Would you accept kingmaking to win?

[materpillar]

The closer the game is to its natural conclusion the more ok I am with kingmaking. Sometimes you just get in that situation where if you attack Player A, Player B will win. If you don't attack Player A, Player A is going to untap and win. You're toast either way, now you have to decide who is winning. Sometimes that's how the cookie crumbles. I'll definitely take those wins.

On the other side of things there's randomly casting Obliterate when some else has Avacyn, Angel of Hope on the battlefield during a massively complicated boardstate. Maybe don't?

I will always decline this behavior. I don't think it's very sporting and it doesn't feel like my deck won when someone just gave up and applied their resources to me.

Slightly related. I'm also ok with people burning all their removal on the person who is killing them to help someone else win, sometimes I build my deck to take advantage of this. I've been kingmade because my opponent was playing Golos, Tireless Pilgrim snorefest and I sat down with Tivadar of Thorn. I'll take those wins (again assuming the game was getting towards its natural conclusion).

[DirkGently]

The closer the game is to its natural conclusion the more ok I am with kingmaking. Sometimes you just get in that situation where if you attack Player A, Player B will win. If you don't attack Player A, Player A is going to untap and win. You're toast either way, now you have to decide who is winning. Sometimes that's how the cookie crumbles. I'll definitely take those wins.

On the other side of things there's randomly casting Obliterate when some else has Avacyn, Angel of Hope on the battlefield during a massively complicated boardstate. Maybe don't?

I will always decline this behavior. I don't think it's very sporting and it doesn't feel like my deck won when someone just gave up and applied their resources to me.

Slightly related. I'm also ok with people burning all their removal on the person who is killing them to help someone else win, sometimes I build my deck to take advantage of this. I've been kingmade because my opponent was playing Golos, Tireless Pilgrim snorefest and I sat down with Tivadar of Thorn. I'll take those wins (again assuming the game was getting towards its natural conclusion).

I did my best to clarify the definition I'm working from because I don't mean the traditional definition of kingmaking - obviously there will be times where you're forced to decide and it is what it is, it's hard to criticize that sort of move on sportsmanship grounds since there's no way to avoid it. If that helps you when, then sometimes that's just how it goes.

I'm talking about someone making moves intentionally to help another person without any goal of benefitting themselves.

I also wouldn't call playing a deck with a lower power level in order to push your enemies into taking each other out kingmaking on any level, by any definition. Defending yourself isn't kingmaking.

[materpillar]

I did my best to clarify the definition I'm working from because I don't mean the traditional definition of kingmaking - obviously there will be times where you're forced to decide and it is what it is, it's hard to criticize that sort of move on sportsmanship grounds since there's no way to avoid it. If that helps you when, then sometimes that's just how it goes.

I'm talking about someone making moves intentionally to help another person without any goal of benefitting themselves.

I also wouldn't call playing a deck with a lower power level in order to push your enemies into taking each other out kingmaking on any level, by any definition. Defending yourself isn't kingmaking.

I guess I mean the closer someone is to being dead the more ok I am with receiving Kingmaking from that person. The more I have personally persuaded the table that one of my opponents is "the enemy" the more I'm ok with supporting suicidal strikes against said person.

There's randomly casting Obliterate when I have Avacyn, Angel of Hope on the battlefield during a massively complicated boardstate. I don't need your kingmaking pity win help. Then, there's people sacrificing their hand/boardstate for the greater good of taking down the archenemy Golos, Tireless Pilgrim goodstuff so that my meme deck can win. Picture related.


Both plays can be equally suicidal and have similar results. It kind of just depends on the exact situation. As a rule of thumb,, the later the gamestate has become the more ok I am with it. Familiar with the "death curse" idea from the Dresden Files? Basically you use your last thoughts as you die to magic nuke whoever is killing you. I'll totally weaponize other opponents' "death curses" against other players. If players aren't mostly dead I don't really want their kingmaking help. Doesn't need to be actually dead on board 0% chance of them winning but their win % has to be way down.

[PrimevalCommander]

My conclusion in the other thread was mostly to avoid taking parting shots if I am going to slow the resolution of the game down. But I've got a few exceptions like if I think the person is wrong in targeting me and needs to pay for their threat assessment

There are definitely psychological advantages to people knowing that you're going to hurt them on the way out though I guess, just depends on if people are obstinate in the face of consequences. Some people are very much "if you make a threat I will come at you and make you have it" which is another mostly rational strategy for minimizing threats if you don't like being strongarmed.

Just so many layers do this that I don't think you can say it's right or wrong, got to think about maximizing everyone's enjoyment.

Another kinda situation I forgot to discuss is that if it's someone who doesn't win a lot I'm a lot less inclined to parting shot them since I like seeing people who rarely get wins get theirs. Not enough that I'll kingmake but it does incline me to hold off parting shot removal.

I am alighed with Pokken's logic. I voted Maybe. Mostly for the reasons above, and he already typed them all out for me.

I've helped a newer player, or someone who doesn't win or play much win by knocking down other experienced players before I die. Just helps the underdog have a chance at victory. Overall I don't really try to do the MAX DAMAGE if I'm about to die. I don't like that type of negative reiforcement. I don't hardly ever Strip Mine opponent's lands in the face of demise. I don't like seeing it happen either.

Also I don't like being threatened, and have been known to call a bluff, consequences be damned. Depends on how confident I am that I can play around it, what position my target is in, or how likely I am to eat the removal anyway. If there is a Big Cannon [/card] on a hair trigger, I may as well trip it because otherwise letting that player untap just means everyone loses except just me.

[pokken]

Also I don't like being threatened, and have been known to call a bluff, consequences be damned

Yea, I've been thinking a lot about the place of threats like "if you attack me, I will remove that" type things in commander and really what those maneuvers are is an attempt to gain card advantage through words (because you don't have to spend your card to achieve something). That's almost a thread in itself I think heh.

There's a particular class of player I think of as enfranchised players, usually guys who have lots of interaction in their decks and win a high percentage of games by playing tighter magic than other people. I am one of these people too ofc, but I also kind of enjoy spoiling their day by forcing them to deal with me where in previous years I would have tried to hold onto my stuff by caving

I try not to make these threats anymore unless I think they're really making an incorrect table read; say player A is going to swing out at me, and I can stop it with removal, but player B is presenting a combo on their turn and I am in poor position, I'll consider trotting out the politics I guess.

Although more and more often I just shut my mouth and remove stuff and let games end. You can really drag a game out by talking about everything and essentially 3v1'ing everyone who is ahead.

[Nimbaway]

Their logic about playing Kingmaker that game definitely defines my opinion to it. I can get behind the whole going for revenge or in the least trying to secure second place while not stalling out a game. The other reason I'm open to it is when it encourages a fun or interesting play. But I will also say that it depends on the table and with how serious everyone is about the games, as with my generally more casual meta having fun plays just adds to the experience of everyone.

That said, it shouldn't be a habit or be against the same person all the time. Everyone should be allowed their fun and being repeatedly costed a game due to kingmaking is not that, not should one just be playing for second place all the time because there is this one player that keeps winning. When that happens you should be talking about that situation before the next game instead of just accepting defeat with politicking.

[Rumpy5897]

There's just about always some ulterior motive behind such actions. I don't think I've ever met a true "play for second" hug deck which just handed stuff out and hoped for the best. The closest I came was encountering a rather shrewd political deck that was very deliberate with the gifts that it offered, aiming to turn stuff around in the long term and trick you in some fashion. I learned quite a bit about political deck construction by watching him in action. Interestingly, one of the guys in my group wasn't having any of it, and beelined that deck into the dirt every single time he went up against it. I wasn't as fussed by the game plan.

If defining "kingmaking" as influencing which non-me player gets to win the game, I have no gripes doing this. If someone tries to break a deadlock and take me out, and I can't quite keep myself alive, I'll still happily blow every last bit of interaction I can on the way out to "thank" the player for knocking me out. I do this consciously to sculpt the group dynamic and keep future aggro off myself. This means that people are more likely to prep better before going in against me, which in turn buys me more time to set myself up.

Xantcha remote voltron is a lovely, lovely deck that has very little game in the final 1v1. As such, the kingmaking call-out is quite apt - congratulations, you got the Xantcha, be my minion and then beat me once everyone else is dead. I tried to get some game in the final duel by including stuff like Phage. Remote voltron unblockability now lets me cheese a one-shot. This wasn't ultimately a particularly fun gameplay pattern and the deck died. Bummer, I really like the idea minus the final bit.

[NZB2323]

I know this topic is bigger than the scenario I brought up in the other thread, but I just want to defend my original position. It was clear the Omnath, Locus of Rage player was about to go off, so I made my move to take out the strongest player with a Starlit Sanctum. He told me not to, that he would kill everyone else the next turn, and then I could kill him with the Sanctum.

If I decided to wait on the Sanctum and we never made a deal out loud the outcome would likely have been the same, since the Sanctum would have deterred him from attacking me. If I hadn't been playing at all the outcome would have been the same: him killing all the other players. If I decided to kill him right away then he would have to wait and watch until the game was over and other players would have to do the same as each of us got eliminated, until there was a winner. Because the game ended quickly, we were able to quickly start a new game with everyone playing.

I guess I was told that politics is part of commander, and don't really see what sort of sportsmanship rule I broke. If the playgroup told me before the game that making deals was against their rules that would be a different story.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

If I decided to wait on the Sanctum and we never made a deal out loud the outcome would likely have been the same, since the Sanctum would have deterred him from attacking me. If I hadn't been playing at all the outcome would have been the same: him killing all the other players. If I decided to kill him right away then he would have to wait and watch until the game was over and other players would have to do the same as each of us got eliminated, until there was a winner. Because the game ended quickly, we were able to quickly start a new game with everyone playing.

Emphasis mine. If the outcome would have been the same, why make the deal at all? You didn't actually save any time. If you have lethal on board, you could have easily waited until an opportune moment (say, after he attacked the other players for lethal) and killed him at your leisure. If he tried to gain life, for example, you could have killed him in response to the trigger/effect/spell. I just don't see a need to let your opponent have undue leverage over the course of the game even in the scenario you described. No overt deal was warranted or needed, but the win is (imo) tainted by the deal. You may see it differently and that is fine.

I guess I was told that politics is part of commander, and don't really see what sort of sportsmanship rule I broke. If the playgroup told me before the game that making deals was against their rules that would be a different story.

I don't think you broke any "rules" per se, I just disagree with the methodology, as do some others. Look at the poll though; people like Dirk, 3drinks, and I are clearly in the minority. This topic was inspired by you, but in no way is meant to attack your decisions or you personally. I think Dirk was just curious as to what the other forum denizens thought about the topic and wanted to discuss it in more depth than the back & forth between you two could provide.

[pokken]

I know this topic is bigger than the scenario I brought up in the other thread, but I just want to defend my original position. It was clear the Omnath, Locus of Rage player was about to go off, so I made my move to take out the strongest player with a Starlit Sanctum. He told me not to, that he would kill everyone else the next turn, and then I could kill him with the Sanctum.

If I decided to wait on the Sanctum and we never made a deal out loud the outcome would likely have been the same, since the Sanctum would have deterred him from attacking me. If I hadn't been playing at all the outcome would have been the same: him killing all the other players. If I decided to kill him right away then he would have to wait and watch until the game was over and other players would have to do the same as each of us got eliminated, until there was a winner. Because the game ended quickly, we were able to quickly start a new game with everyone playing.

I guess I was told that politics is part of commander, and don't really see what sort of sportsmanship rule I broke. If the playgroup told me before the game that making deals was against their rules that would be a different story.

I would never blame the person who is the beneficiary of the kingmaking deal (my personal refusal to take such deals notwithstanding).

It's the dude who made the deal that was nonsense. If he couldn't win, why give you the game? He gets nothing out of it. He lost.

If he's angling for some way to win sure, but he's just making the outcome of the game goofy because nonsense reasons.

Edit: That said, this is a pretty clear cut example of something Dirk and I tangented on earlier which is someone basically trying to shorten the game on their way out. I can see that being pretty dang annoying for the other people when I think of it from this perspective.

[DirkGently]

Interestingly I find myself slightly sympathetic to the revenge narrative. If someone constantly dogged me all game beyond the scope of reasonable threat assessment, even if they weren't the person who dealt the final blow, if I had some instant-speed pain to dish out (but not enough to save me) I could see aiming it at that person on the way out.

The "getting second" narrative, on the other hand, I find totally unacceptable. I haaaate it when stores, doing some sort of multiplayer tournament structure, give any sort of reward for second place. Second place is, imo, utterly meaningless. If anything, getting second frequently means you were the weakest player in the game. When I'm in a dominant position and looking to secure my win, the first person I'm usually going to kill is going to be whoever is the second strongest, and so on down the line. And if I'm not in the winning position, that's probably the person I'm trying to bring down. I would usually expect the first person to die to be the strongest or second strongest at the table, and the last to die to be the weakest.

I know this topic is bigger than the scenario I brought up in the other thread, but I just want to defend my original position. It was clear the Omnath, Locus of Rage player was about to go off, so I made my move to take out the strongest player with a Starlit Sanctum. He told me not to, that he would kill everyone else the next turn, and then I could kill him with the Sanctum.

I find it interesting that it's omnath in particular - every omnath deck I've played against has sac outlets, alongside ramp to make a ton of elementals. Unless you had a ton of life, I'd be pretty concerned that he'd gain the ability to just sac them down in response and kill you. But ofc I don't know the whole board situation.

If I decided to wait on the Sanctum and we never made a deal out loud the outcome would likely have been the same, since the Sanctum would have deterred him from attacking me.

Only if he's a really bad player. Which, to be fair, most commander players are.

In his position, I'd just sit back and avoid giving you any extra advantage nor immediate need to kill me. I might drip-feed you some reason to think I'm useful - if you don't kill me this turn, I'll attack another player for some modest amount, but never enough for you to think you have a secure victory without me. If I'm really trying to win the Oscar I might say things like "There's no way I can win, he'll just kill me with sanctum if I try, but I guess I'll keep playing anyway". Meanwhile, I'd try to surreptitiously either set up the sac outlet situation as described above, or find instant-speed lifegain. Once I had one of those, if you still hadn't killed me, I'd do something that forced you to react by killing me, then spring the trap.

I guess I was told that politics is part of commander

lol, ngl this sentence kinda pisses me off. Of course politics is part of commander, but that doesn't mean every situation where you make an agreement is good sportsmanship. That's like saying "I guess I was told, officer, that I was allowed to drive on the road." when you were going 140 in a school zone.

Politics, imo, requires a give and take. You offer something and you get something. In this circumstance, you didn't give him anything. He just gave you the win for nothing. Imo, for the game to be fun, everyone needs to be playing to win, not for someone else to win.

I do have some sympathy for him if he was angling for sorcery-speed revenge on the other players, but (1) if someone thinks multiple people were "ganging up on them" and yet they still got into a dominant board position, they're probably just wrong, and (2) you didn't describe the situation that way, so I'm assuming that's probably not the case.

[3drinks]

Interestingly I find myself slightly sympathetic to the revenge narrative. If someone constantly dogged me all game beyond the scope of reasonable threat assessment, even if they weren't the person who dealt the final blow, if I had some instant-speed pain to dish out (but not enough to save me) I could see aiming it at that person on the way out.

I feel attacked

1) Does a player have islands? If yes attack until they have no more islands. Loved having Choke in that old Samut deck for that - so good against the sheer dearth of xu duals out there.

[duducrash]

Its also a casual format where winning means little. Recently I went off with multiple pingers killing 2 out of thr 3 players. But didnt matter to do the math and left one alive and he got me on the crackback.

I had a blast storming off and my deck did cool things which is why I play EDH.

My gumble opinion if its a casual setting of course

[DirkGently]

My gumble opinion if its a casual setting of course

I don't think these things exist in the same category. Making a hasty play that wasn't optimal is totally fine. Not very many people want a game of commander where each player spends minutes every turn in the tank, trying to think ten steps ahead. You were still attempting to win, even if not optimally. Someone making a move with the intention of losing is a totally different ball game imo. It's like a potluck where one person brings a low-effort store-bought veggie tray, but another person brought a bag of rocks. They haven't just not-taken-it-super-seriously, they've violated the core precept of the exercise. One's acceptable and one is, imo, not.

[Thecasualoblivion]

It depends. One possibility would need the revenge angle to be involved, and I would need to want revenge too. If the player far behind nukes the Golos deck and sets me up to win, I'd accept that win because the other player deserves it because they're playing Golos. Another possibility would be politics, where me and the kingmaker were doing each other favors the whole game leading up to that point and then they just set me up because they have no shot, I would accept that win as I would have earned it through good politics.

[duducrash]

Doing my best Liliana and reviving a topic.

Yesterday there were 3 players left and one swang all out on me. There was no way for me to block and survive, but it was also a choice to kill specifically me. So I blocked the best I could to kill the most creatures, in my pov its the price you pay for swinging at me.

Opponent got really salty at me for "kingmaking" at first I was thinking its a non issue but some bystanders agreed

[materpillar]

Doing my best Liliana and reviving a topic.

Yesterday there were 3 players left and one swang all out on me. There was no way for me to block and survive, but it was also a choice to kill specifically me. So I blocked the best I could to kill the most creatures, in my pov its the price you pay for swinging at me.

Opponent got really salty at me for "kingmaking" at first I was thinking its a non issue but some bystanders agreed

He attacked you for lethal and expected you to not make the best blocks possible? Weird.

[tstorm823]

Yesterday there were 3 players left and one swang all out on me. There was no way for me to block and survive, but it was also a choice to kill specifically me. So I blocked the best I could to kill the most creatures, in my pov its the price you pay for swinging at me.

Clarify: did you block to be as close to surviving as possible, or did you block to cause the most damage? Both plays seem reasonable to me, but the former is politically "do my best to survive, maybe someone else will use removal to save me", where the latter is "I hope you lose too!"

[TheAmericanSpirit]

Blocking cannot under any reasonable circumstance be kingmaking. It is literally part of combat and a huge part of the defensive aspect of the game. @duducrash those people are clearly morons and don't understand the causal relationship between actions and consequences. Pity them.

[duducrash]

I could lose by less points and end with a higher life, but no matter the blocos I was dead. Actually dead with no possible good blocks. So doubled block some of the better creatures. In my pov its the price you pay for attacking me.

He is playing Isshin, Two Heavens as One he wanted all the bonus he would gather by attacking me and forgot a but noje kf the onus

[pokken]

Yeah, in my view you generally ought to expend all your resources preventing your death. So if someone is swinging at me for lethal you can expect me to empty my hand and make the best blocks, because that's what it takes to kill me.

[3drinks]

If you go all in, you have to expect the same in kind. "Play to your outs" has never rang more true. That's the cost of doing business, and is typically less harmful to you than letting me live to probably die to my mana crypt trigger as I desperately crack food tokens to survive

[DirkGently]

Opponent got really salty at me for "kingmaking" at first I was thinking its a non issue but some bystanders agreed

This is why I hate the kingmaking discourse in this format. In a multiplayer game, each player will inevitably effect the other players' chance to win. Even if you're playing a completely uninteractive combo deck, if someone has to spend removal to stop you, that's removal they can't use to stop someone else. If that removal was the difference between them winning and losing, did you kingmake? Hell no, that's ridiculous.

To me, the only thing that properly qualifies as kingmaking is when someone is deliberately playing to lose in order to help another player win. That sort of thing I detest, but it's typically quite rare. Colloquially I might call someone using very poor threat assessment a kingmaker but I don't think it qualifies on a technical level.

forgot a but noje kf the onus

Oh damn I forgot that too.

[pokken]

kf the onus

is my Trapt coverband.

[3drinks]

kf the onus

is my Trapt coverband.

Headstrong, I'll take youuuu ooooonnnnnnn!!