When a game ends up 1v1 - Gloves on or off?

[pokken]

I had a game recently where someone got pretty mad at me for attacking their lands with cards like Strip Mine / Sun Titan, Venser, Shaper Savant and Agent of Treachery when the game ended up 1v1.

I am pretty primed to say once it's 1v1 the gloves are completely off and I'm going for the throat, but I wanted a quick gut check on this.

On the flipside I'm inclined to think of things to do that are not attacking mana when the game is 3+ player, even if it might be the right thing to do (e.g. strip mining a powerful deck that missed a land drop)

What say you MTGN?

(Edit: Sorry for being a Reddit meme "Was that wrong? Was I wrong?" post, honestly pretty curious about what people think

[tempoEDH]

Time to make my first real post about a philosophical topic in commander, rather than just lurking around the threads. This is an interesting topic, that I'm not sure I've seen covered in any kind of rule zero discussions. Should 1v1 be any different than multiplayer? Does the game become more competitive when 2 people are left? In theory, the set of expectations set out by the group shouldn't change no matter what happens. Hypothetically, if we as a playgroup have an issue with MLD, killing half the table shouldn't suddenly make Armageddon okay. However, I think the source of the perceived change in acceptable plays that you talk about stems from the gamestate. For example, I'd feel bad about playing some mana rocks, and then casting an Armageddon as soon as I can to deny the rest of the table resources and play solitaire for a few turns. It's simply not fun for the rest of the table. But, if I'm about to win, poised to clear the opponents in one sweep, I wouldn't at all feel bad about casting an Armageddon for some extra assurance, to make sure I win. The difference is in how far the game has progressed and how close to it's conclusion it is.
Once you've gotten to that 1v1, (assuming a 4 player pod) you now have 2 players who are waiting for you to finish to be able to play again. Isn't the idea of a preconceived set of expectations for play to craft the most fun environment possible for the group? So, by that argument, ending the game as quickly as possible once you get to 1v1 is the right play, since that means the other players can now play. Bringing in a whole new argument (my thought process just jumps around like this, roll with it), I personally believe a lot of the "salt" around land destruction (which is mostly what I'm focusing on, it seems a good representative of "taking off the gloves") is caused by setting one player behind in an environment in which there are more than one players. If I'm playing Yarok, I'm going to be a lot more mad about the Torpor Orb then I might be about Winter Orb, because it hits me harder, with little effect to the rest of the board. Nonsymmetrical plays tend to get on people's nerves. Again, totally different train of thought: if I played an In Garruk's Wake with 4 players alive, would you be mad about an asymmetrical effect? No, because it (assumedly) hit everyone else just as hard, so the caster made a good play that doesn't particularly hose one player. So in a 1v1, isn't it okay for me to make a good play, such as land removal, that doesn't hose you anymore than any other players (since there are none)? It's just a "good play" from me that hurts you no more than anyone else. After just throwing these ideas around (kind of just to see if anyone else wants to expand this discussion, I think it's actually an incredibly important topic that doesn't get enough attention, how "rule zero" isn't set, and it's values can shift based on how things are in the game), my personal opinion is- go right ahead!

[pokken]

2 players who are waiting for you to finish to be able to play again

While this is not true online it definitely lived in my subconscious from paper playing - and it's a part of my bias toward going for the throat in 1v1 that I had not thought if. Good point.

It's just a "good play" from me that hurts you no more than anyone else.

This is another good point for why things change in 1v1; you're not singling someone out since there's no herd. Makes sense to me as part of the thought process.

[marioguy3]

You made the right play attacking the lands when it got to 1v1, especially if destroying the lands helped cause a scoop, which in turn, could have resulted in the players eliminated reshuffling up to play another game.

[Mookie]

Gloves off for me. In a lot of games, I tend to hold back in an effort to not draw too much attention to myself and not make enemies - if my opponents don't consider me to be a threat, then that is generally to my advantage. I can bide my time and sculpt my hand until I'm finally read to take a big turn.

But if the game is in 1v1 mode, there isn't really any need to do political maneuvering anymore. I'm not trying to build alliances or keep a low profile. I'm just trying to close out the game as quickly (and consistently) as possible. If my opponent has a problematic permanent, I'm not going to hold back removal in case another player plays a bigger threat, and I'm also not going to hold onto removal in case a different opponent removes it first. Again, there isn't really any need to hold anything back from a political perspective.

I don't know if I would necessarily attack my remaining opponent's mana, but that's much more because I tend to not run those cards in the first place, and because by the time things get to 1v1, it's usually lategame with plenty of mana on both sides. If my remaining opponent were to somehow be having mana problems, I'd be fine with exacerbating the problem. Although, again, I don't know if I would use Agent of Treachery on a land, since it feels like there would be a more impactful target. That said, attacking an opponent's manabase by recurring land destruction does tend to prompt concessions really quickly, so it's not a bad to close out a game.

I will say though that most of my decks run combos capable of taking out the entire table, so this doesn't happen that often. And that, in turn, is partially because I play exclusively in paper, and waiting 20-30 minutes for a new game to start is a pain.

[onering]

Gloves off. It's 1v1 now, it's time to end the game. It's unfair to the players who've already lost to drag it out in some attempt to go easy on your opponent, and there's no political or social reason left once it's 1v1. The game has entered a zero sum phase, and if it's in your deck this is the time to use it. Just don't toy with people, do the honorable thing and beat them efficiently, or more accurately as efficiently as your deck can muster given the circumstances. If that's locking them out of Mana, then that's what it is.

[3drinks]

If I don't come in hot...you're just gonna come in hotter at me. So ofc you're getting me at my toughest and dirtiest.

Besides, it's intellectually dishonest if we aren't playing to our fullest. What a slap in the face to fight someone, or be fought against when they're holding back. That says you don't respect me as your opponent, and while I know most don't respect RDW like it were a "real deck", nevertheless I busted ass to get here, you better believe I'm as...ALL IN...now, as I was before. Let's get it!

[TheGildedGoose]

What are gloves?

[DirkGently]

So I follow the mantra of "build casually, play competitively" 100%. I like cool decks but I play to win, baby.

- BUT -

Multiplayer is a chaotic thing, and what seemed like a great play last turn might bite you in the butt a turn later. You crack your strip mine too early on something that looks somewhat threatening, and suddenly you're one mana short for your sweet topdeck, or someone else plays a better land, or someone who seemed like a lesser threat suddenly catapults into the lead, and you've now crippled yourself and your potential ally by setting you both back a land.

As such, I think the highest win% play in the early game is often a "wait and see" approach, testing the other players to see where the real threats are, playing a politically savvy game by holding back your answers unless necessary, and trying to figure out when to reveal your full power and go for the win with the greatest possible chance of success. Playing "gloves off" too early is likely to leave you overextended - either in a position too threatening for you to maintain against the table, or too short on answers to handle the shifting tides.

Once I'm in the lead and going for the win, I'm doing whatever I think is the best move - just like I always do. I might not take the absolute most brutal play if I think the alternative play has a similar win%, especially if I think I'm going to win regardless, but I'm definitely not going to play nice. That's true when it's 3vme, and it's true when it's 1vme.

You could say "the gloves are off" when I'm in that "going for the win" mode, but I think the more accurate description would be "the correct play is more clear, so I'm more willing to commit". The end is near, the variables are being reduced, the plan has been set in motion. It's time...to win.

DUH DUH DUHHHH.

(That said, I have quite a few things I don't like to build with, including MLD and infinite combos, so regardless of what stage the game is in, I probably won't be able to do those things unless there's some synergy with a card from my opponent's deck - but if they come up in the game somehow, I won't hesitate to use them. Play to win.)

[Wallycaine]

In my opinion, a lot of it depends on why the gloves were on in the first place. If the only reason you're not doing stuff like blowing up lands is because it comes across badly politically in a multiplayer game, then yes, clearly the gloves should come off when that's not a worry. But if the point of having them on in the first place was to ensure everybody could have fun and fair play and all that jazz... then none of that goes away when there's only one other person left. Speaking from experience, getting your lands targeted sucks, even when it's 1v1. In fact, I'd argue it feels worse, because there's not the safety net of other players potentially allowing you to catch up, so you often get reduced to watching your opponent solitare while your chances slip further and further away, knowing that if you'd just had that extra land, maybe you could have resolved the wrath you desperately needed a turn earlier.

[Krishnath]

In my opinion, once it is 1v1, it's kill or be killed.

That said, I am also of the opinion that resource denial is unfun, and I only use LD to take out annoying lands (Maze of Ith, Cabal Coffers, manlands, and such.)

[pokken]

In my opinion, a lot of it depends on why the gloves were on in the first place. If the only reason you're not doing stuff like blowing up lands is because it comes across badly politically in a multiplayer game, then yes, clearly the gloves should come off when that's not a worry. But if the point of having them on in the first place was to ensure everybody could have fun and fair play and all that jazz... then none of that goes away when there's only one other person left. Speaking from experience, getting your lands targeted sucks, even when it's 1v1. In fact, I'd argue it feels worse, because there's not the safety net of other players potentially allowing you to catch up, so you often get reduced to watching your opponent solitare while your chances slip further and further away, knowing that if you'd just had that extra land, maybe you could have resolved the wrath you desperately needed a turn earlier.

I think this is one of the main things I was looking to hear, from someone who's going to be annoyed being ld'd in 1v1

It always winds up coming down to particulars but in this case I had another route to victory which was to have venser bounce himself and then tempo him off landing uril that way.

Is it more desirable to be locked out with countermagic or removal or land destruction? In multiplayer I'd say definitely but in heads up when I'm killing you in 2 or 3 turns anyway is it that different?

If I can change the feels of the situation without sacrificing a victory I'll surely do that. The reason I did it the way I did was leaving venser on the board turned ephara on which made for a faster kill.

[MrMystery314]

I agree with tempoEDH: regardless if there were gloves on before, unless the two people spectating want to see a long and drawn-out game, it's in your best interest to end it quickly.

[Wallycaine]

In my opinion, a lot of it depends on why the gloves were on in the first place. If the only reason you're not doing stuff like blowing up lands is because it comes across badly politically in a multiplayer game, then yes, clearly the gloves should come off when that's not a worry. But if the point of having them on in the first place was to ensure everybody could have fun and fair play and all that jazz... then none of that goes away when there's only one other person left. Speaking from experience, getting your lands targeted sucks, even when it's 1v1. In fact, I'd argue it feels worse, because there's not the safety net of other players potentially allowing you to catch up, so you often get reduced to watching your opponent solitare while your chances slip further and further away, knowing that if you'd just had that extra land, maybe you could have resolved the wrath you desperately needed a turn earlier.

I think this is one of the main things I was looking to hear, from someone who's going to be annoyed being ld'd in 1v1

It always winds up coming down to particulars but in this case I had another route to victory which was to have venser bounce himself and then tempo him off landing uril that way.

Is it more desirable to be locked out with countermagic or removal or land destruction? In multiplayer I'd say definitely but in heads up when I'm killing you in 2 or 3 turns anyway is it that different?

If I can change the feels of the situation without sacrificing a victory I'll surely do that. The reason I did it the way I did was leaving venser on the board turned ephara on which made for a faster kill.

Oddly, it still feels slightly better? With countermagic or removal, I can at least go through the motions of casting, and it at least feels like maybe there's an obscure line I can look for to bait it out. Even if there's not, it still feels like I have options, versus land destruction feeling like it takes those away. It's entirely subjective, but that's where it comes back to "it depends on why the gloves are on in the first place".

Quick addition edit: I'll add that there's a very different feeling in online play versus in person playgroup. In person, you can easily go "Oh, I guess I'll hit your land so the games over faster" and that doesn't feel as bad as online, where there's not that open line of communication. And as mentioned, in person there's often two other players waiting to reshuffle, so I'm more likely to offer the scoop as soon as you look like you've got it locked up, or maybe go "well if I don't draw exactly right, I'm %$#%" and concede as soon as I don't draw the perfect card to fix everything.

[Yatsufusa]

If a game turns 1v1, gloves-off seems like the straightforward approach. In actual 1v1 EDH games, even if both players are "casuals", the game would seem a lot more competitive by default because of this.

The real question is - do you play gloves-on because it's multiplayer and how often is it future threat assessment rather than playing with gloves-on and is it arguable that the two are distinct or murky enough to be the same? You have two exile spells in hand and someone has Avacyn, but you know someone's going to cast Vorinclex next turn and someone else Blightsteel Colossus with Lightning Greaves. Likewise, do you want to cast the board wipe with most/all your remaining mana on a moderately dangerous board when you know there's the possibility it will escalate into a highly dangerous board in the next turn cycle regardless of whether you do it or not?

Ironically one of the greatest reasons people play gloves-on/very politically is because they know the gloves are off when it reaches 1v1, so they're min-maxing resources to make sure they actually have the gloves to take off when it reaches that point. Of course, in metas where games often end without ever reaching 1v1, people may develop differently so it can be argued combos technically help foster a more gloves-off multiplayer environment.

[pokken]

The real question is - do you play gloves-on because it's multiplayer and how often is it future threat assessment rather than playing with gloves-on and is it arguable that the two are distinct or murky enough to be the same?

I definitely have a different ethos that is not to do with maximizing win rate, when playing multiplayer - I'd prefer not to knock someone else out of participating via any means but especially land destruction. Obviously you've got to single out the leader sometimes but I usually try to think of reasons to let people do their thing if I can justify it.

I do think there is a grain of truth in thinking this might be good political strategy overall, and that it might be fundamentally inseparable from it, but at least part of my personal motivation is a desire for everyone playing to have a good time.

[Crazy Monkey]

My playstyle varies too much between decks for me to make a broad statement on playing differently in 1v1. My control-focused decks will change less as players are eliminated than my more value-focused or aggro-focused decks.

That said, as long as it's logical for the deck I'm playing, I adjust to finish games more quickly when players are waiting to start the next game. I don't think that complaining about fairness or playgroup soft bans after reducing to a 1v1 makes sense. I'm not going to loop a Terastodon to put someone into the stone ages in multiplayer, but when we have 2 players waiting and I think it will close the game in 2 turns instead of letting them rebuild, I'll do that. I think my approach is similar to most others in the thread so far.

As to reasons why the gloves may be on in free-for-all, it's usually 'politics'. That's both in-game politics (for that game) or metagame politics (target power level perception of that deck). The latter of those is important in my playgroup because we often play hidden loyalty variants, where deck selection alone can make you a target.

[BeneTleilax]

land destruction are garbage cards dont play them they just make the game suck

[pokken]

land destruction are garbage cards dont play them they just make the game suck

I feel like the lands available in EDH are too strong to be without at least incidental interaction for them.

[Rorseph]

land destruction are garbage cards dont play them they just make the game suck

I feel like the lands available in EDH are too strong to be without at least incidental interaction for them.

Precisely. I'll stop playing Strip effects when people stop playing things like Gaea's Cradle, Serra's Sanctum, Maze of Ith, Rogue's Passage, and Glacial Chasm.
____

On topic, I'd say that it's no-holds-barred when it's down to 1v1. When there's no longer a political advantage to being coy, then I'm going to go ham.

[toctheyounger]

land destruction are garbage cards dont play them they just make the game suck

I feel like the lands available in EDH are too strong to be without at least incidental interaction for them.

Precisely. I'll stop playing Strip effects when people stop playing things like Gaea's Cradle, Serra's Sanctum, Maze of Ith, Rogue's Passage, and Glacial Chasm.
____

On topic, I'd say that it's no-holds-barred when it's down to 1v1. When there's no longer a political advantage to being coy, then I'm going to go ham.

Strong agree on both accounts. Once you're down to a showdown you end things however you can. And running at least spot LD is acceptable. MLD varies from meta to meta ofc, but with Coffers, Cradle, Maze, Sanctum, Field of the Dead and on and on, if you don't at least consider running Ghost Quarter, Field of Ruin, Terastodon or whatever budget land destruction you can you're a chump who's asking to be pubstomped. It doesn't necessarily mean going all in on Strip Mine variants, but having the option of leveling the odds for yourself is too good not to give yourself the option.

[Treamayne]

I feel like morality is not situation dependent.

If I don't want "it" in a casual multi-player game, I don't want it when that game is down to two players. I do play targeted land destruction (of course), but looping that option, breaking out MLD, or other options that I find distasteful when the table is full (inf. combo) do not become palatable when the game is 1:1. If the opponent wants to play "solitaire" when we get to the end-game, I'll let them. I would rather lose than participate in that game style... so once that intention is demonstrated I simply "draw-go" until they finish their solitaire.

[materpillar]

I had a game recently where someone got pretty mad at me for attacking their lands with cards like Strip Mine / Sun Titan, Venser, Shaper Savant and Agent of Treachery when the game ended up 1v1.

I am pretty primed to say once it's 1v1 the gloves are completely off and I'm going for the throat, but I wanted a quick gut check on this.

Personally, I find your lines of play mentioned here to be in extremely bad taste.

I'm really on the DirkGently boat here.

So I follow the mantra of "build casually, play competitively" 100%. I like cool decks but I play to win, baby.

I think first and foremost, my goal in a game of commander is to give everyone an enjoyable play experience to the fullest extent that that is possible. Obviously, you can't give everyone the best play experience. Winning is fun, and there is only one winner. Obviously, I enjoy winning, so I'd like that to be me. I don't want to win at the expense of everyone else though. You don't bring a cEDH deck to a pod of pre-cons. That is taking the enjoyment of winning for yourself at the expense of everyone else.

On the other side of things, intentionally throwing the game is giving your opponent the game at the expense of your opponent. No one likes the game to be handed to them. They want to struggle and persevere on their own skill. Not playing optimally will often leave an incredibly bad taste in other's mouths. Again, this not always the case, I've seen people intentionally suicide to allow another play to pull of his overly complicated and fairly moronic combo to the applause of everyone at the table.

Riding this fine line, changes game to game and opponent to opponent. It depends massively on how spiky your metagame is. It's pretty impossible to pull of correctly every time and yet it's what I strive for every game.

I want to create positive and enjoyable game states. I haven't found that anyone ever enjoy getting color/mana screwed by a Sun Titan + Strip Mine lock. No one likes to look at a hand of dead cards with their Command Tower sitting under your control because you played Agent of Treachery and have any semblance of positive emotion. Losing is usually (but not always) less fun than winning but I don't know anyone who feels that losing with a handful of dead spells because your opponent is constantly attacking your mana base to be any flavor of fun. So, yeah, I find your play lines to be distasteful.

Precisely. I'll stop playing Strip effects when people stop playing things like Gaea's Cradle, Serra's Sanctum, Maze of Ith, Rogue's Passage, and Glacial Chasm.
____

On topic, I'd say that it's no-holds-barred when it's down to 1v1. When there's no longer a political advantage to being coy, then I'm going to go ham.

There is a massive difference between Strip Mine your Gaea's Cradle and Strip Mine your Dimir Aqueduct. I think EDH as a whole would be improved if every Strip Mine magically turned into Ghost Quarter.

[Rorseph]

I think EDH as a whole would be improved if every Strip Mine magically turned into Ghost Quarter.

You might be on to something there. Ghost Quarter is really only punishing if you run zero basics, which is a questionable deckbuilding decision.

[pokken]

There is a massive difference between Strip Mine your Gaea's Cradle and Strip Mine your Dimir Aqueduct. I think EDH as a whole would be improved if every Strip Mine magically turned into Ghost Quarter.

This piece I disagree with pretty emphatically. When someone gives up one of their lands to stop a big problem land, ramping the opponent is a horrible punishment and why I never play gq.

The rest I appreciate your perspective for sure. I think I've concluded that I will do what I can to avoid punishing mana when games come down to 1v1 - if I have the lock via some other method I'll use that instead.

I still think it's wrong to throw the game by not using land hate but I usually can tell whether my other avenues are as sure as strip mining.

I think EDH as a whole would be improved if every Strip Mine magically turned into Ghost Quarter.

You might be on to something there. Ghost Quarter is really only punishing if you run zero basics, which is a questionable deckbuilding decision.

No. You don't want to ramp the guy who's playing problematic lands