Position is a concept important to all table games. By that term, I mean games that are played with a turn structure that proceeds from player to player in one direction across a table. There are many. In some, such as poker or blackjack, position is a chief concept in strategy because player decisions are so determinative of the ultimate outcome. Magic shares a common structure with other well-known table games, and so we should expect those strategic concepts arising from game structure to be held in common as well.
This guide contains a sampling of my observations on the subject and my thoughts on how decisions in multiplayer can be improved through understanding position.
In my experience in the forums, I often find people discussing board states or some other such in a way that leaves certain questions open. Often, the right answer could go either way depending on context. Position is one of those contexts that I find is most often neglected. Since I’ve learned a lot about it elsewhere, I decided to be the one to write this guide. This guide is intended to stimulate a discussion on theory. Since theory is a matter of judgment and opinion, no one voice is authoritative. Consensus will likely remain elusive and conclusions scarce. I encourage criticism, dissent, inquiry and contribution. Additionally, the concept of position is a bit unique in that it informs mainly play decisions, rather than deck construction decisions. Therefore, this likely will not be a place for specific card discussion or deck construction. Understanding the concept of position is something that, in my opinion, shows its benefits in less easily observable ways.
Part I – Unmasking the Idea of Position
A: Position, defined –
In a strict sense, position is the order in which turns are taken across all players at a table. Play proceeds from right to left, and therefore, a player seated to the left of one player is said to “have position” over that player. When we talk about position however, we aren’t discussing seating arrangements, we’re talking about the information that becomes available to players as a result thereof. Discussion of position is held in the context of the flow of information, with position being one of the factors that determines how that information unfolds.
B: Examples of Position’s Effect on Play –
The information that is revealed by the order of play is best illustrated by example. Take the following table of three players: Player A has just played a Blightsteel Colossus. It’s now the only creature on the table. To his immediate left, Player B is holding an Innocent Blood. To Player B’s left, Player C is also holding an Innocent Blood. What happens? Assuming none of the players collaborate and Player B draws a blank, Player B will play his Innocent Blood. He doesn’t know that Player C is also holding an answer. He doesn’t know whether Player C will draw one. He doesn’t know either whether he will be attacked first by Player A’s Blightsteel Colossus. He only knows that he could lose the game if nothing changes the board state, and that his turn is the last chance he himself will have to change that board state. In the scenario where Player B plays the answer card, Player C has the best outcome because he can’t be attacked and killed, and he’s still holding onto his Innocent Blood. Player C has this advantage because he’s further to the left of Player A, or in other words, he has position on both Player A and Player B.
Is this a result of information flow, or something else? Well, we can speculate. Let’s say that a Telepathy is in play. Player B now knows that Player C could still cause the sacrifice of the Blightsteel Colossus. In fact, he knows that Player C faces just as much danger from it as he does, and that the last chance to stop the Blightsteel Colossus is actually in the hands of Player C. He passes the turn. Assuming rational play with no collaboration, Player C will play his Innocent Blood. He still doesn’t know how attacks will be declared, and any other decision may cause him to lose. Now Player B has the best outcome, since he didn’t have to play his answer card. What changed? Information flow. With perfect information, there’s little advantage to waiting. But with so many unknowns, the advantage was held by the player who had the most information before his last chance to act. That’s the advantage of position.
Let’s take another example. This one will be virtually the same as the last one, only we’ll be in the seat of the player deciding to play a creature. Let’s say we are playing Rafiq of the Many, we’ve got 4 mana, and we’re wondering whether we should play our commander. We also have in hand a Ray of Command, a Voidslime, and a Fact or Fiction. All of our opponents’ boards are empty, and they’ve yet to play anything except mana rocks. We’d like to be able to attack with Rafiq soon to force the combo player to our right out of the game, if possible. It’s still early, so we decide to play him out. Acting behind us, the player to our left untaps and casts Bribery, fetching a Sheoldred. The game state has changed. Let’s say the player next to act is holding something similar to what we are – a creature, a reactive card and a resource gaining card. He now knows that it’s a bad time to play his creature, and that he doesn’t have to worry about your Rafiq right away either. He casts something like Harmonize, then passes the turn with a smile on his face. Combo player to his left, your right, who we wanted to start facing down benefits in the same way. He builds his board and passes. On your upkeep, you sac Rafiq and are essentially down a turn to the other players at the table.
Suppose we switch seats. Now the player casting Bribery is on our right. He casts the spell, we see what he fetches, and now we can decide whether it’s a threat we should avoid playing into, whether it’s something we should answer, or whether we can build our board. Those to act ahead of us didn’t have that information, and so they are worse off. Change the seats at the table and you change the flow of information. That’s the effect of position.
C: Customary Neglect of Position Theory –
If position is so important, why isn’t it discussed more in Magic? After all, everyone knows about card advantage, deck types, mulliganing and all sorts of other strategy. If it were really that great of a variable, wouldn’t it be discussed more? After all, position is so important in so many other table games. Well first, the rules of Magic are quite complicated in relation to those of other table games, and this leads to frequent escapes from the confines of position. Players announce actions out of turn all the time.
Another reason is that most competitive theory in Magic still comes from the duel environment. In a duel where each play can be answered only by one opposing player, decisions are more often forced, and there is consequently little advantage to waiting for more information. Other concerns, such as who is able to play creatures and lands first, which cards are drawn from the deck, and so forth, predominate in duel. In that environment, the advantages inuring to the first player to act outweigh those of the player with the most information. Decks in duel must also be capable of playing with position and without it, and so positional concerns determine comparatively little in the deckbuilding phase as well. Much of this changes in a multiplayer free-for-all, an area whose theory is less explored.
But also, I believe that the community understands positional concerns to a greater degree than it has openly expressed. Many players privately, intuitively grasp that small, Instant speed removal – removal that offers the most positional flexibility possible – goes a long, long way in multiplayer, and that it’s able to bear different responsibilities than Sorcery speed removal. Additionally, players intuitively understand in duels that there is some ephemeral advantage to Instant speed cards, an advantage that goes beyond simply the ability to stop auras, pump, equip and other effects. This understanding is only much more intuitive than it is explicit, something that players may believe comes from experience and nothing else. But how much can be learned from explanation remains to be seen, for the very reason that there is little discussion. That is why I feel that a discussion is in fact warranted, despite the relative shortage of conversation on the topic to date. In competitive multiplayer EDH especially, a duelist would do well to approach positional understanding with much more concern than customary Magic strategy suggests.
In duel, card advantage is king. Being able to expend one card to deal with two or more of your opponent’s is a nearly surefire way to victory. I find that most Magic players understand this well, and are constantly on the lookout for chances to 2 for 1 their opponents. Of course in duel, every one of your opponent’s cards is aimed at forcing your loss. But in multiplayer FFA, you simply cannot count all cards of your opponents as being against you. You often won’t know whether a card is going to make your job difficult until a target is announced, or an attack is declared. Without knowing, players may be forced to expend resources unnecessarily, as in the example above. The principles of position dictate how this information unfolds, and so sensitivity to how position is operating at the table will lead to truly optimal play.
Let’s consider a few of the top creatures in EDH – Trygon Predator, Avatar of Woe and Steel Hellkite. These cards are widely played because they are offensive creatures with added value. They accumulate card advantage as they nullify opposing cards. But consider what to do when facing these cards.
Let’s take a resolved Trygon Predator on a board with lots of artifacts and enchantments. It could do different things. An opponent of yours could kill it, expending his card advantage. It could connect with another of your opponents and drain his card advantage. Or it could attack you and drain your card advantage. You won't know until the position develops and either an attack is declared or it dies.
The order of position also affects your decision to play out certain cards. If an opponent acting ahead of you drops an Avatar of Woe, that information allows you hold off on dropping potential targets for it. It allows you to make decisions that result in your opponents being hurt much more by a given card.
How can you play optimally here? Well, sometimes it is obvious, and sometimes concerns other than position will dictate. The cards in your hand and mana on the board are still the two strongest limiting factors in Magic, of course. But it helps in all respects to properly acknowledge what the ideal outcome actually is. The ideal is that a resource draining card like Trygon Predator connects with opponent after opponent, then an opponent kills it, expending one final card. Next to the hallowed and puny two-for-one, behold the three, four or five-for-zero! You never want to deprive yourself of that possibility, and you should be keen to those circumstances where you are enabling that possibility for other opponents.
B: Instant v. Sorcery and Position -
Can we be a little more practical than that? Sure. We’ve just touched on an area of debate that actually arises quite often in EDH - Instant or Sorcery? Spot Removal or Mass? Some feel that eliminating multiple opposing creatures with one card is worth the cost in timing and mana. Others feel that the luxuries of precision and postponement offered by instants tip the scales the other way. Who is right?
They both are. Huh, you ask? Didn’t I just explain all the advantages of waiting until the last possible moment? Aren’t instants the only way to do that?
Well, they are. And truly, if you needed to wait until the last possible moment every time, there wouldn’t be a debate. The reality is that this question is unanswerable without knowing more about the table position. Sometimes the time you have between being able to cast a sorcery and the last possible moment before you see a threat take form is narrow, sometimes it is wide.
Think of it in those terms. How much timing am I losing as a result of using a Sorcery and not an Instant? Let’s say that the opponent to my right is the one who just played a must-answer threat. It’s now my main phase. The two other players to my left could be untapped, they could be tapped out. Regardless, they would not have played an instant yet, because they’re waiting for my turn. They haven’t played a sorcery since then either, because it’s not their turn. In other words, your disadvantage in position relative to them has left you with comparatively less information than they will have at the same point. The timing gap is wide.
Now let’s say that it’s the opponent just to your left that played the threat. The one on his left is tapped out from the turn he’s taken since the threat has hit the board, maybe to play a blocker. To his left, same story. I’m the last one to be able to deal with it at Sorcery speed, and I have a lot of indication that there aren’t any instants at the table either. I have the most advantage in position relative to that threat. The timing gap is narrow. I cast Wrath of God. Let’s see what happens. The first player’s threat dies, so does the blocker played by the next player, then the next as well. I’ve taken out three opposing creatures with one card. That is not a bad play.
The rule is this - Sorcery speed responses lose less value versus their Instant speed counterparts the closer the opponent is to your left.
C: Blue Mages and Position –
Particularly unique concerns of position arise when playing counterspells. Quite tellingly, there is a lot of varying opinions about the effectiveness of counterspell play generally in EDH. This is simply another symptom of the lack of understanding of position.
From the above, it should be clear that the last clear chance to do something about a threat is more valuable than the first clear chance to do something about it. Counterspells give you one and only one chance to do something about a threat, and you must decide on that opportunity before anyone else announces their intentions with it. A player that is insensitive to how position and threat are operating at his table may overreact, and if so, he will be the first one to be spent. Oversensitivity may also cause an overly large number of resources to be thrown at opponents to one’s immediate left, or conversely, to cause undue passivity in the player on the left. That player could better be charged with dealing with threats from the player to the blue mage’s right. If we remember, the player to our right is the one who we should be most willing to allow other players to handle. The effect of this dynamic is that a draw-go blue player effectively jumps a seat to the left, from which he is tempted to play badly by reacting early.
Playing draw-go, or forgoing opportunities on our own turn, can lead to great opportunity costs as well. Sometimes the correct decision is to build one’s resources, and to pass on the chance to handle threats. When we have in hand a Disenchant, a Swords to Plowshares and a Fact or Fiction, our opportunities to respond at the last instant to the situation are great, since we can still decide to use our mana to build resources by casting Fact or Fiction at the last instant. But there are only so many Instant speed building cards that we can stock. An entire instant speed deck is possible, but due to the above difficulties with first chance versus last chance opportunities, doing so is not as attractive as one would think.
This isn’t to say that counterspells are bad, in themselves. Sometimes a threat, such as a Sorcery or Instant or ETB effect on a creature, presents an opportunity to be handled only while it is on the stack. Counterspells and the blue mages who wield them excel at this task. But the pitfall is there, and it is the same as that suffered by any overly eager player. A lack of understanding of position leads to premature reactions. in my mind, this is the cause of the great difference of opinion on the topic of counterspells. Some players have learned to deploy counterspells with sensitivity to position, while others have not. Later, we’ll talk more specifically about picking up on the clues our opponents leave us by acting before we do.
D: Active Play and Position -
To this point, our theory has been very clear on scenarios where we are answering our opponent’s threats, and at what timing to do that. But even if we are playing a very passive style of control deck, we are going to have other things that we want to do. In multiplayer FFA especially, it’s most appropriate to discuss things, not only in terms of preserving answer cards until a later date, but in terms of opportunity cost. During our turn, we untap mana sources, and we only have a limited amount we can do with that mana. As much as we want to preserve cards, we want to take advantage of our resources.
Our position can give us clues about what we should do with our resources. Players are generally well-versed in how to avoid overextending in terms of their own creature board, and that knowledge is adaptable to multiplayer to a great extent. When a board state has reached a very threatening mass, especially when that is a result of players to our right, we should be thinking about restocking or developing our mana base rather than playing creatures. Often the best way to do that is with a value added blocker, like Sakura-Tribe Elder. The problem is that not only is it possible that we are playing into the creature sweeps of the other players, but even as threats go unresolved, the perceived levels of threat carried by the players at the table ultimately determine who is affected the worst by attacks. If we step out as a threat, even if it sticks, we may draw attention that we could’ve avoided. Our power cards are precious, and we want all of the information that we can possibly have before concluding that fighting fire with fire is the only way. If we are caught out of position, sometimes the best thing to do is pass.
Information gained by position can also assist us in determining who we should attack when using an aggro or vultron strategy. Most often, this is determined by threat assessment, a concept that’s a bit separate from position. We want to be removing players from the game who are more likely to win otherwise. However, principles of position are still helpful in a secondary sense. Other things being equal, players to our left are less effectively able to answer our threats. Sorcery speed sweeps they play in response to us are of less effect, and so accordingly, they affect other players at the table less, who will themselves be a threat to that player. Players to our left are also less effective playing instant speed answers against us, because in the event that other players at the table are attacking that way as well, those answers are more likely to be spent once the action gets passed to you and you get a chance to attack. Accordingly, yours are the threats that survive, while those of others die.
Being aggressive with permanent types other than creatures also benefits from the knowledge of position. Artifacts and enchantments generally fear more from spot removal than they do sweeps. Especially with cards of a high threat level like Smokestack or combo pieces, responses are very telling. The information you are giving your opponents about what material you have becomes less relevant next to an opposing play of a much higher threat level. In this way, your opponent’s play to your right can act as a screen, giving you premature information concerning whether a player at the table has that Disenchant. Even if a player top-decks it as well, you have a good idea that it will hit a play of a higher threat level than yours.
E: Relative Position… and Position -
Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned when talking about position is how choose the best seat at the table. When not playing in a seated tournament or on-line, this is a choice that we can make before the game begins. We can get the information flow to work in our favor by selecting the proper seat relative to those players whose decks we know. Even if we can’t make that choice beforehand, knowing our ideal position at a table relative to other deck types helps us understand the strengths and weaknesses of our position, and thus more able to anticipate and prepare for difficulties before they arise.
Our ideal position at the table depends on what types of decks our opponents are playing. For these purposes, I’ll separate EDH decks into five categories – control, ramp, aggro, combo and stax. I’ll explain where I believe a player should sit relative to opponents playing each deck type.
The control player is one who answers threats from other players until he builds a hand and a mana base to go for the win. Because of the high density of answers that these players play, it is best to have them to our right. When we are playing aggressively, we want sweeps and other answers to be announced and spent to answer opposing threats played previously, so that we have information about what we are likely to be able to stick. And when we are playing control or some sort of passive strategy ourselves, it’s also good to know what threats are going to be left for us to resolve. If control players act to our left, we are left without the information of whether they have an answer to something played by a player to our right. And though it still may be the correct play to pass to them if we think they will rise to the task, we would rather be certain than guess.
There’s a player in my playgroup who owns a Merieke Ri Berit deck. It’s full of nearly every sweeper in those colors, and enough draw to get them on demand. Nevertheless, he often complains he doesn’t win often enough with the deck. This is a control player who could use a bit more knowledge about position. Every time I sit down at a table with him, I make sure he’s on my right. I hardly ever have to answer anything.
Next, combo players. It’s a bit of a controversial statement, but a certain kind of combo player tends to be uninteractive. To that extent, it matters much less where you sit in relation to them. But there are two considerations.
First is if you’re playing some style of deck that’s uniquely situated to handle them, such as a counterspell deck, or a deck with instant speed answers adaptable to combo. In that event, you want them to act as quickly after you as possible, directly to your left. This gives you information about whether you’ll have to answer their combo this turn, and if not, it frees up those cards for use against the other players.
The second consideration when handling combo players is if you’re closing the game out, or playing aggro. In this event, you want known combo players to be seated to your right. Others earlier to act might pass the turn or play aggressively themselves if they believe you are gunning for the combo player. Thus by attacking the combo player, you’re able to use position to give others information to assist you in that task. You’ll also find the position sensitive combo player hesitant to play instant speed answers against you when they still have to contend with other players left to act behind you.
Aggro and Ramp decks I’ll consider the same. I make the distinction because certain decks, particularly those of high CMC, resist the traditional aggro label. They don’t look the same. But both decks play a high threat density, and a relatively low frequency of answers.
These players you want on your left. You want to give the others at the table as much time to answer their threats as possible on their turns, at sorcery speed. You’ll also be able to notice whether others have left mana untapped to respond at instant speed. When attacks are finally declared, you want the information to be revealed early about whether these players are attacking you, so that you can gauge the level of responsiveness of your opponents as the table acts in turn again. When these players are to your right, you’re forced to act early, inefficiently, and without adequate information.
Finally, there are stax players. I define Stax as a type of control focused on indiscriminate resource denial, including forced permanent sacrifice, discard, land destruction and tax effects. This deck can seem like control, but it does not follow the above rule that control should be seated to your right. This is because the resource denial is indiscriminate. The player has no decisions to make about what permanents are affected, and so the information flowing to him is less relevant. His control-looking cards therefore operate more similarly to threats.
With stax players to your left, you are the last to be affected by these forced sacrifice effects. If others have answers to them by the time the turn is passed to you, you’re not affected while opponents are. Even if they do affect you, perhaps because others have waited to answer these cards at instant speed before their turn, you’ll have the information about whether these players have left land untapped, and you’ll also have the information about what these players have chosen to sacrifice. This can give you clues about how long they expect these effects to linger.
The condensed version is this. You want threat-heavy players seated to your left to maximize information, and you want answer-heavy players to sit to your right to maximize the chance that they can give you information about whether they plan on answering threats before you do.
Finally, what kind of information are we looking to spot? Obviously, we are going to react to the board warping plays to happen before our decision. We’ll wait to play our big creatures when there’s a Grave Pact down. Even players who don’t take position into account usually do that well enough. There has to be more than this to act on, right?
The real benefit comes from knowing what’s in opposing players’ hands and what we are likely to see yet from the top of their deck. Assessing a player’s hand the key skill in Magic that position theory bears upon. Position is the order in which information is revealed at the table. Obviously therefore, it works best in connection with any other information you might have, and it works less effectively in the absence of any preceding information. There are a few things you’ll want to watch closely to get the best out of your understanding of position. This section of the guide discusses how positional information relates to the other sources of information that exist in the game.
B: Positional Clues –
As mentioned, knowledge of how position reveals information at the table benefits us little after the fact. When play passes around all the to us after a board warping play on our left, a player may be tempted into thinking that position have given him no information at all. Big creature plays to our left reveal a lack of indiscriminate creature wipes in that player’s hand, of course, but that has little to do with position since it would’ve been the same at any seat of the table. It seems the same when someone to our left plays a big creature, then someone to our right plays a sweep. It would’ve happened regardless of whether we were able to see it coming. The next conclusion is that everything is going to happen in the way it’s supposed to anyway, and that all this position stuff doesn’t matter.
Come on, justify yourself. What clues does position give us? Well, there is actually quite a lot. A player in the same position passing the turn can indicate that this player is waiting to maximize the impact of a big play, or a sweep. And just as in duel, spotting what lands a player has untapped and what color they produce gives us good indications of how they plan to respond to developing play at instant speed. Maybe the most important thing to remember is that all Magic decks are tuned to have options at all different mana costs, and so it’s possible for us to take as much information from a player passing as we do when they play out. If nothing else, a player tapping out and doing essentially nothing at least gives us the information that he won’t do anything, information that we wouldn’t have had sitting to his right.
C: Threat Assessment –
First, you need to have good threat assessment. Threat assessment is the process of determining which players and permanents warrant the most action. This idea is worthy of an entirely different guide. In short, you should be versed at which cards most threaten your deck’s method of winning. You should know the most commonly seen combos in the format and how to spot evidence of them assembling. Most importantly, you need to be able to guess at the threat assessment of other players in light of what you know of them. With proper threat assessment, you will answer only those things that pose the most threat to you, and you will be able to control the flow of information at the table to eliminate those players who are most likely to cause your loss.
D: Deck Knowledge –
Second, you need to know as much as you can about what is in your opponent’s deck. Playing routinely with the same people reveals this type of information the most completely, however, archetypes and clichés abound in this format, and you should be trained to spot them in advance. Only knowing what is in an opponent’s deck will you be able to reason what they are likely to have in their hand. This is perhaps the most relevant concern to position, because the types of meaningful action they are capable of is the benchmark by which we compare the actions that they actually do take. If the flow of the table leads to little action, there is little benefit in the information position provides, and you’ll play the same regardless of where you sit. Conversely if your opponents are well known and the niches their deck leads them to are easily predicted, the flow of position will give you early warning signs about what is to come, and you can maximize the benefit or minimize the impact of opposing plays.
E: Suggestions in Deck Construction -
I’ve been debating whether I should include this section in the guide. In my mind, I have a list of different deck strategies that are allowed to be more or less position aware than others. But instead of describing them specifically, I find it best to invoke the simple axiom that the more difficult it is for opponents to threaten your strategy or blow you out of the game, the more you will be able to benefit from the information the flow of position provides. With specific cards as well, the more flexible and versatile they are, the more they allow you to take advantage of position related information. As for active cards also, there are certain ones that allow you to restrict information flow by virtue of the fact that they are automatic. For example, if I have a Seedborn Muse in play, the reason I’m untapped is because the card triggered, not because I’m holding a counterspell. It’s best to be mindful of how positional information works in the other direction when considering active play.
F: Questions to Ask Ourselves -
This is a condensed set of questions that get at the kind of information position reveals to us. The next time you’re holding a power card, or someone at your table plays a high-impact threat, refrain from acting viscerally. Ask yourself a few of these questions.
i - In Dealing With Threats:
1) Who at the table is most threatened by this development? A card like Stranglehold or Smokestack is a card that everyone at the table will see differently. Even if other players are not as threatened by it as I am, how likely are they to deal with it anyway, given their position, their habits and their deck type?
2) If it is the type of threat that affects only one player at a time, such as a creature, who is this opponent likely to use the threat against first? Do I pose the most threat to him? Is there some visceral reason outside the game that he would direct the threat elsewhere? Does this player dislike the deck of one of your opponents, or some similar story?
3) How well can I predict how this threat will unfold? How much of a choice does he have in how he will use it? Ruhan is a card that gives literally no choice, but also cards like Thada Adel, with Islandwalk, are easily predicted as well given a field of blockers and only certain players with Islands. Sometimes you can cross off the possibility of a threat in that way.
4) What are my options for dealing with it? If I have nothing ready to use, can I tutor for an answer or expend some other resource to get one? What is the timing luxury that each of my options give me?
5) What are the other players’ options for dealing with it? Do I have the last clear chance to act? If a player to my right has passed on an opportunity to deal with a threat at Sorcery or tapped out, is there any known reason that that player may have chosen not to have responded by this moment in the game? Can he cast instants or has he really passed? If all players are tapped out and have passed, you have the most information you are going to get.
6) What is the latest moment I can decide to neutralize a threat, and will I have any more information by then? If I pass the timing window on one of my options, how much more information am I likely to get before I’m affected by the threat? When are the threatening triggers, spells, etc, made plain? A card like Trygon Predator announces its intent, but triggers like Annihilator keep themselves secret until they are actually on the stack. There is little advantage to waiting there, because no information may be gained.
7) If I decide to risk the threat going unanswered, what is the most serious result to me, and how likely is it? How well can I bear it? Sometimes we are decidedly out of position, and in that event, it’s sometimes helpful to think worst-case-scenario.
ii - In Playing Our Threats:
1) Who do we want to eliminate first, and how well is he able to deal with that? How likely are other players to respond if we become the largest active threat at the table?
2) If the coast is clear now, what do I have to fear coming off the top of one of my opponent’s decks? If that happens, what is my plan B?
3) If not us, who is the greatest threat at the table, how would we be collaterally affected by sweeps and other answers primarily intended for that player? Is this player screening our plays or tempting us to overextend?
4) If a mutual opponent is posing a threat, how far is that threat likely to go? If it’s past the time where other players would’ve acted, who’s likely to be eliminated first? How does the board look if that happens and we play out? If we search into our deck for answers?
5) What do we know of the habits of the players at the table? How is their threat assessment? If they are accustomed to looking at the board and nothing else, we might be still more inclined to wait.
I've never gone particularly in depth thinking about it, but there have been plenty of occasions during a play or game where I think how differently it could have gone if the seating was different.
One in particular was a six player game where I was to the immediate right of the control/combo player. I knew he was building up until he could kill the table, but none of the others players would attempt to push him. As a result on my turn he had all of his resources available to stop my attempts to kill him, and then immediately untapped afterwards.
If I had been on his immediate left instead, I would have forced him to use his resources early and he would have been undefended against the rest of the table.
Interesting theory. I'll have to observe my games a bit more and see if I can put this to use.
Another interesting thing to note is the section vs the control player. You mention the ideal is for them to be on the right. While this does indeed make sense in the perspective of psyching them out and making them choose between dealing with your threat or saving the answer for someone else later in the turn cycle, this also reveals another problem - them being to your right means they take their turn just before you do. This means that generally, most of their mana is untapped and ready to answer whatever you're about to drop. If it's anywhere near threatening and they're playing blue, then that just increases the risk of that getting countered. Which can lead to one of three scenarios, none of which are really beneficial to us (unless you were baiting counters):
i) No other player drops anything worth answering or within the vicinity of threatening as what you played, and it returns to the control player again. The control player made the right play on the counter, and you lost a threat.
ii) Another player, seeking to take advantage of the (relative) shortage in the control player's resource base drops his own threat, but ALAS, the control player ran out of resources/answers, and is unable to answer it. Everyone else is scrambling for an answer, and you're at a double-loss - not only are you still down a threat, but now you have to deal with what's on the board (and/or are secretly hoping/depending on the control player to somehow answer it)
iii) Similar to above, but now the control player can answer the threat. Controller down 2 answers, and you and someone else is down a threat each.
iv) As discussed, control player can simply choose to wait for a better threat to answer, or attempt to answer it at the last player's end step. Your threat resolves (for now).
Out of the 4 possible outcomes, you're only winning in one of them. Being the first to act after the control player untaps can be a powerful position, but it can also open you up to being the first under fire while allowing others to make use of THEIR position.
Just my 0.02$, and something to consider (assuming what i said makes any sense at all)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Twitch: MTGJankmaster; lurking>streaming (but maybe one day when I get good at magic)
xMage: Jankmaster Commander - Now Playing WUBSen Triplets - "If you shake my hand, better count your fingersBUWRHomura, Human AscendantRRGBorborygmos EnragedGRURMelek, Izzet ParagonRU
Commander - Still Brewing BRGGyrus, Waker of CorpsesGRBURSaheeli, the GiftedRUWRJor Kadeen, the PrevailerRW
Seems like a ton of text considering the relatively narrow applications.
Also, just wanted to point out in the I-B Rafiq example that you can use Ray of Command to sacrifice Sheoldred instead! Seems like a pretty good turn to me.
Seems like a ton of text considering the relatively narrow applications.
Also, just wanted to point out in the I-B Rafiq example that you can use Ray of Command to sacrifice Sheoldred instead! Seems like a pretty good turn to me.
Yeah, you're right. I started writing that example with one thing in mind, then it turned into something else. I suppose I could edit out RoC, since it doesn't fit there anymore.
Apologies for the wall of text. I do think theory is something quite tangential by nature, and that the benefits of understanding it come by us in very vague terns, but I do tend to ramble sometimes. Hopefully things are overexplained rather than underexplained, and people with the time can get something from it.
@DasNekros - I do see a lot of positional hang up's when it comes to counterspells. I touched a bit on it in the section on Blue Mages, but I'm sure I haven't addressed everything. Basically three things -
First, I see a lot more B/G rock style control in EDH than I do classic draw go, and lots of counter heavy decks also incorporate board control. So, I would still want to be to the left of most of these players, if I'm playing any sort of control myself.
Second, there's a difference between optimal control play and poor control play, and the guide assumes optimal play. With the counterspell player playing optimally, the decision to counter one of your threats should be much, much more difficult to make than the decision to counter the spell of someone immediately to his right before he untaps. Countering your spell off the cuff leaves him open to anything being played behind you. The same off the cuff countering of someone's spell to his right is just doing something with his mana before untap. This should lead to more of your small stuff getting through, with theoretically most of the big game-warping stuff from the table being stopped, regardless of position. So I understand that it doesn't always pan out this way, but being to a counter player's left should (emphasis italics) be better.
Third, I'm playing on MODO and Timmy just countered my spell. This position stuff is BS. What I mean to say is that reality trumps theory, always. Which is why I touched a bit on how information revealed by position is one input of many that contributes to the overall information war. Pieces of information compete with one another for being the most important. And information about Timmy's deck, his innate propensities and habits as a player of countering stuff off the cuff is better at informing you of the likelihood that your stuff will get through than is positional theory. But some nameless avatar online sits to the right of me with Island/Forest untapped, I have every reason to believe that a Wood Elves of mine will not meet Arcane Denial, but that one from a player to the guy's right might if the player really needs a card.
This is a great read. Thanks for sharing. This is probably why Telepathy is a favourite card of mine. A simple brute force method to get that crucial information and let others psych themselves out. With Telepathy out, people start holding on to threats, because they see answers, and vice versa.
The player with the biggest roll at the table in our group gets to choose who starts first and which direction it goes so this has been really insightful into my future decision making this.
I also agree on what DasNekros and you said about control players, so I have recently been toning down on the counterspells and loading up on more removal. Stuff like Quicken and Magosi, the Waterveil increase the flexibility of your position in Multiplayer FFAs. Quicken turns your Wrath of Gods into Routs, and Magosi inserts your turn into whenever you want it. I remember long ago I skipped my turn with Magosi, then untapped via Unbender Tine, then inserted that skipped turn into somewhere else. I still remember those looks of WTFs. Golden...
Damn dude, you really didn't need to make this a thesis for your Masters degree.
Anyways, you're looking way too into it. EDH is a casual format, and turn order isn't all that important in a ffa since it is going to be random by nature anyways. Trying to analyze turn order is pointless when there are so many variables in multiplayer (especially EDH).
BBe the broke or the breakerB
Be the giver or the undertaker
Unlock and open the door
Be the healer or the breaker
The keys are in your hands
Realize you are your own source of all creation BOf your own master planB
Damn dude, you really didn't need to make this a thesis for your Masters degree.
Trust me this IS NOT A MASTERS!!!(you obviously have never attended higher education). It is a very good obsevation and does warrant thought.
You could make an analogue with the stack, wich sets the stage to position. I think that subconsiously, all players do understand position, but don't react to the long term effect it has on the outcome of the game. The stack is well defined, thus can be daunted, but if they do play out of position, then every thing goes chaos.
I've seen players throw a wrath without any regards to others. Like playing alone. And later wishing they had held on to said wrath cuz someone else nailed the table, and played one badass to rule the battlefield. And it all had to do with table position.
I think the best thing to do is if you are in a bad position, use instant removal (or split second), and just make alliances with the player that can affect the player up your badside...
Trust me this IS NOT A MASTERS!!!(you obviously have never attended higher education). It is a very good obsevation and does warrant thought.
No duh, it was an exaggeration. It's called a joke. Look it up sometime.
I am well aware of what a thesis and a masters degree is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BBe the broke or the breakerB
Be the giver or the undertaker
Unlock and open the door
Be the healer or the breaker
The keys are in your hands
Realize you are your own source of all creation BOf your own master planB
I'd like to point out that while the advice here is solid, as I recall, the official rules have people sit down first and THEN reveal their commanders.
This is a major thread necro, but I feel like this is a subject that deserves more discussion, and I have no better addition to this subject than what Jusstice himself initially contributed with this thread.
Mods, if this is truly against the spirit of the forum, please forgive me and take any action necessary to correct my transgression.
I am interested in hearing about others' experiences with table position in both play and deck construction. I find that I do not explicitly think of table position during either deck construction or play, but I use at least some of the theory presented here for both, almost exclusively in an intuitive and not explicit fashion. There is a fair amount of discussion in multiplayer MTG that is labeled as "politics" that I think may be more appropriately discussed in terms of table position and threat assessment, and this is an area that is super interesting to me. I think I could optimize my deck construction choices if I paid better attention and utilized table position better in play, since my need for instant speed answers in my decks is an effort to optimize game play outside of table position, and this need could be minimized if I just played with table position in mind. I have a tendency to think of MTG more in terms of chess theory, but I recognize that I should also incorporate some poker theory in my play as well, and this subject points to that need.
Are there additions to the ideas presented here that could aid my understanding of table position in multiplayer MTG? Are there cards/card mechanics that have been introduced since this thread that change how one should interpret/take advantage of this theory? Do you have concrete examples of both deck construction and play that either highlight the above theory or counter the above theory? What commanders/decks do you run that take advantage of this theory, or how do you overcome the limitations of your commander/deck if they are unable to explicitly take advantage of the ideas in this theory? Are there other resources that I could turn to for education on this subject?
Thanks ahead of time for any responses, and I apologize for the thread necro.
Position makes a huge difference in Poker, The primary position advantage is held by a player in "late position" is that he/she will have more information with which to make better decisions [i.e Bet, play less premium hands) than players in early position, who will have to act first - without the benefit of this extra information.
Magic does not operate under the same parity, and therefore the incentives are different. Magic players aren't interested in edging out EV, or betting people out. Although both games use similar "tools" lets say (bluffing, known/unknown informstion) the theory of position here is a dressed up version of Threat assessment. Your position can't and will not determine which cards you draw, or in which sequence they should be played. Only threat assessment can do that. You can say well "I'm two players away from the guy with Blightsteel Colossus I'm in better position to do X" is not only untrue, it is ever changing. Position is just a weak variable that I can't see changing outcomes or even be worth noticing.
If position matters can you:
A) be a bad player in good position to win and win because of position?
B) can you be a good player and beat another good player based on position?
C) can you have good threat assessment skills and bad position and expect to lose more?
I enjoy the threat assessment information in this article, I feel like it attempts to marry Poker theory and Magic in a way that Poker theory was never meant. If position is a variable, it looks an awful lot like threat assessment to even know the difference. If you want to say position is "a part" of threat assessment - then it's the one you have the least control over, commutes no obvious advantage and won't benefit from knowing well.
I get the threat assessment comment, and somewhat agree, but I still think that there is value in position, I am just not sure how to maximize it yet. Given that every opponent that deals with a threat to me is an answer that I can save for other threats, I can't see how position would have no affect on the game. In poker theory, position greatly affects your choice to bet based on your hand, and the relative positions of other players, as well as their available resources. The same idea seems like it could be important to multiplayer MTG, especially since the resources available are variable around the table, and are somewhat known at the start of the game, especially in Commander, given that we know what commander each player is playing. We can rest assured that counterspells are not available to the Azusa player, and that they will likely be playing ramp to big stompy. This could effect where I would like to sit relative to that player, given that I have a reactive deck with lots of instant speed answers and limited counterspell ability. If I want my answers to count as much as possible, I want other players to feel compelled to answer the Azusa ramp/stompy player's threats, so should play later relative to other players with regard to this player. A Damia control player would have lots of instant speed removal, including some counterspells, so playing just after the Damia control player ensures that they are the last to respond to everything on the board before me, and will have several players to respond to after me with regard to counterspells, so I can rely on them to answer some table threats, and hope that they let my spells resolve while awaiting bigger perceived threats later in the round. The simplistic idea of keep threats as close to you on the left as possible and opposition answers as close to you on the right as possible seems to be a reasonable goal, even if that alone won't win games. Table position, plus equal play skill, plus equal deck power, plus equal draws seems like it would win games. In other words, all other things being equal, table position seems to be another factor that could win a game, and even when things are not all equal, I could see table position making a difference. Maximizing differences is the heart of MTG, so I am not sure why we wouldn't want to talk about it.
The only difference I imagine is turn 1. It could help inform, in a small set of circumstances which land you play. As in the first player plays a comes into play tapped land, second player goes land -> sol ring. You can play your Forest if you have Nature's Claim. They already got value from their Sol Ring and perhaps you had to come off your Plains -> Enlightened Tutor to answer it. Same with being "on the draw" vs. Mulliganing down to 5.
Position makes sense in Poker only because you're in the position with the most amount of information, you see who is betting the pot and how much is on the line. In Magic having access to all of the information doesnt also convert your cards into answers. Also, luck exists. Just because you're the last to act doesn't mean you can play garbage hands. The scenario "equal deck power, plus equal draws seems like it would win games." doesn't give way to variance. Decks SHOULD be assessing threats based on their own self-interests, regardless of position because a life total of 40 is explicit - you lose 40 life you lose. We're looking at Game Theory (threat assessment) and your ability to answer threats will always mean more than your position at the table, and then luck would be a lot more important. And down the line forever until maybe position is a variable. You can, as anyone in statistics knows, adjust for all other variables to bring out what you're looking for.
We have decades of Poker data to look at to basically suggest, all things being equal, luck is the variable. Magic has an unequal distribution of cards in your deck, and that is true for all opponents. All I'm saying is I'd focus less on position and prepare more for bad actors/sub optimal/bad reads on your part and opponents - and a fair amount of bad beats on the part of luck.
I don't imagine a scenario where A or B are ever true. And C is possible if the game was decided on Turn 1.
Again, Action_Mane, I really think that you are overlooking position. If there is a common threat and I have an answer, I don't have to play it right away. This is true at any turn in the game. The more other people who act between me and this common threat, the more likely someone else acts and plays an answer, and I get to save mine. Instants mess with this a little, and counters mess with this a little, but the basic premise is that the more people who have the opportunity to act before you, the more likely that you don't have to, and you keep your answers. If you have no answers, this is a silly conversation, but if you have answers, the table position relative to the threat is absolutely pertinent. Given that, unlike poker, every deck brings different threats and different answers, and you should have some information about this, where you initially sit at a table may have a serious effect on the game. The same interaction happens with threats and resources as well, but in a slightly different relationship, so answer heavy decks are not the only ones who should care. Poker theory is pertinent, and threat assessment is pertinent, but when deciding when to play things, table position should affect your decision. Ignoring this would be ignoring an element of play, and not just for the first turn.
I'm was in the process of writing a long draw out essay about how basically you never pick where you sit, there aren't any "combo"/"control" decks by any hard definition and everyone converts the same advantage in relation to everyone else no matter where you sit, and how it doesn't matter if the control player is next to you if they don't answer the person next to them threats/or if they have a way to make them unprofitable to attack (i.e pillowfort). But it all got erased when the battery on my phone died.
The words "the Aggro player" means nothing to me.
I've read the article plenty of times, and still the Rafiq -> Bribery example is baffling. It not only makes a claim that something that did happen would be different if things were different, it can't make a value judgment about Bribery getting Sheoldred.
What if you could have gotten Sheoldred with your own Bribery?
So you should have not played your Commander to be able to swing next turn?
When are you supposed to play it?
When is it worth knowing you can play your cards? When you know everyone's deck list by heart?
Can you have, in a million years, known that play was going to happen? If you answer yes "when you could better protect him", what does that mean? Hexproof/Indestructible/Phasing? What if they answer that form of protection? Disadvantage?
what if no one has answere and keeps passing priority to you? Did your position cause you disadvantage? How could it do that? They didn't have the right cards.
what if someone doesn't care about a threat? Is it particularly bad for you to act after them? How about before them? Disadvantage?
All I'm saying is, it seems to make sense to know AFTER the fact that you position was an advantage/disadvantage, but you have no way of knowing in advance because of the variety of cards/cards drawn/answers available to all decks. In my opinion, as I've stated, it doesnt mean much to me to know I'm down wind from a combo player - all I can do is play my cards accordingly and react to threats accordingly. It seems like the fallacy of a predetermined outcome.
This guide contains a sampling of my observations on the subject and my thoughts on how decisions in multiplayer can be improved through understanding position.
In my experience in the forums, I often find people discussing board states or some other such in a way that leaves certain questions open. Often, the right answer could go either way depending on context. Position is one of those contexts that I find is most often neglected. Since I’ve learned a lot about it elsewhere, I decided to be the one to write this guide.
This guide is intended to stimulate a discussion on theory. Since theory is a matter of judgment and opinion, no one voice is authoritative. Consensus will likely remain elusive and conclusions scarce. I encourage criticism, dissent, inquiry and contribution.
Additionally, the concept of position is a bit unique in that it informs mainly play decisions, rather than deck construction decisions. Therefore, this likely will not be a place for specific card discussion or deck construction. Understanding the concept of position is something that, in my opinion, shows its benefits in less easily observable ways.
Part I – Unmasking the Idea of Position
A: Position, defined –
In a strict sense, position is the order in which turns are taken across all players at a table. Play proceeds from right to left, and therefore, a player seated to the left of one player is said to “have position” over that player.
When we talk about position however, we aren’t discussing seating arrangements, we’re talking about the information that becomes available to players as a result thereof. Discussion of position is held in the context of the flow of information, with position being one of the factors that determines how that information unfolds.
B: Examples of Position’s Effect on Play –
The information that is revealed by the order of play is best illustrated by example. Take the following table of three players: Player A has just played a Blightsteel Colossus. It’s now the only creature on the table. To his immediate left, Player B is holding an Innocent Blood. To Player B’s left, Player C is also holding an Innocent Blood.
What happens? Assuming none of the players collaborate and Player B draws a blank, Player B will play his Innocent Blood. He doesn’t know that Player C is also holding an answer. He doesn’t know whether Player C will draw one. He doesn’t know either whether he will be attacked first by Player A’s Blightsteel Colossus. He only knows that he could lose the game if nothing changes the board state, and that his turn is the last chance he himself will have to change that board state. In the scenario where Player B plays the answer card, Player C has the best outcome because he can’t be attacked and killed, and he’s still holding onto his Innocent Blood. Player C has this advantage because he’s further to the left of Player A, or in other words, he has position on both Player A and Player B.
Is this a result of information flow, or something else? Well, we can speculate. Let’s say that a Telepathy is in play. Player B now knows that Player C could still cause the sacrifice of the Blightsteel Colossus. In fact, he knows that Player C faces just as much danger from it as he does, and that the last chance to stop the Blightsteel Colossus is actually in the hands of Player C. He passes the turn. Assuming rational play with no collaboration, Player C will play his Innocent Blood. He still doesn’t know how attacks will be declared, and any other decision may cause him to lose. Now Player B has the best outcome, since he didn’t have to play his answer card.
What changed? Information flow. With perfect information, there’s little advantage to waiting. But with so many unknowns, the advantage was held by the player who had the most information before his last chance to act. That’s the advantage of position.
Let’s take another example. This one will be virtually the same as the last one, only we’ll be in the seat of the player deciding to play a creature. Let’s say we are playing Rafiq of the Many, we’ve got 4 mana, and we’re wondering whether we should play our commander. We also have in hand a Ray of Command, a Voidslime, and a Fact or Fiction. All of our opponents’ boards are empty, and they’ve yet to play anything except mana rocks. We’d like to be able to attack with Rafiq soon to force the combo player to our right out of the game, if possible. It’s still early, so we decide to play him out. Acting behind us, the player to our left untaps and casts Bribery, fetching a Sheoldred. The game state has changed. Let’s say the player next to act is holding something similar to what we are – a creature, a reactive card and a resource gaining card. He now knows that it’s a bad time to play his creature, and that he doesn’t have to worry about your Rafiq right away either. He casts something like Harmonize, then passes the turn with a smile on his face. Combo player to his left, your right, who we wanted to start facing down benefits in the same way. He builds his board and passes. On your upkeep, you sac Rafiq and are essentially down a turn to the other players at the table.
Suppose we switch seats. Now the player casting Bribery is on our right. He casts the spell, we see what he fetches, and now we can decide whether it’s a threat we should avoid playing into, whether it’s something we should answer, or whether we can build our board. Those to act ahead of us didn’t have that information, and so they are worse off. Change the seats at the table and you change the flow of information. That’s the effect of position.
C: Customary Neglect of Position Theory –
If position is so important, why isn’t it discussed more in Magic? After all, everyone knows about card advantage, deck types, mulliganing and all sorts of other strategy. If it were really that great of a variable, wouldn’t it be discussed more? After all, position is so important in so many other table games.
Well first, the rules of Magic are quite complicated in relation to those of other table games, and this leads to frequent escapes from the confines of position. Players announce actions out of turn all the time.
Another reason is that most competitive theory in Magic still comes from the duel environment. In a duel where each play can be answered only by one opposing player, decisions are more often forced, and there is consequently little advantage to waiting for more information. Other concerns, such as who is able to play creatures and lands first, which cards are drawn from the deck, and so forth, predominate in duel. In that environment, the advantages inuring to the first player to act outweigh those of the player with the most information. Decks in duel must also be capable of playing with position and without it, and so positional concerns determine comparatively little in the deckbuilding phase as well. Much of this changes in a multiplayer free-for-all, an area whose theory is less explored.
But also, I believe that the community understands positional concerns to a greater degree than it has openly expressed. Many players privately, intuitively grasp that small, Instant speed removal – removal that offers the most positional flexibility possible – goes a long, long way in multiplayer, and that it’s able to bear different responsibilities than Sorcery speed removal. Additionally, players intuitively understand in duels that there is some ephemeral advantage to Instant speed cards, an advantage that goes beyond simply the ability to stop auras, pump, equip and other effects. This understanding is only much more intuitive than it is explicit, something that players may believe comes from experience and nothing else. But how much can be learned from explanation remains to be seen, for the very reason that there is little discussion. That is why I feel that a discussion is in fact warranted, despite the relative shortage of conversation on the topic to date. In competitive multiplayer EDH especially, a duelist would do well to approach positional understanding with much more concern than customary Magic strategy suggests.
A: Card Advantage and Position-
In duel, card advantage is king. Being able to expend one card to deal with two or more of your opponent’s is a nearly surefire way to victory. I find that most Magic players understand this well, and are constantly on the lookout for chances to 2 for 1 their opponents. Of course in duel, every one of your opponent’s cards is aimed at forcing your loss. But in multiplayer FFA, you simply cannot count all cards of your opponents as being against you. You often won’t know whether a card is going to make your job difficult until a target is announced, or an attack is declared. Without knowing, players may be forced to expend resources unnecessarily, as in the example above. The principles of position dictate how this information unfolds, and so sensitivity to how position is operating at the table will lead to truly optimal play.
Let’s consider a few of the top creatures in EDH – Trygon Predator, Avatar of Woe and Steel Hellkite. These cards are widely played because they are offensive creatures with added value. They accumulate card advantage as they nullify opposing cards. But consider what to do when facing these cards.
Let’s take a resolved Trygon Predator on a board with lots of artifacts and enchantments. It could do different things. An opponent of yours could kill it, expending his card advantage. It could connect with another of your opponents and drain his card advantage. Or it could attack you and drain your card advantage. You won't know until the position develops and either an attack is declared or it dies.
The order of position also affects your decision to play out certain cards. If an opponent acting ahead of you drops an Avatar of Woe, that information allows you hold off on dropping potential targets for it. It allows you to make decisions that result in your opponents being hurt much more by a given card.
How can you play optimally here? Well, sometimes it is obvious, and sometimes concerns other than position will dictate. The cards in your hand and mana on the board are still the two strongest limiting factors in Magic, of course. But it helps in all respects to properly acknowledge what the ideal outcome actually is. The ideal is that a resource draining card like Trygon Predator connects with opponent after opponent, then an opponent kills it, expending one final card. Next to the hallowed and puny two-for-one, behold the three, four or five-for-zero! You never want to deprive yourself of that possibility, and you should be keen to those circumstances where you are enabling that possibility for other opponents.
B: Instant v. Sorcery and Position -
Can we be a little more practical than that? Sure. We’ve just touched on an area of debate that actually arises quite often in EDH - Instant or Sorcery? Spot Removal or Mass? Some feel that eliminating multiple opposing creatures with one card is worth the cost in timing and mana. Others feel that the luxuries of precision and postponement offered by instants tip the scales the other way. Who is right?
They both are. Huh, you ask? Didn’t I just explain all the advantages of waiting until the last possible moment? Aren’t instants the only way to do that?
Well, they are. And truly, if you needed to wait until the last possible moment every time, there wouldn’t be a debate. The reality is that this question is unanswerable without knowing more about the table position. Sometimes the time you have between being able to cast a sorcery and the last possible moment before you see a threat take form is narrow, sometimes it is wide.
Think of it in those terms. How much timing am I losing as a result of using a Sorcery and not an Instant? Let’s say that the opponent to my right is the one who just played a must-answer threat. It’s now my main phase. The two other players to my left could be untapped, they could be tapped out. Regardless, they would not have played an instant yet, because they’re waiting for my turn. They haven’t played a sorcery since then either, because it’s not their turn. In other words, your disadvantage in position relative to them has left you with comparatively less information than they will have at the same point. The timing gap is wide.
Now let’s say that it’s the opponent just to your left that played the threat. The one on his left is tapped out from the turn he’s taken since the threat has hit the board, maybe to play a blocker. To his left, same story. I’m the last one to be able to deal with it at Sorcery speed, and I have a lot of indication that there aren’t any instants at the table either. I have the most advantage in position relative to that threat. The timing gap is narrow. I cast Wrath of God. Let’s see what happens. The first player’s threat dies, so does the blocker played by the next player, then the next as well. I’ve taken out three opposing creatures with one card. That is not a bad play.
The rule is this - Sorcery speed responses lose less value versus their Instant speed counterparts the closer the opponent is to your left.
C: Blue Mages and Position –
Particularly unique concerns of position arise when playing counterspells. Quite tellingly, there is a lot of varying opinions about the effectiveness of counterspell play generally in EDH. This is simply another symptom of the lack of understanding of position.
From the above, it should be clear that the last clear chance to do something about a threat is more valuable than the first clear chance to do something about it. Counterspells give you one and only one chance to do something about a threat, and you must decide on that opportunity before anyone else announces their intentions with it. A player that is insensitive to how position and threat are operating at his table may overreact, and if so, he will be the first one to be spent. Oversensitivity may also cause an overly large number of resources to be thrown at opponents to one’s immediate left, or conversely, to cause undue passivity in the player on the left. That player could better be charged with dealing with threats from the player to the blue mage’s right. If we remember, the player to our right is the one who we should be most willing to allow other players to handle. The effect of this dynamic is that a draw-go blue player effectively jumps a seat to the left, from which he is tempted to play badly by reacting early.
Playing draw-go, or forgoing opportunities on our own turn, can lead to great opportunity costs as well. Sometimes the correct decision is to build one’s resources, and to pass on the chance to handle threats. When we have in hand a Disenchant, a Swords to Plowshares and a Fact or Fiction, our opportunities to respond at the last instant to the situation are great, since we can still decide to use our mana to build resources by casting Fact or Fiction at the last instant. But there are only so many Instant speed building cards that we can stock. An entire instant speed deck is possible, but due to the above difficulties with first chance versus last chance opportunities, doing so is not as attractive as one would think.
This isn’t to say that counterspells are bad, in themselves. Sometimes a threat, such as a Sorcery or Instant or ETB effect on a creature, presents an opportunity to be handled only while it is on the stack. Counterspells and the blue mages who wield them excel at this task. But the pitfall is there, and it is the same as that suffered by any overly eager player. A lack of understanding of position leads to premature reactions. in my mind, this is the cause of the great difference of opinion on the topic of counterspells. Some players have learned to deploy counterspells with sensitivity to position, while others have not. Later, we’ll talk more specifically about picking up on the clues our opponents leave us by acting before we do.
D: Active Play and Position -
To this point, our theory has been very clear on scenarios where we are answering our opponent’s threats, and at what timing to do that. But even if we are playing a very passive style of control deck, we are going to have other things that we want to do. In multiplayer FFA especially, it’s most appropriate to discuss things, not only in terms of preserving answer cards until a later date, but in terms of opportunity cost. During our turn, we untap mana sources, and we only have a limited amount we can do with that mana. As much as we want to preserve cards, we want to take advantage of our resources.
Our position can give us clues about what we should do with our resources. Players are generally well-versed in how to avoid overextending in terms of their own creature board, and that knowledge is adaptable to multiplayer to a great extent. When a board state has reached a very threatening mass, especially when that is a result of players to our right, we should be thinking about restocking or developing our mana base rather than playing creatures. Often the best way to do that is with a value added blocker, like Sakura-Tribe Elder. The problem is that not only is it possible that we are playing into the creature sweeps of the other players, but even as threats go unresolved, the perceived levels of threat carried by the players at the table ultimately determine who is affected the worst by attacks. If we step out as a threat, even if it sticks, we may draw attention that we could’ve avoided. Our power cards are precious, and we want all of the information that we can possibly have before concluding that fighting fire with fire is the only way. If we are caught out of position, sometimes the best thing to do is pass.
Information gained by position can also assist us in determining who we should attack when using an aggro or vultron strategy. Most often, this is determined by threat assessment, a concept that’s a bit separate from position. We want to be removing players from the game who are more likely to win otherwise. However, principles of position are still helpful in a secondary sense. Other things being equal, players to our left are less effectively able to answer our threats. Sorcery speed sweeps they play in response to us are of less effect, and so accordingly, they affect other players at the table less, who will themselves be a threat to that player. Players to our left are also less effective playing instant speed answers against us, because in the event that other players at the table are attacking that way as well, those answers are more likely to be spent once the action gets passed to you and you get a chance to attack. Accordingly, yours are the threats that survive, while those of others die.
Being aggressive with permanent types other than creatures also benefits from the knowledge of position. Artifacts and enchantments generally fear more from spot removal than they do sweeps. Especially with cards of a high threat level like Smokestack or combo pieces, responses are very telling. The information you are giving your opponents about what material you have becomes less relevant next to an opposing play of a much higher threat level. In this way, your opponent’s play to your right can act as a screen, giving you premature information concerning whether a player at the table has that Disenchant. Even if a player top-decks it as well, you have a good idea that it will hit a play of a higher threat level than yours.
E: Relative Position… and Position -
Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned when talking about position is how choose the best seat at the table. When not playing in a seated tournament or on-line, this is a choice that we can make before the game begins. We can get the information flow to work in our favor by selecting the proper seat relative to those players whose decks we know. Even if we can’t make that choice beforehand, knowing our ideal position at a table relative to other deck types helps us understand the strengths and weaknesses of our position, and thus more able to anticipate and prepare for difficulties before they arise.
Our ideal position at the table depends on what types of decks our opponents are playing. For these purposes, I’ll separate EDH decks into five categories – control, ramp, aggro, combo and stax. I’ll explain where I believe a player should sit relative to opponents playing each deck type.
The control player is one who answers threats from other players until he builds a hand and a mana base to go for the win. Because of the high density of answers that these players play, it is best to have them to our right. When we are playing aggressively, we want sweeps and other answers to be announced and spent to answer opposing threats played previously, so that we have information about what we are likely to be able to stick. And when we are playing control or some sort of passive strategy ourselves, it’s also good to know what threats are going to be left for us to resolve. If control players act to our left, we are left without the information of whether they have an answer to something played by a player to our right. And though it still may be the correct play to pass to them if we think they will rise to the task, we would rather be certain than guess.
There’s a player in my playgroup who owns a Merieke Ri Berit deck. It’s full of nearly every sweeper in those colors, and enough draw to get them on demand. Nevertheless, he often complains he doesn’t win often enough with the deck. This is a control player who could use a bit more knowledge about position. Every time I sit down at a table with him, I make sure he’s on my right. I hardly ever have to answer anything.
Next, combo players. It’s a bit of a controversial statement, but a certain kind of combo player tends to be uninteractive. To that extent, it matters much less where you sit in relation to them. But there are two considerations.
First is if you’re playing some style of deck that’s uniquely situated to handle them, such as a counterspell deck, or a deck with instant speed answers adaptable to combo. In that event, you want them to act as quickly after you as possible, directly to your left. This gives you information about whether you’ll have to answer their combo this turn, and if not, it frees up those cards for use against the other players.
The second consideration when handling combo players is if you’re closing the game out, or playing aggro. In this event, you want known combo players to be seated to your right. Others earlier to act might pass the turn or play aggressively themselves if they believe you are gunning for the combo player. Thus by attacking the combo player, you’re able to use position to give others information to assist you in that task. You’ll also find the position sensitive combo player hesitant to play instant speed answers against you when they still have to contend with other players left to act behind you.
Aggro and Ramp decks I’ll consider the same. I make the distinction because certain decks, particularly those of high CMC, resist the traditional aggro label. They don’t look the same. But both decks play a high threat density, and a relatively low frequency of answers.
These players you want on your left. You want to give the others at the table as much time to answer their threats as possible on their turns, at sorcery speed. You’ll also be able to notice whether others have left mana untapped to respond at instant speed. When attacks are finally declared, you want the information to be revealed early about whether these players are attacking you, so that you can gauge the level of responsiveness of your opponents as the table acts in turn again. When these players are to your right, you’re forced to act early, inefficiently, and without adequate information.
Finally, there are stax players. I define Stax as a type of control focused on indiscriminate resource denial, including forced permanent sacrifice, discard, land destruction and tax effects. This deck can seem like control, but it does not follow the above rule that control should be seated to your right. This is because the resource denial is indiscriminate. The player has no decisions to make about what permanents are affected, and so the information flowing to him is less relevant. His control-looking cards therefore operate more similarly to threats.
With stax players to your left, you are the last to be affected by these forced sacrifice effects. If others have answers to them by the time the turn is passed to you, you’re not affected while opponents are. Even if they do affect you, perhaps because others have waited to answer these cards at instant speed before their turn, you’ll have the information about whether these players have left land untapped, and you’ll also have the information about what these players have chosen to sacrifice. This can give you clues about how long they expect these effects to linger.
The condensed version is this. You want threat-heavy players seated to your left to maximize information, and you want answer-heavy players to sit to your right to maximize the chance that they can give you information about whether they plan on answering threats before you do.
A: Position and the Information War -
Finally, what kind of information are we looking to spot? Obviously, we are going to react to the board warping plays to happen before our decision. We’ll wait to play our big creatures when there’s a Grave Pact down. Even players who don’t take position into account usually do that well enough. There has to be more than this to act on, right?
The real benefit comes from knowing what’s in opposing players’ hands and what we are likely to see yet from the top of their deck. Assessing a player’s hand the key skill in Magic that position theory bears upon. Position is the order in which information is revealed at the table. Obviously therefore, it works best in connection with any other information you might have, and it works less effectively in the absence of any preceding information. There are a few things you’ll want to watch closely to get the best out of your understanding of position. This section of the guide discusses how positional information relates to the other sources of information that exist in the game.
B: Positional Clues –
As mentioned, knowledge of how position reveals information at the table benefits us little after the fact. When play passes around all the to us after a board warping play on our left, a player may be tempted into thinking that position have given him no information at all. Big creature plays to our left reveal a lack of indiscriminate creature wipes in that player’s hand, of course, but that has little to do with position since it would’ve been the same at any seat of the table. It seems the same when someone to our left plays a big creature, then someone to our right plays a sweep. It would’ve happened regardless of whether we were able to see it coming. The next conclusion is that everything is going to happen in the way it’s supposed to anyway, and that all this position stuff doesn’t matter.
Come on, justify yourself. What clues does position give us? Well, there is actually quite a lot. A player in the same position passing the turn can indicate that this player is waiting to maximize the impact of a big play, or a sweep. And just as in duel, spotting what lands a player has untapped and what color they produce gives us good indications of how they plan to respond to developing play at instant speed. Maybe the most important thing to remember is that all Magic decks are tuned to have options at all different mana costs, and so it’s possible for us to take as much information from a player passing as we do when they play out. If nothing else, a player tapping out and doing essentially nothing at least gives us the information that he won’t do anything, information that we wouldn’t have had sitting to his right.
C: Threat Assessment –
First, you need to have good threat assessment. Threat assessment is the process of determining which players and permanents warrant the most action. This idea is worthy of an entirely different guide. In short, you should be versed at which cards most threaten your deck’s method of winning. You should know the most commonly seen combos in the format and how to spot evidence of them assembling. Most importantly, you need to be able to guess at the threat assessment of other players in light of what you know of them. With proper threat assessment, you will answer only those things that pose the most threat to you, and you will be able to control the flow of information at the table to eliminate those players who are most likely to cause your loss.
D: Deck Knowledge –
Second, you need to know as much as you can about what is in your opponent’s deck. Playing routinely with the same people reveals this type of information the most completely, however, archetypes and clichés abound in this format, and you should be trained to spot them in advance. Only knowing what is in an opponent’s deck will you be able to reason what they are likely to have in their hand. This is perhaps the most relevant concern to position, because the types of meaningful action they are capable of is the benchmark by which we compare the actions that they actually do take. If the flow of the table leads to little action, there is little benefit in the information position provides, and you’ll play the same regardless of where you sit. Conversely if your opponents are well known and the niches their deck leads them to are easily predicted, the flow of position will give you early warning signs about what is to come, and you can maximize the benefit or minimize the impact of opposing plays.
E: Suggestions in Deck Construction -
I’ve been debating whether I should include this section in the guide. In my mind, I have a list of different deck strategies that are allowed to be more or less position aware than others. But instead of describing them specifically, I find it best to invoke the simple axiom that the more difficult it is for opponents to threaten your strategy or blow you out of the game, the more you will be able to benefit from the information the flow of position provides. With specific cards as well, the more flexible and versatile they are, the more they allow you to take advantage of position related information. As for active cards also, there are certain ones that allow you to restrict information flow by virtue of the fact that they are automatic. For example, if I have a Seedborn Muse in play, the reason I’m untapped is because the card triggered, not because I’m holding a counterspell. It’s best to be mindful of how positional information works in the other direction when considering active play.
F: Questions to Ask Ourselves -
This is a condensed set of questions that get at the kind of information position reveals to us. The next time you’re holding a power card, or someone at your table plays a high-impact threat, refrain from acting viscerally. Ask yourself a few of these questions.
i - In Dealing With Threats:
1) Who at the table is most threatened by this development? A card like Stranglehold or Smokestack is a card that everyone at the table will see differently. Even if other players are not as threatened by it as I am, how likely are they to deal with it anyway, given their position, their habits and their deck type?
2) If it is the type of threat that affects only one player at a time, such as a creature, who is this opponent likely to use the threat against first? Do I pose the most threat to him? Is there some visceral reason outside the game that he would direct the threat elsewhere? Does this player dislike the deck of one of your opponents, or some similar story?
3) How well can I predict how this threat will unfold? How much of a choice does he have in how he will use it? Ruhan is a card that gives literally no choice, but also cards like Thada Adel, with Islandwalk, are easily predicted as well given a field of blockers and only certain players with Islands. Sometimes you can cross off the possibility of a threat in that way.
4) What are my options for dealing with it? If I have nothing ready to use, can I tutor for an answer or expend some other resource to get one? What is the timing luxury that each of my options give me?
5) What are the other players’ options for dealing with it? Do I have the last clear chance to act? If a player to my right has passed on an opportunity to deal with a threat at Sorcery or tapped out, is there any known reason that that player may have chosen not to have responded by this moment in the game? Can he cast instants or has he really passed? If all players are tapped out and have passed, you have the most information you are going to get.
6) What is the latest moment I can decide to neutralize a threat, and will I have any more information by then? If I pass the timing window on one of my options, how much more information am I likely to get before I’m affected by the threat? When are the threatening triggers, spells, etc, made plain? A card like Trygon Predator announces its intent, but triggers like Annihilator keep themselves secret until they are actually on the stack. There is little advantage to waiting there, because no information may be gained.
7) If I decide to risk the threat going unanswered, what is the most serious result to me, and how likely is it? How well can I bear it? Sometimes we are decidedly out of position, and in that event, it’s sometimes helpful to think worst-case-scenario.
ii - In Playing Our Threats:
1) Who do we want to eliminate first, and how well is he able to deal with that? How likely are other players to respond if we become the largest active threat at the table?
2) If the coast is clear now, what do I have to fear coming off the top of one of my opponent’s decks? If that happens, what is my plan B?
3) If not us, who is the greatest threat at the table, how would we be collaterally affected by sweeps and other answers primarily intended for that player? Is this player screening our plays or tempting us to overextend?
4) If a mutual opponent is posing a threat, how far is that threat likely to go? If it’s past the time where other players would’ve acted, who’s likely to be eliminated first? How does the board look if that happens and we play out? If we search into our deck for answers?
5) What do we know of the habits of the players at the table? How is their threat assessment? If they are accustomed to looking at the board and nothing else, we might be still more inclined to wait.
One in particular was a six player game where I was to the immediate right of the control/combo player. I knew he was building up until he could kill the table, but none of the others players would attempt to push him. As a result on my turn he had all of his resources available to stop my attempts to kill him, and then immediately untapped afterwards.
If I had been on his immediate left instead, I would have forced him to use his resources early and he would have been undefended against the rest of the table.
EDH Decks
BGGlissa, the TraitorGB
URTibor and LumiaRU
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticBUW
UBSygg, River CutthroatBU
RGXenagos, God of RevelsGR
UGVorel of the Hull CladeGU
GBSavra, Queen of the GolgariBG
URGMaelstrom WandererGRU
Another interesting thing to note is the section vs the control player. You mention the ideal is for them to be on the right. While this does indeed make sense in the perspective of psyching them out and making them choose between dealing with your threat or saving the answer for someone else later in the turn cycle, this also reveals another problem - them being to your right means they take their turn just before you do. This means that generally, most of their mana is untapped and ready to answer whatever you're about to drop. If it's anywhere near threatening and they're playing blue, then that just increases the risk of that getting countered. Which can lead to one of three scenarios, none of which are really beneficial to us (unless you were baiting counters):
i) No other player drops anything worth answering or within the vicinity of threatening as what you played, and it returns to the control player again. The control player made the right play on the counter, and you lost a threat.
ii) Another player, seeking to take advantage of the (relative) shortage in the control player's resource base drops his own threat, but ALAS, the control player ran out of resources/answers, and is unable to answer it. Everyone else is scrambling for an answer, and you're at a double-loss - not only are you still down a threat, but now you have to deal with what's on the board (and/or are secretly hoping/depending on the control player to somehow answer it)
iii) Similar to above, but now the control player can answer the threat. Controller down 2 answers, and you and someone else is down a threat each.
iv) As discussed, control player can simply choose to wait for a better threat to answer, or attempt to answer it at the last player's end step. Your threat resolves (for now).
Out of the 4 possible outcomes, you're only winning in one of them. Being the first to act after the control player untaps can be a powerful position, but it can also open you up to being the first under fire while allowing others to make use of THEIR position.
Just my 0.02$, and something to consider (assuming what i said makes any sense at all)
xMage: Jankmaster
Commander - Now Playing
WUBSen Triplets - "If you shake my hand, better count your fingersBUW RHomura, Human AscendantR RGBorborygmos EnragedGR URMelek, Izzet ParagonRU
Commander - Still Brewing
BRGGyrus, Waker of CorpsesGRB URSaheeli, the GiftedRU WRJor Kadeen, the PrevailerRW
Also, just wanted to point out in the I-B Rafiq example that you can use Ray of Command to sacrifice Sheoldred instead! Seems like a pretty good turn to me.
Yeah, you're right. I started writing that example with one thing in mind, then it turned into something else. I suppose I could edit out RoC, since it doesn't fit there anymore.
Apologies for the wall of text. I do think theory is something quite tangential by nature, and that the benefits of understanding it come by us in very vague terns, but I do tend to ramble sometimes. Hopefully things are overexplained rather than underexplained, and people with the time can get something from it.
@DasNekros - I do see a lot of positional hang up's when it comes to counterspells. I touched a bit on it in the section on Blue Mages, but I'm sure I haven't addressed everything. Basically three things -
First, I see a lot more B/G rock style control in EDH than I do classic draw go, and lots of counter heavy decks also incorporate board control. So, I would still want to be to the left of most of these players, if I'm playing any sort of control myself.
Second, there's a difference between optimal control play and poor control play, and the guide assumes optimal play. With the counterspell player playing optimally, the decision to counter one of your threats should be much, much more difficult to make than the decision to counter the spell of someone immediately to his right before he untaps. Countering your spell off the cuff leaves him open to anything being played behind you. The same off the cuff countering of someone's spell to his right is just doing something with his mana before untap. This should lead to more of your small stuff getting through, with theoretically most of the big game-warping stuff from the table being stopped, regardless of position. So I understand that it doesn't always pan out this way, but being to a counter player's left should (emphasis italics) be better.
Third, I'm playing on MODO and Timmy just countered my spell. This position stuff is BS. What I mean to say is that reality trumps theory, always. Which is why I touched a bit on how information revealed by position is one input of many that contributes to the overall information war. Pieces of information compete with one another for being the most important. And information about Timmy's deck, his innate propensities and habits as a player of countering stuff off the cuff is better at informing you of the likelihood that your stuff will get through than is positional theory. But some nameless avatar online sits to the right of me with Island/Forest untapped, I have every reason to believe that a Wood Elves of mine will not meet Arcane Denial, but that one from a player to the guy's right might if the player really needs a card.
The player with the biggest roll at the table in our group gets to choose who starts first and which direction it goes so this has been really insightful into my future decision making this.
I also agree on what DasNekros and you said about control players, so I have recently been toning down on the counterspells and loading up on more removal. Stuff like Quicken and Magosi, the Waterveil increase the flexibility of your position in Multiplayer FFAs. Quicken turns your Wrath of Gods into Routs, and Magosi inserts your turn into whenever you want it. I remember long ago I skipped my turn with Magosi, then untapped via Unbender Tine, then inserted that skipped turn into somewhere else. I still remember those looks of WTFs. Golden...
These forums needs like buttons and +rep...
~~~~~~~~~~EDH~~~~~~~~~~
WKemba, Kha RegentW
UAboshan, Cephalid EmperorU
BCao Cao, Lord of Wei / Ink-Eyes, Servant of OniB
WUIth, High Arcanist / Isperia, Supreme JudgeWU
BGGlissa, the TraitorBG
Anyways, you're looking way too into it. EDH is a casual format, and turn order isn't all that important in a ffa since it is going to be random by nature anyways. Trying to analyze turn order is pointless when there are so many variables in multiplayer (especially EDH).
Be the giver or the undertaker
Unlock and open the door
Be the healer or the breaker
The keys are in your hands
Realize you are your own source of all creation
BOf your own master planB
Trust me this IS NOT A MASTERS!!!(you obviously have never attended higher education). It is a very good obsevation and does warrant thought.
You could make an analogue with the stack, wich sets the stage to position. I think that subconsiously, all players do understand position, but don't react to the long term effect it has on the outcome of the game. The stack is well defined, thus can be daunted, but if they do play out of position, then every thing goes chaos.
I've seen players throw a wrath without any regards to others. Like playing alone. And later wishing they had held on to said wrath cuz someone else nailed the table, and played one badass to rule the battlefield. And it all had to do with table position.
I think the best thing to do is if you are in a bad position, use instant removal (or split second), and just make alliances with the player that can affect the player up your badside...
Scuz my english, but i am french...
No duh, it was an exaggeration. It's called a joke. Look it up sometime.
I am well aware of what a thesis and a masters degree is.
Be the giver or the undertaker
Unlock and open the door
Be the healer or the breaker
The keys are in your hands
Realize you are your own source of all creation
BOf your own master planB
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
Of course, the people I've been playing with recently all play super aggro with no interaction, so there's not much point to choosing where I sit...
Proud member of Fires Rf Salvation
Currently Playing:
BPack RatB
Modern:
WURRWU ControlRUW
Legacy:
UHigh TideU
UGTurbo EldraziGU
EDH:
RWURuhan Planeswalker ControlUWR
RGBProssh, Skyraider of KherBGR
I think that is exacly what this is about. In an aggro environment, there are so many things that happen in one rotation.
Next time you play, just try to think about it. It will illuminate your game...
Mods, if this is truly against the spirit of the forum, please forgive me and take any action necessary to correct my transgression.
I am interested in hearing about others' experiences with table position in both play and deck construction. I find that I do not explicitly think of table position during either deck construction or play, but I use at least some of the theory presented here for both, almost exclusively in an intuitive and not explicit fashion. There is a fair amount of discussion in multiplayer MTG that is labeled as "politics" that I think may be more appropriately discussed in terms of table position and threat assessment, and this is an area that is super interesting to me. I think I could optimize my deck construction choices if I paid better attention and utilized table position better in play, since my need for instant speed answers in my decks is an effort to optimize game play outside of table position, and this need could be minimized if I just played with table position in mind. I have a tendency to think of MTG more in terms of chess theory, but I recognize that I should also incorporate some poker theory in my play as well, and this subject points to that need.
Are there additions to the ideas presented here that could aid my understanding of table position in multiplayer MTG? Are there cards/card mechanics that have been introduced since this thread that change how one should interpret/take advantage of this theory? Do you have concrete examples of both deck construction and play that either highlight the above theory or counter the above theory? What commanders/decks do you run that take advantage of this theory, or how do you overcome the limitations of your commander/deck if they are unable to explicitly take advantage of the ideas in this theory? Are there other resources that I could turn to for education on this subject?
Thanks ahead of time for any responses, and I apologize for the thread necro.
WUBSente: The Politics and Metaphor of Stones
My Vampire Hunter Kit Innistrad Themed Cube!
Magic does not operate under the same parity, and therefore the incentives are different. Magic players aren't interested in edging out EV, or betting people out. Although both games use similar "tools" lets say (bluffing, known/unknown informstion) the theory of position here is a dressed up version of Threat assessment. Your position can't and will not determine which cards you draw, or in which sequence they should be played. Only threat assessment can do that. You can say well "I'm two players away from the guy with Blightsteel Colossus I'm in better position to do X" is not only untrue, it is ever changing. Position is just a weak variable that I can't see changing outcomes or even be worth noticing.
If position matters can you:
A) be a bad player in good position to win and win because of position?
B) can you be a good player and beat another good player based on position?
C) can you have good threat assessment skills and bad position and expect to lose more?
I enjoy the threat assessment information in this article, I feel like it attempts to marry Poker theory and Magic in a way that Poker theory was never meant. If position is a variable, it looks an awful lot like threat assessment to even know the difference. If you want to say position is "a part" of threat assessment - then it's the one you have the least control over, commutes no obvious advantage and won't benefit from knowing well.
WUBSente: The Politics and Metaphor of Stones
My Vampire Hunter Kit Innistrad Themed Cube!
WUBSente: The Politics and Metaphor of Stones
My Vampire Hunter Kit Innistrad Themed Cube!
Position makes sense in Poker only because you're in the position with the most amount of information, you see who is betting the pot and how much is on the line. In Magic having access to all of the information doesnt also convert your cards into answers. Also, luck exists. Just because you're the last to act doesn't mean you can play garbage hands. The scenario "equal deck power, plus equal draws seems like it would win games." doesn't give way to variance. Decks SHOULD be assessing threats based on their own self-interests, regardless of position because a life total of 40 is explicit - you lose 40 life you lose. We're looking at Game Theory (threat assessment) and your ability to answer threats will always mean more than your position at the table, and then luck would be a lot more important. And down the line forever until maybe position is a variable. You can, as anyone in statistics knows, adjust for all other variables to bring out what you're looking for.
We have decades of Poker data to look at to basically suggest, all things being equal, luck is the variable. Magic has an unequal distribution of cards in your deck, and that is true for all opponents. All I'm saying is I'd focus less on position and prepare more for bad actors/sub optimal/bad reads on your part and opponents - and a fair amount of bad beats on the part of luck.
I don't imagine a scenario where A or B are ever true. And C is possible if the game was decided on Turn 1.
WUBSente: The Politics and Metaphor of Stones
My Vampire Hunter Kit Innistrad Themed Cube!