[mtgnexus] Random Card of the Day - Journeyer's Kite

[yeti1069]

I think the time has come for a sticky'd thread called "Dirk's Contentious Conversation Corner." It'll be a one stop shop. Got a bone to pick over one of Dirk's points? Take it to the corner. Got a hot take you want to argue about? Go to the corner. Want to make some popcorn and read pedantic drama? Well good sir, do I have a corner for you,

I thought that's what MTGSalvation was for?

[PrimevalCommander]

I've talked to plenty of people who will outright say "I don't do politics", and have targeted me explicitly because I'm "pulling that political crap".

If there's a fault in this, it's only that they have the wrong words to describe it. Everyone does politics, it's inherent in multiplayer settings, even without saying a word. What they ought to say is that they don't appreciate collusion or coercion.

But their instincts are right. If you started trying to convince people to make plays they otherwise wouldn't, using words rather than game actions, you'd be my primary target. If you intend to manipulate other players resources, the threat assessment associated with their resources is coming back at you in return.

I have a quick story to add to these points. I play with some guys who are not very good at commander. One guy named James prides himself on not engaging in any sort of table talk politics. His mantra is "I don't play politics". One game he has an Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger in play (his commander) and is waiting to untap to attack with it. Another very experienced player is to his right has a sizeable attack force and asks simply, "Are you going to attack me with Ulamog on your turn?" queue mantra from James "I don't play politics"... Active player "Alright then, I don't want to take a hit from Ulamog, so I'll attack you for lethal". I just smiled internally because even if he declined to answer the question because he WAS going to attack that player, sticking to his sense of pure gameplay means refusing to work within the muliplayer balancing act of the game and keep yourself alive long enough to gather advantage to win the game. Just because someone is trying to change your course of action, doesn't automatically mean it is actively bad for you. Though it always means its actively GOOD for the one asking, obviously. Knowing when it is better or good enough for you to warrant the change in action comes with experience and making mistakes.

I ask targeted questions all the time. Will you attack me next turn? Will you block my guy if I attack? Will you let my 2/3 through for a small advantage? If I don't get an answer, that's fine, more information to me to NOT do that thing.

[yeti1069]

I've talked to plenty of people who will outright say "I don't do politics", and have targeted me explicitly because I'm "pulling that political crap".

If there's a fault in this, it's only that they have the wrong words to describe it. Everyone does politics, it's inherent in multiplayer settings, even without saying a word. What they ought to say is that they don't appreciate collusion or coercion.

But their instincts are right. If you started trying to convince people to make plays they otherwise wouldn't, using words rather than game actions, you'd be my primary target. If you intend to manipulate other players resources, the threat assessment associated with their resources is coming back at you in return.

I have a quick story to add to these points. I play with some guys who are not very good at commander. One guy named James prides himself on not engaging in any sort of table talk politics. His mantra is "I don't play politics". One game he has an Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger in play (his commander) and is waiting to untap to attack with it. Another very experienced player is to his right has a sizeable attack force and asks simply, "Are you going to attack me with Ulamog on your turn?" queue mantra from James "I don't play politics"... Active player "Alright then, I don't want to take a hit from Ulamog, so I'll attack you for lethal". I just smiled internally because even if he declined to answer the question because he WAS going to attack that player, sticking to his sense of pure gameplay means refusing to work within the muliplayer balancing act of the game and keep yourself alive long enough to gather advantage to win the game. Just because someone is trying to change your course of action, doesn't automatically mean it is actively bad for you. Though it always means its actively GOOD for the one asking, obviously. Knowing when it is better or good enough for you to warrant the change in action comes with experience and making mistakes.

I ask targeted questions all the time. Will you attack me next turn? Will you block my guy if I attack? Will you let my 2/3 through for a small advantage? If I don't get an answer, that's fine, more information to me to NOT do that thing.

I've played with several people (at least) over the years who take this tack. Some have been fine living (or dying) with the consequences, but others who may have been in similar shoes to your friend James, would have bristled at that kind of response. I keep trying to tell them that neglecting to engage forces the other player(s) to assume you're going to take the most disadvantageous action for them, and they have to play under that assumption.

On the flip side, I've played with (generally bad) players who make outrageous deals, like getting a minor benefit from an open attack, then granting immunity from interaction for the rest of the game, or multiple turns.

[PrimevalCommander]

I've played with several people (at least) over the years who take this tack. Some have been fine living (or dying) with the consequences, but others who may have been in similar shoes to your friend James, would have bristled at that kind of response. I keep trying to tell them that neglecting to engage forces the other player(s), [they must] assume you're going to take the most disadvantageous action for them, and they have to play under that assumption.

On the flip side, I've played with (generally bad) players who make outrageous deals, like getting a minor benefit from an open attack, then granting immunity from interaction for the rest of the game, or multiple turns.

Speaking the truth here.
Luckily I don't see as many ultra one-sided deals, but I can't say I've never seen it.

Different game, the same experienced player cast Liliana, Dreadhorde General and -4 to clear the board. I untap and cast Battle Angels of Tyr. My turn comes back around and he asks "Are you attacking me, or Lili?" We both know what the correct play was, so I answer truthfully, and he Swords my Angel. He keeps the PW either way, but sometimes you have to make them have it, right?

[DirkGently]

Glad to see other people sharing similar experiences to mine. Well, not glad exactly, it can be pretty annoying when it happens, but you know what I mean.

I have also seen the ultra one-sided deals on occasion. Usually at least one of the players is very green or is very uninvested in the outcome of the game. Oftentimes both are green to different extents - I think most experienced players wouldn't try it, either because they don't expect it to work, or because it feels pretty scummy manipulating someone who doesn't have the experience to know better. Personally when I do make a deal, it's almost always one that I genuinely believe is beneficial to both parties - though I don't do explicit dealmaking nearly as often as I used to, partly because of the sorts of negative experiences I've mentioned.

I think the time has come for a sticky'd thread called "Dirk's Contentious Conversation Corner." It'll be a one stop shop. Got a bone to pick over one of Dirk's points? Take it to the corner. Got a hot take you want to argue about? Go to the corner. Want to make some popcorn and read pedantic drama? Well good sir, do I have a corner for you,

Honestly I kinda like this idea unironically. It's definitely been a spicy week.

[NZB2323]

@Dunadain @Toshi I'd say that (from starting hand) they're about the same. You can play the hawk on 2 and then trigger it for free on 3 (unless you're going first and nobody else plays land ramp) so you've got 3 mana on 3, whereas knight you have to cast t3 to ramp (unless someone before you played land ramp) (same problem as hawk when going first) which puts you 2 mana down. So knight gives you 2 turns with 2 mana whereas hawk gives you 1 turn of 3 mana. And ofc you untap with 5 on t4 either way.

Ofc if you topdeck knight later he gives you the mana right away, so that's good.

I do like the hawk but it's pretty slow and conditional. It's hard to trigger more than once in a relevant amount of time.

I don't know about that.

1.) If someone is playing ramp, you can get a land out with knight on turn 2.

2.) The land with Knight comes into play untapped.

3.) You have to deal combat damage with the hawk to the player with the most lands in order to trigger it.

4.) Knight doesn't get returned to your hand.

I'd say this card is more comparable to Loyal Warhound, as a C+/B- ramp card for white. Weathered Wayfarer, Knight of the White Orchid, Smuggler's Share, Smothering Tithe, Keeper of the Accord, Deep Gnome Terramancer, Battle Angels of Tyr, Master of Ceremonies, and Monologue Tax all seem like better options, but he bird is playable, especially if your have ETB/bird triggers.

@yeti1069, I'm surprised you draw hate for playing Druid of Purification. You can play that against me any day and let me blow something up. Although I do prefer Nature's Claim, Return to Nature, and Boseiju, Who Endures as my green artifact/enchantment removal suite.

[3drinks]

Thursday, December 21st, 2023; Andúril, Narsil Reforged

Sorry, I lost track this morning after not getting a full night's sleep.

[3drinks]

1.) If someone is playing ramp, you can get a land out with knight on turn 2.

2.) The land with Knight comes into play untapped.

3.) You have to deal combat damage with the hawk to the player with the most lands in order to trigger it.

4.) Knight doesn't get returned to your hand.

I'd say this card is more comparable to Loyal Warhound, as a C+/B- ramp card for white. Weathered Wayfarer, Knight of the White Orchid, Smuggler's Share, Smothering Tithe, Keeper of the Accord, Deep Gnome Terramancer, Battle Angels of Tyr, Master of Ceremonies, and Monologue Tax all seem like better options, but he bird is playable, especially if your have ETB/bird triggers.

You keep naming cards that don't actually do the same thing or they have conditions and then asserting those are better in spite of the reqs needing to be met. The moment you say "KotWO is better IF..." you're not talking about the situation in question anymore because you changed the variables. Warhound is great too, but again it's got similar play patterns to KotWO. All of them don't get you the land until t2 conditionally, or t3 traditionally. They just have different ways of doing it. Ultimately these all set you up to have five mana available on t4, that's the important mechanic here. Terramancer has a potentially higher ceiling at the same cost at least, but requires a different req entirely; namely being able to respond to a three visits or prismatic vista or whatever. No one is playing into this on board unless they're A) desperate, or B) they just don't care (reckless).

Those other cards are four mv and have conditions so they're not even in this conversation if we're being honest; they're a different conversation and it's one we can certainly have. Sure, they do more, they're also twice the cost so they should be doing more.

[Mookie]

Sorry, I lost track this morning after not getting a full night's sleep.

Sleep is a must-play for all decks. I know my decks function significantly worse without it. >_>

Andúril, Narsil Reforged seems... okay? If you're only getting one +1/+1 counter out of it, it seems outclassed by Sword of Truth and Justice. Getting ascend online isn't difficult though, and +2/+2 to your whole team is a pretty hefty boost. There is some tension between equipment (which is usually part of a go-tall strategy) and its go-wide boost, but there are a few go-wide equipment commanders out there. It also seems reasonable if your deck has a +1/+1 counter theme - I could see it being scary in any deck with Hardened Scales, for example.

[Serenade]

Not until right now did I think of MTG turning as a Ready Player One environment, but Anduril made it click. Now that I realize my Jurassic Park Hunting Velociraptor can dual-wield a Vorpal Sword and Sting, the Glinting Dagger then hop in Bessie, the Doctor's Roadster........I am so put off from UB stuff. Woof.

[Dunadain]

Sleep is a must-play for all decks. I know my decks function significantly worse without it. >_>

Breath of the Sleepless would like a word

[DirkGently]

Honestly I think this card is quite strong. City's blessing is pretty trivial, especially for a deck that wants to use this, and 2 counters every turn, triggered immediately, is a pretty big game. It's not Cathars' Crusade powerful, but it can impact the board faster and some additional backup for the effect doesn't hurt.

Currently this is the #3 card from the holiday LTC boxes and I think that's a pretty reasonable place for it. Legolas's Quick Reflexes and Galadriel's Dismissal above it are also very powerful and versatile cards so it's amongst good company.

Nazgûl Battle-Mace above Gimli's Reckless Might is absurd but wygd.

@Dunadain @Toshi I'd say that (from starting hand) they're about the same. You can play the hawk on 2 and then trigger it for free on 3 (unless you're going first and nobody else plays land ramp) so you've got 3 mana on 3, whereas knight you have to cast t3 to ramp (unless someone before you played land ramp) (same problem as hawk when going first) which puts you 2 mana down. So knight gives you 2 turns with 2 mana whereas hawk gives you 1 turn of 3 mana. And ofc you untap with 5 on t4 either way.

Ofc if you topdeck knight later he gives you the mana right away, so that's good.

I do like the hawk but it's pretty slow and conditional. It's hard to trigger more than once in a relevant amount of time.

I don't know about that.

1.) If someone is playing ramp, you can get a land out with knight on turn 2.

2.) The land with Knight comes into play untapped.

3.) You have to deal combat damage with the hawk to the player with the most lands in order to trigger it.

4.) Knight doesn't get returned to your hand.

I'd say this card is more comparable to Loyal Warhound, as a C+/B- ramp card for white. Weathered Wayfarer, Knight of the White Orchid, Smuggler's Share, Smothering Tithe, Keeper of the Accord, Deep Gnome Terramancer, Battle Angels of Tyr, Master of Ceremonies, and Monologue Tax all seem like better options, but he bird is playable, especially if your have ETB/bird triggers.

@yeti1069, I'm surprised you draw hate for playing Druid of Purification. You can play that against me any day and let me blow something up. Although I do prefer Nature's Claim, Return to Nature, and Boseiju, Who Endures as my green artifact/enchantment removal suite.

I didn't mean in terms of overall quality, that's pretty subjective, I just meant in terms of ramp speed. @Dunadain said KotWO was a full turn faster, and @Toshi said was 2 turns faster, neither of which I think is accurate when you're playing it on-curve. Conditionally it can be a turn faster if someone else played land ramp, but the most common play pattern (at least in my experience) is that KotWO is a dead card until t3 whereas hawk is playable on 2, which makes up the speed difference in the trigger condition.

The land entering untapped is nice ofc, but in terms of "when am I ahead of the curve on mana?", which I think is the most important question when you're talking about ramp, they're usually in the same place. Like I said, KotWO gives you 2 turns of 2 mana vs 1 turn of 3 mana with hawk, so it's down to personal preference.

You don't need to hit the player with the most lands, just more lands that you. It's flying, and also most people won't trade anything of any real value against a hawk so early in the game, so it's probably fine even if they do have a blocker. I think it's quite rare that the hawk doesn't have a good attack t3 (unless you're going first and nobody else played land ramp, but that's also a problem for KotWO so I don't think it matters in the comparison).

This is more of an indictment of KotWO than a celebration of hawk. KotWO looks like rampant growth with upside but in my experience it's extremely clunky since you almost always have to play it on 3.

A lot of this is less likely to be true off-curve, though, so I would agree that KotWO is a much better topdeck usually.

[RxPhantom]

It's amazing how much my mind blocks out UB. I see that frame and I just check out. Lemme try this again...

It's Cathars' Crusadey sword.

[onering]

Not until right now did I think of MTG turning as a Ready Player One environment, but Anduril made it click. Now that I realize my Jurassic Park Hunting Velociraptor can dual-wield a Vorpal Sword and Sting, the Glinting Dagger then hop in Bessie, the Doctor's Roadster........I am so put off from UB stuff. Woof.

If it helps, this isn't Anduril, it's a knockoff of Elspeth's sword. Not quite so obviously as with the standard art from the set, but it's still generic store brand fantasy sword and not Anduril.

[tstorm823]

I keep trying to tell them that neglecting to engage forces the other player(s) to assume you're going to take the most disadvantageous action for them, and they have to play under that assumption.

Speaking the truth here.

They don't have to play under that assumption. They can still analyze the game state without an answer to that question.

There are multiple scenarios depending on the actual circumstances of the game. If one of the other players at the table is a bigger target than the active player, killing the Ulamog player is effectively killing a teammate. That's not a good plan regardless of the answer to that question.

[DirkGently]

They don't have to play under that assumption. They can still analyze the game state without an answer to that question.

There are multiple scenarios depending on the actual circumstances of the game. If one of the other players at the table is a bigger target than the active player, killing the Ulamog player is effectively killing a teammate. That's not a good plan regardless of the answer to that question.

Agreed. If the player in question consistently refuses to make any assurances about their moves, your best option is to analyze the current board state and determine how likely it is that they'll swing ulamog at you vs someone else. And then decide on your move accordingly.

That said, from the Ulamog player's POV, much of the time it will be beneficial to make those assurances. You, as the ulamog player, not intending to attack the asking player, could look at the board state from their POV and reasonably assume that they will determine you are unlikely to attack them, and then treat you the same as if you had given an assurance. You don't gain anything by not giving the assurance, except that in future if a similar situation arises, but you DO plan to attack them (presumably based on some hidden information they can't see - maybe you have a single-player-killing combo in hand to use on the more threatening opponent, freeing ulamog to attack the asker), it won't be seen as suspicious if you refuse to answer the question. However, if you don't make the assurance and the other player decides that the risk is too great (fearing the aforementioned hidden information or general unpredictability), they might attack you even if it might be mutually destructive (say in the teammate situation), which is a pretty major risk right here and now, not based on some possible future suspicions in very specific and rare circumstances (1 - the board state indicates ulamog won't attack them (or whatever similar thing) 2 - your hidden information reverses that and 3 - they ask you for assurance).

Maybe the easiest way to determine that this interaction is overall positive for both the asker and the ulamog player is to ask "how would I feel, as the third (most threatening) player watching this?" I think it's pretty clear that you'd prefer that they didn't make assurances with each other, as that decreases the degree to which they will fight each other unproductively - i.e. with the assurance being given, there's no chance of a suspicion-fueled alpha strike on the ulamog player from the asking player, and the third player would really prefer for that attack to happen. So if the assurance is decreasing your winrate as the third player, it stands to reason that it's increasing the winrate of the other players, generally-speaking (which player benefits most is dependent on specifics).

[tstorm823]

That said, from the Ulamog player's POV, much of the time it will be beneficial to make those assurances. You, as the ulamog player, not intending to attack the asking player, could look at the board state from their POV and reasonably assume that they will determine you are unlikely to attack them, and then treat you the same as if you had given an assurance. You don't gain anything by not giving the assurance, except that in future if a similar situation arises, but you DO plan to attack them (presumably based on some hidden information they can't see - maybe you have a single-player-killing combo in hand to use on the more threatening opponent, freeing ulamog to attack the asker), it won't be seen as suspicious if you refuse to answer the question. However, if you don't make the assurance and the other player decides that the risk is too great (fearing the aforementioned hidden information or general unpredictability), they might attack you even if it might be mutually destructive.

There is something else gained by not giving the assurance: freedom. It's the Frankie Peanuts effect, getting people to commit to an answer that they have to stick to even if the circumstances change. The attacking player is asking this question before they make their plays, and by the time it gets to aiming the Ulamog, the information will change. Imagine the attacker can ask "will you attack me with Ulamog", and they say no because they really intend to attack player 3, and then the attacking player takes their immunity and instead alpha strikes player 3. What's the Ulamog player supposed to do now? The information has changed, their intended target is already out of the game, but they're going to be called a liar if they change tactics.

You are certainly correct that line of play drops the third player's chances of winning, but it also dramatically drops the Ulamog player's chances, and that's the person deciding not to answer the question. Let me put it this way: if someone with a board capable of killing players is asking not to be attacked, it is likely because they think they can win the game if they can avoid that attack. Thus, the implication of the question is "will you let me win the game if I don't kill you right now?" If someone gives you an ultimatum to let them win the game or they'll kill you first, both "yes" and "no" mean you lose the game. The only ways to win are A) tell them you'll do what they want and then shamelessly backstab them, or B) not answer the question so as to neither hand them the path to victory nor declare hostilities yourself.

[DirkGently]

There is something else gained by not giving the assurance: freedom. It's the Frankie Peanuts effect, getting people to commit to an answer that they have to stick to even if the circumstances change. The attacking player is asking this question before they make their plays, and by the time it gets to aiming the Ulamog, the information will change. Imagine the attacker can ask "will you attack me with Ulamog", and they say no because they really intend to attack player 3, and then the attacking player takes their immunity and instead alpha strikes player 3. What's the Ulamog player supposed to do now? The information has changed, their intended target is already out of the game, but they're going to be called a liar if they change tactics.

That's an easy fix. Personally my go-to answer would be "wasn't planning on it." That's generally enough of a commitment without writing it on a stone tablet. If the circumstances change significantly - i.e. another player gets knocked out - nobody is going to pillory you for changing your mind.

If the asker demands something more concrete, you could say something like "well as long as things don't change, I wasn't planning to - why, what are you planning to do?" Of course eventually if the asker is being very demanding it comes down to whose board state has power over the other. If the asker can kill the ulamog player without it being a significant setback, then the ulamog player might end up deciding to make an assurance that is more concrete than they'd like in order to avoid getting killed. That assurance might be exploited ofc - it's their judgment whether it's worth the risk or not. On the other hand, if the ulamog player doesn't believe that the asker can reasonably choose to kill them without throwing the game to another player (or maybe not kill them at all) then they can remain flexible and call the bluff. "Look, I'm not planning on it, but if you do something crazy I might change my mind, so I'm not going to guarantee anything." for example.

You are certainly correct that line of play drops the third player's chances of winning, but it also dramatically drops the Ulamog player's chances, and that's the person deciding not to answer the question.

Not as long as the ulamog player answers intelligently. If they just say "No, I will definitely not attack you no matter what happens" without any caveats or demands then possibly it hurts their wr, but that's not a very smart way of doing things.

Let me put it this way: if someone with a board capable of killing players is asking not to be attacked, it is likely because they think they can win the game if they can avoid that attack.

That's possible, but I can think of many other possibilities (I guess depending on how immediately you intend "win the game" - we're not making plays thinking it will help us lose). Ulamog player has to decide what they think the motivation is based on all the information available, and give their answer accordingly.

Thus, the implication of the question is "will you let me win the game if I don't kill you right now?" If someone gives you an ultimatum to let them win the game or they'll kill you first, both "yes" and "no" mean you lose the game. The only ways to win are A) tell them you'll do what they want and then shamelessly backstab them, or B) not answer the question so as to neither hand them the path to victory nor declare hostilities yourself.

If the asker is asking it's because they think they have something to lose - else they'd just make their attacks to win the game rather than faffing about with assurances. So the ulamog player does have some power in this situation. That power can be used to make caveats or demands. And ofc if the asker says "no caveats, no demands, you need to say yes or no full stop" then ulamog can easily say "look, you're the one being suspicious so I'm obviously not going to guarantee anything until I see what you're up to."

The choices are not nearly so binary. That's the beauty of politics - infinite possibilities.

[yeti1069]

I keep trying to tell them that neglecting to engage forces the other player(s) to assume you're going to take the most disadvantageous action for them, and they have to play under that assumption.

Speaking the truth here.

They don't have to play under that assumption. They can still analyze the game state without an answer to that question.

There are multiple scenarios depending on the actual circumstances of the game. If one of the other players at the table is a bigger target than the active player, killing the Ulamog player is effectively killing a teammate. That's not a good plan regardless of the answer to that question.

Ignoring the unknown specifics of the situation, I'll just say that there is never an unspoken assurance that a player will make the same choice that you assume is the correct one, regardless of game state. Someone is standing there with a loaded gun, you ask them if they're going to shoot you or the other guy, and they decline to answer. Maybe they recognize the other guy as a bigger threat, and maybe they don't consider them much of a threat, or are concerned more about your potential threat. I've certainly made the decision to remove a less threatening-looking player, because I didn't think the most threatening was too worrisome at present, whereas the player I removed had the greater potential to ruin my game plan. As an example, leaving the underdeveloped Rakdos player to remove the player running white, and very likely to have Farewell in their deck.

Speaking to changing game states, I think a player could easily answer something to the effect of, "With how the game stands now, no I won't, but if things change dramatically I may have to." I'd consider that fair. Asking someone a question like that isn't necessarily making a deal, and I wouldn't expect someone to say no, then have to abide by that with only me to attack after the other player(s) have been removed before their turn came back around.

@yeti1069, I'm surprised you draw hate for playing Druid of Purification. You can play that against me any day and let me blow something up. Although I do prefer Nature's Claim, Return to Nature, and Boseiju, Who Endures as my green artifact/enchantment removal suite.

At least HALF THE TIME Druid results in blowback. I'd say probably 75% of the time, at least 1 player abstains from blowing anything up, and I'd say that it's almost an even split there between the player who is ahead choosing to earn a little good will, and some other player being a complete idiot, thinking they are earning good will or...I don't know what...by not removing stuff from the player who is ahead.

I had a game with Meren, where I had a slow start, Meren had been removed, I hadn't ramped, and hadn't been able to draw any extra cards--total nonthreat. One player was swiftly pulling ahead and primed to run away with the game, and I spent a Finale of Devastation to grab Druid, and had 2 players not touch the guy with two Sword of X+Ys in play alongside some other nonsense. One player said that if I was trying so hard to do something, they didn't want to play into MY plans by following along. I pointed out that my "plan" was for the game to not end in a turn or two, but they didn't budge...I died the next turn, and that guy died the turn after.

I've started trying to prime players for the Druid by asking them what they felt were the biggest problems on the board before dropped Druid, in the hope that, if they've already acknowledged what they wanted to destroy, they would be more likely to do so when given the opportunity. That still hasn't worked.

[yeti1069]

That said, from the Ulamog player's POV, much of the time it will be beneficial to make those assurances. You, as the ulamog player, not intending to attack the asking player, could look at the board state from their POV and reasonably assume that they will determine you are unlikely to attack them, and then treat you the same as if you had given an assurance. You don't gain anything by not giving the assurance, except that in future if a similar situation arises, but you DO plan to attack them (presumably based on some hidden information they can't see - maybe you have a single-player-killing combo in hand to use on the more threatening opponent, freeing ulamog to attack the asker), it won't be seen as suspicious if you refuse to answer the question. However, if you don't make the assurance and the other player decides that the risk is too great (fearing the aforementioned hidden information or general unpredictability), they might attack you even if it might be mutually destructive.

There is something else gained by not giving the assurance: freedom. It's the Frankie Peanuts effect, getting people to commit to an answer that they have to stick to even if the circumstances change. The attacking player is asking this question before they make their plays, and by the time it gets to aiming the Ulamog, the information will change. Imagine the attacker can ask "will you attack me with Ulamog", and they say no because they really intend to attack player 3, and then the attacking player takes their immunity and instead alpha strikes player 3. What's the Ulamog player supposed to do now? The information has changed, their intended target is already out of the game, but they're going to be called a liar if they change tactics.

You are certainly correct that line of play drops the third player's chances of winning, but it also dramatically drops the Ulamog player's chances, and that's the person deciding not to answer the question. Let me put it this way: if someone with a board capable of killing players is asking not to be attacked, it is likely because they think they can win the game if they can avoid that attack. Thus, the implication of the question is "will you let me win the game if I don't kill you right now?" If someone gives you an ultimatum to let them win the game or they'll kill you first, both "yes" and "no" mean you lose the game. The only ways to win are A) tell them you'll do what they want and then shamelessly backstab them, or B) not answer the question so as to neither hand them the path to victory nor declare hostilities yourself.

To echo Dirk, the answer need not be so simplistic, nor binding.

To expand, just because a player has the ability to kill the Ulamog player doesn't mean they're the biggest threat. There's too little information to reach any sorts of conclusions. Maybe Ulamog is at a low life, while the biggest threat is close to a combo, or has a board that the asking player can't breach. Maybe the asking player is in a position where Ulamog will take them entirely out of the game, so they can't freely devote resources towards addressing the other player. Too many permutations to make assumptions about the game state.

[TheGildedGoose]

Sigh.

[tstorm823]

To echo Dirk, the answer need not be so simplistic, nor binding.

But that's the entire point of asking the question: to take a complex situation full of uncertainty and attempt to make it simple and unambiguous. Any answer that is complex or ambiguous is effectively indistinguishable from giving no answer at all.

None of the measured communication you're offering solves the position of "if you're going to attack me with Ulamog, I'm going to kill you first." The only way to placate that is going to be dealmaking. You can go into infinite permutations of what situations you may or may not attack them with Ulamog, but they're asking the question because they want to get you to not attack, and are going to choose an option that reaches that result. That decision has already been made, the rest is just bargaining with more words.

[PrimevalCommander]

SPOILER

Show

Hide

There is something else gained by not giving the assurance: freedom. It's the Frankie Peanuts effect, getting people to commit to an answer that they have to stick to even if the circumstances change. The attacking player is asking this question before they make their plays, and by the time it gets to aiming the Ulamog, the information will change. Imagine the attacker can ask "will you attack me with Ulamog", and they say no because they really intend to attack player 3, and then the attacking player takes their immunity and instead alpha strikes player 3. What's the Ulamog player supposed to do now? The information has changed, their intended target is already out of the game, but they're going to be called a liar if they change tactics.

That's an easy fix. Personally my go-to answer would be "wasn't planning on it." That's generally enough of a commitment without writing it on a stone tablet. If the circumstances change significantly - i.e. another player gets knocked out - nobody is going to pillory you for changing your mind.

If the asker demands something more concrete, you could say something like "well as long as things don't change, I wasn't planning to - why, what are you planning to do?" Of course eventually if the asker is being very demanding it comes down to whose board state has power over the other. If the asker can kill the ulamog player without it being a significant setback, then the ulamog player might end up deciding to make an assurance that is more concrete than they'd like in order to avoid getting killed. That assurance might be exploited ofc - it's their judgment whether it's worth the risk or not. On the other hand, if the ulamog player doesn't believe that the asker can reasonably choose to kill them without throwing the game to another player (or maybe not kill them at all) then they can remain flexible and call the bluff. "Look, I'm not planning on it, but if you do something crazy I might change my mind, so I'm not going to guarantee anything." for example.

You are certainly correct that line of play drops the third player's chances of winning, but it also dramatically drops the Ulamog player's chances, and that's the person deciding not to answer the question.

Not as long as the ulamog player answers intelligently. If they just say "No, I will definitely not attack you no matter what happens" without any caveats or demands then possibly it hurts their wr, but that's not a very smart way of doing things.

Let me put it this way: if someone with a board capable of killing players is asking not to be attacked, it is likely because they think they can win the game if they can avoid that attack.

That's possible, but I can think of many other possibilities (I guess depending on how immediately you intend "win the game" - we're not making plays thinking it will help us lose). Ulamog player has to decide what they think the motivation is based on all the information available, and give their answer accordingly.

Thus, the implication of the question is "will you let me win the game if I don't kill you right now?" If someone gives you an ultimatum to let them win the game or they'll kill you first, both "yes" and "no" mean you lose the game. The only ways to win are A) tell them you'll do what they want and then shamelessly backstab them, or B) not answer the question so as to neither hand them the path to victory nor declare hostilities yourself.

If the asker is asking it's because they think they have something to lose - else they'd just make their attacks to win the game rather than faffing about with assurances. So the ulamog player does have some power in this situation. That power can be used to make caveats or demands. And ofc if the asker says "no caveats, no demands, you need to say yes or no full stop" then ulamog can easily say "look, you're the one being suspicious so I'm obviously not going to guarantee anything until I see what you're up to."

The choices are not nearly so binary. That's the beauty of politics - infinite possibilities.

I know we are use my example to speak to the greater theoretical bargaining power between players in multiplayer settings. As the provider of the example, and witness to the event, I can add a bit more context to the example. Ulamog was getting beat up for ramping a ton and putting little defense up against chip damage. He was at the lowest life and should have at least offered the possibility of not attacking the bargaining player. He (Ulamog) was in the WORST position at the table, and really stood to gain the most from that deal (another turn to live). The experienced player was just trying to milk some extra value out of Ulamog by pointing the attack elsewhere for a turn.

To the talk about committing to an action that is always changing with new information. We typically don't make deals like the Command Zone guys, where they bring out the contracts, sign in blood, and then rewind the footage to determine who was in the right. All you have to say is "Probably not" and you still have enough freedom to adjust to new information. The person asking can adjust their threat assessment to possibly move some heat off you, and everyone moves on. If they are still nervous, well then they can assess the board state and come to their own conclusion, as mentioned. Everyone has their own motives. I don't every get deals from my best friend because he and I are both experienced players and know better than to adjust our threat assessment away from each other over some modest advantage.


Today's card: Looks pretty cool. I'm very mixed on UB stuff. I do play some LotR and WH40K cards in the 99 of a few decks, so I can't say that I completely loath it. But I try to ignore all but the most useful things, especially outside the fantasy setting of MTG. It sort of depends on my mood and if I feel the individual card is what I want to have in my deck, whether that be flavor or rules text.

I would play this sword if I wanted the effect, but I think I'm too much of a slave to value to use this over something like a Sword of X & Y. It would probably do work in my God-Eternal Oketra deck, but it is an attack trigger, so double strike doesn't make extra value. Definitely a better finisher since we get the counters pre-damage, but it doesn't give any other abilities, so I think it has a lower floor, but higher ceiling, which will cause high variance in the impact of the card compared to known high value equipment.

[PrimevalCommander]

None of the measured communication you're offering solves the position of "if you're going to attack me with Ulamog, I'm going to kill you first." The only way to placate that is going to be dealmaking. You can go into infinite permutations of what situations you may or may not attack them with Ulamog, but they're asking the question because they want to get you to not attack, and are going to choose an option that reaches that result. That decision has already been made, the rest is just bargaining with more words.

If the statement is that blatant, then one must make the choice, do I value Life, or Freedom If someone is using obvious threats instead of innocent questions, then the mood of the conversation changes and I typically see dramatically different results.
We are assuming the Attacking player has made that decision already and has committed to killing Ulamog unless they can get explicit agreement to not attack them. That is not how the situation was presented. The question was "Are you going to attack me with Ulamog?" and the answer was "I don't play politics.". So instead of either being noncommital, or being truthful, the answer was a lack to acknowledge the question whatsoever and throw it back in their face.

If I was offered the threat of death unless I point my attack elsewhere I would look for 1 of 2 things. Do I think I can win if I say yes and let the dominant player attack someone else instead of me? If yes, I take the deal. If I'm way behind and not liking my chances of victory, do I think someone else can win if I soak up the damage so another player can punish them for forcing me into an ultimatum? If yes, then I take the hit and let it play out. If I think my chances are just as good as anyone else's, then I probably still take the deal, because being in the game at all gives me more options than just being dead. Allowing me to live without knowing the cards in my hand carries some risk to the other player as well. So it cannot be considered one-sided if there is unknown information to both players.

If I am enough of a threat to point a lethal attack at me instead of someone else, then my chances of winning may have been pretty good, but maybe not if I give them a whole turn of breathing room by committing not to attack. At that point all I can do is turtle up and try not to loose on the next go round. If they say "Do not attack me" they are being specific in their threat and I will certainly look for a loophole. "Alright, I'll cast Farewell instead" or Alright, how about I [card]Syr Konrad, the Grim and drain you to death?[/card]. It is a complex situation, such is the fun of Commander!

[yeti1069]

To echo Dirk, the answer need not be so simplistic, nor binding.

But that's the entire point of asking the question: to take a complex situation full of uncertainty and attempt to make it simple and unambiguous. Any answer that is complex or ambiguous is effectively indistinguishable from giving no answer at all.

None of the measured communication you're offering solves the position of "if you're going to attack me with Ulamog, I'm going to kill you first." The only way to placate that is going to be dealmaking. You can go into infinite permutations of what situations you may or may not attack them with Ulamog, but they're asking the question because they want to get you to not attack, and are going to choose an option that reaches that result. That decision has already been made, the rest is just bargaining with more words.

I think you're making this more complex than it needs to be, and discounting simple reassurances. An answer, whether complex or ambiguous is decidedly NOT the same as no answer. An answer can provide some insight into what the other player is thinking, maybe what they're viewing as a threat, or how they're weighing their options. No answer at all provides some information, but less than an ambiguous one would. Also, you can ask for clarification, or extend a question + answer to a conversation, but no answer puts all the onus on the asker to try and push for an answer, which itself is likely to engender some little hostility.

If I asked the question, and the Ulamog player said, "I wasn't planning on it," I could look at the board and decide to develop while trying to not seem more threatening to the Ulamog player. Or I could ask for something more concrete.