So I've closed the poll for the original post. If you would like to read that post it's embedded in the spoiler below.
The topic has shifted to discussion on what is fair and unfair tabletalk. There is a lot of good discussion about how to take an acceptable shortcut of phases or steps. Also people are discussing how there playgroup handles tabletalk. Some groups are very open to discussing hypothetical plays. Some players fiercely defend the policy of keeping your word on a deal and punish (ingame) those who don't.
So I'd like to know what you think about tabletalk?
How much do you or your playgroup do it?
Does your group have any gentlemen's rules or limits?
Has the talk ever gotten out of hand or unsportsmanlike?
Have you ever had a situation where tabletalk seemed unfair?
On the flip side, have you ever had tabletalk turn into an epic coordinated play to bring down a indominatable opponent?
When has tabletalk been awesome or funny?
The original post:
Ok so quick background: I was playing a 4-person pickup game of EDH at my LGS on a Sat morning. No League points or prizes or anything up for grabs. I was playing my janky random coin-flipping mono red deck for lolz. Another player was playing a casual UB Wydwen, the Biting Gale deck. The third player, the "opponent" was playing a serious Kurkesh, Onakke Ancient artifact combo deck. The fourth player had already been eliminated by someone. We were having a pretty goodtime. The Kurkesh player was ramping and doubling red mana which was fun cause I got to cast big fun cards like Scrambleverse which amused the UB player because he ended up with most of the stuff.
At one point I get to cast Unwilling Recruit stealing Wydwen with a massive +25 bonus on an otherwise empty board. The Kurkesh player knew I had this card in hand actually because we laughed about it back when he first started doubling mountains. Anyways the spell resolves and I casually announce "attack step?" At this point the Kurkesh player becomes serious and asks me if I am attacking him because if I plan on it he will respond by tapping down the creature with his Tumble Magnet. I respond that he can't tap after I have declared attackers , it will be too late to stop it at that point. So he asks me again if I plan on attacking him. I respond by asking if he was passing priority for the main phase. He just repeats his question.
At this point I say that he can't ask me that ahead of time, it would be againist the rules. He replies that its just table talk and it's normal and not a big deal.
After a bit of back and forth, I tell him honestly that if he doesnt like the possibility of me attacking him then he should use his Tumble Magnet during the main phase. He then decides to make the correct play and tap down the creature. Honestly, I hadn't decided who to attack yet. I did feel like lying and telling him I'd attack the UB player and then attacking the Kurkesh player anyway, but that's not my style.
So how do y'all feel about this situation. Obviously he made the "correct play" in the end, but was it just "tabletalk" or was he trying to circumvent the rules for his advantage?
There's no bending of rules as long as he recognizes that he can't respond once you do declare attackers. I'll ask people if they're going to attack me all the time, with the understanding that their answer isn't binding until they actually declare attackers. If they say they're not going to and I believe them, I hold on to my response. If they're planning on hitting me or are noncommittal about it, I'll hit their creature pre-combat.
What your opponent was doing was tabletalk. There's nothing in the rules that says your opponents can't ask you your intent before you take game actions, just like there's nothing in the rules that says you have to answer them or abide by your answer when the time comes to actually make the decision.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
I see it as tabletalk as well but you were right in first announcing attackers. In our playgroup they usually skip declare attackers and just attack and that kinda sucks since they reveal information on who they will attack before you get to respond to them wanting to move to declare attackers step, and by that point usually it's too late. I usually just tell him/her to continue with the attack but next time do it properly.
You were right in saying that you don't need to tell him, i hope that'll teach him something. I've seen alot of players getting attacked even after declaring an attack that they want to tap down x creatures of kill x creatures, and that shouldn't really fly. Thing is often times there's alot going on during a multiplayer game, discussions, amybe some trades, banter among players etc so i can understand if things gets confusing (i bet there's a better word for it) sometimes.
The poll lacks some clarity. No, there is no bending or breaking of the rules here. It's table talk. However, you are under absolutely no obligation to give him the information and he can't insist on it if you refuse. Also, you could lie, but I'm like you in that I don't like lying.
Its politics dude. That is part of what EDH is about. He should try to convince you to attack someone else. Its up to you to either give him information, make a deal or make a deal and double cross.
His questions were basically the whole point of EDH. Politics and tabletalk and colluding and random fun. Regarding the game's actual rules, you're correct that you don't have to tell him anything until you actually declare attackers, at which point it will be too late for him to tap you down. And it's your right to decide not to answer his question. But he's perfectly fine asking it at most EDH tables I've ever been to.
I'm not even really clear on what rule you think he bent. Saying "I intend/don't intend to attack you" is not the same as declaring attackers, and you're free to say that in your beginning of combat step, your upkeep, an opponent's draw step three turns ago, whenever you want.
And player communication is a thing that's really only regulated in the tournament rules, which don't apply to a casual commander game. Your opponent is free to ask whatever he'd like, and you're free to answer truthfully, decline to say anything, or lie as suits you.
I personally prefer not to lie in multiplayer games, always telling the truth or refusing to answer, because I think that it makes the politics more interesting if people know they can count on me to follow through, honor any deals I make, etc, and because sometimes things like "I'm not going to attack you. Surprise! I'm attacking you!" can undermine the congenial atmosphere of a game. I really recommend at least not lying about things you wouldn't be allowed to lie about in a tournament (i.e., free and derived information), as I feel almost everyone will feel that's a scummy thing to do, but different people/groups have different standards regarding lying about things you're going to do, breaking deals, that sort of thing.
Perhaps I should clarify, I agree the opponent should ask about attacks, that is tabletalk. But after it became apparent I wasn't going to answer him and he should make his play one way or the other, he should not continue to push the question. To do so is equivalent to trying to "take back" his priority despite me giving him the opportunity to respond initially. This is where I felt he was trying to bend rules, to get the option to "go back" and take his action.
Ultimately he made the correct play and tapped but only after I relented and answered his question.
I would say its ok to ask and have tabletalk, but continual pressuring and not allowing the gamestate to move forward until I answered is wrong.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I wasn't there, but it doesn't sound to me like he was trying to bend the rules by getting you to declare attackers and then going back to beginning of combat to tap one; it sounds to me more like his intention was legitimate table talk, but he was being excessively rude and pushy about it.
If you explained your decision not to tell him as not being allowed to tell him, I can understand him following up, since he might have heard that as "I'd like to tell you, but unfortunately the rules prevent me," which of course isn't true. Regardless, though, that's no excuse for being rude about it.
After a bit of back and forth, I tell him honestly that if he doesnt like the possibility of me attacking him then he should use his Tumble Magnet during the main phase.
Ultimately he made the correct play and tapped but only after I relented and answered his question.
Which one was it? Did you tell him that you won't answer and if he's afraid of you attacking him he should tap you down? Or did you answer his question?
After a bit of back and forth, I tell him honestly that if he doesnt like the possibility of me attacking him then he should use his Tumble Magnet during the main phase.
Ultimately he made the correct play and tapped but only after I relented and answered his question.
Which one was it? Did you tell him that you won't answer and if he's afraid of you attacking him he should tap you down? Or did you answer his question?
I answered his question by saying if he didn't like the possibility then he should play accordingly. Essentially saying I was giving him no guarentees of peace. He didnt like that answer so he tapped. However my original intent in asking "attack step?" was to see if he or anyone wanted to do anything about Wydwen. At the tim I honestly hadnt decided on who to attack. Again he was ok to ask, ok to tap during main, but his line of questioning and even how he phrased his question implied he was only going to allow me to progress to attack step if I wasnt attacking him and if I did attack him he would try to take back priority during main. However I ask attack step so that no one can complain I moved to declare attackers too soon.
I understand this as the correct and safe way to pass priority in main so no one can try to go back.
After a bit of back and forth, I tell him honestly that if he doesnt like the possibility of me attacking him then he should use his Tumble Magnet during the main phase.
Ultimately he made the correct play and tapped but only after I relented and answered his question.
Which one was it? Did you tell him that you won't answer and if he's afraid of you attacking him he should tap you down? Or did you answer his question?
I answered his question by saying if he didn't like the possibility then he should play accordingly. Essentially saying I was giving him no guarentees of peace. He didnt like that answer so he tapped. However my original intent in asking "attack step?" was to see if he or anyone wanted to do anything about Wydwen. At the tim I honestly hadnt decided on who to attack. Again he was ok to ask, ok to tap during main, but his line of questioning and even how he phrased his question implied he was only going to allow me to progress to attack step if I wasnt attacking him and if I did attack him he would try to take back priority during main. However I ask attack step so that no one can complain I moved to declare attackers too soon.
I understand this as the correct and safe way to pass priority in main so no one can try to go back.
I obviously wasn't there so I can't comment on anybody's tone or body language. But the way you've phrased everything sounds innocent enough. Essentially you gave no more information than would be gleaned by simply moving through steps, and once you made it clear that you weren't going to tell him prior to the declare attack step he made the play. Perhaps the easiest way this all could have been avoided was for you to make that clear the first time he asked, rather than getting into a conversation about the legality of his question (which is irrelevant to the situation).
Perhaps I should clarify, I agree the opponent should ask about attacks, that is tabletalk. But after it became apparent I wasn't going to answer him and he should make his play one way or the other, he should not continue to push the question. To do so is equivalent to trying to "take back" his priority despite me giving him the opportunity to respond initially. This is where I felt he was trying to bend rules, to get the option to "go back" and take his action.
Ultimately he made the correct play and tapped but only after I relented and answered his question.
I would say its ok to ask and have tabletalk, but continual pressuring and not allowing the gamestate to move forward until I answered is wrong.
Okay, that helps focus the discussion a little.
Still okay from most stand points but it is a little anti-social. If the player regularly displayed that characteristic I would probably avoid playing with him.
Ok so, I've gotten some good replies from y'all. Thanks for the input. If a situation like this arises again, I will stand my ground on choosing to not reply.
Follow up question, is there anything in regards to tabletalk that does cross the line?
Understand, I fully get the merits of being political in multiplayer games. I totally agree with this, and enjoy the interactions. But have you ever had a situation where players communicated unfairly or inappropriately?
For example,
I've played a few games where two friends prior to the match agree to gang up on the other player(s) before settling things between them. ~Personally, I sometimes try to kill my buddy first
Another situation that burns me up is when a rude or obnoxious player takes advantage of a newer player or a young player by demeaning there plays/deck/skills. They do this to divert attention away from the fact their own board state is weak and the "newb" could actually kill them. This doesn't help build a community IMO.
Ok so, I've gotten some good replies from y'all. Thanks for the input. If a situation like this arises again, I will stand my ground on choosing to not reply.
Follow up question, is there anything in regards to tabletalk that does cross the line?
Understand, I fully get the merits of being political in multiplayer games. I totally agree with this, and enjoy the interactions. But have you ever had a situation where players communicated unfairly or inappropriately?
For example,
I've played a few games where two friends prior to the match agree to gang up on the other player(s) before settling things between them. ~Personally, I sometimes try to kill my buddy first
Another situation that burns me up is when a rude or obnoxious player takes advantage of a newer player or a young player by demeaning there plays/deck/skills. They do this to divert attention away from the fact their own board state is weak and the "newb" could actually kill them. This doesn't help build a community IMO.
You throw out a few examples that could be considered crossing the line if they are regular occurences. I think the key is, if its behavior that would be considered anti-social and if its a regular pattern of behavior, then it crosses the line. Or if it regularly shifts the balance of power in games. Occasional alliances are okay. But consistently ganging up is not.
Asking leading questions is fine. I usually preface my questions with the "You can also refuse to answer, at which point I will assume the worst, or you could lie, which I will remember in future occasions."
You say the 'correct' play is tapping down the creature... but he has another opponent too. Letting you kill that opponent is also a 'correct' play. While you are under no compulsion to share information, he's simply pointing out in that situation that you may have a cause for mutual gain in that you would want the creature not tapped down in order to not waste your spell and eliminate a player, and he may have incentive to allow you to do so.
In a 1v1 game, determining 'correct' plays and advantage is a lot easier. You have you, and an opponent. You want to do things that benefit you, and harm your opponent. In multiplayer though, the dynamic shifts. Sometimes aiding an opponent is the more 'correct' play, if it ends up being more detrimental to your other opponents, as compared to you.
As far as your original question goes.
Table talk is ok in my book, but trying to force you to commit is a win-at-all-costs antisocial way to handle the situation. HE should man up and either tap your creature or take the half chance you choose to beat his face. Tapping your creature was probably the correct choice regardless, but if he wants to use a tap effect as a fog... he should probably find a card that actually does what fog does.
Honestly, if I were in your shoes I would probably mention something threatening about the third players board looking scary then just swing at the red guy for trying to force my hand. I normally wouldn't swing at the guy who can nullify my attacks because it causes future incentive to do so. Then in future interactions hope other people see this and let me be (like in this case put 25 damage on board against wydwin. Like the prisoners dilemma, whats best for both parties in continued exchanges) However the way Mr. Red handled the situation seems like the wrong way to power-game and irks me.
On the latter examples, BigbearKyle hits the nail on the head, the first takes the competition out of a competitive game- whats the point. The second is just plane rude and unsportsmanlike. If I were you in that second example I would call the player out on being an ass and encourage the new person to play how he wants, maybe point out how the guy is trying to distract the newb from a good line, and offer deck advice after the game if new guy/girl wants it. Both of these examples are antisocial imo.
A couple of examples where tabletalk was ok in my play group and no one got offended
My last table game altering table talk was telling a player (who was annoyed at me for tucking his general, Titania) that if he swung at me with his animated lands I would kill them all as a response instead of after the attack was through. And that his lands weren't going to make it but if he wanted to get damage through he should attack someone else with them. He thought I was bluffing (but like you I hate lying), but still attacked elsewhere.
Another example where table talk was ok recently was me on mono B trying to dig deep with necro and just bricking hard. Another player told me he was trying to get me to necro less and would hit me down to 1 if I kept using it like that. I told him that's not how I play magic and I would die before I changed my pattern. He tried to alter my play with the threat of locking me at no draws at 1 hp... which was a fine thing to threaten me with. And I told him I won't alter my play for that... no harm no foul. (I lost to him next turn but forced it by tutoring an o-stone). What I lost in that exchange was a game I probably wasn't winning either way and gained by giving my playgroup more information about me being harder to bluff.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current edh decks
Gitrog Lands
Merieke Ri Berit Flicker
Ramos, Dragon Engine Storm
Table talk and politics are all fine, they can even get quite heated and still be fun - that usually means it's a fairly close game.
I think you will be able to tell quite easily when someone crosses the line, people will feel annoyed.
My playgroup hasn't changed for years and we all known eachother really well, so sometimes what would seem like crossing the line to others is fine in our case. We even have this tradition, if we get together for some MTG on someone's birthday, which we often do, it's tradition that the 'birthday-boy' cannot with, no matter the cost! which is usually hilarious.
Besides that we have a player who is a bit less experienced and doesn't have his own decks, so he usually borrows a deck and plays along, but he adds a bit of a chaotic factor to the game since he doesn't always make the 'best-play' so to speak. Which in all honesty is quite funny and sometimes it can be a real killer to your strategy if you expect someone to react in a certain way with the option they have available.
If I have a means of tapping in a situation like this, I assume you will shortcut to combat against someone else. If you move to declaration of attackers I have to assume that is the same as it being pointed at me. When you declare your attackers he needs to just tap it because you not short cutting to attacking someone else is the same as pointing it at him. You are not required to respond to him but your actions sort of speak for themselves as you could have otherwise shortcutted into combat attacking someone else if you did not want to attack him.
My meta uses shortcuts all the time like this. When you moved to declaration of attacks its the same thing as it already attacking him. If he passes priority or says nothing when you announce your move to attackers phase he can no longer tap it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
If I have a means of tapping in a situation like this, I assume you will shortcut to combat against someone else. If you move to declaration of attackers I have to assume that is the same as it being pointed at me. When you declare your attackers he needs to just tap it because you not short cutting to attacking someone else is the same as pointing it at him. You are not required to respond to him but your actions sort of speak for themselves as you could have otherwise shortcutted into combat attacking someone else if you did not want to attack him.
How could the OP assume the other player didn't also have a potential response to declare attackers? I mean, it's Wydwen. She's practically InstantSpeed.dec.
To the OP, you were in the wrong when you told your opponent he wasn't allowed to ask what he did. He was in the wrong when he refused to accept your answer of "maybe I'll attack you, maybe I won't."
But in the grand scheme of EDH social faux pas it's really not a big deal.
Oh man, deals happen all the time in my playgroup. The answers are nonbinding, but it's very rare that someone breaks a promise without reason. Whenever someone's resolving a Tempt With Discovery, the first opponent always checks with other players and they make a covenant not to take the deal before the first player commits to it.
Example. The other day, I was playing my deck with a couple of friends - commanders being Sharuum, Momir Vig, and my Jarad. Momir had Edric in his graveyard and telegraphed a Body Double for it next turn, I had no creatures in play, and Sharuum player had a number, but also sorely wanted to take the U/G player of blue mana to not need to play around his counterspells. I told him that I would reanimate the Edric if he didn't attack me and took the blue player off mana, which he did (he wanted the Edric in play). However, I topdecked Tooth and Nail, and won on my turn instead of reanimating it - breaking my promise. Nobody really cared because I had won, and had intended to keep my promise when I made it, but I wasn't able to make any more deals that night :p.
As far as your original question goes.
Table talk is ok in my book, but trying to force you to commit is a win-at-all-costs antisocial way to handle the situation. HE should man up and either tap your creature or take the half chance you choose to beat his face. Tapping your creature was probably the correct choice regardless, but if he wants to use a tap effect as a fog... he should probably find a card that actually does what fog does.
Honestly, if I were in your shoes I would probably mention something threatening about the third players board looking scary then just swing at the red guy for trying to force my hand. I normally wouldn't swing at the guy who can nullify my attacks because it causes future incentive to do so. Then in future interactions hope other people see this and let me be (like in this case put 25 damage on board against wydwin. Like the prisoners dilemma, whats best for both parties in continued exchanges) However the way Mr. Red handled the situation seems like the wrong way to power-game and irks me.
On the latter examples, BigbearKyle hits the nail on the head, the first takes the competition out of a competitive game- whats the point. The second is just plane rude and unsportsmanlike. If I were you in that second example I would call the player out on being an ass and encourage the new person to play how he wants, maybe point out how the guy is trying to distract the newb from a good line, and offer deck advice after the game if new guy/girl wants it. Both of these examples are antisocial imo.
A couple of examples where tabletalk was ok in my play group and no one got offended
My last table game altering table talk was telling a player (who was annoyed at me for tucking his general, Titania) that if he swung at me with his animated lands I would kill them all as a response instead of after the attack was through. And that his lands weren't going to make it but if he wanted to get damage through he should attack someone else with them. He thought I was bluffing (but like you I hate lying), but still attacked elsewhere.
Another example where table talk was ok recently was me on mono B trying to dig deep with necro and just bricking hard. Another player told me he was trying to get me to necro less and would hit me down to 1 if I kept using it like that. I told him that's not how I play magic and I would die before I changed my pattern. He tried to alter my play with the threat of locking me at no draws at 1 hp... which was a fine thing to threaten me with. And I told him I won't alter my play for that... no harm no foul. (I lost to him next turn but forced it by tutoring an o-stone). What I lost in that exchange was a game I probably wasn't winning either way and gained by giving my playgroup more information about me being harder to bluff.
I got a similar threat, a player that plays quite alot of Land destruction threatned me to play like he wanted and i said:" -Are you threatning me? If so **** you dude, i'll play my game".
Im used to be the one getting targeted, seems like it's become a thing by now.
I was playing my Karn deck (<3) and he followed up with a From the Ashes, i didn't even have a good board.
IMO That was bad tabletalk but i did let him know that bull***** does not fly with me (i think that's a saying! lol).
So i was sitting there not drawing any lands. It really sucked tho but it's ok that those situations happens since the group/the players in attendence would be ready for such a situation.
The topic has shifted to discussion on what is fair and unfair tabletalk. There is a lot of good discussion about how to take an acceptable shortcut of phases or steps. Also people are discussing how there playgroup handles tabletalk. Some groups are very open to discussing hypothetical plays. Some players fiercely defend the policy of keeping your word on a deal and punish (ingame) those who don't.
So I'd like to know what you think about tabletalk?
How much do you or your playgroup do it?
Does your group have any gentlemen's rules or limits?
Has the talk ever gotten out of hand or unsportsmanlike?
Have you ever had a situation where tabletalk seemed unfair?
On the flip side, have you ever had tabletalk turn into an epic coordinated play to bring down a indominatable opponent?
When has tabletalk been awesome or funny?
The original post:
Ok so quick background: I was playing a 4-person pickup game of EDH at my LGS on a Sat morning. No League points or prizes or anything up for grabs. I was playing my janky random coin-flipping mono red deck for lolz. Another player was playing a casual UB Wydwen, the Biting Gale deck. The third player, the "opponent" was playing a serious Kurkesh, Onakke Ancient artifact combo deck. The fourth player had already been eliminated by someone. We were having a pretty goodtime. The Kurkesh player was ramping and doubling red mana which was fun cause I got to cast big fun cards like Scrambleverse which amused the UB player because he ended up with most of the stuff.
At one point I get to cast Unwilling Recruit stealing Wydwen with a massive +25 bonus on an otherwise empty board. The Kurkesh player knew I had this card in hand actually because we laughed about it back when he first started doubling mountains. Anyways the spell resolves and I casually announce "attack step?" At this point the Kurkesh player becomes serious and asks me if I am attacking him because if I plan on it he will respond by tapping down the creature with his Tumble Magnet. I respond that he can't tap after I have declared attackers , it will be too late to stop it at that point. So he asks me again if I plan on attacking him. I respond by asking if he was passing priority for the main phase. He just repeats his question.
At this point I say that he can't ask me that ahead of time, it would be againist the rules. He replies that its just table talk and it's normal and not a big deal.
After a bit of back and forth, I tell him honestly that if he doesnt like the possibility of me attacking him then he should use his Tumble Magnet during the main phase. He then decides to make the correct play and tap down the creature. Honestly, I hadn't decided who to attack yet. I did feel like lying and telling him I'd attack the UB player and then attacking the Kurkesh player anyway, but that's not my style.
So how do y'all feel about this situation. Obviously he made the "correct play" in the end, but was it just "tabletalk" or was he trying to circumvent the rules for his advantage?
What your opponent was doing was tabletalk. There's nothing in the rules that says your opponents can't ask you your intent before you take game actions, just like there's nothing in the rules that says you have to answer them or abide by your answer when the time comes to actually make the decision.
You were right in saying that you don't need to tell him, i hope that'll teach him something. I've seen alot of players getting attacked even after declaring an attack that they want to tap down x creatures of kill x creatures, and that shouldn't really fly. Thing is often times there's alot going on during a multiplayer game, discussions, amybe some trades, banter among players etc so i can understand if things gets confusing (i bet there's a better word for it) sometimes.
Who needs Colours?
My most played EDH deck:
X Kozilek, the Great Distortion
UBR Nekusar, the Mindrazer
In other words, what you did was perfectly right.
EDH Decks:
WUBOloro, Combo ControlWUB
UBOona Reanimator ComboUB
BRGProssh, Eater of the Blue MageBRG
UBRGrixis StormUBR
Rebuilding Jenara (stealyourstuff.dec)
Pauper Deck:
UBInspired SirenUB
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
UBRThe MindrazerRBU
UUUSpymaster of TrestGGG
GGGThe South TreeGGG
RRRHuman AscendantRRR
And player communication is a thing that's really only regulated in the tournament rules, which don't apply to a casual commander game. Your opponent is free to ask whatever he'd like, and you're free to answer truthfully, decline to say anything, or lie as suits you.
I personally prefer not to lie in multiplayer games, always telling the truth or refusing to answer, because I think that it makes the politics more interesting if people know they can count on me to follow through, honor any deals I make, etc, and because sometimes things like "I'm not going to attack you. Surprise! I'm attacking you!" can undermine the congenial atmosphere of a game. I really recommend at least not lying about things you wouldn't be allowed to lie about in a tournament (i.e., free and derived information), as I feel almost everyone will feel that's a scummy thing to do, but different people/groups have different standards regarding lying about things you're going to do, breaking deals, that sort of thing.
Ultimately he made the correct play and tapped but only after I relented and answered his question.
I would say its ok to ask and have tabletalk, but continual pressuring and not allowing the gamestate to move forward until I answered is wrong.
If you explained your decision not to tell him as not being allowed to tell him, I can understand him following up, since he might have heard that as "I'd like to tell you, but unfortunately the rules prevent me," which of course isn't true. Regardless, though, that's no excuse for being rude about it.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
I answered his question by saying if he didn't like the possibility then he should play accordingly. Essentially saying I was giving him no guarentees of peace. He didnt like that answer so he tapped. However my original intent in asking "attack step?" was to see if he or anyone wanted to do anything about Wydwen. At the tim I honestly hadnt decided on who to attack. Again he was ok to ask, ok to tap during main, but his line of questioning and even how he phrased his question implied he was only going to allow me to progress to attack step if I wasnt attacking him and if I did attack him he would try to take back priority during main. However I ask attack step so that no one can complain I moved to declare attackers too soon.
I understand this as the correct and safe way to pass priority in main so no one can try to go back.
Standard: lol no
Modern: BG/x, UR/x, Burn, Merfolk, Zoo, Storm
Legacy: Shardless BUG, Delver (BUG, RUG, Grixis), Landstill, Depths Combo, Merfolk
Vintage: Dark Times, BUG Fish, Merfolk
EDH: Teysa, Orzhov Scion / Krenko, Mob Boss / Stonebrow, Krosan Hero
Okay, that helps focus the discussion a little.
Still okay from most stand points but it is a little anti-social. If the player regularly displayed that characteristic I would probably avoid playing with him.
EDH Decks:
WUBOloro, Combo ControlWUB
UBOona Reanimator ComboUB
BRGProssh, Eater of the Blue MageBRG
UBRGrixis StormUBR
Rebuilding Jenara (stealyourstuff.dec)
Pauper Deck:
UBInspired SirenUB
Follow up question, is there anything in regards to tabletalk that does cross the line?
Understand, I fully get the merits of being political in multiplayer games. I totally agree with this, and enjoy the interactions. But have you ever had a situation where players communicated unfairly or inappropriately?
For example,
I've played a few games where two friends prior to the match agree to gang up on the other player(s) before settling things between them. ~Personally, I sometimes try to kill my buddy first
Another situation that burns me up is when a rude or obnoxious player takes advantage of a newer player or a young player by demeaning there plays/deck/skills. They do this to divert attention away from the fact their own board state is weak and the "newb" could actually kill them. This doesn't help build a community IMO.
You throw out a few examples that could be considered crossing the line if they are regular occurences. I think the key is, if its behavior that would be considered anti-social and if its a regular pattern of behavior, then it crosses the line. Or if it regularly shifts the balance of power in games. Occasional alliances are okay. But consistently ganging up is not.
EDH Decks:
WUBOloro, Combo ControlWUB
UBOona Reanimator ComboUB
BRGProssh, Eater of the Blue MageBRG
UBRGrixis StormUBR
Rebuilding Jenara (stealyourstuff.dec)
Pauper Deck:
UBInspired SirenUB
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffYou say the 'correct' play is tapping down the creature... but he has another opponent too. Letting you kill that opponent is also a 'correct' play. While you are under no compulsion to share information, he's simply pointing out in that situation that you may have a cause for mutual gain in that you would want the creature not tapped down in order to not waste your spell and eliminate a player, and he may have incentive to allow you to do so.
In a 1v1 game, determining 'correct' plays and advantage is a lot easier. You have you, and an opponent. You want to do things that benefit you, and harm your opponent. In multiplayer though, the dynamic shifts. Sometimes aiding an opponent is the more 'correct' play, if it ends up being more detrimental to your other opponents, as compared to you.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
Table talk is ok in my book, but trying to force you to commit is a win-at-all-costs antisocial way to handle the situation. HE should man up and either tap your creature or take the half chance you choose to beat his face. Tapping your creature was probably the correct choice regardless, but if he wants to use a tap effect as a fog... he should probably find a card that actually does what fog does.
Honestly, if I were in your shoes I would probably mention something threatening about the third players board looking scary then just swing at the red guy for trying to force my hand. I normally wouldn't swing at the guy who can nullify my attacks because it causes future incentive to do so. Then in future interactions hope other people see this and let me be (like in this case put 25 damage on board against wydwin. Like the prisoners dilemma, whats best for both parties in continued exchanges) However the way Mr. Red handled the situation seems like the wrong way to power-game and irks me.
On the latter examples, BigbearKyle hits the nail on the head, the first takes the competition out of a competitive game- whats the point. The second is just plane rude and unsportsmanlike. If I were you in that second example I would call the player out on being an ass and encourage the new person to play how he wants, maybe point out how the guy is trying to distract the newb from a good line, and offer deck advice after the game if new guy/girl wants it. Both of these examples are antisocial imo.
A couple of examples where tabletalk was ok in my play group and no one got offended
Another example where table talk was ok recently was me on mono B trying to dig deep with necro and just bricking hard. Another player told me he was trying to get me to necro less and would hit me down to 1 if I kept using it like that. I told him that's not how I play magic and I would die before I changed my pattern. He tried to alter my play with the threat of locking me at no draws at 1 hp... which was a fine thing to threaten me with. And I told him I won't alter my play for that... no harm no foul. (I lost to him next turn but forced it by tutoring an o-stone). What I lost in that exchange was a game I probably wasn't winning either way and gained by giving my playgroup more information about me being harder to bluff.
Gitrog Lands
Merieke Ri Berit Flicker
Ramos, Dragon Engine Storm
I think you will be able to tell quite easily when someone crosses the line, people will feel annoyed.
My playgroup hasn't changed for years and we all known eachother really well, so sometimes what would seem like crossing the line to others is fine in our case. We even have this tradition, if we get together for some MTG on someone's birthday, which we often do, it's tradition that the 'birthday-boy' cannot with, no matter the cost! which is usually hilarious.
Besides that we have a player who is a bit less experienced and doesn't have his own decks, so he usually borrows a deck and plays along, but he adds a bit of a chaotic factor to the game since he doesn't always make the 'best-play' so to speak. Which in all honesty is quite funny and sometimes it can be a real killer to your strategy if you expect someone to react in a certain way with the option they have available.
If I have a means of tapping in a situation like this, I assume you will shortcut to combat against someone else. If you move to declaration of attackers I have to assume that is the same as it being pointed at me. When you declare your attackers he needs to just tap it because you not short cutting to attacking someone else is the same as pointing it at him. You are not required to respond to him but your actions sort of speak for themselves as you could have otherwise shortcutted into combat attacking someone else if you did not want to attack him.
My meta uses shortcuts all the time like this. When you moved to declaration of attacks its the same thing as it already attacking him. If he passes priority or says nothing when you announce your move to attackers phase he can no longer tap it.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
How could the OP assume the other player didn't also have a potential response to declare attackers? I mean, it's Wydwen. She's practically InstantSpeed.dec.
To the OP, you were in the wrong when you told your opponent he wasn't allowed to ask what he did. He was in the wrong when he refused to accept your answer of "maybe I'll attack you, maybe I won't."
But in the grand scheme of EDH social faux pas it's really not a big deal.
Avatar by Numotflame96 of Maelstrom Graphics
Sig banner thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Example. The other day, I was playing my deck with a couple of friends - commanders being Sharuum, Momir Vig, and my Jarad. Momir had Edric in his graveyard and telegraphed a Body Double for it next turn, I had no creatures in play, and Sharuum player had a number, but also sorely wanted to take the U/G player of blue mana to not need to play around his counterspells. I told him that I would reanimate the Edric if he didn't attack me and took the blue player off mana, which he did (he wanted the Edric in play). However, I topdecked Tooth and Nail, and won on my turn instead of reanimating it - breaking my promise. Nobody really cared because I had won, and had intended to keep my promise when I made it, but I wasn't able to make any more deals that night :p.
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog
I got a similar threat, a player that plays quite alot of Land destruction threatned me to play like he wanted and i said:" -Are you threatning me? If so **** you dude, i'll play my game".
Im used to be the one getting targeted, seems like it's become a thing by now.
I was playing my Karn deck (<3) and he followed up with a From the Ashes, i didn't even have a good board.
IMO That was bad tabletalk but i did let him know that bull***** does not fly with me (i think that's a saying! lol).
So i was sitting there not drawing any lands. It really sucked tho but it's ok that those situations happens since the group/the players in attendence would be ready for such a situation.
Who needs Colours?
My most played EDH deck:
X Kozilek, the Great Distortion
UBR Nekusar, the Mindrazer