Intentional strategic misplaying

[DirkGently]

This came up on Reddit and I thought it was interesting enough to bring up here. Poster says he will intentionally make misplays to keep enemy threat assessment of him low.

For reference, here's the post:

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Is it possible to 'pub stomp' with an unaltered precon?

# EDIT: This is really important to me:

~~I'm not sure where the narrative of "I lie to people about my experience" came from, but its just not true. I've literally never told anybody that "I am new" or anything even remotely like that.~~ I used fast and sloppy wording in my original post that folks here apparently interpreted as "I tell people I dont know the rules so I can take illegal game actions", but I absolutely do not. I've since corrected that poor phrasing of this post.

Edit 2: Thanks for all the feedback folks! Its been super helpful. ~~And I cant believe it, but 177 comments and not a \*single\* RedditCares report! This community has really grown ~~ 226 replies and I got my first RedditCares of this post! So close r/EDH! You \*almost\* matured!

\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few months back I started tracking my games in a spreadsheet. Its been really fun to see the win rates of my decks as well as go back and read the notes from my old games. I also track the quality of the Rule 0 conversations I have, and my opponents commanders. So I get some really fun stats from different games, which is great!

During this process, I actually noticed that over about 40 games I was at a 60% win rate. I made a comment about them in a discord I am in and was immediately called a pub stomper and being told I just bring over powered decks to tables (no one I actually played with made these comments, but just random people). Sure, occasionally the Rule 0 conversations will not go super well or there were unintentional power mismatches, but I dont actively try to hide my decks power level. I actually have these cards I made for my decks that I show everyone at the table before the game ('EDH Stables' is a typo. Its meant to say Staples.): [

So after this happened I got pretty self conscious about my decks and all of that. Everyone hates pub stompers and I was genuinely concerned about accidentally doing anything like that, so I came up with a plan: I would play nothing but a precon commander deck for a month see if my win percentage fell to around 25%, as is commonly touted as 'the correct winrate'. Here is what I found:

* It was the Prosper precon.
* All games were 'untrusted' games (playing games against random folks on Spelltable/Discord/LGS).
* I played 29 games.
* I won 21 of those games. (72.41% win rate)
* The average turn was 9.5
* Turn 6 being the lowest, over tuned Kalamax deck brought to low powered table
* Turn 14 being the highest, a 9 player EDH game that legend has it is still running to this very day...
* My pregame discussion was as follows: "Hey guys, I'm playing a precon. Its Prosper still, so I don't think its any slouch. Feel free to play whatever deck you want and as long as you're all on an even power level, I dont mind being the weaker deck here."
* I would spend time trying to help the rest of the table match power levels (using a similar method to how I constructed my pre-game discussion card shown above).
* I played in every type of game from cEDH games (2, both of which I won) to all precons (most of my losses were in these games).
* Outside of full precon games, the only other times I lost was when there was a significant power difference between the other players.
* I absolutely used politics to my benefit and made strategic decisions with my cards.
* Phrases like "Okay I'll make you a deal: If you dont attack me, I'll continue to be an unaltered precon." Which usually resulted in a chuckle and the attack or spell being redirected to someone else.
* I intentionally avoided ever playing Etali. I would either pitch him or hold him in hand, but never play him.
* I took Sam Black's advice of minimizing your threat profile to heart. I focused primarily on never being the biggest threat at the table, even if it meant:
* Holding lands in hand and 'missing my land drop' (especially if I had a turn 1 Sol Ring)
* Not playing certain cards (like Etali, as mentioned above)
* Intentionally making very bad plays then calling them out as bad 'because I don't understand ~~the game~~ the boardstate/threat correctly'
* Doing my best to assemble a board without drawing attention to it (looking at you Theatre of Horrors, MVP of every game)
* Avoid discussing my Magic history or experience
* Bring up my deck being a precon and/or lower power periodically, often times around turns I know will be big and swingy for other players. Things like "Wow, I really enjoy this **precon** a ton. I've built alot of EDH decks, but this one is just so fun! **It doesnt do splashy things**, but it always feels like I have something to do, even if its just make a **silly** treasure."
* No one was salty at all about losing to a precon. Of 29 games, not a single person ever said they were upset to lose to the precon.
* To this point, games were incredibly fun a vast majority of the time. I often played multiple games with the same table, which is not common for me (I typically only have time for 1 or 2 games per session).

​

My biggest take away from this was reinforcement of something I heard Crim (The Asian Avenger) say multiple times on the MTG Goldfish Commander Podcast, which is (paraphrasing) "There are basically 3 power levels; jank/low, cEDH, and anything in between (whatever you want to call that). As long as you're somewhere in those 3 power levels, you can play against anyone else in those power levels and have a good game." It feels unnecessary to separate out "5/6/7/8" any more. They're all capable of being competitive with each other within a single pod.

So after dropping as much information as I could think to provide, I guess my question really shifts a bit to something more like "Is win percentage an absolute deterministic metric of whether one has pubstomped?"

So I'm curious what peoples opinion of this is. Is it BM? Is it clever? Is it cringe?

Personally I think it depends on what the intention was. Misleading threat assessment I think is pretty clever. Trying to drum up sympathy I think is pretty lame.

However I don't think people should base their plays on sympathy at all - if I leave someone alone, it's generally because I think they might be useful to me in the future and/or because I don't think they're a serious threat, not because I feel bad for them or am "going easy". If the new guy has a threatening board state, I'm going after them full-force.

I do think that talking too much about your own plays/board state, and making obvious attempts to manipulate your opponents, is very cringe though. Hard to say without seeing this guy play in person but I've certainly met plenty of people who downplay obviously-threatening stuff and it annoys the hell out of me. When you're obviously the threat, either own it or shut up.

Thoughts?

[Igzex]

It actually terrifies my usual group when I make a move that seemingly doesn't make any sense because they just know I'm trying to pull some weird Xanatos from Gargoyles gamble. A good way to make myself archenemy actually is to make a seemingly insane kingmaker play and say "Trust me". So sadly I have a much harder time doing strategic misplays myself but hey taking a risk from time to time can be worth it.

[DirkGently]

@Igzex The manoeuvre as described is essentially impossible in a stable group. The reason to do it is to lead opponents who don't know you to believe that you're a weaker player than you actually are. Can't really see that working with anyone you play regularly.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

Screw playing like that, win% be damned. It's not technically lying, but it smells like a grift all the same. Intentional misplays, refusal to honestly discuss prior experience, and pretending to misunderstand simple game states are all hallmark elements of a hustle, whether it be pool or Magic. Turns out, people are pretty easy to beat when you've carefully engineered their opinion of you and manipulated their expectations to your advantage.

Yeah, BM. It's BM imho. Fight honestly and with honor, always.

[kirkusjones]

BM? All of the things I can think of (besides Bad Magic) are childish, quelle surprise.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

BM? All of the things I can think of (besides Bad Magic) are childish, quelle surprise.

BM = Bad Manners.

[TheGildedGoose]

OP is a sociopath. That they don't recognize what they're doing is lying is actually pretty disturbing.

[Igzex]

@Igzex The manoeuvre as described is essentially impossible in a stable group. The reason to do it is to lead opponents who don't know you to believe that you're a weaker player than you actually are. Can't really see that working with anyone you play regularly.

Hence why I have acknowledged that it's a lot harder to try playing from weird angles ever since I established a tendency to concoct strange long winded plots to my group.

Also one has to be wary of the fine line between taking a risk with an unorthodox strategy and straight up lying.

[duducrash]

Op made up a fake story and still came up like an asshole. Really amazing

[DirkGently]

Screw playing like that, win% be damned. It's not technically lying, but it smells like a grift all the same. Intentional misplays, refusal to honestly discuss prior experience, and pretending to misunderstand simple game states are all hallmark elements of a hustle, whether it be pool or Magic. Turns out, people are pretty easy to beat when you've carefully engineered their opinion of you and manipulated their expectations to your advantage.

Yeah, BM. It's BM imho. Fight honestly and with honor, always.

I'm not sure how to best interpret "Avoid discussing my Magic history or experience". Is he just not bringing it up? I mean, that's totally fair imo. I don't give a %$#% about everyone's backstory. If I'm curious at some point I might ask, but if someone sat down and said "Okay, just so you all know, I've been playing magic since 1998, I have a 67% winrate, I've won three store championships..." my eyes would roll out of their head.

On the other hand, if someone asks "how long have you been playing" and he says "oh a while, I don't really know" then that's pretty scummy. Or at least lame and dumb.

Same for "Intentionally making very bad plays then calling them out as bad 'because I don't understand ~~the game~~ the boardstate/threat correctly'"...it's vague enough that I can see almost limitless permutations of how this might go. So here's two possible interpretations, on opposite sides of the spectrum.

Possibility one:
OP: attack with my 3/3.
P2: ....block with my 4/4.
OP: darn, my 3/3 dies. Pass turn.
P2-4: (This guy must be a complete moron. Time to ignore him).

Possibility two:
OP: attack with my 3/3.
P2: ...block with my 4/4.
OP: Oh my god, I'm so stupid, I don't even know how to play this game, I don't understand basic combat math, my mum drank heavily while pregnant with me, did I mention this is a precon? I did, twelve times? Well, let's make it thirteen!
P2-4: (I wish this cringelord would shut up and stop trying to obviously manipulate us) or (he must be new, I should go easy on him)

While I don't think I'd bother doing the former, I think it's an interesting strategy that's not inherently wrong. The second would be absolutely insufferable and should never be done by anyone. I've played against people that use similarly obvious manipulation techniques (though usually along the lines of "oh this deck is trash" or "my luck is terrible this game") and it's infuriating.

As a general rule, if you're doing something annoying external to the game, in order to get an advantage inside the game...don't. Don't do that.

As far as "fight honestly and with honor"...your hand is concealed for a reason. You have information that your opponents don't have, and you use that to attempt to get an advantage over them. Deception is baked into the formula. Just don't be obnoxious about it imo.

(as an aside, there was one guy who was REALLY obnoxious and obvious with his manipulations I played against a few times, more than I would have liked. I remember one particularly cringey game. The first couple turns, he spends every spare moment complaining about how he's drawing nothing but lands. Then, within 2 turn cycles at most, he starts complaining about how he never draws enough lands. He would literally always find some %$#%$#% thing to bemoan his luck over, get mad whenever anyone targeted him, and then "I pulled off my combo, gg." DO NOT BE THAT GUY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.)

OP is a sociopath. That they don't recognize what they're doing is lying is actually pretty disturbing.

In regards to which item specifically? Most of them I thought were vague enough that I could give benefit of the doubt...but at the end of the day, I think the way more interesting conversation is "what should the limits be of good sportsmanship when attempting to throw off enemy threat assessment?" I hope everyone can agree that withholding threatening spells to keep your threat profile low is fair play. I think "missing" a land drop after a t1 sol ring is pretty adjacent to that, even though it's a "misplay". So where's the line?

Whether or not this particular guy is a jerk isn't that interesting of a conversation I don't think. I'm way more interested in the theory, especially when the only information we have is his own secondhand account, with very limited details.

[Mookie]

Some of these the things brought up are things I consider normal politics / diplomancy, others are things that I consider scummy / manipulative. I do feel that the platonic ideal for multiplayer politics is to be able to play a weak deck and still win by having your opponents take each other out, so using politics to solve problems that you can't solve on your own is a normal and expected strategy. That said, there are also times that it goes too far and starts to cross into more questionable territory.

Some specific items:

My pregame discussion was as follows: "Hey guys, I'm playing a precon. Its Prosper still, so I don't think its any slouch. Feel free to play whatever deck you want and as long as you're all on an even power level, I dont mind being the weaker deck here."

I'm totally fine with this. I've played against people playing "modified precons", and it's occasionally felt a little scummy - i.e. swapping in Replenish into the Estrid, the Masked precon or Worldgorger Dragon combo into Anje Falkenrath, which is... a significantly higher power level than I expect out of a precon. If you're actually playing an actual unmodified precon and call it out, that's totally fine.

Holding lands in hand and 'missing my land drop' (especially if I had a turn 1 Sol Ring)

Not a fan of this. Holding lands? Sure. Complaining about it to garner sympathy? Yeah, pass. I generally draw a line at lying. If you keep a sketchy hand and it doesn't pay off, then sure, feel free to complain - I know I would. But don't complain about self-inflicted problems, even if the fact that it's self-inflicted is hidden information. (I'll also call out anyone complaining about their life total after using Necropotence / Sylvan Library)

Intentionally making very bad plays then calling them out as bad 'because I don't understand ~~the game~~ the boardstate/threat correctly'

This feels counterproductive to me. If you're a good player and consistently winning games, people will notice. This might work in unfamiliar metas, but not a sustainable strategy over the long term.

Bring up my deck being a precon and/or lower power periodically, often times around turns I know will be big and swingy for other players. Things like "Wow, I really enjoy this **precon** a ton. I've built alot of EDH decks, but this one is just so fun! **It doesnt do splashy things**, but it always feels like I have something to do, even if its just make a **silly** treasure."

Yeah, this feels scummy to me. If your deck is jank, I'm fine with calling it out, but if you're playing a known powerful commander (i.e. Prosper / Chulane, Teller of Tales / etc), then don't try to convince people otherwise. See also: all the Derevi, Empyrial Tactician / Urza, Lord High Artificer decks that 'are casual because they aren't playing Winter Orb'.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

@DirkGently when I say "fight honestly and with honor", I'm not saying you have to reveal your hand or tell your opponents your whole strategy. It's more that if your opponents ask you a question, you answer it honestly and in good faith. If a confusing gamestate occurs, try to resolve it in an equitable way instead of trying to bend it into some marginal advantage. If you're the threat at the table right now, own it.

Basically, I think subterfuge outside of the game used to eke out advantage in-game is scummy. There's a difference between keeping a low profile and outright manipulation.

Edit: I'm also gonna echo @duducrash here. OP is a liar anyway, so I don't see much point digging into the warped analytics of an asshole. 72% win rate? "Everybody enjoyed it, nobody ever complained"? OP may as well be claiming he had tea with Princess Diana on the moon yesterday.

[DirkGently]

@Mookie Did he say that he was complaining about holding lands to garner sympathy? He just says that he holds them, right? I'll agree that complaining about it would be annoying and VERY easy to overdo. But just doing it seems 100% ok to me.

I think he said he's playing LGS/online with randos all the time. Having played in LGSs with high turnover and large numbers, you don't play the same people often enough that they'll probably detect a strong pattern. Depending on how obvious the whole charade is...if you suddenly turn from Barney Fife into Kaiser Sose, that'll probably get picked up. If you play a little fast and casual at the front, and then get a little more serious towards the end, I don't think most people would notice. I play like that sometimes, simply because at the start of the game the board state is simpler, and there's not enough information to know where my targets need to be.

I do think using "casual conversation" deliberately to manipulate threat assessment can be pretty cringe. I used to do similar things on occasion and I've mostly learned to cut it out. If he's reiterating that it's a precon more than a couple times per game, that could definitely get obnoxious. That said, at the end of the day, he's literally talking about an unmodified precon, so while he might be sharking with his skill level, he can't really shark with his deck strength in any way. People can literally google it if they care enough. He even said that he starts the game by pointing out that the prosper precon is relatively strong for a precon (I don't actually know the list, but people seem to agree that it is).

@TheAmericanSpirit Sure, I agree with that. As I said, if he's actually trying to be misleading or obfuscating about his experience I think that's lame. If I was being charitable, though, I'd assume he just meant that he doesn't volunteer the information unless asked.

As far as being the threat, I think not commenting on it is also fine. Owning it is fine. Trying to brush it off with weak justifications is irritating for sure.

At some places and times, I think my winrate has been around that level. Yes, even playing precons sometimes. I don't think it's impossible. As far as nobody being salty...well, that's a bit vague. Usually someone is at least kinda salty regardless of how they lost. But I don't really care whether people were upset about playing against a precon - anyone who is upset because an opponent used a precon isn't worth taking seriously, so it's not a very interesting or useful data point. Nobody is wondering "is it BM to play a precon?" The real question is "is it BM to use these threat-assessment-manipulation-tactics?" And I think that's more of a philosophical question than one that can be answered by a survey of LGS randos who probably didn't even notice what was happening.

But at the end of the day, I don't really care if this guy is lying or if he's personally a jerk. I think the interesting question is whether - and which of - these sorts of tactics fit within the bounds of good sportsmanship. I'd lay out a few stepping-stone plays, from least sus to most sus:

1) not playing a big threat because you want to keep your threat profile low (i.e. don't play etali)
2) not playing a land on turn 2 after t1 sol ring to keep your threat profile low
3) attacking a 3/3 into a 4/4 with no combat trick or intended bluff to make people think you're a moron
4) holding back t2 land and complaining about being mana screwed
5) attacking a 3/3 into a 4/4 and commenting on how stupid you are
6) telling everyone you're new to the game when you aren't

Personally I think 1-3 are all totally fair game, and 3 is kinda hilarious tbh. 4 could be okay if you don't get annoying about it. "dang, no land" is okay. Kvetching ad nauseum is not. 5 is probably transparent and cringe. 6 is bad bad no no territory.

Feel free to add to and/or modify these stepping stones as you see fit.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

@DirkGently yeah, but I believe you when you make a win% claim. We all know you by now. It's a matter of trust. I ain't willing to extend the same benefit of the doubt to some reddit rando, especially one who writes a novella length post and can't be bothered to stick in a few jokes along the way.

Okay, but dialing back to the overall philosophical question of manipulation of threat assessment v. Sportsmanship, I'd say the nuance lies in the respect for one's opponents. If you respect an environment of honest, friendly competition, I say play to your best and let the cards fall as they may. All the OP's tactics feel slimier than achieveing the same net result fairly with a deck like Phelddagrif, which rewards tight play and requires no deliberate misrepresentations.

[DirkGently]

@TheAmericanSpirit I kinda want to segue away from the OPs post and focus more on the theory, so forget the specific things he claims to have done. I assume we're in agreement that tracking your own threat profile, and playing in a manner that keeps it in mind, is all part of the game. i.e. I'm not going to play a big scary threat like Jin-Gitaxias, Core Augur if my opponents collectively have lethal power on board, because even though Jin gives me a lot of power, he also paints a huge target on my head. And we're also in agreement that outright lying about your experience or hidden information is lame and cringe (simply concealing the information is fine for hidden information of course, but sus and weird for experience).

So my question is, on my 6-step ladder, where do you think the line is? Is there a clear definition between ok and not ok, or is it kinda fuzzy?

When I think about Phelddagrif, one thing I've found and pointed out is that it's often best to accept small hits in order to create an aura of vulnerability. Because you don't want people to see you as the guy holding all the answers, even though you kinda are. I think that sort of play lies somewhere on the ladder as well, probably around step 1.5. You don't say "I'm not holding removal" when you are, but you give the impression that you have less removal than you do by the plays that you make.

[Mookie]

@Mookie Did he say that he was complaining about holding lands to garner sympathy? He just says that he holds them, right? I'll agree that complaining about it would be annoying and VERY easy to overdo. But just doing it seems 100% ok to me.

To clarify, I'm parsing the OP as doing something like keeping a 3-lander + Sol Ring, intentionally skipping a land drop, and then announcing 'woe is me, for I have missed a land drop'. The complaining bit is what bugs me, not the original act of holding lands in hand.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

So my question is, on my 6-step ladder, where do you think the line is? Is there a clear definition between ok and not ok, or is it kinda fuzzy?

I'd go probably no further than step one. Anything beyond that feels wrong in my book. As for what's ok, I'm not sure. I've played in Risk groups that betrayed each other left and right, and others that felt that your word was an ironclad promise. In general, I believe people value honesty and dislike duplicity, so I'd lean towards steps 2-6 being generally not ok imo.

When I think about Phelddagrif, one thing I've found and pointed out is that it's often best to accept small hits in order to create an aura of vulnerability. Because you don't want people to see you as the guy holding all the answers, even though you kinda are. I think that sort of play lies somewhere on the ladder as well, probably around step 1.5. You don't say "I'm not holding removal" when you are, but you give the impression that you have less removal than you do by the plays that you make.

Fair enough, but I'd argue step 1.5 is the right stopping point anyway. Any further and we go beyond in-game politics into actual manipulation. Steps 2-6 just go too far imo.

[TheGildedGoose]

I have... thoughts about this.

To be transparent, I have a half-abandoned word document about exploiting social psychology and using basic game theory to inform your deckbuilding, threat assessment, and politicking, so this is the kind of stuff on my radar already. The big problem I have with OP's post is they are misrepresenting reality to win a casual game of Magic. You know, lying. Giving off the impression that you're a new or inexperienced player is, I don't know, pathetic and scummy. It's telling that these were all done in untrusted pods.

It's a shame too because this is actually a really interesting subject, and I'm glad you made this thread here so we could talk about it without having to post on Reddit and deal with those mouthbreathers.

Looking at Dirk's 1-6 scale:

1) not playing a big threat because you want to keep your threat profile low (i.e. don't play etali)
2) not playing a land on turn 2 after t1 sol ring to keep your threat profile low
3) attacking a 3/3 into a 4/4 with no combat trick or intended bluff to make people think you're a moron
4) holding back t2 land and complaining about being mana screwed
5) attacking a 3/3 into a 4/4 and commenting on how stupid you are
6) telling everyone you're new to the game when you aren't

1 is obviously fine and is called knowing how to play EDH.
2 is debatably just a bad play because you can just not cast proactively threatening spells while still making land drops that will help you later in the game.
3 is questionable at best. No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average EDH player, but your mileage may vary.
4 is obnoxious. Honestly, people that whine tend to draw my ire, especially if it's something generally within their control.
5 is annoying.
6 is pathetic.

There's a lot to be said about keeping a low threat profile. That and proper threat assessment will take you very far in EDH. Most of what OP is doing is absolute hokum, unfortunately.

When I think about Phelddagrif, one thing I've found and pointed out is that it's often best to accept small hits in order to create an aura of vulnerability. Because you don't want people to see you as the guy holding all the answers, even though you kinda are. I think that sort of play lies somewhere on the ladder as well, probably around step 1.5. You don't say "I'm not holding removal" when you are, but you give the impression that you have less removal than you do by the plays that you make.

Actually, I think it's best to accept small hits because they're inconsequential. Losing 8 life to a meaningless beater is a better deal than just Swordsing it. Yes, creating the appearance of vulnerability is a nice side-effect, but really, that 8 life isn't going to matter and that beater is just going to get wiped anyway. It's virtual card advantage.

Also, the idea that you should only win 25% of your games is nonsense. I couldn't tell you the exact percentage, but I think I win over half of my games, and that's largely because I'm very good at this game.

[DirkGently]

@Mookie But where did he say he would complain about it?

@TheAmericanSpirit I think there's a really narrow gap between 1 and 2 tbh.

In situation 1, you make the assessment that your board state plus etali is going to be threatening enough that the blowback won't be worth whatever advantage Etali gives you, so you don't play it.

In situation 2, you make the assessment that sol ring plus two lands is going to be threatening enough that the blowback won't be worth whatever advantage you get from those cards. However, instead of holding the typically-seen-as-a-bomb card (sol ring), you hold back the land instead.

In both cases you make the decision to withhold otherwise-good plays to moderate the threat level of your on-board presence. An opponent seeing you may make assumptions about what's going on with your hand in either case - "he must not have a sweet bomb to play" or "he must be out of lands" respectively, but those are their assumptions. There's no direct misrepresentation in either case. You're taking advantage of the assumptions you believe they'll make in order to attempt to get an advantage.

I think really the only big difference is that intentionally withholding your second turn land is "weird". Also it's probably a bad play tbh, but I gotta give this guy some credit for creativity.

Situation 3 is definitely a bit different, since you're not trying to moderate the threat level of your on-board presence, but moderate the threat level of your own perceived skill (I could make a step 2.5 where you make the same suicide attack, but the goal is to have fewer creatures on board to have a lower board presence, rather than to appear stupid - curious if you'd have a different opinion about that. I could definitely see myself doing something like that if, say, I had a stax creature on-board that was making everyone mad at me and attack me, so I decided suiciding it was better than getting killed myself). So I can see someone drawing the line before it, but I can't get mad at a strategy this funny, creative, and off-the-wall. A veteran player just straight-up suicide attacking and going "oh okay, my creature dies, pass turn" just to make his opponents think he has brain damage cracks me up every time I think about it.

As soon as you start narrativizing the whole thing and talking about how dumb you are, the irritation factor goes up very very quickly, and the humor dries up just as fast. As I said before, if you're being annoying outside the game to get an advantage inside the game, cut it out. But if you just do the in-game action without any commentary I have no problem with it. It's still a short-lived strategy since it'll probably be obvious assuming you make even remotely-competent plays in the future that you weren't really that stupid. But once it's clear you aren't brain damaged, people might think you were just hoping for a bluff or had some crazy 5D chess move you were planning out. That's the benefit of not commentating about it, people can fill in the gaps with whatever they want.

Putting the gap between 3 and 4 I think is fair, since you are basically lying in 4 whereas you aren't in 3. 4 and 5 are pretty close together, assuming that (if you're that far up the ladder) you're okay with 3. 3 is about leading people to believe you're stupid. 4 is about actually lying/misleading people about hidden information inside the game. Put them together and you get 5, but there's not really any new steps, just a combination of old ones. And then 6 is lying about information outside the game entirely.

I am kinda disappointed you have no comment on my story about mr "I'm mana flooded...jk I'm mana screwed". Seriously one of the most insufferable people I've ever played against. And pretty emblematic of where this sort of manipulation can go way over the line imo.

@TheGildedGoose I definitely don't disagree that 2 is probably a bad play and not worth it - if you're so worried about your threat level on turn 2, sandbag the sol ring, not the land. But it's just an example, I'm more focused on the sportsmanship of the play rather than the efficacy.

Not sure what you mean on #3. If you're saying that it's probably a bad play, I agree with that, but I don't think it's immoral. Definitely agree about the intelligence of the average EDH player though lol.

Agree on 4-6. Though there's definitely some grey area between "darn, no land" and "oh god, why do I always get mana screwed? This game is so frustrating. I can't believe I missed a date for this." Or for #5, "oops, that was dumb" vs "oh wow, I can't believe I did that, I really don't know how to play this game, hahahahahaha" I think I'd generally be fine with an opponent doing the former, though the latter should obviously carry multiple life sentences.

(and to elaborate further, I think a generic "darn" when you "fail" to draw a land, or your opponent takes the obvious block, is totally okay. Your opponents will probably assume it's because you don't have a land, or are too stupid to understand basic combat math, but you never said anything directly about those things, they're just drawing assumptions. Maybe you were actually upset that you drew a weak spell, or were hoping that they'd get bluffed into not blocking - both those things would also be consistent with your actions.)

As far as Phelddagrif and taking small hits, I'm talking about a situation where you're set up with repeatable draw power already. You could burn removal against a mediocre attacker, then use the draw power to immediately recuperate the expenditure. But I think it's often better, especially when your life is high, to just take the damage rather than use removal and draw cards and just generally "do a bunch of stuff", because doing a bunch of stuff and overly-controlling the board is going to make you look threatening, and Phelddagrif never ever ever wants to look threatening. You want to give people the impression that, if it's a 1v1 between you and them, they're going to be able to knock you out. If you kill everything that approaches you, even if killing it would be "free", they're going to be afraid to engage in a 1v1 and they're more likely to team up against you before that happens, which is bad news.

[TheGildedGoose]

Not sure what you mean on #3. If you're saying that it's probably a bad play, I agree with that, but I don't think it's immoral. Definitely agree about the intelligence of the average EDH player though lol.

Just a bad play in general; the political gain from appearing to be an idiot is such a hypothetical as to not matter at all.

And really, that's the takeaway for me. Most of the specifics of OP's post have little to do with the outcome, and the things they gloss over (play skill, threat assessment, political ability) are actually the meat and taters of the conversation.

As far as Phelddagrif and taking small hits, I'm talking about a situation where you're set up with repeatable draw power already. You could burn removal against a mediocre attacker, then use the draw power to immediately recuperate the expenditure. But I think it's often better, especially when your life is high, to just take the damage rather than use removal and draw cards and just generally "do a bunch of stuff", because doing a bunch of stuff and overly-controlling the board is going to make you look threatening, and Phelddagrif never ever ever wants to look threatening. You want to give people the impression that, if it's a 1v1 between you and them, they're going to be able to knock you out. If you kill everything that approaches you, even if killing it would be "free", they're going to be afraid to engage in a 1v1 and they're more likely to team up against you before that happens, which is bad news.

Well, that's my point. The opportunity cost is too high. There are a huge list of downsides (of which only one is cultivating the aura of vulnerability), and the upside is... you save 8 life? I would rather keep my mana open to interact with something more threatening than remove a mere beater. I guess what I'm saying is, while everything you're saying is essentially correct, it's just a level removed from my basic heuristic of "Does this matter?"

[DirkGently]

Just a bad play in general; the political gain from appearing to be an idiot is such a hypothetical as to not matter at all.

And really, that's the takeaway for me. Most of the specifics of OP's post have little to do with the outcome, and the things they gloss over (play skill, threat assessment, political ability) are actually the meat and taters of the conversation.

I really want to focus on the sportsmanship/morality of the plays, not the efficacy. If I wanted to spend more time, I could come up with scenarios that are more realistic and where the advantage is more tangible (or at least the downsides less significant), but I really just want to talk about whether these kinds of misleading plays are sportsmanlike or not. I don't care if they're effective (in this context).

Well, that's my point. The opportunity cost is too high. There are a huge list of downsides (of which only one is cultivating the aura of vulnerability), and the upside is... you save 8 life? I would rather keep my mana open to interact with something more threatening than remove a mere beater. I guess what I'm saying is, while everything you're saying is essentially correct, it's just a level removed from my basic heuristic of "Does this matter?"

Let's say everyone else is tapped out, it's your turn next, nothing overly threatening is on board, Phelddagrif is tapped, you have a buyback removal spell in hand (or some other situation where you know for a fact that you can trivially recoup the card) and nothing else to do with the mana, and a 5/5 vanilla swings at you. If I'm at 40 life, and especially if everyone else is at 25, I'd absolutely take that damage on the chin. I'd do it so fast that people would assume I don't even have removal. I absolutely believe that an aura of vulnerability is beneficial enough to sacrifice life for, even with no other benefits.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

@DirkGently Alright, I see what you mean about steps 2 & 3, though I think 2 is just plain stupid strategically (just hold the stupid sol ring!) and 3 is really context-reliant such as your stax creature example. Even so, I still feel like doing these things to manipulate your threat profile is micromarginal advantage at best and dishonest at worst. I don't much care for walking those kind of thin lines.

I am kinda disappointed you have no comment on my story about mr "I'm mana flooded...jk I'm mana screwed". Seriously one of the most insufferable people I've ever played against. And pretty emblematic of where this sort of manipulation can go way over the line imo.

You know when you're reading a bunch of stuff and you just miss a paragraph in all the confusion? Yeah, that dude sounds awful. And if he's one of the worst in the International rogue's gallery of your play experience, I imagine he was pretty beyond-the-pale bad.

Edit: I also wanna add that I only condone steps 2 & 3 under the conditions that "trying to convince others that I am a moron" is removed as a secondary or tertiary goal of those plays. I still think that whole schtick reeks like a corpse.

[TheGildedGoose]

I really want to focus on the sportsmanship/morality of the plays, not the efficacy. If I wanted to spend more time, I could come up with scenarios that are more realistic and where the advantage is more tangible (or at least the downsides less significant), but I really just want to talk about whether these kinds of misleading plays are sportsmanlike or not. I don't care if they're effective (in this context).

I guess the reductio ad absurdum argument is that what OP is doing is essentially the same as faking an intellectual disability in order to throw off threat assessment, right? I'd say that's pretty universally considered immoral and unsportsmanlike. Obviously in reality the morality/sportsmanship of a play exists on a spectrum, but the OP's whole approach just felt super gross and it's kind of hard to pinpoint exactly why that is.

Let's say everyone else is tapped out, it's your turn next, nothing overly threatening is on board, Phelddagrif is tapped, you have a buyback removal spell in hand (or some other situation where you know for a fact that you can trivially recoup the card) and nothing else to do with the mana, and a 5/5 vanilla swings at you. If I'm at 40 life, and especially if everyone else is at 25, I'd absolutely take that damage on the chin. I'd do it so fast that people would assume I don't even have removal. I absolutely believe that an aura of vulnerability is beneficial enough to sacrifice life for, even with no other benefits.

I would take the 5 at 20, 25, 40, and 148. I just don't think the 5/5 vanilla beater will really be consequential.

Which is leading me to make me think I should start my own thread about that...

[DirkGently]

@TheAmericanSpirit As I said, I want to talk principally about the sportsmanship angle, completely divorced from whether or not it's effective. So there's not really a "thin" line...it might be close to the line of bad sportsmanship, but there's no other line on the other side (i.e. whether or not it's actually effective) to worry about. It's just a question of what's on the good side of the line, and what's on the bad side, when it comes to sportsmanship.

If someone thinks suiciding a stax creature because people are beating the hell out of you for it is bad sportsmanship, I think they're insane lol. That, to me, is clearly a fair play (and can be VERY-not-marginal). So it stands to reason that if you think any creature - even if it's just a 3/3 token - is raising your threat profile too high, that suiciding it to lower your profile is fair play (even if it's probably not a good play, simply because it's so hard to perfectly-fine-tune your threat profile - your opponents aren't calculators who will suddenly flip from threat to non-threat based on some small change pushing your calculated-threat-level below a threshold - but that's effectiveness, not sportsmanship).

I can't get upset at the idea of someone pretending to be an idiot to throw off threat assessment. It's just too funny (and honestly it does seem super marginal in every situation I can imagine). IF it's strictly within the bounds of making legal plays. Trying to do something illegal because "you don't know the rules"? Go to hell. Narrativizing how stupid your play was? Go to hell. Pretending to not understand what's going on? Go to hell. Make weird plays, let people draw incorrect assumptions, but please don't turn my game into community theatre.

@TheGildedGoose I really don't want to focus on the OPs post specifically since I don't care about him. I just care about the core conceit of the maneuvers suggested by his post, not his personal behavior.

If it helps, let's all agree that he's a terrible person, so we can move on to talking about whether there is or isn't a version of those maneuvers that WOULD be sportsmanlike.

Dude, you're going to get into a big argument with 3drinks if you keep talking like that lol. How dare you disrespect Blastoderm! But if you would take the 5, then it sounds like you agree with me that giving you opponents a false impression of vulnerability is worth sacrificing other resources, and thus has tangible value. Unless there's some other justification for taking the 5 when you have a completely free answer.

[TheAmericanSpirit]

@DirkGently If we completely divorce effectiveness, then I say throw out steps 2-6 as generally unsporting. I don't want to play against fools. A good sportsman gives his opponents honest, worthwhile competition and expects the same in return. Magnanimous in victory, graceful in defeat, honorable throughout. Acting the fool is none of that.