how do you "learn" to multiplayer?

[jubjub]

you were looking for ammunition. So you didn't actually put in any effort, and instead grabbed onto a surface-level view of the deck so you could fling it in my face

You're right and I'm sorry. I just would never build a deck like that because I'd be too concerned I was being the fun police. I'm sure the deck is well suited to your playgroup and your opponents enjoy your games. Seeing toctheyounger's Bruna list and it's many and varied hate pieces has assured me of this.

If the game was, say, one player combo wins on turn 3 without affecting the other players at all, then sure, they could keep playing for runner up.

Table kills are very typical in our meta so the "play for seconds" approach comes quite naturally to us.

I realise different strokes for different folks etc, some people love the weird plays that make this game great and would draw out a game to make them happen. I do think these kinds of things are neat but I'm not interested in extending the game unnaturally in order to play into them myself.

Playing for seconds usually only takes us two or three turns for the most part. We aren't gonna drag it out while the "victor" has to sit there twiddling their thumbs.

Imo if that happens, it's a sign that one of the decks might be too strong. Maybe it can be fixed with threat assessment, or maybe they need to play another deck, but either way, what happened in a game is what happened. It would be great if it was a close game, but if it wasn't a close game then it just wasn't.

This certainly can be the case; it may well be the case that the kobold deck is a bit too strong. However, it doesn't perform like that all the time and the rest of us don't mind playing for 2nds if it does go batshit. We're not gonna ban the deck for power reasons and I'm not gonna force Rumpy to depower it. It's gotta see table time at some point and I'd rather carry on for a couple of turns if the game can still be salvaged. If that's not something the table is interested in doing then don't...

[Treamayne]

...I suffer greatly in multiplayer. ...what I can really do to change whatever about myself such that I don't just come off that kill-on-sight guy.

Sorry we sort of hijacked your thread, though at least it is a tangential discussion of differing views on what multiplayer is and means.

It's not the winning that's fun, it's ATTEMPTING to win that allows for fun. But I guess I haven't been clear about that until this particular post.

Agreed, that was not clear before this post.

No, actually. This is why I've tried to be really careful with word choice to differentiate specific terms (even if the thesaurus might consider them roughly synonymous). I'd say "motivator" is a lot closer to "purpose", and my purpose for playing commander is fun, not winning. But I achieve that fun by attempting to win. Note that I don't actually need to win to achieve fun, but I have to attempt it...

I think I might be confusing you with how I'm using the word "goal"...

Imo, the default assumption for a game is that players are playing to win. If people don't want to play that way, then imo they should be the ones to say so before the game begins.

I think this term, along with "goal," are the definition disconnects causing a majority of miscomprehension for this discussion.

When you say "play to win" I envision the type of min/max-ing spike player that will T3 terrastadon to colorscrew one or more opponents because "that's the correct play." I think of the type of player that 3Drinks self-described early in the thread. Now, however, I have the feeling you mean what I mean when I simply say "playing."

Yes, (nearly) every game has an element of winning and losing. Yes, in those games the objective is to win. When I play multi-player magic, I will work toward the objective, but that does not mean my "goal" is winning. If I lose, but had fun then I met my goal (even if I did not meet the game's objective). Playing the game includes trying to win; but that, to me, is very different from "playing to win."

So, to me I see the terms as:

Purpose: subjective reason why somebody plays a game (in general) e.g. my purpose in playing magic is to enjoy the puzzle aspect and relax
Goal: subjective reason why somebody is playing this particular round of the game - what do they want to accomplish
Objective: the game's end state that players work to accomplish

I will say that my average workday is 11ish hours. I have neither the inclination, nor the wherewithal to laser focus on the correct lines, counters, and plays to "play to win." I'm not looking for a thoughtless game, but I am also not going to be trying to mentally calculate the odds of a given threat appearing before I draw my next removal to determine if I can safely answer an ignored threat now.

If "not playing to lose" means not passing up "obvious wins", then what constitutes an obvious win? If you have a tutor for the winning combo piece, is that obvious? What if the tutor is on-board, or it's previously been revealed so everyone knows you have it? What if you have lethal, but only if your opponent doesn't have interaction and he has mana up, is that obvious? What about the same circumstance, but you've got a counterspell in hand? How obvious IS obvious, exactly?

I would hope this was answered above, but to be definitive: I only play tutors and counterspells when they are on theme (e.g. Flamekin Harbinger in Horde of Notions Elementals, Mystic Genesis in Morophon Ooze). If I have an opportunity to turn sideways to win, I will.

If "you have lethal, but only if your opponent doesn't have interaction and he has mana up?" I'll be honest, that is more mental math than I would bring to the average after work game - I would probably not even notice this scenario. Of course, it doesn't help that the average MODO game usually starts with 4 players (since they took away our 5-6 player games), somebody rage-quits on turn 1 or 2, somebody else leaves with no word turn 3-5, and the attempt at a multiplayer game of fun turns into a 1:1 version of my casual deck against some random CEDH pubstomp (usually with them showing an infinite combo and asking me to concede - and I tell them to play it out or they haven't won. Many of those combos on MTGO need too many clicks to actually be useful - they'll time out first. It's how I rebel against pubstompers in casual on MTGO).

even if one player is off doing some invented quest of his own..if I sit down to 4-man I want a 4-man FFA game, not a 3-man with a distraction... I'm not saying people can't enjoy other players sandbagging ... someone in the game who's playing for some nebulous side goal and not trying to win is...distracting.

Nice jibes. As I have said before, exploring my deck and interactions during a game does not mean that I am not playing the game.

- Please define " farting around in the middle of the game." Is this failing to execute threat assessment? Failing to attack? Failing to track board state? Something else?

Playing badly (incorrectly) on purpose.

Playing badly on accident is fine, obviously.

Concur

I've refined my position a little (in that huge block of text up above) so I think maybe I can clarify myself in a way you might find more satisfying/compelling, because I do have roughly the same purpose for playing commander as you and Treamayne. I'll probably be repeating a bit of what I've said above, but that was a pretty long post so you can be forgiven for not wanting to read through the whole thing. So here's 2 points of (I think) useful clarification

It sounds like we mostly agree, except that my playstyle of not trying to analyze the "best" play at every step might be a bit too lax for your group and seen as "not trying."

[3drinks]

I don't feel it's a hijack in honesty. It's a bit casual vs competitive esque but the points levied by both sides are valid, interesting points to take in. Could do with less about personal deck structure as I don't find it overwhelmingly relevant, but nonetheless a valid discussion is valid.

[DirkGently]

You're right and I'm sorry.

I appreciate you saying that, thank you.

I just would never build a deck like that because I'd be too concerned I was being the fun police. I'm sure the deck is well suited to your playgroup and your opponents enjoy your games.

Some quick cliffs notes for the deck: answers are basically only used for retaliation, stopping people from getting way out of control and/or winning the game, and to tamp down the more competitive decks so that Phelddagrif can raise up the weaker ones. So I wouldn't call it the fun police personally, it just mostly just stops people winning or trying to pubstomp. It can get a bit tedious in the 1v1 game, though.

Table kills are very typical in our meta so the "play for seconds" approach comes quite naturally to us.

Personally I'm not a fan of such game endings - luckily they're only occasional in my meta. Although a decent amount of that might be my decks doing their utmost to block any "win the game" buttons getting pressed.

That said, I don't see any problem with such a policy in that sort of meta. Especially the winner actually wins, then sits out for a bit. That, to me, seems much preferable to the winner pretending they don't have it.

This certainly can be the case; it may well be the case that the kobold deck is a bit too strong. However, it doesn't perform like that all the time and the rest of us don't mind playing for 2nds if it does go batshit. We're not gonna ban the deck for power reasons and I'm not gonna force Rumpy to depower it. It's gotta see table time at some point and I'd rather carry on for a couple of turns if the game can still be salvaged. If that's not something the table is interested in doing then don't...

I see intentionally holding back a win, and winning but letting the game continue, to be very different things - I don't mind the latter, but really dislike the former. Of course it's kinda hard to win but let the game continue if you're killing players one at a time, though.

I think this term, along with "goal," are the definition disconnects causing a majority of miscomprehension for this discussion.

Lol, I agree, which is why I was attempting to separate them out earlier.

When you say "play to win" I envision the type of min/max-ing spike player that will T3 terrastadon to colorscrew one or more opponents because "that's the correct play." I think of the type of player that 3Drinks self-described early in the thread. Now, however, I have the feeling you mean what I mean when I simply say "playing."

While do I want my opponents to take the "correct" moves, I don't think it's usually the case that it's the best move to terrastodon someone's lands T3. Eliminating someone quickly can be a bit rude, yes, but it's also often just not a great play. You expend a bunch of resources to screw someone over, and then the other players are likely way ahead since they invested nothing and got the same benefit. I do try to make the correct moves, but it's really rare that I'll blow up someone's lands early-on. There's the classic "wasteland your karoo land" play that's sometimes mentioned as a "nasty, spikey play" - I'd say it's more like a stupid, pointlessly cruel play.

Call me a dreamer, but I think that most of the time, the "correct" play is not the nasty one. Politics matters. Incidentally, that's a big part of my Phelddagrif philosophy (Phelosophy, if you will).

Yes, (nearly) every game has an element of winning and losing. Yes, in those games the objective is to win. When I play multi-player magic, I will work toward the objective, but that does not mean my "goal" is winning. If I lose, but had fun then I met my goal (even if I did not meet the game's objective). Playing the game includes trying to win; but that, to me, is very different from "playing to win."

So, to me I see the terms as:

Purpose: subjective reason why somebody plays a game (in general) e.g. my purpose in playing magic is to enjoy the puzzle aspect and relax
Goal: subjective reason why somebody is playing this particular round of the game - what do they want to accomplish
Objective: the game's end state that players work to accomplish

I feel like if you'd engaged earlier with the terms I was trying to separate out, we could have saved some time. But on the other hand, if those are the terms you'd prefer, sure. They look fine to me.

I will say that my average workday is 11ish hours. I have neither the inclination, nor the wherewithal to laser focus on the correct lines, counters, and plays to "play to win." I'm not looking for a thoughtless game, but I am also not going to be trying to mentally calculate the odds of a given threat appearing before I draw my next removal to determine if I can safely answer an ignored threat now.

I don't think anyone wants commander to be a format where anyone is going in the tank for 15 minutes to find the perfect line. But I do think that part of the etiquette of the game is playing towards the objective of winning - at the very least, if you see the win, you take the win - or at a minimum, you tell everyone instead of hiding it, pretending you don't see it, etc.

To me, someone holding trample damage on blockers just to prolong the game - especially without the table asking for such a thing - would be almost equivalent to drawing extra cards or otherwise cheating. In either case, if that was happening in my game, I'd pick up my cards, because we're not playing magic anymore imo.

If I have an opportunity to turn sideways to win, I will.

Makes sense.

If "you have lethal, but only if your opponent doesn't have interaction and he has mana up?" I'll be honest, that is more mental math than I would bring to the average after work game - I would probably not even notice this scenario. Of course, it doesn't help that the average MODO game usually starts with 4 players (since they took away our 5-6 player games), somebody rage-quits on turn 1 or 2, somebody else leaves with no word turn 3-5, and the attempt at a multiplayer game of fun turns into a 1:1 version of my casual deck against some random CEDH pubstomp (usually with them showing an infinite combo and asking me to concede - and I tell them to play it out or they haven't won. Many of those combos on MTGO need too many clicks to actually be useful - they'll time out first. It's how I rebel against pubstompers in casual on MTGO).

Lol, seems fair enough.

Nice jibes. As I have said before, exploring my deck and interactions during a game does not mean that I am not playing the game.

I think I've been talking past you a bit, and I apologize for that.

Trying potentially reckless/unusual plays to learn things about the deck is, to me, perfectly reasonable, so long as you think there's a chance it's a good move - even if it turns out to suck. What bothers me is when people will make plays that they know are incorrect to intentionally prolong the game.

Concur

It seems like we might actually agree on this? Did we just solve commander?

It sounds like we mostly agree, except that my playstyle of not trying to analyze the "best" play at every step might be a bit too lax for your group and seen as "not trying."

At least for me, I don't have any lower bar on paying attention or thinking hard enough. If you don't see the line, then that's totally fine. Hell, I've played drunk or otherwise inebriated a decent number of times and it's great fun even when I'm playing like crap. I don't mind misplays, I don't mind "not trying hard enough", I don't mind asking the table if it's okay for you to win (though my answer will always be "yes"). The only thing that actually bothers me is intentional misplaying.

(Of note: I do consider "not tutoring for my combo piece" to fall into that category of playing incorrect, though, as long as the player notices it. If you're going to play tutors and combos, just get it over with. If you don't think that's a fun way to win, then either don't play that deck, or remove those elements from that deck.)

[3drinks]

When you say "play to win" I envision the type of min/max-ing spike player that will T3 terrastadon to colorscrew one or more opponents because "that's the correct play." I think of the type of player that 3Drinks self-described early in the thread. Now, however, I have the feeling you mean what I mean when I simply say "playing."

Can confirm I've definitely thrown many t3 Natural Orders for T-Don to take someone out of the game. Old habit where if I didn't, it'd be done to me.

We liked to call it "tear ass to don". Cause when it hits, it'll tear dat ass down. 😂

[Treamayne]

I think this term, along with "goal," are the definition disconnects causing a majority of miscomprehension for this discussion.

Lol, I agree, which is why I was attempting to separate them out earlier.

Well, that is only my third post to the thread.
The first to which you responded, the second I was not sure we were not using the terms the same way and was trying to feel out the vernacular.

When you say "play to win" I envision the type of min/max-ing spike player that will T3 Terastodon to colorscrew one or more opponents because "that's the correct play." I think of the type of player that 3Drinks self-described early in the thread. Now, however, I have the feeling you mean what I mean when I simply say "playing."

Can confirm I've definitely thrown many t3 Natural Orders for T-Don to take someone out of the game. Old habit where if I didn't, it'd be done to me.

We liked to call it "tear ass to don". Cause when it hits, it'll tear dat ass down. 😂

When you say "play to win" I envision the type of min/max-ing spike player that will T3 terrastadon to colorscrew one or more opponents because "that's the correct play." I think of the type of player that 3Drinks self-described early in the thread. Now, however, I have the feeling you mean what I mean when I simply say "playing."

While do I want my opponents to take the "correct" moves, I don't think it's usually the case that it's the best move to terrastodon someone's lands T3. Eliminating someone quickly can be a bit rude, yes, but it's also often just not a great play. You expend a bunch of resources to screw someone over, and then the other players are likely way ahead since they invested nothing and got the same benefit. I do try to make the correct moves, but it's really rare that I'll blow up someone's lands early-on. There's the classic "wasteland your karoo land" play that's sometimes mentioned as a "nasty, spikey play" - I'd say it's more like a stupid, pointlessly cruel play.

Well, for more context, that specific example was a pubstomper in a casual game. At the time he cheated out Don, I had three lands, and a rock (UBR Vampire); Player two had three lands and nothing else - but was still missing a color on his Maya deck (had red and green, no White); and player 4 had 2 lands and Soul warden. So he destroyed my only B, player 2's only G and player 4's only W. Next turn he Cloudshifted the don to kill my next swamp and UR Dual, and player 2's forest - bringing us all down to 1 land (player 4 had missed the land drop after the first don). He admited he couldn't win that early he "just wanted to make sure we couldn't stop him soon."

(Of note: I do consider "not tutoring for my combo piece" to fall into that category of playing incorrect, though, as long as the player notices it. If you're going to play tutors and combos, just get it over with. If you don't think that's a fun way to win, then either don't play that deck, or remove those elements from that deck.)

Which is one reason why I avoid tutors unless they are on theme for the deck, and usually avoid having them enable a combo. Probably my most synergistic is Conflux in Karona Avatars (which has notoriously hard mana base to cast critters early), and I will usually get Paradoxical Outcome and Eureka with three Avatars to pick up a bunch of stuff, draw a bunch more, then put them all back out with Eureka (not quite as symmetrical this way). It's not game winning, but it usually boosts me from 1-2 creatures to 6+ and puts me in a position to start turning sideways.

[tstorm823]

I think we can take a moment to watch some Avatar: the Last Airbender here.



There's nothing wrong with doing nothing. Waiting quietly for the right moment to act is still winning strategy. You don't always have to be attacking or defending, sometimes the correct strategy is to do nothing. If your problem is that you can't get out of the spotlight in a multiplayer setting, you probably need to more often do nothing. This advice brought to you by the king of fun, Bumi.

[DirkGently]

lol, nice clip. I agree wholeheartedly. Waiting for the right opening is a crucial skill when trying to play a tight political game.

Well, for more context, that specific example was a pubstomper in a casual game. At the time he cheated out Don, I had three lands, and a rock (UBR Vampire); Player two had three lands and nothing else - but was still missing a color on his Maya deck (had red and green, no White); and player 4 had 2 lands and Soul warden. So he destroyed my only B, player 2's only G and player 4's only W. Next turn he Cloudshifted the don to kill my next swamp and UR Dual, and player 2's forest - bringing us all down to 1 land (player 4 had missed the land drop after the first don). He admited he couldn't win that early he "just wanted to make sure we couldn't stop him soon."

To point out the obvious, the issue sounds like more the disparity between deck power levels than making the best plays. If you're putting natural order and terastodon in the same deck, that sequence is presumably something you planned to do when you created it, it's not some inadvertent "oh gosh, this play is really mean but I think it might be the right one?". Naw man, you premeditated that dickishness. Now get it over with so the table can judge you

I've had games similar to that (ah, the halcyon days of Sylvan Primordial...that card made terastodon look like some janky-ass garbage). They're not fun, granted, but I still think it's better to get it over with and try to fix things for the next game, than have the overpowered player half-ass it to draw the game out. Especially if it's really early in the game, not much time has been lost.

[ISBPathfinder]

The problem can be that once you have that mentality it can be very hard to shake it. You can make intentionally bad decks but until people really see how bad a deck is they probably are going to hold you to the same assumption of threat perception as usual.

If a new player to the format asked me how to play multiplayer my general advice would be to build defensively. Have things that can defend you well like Fog Bank rather than relying on spot removal for every threat and prioritize staying alive over removing players until they have the hang of things. I feel like what you are talking about is more of the question of threat assessment rather than deck design / playstyle though.

I really don't have a good suggestion on lowering threat perception. The best suggestion I might be able to have is to intentionally build something that is bad and mash it for a night and see if someone on repeat play through realizes that the threat of the deck is less. I get where you are coming from on this and honestly it has mostly required me to step up and just accept that level of threat assessment. I can / could run some worse decks but mostly I end up just dismantling those decks rather than them helping me lower perception.

[3drinks]

If a new player to the format asked me how to play multiplayer my general advice would be to build defensively. Have things that can defend you well like Fog Bank rather than relying on spot removal for every threat and prioritize staying alive over removing players until they have the hang of things. I feel like what you are talking about is more of the question of threat assessment rather than deck design / playstyle though.

🤔🤔

Isn't this sort of like the policeman style deck? And my understanding is no one likes that which leads me back to the original point. Do I just have to mash Craw Blade together? I'd certainly hope I don't need to gimp myself that much....

[pokken]

Just a thought, you might be better served netdecking than trying to adjust both your deckbuilding and your playstyle at the same time. Lots of really solid fair decks to choose from.

[ISBPathfinder]

If a new player to the format asked me how to play multiplayer my general advice would be to build defensively. Have things that can defend you well like Fog Bank rather than relying on spot removal for every threat and prioritize staying alive over removing players until they have the hang of things. I feel like what you are talking about is more of the question of threat assessment rather than deck design / playstyle though.

🤔🤔

Isn't this sort of like the policeman style deck? And my understanding is no one likes that which leads me back to the original point. Do I just have to mash Craw Blade together? I'd certainly hope I don't need to gimp myself that much....

I was more saying that in a lot of 1v1 formats there tend to be a lot of control decks that work through means of removing all of the real threats your opponents play. Given three opponents (on average in multiplayer) its much harder to defend yourself with spot removal in this format. Sometimes making yourself a hard target to pursue is better than actually answering a problem as it makes it still a problem for the other players. This can lead to other opponents getting attacked resulting in their hp being lower or even possibly eliminating someone else.

I don't really have a good solution on how to lower threat perception. Its something I struggle with myself. There are a number of decks I have had to either stop playing or play very rarely because they end up being too fast for the meta I am in (at least without telling people ahead of time to step it up or squeeze in a fast high powered game). My Sai deck is quickly getting to the point that if it isn't disrupted it has had a lot of turn 5/6 goldfish games in 4-5 player games.

I feel you on this one, I still don't have a good solution.

[tstorm823]

Just a thought, you might be better served netdecking than trying to adjust both your deckbuilding and your playstyle at the same time. Lots of really solid fair decks to choose from.

Oh! Oh! I have a fair deck that's fun! Netdeck me!

[BaronCappuccino]

Worst case, forget learning to multiplayer, own your lot in life and be what they think you are. Might be easier to beat them constantly as archenemy with the right deck than get any concessions in threat perception.

[onering]

The problem can be that once you have that mentality it can be very hard to shake it. You can make intentionally bad decks but until people really see how bad a deck is they probably are going to hold you to the same assumption of threat perception as usual.

I've found that letting your opponents see your deck helps with this. My playgroup is pretty much on the same page with things, but if one of wants to run a commander with a reputation but not build it that way, we'll let the others take a look at the deck so they can see what its trying to do and adjust their threat assessment accordingly. If you have a reputation as a cutthroat, and your trying to play a toned down "fair" deck that isn't a threat, literally and metaphorically laying your cards out on the table can dispel the groups perceptions of how to treat you in game, at least for that deck.

[DirkGently]

Something that hasn't been mentioned: you could just play a precon. Everybody knows that a precon won't be super competitive, have combos, mld, etc. You don't need to spread anything out, just say "this is a precon" and bam, done.

The new ones are pretty good these days too,

[materpillar]

Dragging this conversation to the more relevant thread to stop from derailing the random card of the day thread.

They don't? Cause dang I'll Spell Pierce a cultivate/harrow/skyshroud claim all day. And I'm not sorry to do it. People keep hands cause they have a cultivate, if you strip that out their hand just got 100% worse.

Your mentality towards the acceptability and enjoyability of these things is an extreme outlier in my experience. I can count on one hand how many Cultivates I remember eating a hard counterspell in the past decade. Although, that might be the result of a selection bias because I tend to avoid playing against people who consistently color screw/mana screw people.

I also tend to think using Spell Pierce on someone's Cultivate is frequently the incorrect play at non-high powered tables. Unless that person completely doesn't cast a spell the rest of the game, they're probably going to remember you kneecaping them from the start and do their best to make sure you don't win. If they do completely collapse and don't play a spell the rest of the game then it's even worse because they're probably going to do their best to make sure you lose the next game with them and their hands won't be tied during that game. At least, that's what I'd do.

This is called holding a grudge from game to game, which is the number one reason that playgroups break down. It's a game. You tried to pull ahead and got caught. Actions have real consequences, and changing that to say "actions have consequences except for ramp" is a very disingenuous assessment to make. Empowering salty players that got a spell countered such that it would normalize the ostracization reaction they'd have towards the player that got them is exactly the kind of toxic game state nobody should be promoting. Full stop.

Each game of EDH isn't held in a perfect isolated bubble from each other unless you're playing with complete strangers on the internet. Literally every action you take has real consequences, not only on the current game but on every following game you play with your opponents, whoever is watching and whoever those people talk to. Playing to win a specific game of EDH and ignoring every following game is an extremely bad idea. Not only from a social perspective but also from a win % perspective.

I have the perfect example for you actually. There's a man at the local game store. He's really spikey. He doesn't have a great grasp of politics. I wonder how much you'll be able to empathize with this situation. He aggressively Mystical Tutors for Expropriate. He locks down games with Contamination + Bitterblossom. He strip mines bouncelands. He casts Winter Orb in his Brago, King Eternal deck. He reanimates It That Betrays turn 2. Do you know what happens? I kill him first every game I'm in with him. I will effectively ignore anything my other two opponents are doing short of a lethal attack upon me to wreck his gameplans no matter how insignificant they look. I will actively rally the table to kill him even when he's weak and his boardstate is in shambles.

Do I hold a grudge? Am I really salty that he's staxed me out of games? Am I promoting a toxic gamestate by effectively ostracizing him from every game I'm in? No, I'm not. I'm simply applying proper threat analysis. His decks are exceptionally spike-y, resilient and he has no hesitation to attack my decks in ways that my decks are not designed to handle. If I want to win, he has to die immediately. Until his life total is 0, I consider him to be more of a threat than anyone else in the store. Likely more dangerous than two opponents at once. That's literally not on me at all. That's all on him and his deckbuilding choices. Like you said, actions have consequences. He chooses to consistently build his decks to attack my decks in a way that I'm not prepared for (IE attacking my mana) because the vast vast majority of people I play against consider that to be a social unacceptable form of attack so preparing for it is usually a waste of deckslots. Well, now I kill him first every game without exception. Not because I hold some grudge but that's just the correct play to maximize my win %. The moment he sits down with an unmodified precon then that'll cease to be the situation but he won't ever do that, so he dies first.

If I sit down with my non-basic lands only 5c Changeling deck to play a game against you and I know you have Ruination in your deck. That means your deck has a 3R sorcery that reads "materpillar immediately loses the game" so as the game starts I say "hey guys, 3drinks is running MLD we should probably focus him down". Then, everyone kills you first. You chose to put Ruination in your deck, I assume because you thought it would make your deck more powerful. In reality it's a glaring weakness in your deck construction that I chose to exploit by making you public enemy number 1 before the game even began.


Back to the Spell Pierce my Cultivate line of play. Let's assume you do this to me turn 3 and then I miss my 4th and 5th land-drop because statistics can happen. That basically means I've effectively lost this game. You've killed me. That means the best line of play for my future win % is to do everything in my power to drag you down with me. That way during the next game, when I cast my T3 Cultivate and you look down at your Spell Pierce you think "last time I did this I lost the game because materpillar did everything in his power to prevent me from winning." If that happens enough times, eventually you'll realize that your action of using Spell Pierce on my Cultivate has the consequence of reducing your chance of winning because you'll have made me into your blatant enemy. If you ever put this together that means that my Cultivate will resolve and I'll have a better chance of winning the game. That or you'll double down and keep losing because you keep making me into your enemy.


Here's another gamestate for you to ponder. I'm at 1 life, with a Phyrexian Arena trigger on the stack. Both of my opponent are at 3 life. I'm holding Lightning Bolt. What do I do? I'm going to take the line that increases my future win % the most. If the game has been a back and forth, exciting nailbiter I'll probably just die and let the two of opponents duke it out. If someone was generally my ally throughout the game, I'll bolt our mutual enemy to encourage people to make alliances with me. If someone made the game generally less enjoyable, I'll bolt them and let the other person win. If someone hasn't won in a really long time, I'll probably bolt their opponent. If you Spell Pierced my early ramp, there's a decent chance I'm going to bolt you and I'll probably tell you that's the exact reason to really show you I didn't appreciate it. There's a lot that goes into this decision that is completely independent of my ability to win the current game.


If you cast a card and it causes a salty reaction and dramatic retribution. That's on you not on the salty player. Managing your opponents' level of salt is a vital part of maximizing your win %. Creating some amount of salt is just going to happen if you win a game of magic, people don't like having their creatures die, having their spells countered or losing in general. If you want to win you'll have to do these things but reducing opponents salt is why I spend a lot of my time aiming to win with ridiculous cards and combos. If my opponents are somewhat amused watching me win, they're way more likely to spend their resources killing other people whose wins are more salt inducing. A lot of this comes down to reading the table. If Thassa's Oracle + Demonic Consultation causes zero salt, then more power to you for running one of the best combos in EDH. If running it draws an absurd amount of salty responses, having those cards in your deck is going to lower your win % over time.

[toctheyounger]

Back to the Spell Pierce my Cultivate line of play

I'm not sure whether its come up in regards to this example yet, but it's very much likely that this is far from an optimal play anyway. Having had someone Stifle my Wayfarer's Bauble in a mono white build T2 before, I can 100% tell you that that person was sweating on answering everything they possibly could and ran out of ammunition well before the rest of the table and was the first person out of the game. Every time I've been up against this sort of sweaty control player, they're the first to go, and not necessarily for targeting either.

Control is hard to win with, and you're already in a 3v1 when it comes to permission spells. Countering a ramp spell is a 1:1 trade at best, which is not ideal. Adding to that the salt induced and you're really not spending that spell well. I'd very much prefer to let my opponents think they're golden for the win and sweep the rug out from under them with the spells they want to cast, not the spells they need to cast.

It's not that ramp isn't good, it is. It's that people are going to play lands as part of the game so countering a ramp spell is just prolonging the inevitable at the absolute best. Your permission spells are very finite and each one needs to be used as well as possible. Ramp is much less finite, in that people don't run a single ramp spell in isolation. How many spells are you going to go through to keep someone off their ramp game, and do you have enough for the whole table? The answer to the latter is almost certainly no, so running through all of your fuel on this is a fool's errand. Your permission is really there to keep the table as honest as you can within your means and hold back the most egregious of spells from seeing play, and honestly. Cultivate ain't it.

Aside from that, yeah, pinging someone's ramp spell early game is gonna get the table laser focused on you. Whatever side of the 'lands are sacrosanct' thing you fall on, this is just a fact, people don't like it happening whether it ought to be different or not. It's a social phenomenon that we just have to accept in most cases.

[3drinks]

I have the perfect example for you actually. There's a man at the local game store. He's really spikey. He doesn't have a great grasp of politics. I wonder how much you'll be able to empathize with this situation. He aggressively Mystical Tutors for Expropriate. He locks down games with Contamination + Bitterblossom. He strip mines bouncelands. He casts Winter Orb in his Brago, King Eternal deck. He reanimates It That Betrays turn 2. Do you know what happens? I kill him first every game I'm in with him. I will effectively ignore anything my other two opponents are doing short of a lethal attack upon me to wreck his gameplans no matter how insignificant they look. I will actively rally the table to kill him even when he's weak and his boardstate is in shambles.

Aside from Brago, I've done all these things, yes. Feed Contamination with Alesha's Slivers, strip mine karoos, combine winter/static orb with icy manipulator|f05, and the t2 Exhume for Bane of Bala Ged. Recur one of the Recruiters with Alesha ad infinitum, or keep the monarch on myself with Palace Sentinels.

And then I die to my own Mana Crypt.

If you cast a card and it causes a salty reaction and dramatic retribution. That's on you not on the salty player. Managing your opponents' level of salt is a vital part of maximizing your win %. Creating some amount of salt is just going to happen if you win a game of magic, people don't like having their creatures die, having their spells countered or losing in general. If you want to win you'll have to do these things but reducing opponents salt is why I spend a lot of my time aiming to win with ridiculous cards and combos. If my opponents are somewhat amused watching me win, they're way more likely to spend their resources killing other people whose wins are more salt inducing. A lot of this comes down to reading the table. If Thassa's Oracle + Demonic Consultation causes zero salt, then more power to you for running one of the best combos in EDH. If running it draws an absurd amount of salty responses, having those cards in your deck is going to lower your win % over time.

I've definitely never done Thassa's Oracle lines, but I don't get this. A combo is a combo. Why should one thing result in salt but not another? If I won outta nowhere with [x], then you should be insulted at me winning outta nowhere period, not just because it involved [x]. If players are salty because I'm playing anything, and removing anything, then why don't we all play happy-fun-time everyone and their permanents have hexproof Magic. Games have to end some time. Permanents have to be removed. But we can't remove any permanents or counter any spells because someone, somewhere, is going to get mad out of game because of something that happened in a game?

I am massively struggling to wrap my head around this concept. And no I can't read a table. There can be two mono-r at a table and Torbran lays a Manabarbs and it's fine, but Kari Zev wants to attack to sacrifice Ragavan to [effect], and that's not OK? This makes no sense.

Whatever side of the 'lands are sacrosanct' thing you fall on, this is just a fact, people don't like it happening whether it ought to be different or not. It's a social phenomenon that we just have to accept in most cases.

I really don't think it is. I think this is entitled millennials that whine about reasonable aspects of the game, that believe everybody should get a participation ribbon. Magic at it's heart is a resource management game. It's perfectly viable and reasonable to choke off resources such that you get an overwhelming advantage. How is this different from the person that Twincasts their Boundless Realms to generate an overwhelming resource advantage? It's the same thing, just the other end of the spectrum. I do not understand how one can demonize mana denial but not excess ramp - it's literally the other side of the coin.

You can tell I'm still heavily struggling with this multiplayer stuff.

[toctheyounger]

It's perfectly viable and reasonable to choke off resources such that you get an overwhelming advantage. How is this different from the person that Twincasts their Boundless Realms to generate an overwhelming resource advantage?

So there's a couple things here. Firstly, I fault no one for countering something like Boundless Realms, Collective Voyage or Tempt with Discovery. Those are gross and that person is up to something, and I say that as someone who adores Collective Voyage. The difference between that and Cultivate is one of scale. One card to hand and field is pretty minimal, and the feeling of having that nerfed is 'well if this won't resolve, what will?'. If you were countering my spell, and it were Voyage my response is 'fair enough, I was up to no good'. If it were Cultivate, my response is 'well, that's just petty'. And it kind of is - you're almost certainly playing suboptimally just to deny me land drops 2 turns in a row. There's probably times it's the right play, but I can't think of many off the top of my head (landfall decks I guess?).

Secondly, I don't think it is just entitled millennials. I'm 37, and while I'm not going to piss my diaper if you counter my ramp, the fact is that pulling this sort of move is going to irk most of the people you play, whether it should or not. It's not even about what's right, it's about what's perceived to be right, and that's possibly the thing you're missing in this scenario - whether people ought to be irked or not in this scenario (and you are right, they probably shouldn't) they are - and you rubbing that raw nerve is going to put you at the front of mind when people consider who they want to swing at first.

[Hawk]

materpillar is right on the money, but I wanted to add a small thing to build off of toctheyounger's point too. First, it bears repeating - we are not talking about wastelanding a Cabal Coffers or nuking a Mirari's Wake or countering a Boundless Realms. These cards are gross, their advantage exponential; it's "fair enough" to answer them. It's a universe of difference between answering those and answering a Signet or a Cultivate or a wayfarer's bauble.

In most places, Spell Pierceing the cultivate (or Stifleing the fetch/wayfarer's bauble, Counterspelling the Harrow, Disenchanting the Arcane Signet, etc, etc, etc) doesn't just earn you the ire of that particular player whose game you've effectively killed before they got off the ground. It sends a message to the rest of the table. That message is not what you think it is - "I am the fair cop of justice, here to bring sanity and balance to the ramp-heavy monsters of the world". It is "I will spend my answers to stop you from playing Magic - stop me, or die". To paraphrase toc above - "man, if he's willing to burn an answer on Cultivate, I'm never gonna resolve my Thran Dynamo nevermind my Boundless Realms or Mirari's Wake! Better murder him good if I want to do my thing!". They will, correctly, label you as a massive threat - a player who won't just stop them from winning, but will stop them from having fun or playing the game if given the opportunity. You may win...once...because you have attacked them on an angle they weren't expecting to be attacked from. But this hasn't taught them a lesson to play your game; it's taught them a lesson to kill you so they can keep playing theirs. To your point of "resource denial is a fair strategy" - in this format, it is extremely difficult to deny resources to a player without sending up the red alert sign on all players.

You can, and I know have, escalate as a response - don't Disenchant the signet, Null Rod all the signets! And yet by your own admission, that isn't actually furthering your ability to win games. That's because of a key psychological factor WotC has discovered, in years of creating the game. Tactically, there is no difference between Doom Bladeing a Thorn Elemental in response to my opponent going to combat, and Counterspelling their Elemental when they cast it - they spent seven mana on a big dumb beat stick, I spent two mana and a card to destroy it before it had any real impact on the game. But emotionally, humans are funny creatures, and the second answer draws significantly more anger, pain, salt, and frustration than the first. Why? Because it feels like they aren't being allowed to play the game they spent time and money to play, in a way that that Doom Blade didn't. That's also why Contamination + Bitterblossom is evil, but forking a Boundless Realms is "to be expected". To messily use a metaphor from a game genre I'm only barely familiar with, it's the difference between having a perfect sniper's nest that allows you to wrack up dozens of kills over the course of a game, and earning dozens of kills by spawn-camping someone to death. In both cases, you won, but in one case it felt like a game and in the other it felt like bullying. You may protest that that's a valid way to play - and I suppose it is, in that the rules do not explicitly forbid it. But that's not the expectation when you sit down with a bunch of randoms at a shop. You're doing the equivalent of showing up to casual poker night and trying to force everyone else to play high-stakes chess. You expect one thing, and that isn't what others expect. You expect to use every resource at your disposal, including resource denial, to win the game. Your opponents expect to make crazy plays and cause crazy nonsensical things to happen. Your wants here are at clear odds, and not in a way easily reconcilable.

I don't have a clear solution for you there, man. It's a problem as old as the format, nay as old as Magic itself. If everyone wants pizza and you just really, really, really don't, it may be that rather than trying to get everyone else to agree that pizza is a silly food and we should all accept your superior sushi, you should just go enjoy your sushi with others who enjoy it. That's another mangled metaphor - I mean to say, perhaps casual multiplayer Commander isn't "for" you, and you need to communicate and find a playgroup that feels about Magic the way you do, rather than trying to make yourself enjoy something you don't, or trying to force others to enjoy or at least understand what you like.

But let's set all that aside, anyhow.

In a vacuum it also isn't very strategic even ignoring that political element. In, say, Modern, you know that Spell Pierce on that Sylvan Scrying is crucial to keep 'tron off of their 7 mana; you will die if you do not do it. It's a 1-v-1 game, and it is objectively the wrong play to "hold" a negate or spell pierce as you are well aware that the best avenue to victory is to keep them off of their threats to begin with. Here, it's much more contextual - are they ramping into Tooth and Nail for Mike + Trike to turn 4 kill the table? Or are they cultivating into a Thragtusk or Arborback Stomper in their fun little stompy deck? Are you actually blowing them the eff out? Or are you burning a precious answer to stop a card from a player who has a boatload of land anyhow? And what's everyone else doing? While you go shields down to kick that Cultivate player in the gut, are you opening the door for an actual threat to develop something that's actually dangerous, like a turn 3 Rhystic Study or worse a Stasis lock? You may think you're being strategic by taking a line of play that has some chance to cause Player A to just lose the game - but in multiplayer, you don't need Player A to lose, you need to win against A, B, and C. Immediately going nuclear at the first sign of anyone spinning up, in a format where everyone spins up, is almost always going to lead you to burn your answers too soon and then be out of ammo when the real guns happen. I've piloted and watched my wife pilot the "Dirk Gently Phelddagrif special" to know how serious that problem is - how one can usually trace a loss not just to badly-done politics, but to say burning a Beast Within on some early random demon, rather than waiting for the bigger fish. The format is too slow, the threats too dense, the players too many to play the game like you'd play a match of Modern, totally independent of the emotional and political elements of the game.

To quote Hamilton, tactically in Commander it's much more difficult to know that the "objectively correct play is", and many things that are "objectively correct" elsewhere may be anywhere from "meh" to "suicidally poor". So, "Talk less. Smile more. Don't let them know what you're against or what you're for." And don't be afraid to be the one to "wait for it" - wait until the last possible moment to act.

[Mookie]

I've definitely never done Thassa's Oracle lines, but I don't get this. A combo is a combo. Why should one thing result in salt but not another? If I won outta nowhere with [x], then you should be insulted at me winning outta nowhere period, not just because it involved [x].

Combo wins are a spectrum. On one end of the spectrum, you have efficient one or two-card combos, like Flash + Protean Hulk or Tooth and Nail for Zealous Conscripts + Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker. Going towards the middle of the spectrum, you get less efficient three or four card combos, and combos that don't actually win the game immediately like gaining infinite life with Spike Feeder + Archangel of Thune. And on the far end of the spectrum, you have jank that struggles to win at all. (my personal preference is 3-4 card combos, but different people obviously lie at different points on the spectrum)

The more efficient or competitive a combo is, the more salty people are going to get at a casual table. I'll also note that people tend to be more accepting of combos or alternative win conditions if they're on-theme for a deck - I wouldn't mind Laboratory Maniac out of an Azami, Lady of Scrolls deck that actually expects to draw their entire deck, but it's significantly less interesting when you just Demonic Consultation your deck away.

I'll also make a distinction between a 'combo deck' and 'a deck with combos in it'. Consider Worldgorger Dragon + Animate Dead - if you make an Anje Falkenrath deck that plans to loot away a deck full of madness cards to win with Worldgorger on turn four, it will likely draw significantly more salt than a Bladewing the Risen dragon reanimator deck running Worldgorger + Animate dead because they're on-theme.

A final note I'll make is people tend to be more okay with combos if they're something obscure or unique. As a comparison, losing to Craterhoof Behemoth for the twentieth time will draw groans, while I'll rarely complain to losing to Márton Stromgald or Decimator of the Provinces. People tend to be more accepting of things if they can at least be amused or learn something from the experience.

[toctheyounger]

<snip>

Excellently said, from start to finish.

You're running a marathon, not a sprint. Pace your answers to manage the table as best you can. That doesn't mean no one getting to turn the ignition, it's making sure no one (other than yourself) hits top gear. Timing and answering the right things is how you win a multiplayer game as a control deck.

Also @3drinks not sure if my last response came off a little snippy, it certainly wasn't meant to. Apologies in advance if that's the case.

[3drinks]

I think I get it. Maybe. Some months ago I played a game. White Border Alesha, Gerrard, Weatherlight Hero, and two other decks I don't recall. So player C threw down a Blind Obedience, and I disenchant|MIRed it, because I wanted to play Alesha with haste (thanks, Fervor!) and instead the Gerrard player just did the eggs thing and won. The other players were pissed at me, and I never understood why. I had no idea (then, sure) what was going to happen but they seemed to know. Then they refused to let me in on the next game, accusing me of being the reason they lost.

I think I remain[ed] bittre at this spiteful ostracization and is only one reason why I play such STAXy decks. It's best to not allow unknown decks to play, because you don't know what said unknown decks are going to play. I think I'm pretty certain this is the wrong take to have (now, at least). So I'd suppose that makes the question become "how do I let this go and just play for the fun of it and not to dream crush players?" How do I just enjoy Toggo and his Cat chucking rocks at your face, rather than finding some way to lock a table down with grave pact|8ED?

Also @3drinks not sure if my last response came off a little snippy, it certainly wasn't meant to. Apologies in advance if that's the case.

You didn't. It's very-much a learning experience to me, and I find your response well-thought-out.

[materpillar]

I've definitely never done Thassa's Oracle lines, but I don't get this. A combo is a combo. Why should one thing result in salt but not another? If I won outta nowhere with [x], then you should be insulted at me winning outta nowhere period, not just because it involved [x]. If players are salty because I'm playing anything, and removing anything, then why don't we all play happy-fun-time everyone and their permanents have hexproof Magic. Games have to end some time. Permanents have to be removed. But we can't remove any permanents or counter any spells because someone, somewhere, is going to get mad out of game because of something that happened in a game?

Unfortunately, I can't give you a simple answer here. Part of the problem is that people get varying amounts of salt from various cards. On one end of the spectrum, you've got the cry babies who cry bloody vengeance when you kill their Squire on accident when you cast Wrath of God. Those people need to just be mostly ignored. You're just on the polar opposite end of the spectrum where it sounds like roughly no cards resolution phases you. I mean you dislike ramp, but I think that's less about the resolution of ramp spells and more like you want to Doom Blade the lands everyone freaks out when you do. Most people just fall on the spectrum in the middle.


I've found the more likely a card is to win the game the less salty people get about it getting killed/countered. That's why countering Cultivate incurs significantly more wrath than countering Craterhoof Behemoth. Again, it's a spectrum. Every card's salt inducement is going to fall somewhere in the middle and the specific amount of salt created is going to vary boardstate to boardstate. You might view Cultivate as a huge threat that needs dealt with but most people don't. They think it's more inline with Squire in terms of its deadliness, at least emotionally.



As for spells that tend to create more salt good rules of thumb are
1) do they prevent people from casting spells
2) are they immensely difficult to interact with
3) do they take a long time to resolve
4) are they hard to predict/play around

This is why Time Walks are fairly frowned upon. It ticks off all 4 of those. You can't cast spells because you don't get a turn. You can't stop them outside of Counterspell and a few other niche things. Your opponent usually takes forever to resolve their extra turn. You can't really do anything to play around it other than kill the person.


As for hexproof magic, again it's a spectrum. If people stop some of your stuff that's fine. If people stop all your stuff that's really not much fun. I also think that if people stop none of your stuff that's also really boring. How much interaction people want to deal with varies pretty dramatically table to table. I personally like there to be a reasonable amount of interaction.

I am massively struggling to wrap my head around this concept. And no I can't read a table. There can be two mono-r at a table and Torbran lays a Manabarbs and it's fine, but Kari Zev wants to attack to sacrifice Ragavan to [effect], and that's not OK? This makes no sense.

No idea how to give you advice with this.

I really don't think it is. I think this is entitled millennial that whine about reasonable aspects of the game, that believe everybody should get a participation ribbon. Magic at it's heart is a resource management game. It's perfectly viable and reasonable to choke off resources such that you get an overwhelming advantage. How is this different from the person that Twincasts their Boundless Realms to generate an overwhelming resource advantage? It's the same thing, just the other end of the spectrum. I do not understand how one can demonize mana denial but not excess ramp - it's literally the other side of the coin.

You can tell I'm still heavily struggling with this multiplayer stuff.

I heard someone say that the most fun games of EDH are the games where everyone gets to do a cool thing. If the games are too goldfishy then someone is just going to blow everyone out. If the games are too control heavy, people are just going to get choked out of the game. There's a sweetspot in the middle somewhere. What this looks like varies greatly though.

For example, the last game of EDH I played I got to assemble I assembled the ultimate combo of Tivadar of Thorn, Angel of Flight Alabaster, Angel of Condemnation and Shields of Velis Vel. The Kresh the Bloodbraided got his counters so high we stopped keeping track. Saskia the Unyielding stumbled horribly on mana but eventually had a huge impact on the game with a Putrefy to save my life. The game went on so long it eventually ended when I got Tivadar of Thorn to be a 23/23 with Armored Ascension probably around turn 20ish.

The game was packed to the brim with land-ramp and card advantage. It eventually ended because I was the monarch, had Endless Atlas and assembled my 4 card combo to turn Tivadar of Thorn into Avatar of Woe. This let me kill off all my opponents creatures once we were in a 1v1 situation and thus win the resource war. That's my jam right there. This immensely different from what acceptable or fun amounts of resource denial looks like in much more high powered environments.

[edit]: If someone is salty their Boundless Realms or other 9+ mana sorcery gets countered they should just get ignored.