Top 5 Current Commander Concerns or have another freak out over Sheldon's thoughts

[DirkGently]

I would generally try to make some sort of negotiation if I think there's any chance it would work - if you kill me I'll do X Y and Z and/or if you don't kill me I'll do A B and C - and then if they do kill me I'll feel compelled to follow through. If I think there's really no chance they'll make the deal, though, I'd probably just take my licks.

Or if I'm just feeling kinda tired - negotiation is kind of a bottomless pit of optimization hell if you're really minmaxing, and at a certain point even I have to remember it's just a game and let it go.

[TheGildedGoose]

I just don't understand what people even get out of this behavior but I see it a lot. Some folks seem to really like influencing the game like that even if they lose.

I don't even like being put into the position where I can determine the winner but can't win, sometimes I'll just swallow my removal if it's just a parting shot and I'm positive I couldn't actually influence the outcome in a way that gives me any chance to win. Still not sure what to do in that spot though tbh when people won't negotiate

Sometimes I'll punish them to the maximum extent allowable by law depending on how I'm feeling, but other times that's just going to prolong the game and make them take longer to kill the other person.

I always punish the player who takes me out, usually followed by a certain quote from The Wrath of Khan and/or Moby Dick. I want them to remember that there are costs to taking me out and, in future games, they might be more reluctant to go all in on me.

[pokken]

I want them to remember that there are costs to taking me out and, in future games, they might be more reluctant to go all in on me.

That's fair of course. I waffle back and forth on that stance because oftentimes it just makes it take longer until I get to play again

And then if I'm sure it'll guarantee someone else wins I'm even more uncomfortable about it. I get it, they should be punished for targeting me when I'm a threat to them buuut...they're also almost surely going to lose if they target someone else too, since I'll have removal to handle then.

Interesting social situations for sure

[DirkGently]

I do tend to be less vindictive when I think someone is making the right play. If they're killing me because the alternative is that I almost certainly win if I untap, then fair play to them, I won't try to cripple them unless I think I can save myself. But if they're coming at me because "eh I just felt like attacking" when someone else is the dominant threat at the table, then prepare to eat every piece of shrapnel I can fit in my cannons.

[NZB2323]

Maybe I didn't describe the scenario correctly. I have the kill on a player, and the player says "don't kill me this turn, and I'll kill everyone else my next turn and then you can kill me next turn," and I say "okay."

I could use one thing clarified - is he saying:

1) I'll kill the other people and then maybe you'll still be able to kill me or maybe I can stop you

Or

2) I'll kill the other players and then let you kill me even if I have a way out

If it's the former it sounds like an almost certain trap. If it's the latter it's blatant kingmaking garbage and I'd kill him for even suggesting such %$#%$#%.

It's 1 except he didn't use the word maybe. I had the kill with a Starlit Sanctum against an Omnath, Locus of Rage player. I told him I was going to kill him because I could see he was about to go off. He said let me go off, I'll kill everyone except you, and then you can kill me and I won't be able to stop you from activating your land.

[3drinks]

2) I'll kill the other players and then let you kill me even if I have a way out

If it's the former it sounds like an almost certain trap. If it's the latter it's blatant kingmaking garbage and I'd kill him for even suggesting such %$#%$#%.

I just don't understand what people even get out of this behavior but I see it a lot. Some folks seem to really like influencing the game like that even if they lose.

I don't even like being put into the position where I can determine the winner but can't win, sometimes I'll just swallow my removal if it's just a parting shot and I'm positive I couldn't actually influence the outcome in a way that gives me any chance to win. Still not sure what to do in that spot though tbh when people won't negotiate

Sometimes I'll punish them to the maximum extent allowable by law depending on how I'm feeling, but other times that's just going to prolong the game and make them take longer to kill the other person.

Nah, if I'm going out I'll throw all the removal I have like a spiteful product one might use on a Summer's Eve. And the box it came in. Consider it my "lovely parting gift".

[TheAmericanSpirit]

I want them to remember that there are costs to taking me out and, in future games, they might be more reluctant to go all in on me.

That's fair of course. I waffle back and forth on that stance because oftentimes it just makes it take longer until I get to play again

This is my feel about it. Vengeance is less valuable than time, usually. Besides, an ideal game of edh in my mind is akin to the swordfight between the Dread Pirate Roberts and Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride: some fun banter, a good amount of back-&-forth, high levels of mutual respect, and a succinct but definitive end. It wouldn't be quite the same if Inigo brandished a suicide vest at the end just because he knew he was beat.

[Cyberium]

His point about Homogenization is of GREAT concern to me. Limitation pushes creativity, and WotC is killing creativity by designing overpower cards, value engines that pushes players to play into standardized molds. With their now money-grabbing attitude WotC repeat, replicate, and repeat again on popular/familiar effects (damn you, Ravnica), instead of creating new and wild ideas drawing from color pie. Strixhaven shows signs of change, but Jeweled Lotus is a tough stench to remove. (Again, not because of its usefulness but because of WotC's intent to print such a card)

This reminds me how so many creative MMORPG came up after WoW failed to thrive, because everyone got used to playing Blizzard's guilds/raids so they either force other games to adopt WoW design or simply refuse to play them, which denied those games of potentials. With all these players coming from 60-cards tournament formats diving into EDH, they start to want faster, deadlier game plays. WotC should be hindering such effect, instead they encourag it! Maro himself even confessed that he disliked the politic aspect of the format.

If we want EDH to remain "EDH" instead of "WotC Commander", Sheldon needs to be stricter on rules and bans. I actually appreciate Archenemy format's rule on player life points, which could be adapted into commander damage rule; perhaps as the number of players go up, commander damage required to defeat that player GOES DOWN, or allow different commander's combat damage to accumulate in group games of 3+. This would allow a "faster" game without letting the ramp-control player having too much leeway (the kind of players that play UG), and it would prevent cards like Mana Crypt being "harmless".

[DirkGently]

It's 1 except he didn't use the word maybe. I had the kill with a Starlit Sanctum against an Omnath, Locus of Rage player. I told him I was going to kill him because I could see he was about to go off. He said let me go off, I'll kill everyone except you, and then you can kill me and I won't be able to stop you from activating your land.

So then the dichotomy still exists except you're not sure which it is. Maybe he's sitting on a big lifegain instant but he needs to untap his mana first, and the whole thing is a trap. Or maybe he's trying to kingmake. If it's the former, then nice try pal but I'm not falling for it. If it's the latter, then burn for even suggesting such BS. Either way, I would absolutely kill him without a second thought.