How do you feel about these two Commander scenarios? Which players do you sympathize with and which do you disagree with?
Have you encountered similar experiences? What would you do if you encountered a similar situation if you were playing Commander? Explain your answer.
Scenario 1: Taylor, Jamie and Morgan are playing a three person game of Commander. Taylor casts Gitaxian Probe, targeting Jamie. Two turns later, Morgan plays Coiling Oracle, revealing Boundless Realms. Shortly afterwards, Taylor tells Morgan that Jamie's hand has an Aven Mindcensor. Morgan breathes a sigh of relief and thanks Taylor for the information. Jamie expresses frustration.
Scenario 2: Casey, Jordan, Robin and Tracy are playing a four person game of Commander. During the duration of the game, Jordan uses all spot removal spells on Casey's permanents. Jordan also attacks Casey and only Casey during each combat phase. Casey is eliminated from the game first, well before any other player. The game goes on and eventually Tracy wins the game. After the game ends, Casey expresses frustration towards Jordan and asks Jordan "why did you only attack and target me?" Casey responds by saying "you were playing Oloro, Ageless Ascetic. I hate Oloro! Besides, it's just a game."
Scenario 1 - More acceptable than Scenario 2, for sure. Trading info for mutual advantage isn't the worst in the world, although I can see how it would frustrate the player who is being espionaged. In a sense, it's no different to saying 'I have an answer for XYZ, I'm happy to use it if you attack player ABC'.
Scenario 2 - This is pretty bull*****. It would piss me off for sure, and rightly so I think. Sure, some commanders come with a bad vibe. Saying 'I hate Oloro so I want him to die' is sort of childish and unreasonable. That being said, negative reinforcement sticks to a human brain far more than positive reinforcement. If someone has had a couple of good games against Oloro, and some pretty bad games against Oloro, they'll remember the worst. That's not to say you should accept this situation, as it isn't fair, and this shouldn't be excused. It's just part of standard subconscious human behaviour until you do something to change it.
Scenario 1: "In bird culture this is considered a d*ck move." For real, at least in my meta revealing explicit info about an opponents' hand/top deck or else like that is severly frowned upon, unless you're (vagely) revealing play opportunities of your own.
Providing info of an opponents' top deck i got from blinking Wu Spy in my Brago, King Eternal deck -> no no.
Offering to deal with a problematic permanent with removal from my hand to get some mileage or a favor of an opponent -> all fine.
Scenario 2:
Hmm, not a lot of info to work with. It's comes down to the other decks at the table. If the other two commanders are Tuknir Deathlock and Taniwha yank, i will be more wary of the Oloro, Ageless Ascetic deck, for sure. But focusing each and every of my moves on a single deck/opponent is just idiotic. Considering an average pool of commanders you'd usually end up playing kingmaker, as one of the other opponents will most likely be able to stroll to the win, while you're wasting ressources and more importantly another players' time.
While scenario 2 is utterly stupid and unnecessary, scenario 1 is rude and disrespectful towards the whole table.
There's no bad timing for good manners.
Scenario 1:
I honestly don't mind. Sharing hidden information that you received (through in-game means) is fair game. You can choose not to share, of course, but if you think you could gain an advantage, I'd say go ahead. If you Thoughtseize a player and realize that they are about to win, telling the rest of the table is in your best interest.
I will preface this by noting that there will be many situations in which it is not in your best interest to reveal hidden information. If what a player is about to do is not particularly threatening, revealing information may get some ill will towards you later in the game.
If this was done against me, I wouldn't really be annoyed with it.
Scenario 2:
This is a perfect teaching moment, showcasing proper threat assessment. Also, it is worth noting that Magic is a difficult game, and Commander is even more so. Commander is more prone to biases and metagaming than just about any other format. However, this sort of attitude is exactly how the 'arms race' begins in playgroups. One player feels like they are unfairly targeted, so they increase the power to their deck to compensate, in order to counteract the potential 3v1 scenario. This leads to an even more justified 3v1 mentality, and so the cycle continues. Its easy to say 'get gud scrub' and call it a day.
If it becomes a persistent issue, I would recommend speaking up mid-game, and showcasing scenarios about proper threat assessment. After the game, maybe discuss deck-building and including more spot removal/boardwipes/gravehate/whatever. Maybe point them towards cheap ($$$) cards that will improve their deck. Small things like this really help.
If you Thoughtseize a player and realize that they are about to win, telling the rest of the table is in your best interest.
You wouldn't need to, as Thoughtseize says "Target player reveals his or her hand." as opposed to Gitaxian Probe and the likes.
I love politics in EDH, but forwarding info of the later, i fust don't feel it.
1) If the information was revealed for no reason, then I'd be annoyed in Jamie's position though ofc it is perfectly legal. If he's the clear threat, or the information is being explicitly traded for some other favor, though, then 100% fair play.
2) I'd be annoyed, but also I would never play oloro because he's boring and people hate him for some reason (in fact roughly this happened almost verbatim in a game a few weeks ago - people just really hate oloro). Also I wouldn't bring it up after the game, I'd bring it up DURING the game and remind him of opponents who have more powerful board positions (ofc if oloro just always had the best board position, he should just suck it up). Usually that sort of thing happens with players who have bad threat assessment and it can be corrected. I have had opponents who will continuously target me despite me very clearly not being a major threat, though, and it is definitely something that pisses me off.
I don't get this. Regardless of whether you'd play it yourself, there are far more ubiquitous commanders worthy of contempt. Whatevs, people are weird and irrational.
I don't get this. Regardless of whether you'd play it yourself, there are far more ubiquitous commanders worthy of contempt. Whatevs, people are weird and irrational.
I don't hate him myself although I do think he's boring. Definitely don't understand the hate he garners. Oloro decks are often good, but not because of oloro. Esper just has lots of really good stuff.
The game I was in, he was getting smacked by multiple people even though he was stuck on 2 lands (and a mana crypt, although by turn 7 that's not really a great situation). I was happy to let that happen while assembling my own nonsense board state (playing kazuul at the time).
In scenario 1 it depends. Did the probe player get anything from telling the realms player that info? Because if not he basically allowed a game winning spell to go encountered. If there was no political play then it just seems spiteful, which isn't cool.
In scenario 2 its less cut and dry. Oloro basically means that player starts between 50 and 60 life. Which is why he draws hate, for those wondering. The aggressor in this situation probably just needs to chill and the Oloro player probably needs to be upfront with him about the fact that it sucks to be focus fired for no real reason amd to be put out of the game way early. Or he could just turn the tables and do it to the other guy a few times so he sees how it feels.
Thirdly: OP are you a teacher? All of your posts tend to be written like an exam question. Lol.
In scenario 2 its less cut and dry. Oloro basically means that player starts between 50 and 60 life. Which is why he draws hate, for those wondering.
I mean, I get that, but 10-20 life is pretty meaningless in commander imo. Most games either end with a combo, commander damage, some sort of huge damage situation with craterhoof or whatever, or someone having total control over the board, and a few extra life rarely helps in any of those cases. Plus your commander is Oloro, who is pretty meh as a creature. Imo there are tons of commanders that are way scarier than oloro.
In scenario 2 its less cut and dry. Oloro basically means that player starts between 50 and 60 life. Which is why he draws hate, for those wondering.
I mean, I get that, but 10-20 life is pretty meaningless in commander imo. Most games either end with a combo, commander damage, some sort of huge damage situation with craterhoof or whatever, or someone having total control over the board, and a few extra life rarely helps in any of those cases. Plus your commander is Oloro, who is pretty meh as a creature. Imo there are tons of commanders that are way scarier than oloro.
This. Oloro is probably the most overrated commander in the format.
On topic, isn't scenario 1 just an idiotic play? Why on Earth would you give someone a head's up who's trying to resolve something as bonkers as Boundless Realms? Kingmaking gives me heartburn.
Scenario 1: I hope you plan on backstabbing and blowing that one player up because letting them resolve Boundless Realms without consequence is one fast way of losing the game.
Scenario 2: This is poor threat assessment. My perspective may be biased, but I consider life total to be one of the worst safety cushions in the game. Barring combo, a lot of multiplayer decks are designed to "go big" and given enough time will build up enough to burn through even 70-80 life. This isn't even considering commander damage possibilities. The life buffer is only good when all other players are whittling their totals down to dangerous levels while yours remain high.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
S1 - It's OK to do this, though I'd question whether there's a good reason for it in this situation. Unless, of course, it's actually a bluff (i.e. there is no Mindcensor), which makes it into a great play.
S2 - There are some commanders that, without knowing the details of the deck (or indeed if I knew the deck and it was very strong), I would focus on simply because typical builds are incredibly powerful and can easily win games if left alone - things like Thrasios/Tymna, General Tazri, Ydris, Teferi etc. - but in this case it appears to have nothing to do with power level (Oloro isn't that strong) and instead a simple dislike of the card. At which point this just becomes a douche move. And it's a pretty safe bet that if someone uses "it's just a game" to justify their actions, they're probably being a douchebag - try turning the phrase back on them, so in this case "if it's "just a game" why do you hate a card so much to ruin someone else's enjoyment?".
Situation 1
Needs more context. If the player who has the Aven Mincensoris by far the biggest threat at the table and thus the other player's are "teaming up" in order to stand a chance then I don't mind. It's a defendable temporary alliance and as such, info can be shared. Otherwise, I think it would be more sportmanslike to keep this info for yourself. Why would you warn an opponent that he is walking into a trap of another opponent? Having said that, it;s not something I would really make a problem of but if the info sharing was not "defendable" in my opinion I would make a remark of it but leave it at that.
situation 2
Borderline unacceptable, unless the Oloro player was dominatiing the board or everyone knows that person's deck is way stronger then what the rest is playing. People come together to play Magic, denying someone the ability to play by kicking them out early for no objectively defendable reason is a big no no for me. This is definitly something I would call someone out on (even during the game) even if I'm not the person that get's targeted.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The secret to enjoyable Commander games is not winning first, but losing last.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
To be clear, I’m writing this as a casual player. I’m also assuming the groups in question aren’t playing with money or cards on the line and that they don’t have a set of house rules clearly stated in advance.
Scenario 1: I kind of feel like this is a group thing. Either it’s okay, or it’s not, and it’s something that you can probably figure out after a few games with people (if not, or if the games are serious, talk to them so you know). Personally, I don’t think it’s okay, especially since it’s only a 3 person game. If it were 5 or 8 people playing, one political trick like that might not be a big deal.
Scenario 2: Jordan isn’t breaking any sacred covenants that I know of, but he’s still a Grade A Jerk. I can think of a few possible motives for his actions beyond simple pettiness (e.g. using the “it’s just a game” line as a way of proving that he doesn’t care, when he clearly does) but ultimately it doesn’t matter. He’s a jerk, he’s being a jerk, I’d avoid playing with him for a while.
From your description, I’m assuming the Oloro deck isn’t a magical “god-level” deck that can normally handle 3 players teamed against it. But even then, just going after one player to the exclusion of everything else going on in the game isn’t about strategy or threat assessment or even the deck’s win record, the guy’s just being a jerk.
This might just be me but I feel that, if you have a serious issue with a specific commander or deck, you should say so *before* the game starts. It just seems like one of those things that you should do before shuffling, like making sure everyone’s decks are at roughly the same level so nobody gets steamrolled. It’s just part of making sure the game stays fun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In order to save time:
YES that's a cool ability
NO I don't think that this apparently broken card will dominate the format or ruin the game
YES I've been wrong before
YES if things turn out differently I'll owe you an apology
NO you can't have it in writing
YES that might make getting you that apology difficult
both scenarios are a bit overblown in proportion i think, though scenario 1 is 'more' acceptable. Thing is, information is power, and if players think the player with the mindcensor is a threat/the player with the boundless realms is the least threatening (maybe if they're playing johan vigilance tribal) or whatever, i don't think it really matters.
the only irking thing with the second scenario is the very end with the 'oh it's just a game' response. it's true, definitely, but that player didn't even get to play the game, only watch others play the game for however long the game went on for.
That being said, if bad feels come from it, it's what happened/happens afterwards which is most important. I can win a game, but if i lose the playgroup in doing so, was it worth the price? its important for players to be able to understand what the others are going through, and work through it/accept that some behaviours aren't acceptable in that particular group/when a particular player is around.
1) I think it's fair as long as you don't physically show them the cards (assuming the effect you're using says 'look at ...' and not 'target player reveals ...'). The idea is that since only you and the target are privy to the information, you could easily be lying, so other players have a reason to doubt you. Getting to choose whether or not other players know for a fact that the target player has X card, without the effect that allows you to peek explicitly saying so, is having your cake and eating it too.
2) Just invert the answer to this question: is taking you out first the best path to victory for them, or else could it reasonably be mistaken for the best path?
You can blame someone for making a deck that doesn't fit the meta well, but once the game starts you can't blame anyone for trying to win. (as long as they're not cheating or whatever)
If Casey is playing Oloro combos against a bunch of aggro and tribal decks then he/she is effectively the archenemy and should definitely be targeted. If Casey is playing that same deck with a table including Alesha, Animar, and Nekusar then the focus is unwarranted.
There are other circumstances too; is Jordan playing monored burn that is going to have a completely horrible match-up against Casey late game if Casey doesn't get taken out now?
There are some commanders I hate on just because they're either too strong in the late game or they are soulless combo machines for whom the default archetype is combos/lockdown (i.e. Meren of Clan Nel Toth and Ghave, Guru of Spores). If I don't know you aren't playing combos and have reason to suspect you are, I'm going to go after you all other things being equal since combos means you can suddenly win without warning or a visible board state.
But yeah, if I have a different player's Blightsteel Colossus swinging at me and I Swords to Plowshares your commander instead because I have somewhere to be anyways and "I just don't like Nekuzar", then that's not cool.
I guess part of the ire towards Oloro comes from the life gain. To the uneducated or the reactionary, it might be disconcerting to see someone's life total start to climb whilst everyone else's only heads downwards. This boils down to poor threat assessment for me. Life total is a poor indication of progress in most games, unless the opponent in question is running Aetherflux Reservoir or Necropotence.
It's also poor threat assessment to base your targets on commanders you dislike, whether it be irrational or based on past experience. Anything that has happened in a previous game was in a different context, and doesn't pertain to the board state you see in front of you. I get the ire of commanders like Narset, Enlightened Master, Ghave, Guru of Spores, Derevi, Empyrial Tactician and such (I definitely don't get Meren of Clan Nel Toth, she's not that strong), but the beauty of EDH is that every game is different, and you do yourself a disservice to allow these biases to affect your decisions.
In scenario 2 its less cut and dry. Oloro basically means that player starts between 50 and 60 life. Which is why he draws hate, for those wondering.
I mean, I get that, but 10-20 life is pretty meaningless in commander imo. Most games either end with a combo, commander damage, some sort of huge damage situation with craterhoof or whatever, or someone having total control over the board, and a few extra life rarely helps in any of those cases. Plus your commander is Oloro, who is pretty meh as a creature. Imo there are tons of commanders that are way scarier than oloro.
Even if you're playing aggro, there are plenty of damage doublers to make that extra life essentially meaningless. The real problem is, that extra life can be traded for other things, and the act of gaining life can trigger things. But that (paying life) can be done in any black deck.
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!
It's also poor threat assessment to base your targets on commanders you dislike, whether it be irrational or based on past experience. Anything that has happened in a previous game was in a different context, and doesn't pertain to the board state you see in front of you. I get the ire of commanders like Narset, Enlightened Master, Ghave, Guru of Spores, Derevi, Empyrial Tactician and such (I definitely don't get Meren of Clan Nel Toth, she's not that strong), but the beauty of EDH is that every game is different, and you do yourself a disservice to allow these biases to affect your decisions.
Well....I wouldn't go that far. If you know someone's deck is strong, or especially if it has some combo in it, you should absolutely act on that information. Good example from another thread was the teferi situation where the deck appeared pretty casual but then he tutored and played knowledge pool. If I was in that game and we played another, I'd be targeting him a LOT harder than if I didn't know he had that card.
Even if you don't know anything specific about the deck, I still think it's smart to be aware of, and be able to recognize, commonly-played cards, combos, and archetypes. If I sit down against someone playing Tazri, I'm absolutely watching them like a hawk to determine whether they're playing combo or tribal. If they start playing mediocre allies, then I'll relax, but if they start tutoring and not playing anything, I'm going to keep up my answers as much as possible, push damage at them, and draw other peoples' attention to the danger if they aren't aware, despite not having seen cards in their deck.
Ofc that's not to say that you should assume all decks with the same commander are the same. Once the guy plays allied reinforcements you should probably back down.Some decks it's very risky to give the benefit of the doubt, though - case in point teferi. I think it's not unreasonable to keep teferi off the field constantly even if they aren't seemingly ahead.
]Well....I wouldn't go that far. If you know someone's deck is strong, or especially if it has some combo in it, you should absolutely act on that information. Good example from another thread was the teferi situation where the deck appeared pretty casual but then he tutored and played knowledge pool. If I was in that game and we played another, I'd be targeting him a LOT harder than if I didn't know he had that card.
Even if you don't know anything specific about the deck, I still think it's smart to be aware of, and be able to recognize, commonly-played cards, combos, and archetypes. If I sit down against someone playing Tazri, I'm absolutely watching them like a hawk to determine whether they're playing combo or tribal. If they start playing mediocre allies, then I'll relax, but if they start tutoring and not playing anything, I'm going to keep up my answers as much as possible, push damage at them, and draw other peoples' attention to the danger if they aren't aware, despite not having seen cards in their deck.
Ofc that's not to say that you should assume all decks with the same commander are the same. Once the guy plays allied reinforcements you should probably back down.Some decks it's very risky to give the benefit of the doubt, though - case in point teferi. I think it's not unreasonable to keep teferi off the field constantly even if they aren't seemingly ahead.
Yeah, ok. Maybe I overstated this. It's important to know your enemy. And if you're playing the same decks a lot, you should know them well, so prior games play a part there, and information you can bring to the game is valuable.
The Teferi example I sort of feel is a bit of a wild card. It really did sound like every other card in the deck was in no way optimal, so I really wouldn't expect to see Knowledge Pool. That being said, you are right, it's important to be aware of possible strong synergies and threats, as they can pop up when you least expect them. I agree, I'd be keeping Teferi off the field into the future. In the instance of this thread though, I still feel like its an example of poor threat assessment and allowing your biases to misinform you.
Those biases can be informative, should be at least some part of threat assessment and analysing the board state as it evolves, but they shouldn't be the only thing that you base your plays on.
I agree with what seems to be the general consensus here (Scenario 1 depends on the game context, but might be ok; Scenario 2 is not ok if it was purely done because of dislike for the Commander and not based on in-game threat assesment. In any case I have a hard time imagining threats that require taking a player completely out of the game while ignoring all others).
I'd be interested in people's opinions on two variations of the scenarios.
Scenario 1:
Same as OP, but Jamie doesn't actually have Aven Mindcensor in hand. Taylor gives Morgan deliberately false information by claiming Jamie holds a Mindcensor, either to 1A) goad her into attacking/targeting Jamie or 1B) make a misplay (e.g. by not playing Boundless Realms).
Scenario 2:
Same as OP, but Casey is playing a Shattergang Brothers deck with lots of Gravepact effects, sac outlets and token producers. Jordan is playing an almost creatureless Voltron commander deck. Jordan announces that his deck will not be able to function with Shattergang Brothers in the game and that he has to do everything to take out Casey first before his own commander becomes uncastable from dying too often. He proceeds to eliminate Casey in 2A) a hard fought, drawn-out battle (but at the cost of ignoring the other players and being kingmaker to Tracy), 2B) early in the game since Casey had a bad start and was mana screwed for the first few turns.
Riku of Two Reflections - Copy, then copy again | Shattergang Brothers - Token Sac&Recur | Gahiji, Honored One - Multiple attack steps | Karametra, God of Harvests - Landfall, Creaturefall, Shroud | Ruhan of the Fomori - Stop hitting yourself | Zurgo Helmsmasher - Equipment&Wraths | Crosis, the Purger - Dragon Tribal Reanimator | Derevi, Empyrial Tactician - No stax, just tap and untap fun | Anafenza, the Foremost - Enduring Ideal Enchantress | Sharuum, the Hegemon - Sphinx Tribal Control | Noyan Dar - Spellslinger | The Mimeoplasm - Counterpalooza
Lists can be found here.
Still convinced the guy on Beseech the Queen is wearing a Mitra-type hat. Wake up sheeple!
I agree with what seems to be the general consensus here (Scenario 1 depends on the game context, but might be ok; Scenario 2 is not ok if it was purely done because of dislike for the Commander and not based on in-game threat assesment. In any case I have a hard time imagining threats that require taking a player completely out of the game while ignoring all others).
I'd be interested in people's opinions on two variations of the scenarios.
Scenario 1:
Same as OP, but Jamie doesn't actually have Aven Mindcensor in hand. Taylor gives Morgan deliberately false information by claiming Jamie holds a Mindcensor, either to 1A) goad her into attacking/targeting Jamie or 1B) make a misplay (e.g. by not playing Boundless Realms).
Scenario 2:
Same as OP, but Casey is playing a Shattergang Brothers deck with lots of Gravepact effects, sac outlets and token producers. Jordan is playing an almost creatureless Voltron commander deck. Jordan announces that his deck will not be able to function with Shattergang Brothers in the game and that he has to do everything to take out Casey first before his own commander becomes uncastable from dying too often. He proceeds to eliminate Casey in 2A) a hard fought, drawn-out battle (but at the cost of ignoring the other players and being kingmaker to Tracy), 2B) early in the game since Casey had a bad start and was mana screwed for the first few turns.
1) super legit and I totally want to do that sometime. Although I imagine the other players are going to wise up to that sort of thing pretty quickly.
2) I don't think it's unreasonable in either case. Simply being somewhat bad at threat assessment (on the assumption that he ultimately ends up kingmaking someone else by ignoring them) is not the same as punishing someone for something not related to threat assessment. I guess some people maybe think Oloro is so scary that even if it seems like he's behind HE'S NOT BEHIND HE'S JUST WAITING or whatever (i.e. the game I mentioned irl), but at least imo that goes over the line from poor threat assessment to just being irrational. On the other hand, no judgment on anyone who would, for example, keep niv-mizzet, the firemind off the table at all costs even if someone else is ahead. As long as you don't think they're tooooo far ahead, preventing a potentially instant win from niv could definitely be more important, even if he hasn't tutored or anything that would make it more likely that he has a combo piece. Point is - bad threat assessment is not a crime. Having dumb grudges is lame, though.
People I play with will yell with joy and shout "I've got a spicy meme coming" when they draw their opening hand. He or she will pass a card to someone else at the table and they too would laugh. Sharing information and bargaining is fair. It is a political game.
Just like an aggro deck, if there is a problematic or combo deck, you direct all attention. Examples would be to instantly kill the Zur the enchanter or Jhoira of the Ghitu.
Have you encountered similar experiences? What would you do if you encountered a similar situation if you were playing Commander? Explain your answer.
UBRKess, Dissident MageUBR - Controlling Dissidents
GRhonas the IndomitableG - Indomitable Four Drops
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticWUB - Loot & Renanimate
Scenario 2 - This is pretty bull*****. It would piss me off for sure, and rightly so I think. Sure, some commanders come with a bad vibe. Saying 'I hate Oloro so I want him to die' is sort of childish and unreasonable. That being said, negative reinforcement sticks to a human brain far more than positive reinforcement. If someone has had a couple of good games against Oloro, and some pretty bad games against Oloro, they'll remember the worst. That's not to say you should accept this situation, as it isn't fair, and this shouldn't be excused. It's just part of standard subconscious human behaviour until you do something to change it.
"In bird culture this is considered a d*ck move." For real, at least in my meta revealing explicit info about an opponents' hand/top deck or else like that is severly frowned upon, unless you're (vagely) revealing play opportunities of your own.
Providing info of an opponents' top deck i got from blinking Wu Spy in my Brago, King Eternal deck -> no no.
Offering to deal with a problematic permanent with removal from my hand to get some mileage or a favor of an opponent -> all fine.
Scenario 2:
Hmm, not a lot of info to work with. It's comes down to the other decks at the table. If the other two commanders are Tuknir Deathlock and Taniwha yank, i will be more wary of the Oloro, Ageless Ascetic deck, for sure. But focusing each and every of my moves on a single deck/opponent is just idiotic. Considering an average pool of commanders you'd usually end up playing kingmaker, as one of the other opponents will most likely be able to stroll to the win, while you're wasting ressources and more importantly another players' time.
While scenario 2 is utterly stupid and unnecessary, scenario 1 is rude and disrespectful towards the whole table.
There's no bad timing for good manners.
I honestly don't mind. Sharing hidden information that you received (through in-game means) is fair game. You can choose not to share, of course, but if you think you could gain an advantage, I'd say go ahead. If you Thoughtseize a player and realize that they are about to win, telling the rest of the table is in your best interest.
I will preface this by noting that there will be many situations in which it is not in your best interest to reveal hidden information. If what a player is about to do is not particularly threatening, revealing information may get some ill will towards you later in the game.
If this was done against me, I wouldn't really be annoyed with it.
Scenario 2:
This is a perfect teaching moment, showcasing proper threat assessment. Also, it is worth noting that Magic is a difficult game, and Commander is even more so. Commander is more prone to biases and metagaming than just about any other format. However, this sort of attitude is exactly how the 'arms race' begins in playgroups. One player feels like they are unfairly targeted, so they increase the power to their deck to compensate, in order to counteract the potential 3v1 scenario. This leads to an even more justified 3v1 mentality, and so the cycle continues. Its easy to say 'get gud scrub' and call it a day.
If it becomes a persistent issue, I would recommend speaking up mid-game, and showcasing scenarios about proper threat assessment. After the game, maybe discuss deck-building and including more spot removal/boardwipes/gravehate/whatever. Maybe point them towards cheap ($$$) cards that will improve their deck. Small things like this really help.
I love politics in EDH, but forwarding info of the later, i fust don't feel it.
2) I'd be annoyed, but also I would never play oloro because he's boring and people hate him for some reason (in fact roughly this happened almost verbatim in a game a few weeks ago - people just really hate oloro). Also I wouldn't bring it up after the game, I'd bring it up DURING the game and remind him of opponents who have more powerful board positions (ofc if oloro just always had the best board position, he should just suck it up). Usually that sort of thing happens with players who have bad threat assessment and it can be corrected. I have had opponents who will continuously target me despite me very clearly not being a major threat, though, and it is definitely something that pisses me off.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I don't hate him myself although I do think he's boring. Definitely don't understand the hate he garners. Oloro decks are often good, but not because of oloro. Esper just has lots of really good stuff.
The game I was in, he was getting smacked by multiple people even though he was stuck on 2 lands (and a mana crypt, although by turn 7 that's not really a great situation). I was happy to let that happen while assembling my own nonsense board state (playing kazuul at the time).
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
In scenario 2 its less cut and dry. Oloro basically means that player starts between 50 and 60 life. Which is why he draws hate, for those wondering. The aggressor in this situation probably just needs to chill and the Oloro player probably needs to be upfront with him about the fact that it sucks to be focus fired for no real reason amd to be put out of the game way early. Or he could just turn the tables and do it to the other guy a few times so he sees how it feels.
Thirdly: OP are you a teacher? All of your posts tend to be written like an exam question. Lol.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
This. Oloro is probably the most overrated commander in the format.
On topic, isn't scenario 1 just an idiotic play? Why on Earth would you give someone a head's up who's trying to resolve something as bonkers as Boundless Realms? Kingmaking gives me heartburn.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
Scenario 2: This is poor threat assessment. My perspective may be biased, but I consider life total to be one of the worst safety cushions in the game. Barring combo, a lot of multiplayer decks are designed to "go big" and given enough time will build up enough to burn through even 70-80 life. This isn't even considering commander damage possibilities. The life buffer is only good when all other players are whittling their totals down to dangerous levels while yours remain high.
The Unidentified Fantastic Flying Girl.
EDH
Xenagos, the God of Stompy
The Gitrog Monster: Oppressive Value.
Marchesa, Marionette Master - Undying Robots
Yuriko, the Hydra Omnivore
I make dolls as a hobby.
S2 seems correct if Oloro was the best general at the table, or its a known very strong deck. If its just for kicks, seems like a rude thing to do,
S2 - There are some commanders that, without knowing the details of the deck (or indeed if I knew the deck and it was very strong), I would focus on simply because typical builds are incredibly powerful and can easily win games if left alone - things like Thrasios/Tymna, General Tazri, Ydris, Teferi etc. - but in this case it appears to have nothing to do with power level (Oloro isn't that strong) and instead a simple dislike of the card. At which point this just becomes a douche move. And it's a pretty safe bet that if someone uses "it's just a game" to justify their actions, they're probably being a douchebag - try turning the phrase back on them, so in this case "if it's "just a game" why do you hate a card so much to ruin someone else's enjoyment?".
Needs more context. If the player who has the Aven Mincensoris by far the biggest threat at the table and thus the other player's are "teaming up" in order to stand a chance then I don't mind. It's a defendable temporary alliance and as such, info can be shared. Otherwise, I think it would be more sportmanslike to keep this info for yourself. Why would you warn an opponent that he is walking into a trap of another opponent? Having said that, it;s not something I would really make a problem of but if the info sharing was not "defendable" in my opinion I would make a remark of it but leave it at that.
situation 2
Borderline unacceptable, unless the Oloro player was dominatiing the board or everyone knows that person's deck is way stronger then what the rest is playing. People come together to play Magic, denying someone the ability to play by kicking them out early for no objectively defendable reason is a big no no for me. This is definitly something I would call someone out on (even during the game) even if I'm not the person that get's targeted.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
Scenario 1: I kind of feel like this is a group thing. Either it’s okay, or it’s not, and it’s something that you can probably figure out after a few games with people (if not, or if the games are serious, talk to them so you know). Personally, I don’t think it’s okay, especially since it’s only a 3 person game. If it were 5 or 8 people playing, one political trick like that might not be a big deal.
Scenario 2: Jordan isn’t breaking any sacred covenants that I know of, but he’s still a Grade A Jerk. I can think of a few possible motives for his actions beyond simple pettiness (e.g. using the “it’s just a game” line as a way of proving that he doesn’t care, when he clearly does) but ultimately it doesn’t matter. He’s a jerk, he’s being a jerk, I’d avoid playing with him for a while.
From your description, I’m assuming the Oloro deck isn’t a magical “god-level” deck that can normally handle 3 players teamed against it. But even then, just going after one player to the exclusion of everything else going on in the game isn’t about strategy or threat assessment or even the deck’s win record, the guy’s just being a jerk.
This might just be me but I feel that, if you have a serious issue with a specific commander or deck, you should say so *before* the game starts. It just seems like one of those things that you should do before shuffling, like making sure everyone’s decks are at roughly the same level so nobody gets steamrolled. It’s just part of making sure the game stays fun.
the only irking thing with the second scenario is the very end with the 'oh it's just a game' response. it's true, definitely, but that player didn't even get to play the game, only watch others play the game for however long the game went on for.
That being said, if bad feels come from it, it's what happened/happens afterwards which is most important. I can win a game, but if i lose the playgroup in doing so, was it worth the price? its important for players to be able to understand what the others are going through, and work through it/accept that some behaviours aren't acceptable in that particular group/when a particular player is around.
Legacy - Solidarity - mono U aggro - burn - Imperial Painter - Strawberry Shortcake - Bluuzards - bom
2) Just invert the answer to this question: is taking you out first the best path to victory for them, or else could it reasonably be mistaken for the best path?
You can blame someone for making a deck that doesn't fit the meta well, but once the game starts you can't blame anyone for trying to win. (as long as they're not cheating or whatever)
If Casey is playing Oloro combos against a bunch of aggro and tribal decks then he/she is effectively the archenemy and should definitely be targeted. If Casey is playing that same deck with a table including Alesha, Animar, and Nekusar then the focus is unwarranted.
There are other circumstances too; is Jordan playing monored burn that is going to have a completely horrible match-up against Casey late game if Casey doesn't get taken out now?
There are some commanders I hate on just because they're either too strong in the late game or they are soulless combo machines for whom the default archetype is combos/lockdown (i.e. Meren of Clan Nel Toth and Ghave, Guru of Spores). If I don't know you aren't playing combos and have reason to suspect you are, I'm going to go after you all other things being equal since combos means you can suddenly win without warning or a visible board state.
But yeah, if I have a different player's Blightsteel Colossus swinging at me and I Swords to Plowshares your commander instead because I have somewhere to be anyways and "I just don't like Nekuzar", then that's not cool.
- Rabid Wombat
It's also poor threat assessment to base your targets on commanders you dislike, whether it be irrational or based on past experience. Anything that has happened in a previous game was in a different context, and doesn't pertain to the board state you see in front of you. I get the ire of commanders like Narset, Enlightened Master, Ghave, Guru of Spores, Derevi, Empyrial Tactician and such (I definitely don't get Meren of Clan Nel Toth, she's not that strong), but the beauty of EDH is that every game is different, and you do yourself a disservice to allow these biases to affect your decisions.
Even if you're playing aggro, there are plenty of damage doublers to make that extra life essentially meaningless. The real problem is, that extra life can be traded for other things, and the act of gaining life can trigger things. But that (paying life) can be done in any black deck.
On phasing:
Even if you don't know anything specific about the deck, I still think it's smart to be aware of, and be able to recognize, commonly-played cards, combos, and archetypes. If I sit down against someone playing Tazri, I'm absolutely watching them like a hawk to determine whether they're playing combo or tribal. If they start playing mediocre allies, then I'll relax, but if they start tutoring and not playing anything, I'm going to keep up my answers as much as possible, push damage at them, and draw other peoples' attention to the danger if they aren't aware, despite not having seen cards in their deck.
Ofc that's not to say that you should assume all decks with the same commander are the same. Once the guy plays allied reinforcements you should probably back down.Some decks it's very risky to give the benefit of the doubt, though - case in point teferi. I think it's not unreasonable to keep teferi off the field constantly even if they aren't seemingly ahead.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Yeah, ok. Maybe I overstated this. It's important to know your enemy. And if you're playing the same decks a lot, you should know them well, so prior games play a part there, and information you can bring to the game is valuable.
The Teferi example I sort of feel is a bit of a wild card. It really did sound like every other card in the deck was in no way optimal, so I really wouldn't expect to see Knowledge Pool. That being said, you are right, it's important to be aware of possible strong synergies and threats, as they can pop up when you least expect them. I agree, I'd be keeping Teferi off the field into the future. In the instance of this thread though, I still feel like its an example of poor threat assessment and allowing your biases to misinform you.
Those biases can be informative, should be at least some part of threat assessment and analysing the board state as it evolves, but they shouldn't be the only thing that you base your plays on.
I'd be interested in people's opinions on two variations of the scenarios.
Scenario 1:
Same as OP, but Jamie doesn't actually have Aven Mindcensor in hand. Taylor gives Morgan deliberately false information by claiming Jamie holds a Mindcensor, either to 1A) goad her into attacking/targeting Jamie or 1B) make a misplay (e.g. by not playing Boundless Realms).
Scenario 2:
Same as OP, but Casey is playing a Shattergang Brothers deck with lots of Gravepact effects, sac outlets and token producers. Jordan is playing an almost creatureless Voltron commander deck. Jordan announces that his deck will not be able to function with Shattergang Brothers in the game and that he has to do everything to take out Casey first before his own commander becomes uncastable from dying too often. He proceeds to eliminate Casey in 2A) a hard fought, drawn-out battle (but at the cost of ignoring the other players and being kingmaker to Tracy), 2B) early in the game since Casey had a bad start and was mana screwed for the first few turns.
Tamanoa - Welcome to the Jungle
Lists can be found here.
2) I don't think it's unreasonable in either case. Simply being somewhat bad at threat assessment (on the assumption that he ultimately ends up kingmaking someone else by ignoring them) is not the same as punishing someone for something not related to threat assessment. I guess some people maybe think Oloro is so scary that even if it seems like he's behind HE'S NOT BEHIND HE'S JUST WAITING or whatever (i.e. the game I mentioned irl), but at least imo that goes over the line from poor threat assessment to just being irrational. On the other hand, no judgment on anyone who would, for example, keep niv-mizzet, the firemind off the table at all costs even if someone else is ahead. As long as you don't think they're tooooo far ahead, preventing a potentially instant win from niv could definitely be more important, even if he hasn't tutored or anything that would make it more likely that he has a combo piece. Point is - bad threat assessment is not a crime. Having dumb grudges is lame, though.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
People I play with will yell with joy and shout "I've got a spicy meme coming" when they draw their opening hand. He or she will pass a card to someone else at the table and they too would laugh. Sharing information and bargaining is fair. It is a political game.
Just like an aggro deck, if there is a problematic or combo deck, you direct all attention. Examples would be to instantly kill the Zur the enchanter or Jhoira of the Ghitu.
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list