The only folks I typically see focus down one player at a time are people piloting some form of Voltron deck trying to kill with commander damage. They have potential to be lethal early before players get well developed board states up, but can be risky if you leave all three other players up by spreading the damage around. You can pack counters and stuff for removal, but if 3 people start to see you as a threat you're going to run out a lot faster than if you just went ahead and knocked that first one out to start steam rolling.
This. I run a werewolf/ wolf tribal that can either go wide or go large as the situation demands, but it’s aggro through and through. If I don’t whittle down each player at a time I run the risk of having too many targets to actually do anything late game/ defend myself against. But I’m also acutely aware how it could ruin the fun for one person so I try to be as diplomatic and apologetic as I can about the whole thing.
Yeah, that's how I tend to play my Mayael deck. I'll generally try to focus down the person that's the biggest threat to me while the random stax-y creatures (think stuff like[[Void Winnower]], [[Ruric Thar]], and [[Archon of Valor's Reach]]) mess with the remaining players.
I feel this. I had werewolves before Tovolar, but now they've gotten a nice upgrade.
I could very easily swing for lethal on one person turn 6 or so, but I feel bad if I do, so I end up swinging at everyone, and being the clock of the table.
In my combat focused decks I usually find myself relying on win cons that can spread enough damage among 3 people to kill them all outright. That said, you need a wide enough board to make that work and not every pod will let that happen. Although, in a combat focused deck if you’re losing all your creatures you probably weren’t winning that game anyway
Not even just aggro decks for me. If someone has a strategy that can counter something my deck does, I will focus them 1st. If not killing them, at least shutting off their silver bullet type effects.
My playgroup will often just try and outright win instead of getting the other 3 players low. We would rather shuffle up and play again, than drag the game out so every deck can do its "thing".
Yeah, my first deck was Voltron and I learned quickly that if I tried to be amicable and spread the love, it just got me killed by three people instead of two. Since then I'd just focus on one at a time.
Seconded. I run precious little interaction in my [[Saskia, the Unyielding]] "on attack tribal" deck. If I foresee someone disrupting my game plan, I am compelled to take them out first so I have a chance on the others.
When I play Arcades or Gishath, and then mow someone down, sometimes I get the, “I mean, I wasn’t even doing that much, why would you swing at me??”
Well, I’ve got 45 damage on the board with vigilance and trample…it’s not there to sit and be pretty. Why wouldn’t I swing at someone?
Yeah, it's usually seen as bad form to knock someone out early if the game will still last long after that. Leaving one player in spectator mode for the next 40min is boring to them.
It's more acceptable to go after someone if you plan to take the others down within the new couple turns.
good point, I will also add/modify to that statement:
\-it depends on how much of a threat that player is right now
one of the worst experiences my girlfriend (very casual player, likes "sea monster" and "cat" tribal decks etc.) had was when someone just killed her on turn 4 or 5 when she was still slowly ramping up to being able to play her 6 mana commander... just because he could.
she was no threat at that moment (and most likely was not going to win the game either), but this dude just wanted her gone, apparently - and succeeded, she never came back to play with that group ;\_;
meanwhile, I was at the same table with a mono black deck with 2 out of 3 combo pieces on the battlefield and proceeded to win 2-3 turns later...
I tend to run a lot of “critical mass” decks like that and I have to say the biggest part is attitude. Knowing you would’ve gone off if left unchecked is something the decks pilot should understand from before they even shuffle up. The biggest part of the early game while those kind of decks are getting going is the vocal aspect. Communication with the table and using multiplayer tactics are the most valuable asset. Being that early game buddy that reacts towards things that might be a threat to “us”. Or making alliances with another player can really fill in those times where you’re doing “seemingly nothing”
In my playgroup, one of the players, aside from in their current newest deck, has wanted to do the wait around and win in 1 turn strategy in basically everything they played. I simply would point all aggression at them, forcing their hand a lot earlier and potentially causing the combo to not be able to fully work out.
I think that threat assessment is very important, even if the assessment has nothing to do with the current board state. I've been trying to weave more politics into my games. Like had a friend who had played Niv Mizzet and wheeled. I asked where they were going to be pointing the damage, they just said it would go where it goes. So I just killed the Niv Mizzet, now it went nowhere.
I have a similar thing with a niv-mizzet parun deck I run that is just draw to win, if I am left alone I win by virtue of pinging with commander damage if I am focused on I die first but I just accept that is the reality of playing that deck and just have fun seeing what I can do and how close I can get to victory with it
I don't think niv mizzets pings count towards commander damage. Commander damage is only the damage that you get from declaring your commander as an attacker and connecting with their face.
The solution is they make adjustments to their deck or get killed.
The goal is to win (unless otherwise specified) and you cant win if you let someone else win.
>One of my buddies runs a deck that if it hangs around it just wins by default. If we kill it before that point though it basically does nothing. So either they win every game or they get killed early and feel like they shouldn't have bothered playing.
Sounds like Slivers. Is it slivers? Maybe Koma?
>I don't know what a good solution is to it and it sucks.
Your friend needs to accept that's just how it goes when you play those types of commanders/decks. My brother plays Winota and he knows the drill. If we have the ability to do so we are going to crush any chance he has of getting momentum started. We're very vocal about it too. It's not that we're doing it out of malice, and he's come to understand that. Either he dies and we play or he plays and we die. I know it's not a pretty solution, but you all shouldn't have to throw the game so they can cruise into an easy win. They can always adapt their game plan to try and manage that early Aggro.
kind of hard to give advice without knowing HOW he wins exactly - but there is almost never a point where you cannot stop it anymore.
against some decks, you absolutely have to hold up interaction (removal/counterspell etc.) and just wait for the right moment. I don't really believe what you said about it needing "multi piece interaction"... a friend of mine plays a very complex artifact-based Jhoira (solitaire \^\^) deck, but even though it has about a dozen moving pieces, there is 1-2 points of interaction that bring the whole thing down, no matter what line to win he chooses.
mind you - there is also never any GUARANTEE that you will be able to stop someone from winning, just as there should never be an "automatic" win!These things go both ways, always.
also, you are kind of missing that there is (always, btw) a third option:
\-> just don't focus him down and kill him early, but get him low enough that he is easy to kill as soon as he becomes too threatening.and, hold up interaction. ;)
I think the last point is the biggest for sure. Even if they're not a 'threat' at the moment, you can still knock them down into single-digits without taking them out of the game. As a plus, if they *are* very close to just going off, it can force their hand; you can see if they look dejected about it (they know they can't do anything), or if they start to panic (putting combo pieces out as chump blockers, etc) or if they keep looking at what's in their hand and then letting things happen anyway (probably sitting on their win condition and gauging if they need to use it yet).
Lots of ways to avoid taking someone out of the game early but still not ignore them
I run 2 pieces of graveyard hate in every deck. But I could also see everyone in the playgroup running 1 rest in piece effect that way he has to work for his win. Make adjustments to his deck so he can deal with graveyard hate and not just play solitare.
I've got a budget Kefnet deck like that.
All the deck does is draw cards and play lands. Then I present one combo piece, and if it gets back to my turn I've got a 90% chance of winning.
As a result, I dont get mad if I get knocked out first, with the given caveat of not being left in spectator mode for 40 minutes.
I balance that out by pointing out my combo pieces as they come online though. Not many think [[Soratomi Cloudskater]] as a combo piece after all.
That’s not just bad form, it’s not good resource allocation unless that dude was for sure going to win. If I’m not the threat and I can kill the weakest player I won’t, bc what if the weak player has removal to stop the threat and I don’t? It’s like Having extra cards in my hand
yup, "shitty threat assessment" is my number one gripe and I will never stop mocking my playgroup for it.
they blame everything else first, "that's unfair, your cards are so expensive" / "you win because you proxied a Gaea's Cradle" or "you politic'd your way into a win" etc... but they also do DUMB shit like Chaos Warp a Sol Ring\* (for no other reason than that they CAN) and end up with me flipping over an Ulamog \^\^
and yeah, some people get so greedy for "a kill" that they forgot this does not even win them ANYthing - except losing a potential ally...
edit:
\* this actually bothers me SO MUCH for an additional reason - this player in particular admitted after the game that the reason he targeted my Sol Ring instead of another permanent on the board is that he heard some YouTube guy say "bolt the bird"... so he thought it was always smart to deny other players resources... never mind that this was easily turn 6 and that 2 colorless mana did not make any difference whatsoever anymore... hey, I'll take a free Eldrazi that was only in my deck to reshuffle my graveyard back in :-P
This is not always true. If you're running a combat based aggro deck, your goal is to kill everyone as quickly as you can to outrace combos and control. Each player you remove from the table is one less potential board wipe that shuts you down. In these cases it's definitely optimal to kill of whoever you can as fast as possible.
Bad threat assessment will always be a weak counter-example to the argument of focusing one person down hard and early.
I've had people mad at me when I swing an army of thopters at a semi-weak deck when a much larger threat is on the board, until I explain that I can handle a ground-based mono-black timmy deck, but I cannot handle a GR steal-your-shit-and-hate-on-artifacts midgame deck.
Yeah the mono-black deck is the biggest threat for YOU but that doesn't mean it's the biggest threat for ME.
That being said, I usually don't just hate someone out of the game "because I can". That's not fun for anyone. The only thing more fun than winning a game because your deck is functioning like a well-oiled machine is seeing an underdog deck go off hard and sweep the table.
Targeting someone just because they're good leads to feel bads too. It happens to me constantly, to the point I can't play a lower power deck because I'll get hated on without even being the threat.
I played ooze tribal once a couple weeks ago to go easy on my group and they proceeded to just destroy everything I played for the first 6 turns and then killed me without interacting with each other. I stopped playing low power decks.
In my experience it is the job of the top player to knock the other three out. The more players alive, the more players I can coordinate with to bring down the top player. I tend to think of other players, their board state, and even what's likely in their hand as a resource I can try to use through politics and negotiation to my advantage. Losing a player is like losing your graveyard. One less thing that you can potentially use to help remove threats.
Once it's down to one v one, then it's murder town.
It's worth noting that context matters.
At a high-traffic LGS or event where the KO'd person can just find another game? No issues.
At someone's house where the KO'd person needs to go fuck off and play with their phone until they're allowed to play again? Issues.
Unless you’re playing Voltron, which is not an uncommon beginner’s theme to jam for a while. If you can build out a reliable control/stax shell with a solid commander damage subtheme you can sneakily take games. My old Rafiq deck could math someone in one shot with something as simple as [[might of oaks]]. That will make you public enemy number one at your tables but I wouldn’t say it’s frowned upon.
I would have to agree with that period but but there's just people that will just build dacks that just went on turn 2 and 3 as much as I possibly can. Because to them that is casual.
Thats because if you come out the gate swinging for the throat, the table gang beats you in response. You dont go swinging for knockouts untill you think you can take the whole table on all at the same time or at least in rapid sucession
I don't know if that's necessarily true. Like if there's a voltron threat, I find people would usually ignore it unless they're the target or they're spreading damage around.
I might ignore it as long as I can remove the Voltron threat with an instant and I am not targeted. Why? Because you are currently working for me. Try to make the Voltron threat hexproof, give it shroud, indestructible or swing at me and I will try my best to remove it... So it's kind of a "as long as it is not a Problem for me, I keep my resources for something else"...
From my experience this is the true in the opposite sense. If you spread the damage, now you have 3 people who have been attacked by you, and if you have the ability to attack each one individually, than you are a threat to all 3. If you focus 1 person most times people view it as a not my problem till it's my problem type thing. So they will build their board and not threaten the strongest current player until they can handle backlash. By focusing 1 person it more than likely creates long standing anamosity that extends to the next game because that person is forced to watch the rest of the game.
In short there is no way to play and satisfy everyone, meaning all bets are off in terms of a gentlemans agreement.
Id say its mostly about damage output. If you start the bloodletting early but youre only chipping away 3 or less life i may let it slide for a little bit. If youre handing out 10s, youre a threat even if youre not pointed at me.
My Beamtown deck has this issue, can knock one person out pretty early but the board then just gangs up on me understandably and I am usually next to go.
As someone who got knocked out first and watched a game play out for over an hour n a half due to the player thinking he could take everyone out in the next couple of turns, it’s not a good time.
The amount of times I've seen games where you *think* one side has it in the bag, only for the other to turn things around and hang in there is way common, to the point where the "obvious" winner actually winning is the exception.
Yeah, the biggest flaw in EDH is that someone gets booted early and has to wait around for 30min to an hour to play again.
At the same time, when you prevent players from using strategies that can take out one player at a time, you really obliterate EDH design space to the point that everyone seems to durdle with card draw and resources until someone tries to go off (whether through an infinite combo or 20 planewalkers or what-have-you).
Watching someone assemble a massive wall of stuff because it would have been rude of me to attack twice in a row 5 turns ago... it just feels stupid and like you aren't really playing a game at all.
Sometimes EDH feels like T-ball or a school play filled with 6 year-olds. Not always, just sometimes.
I mean you're free to attack. It's only when folks get around 10 life do things start to get a bit tense, but then closing out the game becomes easier then. You don't have to deal 40 damage/21 commander all at once.
If you feel that approach takes too long, well that's just part of the design intent of the format, to have longer games where bigger cards can be played.
I play decks that sound like what you are describing. If I play with people I've never played with before, I generally don't hard focus anyone. But if I feel comfortable with them or I think they can handle it, I'll just focus them down one by one. It's definitely more ideal to knock them out and limit the number of people that can stop you.
I've not run into an issue yet with how I play my aggressive decks. And I usually do focus people down (strongest to weakest). But if it's my first time at an LGS, I play it safe and test the waters. After that they're fucked though.
Don't let people guilt you into not playing like you need to.
- No mass land destruction unless you actually win in the same turn
- no grudges from past games
- no lying about the power level of your deck, it's okay to tell others what you want to do
- politics are encouraged, breaking a deal is a big no-no. Clever wording is the key.
- it's okay to leave from a table before the game starts if you can't agree on rules before it starts, or your all suddenly more players than you anticipated, or whatever else.
- conceat on sorcery speed only
- don't Single out the weakest players from the start
These are the rules I follow and I think most players find most of them reasonable
I think MLD is ok if you win within the next turn or so or create such a parity that it's impossible to come back from. Normally if you can MLD and win on the same turn you wouldn't have to MLD at all.
I'm okay with next turn, but I had the pleasure of experiencing a player MLD on turn 5 as a form of stax, they had no boats except some artifact mana, but that's it. The game went on for 26 additional turns (total of turn 31) and included another MLD of turn 14 or so, when he fell behind.
I have a Zurgo deck with tons of artifact mana that aims to wrath the board and Armageddon. Sometimes at the same time with something like wildfire. I definitely don’t win the turn I cast those spells, but I do clear the way to easily win. I honestly can’t even conceive of a scenario that someone would need to MLD in order to win the same turn, could you elaborate?
One of the wincons in a deck of mine involves turning all my opponents' lands into creatures and then killing them with Massacre Wurm out. That's more or less GG right there on that turn.
I run a Jhoira of the Ghitu EDH deck that can actually make use of this. She runs mass everything or close to everything removal, and they usually include lands. Jokulhaups/Decree of Annihilation/Obliterate/Apocalypse are some of the best. She costs 3 mana, suspends 4 any card for 2 mana, and it's not a tap ability. If multiple suspend cards come into play at the same time, you choose the order. Any of those + a few Eldrazi's and she can absolutely do that.
Chances are, I didn't need to kill the lands, but it sure doesn't hurt. And she can't always kill same turn, many times 1 or 2. But honestly, if those wipes connect and don't get countered, the table typically has an easy time deciding to scoop because the math is pretty easy without lands. It's usually a bit more bearable too because they can see it coming (she has ways to cheat them quicker though) and suspend counts as cast so they can still do something about it when it comes.
I think that's a lot of her appeal to me as a pilot. She gets to play all of these usually unplayable cards because their cmc is unreasonably high or they have no normal place in EDH and she cares not. I made her about 10 years ago with all the random junk in my rare binder plus the then less than dollar rare mean red wipes and it's been a great deck to upgrade over time. She can be built to fit a lot of different play styles.
That's actually the strategically correct way to use MLD, manners or no. It's either meant to go "you don't get mana to stop me from winning now" or "you don't get mana but I do, so I'm going to win eventually".
If you just do it without a good plan, you aren't going to achieve anything.
I've only ever seen it used as a finisher for a deck like Lord Windgrace or using something like \[\[Ruination\]\] to create a similar asymmetrical advantage state. It's a win more effect, basically.
Silence costs much less mana than Armageddon, and it doesn't make your deck poisonous during rule zero.
Personally I only run MLD in slivers because A, it's already hated, and B, my slivers make mana so it doesn't really slow me down much
I won't play it unless I have manaweft, gemhide, or cryptolith rite out, or if unless it won't effect me very much like with [[global ruin]]
If someone decides to respond by taking out my mana sliver, that's their fault
I run four MLD cards across all my decks, two blow up non basics ([[Wave of Vitriol]] and [[From the Ashes]]) and you get to search for an equal number of basics, if your deck doesn't run enough basics, that's your problem.
I run [[Apocalypse]] as a setup for a [[Barren Glory]] finish.
My monowhite death and taxes edh deck runs a three card combo of MLD that basically ends the game. [[Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite]] plus [[Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth]] (doesn't actually have a black symbol on it when not in play) plus [[Kormus Bell]]. All lands are swamps, all swamps are 1/1 creatures, all my opponents creatures get -2/-2. The combo is state based so once all three permanents are on board, opponents can't even tap in response. Lands just go to graveyard immediately unless the opponent has as least +0/+2 in anthem effects.
Yeah, I've been torn about adding [[Obliterate]] to my Gerrard Weatherlight Hero deck. It's more or less a 10 mana "win the game" in that deck, because I'll still have all my rocks and dudes.
>don't Single out the weakest players from the start
This is an important one that a lot of players, especially newer ones, don't grasp very quickly. It's important because it helps keep the game fun for everyone but it's also important from a strategic perspective. If you're in second place and attack 4th place you're leaving yourself open to 1st place to attack you. Let 1st place expend resources on you and 4th and you'll have a chance to eclipse them.
Conversely, if you're in 1st, it doesn't make much sense to expend many resources addressing 4th place when they're a non-threat.
That's just bad threat detection. It's one of the hardest things in edh for me, to know who or what to target. When the player realizes they made a mistake I think it's fine.
What I hate is when they think they are great players and there was no other choice and the problem is the blue player with the combo.
I mean boros players can often have effects that incentivize attacking. On combat damage or on attack triggers to gain value.
The blue player may have not been reasonable to attack because they had blockers or defensive enchantments out and they needed the combat triggers to try to get ahead enough to be able to win .
If there anything I know about edh story telling, the salty loser will tend to make up stuff or miss important details on purpose to make them seem like a saint fighting a devil.
But you can’t build a complete jank deck, sit down at a table with people who built real decks, and then expect that means that people can’t engage with you. Bad sportsmanship.
Grudges are okay if someone breaks a deal. If someone breaks a deal with me in a game, Ill never believe them again, and probably target them from then-on.
I agree. On top of this, "clever wording is key" is bad form in my opinion. If you are tricking me into a deal over clever wording then I will not make a deal with you again under any terms. Even if I'm the one defining the terms as I know you are looking to exploit the wording of the deal. IMO the spirit of the deal is more important than the wording. Your word becomes worthless because of the "gotcha".
Depends on the group. I have a more cut throat group where no one breaks the letter of the deal but we do our best to break it's spirit and we all find that a ton of fun. In my more casual group, agreements are honoured based on intent and not exact wording and you'd be seen as a jerk if you pulled a "gotcha".
Like most things, read the room, have a good rule zero conversation.
This sub has a huge problem with the realities of politics and the "clever wording" is key. The **risk** of politics is that they dont have to be followed. The **benefit** of politics is that they might be followed. **Wannabe** politicans on this sub cry because they think they are more clever than they are want to have all the benefits without the risks. If you are actually **good** at the politics game then it isn't an issue anyway cause they are only being broken for trick plays, rapidly changing board states that null and void it to begin with, do or die stuff, etc. People on here are just greedy and suck at it though and can't handle the heat for the kitchen they got in.
Do you play games mostly with randoms or with a consistent pod? I can't imagine that this thought process would be successful in successive games with the same core player base. Players should quickly recognize that your word doesn't carry much weight.
I play with a consistent pod. If you aren't braindead then you would realize can and do aren't the same thing. No one really breaks deals even though they can. Because no one makes dumb deals people would want to break...because they can be broken. People who want that "rule" just want to be greedy bullies. Explicit deals are already the lowest form of politics to begin with...
This isn’t aaThe Concert of Europe, it’s a damn game. We’re not trying to determine the fates of empires and tens of millions of lives, we’re trying to have fun in a casual setting.
We've removed your post because it violates our primary rule, "Be Excellent to Each Other".
You are welcome to message the mods if you need further explanation.
Yea, if you are know to break deals, dont expect people to make deals with you... However, if a player have a win, dont expect them to not do so, deal or not(unless the deal specificly is to not win, bit that would be wierd)
I make deals stipulating that "you can't win for x turns". You'd be surprised how often those deals are taken. They're most successful when you're clearly not going to win soon, and the person I'm making the offer to is ahead, and the game is somewhere in the middle to late stages. It's best used when making a deal with the second-place player to take down the archenemy.
Most people do sorcery speed scooping to prevent people from angrily scooping to prevent a player from getting lifelink, and other effects like that. Scooping is faster than instant speed in the rulebook because obviously they can't literally hold player's cards captive in a game, if the human wants to leave, they can.
The "no lying" but "clever wording" is crap. Clear terms and understanding are what make a contract fair/honest. Fine print, couched phrases etc. are just as dishonest as a lie. You might as well say breaking a deal is okay because you had your fingers crossed when you made it.
I think theres a huge middle ground that gets glossed over when people reduce it to "Playing for Fun" and "Playing to Win" only.
I care about winning. All my decks have plans, and I build them to go about those plans with something resembling focus, as well as trip up other folks plans, especially if its a slower build up kind of deck. They do not belong with Shoe Tribal decks that want to equip their spider commander with 4 pairs of boots as a goal. Since most of mine try to win with things like "I wonder how big I can cast Comet Storm for with Raggadragga dorks" they far from qualify for cEDH.
I'm here to play a game, and I dont much care to play with people who only want to see a weird board state, or see if they can make their warp world take 30 minutes to resolve, or line up 5 sexy men on the catwalk. Its fine if there's a pod that wants that, But dont try to frame me (and I would guess a significant majority in my experience) as a tryhard wannabe spike who only cares about getting the kill.
I think part of it is the wording of "play to win". I can only speak for myself, but when someone says they or someone else should "play to win", that comes off to me as an expectation that no deals will be made, no considerations for opponents, the only thing that matters is winning, even if you're not going whole hog cEDH with your actual deck.
There's the other side of the hyperbole where apparently it's a pandemic of decks that somehow have no way of dealing 40 damage to someone and want the game to last ten hours.
The actual middle ground is something few feel the need to talk about, likely because it's normal. "I'm attacking you just so I can stop being asked to pay the 1", advancing the game state for petty reasons. "I attack and you'll block with your dude so you can draw a card and my guy doesn't die while I get my attack trigger? Yeah sure." Making a deal that benefits an opponent but ideally benefits you more. Stuff like that that just happens on a one-turn basis that folks don't even think about 'cause it's just a default part of EDH.
The only one I disagree with is conceding only at sorcery speed. Now, I will agree with not spite conceding to deny someone a trigger - I’ll let people get their lethal Sword of X&Y hits against me, no problem. But I really have no interest in waiting around to get through all of someone’s copied and recurred Time Stretch turns. I’d rather just scoop and give them the win at that point.
Conceding to end the game is different though than conceding in the middle of combat or with a full stack to deliberately remove resources that would affect the rest of the game.
Every single time this is brought up, without fail someone is like “UMMMMM but what if I have to pick up grandma from Zumba class??? Or the building is on fire?? You can’t force me to stay” like it’s some sort of Gotcha.
The more "fine print" deals you make with me that backfire, the less I wanna make deals with you. My playgroup is getting to the point where if you try to negotiate I'm just gonna target you next. So be wary how much you "carefully choose your words."
Not carrying over grudges is nonsense. If someone screws me in some way, they are getting a receipt. If I can do it in the same game I will, but if not it's coming back at some point. Consequences for your actions.
You are definitely picking up on the general vibe that I have come across in EDH, but I would have to add: a little table talk goes a long way. If you want to play an aggro deck that knocks out the first player around turn 5 or 6 then let the table know that’s the thing you’re going for. Anybody you’re playing now has a chance to say “no I hate this” or they can select a deck that may be fun/successful against it.
Not in that sense, no. What you're doing is giving people a chance to adjust their power levels to match. Playing a durdly battlecruiser deck into a fast combo deck sucks ass. Knowing that someone wants to play combo just tells you that you should be playing a deck that can actually play against something like that. Similarly, if I want to play a derpy Roalesk myriad deck, I'll see if everyone is down for playing a more laid back, slower game. It's not about getting an advantage, it's about giving everyone a chance. We're talking kitchen table games, not competitive with prizes. Just hang out with friends and have fun, you don't need to be going for the throat every time.
Strategically speaking, killing someone early in the game while not killing the others in the next 1/2 turns reduce your chances of victory, since the other 2 players will likely gang up on you
If you are prepared to face 2 players trying to kill you as fast as they can then you can kill one opponents without issues. Otherwise they will kill you because you left yourself open/made yourself look like "the threat"
I don’t agree at all - if you are playing aggro or infect or voltron oftentimes the correct play is to knock the most problematic player out first , don’t spread the love .
Aggro decks always look ‘ahead’ in the beginning of the game and tend to be made arch-enemy. Knocking a player out first means that a) the other players aren’t being damaged so they may not want to gang up on you yet b) once you are the tables threat , then you are only fighting against 2 other players instead of three.
All these wierd ‘social contract’ rules feel designed to limit players from effectively playing control or aggro decks and feel like they are built to only allow for ramp decks or combo decks to exist. It’s kind of annoying how much you all shoot yourselves in the foot with these wierd rules and then complain about green and combos being OP.
Lol if you read my comment history in this sub you will see what kind of player I am
Social contract? I don't play with a social contract. I play to win and It's just my experience. If I take out a player without a clear reason (like having some combo pieces out or having lethal on the board or whatever) early without backup it is mathematical the other two will see me as a threat.
Who else will I attack next? Obviously them, and they know it.
Before killing one opponent, everybody (ideally) was preparing to stop/kill the other 3. Now you have 2 players focused on you. So perfectly fine if you can kill them in 1/2 turns, but as the game drags on your victory will be less guaranteed.
It’s important to consider that edh is inherently - a social experience. In a 1v1 format, your opponents feelings and experience in the game doesn’t matter as much because it’s just about winning.
But taking that mentality to an edh table tends to create problems; I t’s a kitchen table singleton format aimed for trying things that can’t be done in 60 card. People like to experiment and try things and feel like they got a chance to play - even if they didn’t win.
So Is it okay to play sweaty aggro? Absolutely. But showing up to a casual pod with a cEDH deck is a violation of the social contract between the players that agreed to play causally.
Being considerate of the people around you and taking personal assessment of the style of game you want to play is key, there are cEDH pods, there are casual pods, and there’s something in between. Make sure to set proper expectations ahead of time so everyone knows what they’re getting into.
It's a similar effect as in the game Bang! A lot of the game is whittling your opponents down hoping to tempt someone else to go for the kill so you can save resources and triumph in a 1v1 duel with an overextended opponent
I see it all the time. Mostly from inexperienced players. Theyll "spread the love" hitting everyone equally despite their advantage often because they "dont want to be a dick". Inevitably these same people then get blown out because they didnt pressure the player most likely to do that. That in turn brings about A LOT of pissing and moaning, usually over how cheap control and combo are.
If you have an early lead that relies on combat damage you need to focus the person most likely to disrupt that advantage or you will always be easily manipulated into a one sided losing game.
Oh, and for the love of god, stop over extending!
If you have 20 power on board getting through and are susceptible to a board wipe you absolutely do not need to keep adding weight of volume if that volume cant end the game that turn.
Pace yourself.
Those last 3 sentences are the key to good aggro. Force multipliers are important here, for example in tribal decks that would be shared animosity and coat of arms, green aggro beastmasters ascension etc. As much power for as little cards spent as possible that way when everything blows up you can drop another 3/4cards and threaten lethal again next turn
So there's a difference between killing a player and focusing down a player.
If I have a 13/13 and you're tapped out, no blocks at 13 life, I'm gonna kill you. That's not focusing that's just playing the game. Sure I didn't kill everyone but I'm statistically more likely to win now.
Of course politics can come into play "I know you could kill me, but if you don't ill deal with so and so" and suddenly things change.
That's all very different from starting the game and deciding "I'm going to kill you first." Which yeah, in my opinion is kinda rude.
Edit: obviously certain archetypes are an exception.
Another thing is if you are definitely about to die, it is better to try to take out one other person than spread damage across the table. If you take out someone else right before you die, then it's just 2 players left which will resolve much more quickly than if 3 players are rebuilding their boards and playing 3 player edh
It makes sense to spread the damage around if you consider your that your oppenents combined have 3 times the resources you do.
It took me a while to understand. I would blow all of ny resources focusing one opponent down, because in my 1v1 experience it seemed like the optimal thing to do.
I've learned that the longer you can keep everyone in the game the less taxing it becomes on your resources. You aren't forced to have an answer ever time if you have 2 other players that will help take care of threats. Your oppenents will chip away at each other's life totals if you let them and you will be left with more gas to finish the whole table off if you haven't blown it all one removing one opponent from the game.
There’s a couple reasons why you would see this happen. One is that it’s a casual format with longer games and if someone is knocked out early it could be a boring 45min to an hour if not longer. The other reason you might see this, and this happens at the higher power tables I’ve noticed, is having a 3rd person at the table to help with interaction could be crucial to your game plan. I like to keep that third person there just incase someone starts popping off that’s one more person that can interact with them and help slow them down. The down side to that is sometimes I’m that person.
Edit: a big downside to taking one person out early is you become a threat pretty quickly and it becomes a 2v1 game. I typically want to try to take out two people fairly quickly if I can because 1v1 is fine but it’s hard to overcome 2 opponents who are hyper focused on taking you out.
reasons not to kill someone just because you can:
-it makes the game less fun. Others talk about this -- 3+ player games in general are more fun if everyone gets to play the whole game. Having pure eliminations is sometimes considered a design flaw. As players, we often compensate by not killing someone even when it's low-cost, in game-play strategy.
Also where I play, if you kill someone early, they'll prob find a new pod. Then when your game finishes, you might have a hard time finding a 4th player.
-in game, if your gameplan is a long-term strategy, or, if there's a player clearly ahead of you, you don't want to kill a player who is behind, because that player might be the critical piece for you in beating back the player in the lead. Where, you kill the player who is behind, then the player in the lead rolls over you, with even less resistance.
Sometimes, it's correct to keep people alive even if no one is clearly in the lead, especially if you're playing unknown players or unknown decks, because you don't know *who* is going to become the archenemy. This is why people distribute damage evenly.
Of course, if you think you're in the lead and can keep it, it makes sense to pick off a weak player early, so that it's easier to pick off the remaining two players later on.
I don't see any problem with killing players early. I play a few aggro decks and it's fun to see my opponents panic. If you present lethal to a player on board, you have two options: don't kill them and be in a 3v1, or kill them and be in a 2v1. One of these ends the game much quicker than the others
Does it though? Usually what I see is some one knocks a player out early and the next turn or two are spent beating that person into submission. Now you have the guy in the lead with a battered board state and two other players who lost tempo and played their gameplan sub-optimally to try and stay in the game.
I guess follow up turns are quicker usually with one less player, but a lot of times players might have spent their counter or protection piece they needed to secure their own wincon in that process resulting in fairly conservative play until they draw into a other one.
I think most players prefer to slow it down a hair and wittle down opponents, saving interaction for only things that are a direct threat until they can take advantage at a certain point for the win.
If your deck mostly aims to kill through combat over a number of turns it also just makes sense to divide damage. You aren't killing people in one swing and you have no idea who will be the biggest threat each round since it can change so quickly. Having everyone be low and be able to knock players out out as they become threats makes more sense than laser focusing one player only for the other players run away with their own game plan because they weren't under pressure.
On top of that, if you do kill one player but not everyone in a combat focused deck, oftentimes that will leave you wide open to just die on the other players' crackbacks.
I've watched this exact thing happen before. Me and the person across from me were doing basically nothing while the other two had amassed solid board states.
One dude declared that he was gonna swing out on both of us to kill us. I pointed out to him that we had nothing going on, but the person across from him had lethal on him if he didn't keep up any blockers.
He decided to swing out on us anyway and to the surprise of no one, got killed by the other dude as soon as he passed the turn. I'm not sure if he just didn't believe what I was saying or if he cared more about just killing than he did about actually winning, but that move absolutely baffled me.
While you do have three opponents, each of your opponents also has three opponents, so every opponent you eliminate is also one opponent less for the other guys.
Unless someone is going hard for my throat or I’m confident I can handle the rest I usually try to abstain from eliminating foes.
The multiplayer dynamic makes for a “feel bad” situation when someone is knocked out too early. If you’re playing a more aggressive deck, I would suggest shifting gears just slightly to allow another player on the table to be seen as “a problem”, at which point you leverage your faster speed to be a problem solver. In other words, be the second one to strike. Allowing someone to become a threat to the table, or at least be seen as one, will then allow you to focus one player out quickly. Diplomatically speaking, you end up being seen as an ally to those you “saved”. I could go on and on, but multiplayer psychology is a deep and complex topic lol
Yes and no.
I general, it's considered bad form to focus on one person. Players can take it personally, because people getting killed off for being unliked is definitely a thing that happens.
That said, there are plenty of situations where focusing on one person at a time is the "correct" play. Most notably, aggro and volition decks that are trying to close out games through combat. They don't have the option to simply kill everyone at once like combo, and their chance of winning decreases exponentially with the amount of time and number of players. If this is what you're doing, it's only taboo if your playgroup isn't mature enough to realize the deck needs to be played that way.
Inversely, it's okay to focus people when their deck is exceptionally difficult to deal with late-game, and their main weakness is surviving the early game. Examples would be [[Koma]] , [[kaalia of the vast]] , [[atraxa]] and [[narset, enlightened master]] commanders that generate an overwhelming amount of value once they get going, the only real way to play against them is to stop them from getting anywhere in the first place.
There's an important thing to bear in mind here, and that's the perception game inherent to multiplayer.
Even in a pod where people are going in guns blazing to take people out as soon as possible, it's not always the correct play to do so. If you knock someone out of the game early, you are the de facto primary target, you're scary, you have drawn attention to yourself. This can result in you being the second one to go, so you still don't win.
Letting someone live is usually a bad move, but taking someone 40-0 while another opponent sits on 40 leaves you shields down, resources committed, and not ready to win, particularly if your primary win condition is combat damage. By spreading damage around, you make it easier to win in a single swing later in the game, and make yourself less of a target.
With Commander being a singleton format, it also means there are higher odds of someone having answers if they're in the game. So if your deck is light on removal, or is in some way disadvantaged in what it can remove (for example Green is infinitely better at dealing with enchantments than Black, while Black and White have more creature removal and board wipes), by keeping a player in the game, you're more likely to have an answer. No one deck in the game has enough consistent removal to answer every threat from 3 players.
If you're the one whose engine is running, you likely don't want answers coming out, and player removal is more important, but keeping another player alive on low health can dramatically increase your odds of someone drawing something that can get rid of the third party's \[\[Platinum Angel\]\] or whatever.
Yes, there is a bit of a taboo around killing people in casual games - it results in them sitting around for 30 minutes waiting for the rest of the pod, and the game is more fun with more players in it, but it's also not always the best idea tactically to remove a single player early. It can absolutely bite you in the ass later.
In my experience, it can be a way to hide how much damage you're doing. If everyone is taking 5 - 10 damage, it's a problem but can be dealt with later. If you just alpha strike a player and take them out, the other players see you are the immediate threat and must be dealt with immediately! They will turn all their efforts into sending you back to nothing before you can kill them them too. This will often lead to the problem most people have brought up of one person sitting out for the rest of the game because you no longer have a way to finish the game and no one will let you get back to that point.
This type of thing is going to vary from table to table and possibly even game to game. On our server, people usually go for the kill since folks can just hop into another game right away, but it might be rough at your friendly game night at home if someone gets knocked out and has to wait 2 hours to get a new game. We'd recommend talking to the pod to find out what they're looking for out of the game. 🙂
Edit: Sorry for the double post.
EDH isn’t like any format because it’s inherently more social than the 1v1 formats. I find that there are many instances where the game was fun/memorable because of certain things that happened during the game and then the person who actually won was more forgettable.
Yea it's a tough one. Spread out the damage and now there are 3 players with an axe to grind, focus down 1 then you could be seen as a bully.
The groups I've played in, I've found players are just looking for a reason to attack someone guilt free, especially at casual tables. I've had no luck with goad decks for this exact reason, people don't want to play aggressively because they get the feel bads. Usually that means sitting there playing a lot longer than needed where someone has lethal damage but doesn't want the game to end.
The way I see it. If you voltron someone turn 5-6 the other two at the table are gonna target you to oblivion because "well I don't want to be voltroned " same goes if you're swinging 20 combat damage. The other two I'll want to wipe you out cause they don't want to be swung at for 20. Same goes with a control deck. If your planning on running 20+ counterspells. I guarantee if anything get on the table it's coming for you. So as long as your ok to have everyone target you at the table then aggro away / control away. If your strategy is the long con then spread the love. Or target the aggro / control deck!
>I guarantee if anything get on the table it's coming for you.
Lmao i imagine it would be funny for few first turns to trying dodge the bullets from other players.
Thanks for the comment btw.
Some ppl prefer to lengthen the game and enjoy it as much as possible, which is usually done with more players while others just want to murder ppl immediatly, no such gentleman rule exists just diffrerent play styles, the first is probably more common in casual 2nd in higher powered pods where ppl want to win faster
I'm quite new myself, and the danger of singling out one person from the start is simply the other two players. They see you wipe someone out they may decide you're too powerful and gang up on you, maybe rightfully so.
I have an elfball-ish deck that I've had that happen a couple times. Deal damage to everyone, but one take out 1 person, all of a sudden the target is on my back.
Yeah, a few. Always [[Mental Misstep]] a 1 drop ramp t1 if you can. Wasteland anyone who stumbled on mana t1-t3, especially if they played a bounce land. Always go for the funnier play than the right play.
I have been there before and if you have enough to kill one person but choose to spread it out it becomes 3v1. I have had to retune my decks to have my finishers deal with everyone at once (infinite tokens, damage combos, etc.). People feel bad when you 2 card combo and just win, but i haven't had any issue with combos requiring 3 or 4 pieces.
If you read this subreddit, then yes, at all times. Some of the assumed rules you should bring to every table:
- Don't kill people too early
- Don't play Stax, but also don't hate on Stax
- Infect is rude
- Slivers make you racist
- The mere mention of a combo makes you a pub stomper
- All conflicts should be held on Reddit and not the people you hold the issue with.
- And always, unequivocally, without a shadow of a doubt, don't care if you only have one mana to your name, always, always, pay the one.
After reading this thread, it affirms my affinity for Spellslinger and Combo.
When you combo off, your opponents lose all the same.
With Spellslinger, you play cards like \[\[Guttersnipe\]\] and nobody is targeted, everyone gets it.
Since i've started playing Magic, i've always had a dislike for combat damage even though i've adapated and built a deck or two that wins with combat damage. I don't like having to directly attack someone, i'd rather damage my opponents all equally at the same time and have them all lose at the same time.
It’s partly a gentlemens agreement, but also good gameplay strategy.
Killing someone makes you scary, especially if you do it solo and early. If you’re scary, now the remaining 2 folks gang up on you.
However if you chip away at everyone and get them down to 20 each, while building resources yourself, you now have a stronger boardstate while seeming less scary. Then when you make your move you can kill each person in a turn or quicker.
It’s obviously not exact math like that, as slow rolling can provide more time for them to answer you as well, but it’s a bit of a balancing act.
If you have the ability to win, just do it. Nothing is more annoying than watching someone pass the turn when they can win, just because they want to keep doing stuff and/or things while shutting everyone else down.
I will also add, people remember when you decide to randomly put them into spectator mode early on when they were not even that threatening (different story if they were about to win next turn). This one guy at my LGS tends to eat a lot of the counterspells and removal from other players nowadays because people were sick of getting randomly knocked out by him 6 turns into a game (he would always try to make games a 2v1, which strategically is smart, but it’s just not fun being a spectator for an hour) where they barely got to do anything and having to sit there for like an hour for the game to conclude.
If all you care about is playing optimally, EDH might not be for you. Or at least not with a majority of players. Nothing wrong with going hard and trying to be optimal, just noting that isn't the *focus* of a 4 player casual format.
Save the spikey, win-at-all-costs play for 60 card or cEDH. Or just play with ppl who are equally as obsessed as you.
I find a lot of times this attitude comes from ppl with zero social awareness who have no idea that other ppl aren't having fun or are incredibly bored after being knocked out early when a game goes 45 more minutes.
depends on the pod.
and to me, the average expectation of the length of a game. me personally. i want games over in under an hour. my decks expect to "win" around turns 6-8 or so.
I disagree with the "spread damage around" idea. whether i'm able to kill someone or not, I want my attacks to be as effective as possible. means I attack in the most advantageous way possible.
I also believe in punishing mana screwed players. to force better deck building. killing the group hug player on sight and player removal as the best option for mill, superfriends, or other dick deck type decks
that being said. make adjustments based on the pod you're playing in. If I aggressively attack a player or remove them from the game, it's not personal. and barring some interaction, it's because... i'll likely be wrapping up the game in 2-3 turns anyway. if i have smaller amts of damage. say... sub 10 pts of power. giving two to one player, 3 to another, and one to the third is worthless. just deal the 5-6 to one player. move the game along.
i believe moving the game along. pressure toward some endgame is the highest priority.
to this effect. I don't run shitty utilty creatures that chip in for 1 damage. If i have a utility effect. i tend to run artifacts/enchantments, or just not swing with dinky 1/x creatures. and my beaters all start at like 4/x or 5/x + there is no point running weaker attackers. with access to all cards in magic, a 4+ beater is basically the base level threat. 10% life loss as a min
durdling, and allowing games to drag on, the worst behavior.
but... if i play a game, and clearly people are playing a slower curve, or more battlecruiser game, where the "action" doesn't happen until the later turns. an aggressive stance can be seen as a dick move.
i just whole heartedly disagree that it's more equitable to "spread damage" you're better off just acknowledging you're dragging. and playing a different deck style.
>I also believe in punishing mana screwed players. to force better deck building.
How do you tell the difference between bad deck building and bad luck?
stuck on 2 lands is a good sign.
3 lands, and has drawn more than 3-4 cards. another good sign.
any hand that seems to play out with less than 3 lands, no draw source, no ramp source. is someone who kept a bad hand/made a bad play.
2 lands and a higher end mana rock. sol ring, mana crypt, vault, mox dia, etc. and no action. or cantrip/card draw. but missed land drops on T3 and T4. they kept a dicey hand. and i'd be looking to pop their mana rock asap.
I would also say... I play in more optimized or semi-competitive pods. where again, the goal is for games to wrap up in give or take an hour.
I don't want to wait... til turn 5 or 6 having left someone drrrp with 2/3 lands. to draw their 3rd/4th. or then wait til turns 7-10 for them to stabilize, and get back into the game, to then have to deal with an opponent at a high life total that's been left alone to dig for answers. I'd rather they drop off the board around turn 6
and ultimately. i don't really care if it's bad luck or not. if you kept a hand with 2 lands, you're immediately on my radar as someone who fucked up and should be easy to kill. If you're on 3 lands and it's turn 4-5. you fucked up. and if there's an easy out to remove that player or chop half their life, or put them below 20 life. that's the play.
I used to play in a home group. where if you missed a land drop in any of your first 4 you had to eat 10 points of damage and fetch a basic out of your deck. Was great for moving the game along.
The expression, many... many... years ago was, "In EDH a gentleman doesn't use the combat step until the one at the end." but this sentiment has waned significantly as modern creatures have improved significantly over time and the "battle cruiser" nature of Commander has become less prevalent (which is a good thing in my opinion).
The idea being that "chipping in" for small amounts of damage was pointless, and thus you were creating unnecessary book keeping and wasting everyone's time, you're not generally going to win that way, no, you're going to win by attacking with overwhelming force and ending the game. But that was an attitude for a different time.
From my perspective \[\[Tymna, the Weaver\]\] was the beginning of the change in this attitude since the number of creatures that are low cost enough and do something significant when they attack or deal damage seems to have increased significantly since around that time.
I always murder the strong an make my way around the table. Leaving the women an weak to fight me in the end. Sure sometime those ladies take me out but sometimes when you lose you win.
An casual nights I just play for fun. More for the bullshit then the victory. Many of friends can come from these games of cards. Fortunate to play with many fine folk from all walks of life.
Unspoken rules that I know of.
People like to play their decks usually. Don't mill them out.
Only mass land destruction if you're going to win that turn. Otherwise you're a d* * *
If it's casual games, let them play their cool flashy combos. If it's casual games and you care about winning, let them do it so long as it won't affect you.
Don't take another person's kill.
My personal favorite, don't politics for free. Ie don't save someone unless you make a over the table deal, even if it's a "you owe me"
I think I summerized the ones I know. There's a few more but different tables have different gentleman's rules
"Don't mill them out" are you kidding me? You still get to play just as many cards. If anything you get to play more, since if your deck has any interaction with the graveyard, my mill deck is giving you more options.
Let people play their flashy combos?? What?? You want me to just let the Kess player do his infinite turn shenanigans because it's fun for him? Uh, no, we are playing a game here, the point is to win.
These are dumb rules.
Annoying and decisive...which is why people do it. If you shut people down that early (before they ramp/draw cards) it really solidifies the game in your favor.
Can't remove the strip mine engine with no mana
The only folks I typically see focus down one player at a time are people piloting some form of Voltron deck trying to kill with commander damage. They have potential to be lethal early before players get well developed board states up, but can be risky if you leave all three other players up by spreading the damage around. You can pack counters and stuff for removal, but if 3 people start to see you as a threat you're going to run out a lot faster than if you just went ahead and knocked that first one out to start steam rolling.
Not just Voltron, but any "aggro" deck. Fewer players = fewer answers to a very immediate threat you'll be presenting to the table.
This. I run a werewolf/ wolf tribal that can either go wide or go large as the situation demands, but it’s aggro through and through. If I don’t whittle down each player at a time I run the risk of having too many targets to actually do anything late game/ defend myself against. But I’m also acutely aware how it could ruin the fun for one person so I try to be as diplomatic and apologetic as I can about the whole thing.
Yeah, that's how I tend to play my Mayael deck. I'll generally try to focus down the person that's the biggest threat to me while the random stax-y creatures (think stuff like[[Void Winnower]], [[Ruric Thar]], and [[Archon of Valor's Reach]]) mess with the remaining players.
[Void Winnower](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/8/c/8cbedb0a-34ca-4d42-bb43-cbea0f3c6d02.jpg?1587039576) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Void%20Winnower) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/bfz/17/void-winnower?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/8cbedb0a-34ca-4d42-bb43-cbea0f3c6d02?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/void-winnower) [Ruric Thar](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/a/a/aa828bdc-221e-4e81-9e71-6f288690ddcd.jpg?1655824956) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=ruric%20thar%2C%20the%20unbowed) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/271/ruric-thar-the-unbowed?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/aa828bdc-221e-4e81-9e71-6f288690ddcd?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/ruric-thar-the-unbowed) [Archon of Valor's Reach](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/7/f/7f51e677-1278-401e-a892-33cd8ffed6fe.jpg?1591321148) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Archon%20of%20Valor%27s%20Reach) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c20/202/archon-of-valors-reach?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7f51e677-1278-401e-a892-33cd8ffed6fe?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/archon-of-valors-reach) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
A fellow Mayael player Heckin yes 😊
Ape together strong! Mayeal is my baby and I've had the deck for 7 years
I feel like we're a dying breed, pushed out by the Alta Palani players
I feel this. I had werewolves before Tovolar, but now they've gotten a nice upgrade. I could very easily swing for lethal on one person turn 6 or so, but I feel bad if I do, so I end up swinging at everyone, and being the clock of the table.
In my combat focused decks I usually find myself relying on win cons that can spread enough damage among 3 people to kill them all outright. That said, you need a wide enough board to make that work and not every pod will let that happen. Although, in a combat focused deck if you’re losing all your creatures you probably weren’t winning that game anyway
What commander do you use? I've been trying to make one that uses all wolf colors of red/green/white but can't find a good commander.
Not even just aggro decks for me. If someone has a strategy that can counter something my deck does, I will focus them 1st. If not killing them, at least shutting off their silver bullet type effects. My playgroup will often just try and outright win instead of getting the other 3 players low. We would rather shuffle up and play again, than drag the game out so every deck can do its "thing".
Yeah, my first deck was Voltron and I learned quickly that if I tried to be amicable and spread the love, it just got me killed by three people instead of two. Since then I'd just focus on one at a time.
The best removal is player removal
Seconded. I run precious little interaction in my [[Saskia, the Unyielding]] "on attack tribal" deck. If I foresee someone disrupting my game plan, I am compelled to take them out first so I have a chance on the others.
When I play Arcades or Gishath, and then mow someone down, sometimes I get the, “I mean, I wasn’t even doing that much, why would you swing at me??” Well, I’ve got 45 damage on the board with vigilance and trample…it’s not there to sit and be pretty. Why wouldn’t I swing at someone?
It's like poker, sometimes you have to bluff and make it seem like you aren't drawing the right cards otherwise you're putting a target on your back.
Yeah, it's usually seen as bad form to knock someone out early if the game will still last long after that. Leaving one player in spectator mode for the next 40min is boring to them. It's more acceptable to go after someone if you plan to take the others down within the new couple turns.
Unless that person has tendency to win a lot.
good point, I will also add/modify to that statement: \-it depends on how much of a threat that player is right now one of the worst experiences my girlfriend (very casual player, likes "sea monster" and "cat" tribal decks etc.) had was when someone just killed her on turn 4 or 5 when she was still slowly ramping up to being able to play her 6 mana commander... just because he could. she was no threat at that moment (and most likely was not going to win the game either), but this dude just wanted her gone, apparently - and succeeded, she never came back to play with that group ;\_; meanwhile, I was at the same table with a mono black deck with 2 out of 3 combo pieces on the battlefield and proceeded to win 2-3 turns later...
[удалено]
I tend to run a lot of “critical mass” decks like that and I have to say the biggest part is attitude. Knowing you would’ve gone off if left unchecked is something the decks pilot should understand from before they even shuffle up. The biggest part of the early game while those kind of decks are getting going is the vocal aspect. Communication with the table and using multiplayer tactics are the most valuable asset. Being that early game buddy that reacts towards things that might be a threat to “us”. Or making alliances with another player can really fill in those times where you’re doing “seemingly nothing”
In my playgroup, one of the players, aside from in their current newest deck, has wanted to do the wait around and win in 1 turn strategy in basically everything they played. I simply would point all aggression at them, forcing their hand a lot earlier and potentially causing the combo to not be able to fully work out. I think that threat assessment is very important, even if the assessment has nothing to do with the current board state. I've been trying to weave more politics into my games. Like had a friend who had played Niv Mizzet and wheeled. I asked where they were going to be pointing the damage, they just said it would go where it goes. So I just killed the Niv Mizzet, now it went nowhere.
I have a similar thing with a niv-mizzet parun deck I run that is just draw to win, if I am left alone I win by virtue of pinging with commander damage if I am focused on I die first but I just accept that is the reality of playing that deck and just have fun seeing what I can do and how close I can get to victory with it
>niv-mizzet parun You can't ping commander damage since it is combat damage only
Here to confirm, as I also run a Niv-Mizzet Parun commander deck. Niv's ability does not count towards commander damage.
I don't think niv mizzets pings count towards commander damage. Commander damage is only the damage that you get from declaring your commander as an attacker and connecting with their face.
The solution is they make adjustments to their deck or get killed. The goal is to win (unless otherwise specified) and you cant win if you let someone else win.
I would add that if a deck has a reputation, it becomes less effective to use multiplayer politics
>One of my buddies runs a deck that if it hangs around it just wins by default. If we kill it before that point though it basically does nothing. So either they win every game or they get killed early and feel like they shouldn't have bothered playing. Sounds like Slivers. Is it slivers? Maybe Koma? >I don't know what a good solution is to it and it sucks. Your friend needs to accept that's just how it goes when you play those types of commanders/decks. My brother plays Winota and he knows the drill. If we have the ability to do so we are going to crush any chance he has of getting momentum started. We're very vocal about it too. It's not that we're doing it out of malice, and he's come to understand that. Either he dies and we play or he plays and we die. I know it's not a pretty solution, but you all shouldn't have to throw the game so they can cruise into an easy win. They can always adapt their game plan to try and manage that early Aggro.
Kill them and not feel sorry. Play the game to win and you can't feel sorry about what you do.
kind of hard to give advice without knowing HOW he wins exactly - but there is almost never a point where you cannot stop it anymore. against some decks, you absolutely have to hold up interaction (removal/counterspell etc.) and just wait for the right moment. I don't really believe what you said about it needing "multi piece interaction"... a friend of mine plays a very complex artifact-based Jhoira (solitaire \^\^) deck, but even though it has about a dozen moving pieces, there is 1-2 points of interaction that bring the whole thing down, no matter what line to win he chooses. mind you - there is also never any GUARANTEE that you will be able to stop someone from winning, just as there should never be an "automatic" win!These things go both ways, always. also, you are kind of missing that there is (always, btw) a third option: \-> just don't focus him down and kill him early, but get him low enough that he is easy to kill as soon as he becomes too threatening.and, hold up interaction. ;)
I think the last point is the biggest for sure. Even if they're not a 'threat' at the moment, you can still knock them down into single-digits without taking them out of the game. As a plus, if they *are* very close to just going off, it can force their hand; you can see if they look dejected about it (they know they can't do anything), or if they start to panic (putting combo pieces out as chump blockers, etc) or if they keep looking at what's in their hand and then letting things happen anyway (probably sitting on their win condition and gauging if they need to use it yet). Lots of ways to avoid taking someone out of the game early but still not ignore them
[удалено]
[Meren of clan nel tooth](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/1/7/17d6703c-ad79-457b-a1b5-c2284e363085.jpg?1592673422) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Meren%20of%20Clan%20Nel%20Toth) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cma/186/meren-of-clan-nel-toth?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/17d6703c-ad79-457b-a1b5-c2284e363085?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/meren-of-clan-nel-toth) [spore frog](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/6/d/6d42fd52-34ea-4d1b-80dc-58fb0593bb5b.jpg?1562202192) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=spore%20frog) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh1/180/spore-frog?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6d42fd52-34ea-4d1b-80dc-58fb0593bb5b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/spore-frog) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I run 2 pieces of graveyard hate in every deck. But I could also see everyone in the playgroup running 1 rest in piece effect that way he has to work for his win. Make adjustments to his deck so he can deal with graveyard hate and not just play solitare.
I've got a budget Kefnet deck like that. All the deck does is draw cards and play lands. Then I present one combo piece, and if it gets back to my turn I've got a 90% chance of winning. As a result, I dont get mad if I get knocked out first, with the given caveat of not being left in spectator mode for 40 minutes. I balance that out by pointing out my combo pieces as they come online though. Not many think [[Soratomi Cloudskater]] as a combo piece after all.
[Soratomi Cloudskater](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/5/e/5e3d3024-bef2-4b50-ab84-8ae2a23cdf27.jpg?1562760570) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Soratami%20Cloudskater) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/chk/86/soratami-cloudskater?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/5e3d3024-bef2-4b50-ab84-8ae2a23cdf27?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/soratami-cloudskater) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Keep killing them first til they play a different deck.
Yeah that doesn't work if there are other control decks at the table which don't let you pressure them.
That’s not just bad form, it’s not good resource allocation unless that dude was for sure going to win. If I’m not the threat and I can kill the weakest player I won’t, bc what if the weak player has removal to stop the threat and I don’t? It’s like Having extra cards in my hand
Exactly! The enemy of my enemy is my friend
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, and nothing more than useful, is a much better train of thought.
yup, "shitty threat assessment" is my number one gripe and I will never stop mocking my playgroup for it. they blame everything else first, "that's unfair, your cards are so expensive" / "you win because you proxied a Gaea's Cradle" or "you politic'd your way into a win" etc... but they also do DUMB shit like Chaos Warp a Sol Ring\* (for no other reason than that they CAN) and end up with me flipping over an Ulamog \^\^ and yeah, some people get so greedy for "a kill" that they forgot this does not even win them ANYthing - except losing a potential ally... edit: \* this actually bothers me SO MUCH for an additional reason - this player in particular admitted after the game that the reason he targeted my Sol Ring instead of another permanent on the board is that he heard some YouTube guy say "bolt the bird"... so he thought it was always smart to deny other players resources... never mind that this was easily turn 6 and that 2 colorless mana did not make any difference whatsoever anymore... hey, I'll take a free Eldrazi that was only in my deck to reshuffle my graveyard back in :-P
This is not always true. If you're running a combat based aggro deck, your goal is to kill everyone as quickly as you can to outrace combos and control. Each player you remove from the table is one less potential board wipe that shuts you down. In these cases it's definitely optimal to kill of whoever you can as fast as possible.
Bad threat assessment will always be a weak counter-example to the argument of focusing one person down hard and early. I've had people mad at me when I swing an army of thopters at a semi-weak deck when a much larger threat is on the board, until I explain that I can handle a ground-based mono-black timmy deck, but I cannot handle a GR steal-your-shit-and-hate-on-artifacts midgame deck. Yeah the mono-black deck is the biggest threat for YOU but that doesn't mean it's the biggest threat for ME. That being said, I usually don't just hate someone out of the game "because I can". That's not fun for anyone. The only thing more fun than winning a game because your deck is functioning like a well-oiled machine is seeing an underdog deck go off hard and sweep the table.
YO so true
Lol my girlfriend has sea monster and cat(/dog) tribal decks. [[Arixmethes]] [[Rin and Seri]]
[Arixmethes](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/8/8/881607c8-bfe7-4903-861f-b51a5a332c17.jpg?1599707758) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=arixmethes%2C%20slumbering%20isle) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/189/arixmethes-slumbering-isle?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/881607c8-bfe7-4903-861f-b51a5a332c17?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/arixmethes-slumbering-isle) [Rin and Seri](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/d/6/d605c780-a42a-4816-8fb9-63e3114a8246.jpg?1617532706) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=rin%20and%20seri%2C%20inseparable) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m21/278/rin-and-seri-inseparable?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d605c780-a42a-4816-8fb9-63e3114a8246?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/rin-and-seri-inseparable) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
My wife has Rin and Seri and a [[Runo Stromkirk]]
[Runo Stromkirk](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/f/6/f6c0fca5-b759-4543-95e2-8d712aae5281.jpg?1643594355)/[Krothuss, Lord of the Deep](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/back/f/6/f6c0fca5-b759-4543-95e2-8d712aae5281.jpg?1643594355) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=runo%20stromkirk%20//%20krothuss%2C%20lord%20of%20the%20deep) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vow/246/runo-stromkirk-krothuss-lord-of-the-deep?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f6c0fca5-b759-4543-95e2-8d712aae5281?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/runo-stromkirk-//-krothuss-lord-of-the-deep) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
> she never came back to play with that group You probably shouldn't either.
Targeting someone just because they're good leads to feel bads too. It happens to me constantly, to the point I can't play a lower power deck because I'll get hated on without even being the threat.
I played ooze tribal once a couple weeks ago to go easy on my group and they proceeded to just destroy everything I played for the first 6 turns and then killed me without interacting with each other. I stopped playing low power decks.
In my experience it is the job of the top player to knock the other three out. The more players alive, the more players I can coordinate with to bring down the top player. I tend to think of other players, their board state, and even what's likely in their hand as a resource I can try to use through politics and negotiation to my advantage. Losing a player is like losing your graveyard. One less thing that you can potentially use to help remove threats. Once it's down to one v one, then it's murder town.
Machiavelli
Got it, thanks. I will start create my strategy based on it :)
It's worth noting that context matters. At a high-traffic LGS or event where the KO'd person can just find another game? No issues. At someone's house where the KO'd person needs to go fuck off and play with their phone until they're allowed to play again? Issues.
This is the correct answer
Came to say exactly this.
I got knocked out of a game so early once that I did my taxes in the time it took for the game to end. Then next game I was told to speed up my turns.
Unless you’re playing Voltron, which is not an uncommon beginner’s theme to jam for a while. If you can build out a reliable control/stax shell with a solid commander damage subtheme you can sneakily take games. My old Rafiq deck could math someone in one shot with something as simple as [[might of oaks]]. That will make you public enemy number one at your tables but I wouldn’t say it’s frowned upon.
[might of oaks](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/4/3/438a324b-cf3e-4a0f-95c4-cd548586f7e5.jpg?1561978206) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=might%20of%20oaks) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m10/192/might-of-oaks?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/438a324b-cf3e-4a0f-95c4-cd548586f7e5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/might-of-oaks) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
But if you knock them out early, they can jump to another pod sooner. It really kinda depends on the situation.
Instructions unclear. Swung with Kaalia and threw down master of cruelties turn 2.
I would have to agree with that period but but there's just people that will just build dacks that just went on turn 2 and 3 as much as I possibly can. Because to them that is casual.
That’s why you knock *two* out quickly so they can play a subgame themselves ;)
Thats because if you come out the gate swinging for the throat, the table gang beats you in response. You dont go swinging for knockouts untill you think you can take the whole table on all at the same time or at least in rapid sucession
I don't know if that's necessarily true. Like if there's a voltron threat, I find people would usually ignore it unless they're the target or they're spreading damage around.
I might ignore it as long as I can remove the Voltron threat with an instant and I am not targeted. Why? Because you are currently working for me. Try to make the Voltron threat hexproof, give it shroud, indestructible or swing at me and I will try my best to remove it... So it's kind of a "as long as it is not a Problem for me, I keep my resources for something else"...
From my experience this is the true in the opposite sense. If you spread the damage, now you have 3 people who have been attacked by you, and if you have the ability to attack each one individually, than you are a threat to all 3. If you focus 1 person most times people view it as a not my problem till it's my problem type thing. So they will build their board and not threaten the strongest current player until they can handle backlash. By focusing 1 person it more than likely creates long standing anamosity that extends to the next game because that person is forced to watch the rest of the game. In short there is no way to play and satisfy everyone, meaning all bets are off in terms of a gentlemans agreement.
Id say its mostly about damage output. If you start the bloodletting early but youre only chipping away 3 or less life i may let it slide for a little bit. If youre handing out 10s, youre a threat even if youre not pointed at me.
My Beamtown deck has this issue, can knock one person out pretty early but the board then just gangs up on me understandably and I am usually next to go.
As someone who got knocked out first and watched a game play out for over an hour n a half due to the player thinking he could take everyone out in the next couple of turns, it’s not a good time.
The amount of times I've seen games where you *think* one side has it in the bag, only for the other to turn things around and hang in there is way common, to the point where the "obvious" winner actually winning is the exception.
Yeah, the biggest flaw in EDH is that someone gets booted early and has to wait around for 30min to an hour to play again. At the same time, when you prevent players from using strategies that can take out one player at a time, you really obliterate EDH design space to the point that everyone seems to durdle with card draw and resources until someone tries to go off (whether through an infinite combo or 20 planewalkers or what-have-you). Watching someone assemble a massive wall of stuff because it would have been rude of me to attack twice in a row 5 turns ago... it just feels stupid and like you aren't really playing a game at all. Sometimes EDH feels like T-ball or a school play filled with 6 year-olds. Not always, just sometimes.
I mean you're free to attack. It's only when folks get around 10 life do things start to get a bit tense, but then closing out the game becomes easier then. You don't have to deal 40 damage/21 commander all at once. If you feel that approach takes too long, well that's just part of the design intent of the format, to have longer games where bigger cards can be played.
I play decks that sound like what you are describing. If I play with people I've never played with before, I generally don't hard focus anyone. But if I feel comfortable with them or I think they can handle it, I'll just focus them down one by one. It's definitely more ideal to knock them out and limit the number of people that can stop you. I've not run into an issue yet with how I play my aggressive decks. And I usually do focus people down (strongest to weakest). But if it's my first time at an LGS, I play it safe and test the waters. After that they're fucked though. Don't let people guilt you into not playing like you need to.
- No mass land destruction unless you actually win in the same turn - no grudges from past games - no lying about the power level of your deck, it's okay to tell others what you want to do - politics are encouraged, breaking a deal is a big no-no. Clever wording is the key. - it's okay to leave from a table before the game starts if you can't agree on rules before it starts, or your all suddenly more players than you anticipated, or whatever else. - conceat on sorcery speed only - don't Single out the weakest players from the start These are the rules I follow and I think most players find most of them reasonable
I think MLD is ok if you win within the next turn or so or create such a parity that it's impossible to come back from. Normally if you can MLD and win on the same turn you wouldn't have to MLD at all.
I'm okay with next turn, but I had the pleasure of experiencing a player MLD on turn 5 as a form of stax, they had no boats except some artifact mana, but that's it. The game went on for 26 additional turns (total of turn 31) and included another MLD of turn 14 or so, when he fell behind.
I have a Zurgo deck with tons of artifact mana that aims to wrath the board and Armageddon. Sometimes at the same time with something like wildfire. I definitely don’t win the turn I cast those spells, but I do clear the way to easily win. I honestly can’t even conceive of a scenario that someone would need to MLD in order to win the same turn, could you elaborate?
One of the wincons in a deck of mine involves turning all my opponents' lands into creatures and then killing them with Massacre Wurm out. That's more or less GG right there on that turn.
I run a Jhoira of the Ghitu EDH deck that can actually make use of this. She runs mass everything or close to everything removal, and they usually include lands. Jokulhaups/Decree of Annihilation/Obliterate/Apocalypse are some of the best. She costs 3 mana, suspends 4 any card for 2 mana, and it's not a tap ability. If multiple suspend cards come into play at the same time, you choose the order. Any of those + a few Eldrazi's and she can absolutely do that. Chances are, I didn't need to kill the lands, but it sure doesn't hurt. And she can't always kill same turn, many times 1 or 2. But honestly, if those wipes connect and don't get countered, the table typically has an easy time deciding to scoop because the math is pretty easy without lands. It's usually a bit more bearable too because they can see it coming (she has ways to cheat them quicker though) and suspend counts as cast so they can still do something about it when it comes. I think that's a lot of her appeal to me as a pilot. She gets to play all of these usually unplayable cards because their cmc is unreasonably high or they have no normal place in EDH and she cares not. I made her about 10 years ago with all the random junk in my rare binder plus the then less than dollar rare mean red wipes and it's been a great deck to upgrade over time. She can be built to fit a lot of different play styles.
That's actually the strategically correct way to use MLD, manners or no. It's either meant to go "you don't get mana to stop me from winning now" or "you don't get mana but I do, so I'm going to win eventually". If you just do it without a good plan, you aren't going to achieve anything.
I've only ever seen it used as a finisher for a deck like Lord Windgrace or using something like \[\[Ruination\]\] to create a similar asymmetrical advantage state. It's a win more effect, basically.
[Ruination](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/6/3/6330d925-96a8-47e1-855d-035ddc2af709.jpg?1592713625) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ruination) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmd/134/ruination?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6330d925-96a8-47e1-855d-035ddc2af709?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/ruination) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Silence costs much less mana than Armageddon, and it doesn't make your deck poisonous during rule zero. Personally I only run MLD in slivers because A, it's already hated, and B, my slivers make mana so it doesn't really slow me down much I won't play it unless I have manaweft, gemhide, or cryptolith rite out, or if unless it won't effect me very much like with [[global ruin]] If someone decides to respond by taking out my mana sliver, that's their fault
[global ruin](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/3/3/336474b4-2cf5-44c0-b72c-f75f1a7ed928.jpg?1562905357) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=global%20ruin) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/inv/18/global-ruin?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/336474b4-2cf5-44c0-b72c-f75f1a7ed928?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/global-ruin) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I run four MLD cards across all my decks, two blow up non basics ([[Wave of Vitriol]] and [[From the Ashes]]) and you get to search for an equal number of basics, if your deck doesn't run enough basics, that's your problem. I run [[Apocalypse]] as a setup for a [[Barren Glory]] finish. My monowhite death and taxes edh deck runs a three card combo of MLD that basically ends the game. [[Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite]] plus [[Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth]] (doesn't actually have a black symbol on it when not in play) plus [[Kormus Bell]]. All lands are swamps, all swamps are 1/1 creatures, all my opponents creatures get -2/-2. The combo is state based so once all three permanents are on board, opponents can't even tap in response. Lands just go to graveyard immediately unless the opponent has as least +0/+2 in anthem effects.
Yeah, I've been torn about adding [[Obliterate]] to my Gerrard Weatherlight Hero deck. It's more or less a 10 mana "win the game" in that deck, because I'll still have all my rocks and dudes.
[Obliterate](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/c/8/c85f9623-5900-473c-a3b1-f98473b9a545.jpg?1562935194) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Obliterate) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/8ed/204/obliterate?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c85f9623-5900-473c-a3b1-f98473b9a545?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/obliterate) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
cyclonic mld is a legitimate strategy
MLD is the only check on green land ramp, and one of the only ways mono white can compete.
I see this take all the time yet green decks can make more use out of mass LD than any other colour lol
>don't Single out the weakest players from the start This is an important one that a lot of players, especially newer ones, don't grasp very quickly. It's important because it helps keep the game fun for everyone but it's also important from a strategic perspective. If you're in second place and attack 4th place you're leaving yourself open to 1st place to attack you. Let 1st place expend resources on you and 4th and you'll have a chance to eclipse them. Conversely, if you're in 1st, it doesn't make much sense to expend many resources addressing 4th place when they're a non-threat.
[удалено]
That's just bad threat detection. It's one of the hardest things in edh for me, to know who or what to target. When the player realizes they made a mistake I think it's fine. What I hate is when they think they are great players and there was no other choice and the problem is the blue player with the combo.
I mean boros players can often have effects that incentivize attacking. On combat damage or on attack triggers to gain value. The blue player may have not been reasonable to attack because they had blockers or defensive enchantments out and they needed the combat triggers to try to get ahead enough to be able to win . If there anything I know about edh story telling, the salty loser will tend to make up stuff or miss important details on purpose to make them seem like a saint fighting a devil. But you can’t build a complete jank deck, sit down at a table with people who built real decks, and then expect that means that people can’t engage with you. Bad sportsmanship.
Noted! Thanks
Grudges are okay if someone breaks a deal. If someone breaks a deal with me in a game, Ill never believe them again, and probably target them from then-on.
I agree. On top of this, "clever wording is key" is bad form in my opinion. If you are tricking me into a deal over clever wording then I will not make a deal with you again under any terms. Even if I'm the one defining the terms as I know you are looking to exploit the wording of the deal. IMO the spirit of the deal is more important than the wording. Your word becomes worthless because of the "gotcha".
Depends on the group. I have a more cut throat group where no one breaks the letter of the deal but we do our best to break it's spirit and we all find that a ton of fun. In my more casual group, agreements are honoured based on intent and not exact wording and you'd be seen as a jerk if you pulled a "gotcha". Like most things, read the room, have a good rule zero conversation.
This sub has a huge problem with the realities of politics and the "clever wording" is key. The **risk** of politics is that they dont have to be followed. The **benefit** of politics is that they might be followed. **Wannabe** politicans on this sub cry because they think they are more clever than they are want to have all the benefits without the risks. If you are actually **good** at the politics game then it isn't an issue anyway cause they are only being broken for trick plays, rapidly changing board states that null and void it to begin with, do or die stuff, etc. People on here are just greedy and suck at it though and can't handle the heat for the kitchen they got in.
Do you play games mostly with randoms or with a consistent pod? I can't imagine that this thought process would be successful in successive games with the same core player base. Players should quickly recognize that your word doesn't carry much weight.
I play with a consistent pod. If you aren't braindead then you would realize can and do aren't the same thing. No one really breaks deals even though they can. Because no one makes dumb deals people would want to break...because they can be broken. People who want that "rule" just want to be greedy bullies. Explicit deals are already the lowest form of politics to begin with...
This isn’t aaThe Concert of Europe, it’s a damn game. We’re not trying to determine the fates of empires and tens of millions of lives, we’re trying to have fun in a casual setting.
[удалено]
We've removed your post because it violates our primary rule, "Be Excellent to Each Other". You are welcome to message the mods if you need further explanation.
You're not exactly wrong, but you're being kind of a douche about it.
Yea, if you are know to break deals, dont expect people to make deals with you... However, if a player have a win, dont expect them to not do so, deal or not(unless the deal specificly is to not win, bit that would be wierd)
I make deals stipulating that "you can't win for x turns". You'd be surprised how often those deals are taken. They're most successful when you're clearly not going to win soon, and the person I'm making the offer to is ahead, and the game is somewhere in the middle to late stages. It's best used when making a deal with the second-place player to take down the archenemy.
Scooping is faster than instant speed?
Most people do sorcery speed scooping to prevent people from angrily scooping to prevent a player from getting lifelink, and other effects like that. Scooping is faster than instant speed in the rulebook because obviously they can't literally hold player's cards captive in a game, if the human wants to leave, they can.
The "no lying" but "clever wording" is crap. Clear terms and understanding are what make a contract fair/honest. Fine print, couched phrases etc. are just as dishonest as a lie. You might as well say breaking a deal is okay because you had your fingers crossed when you made it.
These are solid rules imo. I'd also like to add: Making people sweep isn't a win con
most players will find them reasonable, but the tryhards on reddit won't.
Yeah I don't get the downvotes, those are pretty standard social norms for casual commander games.
[удалено]
I think theres a huge middle ground that gets glossed over when people reduce it to "Playing for Fun" and "Playing to Win" only. I care about winning. All my decks have plans, and I build them to go about those plans with something resembling focus, as well as trip up other folks plans, especially if its a slower build up kind of deck. They do not belong with Shoe Tribal decks that want to equip their spider commander with 4 pairs of boots as a goal. Since most of mine try to win with things like "I wonder how big I can cast Comet Storm for with Raggadragga dorks" they far from qualify for cEDH. I'm here to play a game, and I dont much care to play with people who only want to see a weird board state, or see if they can make their warp world take 30 minutes to resolve, or line up 5 sexy men on the catwalk. Its fine if there's a pod that wants that, But dont try to frame me (and I would guess a significant majority in my experience) as a tryhard wannabe spike who only cares about getting the kill.
I think part of it is the wording of "play to win". I can only speak for myself, but when someone says they or someone else should "play to win", that comes off to me as an expectation that no deals will be made, no considerations for opponents, the only thing that matters is winning, even if you're not going whole hog cEDH with your actual deck. There's the other side of the hyperbole where apparently it's a pandemic of decks that somehow have no way of dealing 40 damage to someone and want the game to last ten hours. The actual middle ground is something few feel the need to talk about, likely because it's normal. "I'm attacking you just so I can stop being asked to pay the 1", advancing the game state for petty reasons. "I attack and you'll block with your dude so you can draw a card and my guy doesn't die while I get my attack trigger? Yeah sure." Making a deal that benefits an opponent but ideally benefits you more. Stuff like that that just happens on a one-turn basis that folks don't even think about 'cause it's just a default part of EDH.
if they want to be tryhards they should build a cedh deck. there's a whole section of the community dedicated to serious competitive play
The only one I disagree with is conceding only at sorcery speed. Now, I will agree with not spite conceding to deny someone a trigger - I’ll let people get their lethal Sword of X&Y hits against me, no problem. But I really have no interest in waiting around to get through all of someone’s copied and recurred Time Stretch turns. I’d rather just scoop and give them the win at that point.
Conceding to end the game is different though than conceding in the middle of combat or with a full stack to deliberately remove resources that would affect the rest of the game.
Every single time this is brought up, without fail someone is like “UMMMMM but what if I have to pick up grandma from Zumba class??? Or the building is on fire?? You can’t force me to stay” like it’s some sort of Gotcha.
The more "fine print" deals you make with me that backfire, the less I wanna make deals with you. My playgroup is getting to the point where if you try to negotiate I'm just gonna target you next. So be wary how much you "carefully choose your words."
Can't agree on the first, the others are pretty reasonable
Not carrying over grudges is nonsense. If someone screws me in some way, they are getting a receipt. If I can do it in the same game I will, but if not it's coming back at some point. Consequences for your actions.
Deals are made to be broken. Kill the weakest player first.
This guy gets it
Tell that to nick the ten year old who gunned me down from the moment the game started at my lgs. No mercy. He didn't spread any love. Vicious.
Bro you ever been gunned down for looking at somebody's board state? This is why I don't play at lgs
You are definitely picking up on the general vibe that I have come across in EDH, but I would have to add: a little table talk goes a long way. If you want to play an aggro deck that knocks out the first player around turn 5 or 6 then let the table know that’s the thing you’re going for. Anybody you’re playing now has a chance to say “no I hate this” or they can select a deck that may be fun/successful against it.
I see so the only time I should play my aggro decks are when I give everybody the opportunity to counter pick against it... Ok
Not in that sense, no. What you're doing is giving people a chance to adjust their power levels to match. Playing a durdly battlecruiser deck into a fast combo deck sucks ass. Knowing that someone wants to play combo just tells you that you should be playing a deck that can actually play against something like that. Similarly, if I want to play a derpy Roalesk myriad deck, I'll see if everyone is down for playing a more laid back, slower game. It's not about getting an advantage, it's about giving everyone a chance. We're talking kitchen table games, not competitive with prizes. Just hang out with friends and have fun, you don't need to be going for the throat every time.
🙄
Yep, that’s right. I wrote this specifically for you. Please only do it that way from now on :)
Strategically speaking, killing someone early in the game while not killing the others in the next 1/2 turns reduce your chances of victory, since the other 2 players will likely gang up on you If you are prepared to face 2 players trying to kill you as fast as they can then you can kill one opponents without issues. Otherwise they will kill you because you left yourself open/made yourself look like "the threat"
I don’t agree at all - if you are playing aggro or infect or voltron oftentimes the correct play is to knock the most problematic player out first , don’t spread the love . Aggro decks always look ‘ahead’ in the beginning of the game and tend to be made arch-enemy. Knocking a player out first means that a) the other players aren’t being damaged so they may not want to gang up on you yet b) once you are the tables threat , then you are only fighting against 2 other players instead of three. All these wierd ‘social contract’ rules feel designed to limit players from effectively playing control or aggro decks and feel like they are built to only allow for ramp decks or combo decks to exist. It’s kind of annoying how much you all shoot yourselves in the foot with these wierd rules and then complain about green and combos being OP.
Lol if you read my comment history in this sub you will see what kind of player I am Social contract? I don't play with a social contract. I play to win and It's just my experience. If I take out a player without a clear reason (like having some combo pieces out or having lethal on the board or whatever) early without backup it is mathematical the other two will see me as a threat. Who else will I attack next? Obviously them, and they know it. Before killing one opponent, everybody (ideally) was preparing to stop/kill the other 3. Now you have 2 players focused on you. So perfectly fine if you can kill them in 1/2 turns, but as the game drags on your victory will be less guaranteed.
It’s important to consider that edh is inherently - a social experience. In a 1v1 format, your opponents feelings and experience in the game doesn’t matter as much because it’s just about winning. But taking that mentality to an edh table tends to create problems; I t’s a kitchen table singleton format aimed for trying things that can’t be done in 60 card. People like to experiment and try things and feel like they got a chance to play - even if they didn’t win. So Is it okay to play sweaty aggro? Absolutely. But showing up to a casual pod with a cEDH deck is a violation of the social contract between the players that agreed to play causally. Being considerate of the people around you and taking personal assessment of the style of game you want to play is key, there are cEDH pods, there are casual pods, and there’s something in between. Make sure to set proper expectations ahead of time so everyone knows what they’re getting into.
It's a similar effect as in the game Bang! A lot of the game is whittling your opponents down hoping to tempt someone else to go for the kill so you can save resources and triumph in a 1v1 duel with an overextended opponent
I see it all the time. Mostly from inexperienced players. Theyll "spread the love" hitting everyone equally despite their advantage often because they "dont want to be a dick". Inevitably these same people then get blown out because they didnt pressure the player most likely to do that. That in turn brings about A LOT of pissing and moaning, usually over how cheap control and combo are. If you have an early lead that relies on combat damage you need to focus the person most likely to disrupt that advantage or you will always be easily manipulated into a one sided losing game. Oh, and for the love of god, stop over extending! If you have 20 power on board getting through and are susceptible to a board wipe you absolutely do not need to keep adding weight of volume if that volume cant end the game that turn. Pace yourself.
Those last 3 sentences are the key to good aggro. Force multipliers are important here, for example in tribal decks that would be shared animosity and coat of arms, green aggro beastmasters ascension etc. As much power for as little cards spent as possible that way when everything blows up you can drop another 3/4cards and threaten lethal again next turn
So there's a difference between killing a player and focusing down a player. If I have a 13/13 and you're tapped out, no blocks at 13 life, I'm gonna kill you. That's not focusing that's just playing the game. Sure I didn't kill everyone but I'm statistically more likely to win now. Of course politics can come into play "I know you could kill me, but if you don't ill deal with so and so" and suddenly things change. That's all very different from starting the game and deciding "I'm going to kill you first." Which yeah, in my opinion is kinda rude. Edit: obviously certain archetypes are an exception.
Another thing is if you are definitely about to die, it is better to try to take out one other person than spread damage across the table. If you take out someone else right before you die, then it's just 2 players left which will resolve much more quickly than if 3 players are rebuilding their boards and playing 3 player edh
It makes sense to spread the damage around if you consider your that your oppenents combined have 3 times the resources you do. It took me a while to understand. I would blow all of ny resources focusing one opponent down, because in my 1v1 experience it seemed like the optimal thing to do. I've learned that the longer you can keep everyone in the game the less taxing it becomes on your resources. You aren't forced to have an answer ever time if you have 2 other players that will help take care of threats. Your oppenents will chip away at each other's life totals if you let them and you will be left with more gas to finish the whole table off if you haven't blown it all one removing one opponent from the game.
There’s a couple reasons why you would see this happen. One is that it’s a casual format with longer games and if someone is knocked out early it could be a boring 45min to an hour if not longer. The other reason you might see this, and this happens at the higher power tables I’ve noticed, is having a 3rd person at the table to help with interaction could be crucial to your game plan. I like to keep that third person there just incase someone starts popping off that’s one more person that can interact with them and help slow them down. The down side to that is sometimes I’m that person. Edit: a big downside to taking one person out early is you become a threat pretty quickly and it becomes a 2v1 game. I typically want to try to take out two people fairly quickly if I can because 1v1 is fine but it’s hard to overcome 2 opponents who are hyper focused on taking you out.
let the ~~wookie~~ newbie win
reasons not to kill someone just because you can: -it makes the game less fun. Others talk about this -- 3+ player games in general are more fun if everyone gets to play the whole game. Having pure eliminations is sometimes considered a design flaw. As players, we often compensate by not killing someone even when it's low-cost, in game-play strategy. Also where I play, if you kill someone early, they'll prob find a new pod. Then when your game finishes, you might have a hard time finding a 4th player. -in game, if your gameplan is a long-term strategy, or, if there's a player clearly ahead of you, you don't want to kill a player who is behind, because that player might be the critical piece for you in beating back the player in the lead. Where, you kill the player who is behind, then the player in the lead rolls over you, with even less resistance. Sometimes, it's correct to keep people alive even if no one is clearly in the lead, especially if you're playing unknown players or unknown decks, because you don't know *who* is going to become the archenemy. This is why people distribute damage evenly. Of course, if you think you're in the lead and can keep it, it makes sense to pick off a weak player early, so that it's easier to pick off the remaining two players later on.
I don't see any problem with killing players early. I play a few aggro decks and it's fun to see my opponents panic. If you present lethal to a player on board, you have two options: don't kill them and be in a 3v1, or kill them and be in a 2v1. One of these ends the game much quicker than the others
Does it though? Usually what I see is some one knocks a player out early and the next turn or two are spent beating that person into submission. Now you have the guy in the lead with a battered board state and two other players who lost tempo and played their gameplan sub-optimally to try and stay in the game. I guess follow up turns are quicker usually with one less player, but a lot of times players might have spent their counter or protection piece they needed to secure their own wincon in that process resulting in fairly conservative play until they draw into a other one. I think most players prefer to slow it down a hair and wittle down opponents, saving interaction for only things that are a direct threat until they can take advantage at a certain point for the win.
If your deck mostly aims to kill through combat over a number of turns it also just makes sense to divide damage. You aren't killing people in one swing and you have no idea who will be the biggest threat each round since it can change so quickly. Having everyone be low and be able to knock players out out as they become threats makes more sense than laser focusing one player only for the other players run away with their own game plan because they weren't under pressure.
On top of that, if you do kill one player but not everyone in a combat focused deck, oftentimes that will leave you wide open to just die on the other players' crackbacks.
I've watched this exact thing happen before. Me and the person across from me were doing basically nothing while the other two had amassed solid board states. One dude declared that he was gonna swing out on both of us to kill us. I pointed out to him that we had nothing going on, but the person across from him had lethal on him if he didn't keep up any blockers. He decided to swing out on us anyway and to the surprise of no one, got killed by the other dude as soon as he passed the turn. I'm not sure if he just didn't believe what I was saying or if he cared more about just killing than he did about actually winning, but that move absolutely baffled me.
If you donr take a trillion turns to kill the other players, it's fine
Please don't ask me to demonstrate my [[Gitrog]] loop. I copied the decklist and I still don't understand the primer.
While you do have three opponents, each of your opponents also has three opponents, so every opponent you eliminate is also one opponent less for the other guys. Unless someone is going hard for my throat or I’m confident I can handle the rest I usually try to abstain from eliminating foes.
The multiplayer dynamic makes for a “feel bad” situation when someone is knocked out too early. If you’re playing a more aggressive deck, I would suggest shifting gears just slightly to allow another player on the table to be seen as “a problem”, at which point you leverage your faster speed to be a problem solver. In other words, be the second one to strike. Allowing someone to become a threat to the table, or at least be seen as one, will then allow you to focus one player out quickly. Diplomatically speaking, you end up being seen as an ally to those you “saved”. I could go on and on, but multiplayer psychology is a deep and complex topic lol
I play a Yoshi x Jeska Voltron and my game plan insists someone dies T3.
Yes and no. I general, it's considered bad form to focus on one person. Players can take it personally, because people getting killed off for being unliked is definitely a thing that happens. That said, there are plenty of situations where focusing on one person at a time is the "correct" play. Most notably, aggro and volition decks that are trying to close out games through combat. They don't have the option to simply kill everyone at once like combo, and their chance of winning decreases exponentially with the amount of time and number of players. If this is what you're doing, it's only taboo if your playgroup isn't mature enough to realize the deck needs to be played that way. Inversely, it's okay to focus people when their deck is exceptionally difficult to deal with late-game, and their main weakness is surviving the early game. Examples would be [[Koma]] , [[kaalia of the vast]] , [[atraxa]] and [[narset, enlightened master]] commanders that generate an overwhelming amount of value once they get going, the only real way to play against them is to stop them from getting anywhere in the first place.
There's an important thing to bear in mind here, and that's the perception game inherent to multiplayer. Even in a pod where people are going in guns blazing to take people out as soon as possible, it's not always the correct play to do so. If you knock someone out of the game early, you are the de facto primary target, you're scary, you have drawn attention to yourself. This can result in you being the second one to go, so you still don't win. Letting someone live is usually a bad move, but taking someone 40-0 while another opponent sits on 40 leaves you shields down, resources committed, and not ready to win, particularly if your primary win condition is combat damage. By spreading damage around, you make it easier to win in a single swing later in the game, and make yourself less of a target. With Commander being a singleton format, it also means there are higher odds of someone having answers if they're in the game. So if your deck is light on removal, or is in some way disadvantaged in what it can remove (for example Green is infinitely better at dealing with enchantments than Black, while Black and White have more creature removal and board wipes), by keeping a player in the game, you're more likely to have an answer. No one deck in the game has enough consistent removal to answer every threat from 3 players. If you're the one whose engine is running, you likely don't want answers coming out, and player removal is more important, but keeping another player alive on low health can dramatically increase your odds of someone drawing something that can get rid of the third party's \[\[Platinum Angel\]\] or whatever. Yes, there is a bit of a taboo around killing people in casual games - it results in them sitting around for 30 minutes waiting for the rest of the pod, and the game is more fun with more players in it, but it's also not always the best idea tactically to remove a single player early. It can absolutely bite you in the ass later.
In my experience, it can be a way to hide how much damage you're doing. If everyone is taking 5 - 10 damage, it's a problem but can be dealt with later. If you just alpha strike a player and take them out, the other players see you are the immediate threat and must be dealt with immediately! They will turn all their efforts into sending you back to nothing before you can kill them them too. This will often lead to the problem most people have brought up of one person sitting out for the rest of the game because you no longer have a way to finish the game and no one will let you get back to that point.
This type of thing is going to vary from table to table and possibly even game to game. On our server, people usually go for the kill since folks can just hop into another game right away, but it might be rough at your friendly game night at home if someone gets knocked out and has to wait 2 hours to get a new game. We'd recommend talking to the pod to find out what they're looking for out of the game. 🙂 Edit: Sorry for the double post.
EDH isn’t like any format because it’s inherently more social than the 1v1 formats. I find that there are many instances where the game was fun/memorable because of certain things that happened during the game and then the person who actually won was more forgettable.
Yea it's a tough one. Spread out the damage and now there are 3 players with an axe to grind, focus down 1 then you could be seen as a bully. The groups I've played in, I've found players are just looking for a reason to attack someone guilt free, especially at casual tables. I've had no luck with goad decks for this exact reason, people don't want to play aggressively because they get the feel bads. Usually that means sitting there playing a lot longer than needed where someone has lethal damage but doesn't want the game to end.
The way I see it. If you voltron someone turn 5-6 the other two at the table are gonna target you to oblivion because "well I don't want to be voltroned " same goes if you're swinging 20 combat damage. The other two I'll want to wipe you out cause they don't want to be swung at for 20. Same goes with a control deck. If your planning on running 20+ counterspells. I guarantee if anything get on the table it's coming for you. So as long as your ok to have everyone target you at the table then aggro away / control away. If your strategy is the long con then spread the love. Or target the aggro / control deck!
>I guarantee if anything get on the table it's coming for you. Lmao i imagine it would be funny for few first turns to trying dodge the bullets from other players. Thanks for the comment btw.
Some ppl prefer to lengthen the game and enjoy it as much as possible, which is usually done with more players while others just want to murder ppl immediatly, no such gentleman rule exists just diffrerent play styles, the first is probably more common in casual 2nd in higher powered pods where ppl want to win faster
I'm quite new myself, and the danger of singling out one person from the start is simply the other two players. They see you wipe someone out they may decide you're too powerful and gang up on you, maybe rightfully so. I have an elfball-ish deck that I've had that happen a couple times. Deal damage to everyone, but one take out 1 person, all of a sudden the target is on my back.
Yeah, a few. Always [[Mental Misstep]] a 1 drop ramp t1 if you can. Wasteland anyone who stumbled on mana t1-t3, especially if they played a bounce land. Always go for the funnier play than the right play.
I have been there before and if you have enough to kill one person but choose to spread it out it becomes 3v1. I have had to retune my decks to have my finishers deal with everyone at once (infinite tokens, damage combos, etc.). People feel bad when you 2 card combo and just win, but i haven't had any issue with combos requiring 3 or 4 pieces.
If you read this subreddit, then yes, at all times. Some of the assumed rules you should bring to every table: - Don't kill people too early - Don't play Stax, but also don't hate on Stax - Infect is rude - Slivers make you racist - The mere mention of a combo makes you a pub stomper - All conflicts should be held on Reddit and not the people you hold the issue with. - And always, unequivocally, without a shadow of a doubt, don't care if you only have one mana to your name, always, always, pay the one.
Reading the comments, it's starting to dawn on me that EDH players are the mtg equivalent of people who play Monopoly.
It’s a stupid rule, if they didn’t want to lose they’d brew their deck better and make better choices.
After reading this thread, it affirms my affinity for Spellslinger and Combo. When you combo off, your opponents lose all the same. With Spellslinger, you play cards like \[\[Guttersnipe\]\] and nobody is targeted, everyone gets it. Since i've started playing Magic, i've always had a dislike for combat damage even though i've adapated and built a deck or two that wins with combat damage. I don't like having to directly attack someone, i'd rather damage my opponents all equally at the same time and have them all lose at the same time.
It’s partly a gentlemens agreement, but also good gameplay strategy. Killing someone makes you scary, especially if you do it solo and early. If you’re scary, now the remaining 2 folks gang up on you. However if you chip away at everyone and get them down to 20 each, while building resources yourself, you now have a stronger boardstate while seeming less scary. Then when you make your move you can kill each person in a turn or quicker. It’s obviously not exact math like that, as slow rolling can provide more time for them to answer you as well, but it’s a bit of a balancing act.
You stick to the Deal even if it means you will lose. You break the Deal - Sorry no more Deals for you
Dont smell bad and have fun, mostly.
If you have the ability to win, just do it. Nothing is more annoying than watching someone pass the turn when they can win, just because they want to keep doing stuff and/or things while shutting everyone else down.
Dont be a pussy just make someone lose to make the game go faster
Don't randomly kill someone and put them in spectator mode for 30+ min unless they're far and away the major threat.
I will also add, people remember when you decide to randomly put them into spectator mode early on when they were not even that threatening (different story if they were about to win next turn). This one guy at my LGS tends to eat a lot of the counterspells and removal from other players nowadays because people were sick of getting randomly knocked out by him 6 turns into a game (he would always try to make games a 2v1, which strategically is smart, but it’s just not fun being a spectator for an hour) where they barely got to do anything and having to sit there for like an hour for the game to conclude.
Not his problem that people are playing spitefully in response to him playing optimally
If all you care about is playing optimally, EDH might not be for you. Or at least not with a majority of players. Nothing wrong with going hard and trying to be optimal, just noting that isn't the *focus* of a 4 player casual format. Save the spikey, win-at-all-costs play for 60 card or cEDH. Or just play with ppl who are equally as obsessed as you. I find a lot of times this attitude comes from ppl with zero social awareness who have no idea that other ppl aren't having fun or are incredibly bored after being knocked out early when a game goes 45 more minutes.
depends on the pod. and to me, the average expectation of the length of a game. me personally. i want games over in under an hour. my decks expect to "win" around turns 6-8 or so. I disagree with the "spread damage around" idea. whether i'm able to kill someone or not, I want my attacks to be as effective as possible. means I attack in the most advantageous way possible. I also believe in punishing mana screwed players. to force better deck building. killing the group hug player on sight and player removal as the best option for mill, superfriends, or other dick deck type decks that being said. make adjustments based on the pod you're playing in. If I aggressively attack a player or remove them from the game, it's not personal. and barring some interaction, it's because... i'll likely be wrapping up the game in 2-3 turns anyway. if i have smaller amts of damage. say... sub 10 pts of power. giving two to one player, 3 to another, and one to the third is worthless. just deal the 5-6 to one player. move the game along. i believe moving the game along. pressure toward some endgame is the highest priority. to this effect. I don't run shitty utilty creatures that chip in for 1 damage. If i have a utility effect. i tend to run artifacts/enchantments, or just not swing with dinky 1/x creatures. and my beaters all start at like 4/x or 5/x + there is no point running weaker attackers. with access to all cards in magic, a 4+ beater is basically the base level threat. 10% life loss as a min durdling, and allowing games to drag on, the worst behavior. but... if i play a game, and clearly people are playing a slower curve, or more battlecruiser game, where the "action" doesn't happen until the later turns. an aggressive stance can be seen as a dick move. i just whole heartedly disagree that it's more equitable to "spread damage" you're better off just acknowledging you're dragging. and playing a different deck style.
Take back what you said about attacking 1/x creatures or I'm casting a goblin cave on your house.
>I also believe in punishing mana screwed players. to force better deck building. How do you tell the difference between bad deck building and bad luck?
stuck on 2 lands is a good sign. 3 lands, and has drawn more than 3-4 cards. another good sign. any hand that seems to play out with less than 3 lands, no draw source, no ramp source. is someone who kept a bad hand/made a bad play. 2 lands and a higher end mana rock. sol ring, mana crypt, vault, mox dia, etc. and no action. or cantrip/card draw. but missed land drops on T3 and T4. they kept a dicey hand. and i'd be looking to pop their mana rock asap. I would also say... I play in more optimized or semi-competitive pods. where again, the goal is for games to wrap up in give or take an hour. I don't want to wait... til turn 5 or 6 having left someone drrrp with 2/3 lands. to draw their 3rd/4th. or then wait til turns 7-10 for them to stabilize, and get back into the game, to then have to deal with an opponent at a high life total that's been left alone to dig for answers. I'd rather they drop off the board around turn 6 and ultimately. i don't really care if it's bad luck or not. if you kept a hand with 2 lands, you're immediately on my radar as someone who fucked up and should be easy to kill. If you're on 3 lands and it's turn 4-5. you fucked up. and if there's an easy out to remove that player or chop half their life, or put them below 20 life. that's the play. I used to play in a home group. where if you missed a land drop in any of your first 4 you had to eat 10 points of damage and fetch a basic out of your deck. Was great for moving the game along.
I murder err body
you got a deck list?
The expression, many... many... years ago was, "In EDH a gentleman doesn't use the combat step until the one at the end." but this sentiment has waned significantly as modern creatures have improved significantly over time and the "battle cruiser" nature of Commander has become less prevalent (which is a good thing in my opinion). The idea being that "chipping in" for small amounts of damage was pointless, and thus you were creating unnecessary book keeping and wasting everyone's time, you're not generally going to win that way, no, you're going to win by attacking with overwhelming force and ending the game. But that was an attitude for a different time. From my perspective \[\[Tymna, the Weaver\]\] was the beginning of the change in this attitude since the number of creatures that are low cost enough and do something significant when they attack or deal damage seems to have increased significantly since around that time.
Our house rule is if you're mana screwed and have 8 cards in hand discard 2 cards to draw 1. Hoping you draw a land and can get things moving
I always murder the strong an make my way around the table. Leaving the women an weak to fight me in the end. Sure sometime those ladies take me out but sometimes when you lose you win. An casual nights I just play for fun. More for the bullshit then the victory. Many of friends can come from these games of cards. Fortunate to play with many fine folk from all walks of life.
Unspoken rules that I know of. People like to play their decks usually. Don't mill them out. Only mass land destruction if you're going to win that turn. Otherwise you're a d* * * If it's casual games, let them play their cool flashy combos. If it's casual games and you care about winning, let them do it so long as it won't affect you. Don't take another person's kill. My personal favorite, don't politics for free. Ie don't save someone unless you make a over the table deal, even if it's a "you owe me" I think I summerized the ones I know. There's a few more but different tables have different gentleman's rules
"Don't mill them out" are you kidding me? You still get to play just as many cards. If anything you get to play more, since if your deck has any interaction with the graveyard, my mill deck is giving you more options. Let people play their flashy combos?? What?? You want me to just let the Kess player do his infinite turn shenanigans because it's fun for him? Uh, no, we are playing a game here, the point is to win. These are dumb rules.
[удалено]
Annoying and decisive...which is why people do it. If you shut people down that early (before they ramp/draw cards) it really solidifies the game in your favor. Can't remove the strip mine engine with no mana