Rolling dice to decide attacks -or- Triggering RxPhantom's self-destruct sequence

[RxPhantom]

This topic spun out of the off-topic thread, but I wanted to discuss it more. Specifically, I'd like to tell the following to the Commander player base at large:

STOP ROLLING DICE TO DECIDE WHO YOU'RE GOING TO ATTACK! AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGH!*

Seriously though, please stop. It's annoying. Pilot your deck. Speaking only for myself, I don't come into a game expecting my opponents to just shrug off essential parts of the game, namely threat assessment. In a recent game with a developed board state, an opponent started rolling dice for attacks. I spoke up and said that he should play the game - decide who to attack based on their position and yours. He did, attacked me (which was the right call), and the game was much more enjoyable after that.

Since then, the topic had been pingponging around in my head until @materpillar and @TheAmericanSpirit made some really good points in the off-topic thread. I realized how annoying it is for players to do this, and that in doing so players abandon an essential part of Magic strategy. I could go on about the minutiae of grievances I have with this practice, but I'll just say this: I didn't come to this game for you to just not try. I get why people may do it too, but I'd say they're misguided in that view.

So what say you, Nexus? Do you agree? Are you a bunch of dice-rolling heathens? Am I just some hotheaded rage monster?

*This appeal does not apply to Ruhan of the Fomori. Duh.

[tstorm823]

The easy way to avoid others randomizing their attacks is to volunteer as tribute. That isn't a joke, that is a thing I do frequently.

[brainface]

I take it as a way to shed aggro--"I didn't choose to attack you, the dice did!" so I instead take it as a personal affront and attack back with a vengeance. :|

Some of my playgroup will do this for the first attack--that still makes me squint but seems a lesser evil.

[EonAon]

So for the short answer no I don't and never have.

The long answer is the reason I started playing EDH/Commander. I once observed a game in which no one was interacting with the Wydwen, the Biting Gale just letting that player dominate the board for no apparent reason. I honestly didnt know why the other players were not attacking en mass to make that player expend resources. Which is why my first edh deck ever was a R/B group hate with Kaervek the Merciless or Tsabo Tavoc as the commander and Heartless Hidetsugu and its like to just start THE HURTING

[TheAmericanSpirit]

You're not hotheaded to expect people to act in rational self-interest and use logic to determine their course of action; this is how society at large operates and socializes/educates/expects people to act. I too am triggered by mindless or "chaotic" play because an opponent who cares little for their own success or survival is playing on a completely different axis of the game i.e. to watch the world burn. Random attacks are an extension of this mentality imo, and they deprive players of a traceable understanding of both the misplays that cause their demise and the correct plays that lead to victory. Instead it's all reduced to "I guess I got lucky", which is %$#% data with which to work.

The combat step is important. There is great value to be gained there if played correctly. Please folks, take the combat step seriously.

[DirkGently]

I get it when the game is developing and there's no clear threat. That said, in that circumstance, I usually just attack whoever has the most life or some other relatively arbitrary distinction so that it doesn't seem like a grudge. Or I'll just pick randomly in my head. It's kind of annoyingly performative to waste time with actual dice rolls when you've got a fine RNG in your noggin.

When someone's clearly ahead, though, it's pretty unforgivable. I don't see that super often though.

[Outcryqq]

I agree, it drives me nuts. Thankfully I have a regular playgroup, and since most of my games are with them, we don't do such things. But if I'm at my LGS and see it, like you, I'll probably explain that instead of leaving it to chance, you should probably attack the biggest threat or, if you cannot determine who that is, just attack me. I'm a threat all the time - I promise!

[JWK]

Rolling randomly for who to attack or target with some effect is, in my opinion, appropriate only when the cards dictate you do so (Ruhan, Vial Smasher, etc.). The rest of the time, people should play the game with some intent to win the game even when winning is less important to than having fun, which means assessing threats and behaving accordingly. Some people do have truly terrible threat assessment, but the only way it will ever get better is if they actively make decisions then consider the outcomes of their decisions.

Even in the first few turns, player should probably base attack on some strategic thinking, such as who has the scariest general, what they know about that player's decks and playstyle, etc.. Go for Urza or Korvold while you can rather than randomly attacking the guy playing saproling tribal, or if playing people you are familiar with, target the person who tends to win the most or play the decks that most often prevent you from winning.

[cryogen]

Yup. Own your attacks. Or play Ruhan and let fate decide.

[pokken]

my general heuristic for figuring out who to attack is:

0. is it better for me to leave up a blocker?
1. who has Hullbreacher
2. who is the most dangerous?
3. who has a creature I can outclass in combat, forcing them to consider chump blocking
4. who has the most life?
5. is this player likely to have a temper tantrum and uselessly drop removal to prevent taking 4 damage?


--------------------------------

Back in around 2012 or so, I noticed our games were almost completely passive. no one attacked except to generate value. Then someone craterhoofed or combo'd out.

So I started my Skullbriar project to make everyone feel comfortable attacking. I'd drop a turn 1 skullbriar and start going to town on someone relentlessly. Eventually the culture changed and everyone started attacking.

Nowadays the general commander culture in my shop (a new place I moved to) is still attack whenever you can and try to use it to win. I like that. Not attacking gives combo players the advantage. They don't deserve the free wins

[Outcryqq]

my general heuristic for figuring out who to attack is:

0. is it better for me to leave up a blocker?
1. who has Hullbreacher
(snip)

Yup, or Rhystic Study, Smothering Tithe.

[Mookie]

Yeah, I'll agree with this. I don't care what your justification for attacking someone is, but I do expect you to have one. Threat assessment is an extremely valuable skill to have, and if you show that you lack that skill, it will change the ways in which I interact with you. It also provides valuable feedback for people to learn - if they get attacked after playing a Rhystic Study or other card, they'll learn to not play that card again in the future. I'll also note that when people roll dice to decide to attack, they almost always leave out the possibility of not attacking in the first place - if you leave that option out, it really is you deciding to attack, and not the dice.

....that said, from a game theory perspective, random attacks actually can be optimal because of bluffing - see this article. Bluffing is usually less relevant in EDH because combat tricks are so rare, but if you are running them, it may be correct to make bad attacks some percentage of the time.

An analogue would be if you potentially expect the biggest threat to be neutralized. Suppose an opponent A has a Smothering Tithe and you expect them to wheel next turn, but you also suspect that opponent B may have a Disenchant in hand, in which case opponent C is the biggest problem due to some other card. In that case, I could see myself randomly attacking A or C proportional to my confidence in whether or not the Smothering Tithe will be dealt with.

....that said, I find it somewhat unlikely for someone to actually take all this into account and do the math, and they'll probably also have attacking B in the option pool, which would be pretty bad if they use the Disenchant on your stuff out of spite. So yeah, not attacking randomly is a much simpler heuristic to use.

[Dunharrow]

So surprised everyone is just nodding in agreement here.

Turn 1 Legion Loyalist, who do you attack?
Probably the person most likely to run wraths? This is the best answer, but if you want to roll dice to avoid pissing off the control player, it is worth it.

There are instances where threat assessment actively works against building your board. Attacking the biggest threat for 1 damage makes them think they have to defend against you.
Roll the dice to make it look random, and this way convey that you are not gunning for a specific player.

Commander isn't about making the best decision strategically every turn. Politics are important, and an attack for a couple damage early game is certainly not worth making people perceive you to be a threat to them.

[FenrirRex]

If you're in a spot where rolling the dice to see who to attack appears "correct" it probably isn't, insofar as any kind of opportunity with an unclear answer is one that can be used to your advantage. If I'm in a spot where I have a good attack available but no clear target, it's time to play politics and see who the table thinks I should be punching- make friends and start dictating the flow of the game without sacrificing attacks or going full random.

[pokken]

Turn 1 Legion Loyalist, who do you attack?

Probly the control player yar.

[Dunharrow]

Turn 1 Legion Loyalist, who do you attack?

Probly the control player yar.

I don't think the 1 damage is worth drawing their attention.

[pokken]

I don't think the 1 damage is worth drawing their attention.

I like to draw their attention. Whenever I see a control player and I'm playing aggro I just go right at them.

[DirkGently]

If someone considers a 1 damage attack a threat, I think that's their problem, not the attacker. Unless I'm getting hit for 6+ it's usually not worth worrying too much about. It's the future attacks to make decisions based on, not the ones that already happened.

That said, in a situation like having a t1 hasty attacker, I'll usually do 1 of 2 things:

1) use it as an opportunity to cast aspersions on someone playing a busted commander - "what are everyone's commanders? Oh, you're playing Chulane? Yeah this one's coming at you, taste it." Now anyone who may have missed it is informed that chulane is a threat and that it's correct to target them moreso than the other players based on that. And everyone who already knew can share a good laugh at someone getting some minor karmic retribution.

2) make it clear that it's basically arbitrary - "Uhh...I guess your land was better, so I'll attack you." or "now you're both on 39 life" or "You mulliganned, so I'll attack the other guy". If the person I'm attacking considers me more of a threat because of that attack being aimed at them instead of someone else, then I think they're being ridiculous. Everyone else has to die eventually if I'm gonna win, and I'm pretty sure they knew that going in.

[Dunadain]

I'm going to disagree on this.
I mean I agree but can we please stop policing every little detail about how other people play the game?
I sometimes feel like EDH is a minefield where everyone criticizes everything you do. I get it: social contract yada yada, it's a social game. That's all true but sometimes people need to grow a thicker skin.

You want to chat about MLD? Fine, discard? Fine, control? Fine.

But I'm gonna draw the line when you start telling me I can't let a die roll solve a difficult decision.

Sorry for the rant, lol

Having said all that, I don't really do this so I suppose it doesn't matter to me.

[RxPhantom]

When someone's clearly ahead, though, it's pretty unforgivable. I don't see that super often though.

I think that's what made this whole issue stand out. In this particular game, based on the current board state, it was 100% the correct move to attack me. I was in a position to start running way with the game, and I needed to be dealt with in some manner. But he was still going to roll the dice. I had to say something.

my general heuristic for figuring out who to attack is:

1. who has Hullbreacher

This is always correct. Always.

So surprised everyone is just nodding in agreement here.

Turn 1 Legion Loyalist, who do you attack?
Probably the person most likely to run wraths? This is the best answer, but if you want to roll dice to avoid pissing off the control player, it is worth it.

How pissed should they be at one damage, though?

I'm going to disagree on this.
I mean I agree but can we please stop policing every little detail about how other people play the game?
I sometimes feel like EDH is a minefield where everyone criticizes everything you do. I get it: social contract yada yada, it's a social game. That's all true but sometimes people need to grow a thicker skin.

My larger point, though, is that by doing this you're actually not playing the game, and if a player's decision paralysis prevents them from making such decisions, the game experience for all involved is diminished. I do hear you insofar as being able to lighten up and not put every little thing a player does under a microscope. Point taken.

[brainface]

I don't think the 1 damage is worth drawing their attention.

To be fair, I think I've played at tables where the control player or the person with the strongest deck would take the 2 damage as a personal affront and then respond by killing me next turn or something. It kind of boggles me because we're all trying to take each other out! There's no actual allied victory!

[pokken]

I mean I agree but can we please stop policing every little detail about how other people play the game?

This is for sure a good point. I try really hard to think about how I can change things by my behavior and what I'll do and so on, and less worrying.

Anyway it's usually to my advantage for people to do dumb stuff

[Ruiner]

I roll dice all the time when making "inconsequential" early rounds attacks and it is fairly common in my playgroup for others to do the same. Generally whoever "randomly" was hit in the previous round(s) gets excluded from the roll in the current round, until finally only one person hasn't been randomly hit and they just get swung at.

That said, no one pulls the "it was the dice that made me hit you" defense other than in purely joking terms occasionally.

If there is a clear threat or reason someone should absolutely be a priority target then there is no die rolling either.

[kraus911]

Honestly this is all part of what I enjoy at a game, seeing people's personalities come out. Who prefers to disregard threat assessment in favor of not making enemies, who gets all bent out of shape because they're the first one to get attacked by a Wood Elves , etc? I really find it interesting to see what people want from a game.

That said, if it's a trend with a particular player and there are clear threats I'll point that out, because that's me. "I know you don't want to make enemies, but that player is playing a combo deck and we're going to need to race to take them out."

Another strategy though, why not just start every game with the Monarch? Roll for it, or maybe whoever goes last after rolling to see who goes first gets the Monarch. Then whoever wins gets Monarch the next game, throw a little blood in the water so to speak. Most of the games I've been in recently have had Monarch active by turn 3 or 4 anyways.

[Dragoon]

I don't mind random attacks in the early stages of the game. I certainly prefer that to arbitrary calls based on previous grievances, only knowing the commander of the deck, or even nothing at all.

It's also good to keep in mind the overall complexity of Magic in general and Commander in particular. Some players just don't want to dive into deep analysis for every decision they make, especially when said decision is unlikely to have a large impact on the game, e.g. does it really matter that I spent time figuring out who to attack with my Memnite instead of just rolling a die?