Alright, so there are many threads about this, but I think this deserves a new one.
When I play Multiplayer EDH with my friends, I am often focused down due to being an ex-legacy player. There are two people that play Rafiq and Kaalia, and one of them always wins, yet everyone freaks out whenever I do something just because of my Riku regardless of whether someone else can 1-shot them.
Basically, for over a year, I've been perceived as a threat when I'm not.
What do?
Try playing group hug/ pillow fort. Be as non aggressive as possible.
Or you could play decks that can go big or fall flat. There used to be a guy in our playgroup who would work quirky, hard to see combos in his decks. He would often win if left unchecked, but most of the time he was ignored because it seemed like he wasn't doing anything.
Understand, Dredge is not really a Magic: The Gathering deck. When a card is playable in it, it doesn't mean it's a tournament playable card. It means it's playable in whatever crazy fantasy world that Dredge operates in.
Agreed and I only play EDH. Politics is another word for "trying to appeal to emotion to make players make bad moves." It annoys me.
Its more than that. It can be an opponent singling you out because you hit them for 2 T2. It can be agreeing to a mutual gain; like donating a huge beater to an opponent, and throwing a vow on it.
Agreed and I only play EDH. Politics is another word for "trying to appeal to emotion to make players make bad moves." It annoys me.
Hmm.. I have been playing EDH for quite some time, politics in multiplayer games has always been the name of the game (even non-EDH multiplayer games). I have always thought of it as Magic survivor. The one with the best politics game usually wins. There are exceptions, but they are far and few between.
Hmm.. I have been playing EDH for quite some time, politics in multiplayer games has always been the name of the game (even non-EDH multiplayer games). I have always thought of it as Magic survivor. The one with the best politics game usually wins. There are exceptions, but they are far and few between.
Must be different than my experiences. The one with the best gameplay, deck, and luck wins. Yes, there is a place for holding back and revving up your game, but that is threat assessment and knowing where the game is at.
Sure, you don't want to draw more attention to yourself than you can deflect. And there are people who actively try to redirect the table's aggression, but only suckers fall for that. You should be swayed by your hand, the number of cards in their hand, your board position, and all the other resources that a multiplayer game involves.
When people try the "if you don't blow up my No Mercy, I won't attack you" crap I look at the facts of the game and not what they say.
Must be different than my experiences. The one with the best gameplay, deck, and luck wins. Yes, there is a place for holding back and revving up your game, but that is threat assessment and knowing where the game is at.
Sure, you don't want to draw more attention to yourself than you can deflect. And there are people who actively try to redirect the table's aggression, but only suckers fall for that. You should be swayed by your hand, the number of cards in their hand, your board position, and all the other resources that a multiplayer game involves.
When people try the "if you don't blow up my No Mercy, I won't attack you" crap I look at the facts of the game and not what they say.
I agree the table talk deals can get a bit out of hand, especially when you can figure whos ganging up on who.
I disagree about the best deck winning a multiplayer game, unless its a sick combo or prison deck that locks everyone out of the game early on. From my experiences, you need some type of political game to do well in a multiplayer game. Just like card evaluations, peoples threat assessment is sometimes not the best.
When I play EDH, I usually just try to go after whatever or whoever threatens me the most. I mean, if I have to, I'll just roll a die to decide who I attack or something like that.
@Bocephus - You are talking about dancing, not politics.
@Mastadon - I actually think rolling a dice is the worst thing you can do. Take responsibility for your actions and make your move based on your own ability to play the game. You will make the wrong move frequently, but own it!!
In a multiplayer EDH game, I tend to go with people who have generals that are notorious for being explosive and overpowered. If you have Riku, Zur, Jhoira, or Gaddock Teeg, I'm coming after you.
Thinking about it, in big games where the only two players who win have tier 1 generals, you have two options:
- Make another broken deck.
- Make some sort of Pillow Fort deck (Are there any that can compete?) and just toy with them until you grind out a win.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from EX33396948 »
If your deck is 60 cards then you're playing with the best possible odds. 61? Probably won't alter your odds too much but we all know that 96% pure meth won't cut it next to Heisenberg's 99%.
1) Can I Win?
2) Can I put myself in a better position to win?
3) If its all the same, attack the player with the most experience, since if everyone is on equal ground, the player with the most skill will win.
Therefore, being the most experienced player at a table can actually be a large disadvantage, since its in everyone else's interest to attack you. Hopefully, this disadvantage can be made up by outplaying the table, but sometimes it can not.
While this doesn't solve your problem, perhaps it does explain it.
They can hate on you if they wish but they are going to have to work for it and if there is actual interaction in game instead of I wait until 1 shot you then it is at least interesting.
I remember landing stoney silence against a rafque deck once and all his expensive swords became useless... then I made the stoney silence indestructible.... since then it is my go to tutor target for messing with people... (muddle the mixture)
Plus, it makes you innovative. And if you can swap decks, then they won't know if you're playing your prime deck, or the secondary one.
The first series of Vintage tournaments I played in involved a pretty set group of players. The first tournament, I lost in the championship game because I had to final fortune and gamble on the draw, and I lost. (I usually won) The guy I was against had a pretty solid U/W/B control going on, versus my R/B/G aggro deck.
So, the next tournament, I switched to a straight land destruction deck, since I knew he didn't run moxes or lotuses. Totally wiped the floor with him and everyone else.
The third tournament, I reassembled my original aggro deck. He had switched to a modified white weenie to counter my land dep deck, and was destroyed when he ran up against me again.
after that I put up a 2 year run of dominating him at that particular level of tournaments.
So, just throw the change up. You might not get the same results that I did, but, you at least will have the option of throwing it again in the future, and keeping your opponents on their heels.
I don't think that good politics has anything to do with brokering deals or conspiring. Good politics is shaping the game with your cards so that the rational player who is correctly concerned about card advantage, board position, and threat assessment has legitimately no reason to attack you and every reason to immediately use their resources on your opponents. It's also spotting the player who gets ticked off at you for the rest of the game because you dealt them 1 damage with an idle mana dork on turn 1 and not aiding whoever they're attacking in any way. It's being on the friendly side of the weaker player when there are only three players left by destroying the strong player's artifact right before the fourth player lost. Good politics is like good chess. You don't try to ever trick your opponents. You make situations where doing what you don't want them to do would be objectively stupid.
Politics don't have to be loud and outspoken. I make many silent political decisions.
I'll "randomly" attack a player, or let a spell go without countering it (enemy of my enemy is my friend), and sometimes I make a weak play to sway attention away from myself and hold on to my bigger threats.
Of course, at times I'll flash a counterspell, or a fog, or something similar and say "if you leave me alone...". Sometimes I bluff. I bluffed an Unsummon against a Kaalia deck for 5 turns. These are the more outspoken politics.
I have a friend who is known to never lie. If he says "I will not attack you next turn" then he will NOT attack you next turn. If we catch him in a lie, he will scoop. You have to be careful though, because telling the truth can be very deceiving.
I enjoy the politics of multiplayer. If you don't enjoy politics, then 1v1 is probably for you. Nothing's wrong with 1V1 of course, just a matter of preference.
Must be different than my experiences. The one with the best gameplay, deck, and luck wins. Yes, there is a place for holding back and revving up your game, but that is threat assessment and knowing where the game is at.
Sure, you don't want to draw more attention to yourself than you can deflect. And there are people who actively try to redirect the table's aggression, but only suckers fall for that. You should be swayed by your hand, the number of cards in their hand, your board position, and all the other resources that a multiplayer game involves.
When people try the "if you don't blow up my No Mercy, I won't attack you" crap I look at the facts of the game and not what they say.
Hommes, we really should play some EDH- I gotta try and make that happen soon. I agree 100%.
I'm surprised some people are so against politics. I've proposed a house rule before that would change the steps of combat to:
1. Declare threats
2. Negotiations
3. Declare attackers
4. Declare blockers
and so on.
Casting spells would be similar. I'd even go so far as to allow lands to add mana to target player's mana pool or allow players to trade cards similar to Settlers of Catan. EDH isn't fun for me unless everyone is yelling, arguing, and laughing.
Sounds like you just need to make this same argument to your friends, pointing to the results of your games as proof. If you really aren't winning many games, while the other two are, then just point this out. Of course if the only reason you aren't crushing them is that they are teaming up on you...then maybe they have the right of it and you just don't see it.
EDH isn't fun for me unless everyone is yelling, arguing, and laughing.
That is all well and good when you are with your core friends, but if I am with acquaintances or strangers around a table at a FLGS then things get really crappy really fast.
Multiplayer Magic without verbal interaction between players sounds incredibly boring to me. I'm really not interested in sitting around a table and speaking only when declaring an action. If you're not bluffing opponents or putting ideas into someone's head you're just not playing that particular game.
I love asking questions or putting forth comments about certain plays that might somehow influence decision-making. This is not to say I would encourage someone to make a terrible move just to capitalize on it later, I just prefer to see the balance of power stay relatively in the middle until the game appears to be drawing to an end.
Multiplayer Magic without verbal interaction between players sounds incredibly boring to me. I'm really not interested in sitting around a table and speaking only when declaring an action. If you're not bluffing opponents or putting ideas into someone's head you're just not playing that particular game.
I would play infinitely more multiplayer Magic, and more Magic in general if people never spoke. Magic played in total silence is a thing of beauty so rare and crystalline it is practically Moxen. I will dream tonight of a ten-player Commander game that lasts seven hours and nobody talks at all. No phones are answered, no Facebooks are checked, silent but for the gentle whisper of cards turned sideways.
@Mastadon - I actually think rolling a dice is the worst thing you can do. Take responsibility for your actions and make your move based on your own ability to play the game. You will make the wrong move frequently, but own it!!
I mean, if I'm the only guy with anything on the board on turn 3 and no one has really done anything yet, you might as well. I don't normally do that, but when I feel like it's too difficult to decide who to attack (let's say two players are equally as threatening). It doesn't usually come to that. But, as a casual format, I'm perfectly fine with letting a die choose for me.
When I play Multiplayer EDH with my friends, I am often focused down due to being an ex-legacy player. There are two people that play Rafiq and Kaalia, and one of them always wins, yet everyone freaks out whenever I do something just because of my Riku regardless of whether someone else can 1-shot them.
Basically, for over a year, I've been perceived as a threat when I'm not.
What do?
sig by DarkNightCavalier
Avatar by perv90210.
Currently Running
Cryffyl
Try playing group hug/ pillow fort. Be as non aggressive as possible.
Or you could play decks that can go big or fall flat. There used to be a guy in our playgroup who would work quirky, hard to see combos in his decks. He would often win if left unchecked, but most of the time he was ignored because it seemed like he wasn't doing anything.
Yes, another list of decks sig.
R Daretti, Scrap Savant
WBR Zurgo Helmsmasher Equipment
BBB Erebos, God of the Dead Goodstuff
UBG The Mimeoplasm
URG All Creatures Animar, Soul of Elements
WB Teysa, Orzhov Scion sac and combo
WUB Sydri, Galvanic Genius
WUG Rafiq of the Many Aggro-Control
UBR Nekusar, The Mindrazer
WRG Mayael, the Anima
Casual:
BB Ad Nauseam Combo
BB Burn
In the game of thrones, you win or you die.
Modern:
Something new every week
Legacy:
Something new everyweek
Agreed and I only play EDH. Politics is another word for "trying to appeal to emotion to make players make bad moves." It annoys me.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Its more than that. It can be an opponent singling you out because you hit them for 2 T2. It can be agreeing to a mutual gain; like donating a huge beater to an opponent, and throwing a vow on it.
Yes, another list of decks sig.
R Daretti, Scrap Savant
WBR Zurgo Helmsmasher Equipment
BBB Erebos, God of the Dead Goodstuff
UBG The Mimeoplasm
URG All Creatures Animar, Soul of Elements
WB Teysa, Orzhov Scion sac and combo
WUB Sydri, Galvanic Genius
WUG Rafiq of the Many Aggro-Control
UBR Nekusar, The Mindrazer
WRG Mayael, the Anima
Casual:
BB Ad Nauseam Combo
BB Burn
Hmm.. I have been playing EDH for quite some time, politics in multiplayer games has always been the name of the game (even non-EDH multiplayer games). I have always thought of it as Magic survivor. The one with the best politics game usually wins. There are exceptions, but they are far and few between.
I disagree just about as strongly as possible.
sig by DarkNightCavalier
Avatar by perv90210.
Currently Running
Cryffyl
Must be different than my experiences. The one with the best gameplay, deck, and luck wins. Yes, there is a place for holding back and revving up your game, but that is threat assessment and knowing where the game is at.
Sure, you don't want to draw more attention to yourself than you can deflect. And there are people who actively try to redirect the table's aggression, but only suckers fall for that. You should be swayed by your hand, the number of cards in their hand, your board position, and all the other resources that a multiplayer game involves.
When people try the "if you don't blow up my No Mercy, I won't attack you" crap I look at the facts of the game and not what they say.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
I agree the table talk deals can get a bit out of hand, especially when you can figure whos ganging up on who.
I disagree about the best deck winning a multiplayer game, unless its a sick combo or prison deck that locks everyone out of the game early on. From my experiences, you need some type of political game to do well in a multiplayer game. Just like card evaluations, peoples threat assessment is sometimes not the best.
Politics? Ain't nobody got time fo' dat.
Modern Junk Primer
Legacy ANT Primer
L1 Judge
@Mastadon - I actually think rolling a dice is the worst thing you can do. Take responsibility for your actions and make your move based on your own ability to play the game. You will make the wrong move frequently, but own it!!
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
- Make another broken deck.
- Make some sort of Pillow Fort deck (Are there any that can compete?) and just toy with them until you grind out a win.
1) Can I Win?
2) Can I put myself in a better position to win?
3) If its all the same, attack the player with the most experience, since if everyone is on equal ground, the player with the most skill will win.
Therefore, being the most experienced player at a table can actually be a large disadvantage, since its in everyone else's interest to attack you. Hopefully, this disadvantage can be made up by outplaying the table, but sometimes it can not.
While this doesn't solve your problem, perhaps it does explain it.
For example Stoney silence, Rest in peace, nevermore.
Build a counter deck to their game plan.
They can hate on you if they wish but they are going to have to work for it and if there is actual interaction in game instead of I wait until 1 shot you then it is at least interesting.
I remember landing stoney silence against a rafque deck once and all his expensive swords became useless... then I made the stoney silence indestructible.... since then it is my go to tutor target for messing with people... (muddle the mixture)
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
Plus, it makes you innovative. And if you can swap decks, then they won't know if you're playing your prime deck, or the secondary one.
The first series of Vintage tournaments I played in involved a pretty set group of players. The first tournament, I lost in the championship game because I had to final fortune and gamble on the draw, and I lost. (I usually won) The guy I was against had a pretty solid U/W/B control going on, versus my R/B/G aggro deck.
So, the next tournament, I switched to a straight land destruction deck, since I knew he didn't run moxes or lotuses. Totally wiped the floor with him and everyone else.
The third tournament, I reassembled my original aggro deck. He had switched to a modified white weenie to counter my land dep deck, and was destroyed when he ran up against me again.
after that I put up a 2 year run of dominating him at that particular level of tournaments.
So, just throw the change up. You might not get the same results that I did, but, you at least will have the option of throwing it again in the future, and keeping your opponents on their heels.
[Primer] WBR Tariel: You'll Thank Me For This WBR [Primer]
GGG Dosan of the Green Rainbow GGG
RWU Zedruu: I Ain't Even Mad RWU
I'll "randomly" attack a player, or let a spell go without countering it (enemy of my enemy is my friend), and sometimes I make a weak play to sway attention away from myself and hold on to my bigger threats.
Of course, at times I'll flash a counterspell, or a fog, or something similar and say "if you leave me alone...". Sometimes I bluff. I bluffed an Unsummon against a Kaalia deck for 5 turns. These are the more outspoken politics.
I have a friend who is known to never lie. If he says "I will not attack you next turn" then he will NOT attack you next turn. If we catch him in a lie, he will scoop. You have to be careful though, because telling the truth can be very deceiving.
I enjoy the politics of multiplayer. If you don't enjoy politics, then 1v1 is probably for you. Nothing's wrong with 1V1 of course, just a matter of preference.
PucaTrade Invite. Sign up and enjoy the first 500 points ($5) free!
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
1. Declare threats
2. Negotiations
3. Declare attackers
4. Declare blockers
and so on.
Casting spells would be similar. I'd even go so far as to allow lands to add mana to target player's mana pool or allow players to trade cards similar to Settlers of Catan. EDH isn't fun for me unless everyone is yelling, arguing, and laughing.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
I love asking questions or putting forth comments about certain plays that might somehow influence decision-making. This is not to say I would encourage someone to make a terrible move just to capitalize on it later, I just prefer to see the balance of power stay relatively in the middle until the game appears to be drawing to an end.
I would play infinitely more multiplayer Magic, and more Magic in general if people never spoke. Magic played in total silence is a thing of beauty so rare and crystalline it is practically Moxen. I will dream tonight of a ten-player Commander game that lasts seven hours and nobody talks at all. No phones are answered, no Facebooks are checked, silent but for the gentle whisper of cards turned sideways.
I mean, if I'm the only guy with anything on the board on turn 3 and no one has really done anything yet, you might as well. I don't normally do that, but when I feel like it's too difficult to decide who to attack (let's say two players are equally as threatening). It doesn't usually come to that. But, as a casual format, I'm perfectly fine with letting a die choose for me.
Modern Junk Primer
Legacy ANT Primer
L1 Judge