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.
Oh I don't want to spread the wrong connotation. We are friends, the exchange wast an @#$ you either direction, it was a friendly "hey you should try it this way for a bit " followed by a nope from me. I almost sarcastically told him i do not negotiate with terrorists. I think our responses come from the same place though. Take the hate towards your decks as a sign of respect for what you can do with them.
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.
Wild, my group has gone the complete other way. We used to shortcut through a lot of things. Now we try to mindgame each other as much as possible. Declare attack steps, parts of attack steps. Table often go around with 'no responses' after big plays; sometimes the player with latter priority asks the people in front of him if they have any. Attempting to get people to play cards differently just by asking these things happens all the time. We think its pretty fun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current edh decks
Gitrog Lands
Merieke Ri Berit Flicker
Ramos, Dragon Engine Storm
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.
Well, he is only breaking the rules, strictly speaking, if he passes priority on declare attackers, sees your attack announced, then insists on being able to tap it down. But you understood that those are the phases of the game and how priority works, so there you have it.
I would say it's "bending the rules" because, at least how I read the OP, he seemed to be trying to tell you that he gets a chance to tap out your creature after you've declared, and so you'd better attack someone else. Strangely enough, "bending the rules" like this can actually amount to breaking the rules in a tournament. There's basically what amounts to an omnibus provision in the rules that allows a judge to issue a loss for interfering with the game. It's mostly used in the context of intentional delay, etc, but I'm sure it could be used where someone is knowingly trying to pass off an incorrect statement of the rules to you, or arguing about it at length.
What's much more common, and is actually against the rules, is the situation that ISB described. When the attacker shortcuts to their attack step, especially when there is an obviously relevant card on the table, then that's not respecting priority. The person who would lose out here though is the third guy who gets attacked without the Tumble Magnet player having to make a decision. At the very least, what should happen is the attacker would tabletalk his intent to attack someone else, then the Tumble Magnet player would have to decide whether that's truthful or not. Just jumping to the attack and having everyone respect it is giving the Magnet player too easy of a time, at the expense of who gets attacked.
I remember a game where a friend was playing Thraximundar and this happened. It was actually my fault because it hadn't been revealed yet that I had a Capsize in my hand, but I was fully untapped on the other hand. At any rate, I felt bad when he took no action first main, the steps of combat weren't gone through, then he announced the attack at me and I wanted to announce Capsize before the trigger. It wasn't obvious to me that the attack was coming my way, but I guess it should've been.
But just remember for your example, the reason you got into that mess was because you dumped a lot of mana into that threaten effect in full view of something that could nullify it. You should assume that the Tumble Magnet player would respond like that if he couldn't ascertain your intent, and then you didn't do anything to reassure him in order for your play to have effect. That might be all he was trying to do. He may have made the fair assumption that you wouldn't have done that unless you were prepared to negotiate out of the Magnet, then you didn't. It ends up looking like a really odd play from his perspective.
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
Ganging up in advance, or allying while ignoring the gamestate, I think is very lame. If it's a 3 player game, for example, it becomes 2v1, and one of the allied players is basically going to hand the win to his ally by not interfering with him. And of course the player getting ganged up on isn't having much fun. It's a good example of how not playing to win results in game suckage.
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.
If someone else has a swords to plowshares for example they would use it after the declaration is declared. When you move to declaring attackers phase the primary response that needs to happen is tapping things so if nobody has any tapping or if you are not attacking the person with the visible tap option then you would shortcut to attacking someone else. People have the option of backtracking you and using the stack at this time but its a means to sort of cheat around tap issues.
When you shortcut phases anyone can technically rewind you with something but it gives a reason not to tap you if you shortcut to attacking someone else where as if you declare your attackers its assumed that you are attacking the person with the tap option. It has pros and cons but if you want to swing elsewhere shortcutting is beneficial to do in a situation like this.
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.
As many others have pointed out there are no rules against asking your opponents to reveal hidden information like hand contents or intention to attack. Likewise, Frankie Peanuts notwithstanding, there are no rules requiring you to reveal hidden information just because your opponent asked for it. The situation described in the OP is a little bit different, though. The questioning player persisted in his questioning until the questioned player got tired of declining to answer. In a tournament setting an exchange like
Player 1: Are you going to attack with that this turn?
Player 2: I decline to answer that.
Player 1: Are you going to attack with that this turn?
Player 2: I decline to answer that.
Player 1: Are you going to attack with that this turn?
Player 2: I decline to answer that.
.
.
.
would probably result in a warning for stalling for Player 1. Of course, EDH is a casual format so tournament floor rules on stalling don't really apply. Still, even in a casual game (especially in multiplayer), the players have an obligation to move the game along. Even though the information he was asking for was relevant, in my mind this is just like facing a lethal attack that you can do nothing about and insisting on counting each player's deck before moving to the assign damage step. Against the rules? Nope. Cool thing to do? Hell no.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You would never guess, at the terrifying sight of the man, that Hunding was as charming a companion as one could wish for.
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.
Oh I don't want to spread the wrong connotation. We are friends, the exchange wast an @#$ you either direction, it was a friendly "hey you should try it this way for a bit " followed by a nope from me. I almost sarcastically told him i do not negotiate with terrorists. I think our responses come from the same place though. Take the hate towards your decks as a sign of respect for what you can do with them.
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.
Wild, my group has gone the complete other way. We used to shortcut through a lot of things. Now we try to mindgame each other as much as possible. Declare attack steps, parts of attack steps. Table often go around with 'no responses' after big plays; sometimes the player with latter priority asks the people in front of him if they have any. Attempting to get people to play cards differently just by asking these things happens all the time. We think its pretty fun.
Still, we're friends as well, but i didn't like how he talked to me. I usually get the shaft if i face that deck because of Ruintation effects anyways.
I don't think there's anything wrong with him asking once, but three times is unacceptable. If you've decided not to give him free information ahead of time, he needs to make his move or pass priority. My playgroup would just respond "Use your tumble magnet or pass priority."
I think that had you given him a clear answer or a clear deceleration of non-answering it would have been fine. It also sounds like phases changed quickly without giving him time to respond to stuff. If you finish what you want in your main phase and then immediatly move to declare attacks he can be like "wait, I had stuff to do at the end of you main phase."
Since EDH can take a while moving quickly is common, so in cases like that people n my group just back up a bit. If you're in a fragile state and don't want to give somebody the chance to backtrack, make it clear you're changing phases. To throw people off your trail you can do it once in a while when you're not doing anything big too.
Personally if I was you I would have promised not to attack him and swung at someone else. 28 mana to remove a single counter from Tumble Magnet doesn't seem very efficient.
When I play I often say things like "I suggest you swing at someone other than me." and if they don't kill their creature. Since I don't bluff, people don't bother attacking me most of the time, and then I get more use out of removal. Some people take offense to my politicking because it wins me a lot of games, but most see it as fair.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Decks:
Aggro: WUBRGHorde of Notions Goodstuff, RUBCheesy Aggro, GR Xenagod Gruul Goodstuff
Control: GWBGhave, Guru of Adaptability, UBWrexial, Milling Deep UAzami, Lady of No Infinite Combos GWU Derevi, Tempo Beats
Other: URGRiku of Too Much Mana, WUBRG Sliver Queen Enchantress
If someone else has a swords to plowshares for example they would use it after the declaration is declared. When you move to declaring attackers phase the primary response that needs to happen is tapping things so if nobody has any tapping or if you are not attacking the person with the visible tap option then you would shortcut to attacking someone else. People have the option of backtracking you and using the stack at this time but its a means to sort of cheat around tap issues.
When you shortcut phases anyone can technically rewind you with something but it gives a reason not to tap you if you shortcut to attacking someone else where as if you declare your attackers its assumed that you are attacking the person with the tap option. It has pros and cons but if you want to swing elsewhere shortcutting is beneficial to do in a situation like this.
Or you just draft a lot, or play in other formats where combat tricks aren't unheard of, or you have attack triggers, etc etc. I always declare combat because it's a good habit to have and takes a single extra word to do. It's a little more obvious that you should when there's some kind of tap effect on board already, but there are plenty of people who do so out of habit even when there's nothing obvious that could happen in response.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
Or you just draft a lot, or play in other formats where combat tricks aren't unheard of, or you have attack triggers, etc etc. I always declare combat because it's a good habit to have and takes a single extra word to do. It's a little more obvious that you should when there's some kind of tap effect on board already, but there are plenty of people who do so out of habit even when there's nothing obvious that could happen in response.
Think of it this way,
If I have an Eldrazi say Kozilek in play and I "Declare Attackers" at this point, every single opponent at the table should spot remove him if they can assuming they arent in a situation where they are sucking so much that they would obviously not be the target. If I shortcut into attacking Player C though, that means that the other individuals at the table have no reason to spend the Swords to Plowshares to stop the annihilate trigger. In this case, you save yourself from removal issues from the other players. If I for instance was one of the other players I would happily let someone else take the annihilate trigger and be forced to block / loose life before considering if I want to get rid of it.
Spin it another way, lets say you have a good beater creature and the person that you would obviously want to attack has some means to tap creatures. If you "declare attackers" his response should be to tap it. I can get around this by shortcutting and attacking the next best target where I still get something accomplished rather than being tapped.
It is not always to your best advantage to declare attackers. Shortcutting has a lot of valid advantages in multiplayer FFA.
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 someone was asking me, I would just respond with some kind of ambiguous answer like "I don't know" or "I haven't decided yet". If they kept insisting on me giving a yes or no answer, I'd probably just say no (assuming it was to my benefit to do so) and then make my decision regardless of my answer to their question. You definitely don't have to say who you are planning to attack ahead of time, and even if you do so, you are in no way bound by that. If you told the person you weren't going to attack them and then did anyway, they might be annoyed with you, but that's just part of the politics of EDH.
If I have an Eldrazi say Kozilek in play and I "Declare Attackers" at this point, every single opponent at the table should spot remove him if they can assuming they arent in a situation where they are sucking so much that they would obviously not be the target. If I shortcut into attacking Player C though, that means that the other individuals at the table have no reason to spend the Swords to Plowshares to stop the annihilate trigger. In this case, you save yourself from removal issues from the other players. If I for instance was one of the other players I would happily let someone else take the annihilate trigger and be forced to block / loose life before considering if I want to get rid of it.
Spin it another way, lets say you have a good beater creature and the person that you would obviously want to attack has some means to tap creatures. If you "declare attackers" his response should be to tap it. I can get around this by shortcutting and attacking the next best target where I still get something accomplished rather than being tapped.
It is not always to your best advantage to declare attackers. Shortcutting has a lot of valid advantages in multiplayer FFA.
I take a lot more issue at those sorts of plays than I do at the one described in the first post. This feels a lot more like bending the rules. It may not always be to my advantage to declare combat, but I can live with that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
I take a lot more issue at those sorts of plays than I do at the one described in the first post. This feels a lot more like bending the rules. It may not always be to my advantage to declare combat, but I can live with that.
Shortcutting phases is a legal move. There is nothing against the rules with it. Anyone may deny you your shortcut it is on them to do so.
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.
Shortcutting phases is a legal move. There is nothing against the rules with it. Anyone may deny you your shortcut it is on them to do so.
It's only legal if everyone agrees to it, despite it being implicit in a lot of games. It's technically on the person who wants to shortcut the phase to bring it up (CR 716.1). If someone repeatedly shortcuts that step I typically ask them not to do so, particularly if I'm playing a list with a lot of instant speed interaction. I'd rather not rewind the game where I don't have to and I don't want to flash answers before I have to most of the time, so I hope that my opponents offer me the same courtesy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
It's only legal if everyone agrees to it, despite it being implicit in a lot of games. It's technically on the person who wants to shortcut the phase to bring it up (CR 716.1). If someone repeatedly shortcuts that step I typically ask them not to do so, particularly if I'm playing a list with a lot of instant speed interaction. I'd rather not rewind the game where I don't have to and I don't want to flash answers before I have to most of the time, so I hope that my opponents offer me the same courtesy.
It is technically to your own advantage to have opponents shortcut if you are heavy instants. I can understand where you are coming from as it is the proper way to play the game. Shortcutting in this sense is something that specifically takes advantage of the FFA multiplayer rules. In any other format I think that announcing changing phases is the way to go but it really opens some other avenues when you shortcut that otherwise aren't always an option.
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.
I just think it leads to a lot of unnecessary rewinding of the game and leaves some fuzzy areas as to how far back someone can rewind. I've played against people who got bent out of shape when they weren't paying close enough attention during a turn and tried to respond to something two players down the turn cycle, which is obnoxious. I know that's going beyond the scope of what you're talking about, but limiting the chances for people to argue for those things is worthwhile to me, especially when it just takes the word "combat" and a glance around the table to do it. I, and most of the people I play with, aren't really sticklers for exact timing and occasional missed things, but it gets annoying when people try and abuse that.
I think the politics are more interesting when there's more tension about that type of play, too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
Yeah, I can only imagine I'd have a greater chance of getting my opponents to misplay when I'm declaring combat, then declaring attackers. Cases like Annihilator triggers are much more rare than someone using removal prematurely. I've found it's generally better, speaking from a purely CA view, to have everyone throwing removal down in fear, than giving them all of that extra info to use the removal wisely, and at the very last second. I don't see why you'd want that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing: R8whackR WUBGAtraxa Stax-Superfriends *Under Construction*WUBG
So, what happens when you (player A) attack player C with your big creature. Player C rewinds the game, Crop Rotates a forest into a Maze of Ith. You then attack player B. Can player B remind the game too at that point?
So, what happens when you (player A) attack player C with your big creature. Player C rewinds the game, Crop Rotates a forest into a Maze of Ith. You then attack player B. Can player B remind the game too at that point?
In this case if anyone denies you the shortcut you are stuck at the declare attackers phase and anyone who wishes to do something before the attack is made must do it then. If in your example player B has an Icy Manipulator they at that point have to use it or forfeit their ability to use it. The concept of a shortcut is that you are jumping through phases and allowing your opponents to backtrack you as seen fit. If player B suspects that they would normally be the target of the attack though when you move to declaring attackers they would likely use it anyways so in this case attempting to shortcut into attacking player C gives you a higher percent of accomplishing something.
Likewise, you could also shortcut end your turn instead of slow moving your way through your turn and player B might use that Icy Manipulator on something other than your threat which could allow you to block with it instead of having it locked up. If you announce every change of phase in a turn you would probably get tapped down but if your shortcut finish your turn you offer the opportunity for them to tap something else and you possibly open yourself to defending yourself on your turn against someone else. Shortcutting through phases has a lot of relevant uses.
In everyday magic we do it quite a bit. If I am playing spells in my first main and then pass turn I am shortcutting through combat, second main, and pushing to end phase.
When I play I often say things like "I suggest you swing at someone other than me." and if they don't kill their creature. Since I don't bluff, people don't bother attacking me most of the time, and then I get more use out of removal. Some people take offense to my politicking because it wins me a lot of games, but most see it as fair.
Yeah, there have been plenty of occasions where someone's got something nasty and I say something like, "you don't want to attack me."
I don't really bluff either, except maybe holding up mana with jack **** in my hand. If I say, "you don't want to attack me," it means I have an answer to your threat and I only intend to use it if you attack me. (Or target me with the spell/ability or whatever.)
Occasionally I get targeted anyway because they just want to eat up my answers, but more often they think they're calling my 'bluff' when there is no bluff to call. Then they lose their threat.
Wild, my group has gone the complete other way. We used to shortcut through a lot of things. Now we try to mindgame each other as much as possible. Declare attack steps, parts of attack steps. Table often go around with 'no responses' after big plays; sometimes the player with latter priority asks the people in front of him if they have any. Attempting to get people to play cards differently just by asking these things happens all the time. We think its pretty fun.
Gitrog Lands
Merieke Ri Berit Flicker
Ramos, Dragon Engine Storm
Well, he is only breaking the rules, strictly speaking, if he passes priority on declare attackers, sees your attack announced, then insists on being able to tap it down. But you understood that those are the phases of the game and how priority works, so there you have it.
I would say it's "bending the rules" because, at least how I read the OP, he seemed to be trying to tell you that he gets a chance to tap out your creature after you've declared, and so you'd better attack someone else. Strangely enough, "bending the rules" like this can actually amount to breaking the rules in a tournament. There's basically what amounts to an omnibus provision in the rules that allows a judge to issue a loss for interfering with the game. It's mostly used in the context of intentional delay, etc, but I'm sure it could be used where someone is knowingly trying to pass off an incorrect statement of the rules to you, or arguing about it at length.
What's much more common, and is actually against the rules, is the situation that ISB described. When the attacker shortcuts to their attack step, especially when there is an obviously relevant card on the table, then that's not respecting priority. The person who would lose out here though is the third guy who gets attacked without the Tumble Magnet player having to make a decision. At the very least, what should happen is the attacker would tabletalk his intent to attack someone else, then the Tumble Magnet player would have to decide whether that's truthful or not. Just jumping to the attack and having everyone respect it is giving the Magnet player too easy of a time, at the expense of who gets attacked.
I remember a game where a friend was playing Thraximundar and this happened. It was actually my fault because it hadn't been revealed yet that I had a Capsize in my hand, but I was fully untapped on the other hand. At any rate, I felt bad when he took no action first main, the steps of combat weren't gone through, then he announced the attack at me and I wanted to announce Capsize before the trigger. It wasn't obvious to me that the attack was coming my way, but I guess it should've been.
But just remember for your example, the reason you got into that mess was because you dumped a lot of mana into that threaten effect in full view of something that could nullify it. You should assume that the Tumble Magnet player would respond like that if he couldn't ascertain your intent, and then you didn't do anything to reassure him in order for your play to have effect. That might be all he was trying to do. He may have made the fair assumption that you wouldn't have done that unless you were prepared to negotiate out of the Magnet, then you didn't. It ends up looking like a really odd play from his perspective.
That's actually a fun idea. I wonder what the rest of the deck is like, got a decklist?
Btw, this is why I don't like tapdown effects. If he had removal instead, he could have dealt with it if you did lie.Ganging up in advance, or allying while ignoring the gamestate, I think is very lame. If it's a 3 player game, for example, it becomes 2v1, and one of the allied players is basically going to hand the win to his ally by not interfering with him. And of course the player getting ganged up on isn't having much fun. It's a good example of how not playing to win results in game suckage.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
If someone else has a swords to plowshares for example they would use it after the declaration is declared. When you move to declaring attackers phase the primary response that needs to happen is tapping things so if nobody has any tapping or if you are not attacking the person with the visible tap option then you would shortcut to attacking someone else. People have the option of backtracking you and using the stack at this time but its a means to sort of cheat around tap issues.
When you shortcut phases anyone can technically rewind you with something but it gives a reason not to tap you if you shortcut to attacking someone else where as if you declare your attackers its assumed that you are attacking the person with the tap option. It has pros and cons but if you want to swing elsewhere shortcutting is beneficial to do in a situation like this.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Player 1: Are you going to attack with that this turn?
Player 2: I decline to answer that.
Player 1: Are you going to attack with that this turn?
Player 2: I decline to answer that.
Player 1: Are you going to attack with that this turn?
Player 2: I decline to answer that.
.
.
.
would probably result in a warning for stalling for Player 1. Of course, EDH is a casual format so tournament floor rules on stalling don't really apply. Still, even in a casual game (especially in multiplayer), the players have an obligation to move the game along. Even though the information he was asking for was relevant, in my mind this is just like facing a lethal attack that you can do nothing about and insisting on counting each player's deck before moving to the assign damage step. Against the rules? Nope. Cool thing to do? Hell no.
Still, we're friends as well, but i didn't like how he talked to me. I usually get the shaft if i face that deck because of Ruintation effects anyways.
Who needs Colours?
My most played EDH deck:
X Kozilek, the Great Distortion
UBR Nekusar, the Mindrazer
Commander
BBB - Erebos, MBC
GB - Glissa, Recursion Valuetown
UB - Wrexial/Phenax Mill
UBR - Nekusar, Mindwheeler
R - Feldon, God of Reanimation(?!?!)
Since EDH can take a while moving quickly is common, so in cases like that people n my group just back up a bit. If you're in a fragile state and don't want to give somebody the chance to backtrack, make it clear you're changing phases. To throw people off your trail you can do it once in a while when you're not doing anything big too.
Personally if I was you I would have promised not to attack him and swung at someone else. 28 mana to remove a single counter from Tumble Magnet doesn't seem very efficient.
When I play I often say things like "I suggest you swing at someone other than me." and if they don't kill their creature. Since I don't bluff, people don't bother attacking me most of the time, and then I get more use out of removal. Some people take offense to my politicking because it wins me a lot of games, but most see it as fair.
Aggro: WUBRGHorde of Notions Goodstuff, RUB Cheesy Aggro, GR Xenagod Gruul Goodstuff
Control: GWBGhave, Guru of Adaptability, UBWrexial, Milling Deep UAzami, Lady of No Infinite Combos GWU Derevi, Tempo Beats
Other: URGRiku of Too Much Mana, WUBRG Sliver Queen Enchantress
Think of it this way,
If I have an Eldrazi say Kozilek in play and I "Declare Attackers" at this point, every single opponent at the table should spot remove him if they can assuming they arent in a situation where they are sucking so much that they would obviously not be the target. If I shortcut into attacking Player C though, that means that the other individuals at the table have no reason to spend the Swords to Plowshares to stop the annihilate trigger. In this case, you save yourself from removal issues from the other players. If I for instance was one of the other players I would happily let someone else take the annihilate trigger and be forced to block / loose life before considering if I want to get rid of it.
Spin it another way, lets say you have a good beater creature and the person that you would obviously want to attack has some means to tap creatures. If you "declare attackers" his response should be to tap it. I can get around this by shortcutting and attacking the next best target where I still get something accomplished rather than being tapped.
It is not always to your best advantage to declare attackers. Shortcutting has a lot of valid advantages in multiplayer FFA.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
GUB [Retired Primer] The Mimeoplasm BUG
Modern: UR Storm RU
Cube: WUBRG Pauper Cube GRBUW
Credit for the banner goes to DarkNightCavalier at Heroes of the Plane Studios
Shortcutting phases is a legal move. There is nothing against the rules with it. Anyone may deny you your shortcut it is on them to do so.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
It is technically to your own advantage to have opponents shortcut if you are heavy instants. I can understand where you are coming from as it is the proper way to play the game. Shortcutting in this sense is something that specifically takes advantage of the FFA multiplayer rules. In any other format I think that announcing changing phases is the way to go but it really opens some other avenues when you shortcut that otherwise aren't always an option.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
I think the politics are more interesting when there's more tension about that type of play, too.
R8whackR
WUBGAtraxa Stax-Superfriends *Under Construction*WUBG
Yes I ask if someone is about to attack me sometimes.
No I don't push the subject to try and force an answer so I can reap a benefit.
Is it wrong to ask questions? NO
Is it questionable to be insistent on an answer when they don't have to tell you? IMO Yes.
I answered rules bent just because I didn't like his (as typed) attitude. You did the right thing.
In this case if anyone denies you the shortcut you are stuck at the declare attackers phase and anyone who wishes to do something before the attack is made must do it then. If in your example player B has an Icy Manipulator they at that point have to use it or forfeit their ability to use it. The concept of a shortcut is that you are jumping through phases and allowing your opponents to backtrack you as seen fit. If player B suspects that they would normally be the target of the attack though when you move to declaring attackers they would likely use it anyways so in this case attempting to shortcut into attacking player C gives you a higher percent of accomplishing something.
Likewise, you could also shortcut end your turn instead of slow moving your way through your turn and player B might use that Icy Manipulator on something other than your threat which could allow you to block with it instead of having it locked up. If you announce every change of phase in a turn you would probably get tapped down but if your shortcut finish your turn you offer the opportunity for them to tap something else and you possibly open yourself to defending yourself on your turn against someone else. Shortcutting through phases has a lot of relevant uses.
In everyday magic we do it quite a bit. If I am playing spells in my first main and then pass turn I am shortcutting through combat, second main, and pushing to end phase.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
I've closed the poll, but opened up the discussion to any topic or situation related to tabletalk.
Topics to discuss:
How does tabletalk work in your group?
Has talk ever been unfair?
On the flip side, has tabletalk ever resulted in some epic plays?
Share your thoughts and stories!
Check the original post for further info.
I don't really bluff either, except maybe holding up mana with jack **** in my hand. If I say, "you don't want to attack me," it means I have an answer to your threat and I only intend to use it if you attack me. (Or target me with the spell/ability or whatever.)
Occasionally I get targeted anyway because they just want to eat up my answers, but more often they think they're calling my 'bluff' when there is no bluff to call. Then they lose their threat.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)