Pre-Game Politics and Decisions (Should they happen?)

User avatar
FoxM1
I'm certainly something
Posts: 17
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by FoxM1 » 4 years ago

I am sure there have been games where you sit down with 3 other people and look at the commanders and think to yourself, "I am definitely going after the [insert unfun commander here] player. His [not fun combo] combo is not fun at all."

Now, the question I want to ask is, is this acceptable? Is it better to just deal with the game at hand and deal with politics and decision when in the match? To bring up an even greater question, is it acceptable to hold a grudge from previous matches? This just seems to always be the case in the groups that I play in. I will admit, I have had my times where I just really want someone to suffer for a previous game, but I feel like it doesn't make for fun games when I just try to target someone the whole time.

Do you guys ever deal with this? Do you think this is okay to do? Most importantly, do you think this helps or hurts games to be fun?

User avatar
Sinis
Posts: 2034
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Sinis » 4 years ago

FoxM1 wrote:
4 years ago
Now, the question I want to ask is, is this acceptable?
Yes.

If you sit down at a table with Aryel, Knight of Windgrace, Odric, Lunarch Marshal and Urza, High Lord Artificier, I think it's totally reasonable to consider Urza the threat and attack them first.

I think it increases the fun to not just ignore a player who will probably win first.

Edit: When someone shows up with a tier 1 general, I ask about the powerlevel of their deck. Sometimes people are trying to do something interesting with generals that are super strong, but, I'm suspicious if it's someone I don't know. Pubstompers are real.

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

Post by DirkGently » 4 years ago

Basing your initial threat assessment on the commanders at the table is totally reasonable and just good strategy. BUT you shouldn't overcommit to that assessment. If (as in Sinis's example) Aryel plays chains of mephistopheles and Urza plays out a bronze sable then you might need to reassess a tad.

As far as prior games, that gives you a lot more information - so if Urza is jank-artifact-creature-tribal and Aryel is stax you'll know that going into game 2. I know some people will say "well, he attacked me last game, so for that he MUST PAY" or whatever, and I wouldn't do that - but I would absolutely use my knowledge of how powerful the decks are when making decisions. It's less about what specifically happened in the previous game, and more about what I've learned about their decks.

Exception for if someone renegs on a deal they made. You do that, it's going to be a very very long time before I trust you again. And you can expect that, because I can't broker any truces with you, I will treat you as an increased threat accordingly.

I think it does make games better - knowing who's playing busted stuff, and what that busted stuff is, makes it easier to answer that stuff and keep the game going to a satisfying ending instead of getting nuked T4 because you didn't know what was happening. And on the flip side, it lets you take it easier on decks that aren't a real threat, so our poor theoretical casual Urza player can have a little fun even if their odds of winning are still low.

tl;dr: Use information to make smarter decisions, not hold grudges.
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
materpillar
the caterpillar
Posts: 1299
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Ohio

Post by materpillar » 4 years ago

There are an handful of various flavors of Niv-Mizzet decks in my metagame, Whenever I encounter a Niv-Mizzet deck, I assume that the pilot of that deck is always holding Curiosity in their hand until explicitly proven otherwise. This means that I will actively attack and hinder the Niv-Mizzet player, even if they have effectively zero current board state and my other opponents have rather substantial board states. This is because a somewhat scary board state that might kill me in the near future actually isn't nearly as threatening as my opponent going "I cast Niv-Mizzet. I cast Curiosity. I cast a cantrip, you all die."

I have no problems with that line of play at all. However in terms of maximizing my win percentage, killing the commander that almost 100% has an "oops I win" combo even when they look very down is still significantly more optimal than dealing with a threat that'll kill me in 2-4 turns. The more unfair your deck is, the more I'm going to ignore the fair deck to deal with you first. Unfair decks are cool and fun to play with and against. They do unfair things though, and thus need to be significantly more respected.

To put it another way, if your deck has the potential to kill me the split-second my shields go down. It's worth lowering my shields to another player who isn't going to immediately murder me to kill you, so I don't lose later when my shields inevitably go down to something. That isn't even about being fun or not fun, it's just being tactically smart.
FoxM1 wrote:
4 years ago
To bring up an even greater question, is it acceptable to hold a grudge from previous matches? This just seems to always be the case in the groups that I play in. I will admit, I have had my times where I just really want someone to suffer for a previous game, but I feel like it doesn't make for fun games when I just try to target someone the whole time.
I don't think holding grudges is a good habit at all. Holding over bitterness from a previous game is going to cast a shadow over your next game, it's going to most likely cause a cascading negatively and most likely drastically throw off your threat analysis. Adapting your game plan is different though. I stepped into a new meta-game recently, in this new area almost everyone extensively abuses their graveyard. After the first week I went out and bought a Relic of Progenitus and Scavenging Ground for all 3 the decks I primarily play. It isn't because I'm angry, bitter, or holding a grudge. I just found out that in this area graveyards need killing, so I've brought the necessary answers to not die.

User avatar
Sinis
Posts: 2034
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Sinis » 4 years ago

I definitely agree with [mention]DirkGently[/mention]'s and [mention]materpillar[/mention]'s points about grudges.

Grudges are not good decision-making information. It's easy to mistake a grudge for information about how threatening a player's deck is, if they play the same commander multiple times in a row (i.e. "He won last game, so that means he must be the most threatening!").

I find the best ways to post-mortem a game is to divorce it entirely from the pilot of the winning deck. How did they win? Was it 'out of nowhere' or were there signs I did not recognize or otherwise ignored? Did I make play mistakes that permitted them to win (i.e. poorly spending counterspells or removal)? Did I make bad political choices that empowered a player I shouldn't have?

There are lots of ways to lose a game. I find it to be a rare exception that I lose a game because another player simply did not want me to win, and did everything they could to ensure I lost (those players have never won the same game they've done this in). A grudge, set in terms of believing that a particular pilot is going to be the greatest threat to you winning, may be justified in that unless they're eliminated they will ensure you lose, and that justifies you treating them as a threat (though, you're not forced to answer anything until you're a target of it).

That said, grudges are rarely justified in terms of a legitimate factor in threat assessment.

User avatar
toctheyounger
Posts: 3984
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Post by toctheyounger » 4 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
tl;dr: Use information to make smarter decisions, not hold grudges.
This, so much. It's totally reasonable to be wary of someone running, say, Daretti - but be prepared to adjust your assessments if they don't run Mycosynth Lattice or Metalworker. Most of your in-game decisions should be made based on the game at hand, but it's totally fine to be wary. Example - if I see Oloro, I will expect to see Blood/Bond, and I'll probably hold up removal for either piece, but if I don't see it I'll look at the boardstate for the biggest actual threat, rather than the biggest perceived threat.

First impressions are important, but....not TOO important.
Malazan Decks of the Fallen
| Shadowthrone/Lazav | Raest/Yidris | T'iam / The Ur-Dragon |

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Commander”