This thread is for the discussion of Meyou's latest article, Off Topic: Threat Assessment in Commander. Due to technical issues the thread that is normally created when an article is published didn't occur, so I have created this thread to allow you to talk about it. As always, please keep your comments on topic.
While such advice as looking at who has a hand full of cards and who might be about to go off with a mana advantage or unbeatable combo is certainly nice, it seems that you might be missing a crucial lesson. It sounds like, from the way you phrased your article, that you're getting ganged up on and losing quite a lot because you aren't playing the table correctly.
It's fine to acknowledge that Thrun and Exalted Angel don't represent huge threats. However, many players *do* consider them to be powerful and threatening creatures. The players that win free-for-all games consistently are those that manage to keep attention off them while they slowly accumulate advantage - preferably without showing up on anyone's radar.
While players should certainly pay attention to what represents genuine power and threat in multiplayer - learning what the rest of the table is afraid of and avoiding making them afraid of you until you can handle the heat is arguably more important. After all, it does you little good to know the guy playing the combo deck is the threat if going after him labels you as a bully and results in people ganging up on you.
I might be wrong, but the way I read it, it's like the author blames the others for his own loss in MTG. Like, he tries to show to his playgroup how a pro would play, but still lose because they don't understand or want to. He tries to help them get better by telling them what would be the best plays as the pros would describe, but there's one thing: he still loses.
Honestly the article was well written and stuff, props on that, no negative points. It's just the essence, the purpose of your text that I find doubtful. I mean, ask yourself. Could it be YOUR fault for losing? As much as I can understand that you're the one making the good plays and that you're losing because others have less comprehension of the game, you could always find a way out of this situation on your own and win despite that. Exploit their weakness, while I agree no one should remove this or that, YOU KNOW THEY WILL ANYWAY because they're bad or anything else. It's the wrong move, but I mean, you know: I see putting what they consider as a threat on the table is worse than remove it.
I however understand how hard it is as I have the same problem in an other game. Hard to not play like a pro when you feel you should be doing, but hey, contexts are different, play accordingly to your playgroup until you're strong enough to change the context itself.
You know, I also whine "Why are you attacking meeeeeeeeee? That guy is a MUCH better target!" at my EDH games but I don't go and write 20 paragraphs about it.
Seriously, I don't see much in the way of strategy, tactics, or anything worthwhile here. It's just "You're attacking the wrong person. Ignore my deck, attack theirs". "Don't attack the harmless little lifegain deck that just hit 230, attack someone else". "You're swinging at me cause I have a creature you can't possibly deal with otherwise? Dude, you suck." No "why", no other examples of other decks, no real explaination on how to gauge who's the biggest threat, nothing about why you should even be going after the biggest threat at the time in the first place (because he's probably the most likely to be able to handle you). No nothing, really.
I agree with the two above me. Instead of complaining to the internet, learn to play your table.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Retrodrome!
Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
M'saion ulé hraka vair.
I actually agree with the article in most of the things that were said. It's usually a good idea to not overextend, but i see people ignoring the strongest player a lot in commander and then it always comes back to hurt them.
Strength isn't just from board position. You have to look at the commander they have, amount of cards in play, colors they are playing and also the amount of lands and mana rocks in play.
For example, if you were playing against my wanderer deck, would you wait to use threats on me until after I cast wanderer? I would love if you did that, because that usually means I'm going to be way ahead at that point.
The article was about players not adequately assessing a game of EDH. It happens all the time. Even the games I am not playing at.
I've watched more than a few games wondering why players aren't targeting the strongest player at the table.
The Pinky and the Brain reference was alluding to the fact most games are out of ones control no matter what devices are employed. Sometimes you just win or lose and there is no real rationale for it.
I think the article might have come off a bit better if it was structured as a clear lesson in how to assess threats and the various ways threats present themselves in non-obvious fashion. Here it seems almost closer to a stream of consciousness complaint about the various ways people target you. This might bury the important lessons at its heart under the false notion that you're just whining.
The lesson that *potential* board presence (cards in hand, massive resources for playing big spells) is just as dangerous as actual board presence is definitely a valuable and inarguable one.
The article was about players not adequately assessing a game of EDH. It happens all the time. Even the games I am not playing at.
I've watched more than a few games wondering why players aren't targeting the strongest player at the table.
The Pinky and the Brain reference was alluding to the fact most games are out of ones control no matter what devices are employed. Sometimes you just win or lose and there is no real rationale for it.
Thanks for reading.
That's the problem. The article didn't come off as "People tend to target the wrong person". It came off as "Why are people targeting me? You're idiots!" There really wasn't anything about threat assessment.
Plus it makes the assumption you always want to target the strongest player in the first place. There's several reasons why that's not true - the most obvious being the strongest player has the resources to fend you off. The strongest player may be hiding his position well (I've been the "strongest" player on a board with nothing but a handful of cards that can wreck a board in my hand and a couple of defensive creatures. I certainly didn't look that way) and someone else looks stronger. A weaker player might need to be picked off before they can recover and dominate the game. A player could be playing a strategy that is detrimental to you specifically, but not to anyone else. A player is playing cards that you can't deal with, but you can easily handle the threats the stronger player is dropping (if you drop a card, and the only way I have to deal with it is to eliminate you, sorry, you're a target. Maybe drawing all the aggro your way the turn before that guy went off wasn't a bad idea, huh?). Maybe other players just hate your deck (a common reaction to massive life gain).
I dunno. Maybe I missed the point. But that's what I got from it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Retrodrome!
Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
M'saion ulé hraka vair.
Brain is self-centered and scheming; Pinky is good-natured but feebleminded. In each episode, Brain devises a new plan to take over the world, which ultimately ends in failure, usually due to Pinky's idiocy, the impossibility of Brain's plan, Brain's own arrogance, or just circumstances beyond their control.
Please notice the bolding.
What was that you were saying about the tone of the article?
The article was about players not adequately assessing a game of EDH. It happens all the time. Even the games I am not playing at.
The problem is not just an EDH problem, it is casual player problem in general.
Allot of players are not use to the attention level that multiplayer actually requires, and just focus on the obvious ignoring the not so obvious.
The number of times i have seen someone targeted because they had a mana screw and could not drop their defence as a result. While it was obvious that someone else was close to completing a kill combo is staggering.
I would argue that the author is not playing his playgroup properly.
If the table you play at doesn't attack people with giant hands, then play CA.
If the table you play at doesn't attack people with 100 mana, then play ramp.
If the table you play immediately kills Thrun on sight, and kills any player over 41 life, then you shouldn't play Thrun or significant life-gain.
Meta-Threat assessment is also a skill, and i think the author needs to learn that. Knowing what your opponent's think are threats and aren't threats is also an important EDH lesson. There is something to be said, for playing cards your opponent's undervalue, but you know how to win with.
It never ceases to amaze me how Commander tables will allow a player to build MULTIPLE obscene mana abilities over the course of multiple turns, but, and you can draw a million cards off of something like Rhystic Study, but a threatening permanent like Avacyn must be dealt with IMMEDIATELY. If someone spends a turn to play Wake, or Reflection, or even something innocuous like Gauntlet, or they have an ability that represents a dozen card draws - you should probably do something to put future turns in check.
I feel like the biggest issue is that Commander is tailor made for players who like to do "Cool" things, and that detrimental interaction is seen as griefing. I have started to gravitate towards non-terminal mutual effects - Natural Balance is a favorite, and man I love Renounce the Guilds - to regulate the board state. Relatively small effects like Sphere of resistance can help too. And I LOVE the Oaths. You just have to be willing to do something that does not directly advance your game (or necessarily your board state) in an attempt to regulate the game on your terms.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: Dominium Eminens
Legacy: UB Tezz (Check out My Primer at TheSource)
Vinitage: Oath
What was that you were saying about the tone of the article?
Meyou, considering that most comments featured here agree that threat-assessment is important and agree with your points regarding proper evaluation of threats - yet still are reacting negatively to the article... Then when content isn't to fault, it can only be context and tone they're reacting to.
There's nothing wrong with what you're trying to communicate. But this didn't come off too well.
The problem is that game theory says you're wrong.
When your table is set up to be a war of attrition (no combo kills) it is absolutely correct for the strong players to expend as little resources eliminating the weaker players at the table (specially if they only expend a renewable resource to do it, like swinging with a creature).
If there are a bunch of combos at the table, then the best strategy is to nock out the most dangerous to you first, and then work your way down the list.
This article represents the authors fundamentally flawed outlook on human psychology. building a high life total through increment advantage only serves to make you a bigger target.
Meyou, considering that most comments featured here agree that threat-assessment is important and agree with your points regarding proper evaluation of threats - yet still are reacting negatively to the article... Then when content isn't to fault, it can only be context and tone they're reacting to.
There's nothing wrong with what you're trying to communicate. But this didn't come off too well.
I hear yeah. I am making a mental note on the reaction to this article, but I am not going to apologize for trying something new. I am also taking your comments lightly because this article was in the que for over a month. There was plenty of time for you to make any critiques then instead of waiting for it to go public and then jumping on the band wagon. It could be my paranoia, but I find it tacky.
I also sometimes take the comment section with a grain of salt. Just because the comments are for the majority negative, doesn't mean it is a full representation of the reading population. Also, just because the majority of people say something doesn't mean some people didn't enjoy it. I don't like Woody Allen movies. It doesn't mean Woody Allen should stop making them cause a few people don't like them.
Besides, this is the Internet. Comment sections tend not to draw people who love rainbows and sunshine. It is the Internet.
Anecdotal, but the first posting to an article always dictates the tone of the comment section. If the first post is very negative, the trend will continue. If the first few posts are positive, the trend usually continues. It has not surprised me how this has progressed.
I usually don't go back and forth like this to stoke the fire, but I am feeling feisty lately. Maybe it is just sleep deprivation.
I do listen and take the comments into account, but I do approach them with caution.
I hear yeah. I am making a mental note on the reaction to this article, but I am not going to apologize for trying something new.
No need to apologize. Text is notoriously tricky to communicate things like tone in after all. I don't think that you intended this article as a complain-about-other-players-beating-you-through-bad-moves piece, I'm just pointing out why I think people aren't reacting to it as positively as they should be. Of course, I could be entirely wrong.
I am also taking your comments lightly because this article was in the que for over a month. There was plenty of time for you to make any critiques then instead of waiting for it to go public and then jumping on the band wagon. It could be my paranoia, but I find it tacky.
Sorry, I don't check the in-progress articles in the writer's forum right now. Haven't for months. I write very irregularly, when I get a chunk of time, and have barely been on this site at all for months. I do read the published articles often, as I do flick to the home page before moving to spoilers or checking for PMs and thus see which articles have been published, hence how I saw this one. If I had seen it prior to publication, I'd have registered my comments then.
I also sometimes take the comment section with a grain of salt. Just because the comments are for the majority negative, doesn't mean it is a full representation of the reading population. Also, just because the majority of people say something doesn't mean some people didn't enjoy it. I don't like Woody Allen movies. It doesn't mean Woody Allen should stop making them cause a few people don't like them.
Absolutely. Negative reactions tend to be published by a factor of around 10 to 1 to positive ones - as people that like something tend to smile and just go on with their lives. Of course, this doesn't mean that constructive criticism isn't still a possibility.
Hmm... A lot of people are answering with the usual stuff about not playing the table correctly or adjusting the deck to accommodate the kitchen table meta. The thing is... If you were to play that kind of table correctly, you'd probably be playing combo 9 times out of 10, and consistently winning while doing it since, in my experience, commander players usually don't reflect on why they've lost their games.
I personally don't buy the sentiment that you can't play XXX in any given meta. It's just a matter of communicating that the deck or its mechanics aren't as scary as they appear. Many players don't realize that they react with utter terror to some high numbers (like life total or power/toughness) while ignoring other advantages some players have (hand size or mana pool), and I feel it's the right thing to point that out when appropriate. The problem of course is finding a moment when it actually is [appropriate]...
Sadly, I don't think there's a real solution here. Like You've said, it's all in the context, so there's no set priority for any given resource and opinions may vary on how to respond to perceived threats. It is however totally okay in my book to help them see the whole picture as far as game state goes. If they go for a different play, that's on them, though, and You as a player can't really change anything about that.
Like I said above, if a player wanted to build a deck that was immune to false threat assessment, it'd be a typical "win out of nowhere" combo list, since you need those off the table literally from turn 1 since you often lack the specialized response to stop them and usually don't get a turn to respond as soon as they start going off.
Not necessarily Silverhawk. You can also build a deck that slowly accumulates advantage through undervalued cards or cards that *look* terrible but are actually quite good - while discouraging aggression towards you from other players.
That's true, of course, but what I was trying to say was that that kind of deck can still be misinterpreted as the biggest threat at the table, even if it objectively isn't. The only deck "immune" to that is a deck that should be hit hard by other players all the time, since players can always make questionable (to you at least) decisions about who to put in their crosshairs, no matter if you play goodstuff or grizzly bears.dec.
To accomplish what You're saying (i.e. small advantages accumulating to a leading position) you'd need to get away from the typical goodstuff-big-beater decklist and build a deck that's a sum of its parts. That, however, is (at least to me) a big enough topic for a seperate article altogether.
That's true, of course, but what I was trying to say was that that kind of deck can still be misinterpreted as the biggest threat at the table, even if it objectively isn't.
True, as can a combo deck. Lots of players have a huge fear of combo, and for good reason. They feel helpless against it the same way they feel helpless against Thrun and they can't easily predict when it's about to win.
The only deck "immune" to that is a deck that should be hit hard by other players all the time, since players can always make questionable (to you at least) decisions about who to put in their crosshairs, no matter if you play goodstuff or grizzly bears.dec.
That might be immune to being the victim of targeting mistakes of other players, but it doesn't mean it's going to help you win. Being about to win at your upkeep via Test of Endurance means people will correctly identify you as the biggest threat. That's usually not a good thing for you, as the collective resources of a whole table come to punish you for it. You want to be the furthest ahead while avoiding the aggression (or attention) of others.
To accomplish what You're saying (i.e. small advantages accumulating to a leading position) you'd need to get away from the typical goodstuff-big-beater decklist and build a deck that's a sum of its parts. That, however, is (at least to me) a big enough topic for a seperate article altogether.
Not really. I'm talking about a deck that's full of goodstuff that just happens to look unthreatening without actually playing bad cards. No one's scared of a Carven Caryatid but it's still a great card and it pushes a bit of aggression away from you.
The article's premise is entirely valid. It just brings up questions of how to manipulate target prioritization as well as how to properly prioritize targets.
I've actually heard players tell me "no fair" because I played a Diabolic Edict. True story.
The problem is that players don't know a threat when they see it. There are some generals (Ghave, Sharuum) who should scream "combo", while others (mostly Omnath, but also Skithiryx) say "kill one player on turn 5 or 6". Still others (Teysa 2.0) are serious problems once they're out, since Teysa has vigilance, is unblockable (in a way), and has a No Mercy effect.
My worst experience, though, involved me trying to Wrath opp 1's It that Betrays. Opp 2 counters it and says "I was protecting my board." No ****? So was I. Yeah, opp 1 won that game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
A bit late on a reply, but I found the article quite accurate and relatable to all multiplayer, not just EDH.
I might be wrong, but the way I read it, it's like the author blames the others for his own loss in MTG.
Well, it's multiplayer, many factors can be to blame, and bad decision-making (yours or an opponent's) is often near the top. Trying to help people make better decisions helps their chances to win, not just your own, in the situation that you're playing something like a creature-based aggro deck... rather than some crazy combo deck. Sure you might lose in 5-10 turns being on the bad end of a beatstick... but that's nowhere near as big of a threat as the player who ends everyone's game in 1 turn.
Sometimes in a big game, you have to accept that you cannot win... and then you have to decide how you (as a player and a person) wish to respond to that. Do you try to sabotage others and end the whole game faster, or do you fight to the last against the biggest actual threat to give the most other players a chance, or do you just go after the player who had done the most damage to you?
I had this problem a lot in my playgroup and in playing Commander online. Eventually I made a few different decks:
- Lots of mass removal focused on being able to disable as much as possible consntantly, Sundering Titan + Astral Slide combo, etc
- Silly decks like Moonfolk (Mirrodin+Kamigawa standard), or ones with a lot of control exchanges, or Warp World antics
- Single-player Mono Red... where I roll a die each time I do something to determine who it is aimed at
It basically created an arms race and arms treaty, as it were. Do we bring horribly overpowered and destructive decks, or fun and less-serious ones? Because, you know what, the latter is a LOT more fun. Eventually you just get sick of having to either gang up on broken combos, or lose... or being stuck between Broken Combo A and Broken Combo B.
This article may come off as "QQ" or "whiny" to some, but the simple truth is that the game's a lot less fun when bad decision making lets some combo player sit around defenseless until he goes off and ruins everyone else's fun in 1 turn flat.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For the preservation of our blue and pure world."
-Blue Cosmos
I enjoyed reading your article, but from its content, it seems aimed at those that are competitive or hope to become so. For every competitive player, there is another who thinks competition is the anathema to fun in a game and play according to their personal definition of fun.
On threat assessment: players often react to the immediate threat over the long-term threat. Something ugly played NOW demands an answer NOW. A handful of cards or lots of ramp could be a threat or could be a bluff... or maybe I have something in my hand that I think can neuter that player if they go off. Then again, some players like to play removal as soon as they draw it, casting about for an immediate target just to do something that turn.
Alternatively, players don't spend time online reading up on strategy and cards and such, instead relying on personal experience. For these players, combos sneak up on them because they are simply unaware of their existence until said combo wins the game.
A third alternative to threat assessment is in regards to each player's goal in the game. Not everyone sits down to win; some want to win a specific way, some just want to play a new card, others want only to ensure someone else DOESN'T win. These goals conflict with being the last player standing, skewing what these players view as threats.
On overvaluing lifegain: people do, both those that play cards that only gain life (ala' Angel's Mercy) and those that go out of their way to target the lifegainer(s) consistently, if only to keep them at a reasonable total. I am often in the latter camp, but with the thinking that massive life gaining doesn't necessarily win, it only delays, which means fewer games that night.
That said, tuned extort/Exsanguinate decks at least reduce opposing life while gaining it at an impressive rate, in turn making the player with a tuned extort deck a threat... not so much because of the lifegain, but how it is gotten.
On politics: I have played at a variety of tables where players bring personal feelings into the game, preferring to ignore the strong player over their personal nemesis. Grudge matches also develop in game, with the whole tit-for-tat mindset that results in a pair effectively dueling while others occasionally participate.
Siblings and lovers (hopefully not in the same relationship!) often save each other for last or play poorly for one another; even platonic friends will do this. In larger games (8+) people often cannot see the other end of the table, so focus on the nearer players - specific seating at a table also makes a difference; if John always attacks left, then whoever sits there is under the gun, so to speak.
tl;dr - Different folks are threatened by different things at different times. While there are "right" plays in Magic, many players opt for the play that feels "right," instead.
Cheers!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If in the area, check out Gamers N Geeks and Mini War Games in Mobile, Alabama and Underhill's Games in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
It seems to me that many of the post here are missing the point: he is losing not only because he is being targeted, but also because someone else isn't. That can be a huge difference in a game. As someone who plays many istant-win combos (I do actually play a lot of EDH tournaments on Friday instead of fnm) I have won many a game i shouldn't have because i had a mana reflection and no creatures while the Kemba, Kha Regent player had two whole equipment (!): in short, all the kill and counters kept them of their general, and then no one could stop my Palinchron.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
RUGMaelstrom WanderRUG < That's a link
Please look at and comment on the above! Looking for any advice and thoughts!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
Warning issued for Spam.
—Lanxal
It's fine to acknowledge that Thrun and Exalted Angel don't represent huge threats. However, many players *do* consider them to be powerful and threatening creatures. The players that win free-for-all games consistently are those that manage to keep attention off them while they slowly accumulate advantage - preferably without showing up on anyone's radar.
While players should certainly pay attention to what represents genuine power and threat in multiplayer - learning what the rest of the table is afraid of and avoiding making them afraid of you until you can handle the heat is arguably more important. After all, it does you little good to know the guy playing the combo deck is the threat if going after him labels you as a bully and results in people ganging up on you.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Honestly the article was well written and stuff, props on that, no negative points. It's just the essence, the purpose of your text that I find doubtful. I mean, ask yourself. Could it be YOUR fault for losing? As much as I can understand that you're the one making the good plays and that you're losing because others have less comprehension of the game, you could always find a way out of this situation on your own and win despite that. Exploit their weakness, while I agree no one should remove this or that, YOU KNOW THEY WILL ANYWAY because they're bad or anything else. It's the wrong move, but I mean, you know: I see putting what they consider as a threat on the table is worse than remove it.
I however understand how hard it is as I have the same problem in an other game. Hard to not play like a pro when you feel you should be doing, but hey, contexts are different, play accordingly to your playgroup until you're strong enough to change the context itself.
Seriously, I don't see much in the way of strategy, tactics, or anything worthwhile here. It's just "You're attacking the wrong person. Ignore my deck, attack theirs". "Don't attack the harmless little lifegain deck that just hit 230, attack someone else". "You're swinging at me cause I have a creature you can't possibly deal with otherwise? Dude, you suck." No "why", no other examples of other decks, no real explaination on how to gauge who's the biggest threat, nothing about why you should even be going after the biggest threat at the time in the first place (because he's probably the most likely to be able to handle you). No nothing, really.
I agree with the two above me. Instead of complaining to the internet, learn to play your table.
Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
M'saion ulé hraka vair.
Strength isn't just from board position. You have to look at the commander they have, amount of cards in play, colors they are playing and also the amount of lands and mana rocks in play.
For example, if you were playing against my wanderer deck, would you wait to use threats on me until after I cast wanderer? I would love if you did that, because that usually means I'm going to be way ahead at that point.
The article was about players not adequately assessing a game of EDH. It happens all the time. Even the games I am not playing at.
I've watched more than a few games wondering why players aren't targeting the strongest player at the table.
The Pinky and the Brain reference was alluding to the fact most games are out of ones control no matter what devices are employed. Sometimes you just win or lose and there is no real rationale for it.
Thanks for reading.
The lesson that *potential* board presence (cards in hand, massive resources for playing big spells) is just as dangerous as actual board presence is definitely a valuable and inarguable one.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
That's the problem. The article didn't come off as "People tend to target the wrong person". It came off as "Why are people targeting me? You're idiots!" There really wasn't anything about threat assessment.
Plus it makes the assumption you always want to target the strongest player in the first place. There's several reasons why that's not true - the most obvious being the strongest player has the resources to fend you off. The strongest player may be hiding his position well (I've been the "strongest" player on a board with nothing but a handful of cards that can wreck a board in my hand and a couple of defensive creatures. I certainly didn't look that way) and someone else looks stronger. A weaker player might need to be picked off before they can recover and dominate the game. A player could be playing a strategy that is detrimental to you specifically, but not to anyone else. A player is playing cards that you can't deal with, but you can easily handle the threats the stronger player is dropping (if you drop a card, and the only way I have to deal with it is to eliminate you, sorry, you're a target. Maybe drawing all the aggro your way the turn before that guy went off wasn't a bad idea, huh?). Maybe other players just hate your deck (a common reaction to massive life gain).
I dunno. Maybe I missed the point. But that's what I got from it.
Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
M'saion ulé hraka vair.
Brain is self-centered and scheming; Pinky is good-natured but feebleminded. In each episode, Brain devises a new plan to take over the world, which ultimately ends in failure, usually due to Pinky's idiocy, the impossibility of Brain's plan, Brain's own arrogance, or just circumstances beyond their control.
Please notice the bolding.
What was that you were saying about the tone of the article?
The problem is not just an EDH problem, it is casual player problem in general.
Allot of players are not use to the attention level that multiplayer actually requires, and just focus on the obvious ignoring the not so obvious.
The number of times i have seen someone targeted because they had a mana screw and could not drop their defence as a result. While it was obvious that someone else was close to completing a kill combo is staggering.
If the table you play at doesn't attack people with giant hands, then play CA.
If the table you play at doesn't attack people with 100 mana, then play ramp.
If the table you play immediately kills Thrun on sight, and kills any player over 41 life, then you shouldn't play Thrun or significant life-gain.
Meta-Threat assessment is also a skill, and i think the author needs to learn that. Knowing what your opponent's think are threats and aren't threats is also an important EDH lesson. There is something to be said, for playing cards your opponent's undervalue, but you know how to win with.
I feel like the biggest issue is that Commander is tailor made for players who like to do "Cool" things, and that detrimental interaction is seen as griefing. I have started to gravitate towards non-terminal mutual effects - Natural Balance is a favorite, and man I love Renounce the Guilds - to regulate the board state. Relatively small effects like Sphere of resistance can help too. And I LOVE the Oaths. You just have to be willing to do something that does not directly advance your game (or necessarily your board state) in an attempt to regulate the game on your terms.
Modern: Dominium Eminens
Legacy: UB Tezz (Check out My Primer at TheSource)
Vinitage: Oath
I used to judge alot.
Meyou, considering that most comments featured here agree that threat-assessment is important and agree with your points regarding proper evaluation of threats - yet still are reacting negatively to the article... Then when content isn't to fault, it can only be context and tone they're reacting to.
There's nothing wrong with what you're trying to communicate. But this didn't come off too well.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
When your table is set up to be a war of attrition (no combo kills) it is absolutely correct for the strong players to expend as little resources eliminating the weaker players at the table (specially if they only expend a renewable resource to do it, like swinging with a creature).
If there are a bunch of combos at the table, then the best strategy is to nock out the most dangerous to you first, and then work your way down the list.
This article represents the authors fundamentally flawed outlook on human psychology. building a high life total through increment advantage only serves to make you a bigger target.
TLDR: play rattlesnake cards, or combo
I hear yeah. I am making a mental note on the reaction to this article, but I am not going to apologize for trying something new. I am also taking your comments lightly because this article was in the que for over a month. There was plenty of time for you to make any critiques then instead of waiting for it to go public and then jumping on the band wagon. It could be my paranoia, but I find it tacky.
I also sometimes take the comment section with a grain of salt. Just because the comments are for the majority negative, doesn't mean it is a full representation of the reading population. Also, just because the majority of people say something doesn't mean some people didn't enjoy it. I don't like Woody Allen movies. It doesn't mean Woody Allen should stop making them cause a few people don't like them.
Besides, this is the Internet. Comment sections tend not to draw people who love rainbows and sunshine. It is the Internet.
Anecdotal, but the first posting to an article always dictates the tone of the comment section. If the first post is very negative, the trend will continue. If the first few posts are positive, the trend usually continues. It has not surprised me how this has progressed.
I usually don't go back and forth like this to stoke the fire, but I am feeling feisty lately. Maybe it is just sleep deprivation.
I do listen and take the comments into account, but I do approach them with caution.
No need to apologize. Text is notoriously tricky to communicate things like tone in after all. I don't think that you intended this article as a complain-about-other-players-beating-you-through-bad-moves piece, I'm just pointing out why I think people aren't reacting to it as positively as they should be. Of course, I could be entirely wrong.
Sorry, I don't check the in-progress articles in the writer's forum right now. Haven't for months. I write very irregularly, when I get a chunk of time, and have barely been on this site at all for months. I do read the published articles often, as I do flick to the home page before moving to spoilers or checking for PMs and thus see which articles have been published, hence how I saw this one. If I had seen it prior to publication, I'd have registered my comments then.
Absolutely. Negative reactions tend to be published by a factor of around 10 to 1 to positive ones - as people that like something tend to smile and just go on with their lives. Of course, this doesn't mean that constructive criticism isn't still a possibility.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I personally don't buy the sentiment that you can't play XXX in any given meta. It's just a matter of communicating that the deck or its mechanics aren't as scary as they appear. Many players don't realize that they react with utter terror to some high numbers (like life total or power/toughness) while ignoring other advantages some players have (hand size or mana pool), and I feel it's the right thing to point that out when appropriate. The problem of course is finding a moment when it actually is [appropriate]...
Sadly, I don't think there's a real solution here. Like You've said, it's all in the context, so there's no set priority for any given resource and opinions may vary on how to respond to perceived threats. It is however totally okay in my book to help them see the whole picture as far as game state goes. If they go for a different play, that's on them, though, and You as a player can't really change anything about that.
Like I said above, if a player wanted to build a deck that was immune to false threat assessment, it'd be a typical "win out of nowhere" combo list, since you need those off the table literally from turn 1 since you often lack the specialized response to stop them and usually don't get a turn to respond as soon as they start going off.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
To accomplish what You're saying (i.e. small advantages accumulating to a leading position) you'd need to get away from the typical goodstuff-big-beater decklist and build a deck that's a sum of its parts. That, however, is (at least to me) a big enough topic for a seperate article altogether.
True, as can a combo deck. Lots of players have a huge fear of combo, and for good reason. They feel helpless against it the same way they feel helpless against Thrun and they can't easily predict when it's about to win.
That might be immune to being the victim of targeting mistakes of other players, but it doesn't mean it's going to help you win. Being about to win at your upkeep via Test of Endurance means people will correctly identify you as the biggest threat. That's usually not a good thing for you, as the collective resources of a whole table come to punish you for it. You want to be the furthest ahead while avoiding the aggression (or attention) of others.
Not really. I'm talking about a deck that's full of goodstuff that just happens to look unthreatening without actually playing bad cards. No one's scared of a Carven Caryatid but it's still a great card and it pushes a bit of aggression away from you.
The article's premise is entirely valid. It just brings up questions of how to manipulate target prioritization as well as how to properly prioritize targets.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
The problem is that players don't know a threat when they see it. There are some generals (Ghave, Sharuum) who should scream "combo", while others (mostly Omnath, but also Skithiryx) say "kill one player on turn 5 or 6". Still others (Teysa 2.0) are serious problems once they're out, since Teysa has vigilance, is unblockable (in a way), and has a No Mercy effect.
My worst experience, though, involved me trying to Wrath opp 1's It that Betrays. Opp 2 counters it and says "I was protecting my board." No ****? So was I. Yeah, opp 1 won that game.
On phasing:
Well, it's multiplayer, many factors can be to blame, and bad decision-making (yours or an opponent's) is often near the top. Trying to help people make better decisions helps their chances to win, not just your own, in the situation that you're playing something like a creature-based aggro deck... rather than some crazy combo deck. Sure you might lose in 5-10 turns being on the bad end of a beatstick... but that's nowhere near as big of a threat as the player who ends everyone's game in 1 turn.
Sometimes in a big game, you have to accept that you cannot win... and then you have to decide how you (as a player and a person) wish to respond to that. Do you try to sabotage others and end the whole game faster, or do you fight to the last against the biggest actual threat to give the most other players a chance, or do you just go after the player who had done the most damage to you?
I had this problem a lot in my playgroup and in playing Commander online. Eventually I made a few different decks:
- Lots of mass removal focused on being able to disable as much as possible consntantly, Sundering Titan + Astral Slide combo, etc
- Silly decks like Moonfolk (Mirrodin+Kamigawa standard), or ones with a lot of control exchanges, or Warp World antics
- Single-player Mono Red... where I roll a die each time I do something to determine who it is aimed at
It basically created an arms race and arms treaty, as it were. Do we bring horribly overpowered and destructive decks, or fun and less-serious ones? Because, you know what, the latter is a LOT more fun. Eventually you just get sick of having to either gang up on broken combos, or lose... or being stuck between Broken Combo A and Broken Combo B.
This article may come off as "QQ" or "whiny" to some, but the simple truth is that the game's a lot less fun when bad decision making lets some combo player sit around defenseless until he goes off and ruins everyone else's fun in 1 turn flat.
-Blue Cosmos
On threat assessment: players often react to the immediate threat over the long-term threat. Something ugly played NOW demands an answer NOW. A handful of cards or lots of ramp could be a threat or could be a bluff... or maybe I have something in my hand that I think can neuter that player if they go off. Then again, some players like to play removal as soon as they draw it, casting about for an immediate target just to do something that turn.
Alternatively, players don't spend time online reading up on strategy and cards and such, instead relying on personal experience. For these players, combos sneak up on them because they are simply unaware of their existence until said combo wins the game.
A third alternative to threat assessment is in regards to each player's goal in the game. Not everyone sits down to win; some want to win a specific way, some just want to play a new card, others want only to ensure someone else DOESN'T win. These goals conflict with being the last player standing, skewing what these players view as threats.
On overvaluing lifegain: people do, both those that play cards that only gain life (ala' Angel's Mercy) and those that go out of their way to target the lifegainer(s) consistently, if only to keep them at a reasonable total. I am often in the latter camp, but with the thinking that massive life gaining doesn't necessarily win, it only delays, which means fewer games that night.
That said, tuned extort/Exsanguinate decks at least reduce opposing life while gaining it at an impressive rate, in turn making the player with a tuned extort deck a threat... not so much because of the lifegain, but how it is gotten.
On politics: I have played at a variety of tables where players bring personal feelings into the game, preferring to ignore the strong player over their personal nemesis. Grudge matches also develop in game, with the whole tit-for-tat mindset that results in a pair effectively dueling while others occasionally participate.
Siblings and lovers (hopefully not in the same relationship!) often save each other for last or play poorly for one another; even platonic friends will do this. In larger games (8+) people often cannot see the other end of the table, so focus on the nearer players - specific seating at a table also makes a difference; if John always attacks left, then whoever sits there is under the gun, so to speak.
tl;dr - Different folks are threatened by different things at different times. While there are "right" plays in Magic, many players opt for the play that feels "right," instead.
Cheers!
Krichaiushii on PucaTrade.
Please look at and comment on the above! Looking for any advice and thoughts!