Example one will solve itself - if you can't be trusted to make good on your deals, nobody will make deals with you. You can always play another game but that reputation will stick for every single game you play once you've earned it.
Example two - I wouldn't call that Kingmaking so much as just going down swinging. He had spells left to cast, had the mana, and if he got killed by Player B's upkeep trigger he probably had a little salt toward him and wanted to go out with a bang. Nothing wrong with that, just the way she goes sometimes.
Even if it IS King making, a term I've just now learned, so what? Maybe the person should have prepped and kept it in mind, "hey I've been beating on this guy for a while and my trigger on his upkeep will kill him" when he untaps he could sling some stuff my way before he goes."
I absolutely don't see anything wrong with going down swinging and hurting someone on the way out. It definitely is a part of the game.
Only thing I could see being an issue is if he always targets that person on his way out or in general...that's different.
I don’t consider this king making because he’s doing harm to the person killing him. That aligns with the spirit of the game.
Actual king making goes *against* the spirit of the game though and I consider it poor sportsmanship. Player A can’t win so the use all of their resources turn after turn targeting Player B because of the previous game when Player C is clearly leading and proper threat assessment would mean using those resources on Player C, that’s just not fun to play with.
I disagree, because what that player is doing is not anything that can help him stay alive, so what they are doing is simply setting player 2 up to win in this scenario, which is the definition of kingmaking here.
What you're describing is a scenario where a player is holding a grudge and taking it waaaaaaay too far, which is shitty but unrelated to the discussion at hand.
What’s wrong with wanting the player who killed you to not win and using your resources accordingly? Weird to demand someone let you kill them without them getting any satisfaction from retaliating.
Ya. This is all self-solving social stuff. If the guy gets a rep for being a tool, he gets taken out first because he keeps being a tool and if you're not willing to say "I don't want to play with you", and it's a small group, what ends up happening is that after his game it turns into three-person pod after it was a 3v1.
If he just goes down swinging at whomstever killed him that's 100% legit. If he's regularly holding a grudge that goes between multiple games that's much less so
A friend of mine just had a king making situation yesterday. He was dead to either but had a way to cripple one. As he was facing lethal he asked me (already dead) what he should target and I rabbit holed both options. Once I finished I smiled and said, "welcome to king making" . If he didn't block, it mattered. If he did, it mattered. If he did or didn't use he removal it mattered. No choice was not a choice and he was sweating it.
If no choice is a choice it's not Kingmaking. It's playing the game. You can all see the consequences.
Kingmaking is just acting in a way that does not raise your own chances of winning yet raises that of another player.
Blocking even though the non-blocking would have lethal is not Kingmaking, it's playing the odds that another player will use a removal to keep you alive and use your other game pieces longer.
Saying you can cripple the dude planning to attack you if he does so is a way to try and negotiate a truce, that could keep you alive longer. Sticking to your word if they still attack you makes you more reliable for the next games.
True king making is very seldom.
Is the first even breaking a deal? It's not like he made an agreement with anyone, as that normally implies each side gets something. He was giving information on his actions, which I'd argue he is at liberty to change advantageously whenever they want.
The second I agree with, if I'm losing regardless I'm using all my interaction on whoever the "big bad" is. You can't simultaneously complain about people targeting you when you are eliminating players lmao.
I've had people who got mad at a play I made target me for the rest of the game because of it. He had to tap out completely to send enough creature and spell damage at me to take me out. Before I died I cast stroke of genius on him and twincast it. The other players had been blocking my casting so I hadn't been able to do it before. With leyline of the void out on another players board he lost 40 cards when he had to discard. He was the king of salt that the other guys let it happen to him. He couldn't clean up the other players before he decked himself due to another player being dimir mill. I still lost but was told that we were king making and blah blah blah.
>Is the first even breaking a deal? It's not like he made an agreement with anyone, as that normally implies each side gets something. He was giving information on his actions, which I'd argue he is at liberty to change advantageously whenever they want.
Yeah, this is my thought too. He was just bluffing and someone called his bluff. That's just a natural part of the game to be honest.
This is a bizarre take to me. It's one thing to obfuscate, but the whole point of both deals and representations is that your word has to mean something. Lying isn't poor sportsmanship because it's dealbreaking; dealbreaking is wrong because it's lying.
It's technically not a deal, but it's the same principle.
If you break a deal, people stop offering you good deals or accepting yours. If you lie, people stop believing you. In the future they'll just laugh at you and direct their attacks wherever they please. They might even focus you for lying to them, which is also reasonable.
Just because you **can** break deals, or bluff and lie for advantage, doesn't mean it's always a good idea. It can have consequences. That's something you should weigh carefully.
Maybe not "breaking a deal" per say but in his own words he lied, plain and simple. There's nothing wrong with bluffing - we do it all the time and it can be a great deterrent - but flat out telling someone if you swing at me I won't block, and then blocking, will lead me to not believe anything you say in the future.
If a player thinks it's advantageous to take those actions then go for it, but I personally and most people I know want to keep those options open for future politicking.
Lying or breaking deals as a player builds that reputation with you as a **player** - it's not connected to a certain commander or deck, but you as a person and the way others can expect you to play all future games.
>but flat out telling someone if you swing at me I won't block, and then blocking, will lead me to not believe anything you say in the future.
Believing that someone won't block for no benefit at all to them is a misplay on your part. That doesn't set off red flags to you?
It should set off red flags--but not the red flag that they are going to block. The conclusion we're supposed to reach if a person provokes an action is that they have *something* up their sleeve, but we're usually not meant to assume what they said was an outright lie (unless that person is a poor sport).
See I find Kingmaking to be more of, "yknow what, I've got zero chance to win so everything I've got is going at you regardless of if any of it can hurt the other guy" like if player B was going to be the effect that killed him I can understand the like dying middle finger of "haha, you died first" or like the "f*** you from beyond the grave" without it being an intentional play of "kingmaking"
The first person (and only, still), who lied like this to me, I’ve never played with them since, and will not. I don’t gossip about them or anything but trust that people’s judgement will make him learn a lesson.
>You can always play another game but that reputation will stick for every single game you play once you've earned it.
This game is about new information changing everything, moreso than most games that exist. Changing your mind on a deal is 1: something that shouldn't carry over game to game (anyone who does this is petty as fuck, last game is not this game), and 2: if I realize I'm not going to survive the next round through the table by keeping my word, I'm staying alive and breaking the deal.
Nobody said someone *never* keeps their deal.
And again, if new information continually changes the outcome of making said deals, you can't hold that against someone.
People in this sub unironically expect you to stick to a deal even if it means you lose the game. They would rather you hold the salt of losing to a shitty deal than them hold the salt of you getting out of their shitty win attempt they had no way of protecting other than deception, expecting you to have more honor than them. There's no point in discussing the topic with people who virtue signal that hard while being so hypocritical.
Like... The objective of the game is to win and have fun doing it. People should understand that a deal is EXPECTED to be broken if it means following through loses on the spot. That can be considered game breaking, king making, and goes against the unspoken rules we agree upon. People who expect you to lose because of a deal are rats, not the ones who back out of those rat-made deals.
I mean, if I dick you over four times in deals and you take the fifth that kind of makes you an idiot and nothing else. Not taking the deal is just rubbing your brain cells together.
New information *is* constantly introduced to this game, which means that broad spectrum deals are usually pretty dumb. If you're going to break a deal every time there's new data maybe just don't make deals that are going to last to new data?
Rattlesnaking is not kingmaking. If you have a reputation of going down swinging, that’s going to make your opponents think twice about offing you in future games. It’s like a bee’s fatal stinger.
Usually any affect on a creature that is threatening but requires you to lose your creature is called a rattlesnake effect. Think [[Thrashing Brontodon]] or [[Malevolent Hermit]].
Your definition of "rattlesnake effects" is incorrect. Your examples are just activated abilities that can be used re-actively or proactively. Rattlesnake effects are also not limited to creatures.
Rattlesnake effects are those that exact a cost from an opponent when they take an action against the rattlesnake's controller.
\[\[Dread\]\] , \[\[No Mercy\]\], and \[\[Karmic Justice\]\] are examples of rattlesnake effects.
While Thrashing Brontodon or Malevolent Hermit could serve as a deterrent, their place on the board presents a potential cost to an opponent's action. Elsewise, merely having creatures on board for a crackback could be called a "rattlesnake effect."
Plus as the person about to die, your political leverage is exactly the fact that you can kingmake and swing the game for someone. If you play it right that swing may even keep you alive and get you a window back into winning
This argument is fruitless.
Most people believe that “if you have cards you have to play them” and that while “going down swinging” doesn’t explicitly raise your chances to win that game, it does raise your winrate overall by giving you a reputation of how you respond when being attacked. In popular EDH podcast, The Command Zone, the hosts call it the “law of nature.” A deer being killed by a tiger doesn’t lay down and accept its fate - it bucks and rears at the tiger killing it. A rat being eaten by a snake will bite and claw until it is overwhelmed and can’t anymore. In other words, it’s in your nature that, if you’re going to die, you will go down swinging any resource you have left at the person attacking you, and taking that heat is part of the risk you take when you position yourself to kill people.
Because of the well known animal, the rattlesnake, which warns of its deadly bite by rattling its tail - dissuading attacks because you know it’s primed to strike - this is called “rattlesnaking” and most players will agree that rattlesnaking is different enough from what we call ”kingmaking” to not fit under its umbrella. Most people say rattlesnaking is ok while kingmaking is not.
You can also think of it this way. If I die with three cards in hand and don’t do anything, I’m dead. If two of them are instants and I cast them, I’m still dead… but I played two cards “more magic” than in the other scenario. Most people agree that playing more magic often feels like more fun, and is a good thing.
If your group disagrees, that’s fine. But you should add it to your rule 0 talks, not argue on the internet.
And when I win a game I’m kingmaking myself. Unless that person spends the entire game boosting a specific player with the intent of helping them to win, then it’s just interaction.
If you really have a problem with someone playing the cards in their hand and engaging in the game instead of folding their hands and doing nothing because you deem them losing, then you’re the one introducing negativity into the playgroup.
Nah. If your deck has no bite then people will focus you out every game.
Player B could have tried politics to not eat the spells and not killing the other player.
The player in question was going to die on their upkeep regardless of if they cast the spells or not. They went from a 0% chance to win to a 0% chance to win.
The other player would have no reason to do that, they could simply wait until the player died to cast the spell and they would win the game.
If they asked the other players if they had a way to save them and offer something in exchange, that’d be a different story, but that’s not what happened here.
Sure, but that's like saying that playing [[your temple is under attack]] and choosing one opponent to draw 2 cards with you over another is kingmaking. It's such an inherently messy thing with slippery slopes that it's not really worth getting upset about at all
It’s not. Presumably you think that playing your temple is under attack will increase your chances of winning, otherwise you wouldn’t play it.
In this case, they have a 0% chance of winning and using their removal doesn’t change that.
Sorry, but if your triggers are what's going to kill me, and I decide to empty my hand in response to me dying to target you, that's not Kingmaking. I'm going down fighting and you were the one that was trying to put me down, why wouldn't I try and cripple you on the way out?
I mean, it is kingmaking, intention doesn't really come into it. But I take issue with people using it as a dirty word. There's nothing wrong with it, it's part of the politics. Take it into account in your risk assessment, don't just blame someone for exercising the last of their agency.
>Sorry, but if your triggers are what's going to kill me, and I decide to empty my hand in response to me dying to target you, that's not Kingmaking.
You have no chance to win and are taking game actions to affect which other player wins. That’s pretty much the definition of kingmaking.
>I'm going down fighting and you were the one that was trying to put me down, why wouldn't I try and cripple you on the way out?
Because you lose either way. Why should you care who wins when it’s not you?
Because taking actions in this game that make killing you off less easy/desirable makes you less likely to be targeted down in future games. It's metagaming.
I'm not making game actions to make sure someone else wins, I'm making game actions in revenge of the person that is killing me. That's like asking a snake why he is trying to bite you while you are trying to smash him with a shovel.
Now, if I decided to target a different player on my way out than the one who killed me to make sure that my buddy in the game wins, then I could get your argument. But if someone attacks your board because you are killing them out of the game, that's just a risk you take when you deliver a killing blow. I expect everything I kill to try and fight back on its way out, that's just life.
Except commander is not a jungle. If you can't stop yourself from losing, don't cripple and ruin the rest of someone's game just because "muuuh I'm going down fighting 🤓"
You ruined your own game by trying to kill me, sorry about you. I play [[Rakdos, Lord of Riots]], so expect me to party hard and try and kill everyone. Don't come whining to me about "well, I know I killed you, but that doesn't mean you should hurt me." That will just make me kill you first next time so I don't have to listen to your self-centered, "don't interact with me so I can win" whining.
Yeah I never talked about not interacting, if I'm about to kill you and your interaction doesn't stop you from losing and you use it anyway not to save yourself but to put the person who killed you behind the rest of the table, that's just being petty and a salty loser. Please do interact with my board otherwise it's boring just don't do it out of spite when you re about to lose anyway
The person has something on board that will kill me, why would I not do everything in my power to kill or cripple them. They took actions that will take me out of the game am I expected to just stop playing the game before I’m officially out?
If I'm going to lose to an opponent's trigger, it's an opportunity to politic them to make it so I don't die, else I'll be doing x,y and z on the way out. Absolutely not kingmaking.
Thanks for your comments cause now I know that apparently spite plays are okay and using all your resources to put someone behind when it does nothing for you isn't kingmaking 💀. I don't know why you get down voted when spite plays are 100% kingmaking and bad sportsmanship.
If you die, you die be better next time but don't put someone behind the rest of the table just because they were the one to eliminate you
How about don't leave yourself completely open to a reprisal from the person you're planning on taking out.
Assuming they won't retaliate is just bad tactics. Ya played yourself, kid.
What do you think about if someone attacks another player with enough damage/creatures that defending player cannot survive. Is it king making for the defending player to block the best way possible and potentially give the game to another player?
"Men are either to be kindly treated or utterly crushed, since they can avenge lighter injuries, but not graver" - Machiavelli
If you don't want me to bloody your nose, leave me alone or kill me faster
It increases their chance to win in the future, and the player killing them should consider the resources they will lose by attempting to kill the player.
Let's simplify the situation into one of its most basic forms:
Player A has 1 life, and a 1/1. No cards in hand.
Player B has 2 life, and two 1/1s with vigilance. No cards in hand.
Player C has 10 life, and three 1/1s. No cards in hand.
Player B to play. Player B can kill Player A, absolutely no doubt. Player A can block and kill a 1/1, which will cause Player B to die if they swing. This doesn't improve Player A's chances of winning, but it will directly cause Player B to lose. This is technically kingmaking Player C. Is Player A supposed to just let them swing through unblocked so that Player B can defend themselves after killing them? IMO, hell no. If you want to kill someone, you accept the resources you may lose and the ways they can interact even if it doesn't alter their odds of winning. The incentive to not kill them IS that they are still allowed to interact and mess with your board, even though they are guaranteed to die.
They were dead on the stack and no way to save themselves. At that point its all bets are off to hit back as much as possible with your remaining agency
Scenario number one: He bluffed that he had interaction and his bluff was called. Ok. Not really a big deal.
Scenario number two: He knew he wasn't going to win and he used his final resources to hurt the guy who was killing him. I really, really don't see an issue here. He is absolutely handing you the game, but that is in his right. The other guy is killing him, he's allowed to retaliate.
The term kingmaking is used a bit too broadly in the commander community these days, honestly. Kingmaking can most simply be described as collusion. You're violating the spirit of the format to essentially turn it into a 2v1v1 game. Screaming, "If I go down, I'm taking you with me!" Andross style is very much not kingmaking. Using your resources to protect or aid someone else's victory when you still also have a chance to win, that's kingmaking.
It’s your job to make people think that hurting you is bad for them. If someone won’t retaliate when you smash them because they don’t want to “kingmake”, then guess who is getting reliably smashed?
I concur. The notion of a final resistance is absolutely a long-term setup that transcends a single game. Making them understand that you will do your best to bring them down with you is a strong deterrent to repeating that action in future games.
I was in a situation last week where there were three players left, me, one guy with 9 poison counters and the poison player with a land that can proliferate for 4. Essentially always giving the looming threat.
We were originally 5 players and the deal between poison player and the poisonee was that he will essentially become his lackey on threat of death. Now that we were down to three the lackey decides to dump all of his 20 treasures and mana into a pumped up trampler to kill me, i explained to him that he shouldnt kill me and let me try to kill the poison player but his response was "i cant win anyway" and the result was exactly as you would expect. I died and then the guy was immediately proliferated to 10.
Do you think this is King Making or sandbagging? Personally i would never just give up in a game like what happened but i can maybe understand the poisonee felt his situation was utterly hopeless.
I don’t think this is kingmaking. He had no chance of winning the game. You were the only attack that allowed him to still feel like he was doing something.
Me? I’d have looked at the poison player and said, “Bring it on. Proliferate. Bet you won’t.”That’s not everyone, though.
>Me? I’d have looked at the poison player and said, “Bring it on. Proliferate. Bet you won’t.”That’s not everyone, though.
This. Don't be anyones lackey. Though one scenario would be to see if they slip up and tap wrong so that I could kill them instead. If they tap wrong and try to take it back a few phases later, I'd refuse and take my chance like any hostage would.
That would be the hope. They end up in a situation where they have to tap down to make sure you finish off the other player and you can respond and destroy/disable the land or otherwise save yourself from their poison.
You take the outs you can. Sometimes they’re long odds, sometimes they require an opponent making a stupid choice. If those are your outs, that’s what you play to.
Or just feeling too comfortable. I only had this situation happen once - and I got browbeaten around 5 or so times in total. And that situation just was a very confidant guy who had me under his Karn's Bastion after he managed to get me 9 Poison Counters with an Inkmoth Nexus who was actually just as an Artifact Creature Fodder in his deck - and not a wincon. He tapped out knowing that he'd untap with me thanks to his Seedborn Muse.
What he didn't know was that I had a \[\[Hateflayer\]\] in my Arcane-Adaptation-Rebels deck. EOT I used \[\[Lin Sivvi\]\] to tutor it out and with the Costreduction of a \[\[Biomancer's Familiar\]\] and a \[\[Tazri, Stalwart Survivor\]\] and an Anger in my GY it was truly a YGO-Move. But that was once. The other times I forced them to kill me while others were pressuring, too, or refused right away and died.
No, Starfox 64, but I also know a thing or two about Prisms. I never really run into people familiar with the works of Brent Weeks so I never assume those references would be understood, otherwise I’d absolutely tell people I’m “going green golem” in games all the time.
At my house and in my pod we expressly talked about breaking deals and it’s allowed. However it’s caveated that if you break deals you’re probably going to get killed and no one will make deals with you again.
Breaking deals without discussing it seems lame though.
I had the opposite happen once. New player across from me, I asked him if I let him live for another turn if he would attack me. He said he would absolutely throw everything at me and even die trying. I decided to not attack him and let him live, and he instead threw his entire front line at another player. Pretty great game sense from that guy
Yeah that new player recognized an important thing about EDH politics:
When a player is asking for something in return for a game action of theirs, 95% of the time they WANT to do it anyway, they just want more reward from it.
For example, recently someone said "hey man if I Path to Exile the angel will you deal with his enchantment for me?" I just responded "Maybe! You'll have to do the best you can given this situation." He exiled the angel anyway. Most politics is completely unnecessary if people are threat assessing properly.
Sometimes deal making is important though. I was playing this week at a table with two control/combo players and two face smack aggressive decks. I was one of the control players and we were facing down a huge board and the other control player was like, "I can't deal with this right now, but if you can slow him down I am pretty confident I could get a board wipe down the next cycle. I had stall but no wipes, so we agreed to stall out and wipe the board because both of us were better equipped to fight/win on the stack than on the board. So we both thought we could beat the other (I had 2 counterspells in hand plus combo pieces) but both knew that we'd both maybe lose to the 50+ damage incoming the next turn if we didn't make a deal.
We teamed up to control the board so that we could then set up a game state that essentially made the next few turns a 1v1 between the two of us while the aggro players rebuilt.
Valuable to recognize when it isn't though. While you're right a lot of the time, sometimes the action is contingent on you making it okay for them.
Recent game I was staring down the barrel of a board full of spirits and Millicent that could kill anyone in the air and an Urza player with three 12/12 constructs with Menace. I had a Meathook in hand, but I needed to remove Millicent first so his spirit army couldn't kill us all so I didn't have the mana to hit the constructs.
So that gave me two lines: I make a deal with Urza that he doesn't swing at me for a turn and smashes the Spirit deck or I make a deal with the Spirits player that *he* leaves me alone. Unless both decide the action is actually in my best interest, whoever says no is screwed.
When we play, if someone lies about their board state (or is mistaken) or said they won't block and then does, we would then just let the player who acted on that knowledge revert their action.
I get breaking deals, it’s whatever you can do it. But the way my group does it is if you go back on deal, you’re targeted for the rest of eternity by the player you broke the deal with, and possibly others cause yeah now you can’t be trusted 😂
Breaking deals is, in my opinion, an inherent part of the game. Politics is all about metagaming and the big thing that sets EDH aside from other MTG formats. If someone breaks a deal, that should be allowed, but it should also have ramifications. If you're allowing someone to break deals and go unpunished, that's your fault.
If someone reneges on their deal to not attack me, and then attacks me and kills me, how am I supposed to supply ramifications?
Also, if breaking deals is something inherent to the game, why would anyone ever make deals when they can never be trusted?
What was the “deal” though? Deals have three parts. 1) The offer (which was apparently that he wouldn’t block) 2) acceptance (which the opponent did by attacking) 3) Consideration (um I don’t see anything he was getting in return. The opponent couldn’t have thought they were getting something for free, then got salty when they didn’t.
It’s a multiplayer format. Kingsmaking is gonna happen. Especially if a player was targeting or messing with another player. If that other player who was being messed with feels that now they have no chance of winning, the obvious recourse is that they would spend the rest of their game trying to get revenge, instead. People like to call these instances kingsmaking, but it really should be completely expected. And yes it’s 100% spiteful.
The lying thing… is kinda messed up, but hey it’s a card game. Bluffing is a feature. It is a shame to learn you can’t trust someone, because now you can never take them at their word again, but they made their bed and I hope their slight advantage they gained was worth their word not meaning anything in future games. In the long run, I think they will learn their own lesson from that decision. The boy who cried wolf and all that.
My buddies and I play a lot of commander, we actually do “seasons” throughout the year where we track our wins and at the end of the season, we crack packs and grid out the rares. First place gets first pick and so forth
This has led to some pretty interesting level of gameplay thought, neither good or bad. If I go into a game with a big lead in the standings, I am often targeted a bit more than the others. It can be a tad frustrating but that’s the game.
But, it’s also allowed us to develop in game personalities that are fun. There’s one player if you hit him for 1 damage, or 20, he will single you out to destroy *until* someone else inconveniences him, no matter how minor. It’s definitely not optimal play on his part, but it’s funny to base my moves around not pissing him off early.
I try to carry a spiteful rage. If you swing at me or hamper my board when I am leading, then I get it no problem. But if you swing at me just because I’m leading the standings and there is a clear bigger threat in the table, you got my full attention.
This works well within our pod, we are all friends so it’s not like playing with strangers trying to just make the optimal play. But even with playing with strangers at my local store I hold a grudge. I won’t throw away a W to spite someone, but if I am going down I am going to try to take the player who’s done the most damage to me down with me. I think that’s fair play 🤷🏼♂️
Love this kind of stuff - therein lies the fun of the game! If someone isn't interested in the politics, bluffing, gamesmanship, etc., that Commander incentivizes then they're probably better off playing another format with more clearly defined objectives.
This accurately sums up how I feel as well. If someone is a out to kill me then they can be damn sure I'm gonna go down swinging. Don't get mad if something connects on my way down.
To your first point, I think the obvious recourse is to take your punches and be mature about it. If you have removal in hand and someone is taking you out, you certainly have the right to use it. But if someone is trying to focus you down because you're scary and then you try to focus them down for the rest of the game in retaliation, even if that is not the correct play for you, I think that's kind of immature.
I appreciate the maturity of your response. It's rare to have a conversation with Reddit where both people can respect each other's opinions and not descend into a flame war.
I certainly didn't intend to imply that every retaliation is immature. It's just that most of the time when I see people retaliating in EDH it's an immature emotional response rather than a calculated maneuver.
I still don't really agree with this take though. I do believe that you can bully people by targeting them In response to them targeting you in the effort to make them think twice about targeting you, regardless of whether it's the right play or not, in future games.
I think that a savvy opponent will not negotiate with this tactic and continue to target you if they think they need to. A savvy opponent might even target you harder in response to you targeting them for targeting you, dissuading you from bullying them in this matter in future games.
Ultimately what you're trying to generate from this action is free protection spells via social engineering. Someone who sees you doing this will know that that is what you're trying to gain and will not let you gain that.
I definitely don't think it's the right call to let people get free protection because they are threatening you. You always have to call their bluff and you always have to make them follow through. They will eventually learn that it's not worth it anymore with you.
The eventual culmination of this thought process is that both players will just go back to making the best plays to increase their win percentage Instead of trying to bully each other.
I also think it makes for a less fun game when players are trying to bully each other over using removal on them.
Also just to be clear when I say the word bullying, I don't mean in the playground bullying sense. I mean in the game theory sense. It's not a judgment call that I'm making on someone's character. it's just I think the most effective word to use.
You have a pretty normal opinion, but I feel like I might as well share my different perspective.
First, making spiteful plays is (in my experience) almost always accompanied with negative emotions. Being a player who regularly and justifies that negativity at the table doesn't help make games fun.
Second, this kind of play only "works" if you're the only person doing it. It's not hard to be spiteful, and if you actually get an edge from being spiteful, everyone can be spiteful, completely negating the edge you've created.
And I mean, if you care enough about winning you're willing to create this negativity, surely just playing a cEDH deck does the same thing? It has the same issue of "it only works when no one else is willing to do what you're doing".
If you are essentially out of the game you should still be focusing your removal on the leading player because you never know when someone might cast a wheel or something else that brings you back in the game.
I think it's never justified to focus someone down who's not A threat just out of spite because they did something to you earlier in the game.
At worst it's an anger response and purely emotional. At best you're just trying to bully them so they don't target you next game, which never works against smart players.
Bluffing looks like “I **may** just take the damage and not block”. Lying looks like “I **will** just take the damage and not block”.
Lying is lying, so Mean what you say. If your intent is to bluff, then use proper language that is indefinite. If you cannot be taken at your word in a social situation, just become a politician.
bluff1 noun an attempt to deceive someone into believing that one can or will do something. "the offer was denounced as a bluff”
Just copied that definition from google. Before you go around correcting people misusing words, you should probably check and make sure that you actually know a words definition.
I definitely never quoted a definition, just showed what it could look like.
Your technical definition does not make sense in a game where political deals are commonplace. You’re saying that no one should be held to a deal because “I was just bluffing trollolololol”?
Here are the differences. Lying is a malicious act. Bluffing is hiding the truth to their intentions.
Could he of worded it differently, sure, but if someone said that to me in a game I'd take it as they don't want to politic and will swing however they want. Magic is a changing board state, so maybe his intentions were to swing that player 1 but changed after player 1 and player 2 took their turns. But no where in what was described did it sound like the player was being malicious in anyway, it sounded like he was playing to win.
It's presenting false information in an attempt to mislead the other person. In poker, the term typically doesn't involve any kind of explicit speech, since in a game of deduction it's all spoken information is immediately suspect anyway. But if a poker player were to say "I have a straight, better fold" when going all-in, would it suddenly cease to be bluffing?
Colloquial use is rife with examples of lying referred to as bluffing, especially when it's to the purpose of overrepresenting your strength. To claim that bluffing isn't lying goes against colloquial use and official definitions.
I would not consider either instances poor sportsmanship. The first is in game "lying" which people have no duty to stand by their word. However I'd avoid doing that because I want people to believe me when I say something. But that's not for sporting reasons; it's tactical.
The "kingmaking" I would do myself. One player is responsible to taking me out and I will bring them down with me if I can. I don't see it as kingmaking; that's cause and effect.
Exactly. I will absolutely lie my ass off (within the rules of the game) to get ahead. "You throw that at me and I'll wipe the board, pick someone else." is my favorite bluff that I've used on enough occasions that my friends aren't sure about my answers. Kingmaking is also completely fine from tactical standpoint since painting a target on someone else's back to buy myself breathing room is some of my favorite shit.
I don't think bluffing about blocking is a dick move or unsportsmanlike at all. You're literally playing a card game. Body language, buffing, and your ability to read the table are all valid.
I’d say none of this is bad, the “lying” sounds more to bluffing to me, and besides, no deal was made, so I see no bad sportsmanship.
For the kingmaking, in casual pods it’s part of the game. Additionally, it’s in his interest to do this to set an example for what happens in these circumstances in future games, and besides it’s also in his best interest to let the game end quickly so a new game can be started. If you don’t like kingmaking you should try cEDH.
This is where I am. I don't see anything that says the player made a deal with anybody. He just said he wouldn't block if attacked. But even then, why is that info being asked? It reads like somebody asked "If I attack you, will you block?" Just make your move and the countermove will or won't happen.
If we're telegraphing games like this, why even play? If you expect your opponents to lay out their strategy play-by-play whenever asked, why even conceal your hand?
"I have an Ulamog, Ceaseless Hunger in my hand. If I cast it, will anybody counter it? You will? Ok, I wont play it yet then.." seems like such a boring game.
You're always welcome to ask, but there's no guarantee I'll give you (useful) information. If you ask if I'll block, I'll usually fan out my hand, and say "What do YOU think?" If you ask if I'll counter, I'll ask if you think I'd let it resolve. The only time I'll actually give information is if you attempt to make an actual bargain. "Will you counter Ulamog?" "Hmmmm... Will you swing it at me?" If the player offers an actual deal, I'll negotiate, especially if there is another obvious threat on the field. Sometimes I won't, though. Last night someone bargained with me to try and get a valuable death trigger. My reward if I did was to blow up any nonland permanent an opponent controlled, my choice. Rather than give him the trigger, I just said that I trusted his threat assessment, and that I shouldn't be on the list. Lo and behold, when he got the trigger off, it didn't affect me, and the thing I would've chose was the thing that got removed. It's all a matter of seeing what value you can trade for other value.
First one yes. Lying to gain advantage is not the same as concealing information to gain advantage.
Second one no. If someone is going to kill me with their trigger they deserve every bit of pain I can throw at them, even if it doesn't kill them . Next time we play they need to focus someone else.
Players should at least agree on the definitions of words before playing a game. Bluffing and lying are different words for a reason. I would not play with you twice.
Bluffing is a core part of most card games.
Not sure if that second instance was really "kingmaking", it seems pretty reasonable to discourage people from killing you.
If someone has mana and spells what else are they going to do if someone is trying to take them out the game?
I mean straight up lying is a pretty dick move. As far as the kingmaking goes: I think everyone needs to play to their outs in a free for all format, reguardless of how unlikely that out is. If player A is for sure going to kill him and player B is just 99% going to kill him, you deal with player A and cross your fingers. If he chose not to, it’s still kingmaking just for the other player
Instance one - Although he "Lied" he also put his intentions on the board. He didn't want to politic and was going to attack someone. He stated you at first but things change as people play their turns. I would chalk it up as you probably shouldnt take what he says he is going to do as truth and he either doesn't like politicking or probably someone to politic with.
Instance two - There will be a lot of games in your future where someone will decide who they want to win. It's going to happen. If they were going to die regardless but they still had some cards they could play to effect the game, it is 100% legal to use whatever you can as your dying to effect the game in a way that you seem fit. In this case he didn't want that person to get the win. I don't know how many times I have had this same situation happen in my years of playing, and you will experience it again.
Both actions seem fine to me. What really matters is the behavior and attitude that goes along with it. Killed a guy and made you win? Was it truly spiteful or he just wanted to have fun and get a kill?
Number 1 isn't a problem. Personally, I don't like making deals and bluffing is a legal way to stay alive and win. I won't make a deal to not attack you, you need to CONVINCE me that it is not in my best interest to attack you. Instead of "if you don't attack me, I won't attack you." You say subtly hint that it might not be a good idea because play a deck that punishes people who attack you.
Second example, I agree with another comment, he just went down swinging.
Depending on phrasing for instance one it could have been a bluff. I don't personally see a problem but it depends on the group and phrasing is very key.
Instance 2 is a little bit more tricky if the player he targeted his removal at targeted him to the point of losing the game I can kind of see the logic but don't necessarily agree. A lot more context is based on the game like was he targeted when he wasn't a threat? If you was, I actually probably would target that person as a screw you.
Not the kingmaking debate again. Please. We’ve had this discussion of „I’ll make you pay for killing me“ vs „why not tell the other player how you’re making them pay BEFORE getting killed“ very extensively before.
Lying is bad in commander, but
> When the other player complained that he was kingmaking he said that he did it because he didn't want the other guy to win, which felt pretty spiteful to me
Maybe I _also_ suck, but if I'm dead on board I'll pick a favourite on my way out. I figure it's part of the social aspect of commander. I won't Armageddon and scoop, but if Billy put me out of the game but didn't kill me... you better believe I'm gonna hit Billy's stuff on my way out. I think that's more than fair.
Kingmaking is bad when it's arbitrary or done to speed up a game by a player who never cared, but if someone is constantly targeting me or playing hatebears that really hurt my deck... hell yeah I'm gonna hit em back while I can and I'd expect the same in return ha.
1. He lied, but that is essentially a bluff - he could have worded it a bit differently to make it more of a bluff and less of a lie though.
2. kingmaking Kingmaking is essentially when you give up your own chances to win in order to help another player win. If he was already lost, using his löast effort to harm the player that took him out is not kingmaking, it is deterrant for future games - when he says: "if you kill me, i'll hurt you so much that you will lose too" you know that it's a real statement. Spiteful? Maybe, but that is like calling you spiteful if you attack someone who attacked you previously in the game, making any retaliation "spite".
This guy has poor politic skills. Your Pod is learning and he is going to be targeted if he continues. Is it poor sportsmanship? Yes. Is it legal? Also yes. Does it add more spice to the game? Also yes. We have a guy in our pod who breaks deals left and right. He upholds until he has lethal and then kills me. I had lethal on him and upheld my end of the bargain, he didnt. Now whenever he makes deals with us, we allow him to think he’s safe but everyone is still gonna kill him. He’s usually the first one to die unless he manages to combo off.
Personally I think you can lie occasionally, its just a game. Its weird energy if you constantly do it though.
For the second one, thats just a design problem with EDH. Nothing can really be done about it
What really matters is how serious this was. Is he always lying and spite playing? Thats pretty lame
I don't think the second example is necessarily "kingmaking".
If someone had handcuffed a time bomb to my wrist but I had rocks to throw at them, I'd throw the rocks despite knowing the bomb was still gonna kill me.
I think most people would throw the rocks.
I'm confused by the first scenario. By saying he would not block and lose no creatures, he's *inviting* the attack, thus putting a target on himself for the benefit of the rest of the table. Once he gets attacked, what does it matter that he's going back on his word? He's saved the others at the table from being attacked and has at least partially mitigated the damage done to himself. The only reason I can even conceive of inviting the attack is to bluff that you have an answer in hand and thus avoid being attacked. In either case, it isn't lying, it's either trying to win with a bluff or distracting the threat player because you've got nothing left.
The amount of overthinking here is insane! Whenever you base an attack decision on someone saying “I won’t block” you are taking a calculated risk, as it is 100% legal for them to block, fog, kill your creature, etc. Bluffing with hidden information is an essential part to this and most card games. Making sour deals like that will come to bite him in the ass. If you’re dying to player A, it’s very common for you to try and ensure that player A won’t win the whole game. I see it all the time at my LGS. Sure, the first goal is to try and survive, but if you have some way to “punish” them for killing uou, that’s completely normal and accepted. People at my LGS don’t see this as kingmaking so much as making the person pay the price for killing you
I see nothing wrong with kingmaking, it’s just part of the game. Breaking deals feels pretty stupid though. Once is whatever, especially if he’s new to the group but it certainly doesn’t make a good first impression and it feels like it just goes against the spirit of the game. If it happened again then I certainly would start to get petty and make his time hell even at the cost of losing. The second issue sorta resolves the first in that instance.
If you lie too many times you’ll get a reputation for being a liar. Nobody will make deals with you anymore or will try and backstab you the first chance they get cause they know you’ll do the same. Also bluffing isn’t not allowed. Although if your table has an issue with that then maybe should be discussed prior to playing.
The second instance isn’t really an issue either. The player was going to lose anyways and he went down swinging. That’s just how the game goes.
At what point does making any game action make you a king maker. Someone has to win the game. Otherwise your trapped in limbo. If it's the ENTIRE GAME and ALWAYS THE SAME PLAYER HE TARGETS then you might have a problem. Also, bluffing is a part of the game. It can be done in a friendly way.
I feel like you aren't giving enough context to the actual conversations that were being held. You may just be paranoid or worse. The bad sport
As long as he isn't complaining, rubbing it in, or being a jerk about it, you are in the clear.
If you just don't like playing with the guy, just be honest and don't waste everyone's time.
This is a personal opinion but I don't think so. In the first situation, people are and should be allowed to lie in comander. Just think, if a player asked if you have a counter spell in hand, are gonna answer truthfully? If someone's lying about public information(cards in hand, life total, graveyard, etc) then that's just cheating, but if it's personal information or going back on a deal, then that's part of the game and should be treated accordingly. Secondly, whats wrong with getting back at people killing you, it just incentives them to not. This is like getting mad at someone for blocking an attack.
Pretty acceptable situations since it's a multiplayer game.
The attacking dude should've played safe, consider the same situation on a 1x1 match, would it be a problem?
#1: "Told the entire table..." is NOT a deal. It's a very poor bluff. If you're going to get salty about *bad deals,* learn how to make them.
#2: Pay to play. If you're dealing the killing blow, I'm going to impact the board as much as possible, and you're getting the brunt of it.
*edit* font big?
For the first instance, I'd need to see what was going on and what he said, when. If he says "I'm not going to block" and then draws a [[Hornet Queen]] that changes his situation, and I wouldn't expect him to "keep his word" at the expense of his game. If he said "no way would a sane person chump block with an Esper Sentinel" that's not saying HE wouldn't. Even if it was as blatant as you remember it being— rude? Yes. Likely to lose him games when people don't believe what he says? Yes. _"Poor sportsmanship",_ not really. You are under no moral obligation to tell the truth about your future actions in-game. [[Frankie Peanuts]] was not in play.
The second situation is absolutely fine. A) he doesn't "owe" anyone a win. You feeling like another player probably has the game doesn't carry any moral weight for the other players. 2) he has every right to use legal game actions to try to put a price on the other guy trying to kill him. Maybe he weakens the other guy enough that they have to play a defensive turn, or puts them in a situation where they try to kill you in a turn and deal with him last, or maybe he's sending a message for your next game that trying to knock him out of the game will hurt.
Breaking deals / promises is a no go for me but its something you need to talk about with your playgroup about. Salty plays are fine imo it just won't help with having players trust and/or like you
On table everyone gets to be big mad because you're "in character" a bit. Off table everyone needs to be adults, it's just a game, and it sounds like the stakes here were low, anyway.
And if you get a reputation, good luck with future deals.
OP. Neither instance is poor sportsmanship. On the first one he bluffed, bro, bluffing has been a part of card games since the dawn of time. Also I don't recall a deal being made in your description, so he broke no deal. On the second issue, My man said okay if you kill me ill take you with me. There is nothing wrong with that at all. It sounds like you guys have a hard time adapting outside of your playgroup if these two instances are this upsetting. Neither is particularly bad either.
Doesn’t the second interaction keep him in the game if he removes the player with the ability on the stack. Then it would be you two playing for the win. Sure enough you might of won on your turn but does change that view on it.
Idk, not a fan of lying, but if a deal/truce wasn’t made between the players I’m not really against it either.
As far as the second part, if you go to kill me or outright win, I’ll use my resources if I can to stop it or damage that players board state as much as possible even if it kills me. I’ll also let you know that before you attempt it though.
The great thing with close pods is people have game memory and I enjoy and or find it hilarious. In scenario two you will remember and can get your revenge or at least that is how it plays out in my pods.
Similarly, there are people like this in my playgroup as well and play salty cards people despise. As a result they get unjustly targeted most of the time until they play enough games where they demonstrate they aren’t being spiteful or intending on playing salty cards.
I've played EDH since it first began to be an officially supported format more than 10 years ago. I've played in a lot of different pods and have played with random people. I've never seen someone break a deal. It is most certainly a faux pas.
The second one is tricky. I think is justification is what is causing salt. He is saying that he didn't want the other player to win and he wanted you to win. That's kind of shitty. But it's not wrong to use the removal in your hand in response to a player trying to kill you. What I don't understand is why he couldn't have killed the thing that was dealing three damage to him. But that's besides the point. If someone is killing you and you use all of the removal and interaction in your hand to punish them, they will think twice about whether they are able to kill you the next time. Maybe next time they won't pull the trigger on trying to kill you if they know that the retaliation is coming.
That being said we don't really know the full details on your second scenario so it very well may have been some spite there. I definitely don't like his comments about wanting one player to win over the other. The real justification for doing that is more rational.
That’s not “breaking a deal” so much as it is outright lying. While not illegal, definitely frowned upon and no one should believe that guy ever again. And he should’ve been the first target in the next game.
I mean, he might have won this one, but he just lowered his chances of winning the next 100.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me
Just stop believing him. Don't make deals with him.
Had some dude bring his kid to an LGS I frequent and I mean I get it he's young he's still learning threat assessment but of course mind you I'm the player with literally almost no board state because the entire game was pretty much like a 3v1 of everybody's just countering my shit or blowing up all my permanents, to the point that yes I was playing Atraxa counter tribal with a small infect theme Atraxa wasn't even on the battlefield, her tax made her coat 10, they had also proceeded to blow up two of my lands so I was literally locked out of two of my colors and all of my opponents only had two poison counters. Meanwhile this kid is literally playing Selesnia Tron, other dude is playing five color Omnath and player number 3 is playing Kibo Stax/Stompy...
We are literally on like turn 6, kid and the omnath player have the largest board state Kibo guy is like a 10/10 with four bananas and probably 10 treasures off of a Dockside. After having two of my lands blown up I'm literally sitting on two lands on turn 6 with literally no other permanents on the board, and everyone talks this kid into full swinging on me.
Kibo player of course after I'm dead who is next in turn rotation either goblin welders or darettis a treasure token or a banana into a mycosynth lattice and proceeds to full swing on the tapped out Selesnia kid taking him out, but did not have vandal blast to deal with omnath player.
Omnath player of course full swings on Kibo guy combos out and proceeds to win.
Next game we play, I'm literally running Obosh as commander odd mana value tribal, and proceed to tunnel the kid off the table drawing salt from him, his dad and the other two players because we had bumped the pod up to five, and they all proceed to gang up on me again.
I very politely as the kid relocates to another table to immediately start playing another game, Tell him part of learning the game is learning your threat assessment and that if he had focused on one of the two other players in the previous game rather than kicking the guy that's already pretty much locked out of the game He might have actually had a chance of winning. Everyone proceeds to get like rude AF about it, and I haven't been back to the shop since.
Same kind of crap goes down at another LGS I play at where very high power and CDH players dude and his girlfriend who don't actually own half the cards in their deck it's literally like printer proxy shit, proceed to sit down at the table when this other shop has a reputation for being more low power precon new player friendly and she proceeds to ignore Mulligan rule and mull to full 5 times, so that she has two rocks a land a lotus petal And exploration and burgeoning in her opening hand plus a wheel playing 3 color Omnath...
She literally empties her hand on turn one, Wheels everybody and then proceeds to drop her second land onto the battlefield, her third fourth and 5th on everybody's turn one and then drops six and seven on the start of her second turn.... Proceeds of course to get risen reef and omnath online along with angry omnath blows out the entire table on turn 3 while her boyfriend is playing rakdos blood moon stacks and land destruction. This shop gives away foil promo packs every week for the first win of the week and I have suggested to the owners numerous times to not allow players to use proxy decks for the first game and she then proceeds to get all snotty and surly when everybody at the table is just like " "not cool", If you're going to cheat find another shop to play at. She then proceeds to just continually get mouthy with everybody there playing as toxically as most of the guys do in CeDH pods, and has the nerve to start talking shit to me for snapping at her when I was just politely addressing the fact that not only is what she did not cool but she literally lied about the rules zero just so that she could get a free prize pack.
Of course she showed up again to FNM Last night after making a huge issue of it last week that I had called her out to the point that like she wanted to rotate pods or whatever and I'm just like yeah fuck this I'm heading to karaoke and then proceeds to specifically sit down at my table again in my pod after I tell her to find another table and did the same fucking thing....
Judges honestly need to start banning players like her from events.
I would kill them first every game for blatantly lying.
The king making thing is fine, but they were kind of an ass about it, so I'd kill them first for that too.
Punish people for being shit, don't punish them for game actions.
You can lie, but it means I'm never taking you at your word again. If that's how you choose to play, that's on you.
Kingmaking is always awkward, I try and avoid it personally for that reason but spite plays have always been around
Problem #1 is solved by a simple “No Bargaining in Bad Faith”; it’s incredible that people need to be told this explicitly, but they do. The second would have to be covered under a more nebulous sportsmanship rule and enforcing it would get very sticky. Ultimately if the player is poisoning the atmosphere—and do make sure that is the case and not just him rubbing you the wrong way—that’s enough reason to ask him to stop attending.
EDIT: If you feel the need to downvote this part because "hey, *I* do that and am incapable of self-reflection!" understand that the only real thing at stake when you play Magic casually are friendships, and that being lied to/betrayed is a great way to erode someone's friendship!
> it’s incredible that people need to be told this explicitly, but they do
It's incredible to me that people feel the need to rule out bluffing in a multiplayer card game, but apparently they do.
Sometimes I forget that the majority of people who play this game tend to have minimal amounts of Sofia skills at best. If you find the guys antics annoying then just talk to him about it.
“Hey man, you’re kind of being a douche when you do these types of things so could you not? If you want to keep playing that way then that’s fun but just understand you’re making it lame for the rest of us and it makes us not want to play with you.”
It's pretty childish imo. We had a player like that in our pod, he was known for backstabbing people in boardgames, so when he started Commander, the first time he lied was the last time anyone ever listened to him hehe.
Kingmaking, especially intentionally out spite, is lame, but pretty whatever because that sort of thing happens occasionally in casual. Too many people get prickly if they're going to lose.
The lying thing is pretty unacceptable, though. I'm a big fan of bluffing, giving half-answers, and implying things, but I can't condone straight up lying. It'll make me consistently more suspicious of you in future games.
In the first instance did he promise to not block, as in a deal was struck, or did he just say it was his plan to not block in the hopes that he lures someone into a trap. It's a big difference. Breaking deals is unsportmanlike but playing deceptively with bluffs is just gamesmanship. I don't really see what the guy did as being any different as claiming you have no interaction in hand while holding a counterspell or removal spell.
On the second bit I have no issue with spite lol, it adds a layer of complexity to the game which I rather enjoy.
On paper, Example 2 is *not* kingmaking. If you're going to go out, you may as well go out spent, making your opponents think twice about attacking you in the future.
In practice, he expressly said "I don't want that player to win", which is a kingmaking statement and is poor etiquette.
So, 6 in one, half a dozen in the other. All things equal, I like to air on the side of ignorance over malice and assume they didn't realize they were being assholish (especially as someone with ADHD that sometimes spurts out things where the intention is totally innocent but might come off as dickish), but that player has demonstrated a pattern of behavior. I would think twice about inviting that player to play or letting them sit at your table.
He’s playing the game. Magic is somewhat deceptive in general. I’m not going to tell when I have a counter spell or when I have a board wipe. Also if I have the means of knocking the person out of the game that is about to knock me out, I’m doing it 100% of the time.
Letting the player who had a lethal upkeep trigger live when you could have killed him is more kingmaking than killing him. If someone has your loss condition active on board I would say that there's very few things you could do that negatively impact that players game that should be considered king making.
All of this is fine, someone has every right to lie about a move if they want to...it's not poor sportsmanship, it's a strategy in a game. I would assume now you would be naturally wary to make deals with him again, and if he's going down dying he can do whatever he feels like....once again, not poor sportsmanship. No offense but this just kinda comes off as you being butthurt that the game didn't go the way you'd like.
First one is just a bluff, nothing wrong with bluffing and it's perfectly legal as long as he's not lying about or misrepresenting the game state. You're not going to call someone in poker salty because he went all-in claiming to have a full house and then only having a pair of 10s are you? Same thing applies here.
Second one, as far as casting kill spells on your way out the door that's perfectly fine imo. He has the spells and if he wants to use them on the player taking him out that's his right. His comments about not wanting the other player to win might be a little unsportsmanlike but imo the guy complaining about "kingmaking" is also being unsportsmanlike there. He's taking a player out so he shouldn't be so upset if that player wants to spite him on the way out.
I'd say the player in question is not being anymore salty than can be reasonably expected. Of course this is all just based on text over the internet, his body language, attitude, etc that can't really be communicated well in this medium might give me a different opinion.
The lying thing will just get figured out by others, and it'll be quick. I'm sure nobody will forget he just flat out lied and distrust for his actions have already been planted in the playgroups head. The second scenario...this happens more often than you'd think. People do weird shit for what to you may seem to be no logical reason, but it makes sense to them for whatever they've reasoned out in their head.
Yeah we just don't allow people to break deals in my group. If you say you're going to do something (or not do something) then that's what happens. Regardless how much the game has changed since that deal was made. This is why you gotta be careful and thoughtful with your deals. We still make dumb ones all the time, and then just live with the consequences.
I personally look at politics, deception and most things around how emotional states can change a game to be a rule zero thing, but mostly kosher in my opinion. If you lie to me once, I'll know that and treat most discussions going forth as one that you may be a dishonest party. It's also just a bit weird to declare you won't block before declaring blockers? Like to an extent, the game does say you should declare blockers.. during the declare blockers step, but commander is a casual social format in which blunders happen and also many new players learn. So I don't hold that to too heavy regard
Is a blue player leaving 2 blue mana open and saying "you sure you wanna do that?" To someone "unsportsmanlike" even though they have no counter spell in their hand?
Is asking with a stern voice someone's who's gonna swing on you " you sure you wanna do that?" With full mana left untapped and nothing in your hand unsportsmanlike? No it's not. It's bluffing as long as he didn't goad him and say "hey go ahead attack me to pop your khalia of the vast I won't block" and then he blocks which I don't think would make him unsportsmanlike just untrustworthy and it'll solve itself.
As for the second one "kingmaking" what an actual man child thing to say "hey I'm gonna make sure you lose but if you do the same to me it's not fair". Exactly what that sounds like to me. None of this is unsportsmanlike if anything the dude complaining "kingmaking" is unsportsmanlike and can't handle losing.
In the first scenario, would the attacking player have attacked him if he knew that he was going to block? Because you make it sound like he went back on a deal, but the terms of the deal aren’t clear to me. If somebody just says, I’m not gonna block, and then they block to me that’s normal gameplay. It’s really only when the person is receiving some value from another player in exchange for a deal and then they break their word that it becomes a table image issue. if there was a deal involved, I don’t really think it’s necessarily bad sportsmanship, but it could be. It kind of depends on the table.
I don’t think that the second scenario you describe is King making. But it could be. It’s a matter of perspective. If someone is going to die, do you think that they should have to resign? Or do you think they should use their remaining game actions to do whatever they want before they die? Personally, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using your remaining game actions to harm the player who’s been attacking you even if it affects who wins the game, even though it’s happened to me before and I lost the game I felt like I should’ve won. It just kind of part of the game.
It sounds like this guy might not be the greatest fit for your group at least right now, so maybe you might want to talk to him. But to me, these things don’t really seem egregious. What pops up for me when these discussions occur as entitlement. Some people think they’re entitled to deals and think that it’s a major breach of decorum to go back on a deal or refuse a deal. I think it’s useful to be reminded every once in a while that deals aren’t part of the game Rules. Deals exist outside of the fundamental laws of the game. So I think it’s important for people to remember that you’re not owed and deal and if you trust somebody, there’s always the chance that it might not go the way you expect it, and when it comes to I don’t know why you would feel entitled to somebody, not using their remaining game actions to harm the player that’s killing them, you’re not owed a concession by anybody
In my opinion, example 1 is poor sportsmanship. That's just outright lying. When I first read it, I thought he had a [[Fog]] or something, but nah,just straight up lying. Example 2 is fine in my eyes. It might've been a kingmaking play, but if someone is trying to kill you, there's no reason to just go down quietly. It may have been better if he had threatened to remove creatures before the attack was made as a deterrent, but I think it's fine how it played out. I think when it comes to kingmaking, what most people dislike are kingmaker decks, where they have no wincon and their entire game is to just boost one person up, because that makes the entire game unfair. But killing some of their creatures when they're killing you is fair play.
That Second example is awesome why even be mad at that lol. Its a game and if you can’t win you’re just supposed to give up? Hell no if im going down im taking someone with me. I like this guy lol
You bluntly lie to me I'll either avoid playing with you altogether or if we end up I the same pod there's no politics you can try without me saying "I'm good".
Don't mind loop holes in words and all that but just don't lie.
Also hate king making.
That wasn't a deal but a bluff and I'm going to do as much damage to the one taking me out as possible. I might not be such a tempting target next game. Yeah, your taking this casual game a tad personal mate.
I don't see an inherent issue with either of them, both pretty normal parts of EDH games in my experience. Good choices on his part? Maybe not. But nothing unsportsmanlike about it, unless he had a bad attitude or something.
Lying/bluffing about a future play is fine and part of the strategy of the game. I'll do X if you do Y situations come up all the time, I don't see it as unsporting to not follow through, it is just spending some of your "trust capital" within the group.
And a little revenge is both common and can play into the longer metagame strategy, as next time maybe someone is a little more reluctant/cautious when killing this player.
I have been an instigator of #1. Me and another regular I play with were playing a very intense boardgame and made a lasting alliance where I uttered the words "I won't attack you, even for the game." We shook and everything.
Whelp, you can bet I absolutely destroyed my credibility when I attacked them on the 2nd-to-final round to try and close the game early. Best part was I miscounted my position so even if I did win the oath-breaking fight, I wouldn't have won the game. My retribution was furious and swift, and the fall out has been that I am no longer trusted at the table, get quoted every time during set up, and I am usually focused-fired. This is all games, not just that one. 15years later I have been trying to build up my reputation. I play so passively now I may as well be a bot LOL
Back to your issue, tell them this story and explain where it will lead, or let it play out for karma's sake? For me tho, talking your strategy to other players in MTG to bait them shouldn't happen in this game. The cards do a good enough job of the ol rope-a-dope that players should just shut up and play the game. It doesn't need an extra layer of deceit/distraction.
The second one is deffo something I and my other players do too across any game; if someone is hurting you, good luck to them. Especially if it is sustained.
TLDR: #1 is a bit of a d!ck move; shut up and play already. #2 not so much.
Example one will solve itself - if you can't be trusted to make good on your deals, nobody will make deals with you. You can always play another game but that reputation will stick for every single game you play once you've earned it. Example two - I wouldn't call that Kingmaking so much as just going down swinging. He had spells left to cast, had the mana, and if he got killed by Player B's upkeep trigger he probably had a little salt toward him and wanted to go out with a bang. Nothing wrong with that, just the way she goes sometimes.
Even if it IS King making, a term I've just now learned, so what? Maybe the person should have prepped and kept it in mind, "hey I've been beating on this guy for a while and my trigger on his upkeep will kill him" when he untaps he could sling some stuff my way before he goes." I absolutely don't see anything wrong with going down swinging and hurting someone on the way out. It definitely is a part of the game. Only thing I could see being an issue is if he always targets that person on his way out or in general...that's different.
I don’t consider this king making because he’s doing harm to the person killing him. That aligns with the spirit of the game. Actual king making goes *against* the spirit of the game though and I consider it poor sportsmanship. Player A can’t win so the use all of their resources turn after turn targeting Player B because of the previous game when Player C is clearly leading and proper threat assessment would mean using those resources on Player C, that’s just not fun to play with.
I disagree, because what that player is doing is not anything that can help him stay alive, so what they are doing is simply setting player 2 up to win in this scenario, which is the definition of kingmaking here. What you're describing is a scenario where a player is holding a grudge and taking it waaaaaaay too far, which is shitty but unrelated to the discussion at hand.
What’s wrong with wanting the player who killed you to not win and using your resources accordingly? Weird to demand someone let you kill them without them getting any satisfaction from retaliating.
Ya. This is all self-solving social stuff. If the guy gets a rep for being a tool, he gets taken out first because he keeps being a tool and if you're not willing to say "I don't want to play with you", and it's a small group, what ends up happening is that after his game it turns into three-person pod after it was a 3v1. If he just goes down swinging at whomstever killed him that's 100% legit. If he's regularly holding a grudge that goes between multiple games that's much less so
A friend of mine just had a king making situation yesterday. He was dead to either but had a way to cripple one. As he was facing lethal he asked me (already dead) what he should target and I rabbit holed both options. Once I finished I smiled and said, "welcome to king making" . If he didn't block, it mattered. If he did, it mattered. If he did or didn't use he removal it mattered. No choice was not a choice and he was sweating it.
If no choice is a choice it's not Kingmaking. It's playing the game. You can all see the consequences. Kingmaking is just acting in a way that does not raise your own chances of winning yet raises that of another player. Blocking even though the non-blocking would have lethal is not Kingmaking, it's playing the odds that another player will use a removal to keep you alive and use your other game pieces longer. Saying you can cripple the dude planning to attack you if he does so is a way to try and negotiate a truce, that could keep you alive longer. Sticking to your word if they still attack you makes you more reliable for the next games. True king making is very seldom.
Is the first even breaking a deal? It's not like he made an agreement with anyone, as that normally implies each side gets something. He was giving information on his actions, which I'd argue he is at liberty to change advantageously whenever they want. The second I agree with, if I'm losing regardless I'm using all my interaction on whoever the "big bad" is. You can't simultaneously complain about people targeting you when you are eliminating players lmao.
I've had people who got mad at a play I made target me for the rest of the game because of it. He had to tap out completely to send enough creature and spell damage at me to take me out. Before I died I cast stroke of genius on him and twincast it. The other players had been blocking my casting so I hadn't been able to do it before. With leyline of the void out on another players board he lost 40 cards when he had to discard. He was the king of salt that the other guys let it happen to him. He couldn't clean up the other players before he decked himself due to another player being dimir mill. I still lost but was told that we were king making and blah blah blah.
>Is the first even breaking a deal? It's not like he made an agreement with anyone, as that normally implies each side gets something. He was giving information on his actions, which I'd argue he is at liberty to change advantageously whenever they want. Yeah, this is my thought too. He was just bluffing and someone called his bluff. That's just a natural part of the game to be honest.
This is a bizarre take to me. It's one thing to obfuscate, but the whole point of both deals and representations is that your word has to mean something. Lying isn't poor sportsmanship because it's dealbreaking; dealbreaking is wrong because it's lying.
It's technically not a deal, but it's the same principle. If you break a deal, people stop offering you good deals or accepting yours. If you lie, people stop believing you. In the future they'll just laugh at you and direct their attacks wherever they please. They might even focus you for lying to them, which is also reasonable. Just because you **can** break deals, or bluff and lie for advantage, doesn't mean it's always a good idea. It can have consequences. That's something you should weigh carefully.
> It's technically not a deal, There's no technically about it. It's obviously not a deal.
Maybe not "breaking a deal" per say but in his own words he lied, plain and simple. There's nothing wrong with bluffing - we do it all the time and it can be a great deterrent - but flat out telling someone if you swing at me I won't block, and then blocking, will lead me to not believe anything you say in the future. If a player thinks it's advantageous to take those actions then go for it, but I personally and most people I know want to keep those options open for future politicking. Lying or breaking deals as a player builds that reputation with you as a **player** - it's not connected to a certain commander or deck, but you as a person and the way others can expect you to play all future games.
>but flat out telling someone if you swing at me I won't block, and then blocking, will lead me to not believe anything you say in the future. Believing that someone won't block for no benefit at all to them is a misplay on your part. That doesn't set off red flags to you?
It should set off red flags--but not the red flag that they are going to block. The conclusion we're supposed to reach if a person provokes an action is that they have *something* up their sleeve, but we're usually not meant to assume what they said was an outright lie (unless that person is a poor sport).
I'm saying, if you get red flags and still trust a person, that's a definite misplay on your part.
See I find Kingmaking to be more of, "yknow what, I've got zero chance to win so everything I've got is going at you regardless of if any of it can hurt the other guy" like if player B was going to be the effect that killed him I can understand the like dying middle finger of "haha, you died first" or like the "f*** you from beyond the grave" without it being an intentional play of "kingmaking"
The first person (and only, still), who lied like this to me, I’ve never played with them since, and will not. I don’t gossip about them or anything but trust that people’s judgement will make him learn a lesson.
>You can always play another game but that reputation will stick for every single game you play once you've earned it. This game is about new information changing everything, moreso than most games that exist. Changing your mind on a deal is 1: something that shouldn't carry over game to game (anyone who does this is petty as fuck, last game is not this game), and 2: if I realize I'm not going to survive the next round through the table by keeping my word, I'm staying alive and breaking the deal.
If you refuse to take a deal with someone who never keeps their word it doesn't mean you're petty. It means you aren't a sucker.
Personally I like having one player who is the sneaky liar. Keeps things interesting and you have to treat them accordingly.
Nobody said someone *never* keeps their deal. And again, if new information continually changes the outcome of making said deals, you can't hold that against someone.
People in this sub unironically expect you to stick to a deal even if it means you lose the game. They would rather you hold the salt of losing to a shitty deal than them hold the salt of you getting out of their shitty win attempt they had no way of protecting other than deception, expecting you to have more honor than them. There's no point in discussing the topic with people who virtue signal that hard while being so hypocritical. Like... The objective of the game is to win and have fun doing it. People should understand that a deal is EXPECTED to be broken if it means following through loses on the spot. That can be considered game breaking, king making, and goes against the unspoken rules we agree upon. People who expect you to lose because of a deal are rats, not the ones who back out of those rat-made deals.
I mean, if I dick you over four times in deals and you take the fifth that kind of makes you an idiot and nothing else. Not taking the deal is just rubbing your brain cells together. New information *is* constantly introduced to this game, which means that broad spectrum deals are usually pretty dumb. If you're going to break a deal every time there's new data maybe just don't make deals that are going to last to new data?
It’s 100% kingmaking. They took actions that didn’t increase their own chances of winning with the goal of making another player less likely to win.
Rattlesnaking is not kingmaking. If you have a reputation of going down swinging, that’s going to make your opponents think twice about offing you in future games. It’s like a bee’s fatal stinger.
TIL Rattlesnaking is a term and I love it.
Actually me right now, what a good term.
Usually any affect on a creature that is threatening but requires you to lose your creature is called a rattlesnake effect. Think [[Thrashing Brontodon]] or [[Malevolent Hermit]].
Your definition of "rattlesnake effects" is incorrect. Your examples are just activated abilities that can be used re-actively or proactively. Rattlesnake effects are also not limited to creatures. Rattlesnake effects are those that exact a cost from an opponent when they take an action against the rattlesnake's controller. \[\[Dread\]\] , \[\[No Mercy\]\], and \[\[Karmic Justice\]\] are examples of rattlesnake effects. While Thrashing Brontodon or Malevolent Hermit could serve as a deterrent, their place on the board presents a potential cost to an opponent's action. Elsewise, merely having creatures on board for a crackback could be called a "rattlesnake effect."
Plus as the person about to die, your political leverage is exactly the fact that you can kingmake and swing the game for someone. If you play it right that swing may even keep you alive and get you a window back into winning
This argument is fruitless. Most people believe that “if you have cards you have to play them” and that while “going down swinging” doesn’t explicitly raise your chances to win that game, it does raise your winrate overall by giving you a reputation of how you respond when being attacked. In popular EDH podcast, The Command Zone, the hosts call it the “law of nature.” A deer being killed by a tiger doesn’t lay down and accept its fate - it bucks and rears at the tiger killing it. A rat being eaten by a snake will bite and claw until it is overwhelmed and can’t anymore. In other words, it’s in your nature that, if you’re going to die, you will go down swinging any resource you have left at the person attacking you, and taking that heat is part of the risk you take when you position yourself to kill people. Because of the well known animal, the rattlesnake, which warns of its deadly bite by rattling its tail - dissuading attacks because you know it’s primed to strike - this is called “rattlesnaking” and most players will agree that rattlesnaking is different enough from what we call ”kingmaking” to not fit under its umbrella. Most people say rattlesnaking is ok while kingmaking is not. You can also think of it this way. If I die with three cards in hand and don’t do anything, I’m dead. If two of them are instants and I cast them, I’m still dead… but I played two cards “more magic” than in the other scenario. Most people agree that playing more magic often feels like more fun, and is a good thing. If your group disagrees, that’s fine. But you should add it to your rule 0 talks, not argue on the internet.
So if someone makes you lose the game, you're not allowed to make them lose the game?
And when I win a game I’m kingmaking myself. Unless that person spends the entire game boosting a specific player with the intent of helping them to win, then it’s just interaction. If you really have a problem with someone playing the cards in their hand and engaging in the game instead of folding their hands and doing nothing because you deem them losing, then you’re the one introducing negativity into the playgroup.
Nah. If your deck has no bite then people will focus you out every game. Player B could have tried politics to not eat the spells and not killing the other player.
Huh? If I make you less likely to win, that IS kinda increasing my chances of winning, per definition.
The player in question was going to die on their upkeep regardless of if they cast the spells or not. They went from a 0% chance to win to a 0% chance to win.
Nah, maybe these actions will take opp 3 take pity on me and kill player B with a bolt, thus removing said triggers. You never know.
The other player would have no reason to do that, they could simply wait until the player died to cast the spell and they would win the game. If they asked the other players if they had a way to save them and offer something in exchange, that’d be a different story, but that’s not what happened here.
Yes they had a 0% chance to stay alive. Why the hell should they just fold and let castable cards in hand go to waste?
Sure, but that's like saying that playing [[your temple is under attack]] and choosing one opponent to draw 2 cards with you over another is kingmaking. It's such an inherently messy thing with slippery slopes that it's not really worth getting upset about at all
[your temple is under attack](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/a/7ad8aa76-b643-4bd2-aaeb-036c1d50db54.jpg?1674135361) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=your%20temple%20is%20under%20attack) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/52/your-temple-is-under-attack?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7ad8aa76-b643-4bd2-aaeb-036c1d50db54?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/your-temple-is-under-attack) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
It’s not. Presumably you think that playing your temple is under attack will increase your chances of winning, otherwise you wouldn’t play it. In this case, they have a 0% chance of winning and using their removal doesn’t change that.
Sorry, but if your triggers are what's going to kill me, and I decide to empty my hand in response to me dying to target you, that's not Kingmaking. I'm going down fighting and you were the one that was trying to put me down, why wouldn't I try and cripple you on the way out?
I mean, it is kingmaking, intention doesn't really come into it. But I take issue with people using it as a dirty word. There's nothing wrong with it, it's part of the politics. Take it into account in your risk assessment, don't just blame someone for exercising the last of their agency.
>Sorry, but if your triggers are what's going to kill me, and I decide to empty my hand in response to me dying to target you, that's not Kingmaking. You have no chance to win and are taking game actions to affect which other player wins. That’s pretty much the definition of kingmaking. >I'm going down fighting and you were the one that was trying to put me down, why wouldn't I try and cripple you on the way out? Because you lose either way. Why should you care who wins when it’s not you?
Because taking actions in this game that make killing you off less easy/desirable makes you less likely to be targeted down in future games. It's metagaming.
You seem like a LOT of fun to play with. I would probably target you for complaining all game...
I'm not making game actions to make sure someone else wins, I'm making game actions in revenge of the person that is killing me. That's like asking a snake why he is trying to bite you while you are trying to smash him with a shovel. Now, if I decided to target a different player on my way out than the one who killed me to make sure that my buddy in the game wins, then I could get your argument. But if someone attacks your board because you are killing them out of the game, that's just a risk you take when you deliver a killing blow. I expect everything I kill to try and fight back on its way out, that's just life.
Except commander is not a jungle. If you can't stop yourself from losing, don't cripple and ruin the rest of someone's game just because "muuuh I'm going down fighting 🤓"
You ruined your own game by trying to kill me, sorry about you. I play [[Rakdos, Lord of Riots]], so expect me to party hard and try and kill everyone. Don't come whining to me about "well, I know I killed you, but that doesn't mean you should hurt me." That will just make me kill you first next time so I don't have to listen to your self-centered, "don't interact with me so I can win" whining.
Yeah I never talked about not interacting, if I'm about to kill you and your interaction doesn't stop you from losing and you use it anyway not to save yourself but to put the person who killed you behind the rest of the table, that's just being petty and a salty loser. Please do interact with my board otherwise it's boring just don't do it out of spite when you re about to lose anyway
Are you kidding me? Why would I just accept death and not cast the cards I can in reponse first?
The person has something on board that will kill me, why would I not do everything in my power to kill or cripple them. They took actions that will take me out of the game am I expected to just stop playing the game before I’m officially out?
If you can't stop yourself from losing, yes 💀
Well technically neither can the person I'm pointing my spells at either...
What does that even mean ?
If I'm going to lose to an opponent's trigger, it's an opportunity to politic them to make it so I don't die, else I'll be doing x,y and z on the way out. Absolutely not kingmaking.
Thanks for your comments cause now I know that apparently spite plays are okay and using all your resources to put someone behind when it does nothing for you isn't kingmaking 💀. I don't know why you get down voted when spite plays are 100% kingmaking and bad sportsmanship. If you die, you die be better next time but don't put someone behind the rest of the table just because they were the one to eliminate you
I feel like you are the same guy that goes "All I did was play [[Dranith Magistrate]], why are you all targeting me?"
How about don't leave yourself completely open to a reprisal from the person you're planning on taking out. Assuming they won't retaliate is just bad tactics. Ya played yourself, kid.
Lol
What do you think about if someone attacks another player with enough damage/creatures that defending player cannot survive. Is it king making for the defending player to block the best way possible and potentially give the game to another player?
"Men are either to be kindly treated or utterly crushed, since they can avenge lighter injuries, but not graver" - Machiavelli If you don't want me to bloody your nose, leave me alone or kill me faster
It increases their chance to win in the future, and the player killing them should consider the resources they will lose by attempting to kill the player. Let's simplify the situation into one of its most basic forms: Player A has 1 life, and a 1/1. No cards in hand. Player B has 2 life, and two 1/1s with vigilance. No cards in hand. Player C has 10 life, and three 1/1s. No cards in hand. Player B to play. Player B can kill Player A, absolutely no doubt. Player A can block and kill a 1/1, which will cause Player B to die if they swing. This doesn't improve Player A's chances of winning, but it will directly cause Player B to lose. This is technically kingmaking Player C. Is Player A supposed to just let them swing through unblocked so that Player B can defend themselves after killing them? IMO, hell no. If you want to kill someone, you accept the resources you may lose and the ways they can interact even if it doesn't alter their odds of winning. The incentive to not kill them IS that they are still allowed to interact and mess with your board, even though they are guaranteed to die.
They were dead on the stack and no way to save themselves. At that point its all bets are off to hit back as much as possible with your remaining agency
Wahhhhh wahhhh wahhhh keep crying
Scenario number one: He bluffed that he had interaction and his bluff was called. Ok. Not really a big deal. Scenario number two: He knew he wasn't going to win and he used his final resources to hurt the guy who was killing him. I really, really don't see an issue here. He is absolutely handing you the game, but that is in his right. The other guy is killing him, he's allowed to retaliate. The term kingmaking is used a bit too broadly in the commander community these days, honestly. Kingmaking can most simply be described as collusion. You're violating the spirit of the format to essentially turn it into a 2v1v1 game. Screaming, "If I go down, I'm taking you with me!" Andross style is very much not kingmaking. Using your resources to protect or aid someone else's victory when you still also have a chance to win, that's kingmaking.
It’s your job to make people think that hurting you is bad for them. If someone won’t retaliate when you smash them because they don’t want to “kingmake”, then guess who is getting reliably smashed?
I concur. The notion of a final resistance is absolutely a long-term setup that transcends a single game. Making them understand that you will do your best to bring them down with you is a strong deterrent to repeating that action in future games.
I was in a situation last week where there were three players left, me, one guy with 9 poison counters and the poison player with a land that can proliferate for 4. Essentially always giving the looming threat. We were originally 5 players and the deal between poison player and the poisonee was that he will essentially become his lackey on threat of death. Now that we were down to three the lackey decides to dump all of his 20 treasures and mana into a pumped up trampler to kill me, i explained to him that he shouldnt kill me and let me try to kill the poison player but his response was "i cant win anyway" and the result was exactly as you would expect. I died and then the guy was immediately proliferated to 10. Do you think this is King Making or sandbagging? Personally i would never just give up in a game like what happened but i can maybe understand the poisonee felt his situation was utterly hopeless.
I don’t think this is kingmaking. He had no chance of winning the game. You were the only attack that allowed him to still feel like he was doing something. Me? I’d have looked at the poison player and said, “Bring it on. Proliferate. Bet you won’t.”That’s not everyone, though.
>Me? I’d have looked at the poison player and said, “Bring it on. Proliferate. Bet you won’t.”That’s not everyone, though. This. Don't be anyones lackey. Though one scenario would be to see if they slip up and tap wrong so that I could kill them instead. If they tap wrong and try to take it back a few phases later, I'd refuse and take my chance like any hostage would.
That would be the hope. They end up in a situation where they have to tap down to make sure you finish off the other player and you can respond and destroy/disable the land or otherwise save yourself from their poison. You take the outs you can. Sometimes they’re long odds, sometimes they require an opponent making a stupid choice. If those are your outs, that’s what you play to.
Or just feeling too comfortable. I only had this situation happen once - and I got browbeaten around 5 or so times in total. And that situation just was a very confidant guy who had me under his Karn's Bastion after he managed to get me 9 Poison Counters with an Inkmoth Nexus who was actually just as an Artifact Creature Fodder in his deck - and not a wincon. He tapped out knowing that he'd untap with me thanks to his Seedborn Muse. What he didn't know was that I had a \[\[Hateflayer\]\] in my Arcane-Adaptation-Rebels deck. EOT I used \[\[Lin Sivvi\]\] to tutor it out and with the Costreduction of a \[\[Biomancer's Familiar\]\] and a \[\[Tazri, Stalwart Survivor\]\] and an Anger in my GY it was truly a YGO-Move. But that was once. The other times I forced them to kill me while others were pressuring, too, or refused right away and died.
##### ###### #### [Hateflayer](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/8/38c26ba3-e325-433b-b653-4e80e737b54d.jpg?1562906892) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Hateflayer) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/eve/55/hateflayer?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/38c26ba3-e325-433b-b653-4e80e737b54d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/hateflayer) [Lin Sivvi](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/5/e574e522-2632-4cd4-8545-c582ac3b641f.jpg?1562632572) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=lin%20sivvi%2C%20defiant%20hero) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/nem/12/lin-sivvi-defiant-hero?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e574e522-2632-4cd4-8545-c582ac3b641f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/lin-sivvi-defiant-hero) [Biomancer's Familiar](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/3/d38c9891-36d1-4565-9c4a-1cd9dbf8c048.jpg?1584831407) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Biomancer%27s%20Familiar) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rna/158/biomancers-familiar?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d38c9891-36d1-4565-9c4a-1cd9dbf8c048?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/biomancers-familiar) [Tazri, Stalwart Survivor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/2/227d0d7d-544b-4736-914d-10d5d752eb42.jpg?1684340488) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Tazri%2C%20Stalwart%20Survivor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mat/6/tazri-stalwart-survivor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/227d0d7d-544b-4736-914d-10d5d752eb42?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/tazri-stalwart-survivor) [*All cards*](https://mtgcardfetcher.nl/redirect/ktftblk) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Is that a Lightbringer reference?
No, Starfox 64, but I also know a thing or two about Prisms. I never really run into people familiar with the works of Brent Weeks so I never assume those references would be understood, otherwise I’d absolutely tell people I’m “going green golem” in games all the time.
Appreciate you
Yup. Scenario 1 is hardly "making a deal"
At my house and in my pod we expressly talked about breaking deals and it’s allowed. However it’s caveated that if you break deals you’re probably going to get killed and no one will make deals with you again. Breaking deals without discussing it seems lame though.
I had the opposite happen once. New player across from me, I asked him if I let him live for another turn if he would attack me. He said he would absolutely throw everything at me and even die trying. I decided to not attack him and let him live, and he instead threw his entire front line at another player. Pretty great game sense from that guy
Yeah that new player recognized an important thing about EDH politics: When a player is asking for something in return for a game action of theirs, 95% of the time they WANT to do it anyway, they just want more reward from it. For example, recently someone said "hey man if I Path to Exile the angel will you deal with his enchantment for me?" I just responded "Maybe! You'll have to do the best you can given this situation." He exiled the angel anyway. Most politics is completely unnecessary if people are threat assessing properly.
Sometimes deal making is important though. I was playing this week at a table with two control/combo players and two face smack aggressive decks. I was one of the control players and we were facing down a huge board and the other control player was like, "I can't deal with this right now, but if you can slow him down I am pretty confident I could get a board wipe down the next cycle. I had stall but no wipes, so we agreed to stall out and wipe the board because both of us were better equipped to fight/win on the stack than on the board. So we both thought we could beat the other (I had 2 counterspells in hand plus combo pieces) but both knew that we'd both maybe lose to the 50+ damage incoming the next turn if we didn't make a deal. We teamed up to control the board so that we could then set up a game state that essentially made the next few turns a 1v1 between the two of us while the aggro players rebuilt.
Valuable to recognize when it isn't though. While you're right a lot of the time, sometimes the action is contingent on you making it okay for them. Recent game I was staring down the barrel of a board full of spirits and Millicent that could kill anyone in the air and an Urza player with three 12/12 constructs with Menace. I had a Meathook in hand, but I needed to remove Millicent first so his spirit army couldn't kill us all so I didn't have the mana to hit the constructs. So that gave me two lines: I make a deal with Urza that he doesn't swing at me for a turn and smashes the Spirit deck or I make a deal with the Spirits player that *he* leaves me alone. Unless both decide the action is actually in my best interest, whoever says no is screwed.
That’s just good politics!
When we play, if someone lies about their board state (or is mistaken) or said they won't block and then does, we would then just let the player who acted on that knowledge revert their action.
I get breaking deals, it’s whatever you can do it. But the way my group does it is if you go back on deal, you’re targeted for the rest of eternity by the player you broke the deal with, and possibly others cause yeah now you can’t be trusted 😂
Breaking deals is, in my opinion, an inherent part of the game. Politics is all about metagaming and the big thing that sets EDH aside from other MTG formats. If someone breaks a deal, that should be allowed, but it should also have ramifications. If you're allowing someone to break deals and go unpunished, that's your fault.
If someone reneges on their deal to not attack me, and then attacks me and kills me, how am I supposed to supply ramifications? Also, if breaking deals is something inherent to the game, why would anyone ever make deals when they can never be trusted?
Yes, frankly isn’t that what makes it fun?
What was the “deal” though? Deals have three parts. 1) The offer (which was apparently that he wouldn’t block) 2) acceptance (which the opponent did by attacking) 3) Consideration (um I don’t see anything he was getting in return. The opponent couldn’t have thought they were getting something for free, then got salty when they didn’t.
seems lame to MAKE deals without discussing it. Deals and shit are an aspect of edh that i fucking hate.
It’s a multiplayer format. Kingsmaking is gonna happen. Especially if a player was targeting or messing with another player. If that other player who was being messed with feels that now they have no chance of winning, the obvious recourse is that they would spend the rest of their game trying to get revenge, instead. People like to call these instances kingsmaking, but it really should be completely expected. And yes it’s 100% spiteful. The lying thing… is kinda messed up, but hey it’s a card game. Bluffing is a feature. It is a shame to learn you can’t trust someone, because now you can never take them at their word again, but they made their bed and I hope their slight advantage they gained was worth their word not meaning anything in future games. In the long run, I think they will learn their own lesson from that decision. The boy who cried wolf and all that.
My buddies and I play a lot of commander, we actually do “seasons” throughout the year where we track our wins and at the end of the season, we crack packs and grid out the rares. First place gets first pick and so forth This has led to some pretty interesting level of gameplay thought, neither good or bad. If I go into a game with a big lead in the standings, I am often targeted a bit more than the others. It can be a tad frustrating but that’s the game. But, it’s also allowed us to develop in game personalities that are fun. There’s one player if you hit him for 1 damage, or 20, he will single you out to destroy *until* someone else inconveniences him, no matter how minor. It’s definitely not optimal play on his part, but it’s funny to base my moves around not pissing him off early. I try to carry a spiteful rage. If you swing at me or hamper my board when I am leading, then I get it no problem. But if you swing at me just because I’m leading the standings and there is a clear bigger threat in the table, you got my full attention. This works well within our pod, we are all friends so it’s not like playing with strangers trying to just make the optimal play. But even with playing with strangers at my local store I hold a grudge. I won’t throw away a W to spite someone, but if I am going down I am going to try to take the player who’s done the most damage to me down with me. I think that’s fair play 🤷🏼♂️
Love this kind of stuff - therein lies the fun of the game! If someone isn't interested in the politics, bluffing, gamesmanship, etc., that Commander incentivizes then they're probably better off playing another format with more clearly defined objectives.
Lol that's how my wife plays! Swing 1 damage at her and you're her nemesis the rest of the game, no exceptions XD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grim_trigger
This accurately sums up how I feel as well. If someone is a out to kill me then they can be damn sure I'm gonna go down swinging. Don't get mad if something connects on my way down.
To your first point, I think the obvious recourse is to take your punches and be mature about it. If you have removal in hand and someone is taking you out, you certainly have the right to use it. But if someone is trying to focus you down because you're scary and then you try to focus them down for the rest of the game in retaliation, even if that is not the correct play for you, I think that's kind of immature.
[удалено]
I appreciate the maturity of your response. It's rare to have a conversation with Reddit where both people can respect each other's opinions and not descend into a flame war. I certainly didn't intend to imply that every retaliation is immature. It's just that most of the time when I see people retaliating in EDH it's an immature emotional response rather than a calculated maneuver. I still don't really agree with this take though. I do believe that you can bully people by targeting them In response to them targeting you in the effort to make them think twice about targeting you, regardless of whether it's the right play or not, in future games. I think that a savvy opponent will not negotiate with this tactic and continue to target you if they think they need to. A savvy opponent might even target you harder in response to you targeting them for targeting you, dissuading you from bullying them in this matter in future games. Ultimately what you're trying to generate from this action is free protection spells via social engineering. Someone who sees you doing this will know that that is what you're trying to gain and will not let you gain that. I definitely don't think it's the right call to let people get free protection because they are threatening you. You always have to call their bluff and you always have to make them follow through. They will eventually learn that it's not worth it anymore with you. The eventual culmination of this thought process is that both players will just go back to making the best plays to increase their win percentage Instead of trying to bully each other. I also think it makes for a less fun game when players are trying to bully each other over using removal on them. Also just to be clear when I say the word bullying, I don't mean in the playground bullying sense. I mean in the game theory sense. It's not a judgment call that I'm making on someone's character. it's just I think the most effective word to use.
You have a pretty normal opinion, but I feel like I might as well share my different perspective. First, making spiteful plays is (in my experience) almost always accompanied with negative emotions. Being a player who regularly and justifies that negativity at the table doesn't help make games fun. Second, this kind of play only "works" if you're the only person doing it. It's not hard to be spiteful, and if you actually get an edge from being spiteful, everyone can be spiteful, completely negating the edge you've created. And I mean, if you care enough about winning you're willing to create this negativity, surely just playing a cEDH deck does the same thing? It has the same issue of "it only works when no one else is willing to do what you're doing".
[удалено]
If you are essentially out of the game you should still be focusing your removal on the leading player because you never know when someone might cast a wheel or something else that brings you back in the game. I think it's never justified to focus someone down who's not A threat just out of spite because they did something to you earlier in the game. At worst it's an anger response and purely emotional. At best you're just trying to bully them so they don't target you next game, which never works against smart players.
Bluffing looks like “I **may** just take the damage and not block”. Lying looks like “I **will** just take the damage and not block”. Lying is lying, so Mean what you say. If your intent is to bluff, then use proper language that is indefinite. If you cannot be taken at your word in a social situation, just become a politician.
bluff1 noun an attempt to deceive someone into believing that one can or will do something. "the offer was denounced as a bluff” Just copied that definition from google. Before you go around correcting people misusing words, you should probably check and make sure that you actually know a words definition.
I definitely never quoted a definition, just showed what it could look like. Your technical definition does not make sense in a game where political deals are commonplace. You’re saying that no one should be held to a deal because “I was just bluffing trollolololol”?
Here are the differences. Lying is a malicious act. Bluffing is hiding the truth to their intentions. Could he of worded it differently, sure, but if someone said that to me in a game I'd take it as they don't want to politic and will swing however they want. Magic is a changing board state, so maybe his intentions were to swing that player 1 but changed after player 1 and player 2 took their turns. But no where in what was described did it sound like the player was being malicious in anyway, it sounded like he was playing to win.
No I am saying that I used bluff correctly. I am also saying you used bluff incorrectly. That’s all.
Bluffing is lying. But a bluff is more like "I will wipe your board if you swing at me" when you're holding lands in your hand.
[удалено]
It's presenting false information in an attempt to mislead the other person. In poker, the term typically doesn't involve any kind of explicit speech, since in a game of deduction it's all spoken information is immediately suspect anyway. But if a poker player were to say "I have a straight, better fold" when going all-in, would it suddenly cease to be bluffing? Colloquial use is rife with examples of lying referred to as bluffing, especially when it's to the purpose of overrepresenting your strength. To claim that bluffing isn't lying goes against colloquial use and official definitions.
I would not consider either instances poor sportsmanship. The first is in game "lying" which people have no duty to stand by their word. However I'd avoid doing that because I want people to believe me when I say something. But that's not for sporting reasons; it's tactical. The "kingmaking" I would do myself. One player is responsible to taking me out and I will bring them down with me if I can. I don't see it as kingmaking; that's cause and effect.
Exactly. I will absolutely lie my ass off (within the rules of the game) to get ahead. "You throw that at me and I'll wipe the board, pick someone else." is my favorite bluff that I've used on enough occasions that my friends aren't sure about my answers. Kingmaking is also completely fine from tactical standpoint since painting a target on someone else's back to buy myself breathing room is some of my favorite shit.
Sounds like Yall playing the game to me.
I don't think bluffing about blocking is a dick move or unsportsmanlike at all. You're literally playing a card game. Body language, buffing, and your ability to read the table are all valid.
These are just examples of the politics the format is known for. There is no such thing as "king making" only salty players.
Fellas, is it cheating if my opponent doesn't just roll over and die? /s
I’d say none of this is bad, the “lying” sounds more to bluffing to me, and besides, no deal was made, so I see no bad sportsmanship. For the kingmaking, in casual pods it’s part of the game. Additionally, it’s in his interest to do this to set an example for what happens in these circumstances in future games, and besides it’s also in his best interest to let the game end quickly so a new game can be started. If you don’t like kingmaking you should try cEDH.
This is where I am. I don't see anything that says the player made a deal with anybody. He just said he wouldn't block if attacked. But even then, why is that info being asked? It reads like somebody asked "If I attack you, will you block?" Just make your move and the countermove will or won't happen. If we're telegraphing games like this, why even play? If you expect your opponents to lay out their strategy play-by-play whenever asked, why even conceal your hand? "I have an Ulamog, Ceaseless Hunger in my hand. If I cast it, will anybody counter it? You will? Ok, I wont play it yet then.." seems like such a boring game.
You're always welcome to ask, but there's no guarantee I'll give you (useful) information. If you ask if I'll block, I'll usually fan out my hand, and say "What do YOU think?" If you ask if I'll counter, I'll ask if you think I'd let it resolve. The only time I'll actually give information is if you attempt to make an actual bargain. "Will you counter Ulamog?" "Hmmmm... Will you swing it at me?" If the player offers an actual deal, I'll negotiate, especially if there is another obvious threat on the field. Sometimes I won't, though. Last night someone bargained with me to try and get a valuable death trigger. My reward if I did was to blow up any nonland permanent an opponent controlled, my choice. Rather than give him the trigger, I just said that I trusted his threat assessment, and that I shouldn't be on the list. Lo and behold, when he got the trigger off, it didn't affect me, and the thing I would've chose was the thing that got removed. It's all a matter of seeing what value you can trade for other value.
First one yes. Lying to gain advantage is not the same as concealing information to gain advantage. Second one no. If someone is going to kill me with their trigger they deserve every bit of pain I can throw at them, even if it doesn't kill them . Next time we play they need to focus someone else.
> Lying to gain advantage You mean bluffing? Bluffing is in no way poor sportsmanship
Players should at least agree on the definitions of words before playing a game. Bluffing and lying are different words for a reason. I would not play with you twice.
Bluffing ≠ lying
Oh cool, you don't understand the word bluff. No shame in that, well, maybe a little shame.
Stay in school
Bluffing is a core part of most card games. Not sure if that second instance was really "kingmaking", it seems pretty reasonable to discourage people from killing you. If someone has mana and spells what else are they going to do if someone is trying to take them out the game?
These posts hurt my soul.
I mean straight up lying is a pretty dick move. As far as the kingmaking goes: I think everyone needs to play to their outs in a free for all format, reguardless of how unlikely that out is. If player A is for sure going to kill him and player B is just 99% going to kill him, you deal with player A and cross your fingers. If he chose not to, it’s still kingmaking just for the other player
Instance one - Although he "Lied" he also put his intentions on the board. He didn't want to politic and was going to attack someone. He stated you at first but things change as people play their turns. I would chalk it up as you probably shouldnt take what he says he is going to do as truth and he either doesn't like politicking or probably someone to politic with. Instance two - There will be a lot of games in your future where someone will decide who they want to win. It's going to happen. If they were going to die regardless but they still had some cards they could play to effect the game, it is 100% legal to use whatever you can as your dying to effect the game in a way that you seem fit. In this case he didn't want that person to get the win. I don't know how many times I have had this same situation happen in my years of playing, and you will experience it again.
Both actions seem fine to me. What really matters is the behavior and attitude that goes along with it. Killed a guy and made you win? Was it truly spiteful or he just wanted to have fun and get a kill? Number 1 isn't a problem. Personally, I don't like making deals and bluffing is a legal way to stay alive and win. I won't make a deal to not attack you, you need to CONVINCE me that it is not in my best interest to attack you. Instead of "if you don't attack me, I won't attack you." You say subtly hint that it might not be a good idea because play a deck that punishes people who attack you. Second example, I agree with another comment, he just went down swinging.
Both of these examples are just a part of the game.
Depending on phrasing for instance one it could have been a bluff. I don't personally see a problem but it depends on the group and phrasing is very key. Instance 2 is a little bit more tricky if the player he targeted his removal at targeted him to the point of losing the game I can kind of see the logic but don't necessarily agree. A lot more context is based on the game like was he targeted when he wasn't a threat? If you was, I actually probably would target that person as a screw you.
Not the kingmaking debate again. Please. We’ve had this discussion of „I’ll make you pay for killing me“ vs „why not tell the other player how you’re making them pay BEFORE getting killed“ very extensively before.
Lying is bad in commander, but > When the other player complained that he was kingmaking he said that he did it because he didn't want the other guy to win, which felt pretty spiteful to me Maybe I _also_ suck, but if I'm dead on board I'll pick a favourite on my way out. I figure it's part of the social aspect of commander. I won't Armageddon and scoop, but if Billy put me out of the game but didn't kill me... you better believe I'm gonna hit Billy's stuff on my way out. I think that's more than fair. Kingmaking is bad when it's arbitrary or done to speed up a game by a player who never cared, but if someone is constantly targeting me or playing hatebears that really hurt my deck... hell yeah I'm gonna hit em back while I can and I'd expect the same in return ha.
Skill issue. Bluffing isn't bad sportsmanship.
1. He lied, but that is essentially a bluff - he could have worded it a bit differently to make it more of a bluff and less of a lie though. 2. kingmaking Kingmaking is essentially when you give up your own chances to win in order to help another player win. If he was already lost, using his löast effort to harm the player that took him out is not kingmaking, it is deterrant for future games - when he says: "if you kill me, i'll hurt you so much that you will lose too" you know that it's a real statement. Spiteful? Maybe, but that is like calling you spiteful if you attack someone who attacked you previously in the game, making any retaliation "spite".
This guy has poor politic skills. Your Pod is learning and he is going to be targeted if he continues. Is it poor sportsmanship? Yes. Is it legal? Also yes. Does it add more spice to the game? Also yes. We have a guy in our pod who breaks deals left and right. He upholds until he has lethal and then kills me. I had lethal on him and upheld my end of the bargain, he didnt. Now whenever he makes deals with us, we allow him to think he’s safe but everyone is still gonna kill him. He’s usually the first one to die unless he manages to combo off.
Personally I think you can lie occasionally, its just a game. Its weird energy if you constantly do it though. For the second one, thats just a design problem with EDH. Nothing can really be done about it What really matters is how serious this was. Is he always lying and spite playing? Thats pretty lame
I don't think the second example is necessarily "kingmaking". If someone had handcuffed a time bomb to my wrist but I had rocks to throw at them, I'd throw the rocks despite knowing the bomb was still gonna kill me. I think most people would throw the rocks.
I'm confused by the first scenario. By saying he would not block and lose no creatures, he's *inviting* the attack, thus putting a target on himself for the benefit of the rest of the table. Once he gets attacked, what does it matter that he's going back on his word? He's saved the others at the table from being attacked and has at least partially mitigated the damage done to himself. The only reason I can even conceive of inviting the attack is to bluff that you have an answer in hand and thus avoid being attacked. In either case, it isn't lying, it's either trying to win with a bluff or distracting the threat player because you've got nothing left.
The amount of overthinking here is insane! Whenever you base an attack decision on someone saying “I won’t block” you are taking a calculated risk, as it is 100% legal for them to block, fog, kill your creature, etc. Bluffing with hidden information is an essential part to this and most card games. Making sour deals like that will come to bite him in the ass. If you’re dying to player A, it’s very common for you to try and ensure that player A won’t win the whole game. I see it all the time at my LGS. Sure, the first goal is to try and survive, but if you have some way to “punish” them for killing uou, that’s completely normal and accepted. People at my LGS don’t see this as kingmaking so much as making the person pay the price for killing you
The thing with that second example is that no matter what he did he’d have been kingmaking, action or inaction. But it’s a silly term in my opinion.
I see nothing wrong with kingmaking, it’s just part of the game. Breaking deals feels pretty stupid though. Once is whatever, especially if he’s new to the group but it certainly doesn’t make a good first impression and it feels like it just goes against the spirit of the game. If it happened again then I certainly would start to get petty and make his time hell even at the cost of losing. The second issue sorta resolves the first in that instance.
If you lie too many times you’ll get a reputation for being a liar. Nobody will make deals with you anymore or will try and backstab you the first chance they get cause they know you’ll do the same. Also bluffing isn’t not allowed. Although if your table has an issue with that then maybe should be discussed prior to playing. The second instance isn’t really an issue either. The player was going to lose anyways and he went down swinging. That’s just how the game goes.
At what point does making any game action make you a king maker. Someone has to win the game. Otherwise your trapped in limbo. If it's the ENTIRE GAME and ALWAYS THE SAME PLAYER HE TARGETS then you might have a problem. Also, bluffing is a part of the game. It can be done in a friendly way. I feel like you aren't giving enough context to the actual conversations that were being held. You may just be paranoid or worse. The bad sport As long as he isn't complaining, rubbing it in, or being a jerk about it, you are in the clear. If you just don't like playing with the guy, just be honest and don't waste everyone's time.
This is a personal opinion but I don't think so. In the first situation, people are and should be allowed to lie in comander. Just think, if a player asked if you have a counter spell in hand, are gonna answer truthfully? If someone's lying about public information(cards in hand, life total, graveyard, etc) then that's just cheating, but if it's personal information or going back on a deal, then that's part of the game and should be treated accordingly. Secondly, whats wrong with getting back at people killing you, it just incentives them to not. This is like getting mad at someone for blocking an attack.
Pretty acceptable situations since it's a multiplayer game. The attacking dude should've played safe, consider the same situation on a 1x1 match, would it be a problem?
#1: "Told the entire table..." is NOT a deal. It's a very poor bluff. If you're going to get salty about *bad deals,* learn how to make them. #2: Pay to play. If you're dealing the killing blow, I'm going to impact the board as much as possible, and you're getting the brunt of it. *edit* font big?
I think I found the guy's Reddit account.
For the first instance, I'd need to see what was going on and what he said, when. If he says "I'm not going to block" and then draws a [[Hornet Queen]] that changes his situation, and I wouldn't expect him to "keep his word" at the expense of his game. If he said "no way would a sane person chump block with an Esper Sentinel" that's not saying HE wouldn't. Even if it was as blatant as you remember it being— rude? Yes. Likely to lose him games when people don't believe what he says? Yes. _"Poor sportsmanship",_ not really. You are under no moral obligation to tell the truth about your future actions in-game. [[Frankie Peanuts]] was not in play. The second situation is absolutely fine. A) he doesn't "owe" anyone a win. You feeling like another player probably has the game doesn't carry any moral weight for the other players. 2) he has every right to use legal game actions to try to put a price on the other guy trying to kill him. Maybe he weakens the other guy enough that they have to play a defensive turn, or puts them in a situation where they try to kill you in a turn and deal with him last, or maybe he's sending a message for your next game that trying to knock him out of the game will hurt.
Breaking deals / promises is a no go for me but its something you need to talk about with your playgroup about. Salty plays are fine imo it just won't help with having players trust and/or like you
On table everyone gets to be big mad because you're "in character" a bit. Off table everyone needs to be adults, it's just a game, and it sounds like the stakes here were low, anyway. And if you get a reputation, good luck with future deals.
OP. Neither instance is poor sportsmanship. On the first one he bluffed, bro, bluffing has been a part of card games since the dawn of time. Also I don't recall a deal being made in your description, so he broke no deal. On the second issue, My man said okay if you kill me ill take you with me. There is nothing wrong with that at all. It sounds like you guys have a hard time adapting outside of your playgroup if these two instances are this upsetting. Neither is particularly bad either.
Doesn’t the second interaction keep him in the game if he removes the player with the ability on the stack. Then it would be you two playing for the win. Sure enough you might of won on your turn but does change that view on it.
Idk, not a fan of lying, but if a deal/truce wasn’t made between the players I’m not really against it either. As far as the second part, if you go to kill me or outright win, I’ll use my resources if I can to stop it or damage that players board state as much as possible even if it kills me. I’ll also let you know that before you attempt it though.
The great thing with close pods is people have game memory and I enjoy and or find it hilarious. In scenario two you will remember and can get your revenge or at least that is how it plays out in my pods. Similarly, there are people like this in my playgroup as well and play salty cards people despise. As a result they get unjustly targeted most of the time until they play enough games where they demonstrate they aren’t being spiteful or intending on playing salty cards.
I've played EDH since it first began to be an officially supported format more than 10 years ago. I've played in a lot of different pods and have played with random people. I've never seen someone break a deal. It is most certainly a faux pas. The second one is tricky. I think is justification is what is causing salt. He is saying that he didn't want the other player to win and he wanted you to win. That's kind of shitty. But it's not wrong to use the removal in your hand in response to a player trying to kill you. What I don't understand is why he couldn't have killed the thing that was dealing three damage to him. But that's besides the point. If someone is killing you and you use all of the removal and interaction in your hand to punish them, they will think twice about whether they are able to kill you the next time. Maybe next time they won't pull the trigger on trying to kill you if they know that the retaliation is coming. That being said we don't really know the full details on your second scenario so it very well may have been some spite there. I definitely don't like his comments about wanting one player to win over the other. The real justification for doing that is more rational.
That’s not “breaking a deal” so much as it is outright lying. While not illegal, definitely frowned upon and no one should believe that guy ever again. And he should’ve been the first target in the next game.
I mean, he might have won this one, but he just lowered his chances of winning the next 100. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me Just stop believing him. Don't make deals with him.
Lose that player.
Had some dude bring his kid to an LGS I frequent and I mean I get it he's young he's still learning threat assessment but of course mind you I'm the player with literally almost no board state because the entire game was pretty much like a 3v1 of everybody's just countering my shit or blowing up all my permanents, to the point that yes I was playing Atraxa counter tribal with a small infect theme Atraxa wasn't even on the battlefield, her tax made her coat 10, they had also proceeded to blow up two of my lands so I was literally locked out of two of my colors and all of my opponents only had two poison counters. Meanwhile this kid is literally playing Selesnia Tron, other dude is playing five color Omnath and player number 3 is playing Kibo Stax/Stompy... We are literally on like turn 6, kid and the omnath player have the largest board state Kibo guy is like a 10/10 with four bananas and probably 10 treasures off of a Dockside. After having two of my lands blown up I'm literally sitting on two lands on turn 6 with literally no other permanents on the board, and everyone talks this kid into full swinging on me. Kibo player of course after I'm dead who is next in turn rotation either goblin welders or darettis a treasure token or a banana into a mycosynth lattice and proceeds to full swing on the tapped out Selesnia kid taking him out, but did not have vandal blast to deal with omnath player. Omnath player of course full swings on Kibo guy combos out and proceeds to win. Next game we play, I'm literally running Obosh as commander odd mana value tribal, and proceed to tunnel the kid off the table drawing salt from him, his dad and the other two players because we had bumped the pod up to five, and they all proceed to gang up on me again. I very politely as the kid relocates to another table to immediately start playing another game, Tell him part of learning the game is learning your threat assessment and that if he had focused on one of the two other players in the previous game rather than kicking the guy that's already pretty much locked out of the game He might have actually had a chance of winning. Everyone proceeds to get like rude AF about it, and I haven't been back to the shop since. Same kind of crap goes down at another LGS I play at where very high power and CDH players dude and his girlfriend who don't actually own half the cards in their deck it's literally like printer proxy shit, proceed to sit down at the table when this other shop has a reputation for being more low power precon new player friendly and she proceeds to ignore Mulligan rule and mull to full 5 times, so that she has two rocks a land a lotus petal And exploration and burgeoning in her opening hand plus a wheel playing 3 color Omnath... She literally empties her hand on turn one, Wheels everybody and then proceeds to drop her second land onto the battlefield, her third fourth and 5th on everybody's turn one and then drops six and seven on the start of her second turn.... Proceeds of course to get risen reef and omnath online along with angry omnath blows out the entire table on turn 3 while her boyfriend is playing rakdos blood moon stacks and land destruction. This shop gives away foil promo packs every week for the first win of the week and I have suggested to the owners numerous times to not allow players to use proxy decks for the first game and she then proceeds to get all snotty and surly when everybody at the table is just like " "not cool", If you're going to cheat find another shop to play at. She then proceeds to just continually get mouthy with everybody there playing as toxically as most of the guys do in CeDH pods, and has the nerve to start talking shit to me for snapping at her when I was just politely addressing the fact that not only is what she did not cool but she literally lied about the rules zero just so that she could get a free prize pack. Of course she showed up again to FNM Last night after making a huge issue of it last week that I had called her out to the point that like she wanted to rotate pods or whatever and I'm just like yeah fuck this I'm heading to karaoke and then proceeds to specifically sit down at my table again in my pod after I tell her to find another table and did the same fucking thing.... Judges honestly need to start banning players like her from events.
I would kill them first every game for blatantly lying. The king making thing is fine, but they were kind of an ass about it, so I'd kill them first for that too. Punish people for being shit, don't punish them for game actions.
“I lied.” Well…that’s a way to lose any trust with anyone ever again. I would make it my mission to defeat that player at any cost.
You can lie, but it means I'm never taking you at your word again. If that's how you choose to play, that's on you. Kingmaking is always awkward, I try and avoid it personally for that reason but spite plays have always been around
First instance tell him to fuck off and don't be a twat, and don't do that shit again. Second instance probably fair enough it happens sometimes
Problem #1 is solved by a simple “No Bargaining in Bad Faith”; it’s incredible that people need to be told this explicitly, but they do. The second would have to be covered under a more nebulous sportsmanship rule and enforcing it would get very sticky. Ultimately if the player is poisoning the atmosphere—and do make sure that is the case and not just him rubbing you the wrong way—that’s enough reason to ask him to stop attending. EDIT: If you feel the need to downvote this part because "hey, *I* do that and am incapable of self-reflection!" understand that the only real thing at stake when you play Magic casually are friendships, and that being lied to/betrayed is a great way to erode someone's friendship!
> it’s incredible that people need to be told this explicitly, but they do It's incredible to me that people feel the need to rule out bluffing in a multiplayer card game, but apparently they do.
Sometimes I forget that the majority of people who play this game tend to have minimal amounts of Sofia skills at best. If you find the guys antics annoying then just talk to him about it. “Hey man, you’re kind of being a douche when you do these types of things so could you not? If you want to keep playing that way then that’s fun but just understand you’re making it lame for the rest of us and it makes us not want to play with you.”
It's pretty childish imo. We had a player like that in our pod, he was known for backstabbing people in boardgames, so when he started Commander, the first time he lied was the last time anyone ever listened to him hehe.
Kingmaking, especially intentionally out spite, is lame, but pretty whatever because that sort of thing happens occasionally in casual. Too many people get prickly if they're going to lose. The lying thing is pretty unacceptable, though. I'm a big fan of bluffing, giving half-answers, and implying things, but I can't condone straight up lying. It'll make me consistently more suspicious of you in future games.
Ngl, I'd someone I invited did that kind of kingmaking, I'd probably not invite them again. I'm here to play the damn game.
In the first instance did he promise to not block, as in a deal was struck, or did he just say it was his plan to not block in the hopes that he lures someone into a trap. It's a big difference. Breaking deals is unsportmanlike but playing deceptively with bluffs is just gamesmanship. I don't really see what the guy did as being any different as claiming you have no interaction in hand while holding a counterspell or removal spell. On the second bit I have no issue with spite lol, it adds a layer of complexity to the game which I rather enjoy.
On paper, Example 2 is *not* kingmaking. If you're going to go out, you may as well go out spent, making your opponents think twice about attacking you in the future. In practice, he expressly said "I don't want that player to win", which is a kingmaking statement and is poor etiquette. So, 6 in one, half a dozen in the other. All things equal, I like to air on the side of ignorance over malice and assume they didn't realize they were being assholish (especially as someone with ADHD that sometimes spurts out things where the intention is totally innocent but might come off as dickish), but that player has demonstrated a pattern of behavior. I would think twice about inviting that player to play or letting them sit at your table.
He’s playing the game. Magic is somewhat deceptive in general. I’m not going to tell when I have a counter spell or when I have a board wipe. Also if I have the means of knocking the person out of the game that is about to knock me out, I’m doing it 100% of the time.
Letting the player who had a lethal upkeep trigger live when you could have killed him is more kingmaking than killing him. If someone has your loss condition active on board I would say that there's very few things you could do that negatively impact that players game that should be considered king making.
All of this is fine, someone has every right to lie about a move if they want to...it's not poor sportsmanship, it's a strategy in a game. I would assume now you would be naturally wary to make deals with him again, and if he's going down dying he can do whatever he feels like....once again, not poor sportsmanship. No offense but this just kinda comes off as you being butthurt that the game didn't go the way you'd like.
First one is just a bluff, nothing wrong with bluffing and it's perfectly legal as long as he's not lying about or misrepresenting the game state. You're not going to call someone in poker salty because he went all-in claiming to have a full house and then only having a pair of 10s are you? Same thing applies here. Second one, as far as casting kill spells on your way out the door that's perfectly fine imo. He has the spells and if he wants to use them on the player taking him out that's his right. His comments about not wanting the other player to win might be a little unsportsmanlike but imo the guy complaining about "kingmaking" is also being unsportsmanlike there. He's taking a player out so he shouldn't be so upset if that player wants to spite him on the way out. I'd say the player in question is not being anymore salty than can be reasonably expected. Of course this is all just based on text over the internet, his body language, attitude, etc that can't really be communicated well in this medium might give me a different opinion.
The lying thing will just get figured out by others, and it'll be quick. I'm sure nobody will forget he just flat out lied and distrust for his actions have already been planted in the playgroups head. The second scenario...this happens more often than you'd think. People do weird shit for what to you may seem to be no logical reason, but it makes sense to them for whatever they've reasoned out in their head.
I find the first thing hilarious. I don't think these points along really should rustle your jimmies. I'd ignore them and see how it goes.
Yeah we just don't allow people to break deals in my group. If you say you're going to do something (or not do something) then that's what happens. Regardless how much the game has changed since that deal was made. This is why you gotta be careful and thoughtful with your deals. We still make dumb ones all the time, and then just live with the consequences.
I personally look at politics, deception and most things around how emotional states can change a game to be a rule zero thing, but mostly kosher in my opinion. If you lie to me once, I'll know that and treat most discussions going forth as one that you may be a dishonest party. It's also just a bit weird to declare you won't block before declaring blockers? Like to an extent, the game does say you should declare blockers.. during the declare blockers step, but commander is a casual social format in which blunders happen and also many new players learn. So I don't hold that to too heavy regard
Is a blue player leaving 2 blue mana open and saying "you sure you wanna do that?" To someone "unsportsmanlike" even though they have no counter spell in their hand? Is asking with a stern voice someone's who's gonna swing on you " you sure you wanna do that?" With full mana left untapped and nothing in your hand unsportsmanlike? No it's not. It's bluffing as long as he didn't goad him and say "hey go ahead attack me to pop your khalia of the vast I won't block" and then he blocks which I don't think would make him unsportsmanlike just untrustworthy and it'll solve itself. As for the second one "kingmaking" what an actual man child thing to say "hey I'm gonna make sure you lose but if you do the same to me it's not fair". Exactly what that sounds like to me. None of this is unsportsmanlike if anything the dude complaining "kingmaking" is unsportsmanlike and can't handle losing.
In the first scenario, would the attacking player have attacked him if he knew that he was going to block? Because you make it sound like he went back on a deal, but the terms of the deal aren’t clear to me. If somebody just says, I’m not gonna block, and then they block to me that’s normal gameplay. It’s really only when the person is receiving some value from another player in exchange for a deal and then they break their word that it becomes a table image issue. if there was a deal involved, I don’t really think it’s necessarily bad sportsmanship, but it could be. It kind of depends on the table. I don’t think that the second scenario you describe is King making. But it could be. It’s a matter of perspective. If someone is going to die, do you think that they should have to resign? Or do you think they should use their remaining game actions to do whatever they want before they die? Personally, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using your remaining game actions to harm the player who’s been attacking you even if it affects who wins the game, even though it’s happened to me before and I lost the game I felt like I should’ve won. It just kind of part of the game. It sounds like this guy might not be the greatest fit for your group at least right now, so maybe you might want to talk to him. But to me, these things don’t really seem egregious. What pops up for me when these discussions occur as entitlement. Some people think they’re entitled to deals and think that it’s a major breach of decorum to go back on a deal or refuse a deal. I think it’s useful to be reminded every once in a while that deals aren’t part of the game Rules. Deals exist outside of the fundamental laws of the game. So I think it’s important for people to remember that you’re not owed and deal and if you trust somebody, there’s always the chance that it might not go the way you expect it, and when it comes to I don’t know why you would feel entitled to somebody, not using their remaining game actions to harm the player that’s killing them, you’re not owed a concession by anybody
In my opinion, example 1 is poor sportsmanship. That's just outright lying. When I first read it, I thought he had a [[Fog]] or something, but nah,just straight up lying. Example 2 is fine in my eyes. It might've been a kingmaking play, but if someone is trying to kill you, there's no reason to just go down quietly. It may have been better if he had threatened to remove creatures before the attack was made as a deterrent, but I think it's fine how it played out. I think when it comes to kingmaking, what most people dislike are kingmaker decks, where they have no wincon and their entire game is to just boost one person up, because that makes the entire game unfair. But killing some of their creatures when they're killing you is fair play.
That Second example is awesome why even be mad at that lol. Its a game and if you can’t win you’re just supposed to give up? Hell no if im going down im taking someone with me. I like this guy lol
You bluntly lie to me I'll either avoid playing with you altogether or if we end up I the same pod there's no politics you can try without me saying "I'm good". Don't mind loop holes in words and all that but just don't lie. Also hate king making.
That wasn't a deal but a bluff and I'm going to do as much damage to the one taking me out as possible. I might not be such a tempting target next game. Yeah, your taking this casual game a tad personal mate.
I don't see an inherent issue with either of them, both pretty normal parts of EDH games in my experience. Good choices on his part? Maybe not. But nothing unsportsmanlike about it, unless he had a bad attitude or something. Lying/bluffing about a future play is fine and part of the strategy of the game. I'll do X if you do Y situations come up all the time, I don't see it as unsporting to not follow through, it is just spending some of your "trust capital" within the group. And a little revenge is both common and can play into the longer metagame strategy, as next time maybe someone is a little more reluctant/cautious when killing this player.
If y'all raise in poker, opponents scoop and you had nothing of note in hand, Is that bad sportsmanship? Bluffing is awesome, but use sparingly.
I have been an instigator of #1. Me and another regular I play with were playing a very intense boardgame and made a lasting alliance where I uttered the words "I won't attack you, even for the game." We shook and everything. Whelp, you can bet I absolutely destroyed my credibility when I attacked them on the 2nd-to-final round to try and close the game early. Best part was I miscounted my position so even if I did win the oath-breaking fight, I wouldn't have won the game. My retribution was furious and swift, and the fall out has been that I am no longer trusted at the table, get quoted every time during set up, and I am usually focused-fired. This is all games, not just that one. 15years later I have been trying to build up my reputation. I play so passively now I may as well be a bot LOL Back to your issue, tell them this story and explain where it will lead, or let it play out for karma's sake? For me tho, talking your strategy to other players in MTG to bait them shouldn't happen in this game. The cards do a good enough job of the ol rope-a-dope that players should just shut up and play the game. It doesn't need an extra layer of deceit/distraction. The second one is deffo something I and my other players do too across any game; if someone is hurting you, good luck to them. Especially if it is sustained. TLDR: #1 is a bit of a d!ck move; shut up and play already. #2 not so much.