Eldrazi scenario: let's say you think you'll lose a 1:1 exchange, but it's pretty close. 45:55. But if I kill your eldrazi because you get aggressive with it, the board state is even and we're all sitting on a roughly 25:25:25:25 chance. I would say it's correct to do some damage while you can, maybe even until the other opponents are dead, rather than run headfirst into the spikes until they've had their fill of bodies. 45 > 25.
Have you ever played Risk? If you throw yourself all in to kill 2 of 4 players, it doesn't go from 25%s all around to 50%s all around because you spent your resources to make that happen and the other remaining player didn't. If done carelessly, you can take a game from 25% to everyone straight to 5% you 95% the other player.I know in Magic there's not the inherent resource expenditure attacking people that Risk has, but there's some. The other players will be trying to weaken me so long as I'm attacking them. If I ignore you, knowing you have the answer to my threat, so that I can take out the other half of the table, I don't expect to go to 45:55, I expect to go to 5:95. Maybe you have less to deal with me than I suspect and I do stand a good chance in the 1v1, but I'd be stupid to play that way when you offer me a deal that potentially just kingmakes you.
And in your experience, when you tell the person you're arguing with, "I'm right and you just don't understand", that opens their eyes to your truth, does it? Or does it probably just annoy them and derail the conversation?
a) You might want to reread everything you've said in this thread. You've been way more aggressive and insulting than I think anyone else here. You have called my thoughts garbage, you have made jokes when you thought I made a rules error, you have out-snided me 10-to-1.
b) I didn't say "I'm right", I said you're not understanding that I'm trying to state correct plays. I guess out of context, it looks insulting, but in context, your paraphrase isn't accurate. The exchange went:

"If you want to talk about how people tend to play when they're slamming back drinks at a casual commander pub night, that's one thing, but I'm most interested in what moves are correct and which are not, personally."
"I'm trying to tell you correct plays, you're just not understanding."

I wasn't suggesting that I know every correct play and you don't or something arrogant like that, I was saying that I'm trying to suggest correct strategic plays, and since you think I'm describing only what to do at casual pub night, you aren't understanding my positions.
That said, disallowing dealmaking is going to make certain circumstances unwinnable. If I'm the stp player and I can't offer to trade my stp for a fog, and have to just hope the fog player wants me alive as an ally...then if he doesn't want me alive as an ally, I'm just going to lose without the ability to make a deal. If that's how you prefer your games, that's fine, there's nothing wrong with it, it's just not how I play.
I've still never said that I disallow dealmaking. I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be allowed. I'm suggesting that if your opponent's are wise, dealmaking is an ineffective and potentially backfiring strategy.
As far as assuming past favors will help convince your opponents to do you favors that are against their interests without a deal in place when you made the favor, though - yes, that's pure casual. Everyone should only be making the correct play for them at a given time. Previous actions are irrelevant. Let the past die.
I'm not saying that past favors help convince opponents to do you favors. I'm saying past cooperation with someone indicates a desire to cooperate against a third player. I'm not suggesting the player would Swords the Thief just because you asked nicely, but rather because Swords the Thief offers more possibilities where the Baloth player can't steamroll both of you, and knowing you consider the Baloth player the primary threat will make the Swords player consider your benefit differently than if you were targeting him.
They work so long as people are comfortable with dealmaking conceptually, and wish to maximize their win%.
But you know they're just improving your win percentage. If you're winning like 50% of games with Phelddagrif, there isn't much percentage left to pull from the other two players, especially if the deals are adding even more to your disproportionate wins. If they weren't cooperating with you, they'd win more. You know that.
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."

User avatar
Gashnaw
Posts: 318
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Gashnaw » 4 years ago

this would be my response
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

seriously he has win on board, go for throat and kill everyone. I would say "sure, no problem" and then proceed to kill all opponents. I would rather let my opponent burn a spell so I don't have to.

onering
Posts: 1227
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 4 years ago

I think all reasonable people can agree that all percentages posted here in reference to perceived chances of winning are complete %$#%$#% pulled out of a posters ass to support their arguments. All of them, whether they are nla nice fat round 50/50 or 25/25/25/25, or more complicated 35/15/5 or whatever. They are all %$#%$#% estimates intended to quantify what a poster feels to be right, but it's entirely intuitive and based on nothing real. So one person putting out such percentages like it matters and then saying it's absurd when someone else does it is ridiculous.

Any analysis we do of these hypotheticals is based on the limited info given and our own experiences. It can't be quantified, and the difference in our experiences playing the game means that two very different approaches can both be correct, because those approaches are the correct ones for the environment the person advocating them experiences. This is still a worthwhile conversation because examining these different approaches has led to an interesting discussion on the merits and pitfalls of each, and I think Dirk and tstorm have both made convincing arguments that would help a newer player understand both approaches and learn under what circumstances you should adopt one or the other (or which one they should choose based on their own playstyle, or their deck of choice).

User avatar
tstorm823
Knowledge Pool
Posts: 1041
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him
Location: York, PA

Post by tstorm823 » 4 years ago

onering wrote:
4 years ago
I think all reasonable people can agree that all percentages posted here in reference to perceived chances of winning are complete %$#%$#% pulled out of a posters ass to support their arguments. All of them, whether they are nla nice fat round 50/50 or 25/25/25/25, or more complicated 35/15/5 or whatever. They are all %$#%$#% estimates intended to quantify what a poster feels to be right, but it's entirely intuitive and based on nothing real. So one person putting out such percentages like it matters and then saying it's absurd when someone else does it is ridiculous.
Totally agreed on actual legitimacy of the numbers, it's totally made-up nonsense, but when analyzing a bunch of different possibilities in the abstract, it's actually really hard to communicate a comparison thoroughly. Like, if event A improves your position and event B hurts your chances, it's not enough description to figure out if you're better or worse off than you started unless you communicate some measure of scale between the 2 events. So like, when I'm pulling out numbers like 5s and 15s, it's not that I'm trying to be somehow more accurate with my made up numbers, I'm just trying to express succinctly which player I think has the best chances, and how close the margin is, and how that compares to other scenarios.

So like, a dozen posts ago when I was breaking down into like 5s and 15s and 35s, it wasn't to try and be more real than simpler, rounder numbers, but I had 6 different outcomes to compare, so I needed smaller percent divisions to illustrate how I thought they all compared to each other. I'm sure [mention]DirkGently[/mention] is doing the same thing, just using numbers as a tool to convey both which situations are better and to what degree, and benefit-of-the-doubt, any criticism of the validity of percentages is a criticism of their relative positions rather than an assessment of their precision.
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."

onering
Posts: 1227
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 4 years ago

tstorm823 wrote:
4 years ago
onering wrote:
4 years ago
I think all reasonable people can agree that all percentages posted here in reference to perceived chances of winning are complete %$#%$#% pulled out of a posters ass to support their arguments. All of them, whether they are nla nice fat round 50/50 or 25/25/25/25, or more complicated 35/15/5 or whatever. They are all %$#%$#% estimates intended to quantify what a poster feels to be right, but it's entirely intuitive and based on nothing real. So one person putting out such percentages like it matters and then saying it's absurd when someone else does it is ridiculous.
Totally agreed on actual legitimacy of the numbers, it's totally made-up nonsense, but when analyzing a bunch of different possibilities in the abstract, it's actually really hard to communicate a comparison thoroughly. Like, if event A improves your position and event B hurts your chances, it's not enough description to figure out if you're better or worse off than you started unless you communicate some measure of scale between the 2 events. So like, when I'm pulling out numbers like 5s and 15s, it's not that I'm trying to be somehow more accurate with my made up numbers, I'm just trying to express succinctly which player I think has the best chances, and how close the margin is, and how that compares to other scenarios.

So like, a dozen posts ago when I was breaking down into like 5s and 15s and 35s, it wasn't to try and be more real than simpler, rounder numbers, but I had 6 different outcomes to compare, so I needed smaller percent divisions to illustrate how I thought they all compared to each other. I'm sure DirkGently is doing the same thing, just using numbers as a tool to convey both which situations are better and to what degree, and benefit-of-the-doubt, any criticism of the validity of percentages is a criticism of their relative positions rather than an assessment of their precision.
I wasn't criticizing your use any more than his, but there has been a general theme in this thread of numbers being thrown around to support an argument, or as I said before quantify intuitive feelings on a situation, and then called out as nonsense. I'm just calling it all out as not reflective of any actual percentages, no matter who is posting it. I'm fine with looking at them as shorthand for things like "more likely to win" or "slightly more likely to win" or "a small chance of winning" or "a vanishingly small chance of winning", but what prompted my post was seeing the conversation turn multiple times to calling out individual posters' percentages (and I did so earlier in the thread) and wanted to clarify that all such percentages are necessarily not real percentages but just feelings, and hopefully steer the argument away from back and forth about whose percentages are right or wrong and into looking at the percentages as just opinions, which based on your post is your intent.

User avatar
tstorm823
Knowledge Pool
Posts: 1041
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him
Location: York, PA

Post by tstorm823 » 4 years ago

onering wrote:
4 years ago
I wasn't criticizing your use any more than his, but there has been a general theme in this thread of numbers being thrown around to support an argument, or as I said before quantify intuitive feelings on a situation, and then called out as nonsense. I'm just calling it all out as not reflective of any actual percentages, no matter who is posting it. I'm fine with looking at them as shorthand for things like "more likely to win" or "slightly more likely to win" or "a small chance of winning" or "a vanishingly small chance of winning", but what prompted my post was seeing the conversation turn multiple times to calling out individual posters' percentages (and I did so earlier in the thread) and wanted to clarify that all such percentages are necessarily not real percentages but just feelings, and hopefully steer the argument away from back and forth about whose percentages are right or wrong and into looking at the percentages as just opinions, which based on your post is your intent.
Understood, and your post was well taken by me. I just wanted to clarify.
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."

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
You're wrong because you never take into account the relationships between other players from my statements. Yes, you put a whole lot of qualifiers on your own statements, but you treat my statements without any consideration for context. I've been very clear that attacking another player can be good or bad for you depending on context, it should be logically obvious that attacking another player can be good or bad for a 3rd player depending on context. There are certainly times, particularly when you're ahead, where attacking a soft target is bad for every player but you because their combined resources are pitted against yours. Attacking someone who isn't the biggest threat can benefit the biggest threat, but it doesn't always.

Therefore, there are times you should not attack the weakest target because you're actively hurting yourself in doing so. There are times you should because it helps your chances against the biggest threat anyway. Who you should attack depends on that context, but ignoring the biggest threat is a bad idea in any context. Getting back to the root of this argument, nobody should ever take the "you can keep Kozilek if you attack someone else" deal, ever.
If someone is the biggest threat, I would say lowering another player's life total is going to benefit the threat ALMOST always. Of course there are exceptions - i.e. if you're trying to trigger a worldslayer, or maybe if you have some hidden information that actually makes you the bigger threat - but generally-speaking, if you're in the lead, the less life you have to blow through before winning, the better.

That said, and my point is, if someone is only in the lead by a little, it might still benefit you to lower a soft target's life total.

i.e.: the game is quite balanced, with win% of 35%, 34%, and 31% respectively. You're at 34%, and have a free attack into 31%. You deal them 6. This lowers their win%. 35% will presumably gain most of that win%, but I would argue you'd also gain some. Maybe it goes to something like 38%/36%/26%.

You seem to be saying that such a shift is impossible, and the only way those percentages could go after the attack is towards something like 41%/33%/26%, with all the benefit going to whoever is in the lead, because it couldn't benefit you.

I disagree. Strongly.

In an archenemy situation, where the win%s were more like 65%/20%/15%, and you're the 20 getting a free attack into the 15% and putting them to 10%, I'd agree that you'd see such a shift in that case - towards something like 71%/19%/10%. But when the game is fairly balanced, no, strong disagree, and if we can't agree on that point then there's no point in discussing it any further.

As far as the kozilek deal - imagine the person with the stp has only the stp in hand, only one plains, and no other permanents. Do you really think it's the right move to sacrifice your critical threat just to soak up the removal from someone who's already way, way behind?
You tried to put together a logical proof that I was saying something I wasn't, and the reason I wasn't saying it was this exact idea, you probably shouldn't "no duh" something you clearly forgot to apply.
I've never argued against either of the things you're saying which I "No duh"ed. The problem is you left out the parts that we're actually arguing about - sometimes it's NOT right to go guns blazing into the person with removal. Sometimes it's GOOD to attack weak players - even when you're not ahead. That's what the question is. Your statement just said things we both agree on. Hence "no duh".
No, not of course. It may or may not help the opponent. You have to consider these things.
If they're in the lead, I would say it almost always does.

I'm not saying it couldn't hurt them, but I'd be curious what scenario you have in mind where someone in the lead would be hurt by you attacking another opponent - aside from obvious cases like combat triggers, where dealing the damage isn't the point.
Have you ever played Risk? If you throw yourself all in to kill 2 of 4 players, it doesn't go from 25%s all around to 50%s all around because you spent your resources to make that happen and the other remaining player didn't. If done carelessly, you can take a game from 25% to everyone straight to 5% you 95% the other player.I know in Magic there's not the inherent resource expenditure attacking people that Risk has, but there's some. The other players will be trying to weaken me so long as I'm attacking them. If I ignore you, knowing you have the answer to my threat, so that I can take out the other half of the table, I don't expect to go to 45:55, I expect to go to 5:95. Maybe you have less to deal with me than I suspect and I do stand a good chance in the 1v1, but I'd be stupid to play that way when you offer me a deal that potentially just kingmakes you.
You hit the nail on the head - there's no inherent resource expenditure. And while it's somewhat unlikely when kozilek is your only threat, there are certainly board states where you can eliminate opponents while losing basically nothing. Honestly, if it's an early turn (maybe you cheated out koz somehow) and a koz attack will set an opponent back to 1-2 permanents, you've probably effectively killed them while losing nothing.

Also it's not really plausible to sacrifice as many resources as you can in Risk. In risk you can end your turn with 1 piece left on the board if you attack hard enough. In magic you can't usually throw every single resource - your lands, every card in hand, all your non-creature permanents - into a suicidal attack. In this case, presumably the worst case is that you lose your kozilek anyway, and you go back to a pretty even board state.

In the situation where, say, everyone has huge armies and yours is the biggest, but swinging all-in to several opponents, while it will kill them, will drastically reduce your forces and leave you weak to the remaining opponent who was spiky to begin with - sure, I agree that's a bad move. Which direction to attack, or whether to attack at all, is going to depend on a lot of specifics in that case.
"If you want to talk about how people tend to play when they're slamming back drinks at a casual commander pub night, that's one thing, but I'm most interested in what moves are correct and which are not, personally."
"I'm trying to tell you correct plays, you're just not understanding."

I wasn't suggesting that I know every correct play and you don't or something arrogant like that, I was saying that I'm trying to suggest correct strategic plays, and since you think I'm describing only what to do at casual pub night, you aren't understanding my positions.
Alright, fair enough, I'll dial the attacks back a bit. But I'm not going to stop making jokes.

Dismissal was not the intention of my statement though - there is merit to both conversations. IRL, knowing how people tend to react to plays - even if they aren't following logic, or maximizing their win% - is really useful information. I spend quite a bit of time discussing it in my Phelddagrif primer. Great example being early attacks - we've all seen games where one person chips in for 2 damage on turn 2 because someone's open, and that kicks off a back-and-forth grudge that hurts both players drastically over the course of the game. Not logical - but all the same, IRL it's often best to avoid making an attack that might antagonize someone, even if it's the right play in an objective sense.

But it's hard to talk about both things at once. Hence why I wanted to keep this conversation to the logical, max-win% version.
I've still never said that I disallow dealmaking. I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be allowed. I'm suggesting that if your opponent's are wise, dealmaking is an ineffective and potentially backfiring strategy.
If your meta is such that the stp player wouldn't take the deal for the fog if offered, I'd say deals are functionally disallowed if not literally disallowed.

Obviously I disagree with the other bit.

I'm curious, to circle back around, how you/your meta would handle the 4/4 ground vs 3/3 flyer situation I mentioned decades ago?
I'm not saying that past favors help convince opponents to do you favors. I'm saying past cooperation with someone indicates a desire to cooperate against a third player. I'm not suggesting the player would Swords the Thief just because you asked nicely, but rather because Swords the Thief offers more possibilities where the Baloth player can't steamroll both of you, and knowing you consider the Baloth player the primary threat will make the Swords player consider your benefit differently than if you were targeting him.
If we're assuming - rightly so - that the rev player will become the threat after drawing a dozen cards, why would the stp player assume his motivations would be the same before and after? Does he not realize that the threat player wants to eliminate his opponents as quickly as possible - possibly starting with whoever is easiest to kill?

If me and another player are both on the back foot versus a stronger opponent, and my ally drops mike/trike, I'm not going to assume they'll let me live just because we were cooperating earlier. Motivations are dictated by context and context can change on a dime. As the stp player, I can see why rev player wanted to work together earlier - and I can also see that he's pretty unlikely to feel the same after rev resolves.

I mean it might still be worth it for the stp player, just to take the heat off himself - but not because of any assumed ongoing cooperation in a situation that dictates such cooperation being highly unlikely. The fog is irrelevant.
But you know they're just improving your win percentage. If you're winning like 50% of games with Phelddagrif, there isn't much percentage left to pull from the other two players, especially if the deals are adding even more to your disproportionate wins. If they weren't cooperating with you, they'd win more.
In total, sure. If the table was a hive mind they'd be well-served to reject deals from me.

Individually though, no.

Let's just look at a simplified example.

One player is at a huge disadvantage. He makes a deal with me, which boosts both our win%s (say mine from 25% to 40%, his from 5% to 15%).

Then later, another player is at a huge disadvantage, I make another deal, which boosts both our win%s (say mine from 40% to 60%, his from 10% to 20%)

Every deal can benefit each player participating. My goal is just to participate in as many deals as possible.

For that matter, I could even offer excellent deals, where my opponent benefits more than I do. But since I'm dealing with 3 people and they're usually only dealing with 1, my small boosts will ultimately overwhelm their larger ones.

In practice, it tends not to be that round-robin-y. Usually one person has a weaker deck, and I help them to kill the try-hards and the combo players in a game they had a practically 0% chance to win without my help. Then we have a 1v1 and I usually win, but not always. It's a better chance than they were going to get against the other players, I'll tell you that much. Phelddagrif feeds on poorly balanced metas.
onering wrote:
4 years ago
I think all reasonable people can agree that all percentages posted here in reference to perceived chances of winning are complete %$#%$#% pulled out of a posters ass to support their arguments. All of them, whether they are nla nice fat round 50/50 or 25/25/25/25, or more complicated 35/15/5 or whatever. They are all %$#%$#% estimates intended to quantify what a poster feels to be right, but it's entirely intuitive and based on nothing real. So one person putting out such percentages like it matters and then saying it's absurd when someone else does it is ridiculous.

Any analysis we do of these hypotheticals is based on the limited info given and our own experiences. It can't be quantified, and the difference in our experiences playing the game means that two very different approaches can both be correct, because those approaches are the correct ones for the environment the person advocating them experiences. This is still a worthwhile conversation because examining these different approaches has led to an interesting discussion on the merits and pitfalls of each, and I think Dirk and tstorm have both made convincing arguments that would help a newer player understand both approaches and learn under what circumstances you should adopt one or the other (or which one they should choose based on their own playstyle, or their deck of choice).
There are two different kinds of percentages though.

The kozilek 25/25/25/25 example, the percentages are part of the hypothetical - as is the 45/55. Fill in the blanks however you want to make them work out, the point is to save a lot of time figuring out specific cards and arguing over particulars that don't matter. Obviously in many cases those percentages wouldn't be correct, but in this hypothetical, it's the case where they are. It's only "wrong" if you think it's literally impossible for those percentages to be accurate to any game that could possibly exist within the given parameters.

The point is to say "IF these percentages are accurate to a gamestate, then X would be correct". If a specific gamestate doesn't correspond to those percentages, then it doesn't apply. So there's really not much point to arguing over the percentages unless you think it's actually impossible.

On the other hand, we have percentages like the fog/stp argument, where we're taking a specific situation and arguing that the percentages are accurate to that specific situation given the relevant details, and the accuracy of those percentages prove a certain point. In that situation, if (1) logically, if you trade a fog for an stp it will succeed, and (2) that's the highest percentage chance you have to win (that will succeed), then you should offer the deal. If you think it's illogical that it would succeed, or that there's a higher percentage chance somewhere else, then you wouldn't offer the deal. Which you agree with hinges entirely on the percentages, so there's great reason to argue over them if you disagree.

If tstorm wants to say "hypothetically, if there's other stuff going on in the scenario such that all my percentages are accurate" then sure, I totally agree with his analysis that - if those percentages are accurate - it makes no sense to offer the deal (or to take it). But he's not saying hypothetically those could be the percentages, he's saying "given the situation with the relevant details, these ARE the percentages", and I disagree with those percentages. Hence I disagree with his conclusion.

Here's how I'll illustrate the difference between version 1 and version 2.

Version 1: if the win% are an even 33/33/33, and then you acquire the option to guarantee killing one person for free, and that makes the odds 50/50 with the remaining player, THEN it is a good move to do so.

That's essentially inarguable. If those are the percentages, then the conclusion is logically true.

Version 2: if I have cards X, Y, and Z, another player has permanents A, B, and C, and a third player has permanents D and E, then the odds are roughly 33/33/33, and if I draw F, which can kill player 2, the the odds would be 50/50 between me and player 3 afterwards, and thus playing F would be the right play.

And obviously that would depend a lot on the specific cards, and whether the conclusion is correct would depend on an analysis of the complex situation plus a lot of unknowns - which is to say, it would basically just become a matter of opinion. That's why I usually prefer to deal with version 1 hypotheticals.

Of course, in the second version, it's always going to be too complicated, and with too many unknowns, to get anywhere near an objective answer to what the percentages are, so opinion will always play a role. But that doesn't mean it's baseless to argue about them. When the situation is "you have no relevant cards in hand, baloths bearing down upon you, a notion thief locking down your draw...and one "ally" who is dead on board next turn" and someone says you have a 45% chance to win...I think that's pretty implausible personally. That's not objectively true or anything...but c'mon.
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

onering
Posts: 1227
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 4 years ago

You literally gave the first 50/50 example in reference to your original scenario, which is a specific scenario. As part of that earlier discussion, you eventually moved on to the pure hypothetical percentages, which I felt weren't very useful to the discussion because they were just basic proofs with no context. Yes, if everyone has an equal chance to win then removing players increases your chances, which I pointed out was pretty obvious and could be extrapolated to mean the correct play is to eschew multiplayer for 1v1, as that automatically gives the a 50 percent chance to win, the highest attainable. If you want percentages to say anything, or to lend credence to an argument, they need context, and I don't think anyone here actually has the data to make whatever percentages they are giving anything more valuable than what tstorm described, just tools for expressing feelings about the situation and not actual chances of winning. That seems a little more relevant that empty proofs. Even still, any win probabilities that anyone pulls out for a game state is just a guess based on intuition.

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

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

onering wrote:
4 years ago
You literally gave the first 50/50 example in reference to your original scenario, which is a specific scenario. As part of that earlier discussion, you eventually moved on to the pure hypothetical percentages, which I felt weren't very useful to the discussion because they were just basic proofs with no context. Yes, if everyone has an equal chance to win then removing players increases your chances, which I pointed out was pretty obvious and could be extrapolated to mean the correct play is to eschew multiplayer for 1v1, as that automatically gives the a 50 percent chance to win, the highest attainable. If you want percentages to say anything, or to lend credence to an argument, they need context, and I don't think anyone here actually has the data to make whatever percentages they are giving anything more valuable than what tstorm described, just tools for expressing feelings about the situation and not actual chances of winning. That seems a little more relevant that empty proofs. Even still, any win probabilities that anyone pulls out for a game state is just a guess based on intuition.
The original scenario is a version 1 hypothetical, which is why it was so frustrating trying to argue about the percentages. There are specifics, yes, but all the cards not directly specified in the situation - the cards in everyone's hands, all their other permanents, life totals, etc - all of those things can be imagined to make the percentages work out as dictated. You can imagine a scenario where P1 is favored to win, right? You can imagine a scenario where P4 is favored to win, right? So, split the difference somewhere and get a 50/50.

The fog/stp scenario is different - and is a version 2 - because I'm describing all the relevant cards, so the percentages are dictated by the information I have given, not by the extraneous information. I haven't gone into extreme detail - we don't know exactly how many lands (or which lands) each player has, where their commanders are and what they are, how much tax they have, number of cards in deck, or even the specific number of cards in each players hand - I'm giving kind of a broad brushstrokes approach to most of the information by saying that everyone is low on resources, and that the most relevant cards are the ones given. If you need more information before speculating on percentages, then by all means play around with it a bit - personally I'm fine taking a loose stab at it, since I don't think the specifics should drastically change the outcome of this specific play.

That's why my (and tstorms) percentages on the fog/stp play are speculative based on the situation, whereas the percentages in the OP and the kozilek situation are defined by the hypothetical. Intuitive guesses, if you prefer. They aren't exactly provable, but they aren't based on nothing either.

I'm making the arguably stupid version 1 hypotheticals, like the kozilek one, to prove a point that, in certain circumstances, it's correct to ignore the person threatening removal even if they're slightly ahead. For tstorm to disagree, he basically has to say that those percentages are impossible in any situation, no matter what the other cards are, or context is.

I also use them to explore touchy-feely questions like the OP. It's a lot easier to talk about how you'd feel about a situation if the potential outcomes are set in stone, rather than needing to argue about how the specifics might play out.
the correct play is to eschew multiplayer for 1v1
You're not bringing that argument up again, are you? The game goal is to win, but the meta-game goal is to have fun. Personally I don't think 1v1 commander is nearly as much fun, so following my meta-game goal, I'm going to seek out multiplayer games. Once I'm in that game, the goal is to win (and ideally not enrage someone into assaulting me with a kitchen implement).
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
pokken
Posts: 6283
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

An additional problem with win percentages is that the actual win percentages don't matter -- what matters is what each player thinks they are and how deals affect them. And guaranteed each player thinks they are different.

And there's a whole raft of other subjective factors.

onering
Posts: 1227
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 4 years ago

{quote}
the correct play is to eschew multiplayer for 1v1
You're not bringing that argument up again, are you? The game goal is to win, but the meta-game goal is to have fun. Personally I don't think 1v1 commander is nearly as much fun, so following my meta-game goal, I'm going to seek out multiplayer games. Once I'm in that game, the goal is to win (and ideally not enrage someone into assaulting me with a kitchen implement).
[/quote]

It's obviously not a serious argument, it's meant to show how pointless your use of win probabilities is. I'm saying it's far too elementary an idea to be worth discussing, and it says nothing at all beyond "the fewer opponents you have, the better your chances of winning". You have more fun playing multiplayer than 1v1, cool, that's an outside factor, and the entire purpose of using the 50/50 percentages was to strip outside factors away from the argument. Once you start adding some outside factors in, why not add others? If your considering your preference for multiplayer as why you just wouldn't start out 1v1 but rather work your way there, why not consider other factors? Its because you're trying to frame the argument in a way that your preferred answer looks stronger, but that ignores other aspects of the argument. There's no difference in what tstorm was doing and what you were doing with percentages, for all your attempts to separate them into two categories. You were both using percentages to quantify feelings, nothing more. Tstorm wasn't trying to use actual win probabilities, he was pulling numbers out of his ass to represent the idea that the likelihood of a player winning under a certain scenario was higher or lower than in another, and that's all you did as well. Fixating on how exaggerated those numbers are is irrelevant, they're obviously worthless as actual win probabilities so nitpicking them doesn't help you make a point. Instead of trying to understand what he was saying, you nitpicked the absurd percentages. If you want to nitpick, then sure 45 percent is absurd, but so is 20 percent without a deal, both are probably way too high. Once you get past that, you see that all he's saying is that being able to cast sphinxes rev is going to dramatically increase his chances of winning. Maybe not as high as 45 percent, but probably more than double what it would be 1v1 with no relevant cards in hand facing an army of baloths. Your problem is you are assuming that the stp player won't take out the notion thief if asked after being saves by the fog, while that is central to tstorms argument, fog, then say he's out of answers but can dig for more if the notion thief dies. Like he said, it avoids making an overt deal and relies on someone else making the right play based on the information you give them, but for him it has the same result as proposing a deal without making "do what I want or I let you die."

I don't particularly agree with his analysis, but you didn't try to actually go in to why it was off. His idea that the attacked player would have a higher chance of winning if the fog player fogged and then that attacked player fired stp as a thank you than if this was done as part of a deal is absurd. They'd have the same chances either way, though the fog players would go up a bit because he'd have revealed less info, and depending on the playgroup it could go up a lot. That's hard to understand if you are only looking at it from a transactional perspective, but people generally respond positively when you help them out. Getting the same transaction because you saved someone and they want to pay you back can generate more oodwill than getting it through a transactional deal where someone feels like they have to agree or die. In your playgroup, it might be exactly the opposite, so your perspective isn't wrong. I also feel that he is wrong that you shouldn't double down on not saving him if he rejects the deal, and this isn't playgroup dependent. If you are proposing a deal, you need to follow through. If your deal is rejected and you do the thing anyway, it undermines your deal making ability by telling people they can reject your deals and get your help for free, and it does so without generating the Goodwill that will get them to help you. Once you go for deals, you can't rely on just being helpful and then asking for help, you have to stick to being transactional, at least when it comes to the deals themselves.

You two aren't arguing over right and wrong plays, your arguing over different approaches to politics, and your respective approaches have evidentially worked well for both of you. I've experienced both, and I've used both, and it really depends on which approach your opponents prefer. I've found that, in my experience, tstorms approach works better with more skilled players who actually know how to respond, but can blow up when used with less skilled players.

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

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

onering wrote:
4 years ago
the correct play is to eschew multiplayer for 1v1
You're not bringing that argument up again, are you? The game goal is to win, but the meta-game goal is to have fun. Personally I don't think 1v1 commander is nearly as much fun, so following my meta-game goal, I'm going to seek out multiplayer games. Once I'm in that game, the goal is to win (and ideally not enrage someone into assaulting me with a kitchen implement).
It's obviously not a serious argument, it's meant to show how pointless your use of win probabilities is.
Game goals and meta-game goals are completely disjoint. If your meta goal is to win as many games as possible, then sure, play 1v1 (assuming goldfishing and declaring yourself the winner isn't an option). But I'm not interested in discussing meta goals right now, as it's entirely a matter of personal opinion.
I'm saying it's far too elementary an idea to be worth discussing, and it says nothing at all beyond "the fewer opponents you have, the better your chances of winning".
That was never the point of what I was saying.
Once you start adding some outside factors in, why not add others?
I'm not sure what you mean by outside factors, but all these scenarios suppose you're already in the game and your goal is to win. Anything outside of that game is not relevant.
There's no difference in what tstorm was doing and what you were doing with percentages, for all your attempts to separate them into two categories.
When I laid out my approximations for the stp/fog scenario, I was doing exactly what tstorm was doing, yes, except that I believe my percentages were more reasonable, personally.

For the "version 1" hypotheticals, those are completely different, and I've spent too many words explaining how already, so if you don't get it I guess you're just not going to get it.
Once you get past that, you see that all he's saying is that being able to cast sphinxes rev is going to dramatically increase his chances of winning.
I hope that's not his point because that's a point we both agree on readily, so there wouldn't be much point to making it.

I think if I was to ignore the specific percentages and focus on his points, they'd be:
-having an ally will dramatically improve your chance to win regardless of the rev
-the notion thief will likely die without a deal, either from a random board wipe or because the stp player sees it as his only out
-the stp player's correct play is not to take the deal if offered

I disagree with all those points but I think that's what he's trying to emphasize. His percentages reflect those points, which is why I argued with those percentages.
Your problem is you are assuming that the stp player won't take out the notion thief if asked after being saves by the fog, while that is central to tstorms argument, fog, then say he's out of answers but can dig for more if the notion thief dies. Like he said, it avoids making an overt deal and relies on someone else making the right play based on the information you give them, but for him it has the same result as proposing a deal without making "do what I want or I let you die."
I have responded to this, quite clearly, because I don't think it holds water. Without a deal the stp player should not trust you at all to have his best interests at heart once you've drawn that many cards, because the situation will have changed and now you're the threat, not the baloth player. Maybe it could still work in their favor because you've become a distraction for the baloth player, but it's not because you're going to help them on purpose after they've killed the thief - and if it's purely as a distraction ploy, then he wouldn't have any motivation not to just take the deal since it's the same result minus the gamble.

I also reject the idea that the stp player will do anything more "amenably" because of the fog - at least in a correct play sense. In the IRL sense, yeah that would probably work. I've had players do outrageous favors for minor effort on my part, sometimes, you just never know.
That's hard to understand if you are only looking at it from a transactional perspective, but people generally respond positively when you help them out. Getting the same transaction because you saved someone and they want to pay you back can generate more oodwill than getting it through a transactional deal where someone feels like they have to agree or die. In your playgroup, it might be exactly the opposite, so your perspective isn't wrong.
As I said - there are two different discussions, and both are worth having - please read my complete posts if you're going to respond - but this one is about correct play, not IRL play where people are subject to human foibles and not ruthless win% machines.
You two aren't arguing over right and wrong plays, your arguing over different approaches to politics, and your respective approaches have evidentially worked well for both of you. I've experienced both, and I've used both, and it really depends on which approach your opponents prefer. I've found that, in my experience, tstorms approach works better with more skilled players who actually know how to respond, but can blow up when used with less skilled players.
From what I can tell, it's more about playgroup norms than skilled or unskilled. Skilled players tend to be better, harder negotiators, but most of them don't take dealmaking off the table entirely. For those that do, I think it's often because they're more used to 1v1 play - since that's where good players usually go to play skilled magic - so they don't prefer to use tools like dealmaking, that only make sense in silly, casual multiplayer formats. But that's just my intuition.
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
tstorm823
Knowledge Pool
Posts: 1041
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him
Location: York, PA

Post by tstorm823 » 4 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
-having an ally will dramatically improve your chance to win regardless of the rev
-the notion thief will likely die without a deal, either from a random board wipe or because the stp player sees it as his only out
-the stp player's correct play is not to take the deal if offered
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.
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Commander”