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

[Rorseph]

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

LOL

I mean, fair, but it's not exactly *ramp* in this case. Not like Path to Exile or Assassin's Trophy are ramp, in any event. From my perspective, it's at best value neutral for them. They lose a Cabal Coffers or Gaea's Cradle and get a Swamp or a Forest. An unfair land for a fair land?

[pokken]

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

LOL

I mean, fair, but it's not exactly *ramp* in this case. Not like Path to Exile or Assassin's Trophy are ramp, in any event. From my perspective, it's at best value neutral for them. They lose a Cabal Coffers or Gaea's Cradle and get a Swamp or a Forest. An unfair land for a fair land?

Well it ramps them relative to you since you go down a land and they go up a land Then when they play it from their graveyard next turn you're back even further.

Path to Exile and Assassin's Trophy are definitely ramp, they go up a land and not even down a card in the trade. I rarely play Path for this reason personally

Basically whoever ghost quarters someone is putting themselves behind the entire table to help deal with a problematic land. Veto I say. I'd play Field of Ruin first and I hate that one even more since it puts everyone else +1 land BLEH.

[WizardMN]

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.

Coming from a player that loves his utility lands (especially in Karador), I agree with this as well. I have had games end, or at least get out of control, because I couldn't get rid of a Field of the Dead or an Alchemist's Refuge. People have slowed me down by getting rid of my Diamond Valley. There is nothing wrong with spot removal for lands. The mindset that it is bad, which Wizards tends to share, is why Field of the Dead got banned in Standard (and maybe some other format; I don't remember).

As to the topic at hand, the play was solid and I would have no problem being the opponent in that case. If it was 3 players in the game, I had the fewest lands, and I was being targeted like that, I would probably be pretty upset. If I had the most lands, or the strongest board state, I would understand it but still probably be a little miffed.

But, once we get to 1v1, the game is now cutthroat. I don't build decks to win on turn 3 or anything but once it gets down to me and another person, I am doing everything to win that game. The player I am attempting to beat at least got second (or, I at least get second if I lose here). There is no reason to pull punches at this stage. The game is less about making sure my opponent has a good time and more about just ending it.

I enjoy the 1v1 aspects of a game, if I survive that long, because now the game is more about tight play and navigating certain lines. You don't get bailed out of a mistake because there are other people for your opponent(s) to focus on. It is just you and one other player trying to play their best Magic. I don't think the line outlined in the OP is wrong once the game gets to that point and I would have no problem scooping it up and saying "good game" in this situation. I outlasted 2 other people and did my best to win.

As was suggested earlier by 3drinks: if we get to this stage of the game, and the opponent isn't playing their hardest, it is a hollow victory. I don't want to win and then hear "good thing I didn't blow up 5 of your lands; I could have had that game". I don't want a win tainted when the obvious clear play is to just shut me down when it is just 1v1. I want the player to go for it and, if I can manage to come back from it, it makes the win all that much sweeter. And it makes the story of that victory so much better.

So, yeah, I think the mindset for multiplayer of "let's try to all have a fun game and enjoy ourselves" goes out the window once it is no longer multiplayer.

[pokken]

<snipped a little for space>

But, once we get to 1v1, the game is now cutthroat. I don't build decks to win on turn 3 or anything but once it gets down to me and another person, I am doing everything to win that game.

I enjoy the 1v1 aspects of a game, if I survive that long, because now the game is more about tight play and navigating certain lines. You don't get bailed out of a mistake because there are other people for your opponent(s) to focus on.

As was suggested earlier by 3drinks: if we get to this stage of the game, and the opponent isn't playing their hardest, it is a hollow victory.

So, yeah, I think the mindset for multiplayer of "let's try to all have a fun game and enjoy ourselves" goes out the window once it is no longer multiplayer.

This is pretty darned close to exactly how I feel up to and including enjoying the tournament-style play aspect of knocking a game down to 1v1 sometimes. I played a lot of tournament magic (3+ years of modern fnm every night with a top notch competitive crowd and playing some ptqs and stuff) and so my mindset shifts that way when it's 1v1.


An interesting side-point that I've seen come up is essentially the question of:
"Why would you play stuff like Strip Mine recursion effects or Agent of Treachery that are going to be really oppressive in 1v1?"

To which my answer is, I think, that everything feels oppressive when someone is devoting their entire deck to beating you. Most decks cannot beat Forbid 1v1 either. I am having a hard time understanding the difference between having all your spells countered vs. not having mana to cast them in 1v1. In multiplayer having your stuff removed by sweepers eventually feels quite a bit different than having literally everything you do removed/countered instantly.

But some folks have chimed in that they think otherwise - that some things are more annoying in 1v1 - which was not really a perspective I'd considered. Still noodling on that one.

I feel like the decision between slow-rolling someone and strip mining them is pretty much a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't scenario unfortunately. If you lose the game to slow rolling you gave them a condescending victory and if you don't you're being a jerk strip mining people.

[Sheldon]

Completely off. When it's just two, get the game done so you can start a new one with everyone.

[materpillar]

I am having a hard time understanding the difference between having all your spells countered vs. not having mana to cast them in 1v1. In multiplayer having your stuff removed by sweepers eventually feels quite a bit different than having literally everything you do removed/countered instantly.

This is a completely meta-game based answer. If you play with a crowd of very invested legacy players for example, they're probably very used to getting attacked with Wasteland + Wrenn and Six. Hence, getting slowly locked out of the game with Strip Mine and Sun Titan is probably closer to an emotional shrug and shuffle up again. Clearly, the opponent whose complaints inspired this thread was not a person like this.

If you topdeck and cast Avacyn, Angel of Hope and your opponent immediately Swords to Plowshares her. Kinda sucks, but it happens. Avacyn is super strong and would have won you the game. This is why people run removal. If you topdeck avacyn and look down at 6WW and your Command Tower that's sitting in the graveyard because your opponent killed it with Strip Mine. Functionally, the game-state is basically identical, but the later one tends to feel way worse. Because you're so close to being able to cast Avacyn, Angel of Hope, it's easy to imagine how casting her would have sealed up the game for you. The longer the strip mine lock goes on, the more and more cards are going to pile up uncastably in your hand. The more and more cards that pile up there the worse its going to feel as the cards taunt you with their alternative timelines of how if they'd hit the stack how they'd have lead you to glorious victory.

Casting cool magic cards that require answers allow you to ask your opponent "Do you have an answer or do I win?" Casting cards gives you some semblance of power and agency. If you strip away opponents abilities to cast spells, then your opponents don't even get to ask "Do you have an answer?" They don't get to do anything. They don't get to play magic any more, they just get to sit there and watch you play the game that they want to be playing.

This is pretty darned close to exactly how I feel up to and including enjoying the tournament-style play aspect of knocking a game down to 1v1 sometimes. I played a lot of tournament magic (3+ years of modern fnm every night with a top notch competitive crowd and playing some ptqs and stuff) and so my mindset shifts that way when it's 1v1.

An interesting side-point that I've seen come up is essentially the question of:
"Why would you play stuff like Strip Mine recursion effects or Agent of Treachery that are going to be really oppressive in 1v1?"

Do you think it is more acceptable for me to put Solemnity and Decree of Silence onto the board if I have only 1 opponent left than if I have 3 opponents left?

Is Sun Titan + Strip Mine locking one opponent out of the game more acceptable than using Rite of Replication on a Sun Titan with Strip mine to lock 3 opponents out of the game?

I tend to lean away from cards that are extremely oppressive when its 1v1 or 1v3. Games need to end, you need to play cards that kill folks. You need to play answers to kill things that'll kill you. I like winning and that's just how magic works. I'll be extremely happy if my decks never have the adjective "oppressive" applied to them or anything in them.

[pokken]

I think there's a distinction between the two scenarios in that solemnity decree is not an incidental interaction. I have strip mine and sun titan in my deck for independent reasons. I'm not sure solemnity has many applications outside of combos.

Although I am fine with decree solemnity as an expensive awkward combo against 3 players so I may not be the one to ask.

[WizardMN]

Do you think it is more acceptable for me to put Solemnity and Decree of Silence onto the board if I have only 1 opponent left than if I have 3 opponents left?

Yes, for sure. I mean, the reason for Decree is already to try to lock out 3 players anyway, but if you only have 1 opponent it becomes less of an issue. With 3 opponents it is a feel bad where no one gets to play anymore. With 1, you end the game (more or less) and move onto the next one.

Is Sun Titan + Strip Mine locking one opponent out of the game more acceptable than using Rite of Replication on a Sun Titan with Strip mine to lock 3 opponents out of the game?

While I understand what you are trying to get at, this particular play doesn't do anything. Not within the context of what you are asking anyway. Having a billion Sun Titans doesn't change the fact that you only have one Strip Mine to recur. And you are only going to recur it once per turn still.

To answer the question though: again, yes. If it is 1v1, do whatever you want to win.

[materpillar]

I think there's a distinction between the two scenarios in that solemnity decree is not an incidental interaction. I have strip mine and sun titan in my deck for independent reasons. I'm not sure solemnity has many applications outside of combos.

Although I am fine with decree solemnity as an expensive awkward combo against 3 players so I may not be the one to ask.

Bear with me, it's extremely hard for me to create a 1-1 metaphor here. Accidentally locking 3 players out of a game of magic is going to always be significantly more mana intensive and difficult than accidentally locking 1 player out of the game. Solemnity + Decree of Silence was just the most succinct example I could think of off hand.

Let me try again using Forbid for example. I think that card is pretty toxic overall. I highly doubt I'll ever put it in an EDH deck ever. I don't even want to stumble into Forbid locking someone 1v1. I've been forbid locked before, I don't find it to be a particularly pleasing experience. I'd rather not put others through it either.

On the other hand, I'd imagine that if one of your decks randomly stumbles into Seedborn Muse + some random draw engine that you're going to immediately Forbid lock the entire table (again, I'm aware this isn't a complete hard lock but I'm trying not to bog down the example). I'd hazard a guess that your "gloves" are more frequently based on mana constraints than they are based on ethical or ideological constraints. For clarity, no judgement here. Personally, spiky play just isn't really my jam. I just want to cast me some Chromium and equip her with Sword of Fire and Ice. That type of gameplay is just utterly incompatible with strip mine hitting my non-utility lands.

Yes, for sure. I mean, the reason for Decree is already to try to lock out 3 players anyway, but if you only have 1 opponent it becomes less of an issue. With 3 opponents it is a feel bad where no one gets to play anymore. With 1, you end the game (more or less) and move onto the next one.

I don't understand your logic.
With 1 opponent, all of your opponents can't play spells anymore. You more or less end the game and move onto the next one.
With 3 opponents, all of your opponents can't play spells anymore. You more or less end the game and move onto the next one.

Why is one of these feels bad and one is not?

Is Sun Titan + Strip Mine locking one opponent out of the game more acceptable than using Rite of Replication on a Sun Titan with Strip mine to lock 3 opponents out of the game?

While I understand what you are trying to get at, this particular play doesn't do anything. Not within the context of what you are asking anyway. Having a billion Sun Titans doesn't change the fact that you only have one Strip Mine to recur. And you are only going to recur it once per turn still.

I forgot Sun Titan targets. Pretend it doesn't, so you can loop and sacrifice the Strip Mine between triggers.

If you insist and are ok with my metaphors getting bloated, assume you have Strip Mine, Wasteland, Tectonic Edge, field of ruin and Ghost Quarters and your opponents have only non-basics.

[WizardMN]

Yes, for sure. I mean, the reason for Decree is already to try to lock out 3 players anyway, but if you only have 1 opponent it becomes less of an issue. With 3 opponents it is a feel bad where no one gets to play anymore. With 1, you end the game (more or less) and move onto the next one.

I don't understand your logic.
With 1 opponent, all of your opponents can't play spells anymore. You more or less end the game and move onto the next one.
With 3 opponents, all of your opponents can't play spells anymore. You more or less end the game and move onto the next one.

Why is one of these feels bad and one is not?

Because in the former, 2 players still got to (presumably) play and had a chance at surviving. And, perhaps more importantly, one player *was* able to navigate to the game to get to the point of surviving to get locked out.

Yes, I realize what (I think) you are getting at, but having 3 players playing the game only for it to stop suddenly for the entire table isn't fun for 3 people. Having it stop suddenly for one player happens all the time. Most of the time when that one player loses, but it can stop suddenly for any number of reasons.

Is Sun Titan + Strip Mine locking one opponent out of the game more acceptable than using Rite of Replication on a Sun Titan with Strip mine to lock 3 opponents out of the game?

While I understand what you are trying to get at, this particular play doesn't do anything. Not within the context of what you are asking anyway. Having a billion Sun Titans doesn't change the fact that you only have one Strip Mine to recur. And you are only going to recur it once per turn still.

I forgot Sun Titan targets. Pretend it doesn't, so you can loop and sacrifice the Strip Mine between triggers.

If you insist and are ok with my metaphors getting bloated, assume you have Strip Mine, Wasteland, Tectonic Edge, field of ruin and Ghost Quarters and your opponents have only non-basics.

I already accepted the premise of the question and answered it above: yes, it is more acceptable to do that to one person than an entire table. I will grant that at least with that scenario there is a turn or two before players are totally blown out where they can respond since you have 3 working against one, but doing it against one person isn't really a big deal. Setting up a lock against the entire table so no one can play is worse than just locking the last player in the game out.

[3drinks]

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

Found the entitled ramp player. Don't be @BeneTleilax, worst take in the thread folks.

Please don't make personal attacks- cryo

[Airi]

Gloves start off, and stay off. If there's something I'm unwilling to do to an opponent, that is a consideration for deckbuilding. Once it comes to playing, I'll do whatever means I now have at my disposal to win.

Granted, I don't play a lot of combo and have predominately relied on combat damage as my main win condition, So usually I'm 1v1 against whoever I think is the biggest threat as it is.

[DirkGently]

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

Found the entitled ramp player. Don't be BeneTleilax, worst take in the thread folks.

In the context of strip mine effects, accusing them of being a ramp player doesn't make much sense. Ramp is generally less effected by targeted LD than other archetypes. Though I also disagree with him since I think strip mine and co are generally beneficial to the format in most applications, since there are a lot of spooky lands running about.

MLD is a different question - personally I think 'geddon fits into roughly the same category as Biorhythm and Upheaval. Fine, fair-ish effects in 1v1 that scale disproportionately in the context of a long multiplayer game.

[3drinks]

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

Found the entitled ramp player. Don't be BeneTleilax, worst take in the thread folks.

In the context of strip mine effects, accusing them of being a ramp player doesn't make much sense. Ramp is generally less effected by targeted LD than other archetypes. Though I also disagree with him since I think strip mine and co are generally beneficial to the format in most applications, since there are a lot of spooky lands running about.

MLD is a different question - personally I think 'geddon fits into roughly the same category as Biorhythm and Upheaval. Fine, fair-ish effects in 1v1 that scale disproportionately in the context of a long multiplayer game.

The post in question is about mana denial as a whole, from my read. In every one of my experiences, the people that complain the loudest about their lands being some kind of a sacred cow are the same ones that want to stare judging upon the table from atop their throne of 37 lands and a Mana Reflection Nyxbloom Ancient about how slamming big plays is "the spirit of the format". Literally the most garbage, entitled take you can have.

MLD is a tool that has a horrible reputation because trolls cast it as a completely random play "lolz look what I can do". Or it's made to be a scapegoat crutch people lean on to not build failsafes into their decks and instead have room for one more bomb/pet card. In the hands of responsible players, it's a powerful counterbalance to certain strategies.

[pokken]

want to stare judging upon the table from atop their throne of 37 lands and a Nyxbloom Ancient

I feel a little attacked by this I'm not gonna lie I do think we're drifting a little off topic but I also think there is a thread there about the current state of ramp in the format. There is a *lot* to say about WOTC's shameless hyper-enabling of ramp as the king strategy of casual EDH with nonsense cards like Nyxbloom Ancient and Golos, Tireless Pilgrim. And also about the journey to the point we are at now - Ramp has had far different levels of ascendancy throughout the history of commander, coming in waves and so on.

If we keep the context to gloves in multiplayer vs. heads up, I definitely do think that MLD is less annoying to me in single player -- say you can absolutely close the game out by casting Catastrophe for lands when the game is down to heads up, I don't mind that.

[3drinks]

want to stare judging upon the table from atop their throne of 37 lands and a Nyxbloom Ancient

I feel a little attacked by this I'm not gonna lie

You play Golos, you're not allowed to be safe from my crusade against ramp. 👀👀

[umtiger]

To me "gloves off" typically means one of two things: MLD or Infinite Combos

1.) Would the salty player have responded the same way if you just went infinite on him instead (ala Deadeye + Palinchron)? or does his preference for salt only entitle him to indestructible lands?

2.) Why some players are okay with one thing but not another is strange to me? It's like picking and choosing which rules to follow. Which I guess some EDH tables do (eg. poison is 20 not 10, strange mulligans, etc .).

3..) This isn't even MLD, so I'm already inclined to feel this player gets incredibly salty over actual MLD. Was this just simply a case of an opponent who is a sore loser?

[pokken]

Was this just simply a case of an opponent who is a sore loser?

Maybe. But I try not to just throw away people's emotional experiences because of that possibility. If someone has a bad time playing with me I want to at least reflect on it even if I don't ultimately agree.

I think one of the things that we haven't talked about is that many people who have less experience in the format have less ability to read the board state. Lots of times I have a game completely sewn up - like there's nothing they could draw that would change the course of the game - and people really and truly think they are still in it.

I don't mean that snootily or anything because on the flipside I can usually read the board as to whether I have any chance of winning as well.

Once I know I can't win it changes my attitude toward the game to basically nothing you do is going to make me salty, and that's a personal thing I guess. If I don't wanna watch you finish it off I can scoop.

That might just be a peculiarity of my experience though.

[Inkeyes22]

Was this just simply a case of an opponent who is a sore loser?

Maybe. But I try not to just throw away people's emotional experiences because of that possibility. If someone has a bad time playing with me I want to at least reflect on it even if I don't ultimately agree.

QFT! Maybe because of the current environment or despite it, it would be awesome if this attitude was more wide spread.

[Gashnaw]

In most games, when it ends up 1v1, the game is ending really soon. So really take the gloves off and rip them apart.

[Artaud]

Gloves off but be wary of Covid-19 without them

[CrazyPierre]

Think once you are two players end it asap so we can start a new pod.
Prior, discuss power levels with your friends and go from there.