I must say that Commander is my favorite format in Magic, and I have been trying to play more (like 1x per month) and build multiple decks.
Last time I played, I was running my Ezuri deck, which is way fun. I was able to get my experience counters up pretty quickly, and I ended up having the following board state relatively early in the game:
In this situation, I had no reason to attack anyone, as nobody had done anything to me yet in the game.
My question for this post is:
How would you handle the situation where you are the Beatdown in Commander?
Here are a few options I guess:
1. Take out a player this turn (which was doable, but we were only like 20 minutes into the game at that point).
2. Wreck players enchantments / artifacts with attacks from Trygon Predator.
3. Roll a die to determine who I should attack.
4. Distribute combat damage to all opponents as equally as possible.
5. Pass the turn without attacking and keep building up my creatures until I have a reason to target someone.
6. Attack the player with the most threatening Commander for my deck.
7. Attack the opponent with the highest life total.
This was a pick up game, not a familiar playgroup game.
I enjoy the Commander format because it is more casual, and I want to play for a longer amount of time instead of wrecking my opponent as quickly as possible. If it takes me longer to drive to my local game store (15 minutes) than it takes to play a game of Commander, thats not worth it to me. I want to make sure its fun for me, and everyone else, and at the same time, I do enjoy winning when possible.
Attack - every turn you have a board state but don't attack is another turn you can be X-for-oned where X is way too much, because Commander is the format of board-wipes. Take out the player most likely to take you out, then repeat. You're playing an entirely, the definition of, in fact, fair strategy. If it causes bad feelings, your group is hopeless. In a game where practically everything is unfun, we can't add attacking someone with creatures to the list of things you need to ask your play group for permission to do.
EDIT: Only 20 minutes into the game? Unless you're playing with potatoes, they should have something to do to you in return at this point, so don't feel bad going for blood.
1. Take out a player this turn (which was doable, but we were only like 20 minutes into the game at that point).
If you can do it, do it! One player down, means at least one less card per turn cycle that can cripple your game. The player you take out may have to sit around idly for a while, but the whole game will be over way quicker so that a new game can begin.
It may feel unfair towards the player that loses while all other still get to play, but, do you really think that player can enjoy the game as much knowing, that he is only still playing because you had mercy with him? Even if he wins the game, that victory will feel hollow. Don't hold back, someone has to kick the bucket first.
2. Wreck players enchantments / artifacts with attacks from Trygon Predator.
Sure, make use of the Predator while you still have it. It won't be there for long!
3. Roll a die to determine who I should attack.
Absoltely not! There is always a prime target for the attack: the player that can, or at least has the potential to, wreck your game the most.
4. Distribute combat damage to all opponents as equally as possible.
This will just needlessly drag out games, and may very well be your downfall. I already said, each player left in the game means at least one more card per turn cycle that can be used against you. And with you being the obvious biggest threat in such a situation, those cards will be used against you.
5. Pass the turn without attacking and keep building up my creatures until I have a reason to target someone.
The worst choice of all, in my opinion. You're the one that can act, while all others can only react. If you do nothing while being in that position, your chances of being kicked out of the game go way up with every turn you waste like this. Also, your position is well established, better to store cards for after the inevitable sweeper to recover.
6. Attack the player with the most threatening Commander for my deck.
If there is nothing else making another player a more imminent threat, yes.
7. Attack the opponent with the highest life total.
Only if you can take him out, or that player is also the biggest threat to your own game. Otherwise, kicking another player out of the game is way more advanteous to you.
Agree with above. I would attack and kill whoever you have deemed to be the most threatening player or whoever you can kill in one hit. Your chance of winning goes up considerably as players get knocked out (at least in a generic situation). If you are playing more games rolling a dice is also not a terrible political idea as you are much less likely to cause bad blood, which could come into play in the next game.
Basically do whatever gives you the best chance to win. Any casual playgroup that has a problem with that is taking it way too far.
Agree with above. I would attack and kill whoever you have deemed to be the most threatening player or whoever you can kill in one hit. Your chance of winning goes up considerably as players get knocked out (at least in a generic situation). If you are playing more games rolling a dice is also not a terrible political idea as you are much less likely to cause bad blood, which could come into play in the next game.
Basically do whatever gives you the best chance to win. Any casual playgroup that has a problem with that is taking it way too far.
I, personally, make no distinction between choosing me as a threat and rolling die to target me, if only to discourage the practice as cowardly, but it's certainly better than not attacking at all, as you said as well.
Although you were 20 minutes into the game, you are still an Aggro deck in a format driven by combo and saturated with control elements. Your core strategy is in the disadvantage within the format; this may very much be true in the game you exemplified. You drew a God-Hand or drew like a Lucky Leprechaun who found a four-leaf clover on the seven-hundred-seventy-seventh minute while attending a St. Patrick's Day parade.
When you have advantage, especially against many, take advantage.
Agree with above. I would attack and kill whoever you have deemed to be the most threatening player or whoever you can kill in one hit. Your chance of winning goes up considerably as players get knocked out (at least in a generic situation). If you are playing more games rolling a dice is also not a terrible political idea as you are much less likely to cause bad blood, which could come into play in the next game.
Basically do whatever gives you the best chance to win. Any casual playgroup that has a problem with that is taking it way too far.
I will explicitly target people who roll dice to determine targets. There's always something you can use to guide your actions, unless you're playing against 3 of the same commander with identical board states. Rolling a die doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions, it means you have no interest in trying to figure out who or what you should be paying attention to. It's probably the biggest pet peeve I have in multiplayer magic.
If it works for you, cool. If you run into someone who thinks like I do, rolling a die is exponentially more likely to get you attacked in later games than ignored. It's just about the only in game action you can take that will get me to hold a grudge across following games.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
Agree with above. I would attack and kill whoever you have deemed to be the most threatening player or whoever you can kill in one hit. Your chance of winning goes up considerably as players get knocked out (at least in a generic situation). If you are playing more games rolling a dice is also not a terrible political idea as you are much less likely to cause bad blood, which could come into play in the next game.
Basically do whatever gives you the best chance to win. Any casual playgroup that has a problem with that is taking it way too far.
I will explicitly target people who roll dice to determine targets. There's always something you can use to guide your actions, unless you're playing against 3 of the same commander with identical board states. Rolling a die doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions, it means you have no interest in trying to figure out who or what you should be paying attention to. It's probably the biggest pet peeve I have in multiplayer magic.
If it works for you, cool. If you run into someone who thinks like I do, rolling a die is exponentially more likely to get you attacked in later games than ignored. It's just about the only in game action you can take that will get me to hold a grudge across following games.
Not really. It's different when it's a card instructing you to do it. I might still try and kill someone who aggressively tutored up Grip of Chaos every game, but there are causes other than die rolling to blame for that. My issue is with the people who think that rolling a die means that they're immune to any repercussions from their actions. In my experience the venn diagram between that group and the group that rolls a die in the first place is pretty much a circle, so I dislike die rolling in general.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
In my build, because I'm the aggressive deck that has a good chance of powering through the midgame to a position that can demolish multiple players at once, I first target the person who has the best chance of stopping my midgame as well as winning the late game.
It is both good and cost-effective to target currently weak players who will become strong players later in the game.
I don't want to derail the topic, but it's interesting that there are two people who are so strictly against die rolling to determine targets. Now don't get me wrong, I completely understand and agree that in certain instances rolling a dice to determine a target can be cowardly/deplorable, what have you. I also understand in the instance the OP mentioned this is probably not the time to do it. It would not be what I would do in that situation but he seemed concerned about making enemies and fitting in and I do think it is a defensible political strategy.
I would think we can all agree EDH is a very political game and you probably realize your insistence to target a dice roller is a political move to try to prevent people from doing it. I have never ran into a person who had a problem with it, nor do I do it often, but there are absolutely times I believe it is the correct play and yes, the reason is politics and strategy, not cowardice.
Consider a game where you have a turn 1 creature (this is a pretty common situation and the sort of time I will occasionally roll). Turn 2 comes around and player A and B are both defenseless. You have determined player A to be a bigger threat to you. So why not just attack player A? Because just attacking player A gives him information. He now knows you would kill him over player B if given a choice and will most likely take this into consideration when he has to make a similar decision. It may sway him to kill you over player C later in the game. There is actually a legit possibility you would decrease your odds of winning the game by attacking player A.
Now roll a dice, you still have a 50% chance of hitting player A, but unless there is someone at the table who despises dice rollers, whoever you end up attacking will have no knowledge of your future plans and be more likely to take their one damage and think nothing of it.
I think calling any action in a card game cowardly or deplorable is probably pushing it a little far, but it's the internet. If you can't use hyperbole here, where else is there?
In your scenario, reading that much into a T2, one damage swing is way overthinking things. Outside of comical overreactions to early attacks, I don't think I've known anyone who would think back to what happened that early when they're actually in a position to kill someone. Too many other things happen over the course of a game and it's almost assured that most of those things will be higher impact than your Llanowar Elves poking someone T2. I'm going to assume that someone hitting me for a damage or two early is just that player getting the most use out of their creatures, which I appreciate. I've run into too many players who don't attack because they think it's never going to matter or because they don't want to antagonize anyone, even though I've rarely seen that happen.
My other issue with a die roll is that I've never seen anyone just roll a die and swing. It's always been accompanied by some degree of theatrics, where the player announces to the table that they're rolling a die to decide who to hit and point out which players are attached to which numbers. If you're really doing it for political reasons, why not just roll a die then hit the person you were going to anyways, without telling anyone else the criteria? You get roughly the same amount of plausible deniability without the implication that you're not responsible for your actions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
As far as a time/theatrics issue I havent ever seen a bad reaction to it, but could see where it would be annoying especially if over done.
As far as my example it was intentionally basic. There will be things that happen between the initial attack and them killing you, but if you don't think people are going to notice you chose to attack them over someone else I guess we just play in completely different playgroups.
I want people to have fun, and at the same time, I want to do what my deck is designed to do, and I want other people to do what they have designed their decks to do.
I think as long as my decisions makes sense to me, I should move forward with what my deck wants to do. Someone else is going to do what their deck wants to do which is OK with me, so I need to be OK when my deck goes off like that, lol.
I belive that the better my skills become at reading the table, and understanding what people are most likely playing, the better I can make decisions when I am in the position to attack people.
With that kind of vorad state I always fear c.rift. so I usually target blue players first. Either draw out the c.rift making them play it probably earlier then they want. Or kill em off.
I will say that when playing the aggressive strategy sometimes you want to keep someone alive knowing that they can deal with a threat better than you can. The whole enemy of my enemy thing. However, if you can outright eliminate a player with little consequence take it. Seize the opportunity to end the game in your favor.
If your playing an aggressive general, you need to attack as early and as often as you can. Otherwise, don't run a general like this. It really is that simple.
When running a deck like this, I always target Blue/White/___, then Blue/White, then whichever is the most control-y looking out of the blue and the white options at the table. Give those colours half a chance and they will wreck your game plan.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
Let's bring the voice of casual into this discussion.
I have never played EDH with strangers, most games I play with friends/roommates and buddies who occasionally come over for a game. I also play with a lot of new players. In these scenarios, I will absolutely NOT go for the kill early in the game. We often play multiple rounds back-to-back and it's lame beyond reason to have to watch the table scuffle for another hour until you're able to participate again. Also, with new players I will sometimes roll a dice to determine early attacks, so the attacked person is not discouraged. I want new players to enjoy themselves, and that usually involves messy boardstates and risking sluggish games rather than cutthroat tactics. Often there are several "no attacking" deals at the table that can either be honored or theatrically broken, which is a huge part of multiplayer magic's amusement. However, not attacking at all when you could is lame.
I don't think that EDH is the right format for cutthroat magic, overly optimized agressive decks/playstyle or for sore losers. Remember that on a 4-player table, you will loose 75% of the matches given equally matched decks/opponents. If you are aiming for a significantly higher win percentage than that, you are either going to be very unhappy or make others feel misrable.
Sure enough, a player's play experience has a huge impact on determing the biggest threat to you. In a game where you face one inexperienced player and one experienced one, I'd perceive the experienced one as the bigger threat and would target him, even it it takes longer to take him out. A good player should have less problems holding off a newbie, even if he's playing a good deck. And a newbie's chances to win increase as well this way, because he gets to play his deck longer and the game has one big threat less. My earlier reply assumed players of an equal level.
Always assess who is the biggest threat is to you and the game. And hit hard because you will not be in that position for long if the other players are competent.
I would think we can all agree EDH is a very political game and you probably realize your insistence to target a dice roller is a political move to try to prevent people from doing it. I have never ran into a person who had a problem with it, nor do I do it often, but there are absolutely times I believe it is the correct play and yes, the reason is politics and strategy, not cowardice.
you should maybe play another deck and not be the aggressor if you r going for strategy and politics.
so much dice rolling hate come on man, politics should be used no matter what deck you are using. being an aggressor and being political aren't mutually exclusive
Dice-rolling is sometimes a valid political choice, but it's completely dependent on your local playgroup.
I've played with players that will hold a game-long grudge for an innocuous early-game attack. In my experience, those players will perceive a dice roll as being more impartial when deciding on attacks, and that goodwill can be a valuable asset later in the game. If winning is your goal, then playing around their emotion is absolutely important, and the dice are just a means to an end.
It's interesting to see players who would hold a grudge for using dice rolls at all. Absolutely, if you're in a group with players who feel that way, don't roll dice. It's unlikely to help you. Make an informed choice about the board state and consider all of the other feedback here about threat assessment and taking out the players who are likely to end you sooner.
Like most political decision-making in EDH, the answer here is nuanced and dependent on you and the players sitting around the table more than anything else.
Dice-rolling is sometimes a valid political choice, but it's completely dependent on your local playgroup.
I've played with players that will hold a game-long grudge for an innocuous early-game attack. In my experience, those players will perceive a dice roll as being more impartial when deciding on attacks, and that goodwill can be a valuable asset later in the game. If winning is your goal, then playing around their emotion is absolutely important, and the dice are just a means to an end.
It's interesting to see players who would hold a grudge for using dice rolls at all. Absolutely, if you're in a group with players who feel that way, don't roll dice. It's unlikely to help you. Make an informed choice about the board state and consider all of the other feedback here about threat assessment and taking out the players who are likely to end you sooner.
Like most political decision-making in EDH, the answer here is nuanced and dependent on you and the players sitting around the table more than anything else.
Well said. I will certainly be more careful with dice rolling with randoms in the future now that I know there may be hostility towards it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Last time I played, I was running my Ezuri deck, which is way fun. I was able to get my experience counters up pretty quickly, and I ended up having the following board state relatively early in the game:
Trygon Predator with 4 +1/+1 Counters (nobody else had a flyer to block him)
Managorger Hydra with 11 +1/+1 Counters
Champion of Lambholt where I was going to add 7 +1/+1 Counters at the start of combat, and nobody had a creature with 7 power on the board.
Ezuri, Claw of Progress
In this situation, I had no reason to attack anyone, as nobody had done anything to me yet in the game.
My question for this post is:
How would you handle the situation where you are the Beatdown in Commander?
Here are a few options I guess:
1. Take out a player this turn (which was doable, but we were only like 20 minutes into the game at that point).
2. Wreck players enchantments / artifacts with attacks from Trygon Predator.
3. Roll a die to determine who I should attack.
4. Distribute combat damage to all opponents as equally as possible.
5. Pass the turn without attacking and keep building up my creatures until I have a reason to target someone.
6. Attack the player with the most threatening Commander for my deck.
7. Attack the opponent with the highest life total.
This was a pick up game, not a familiar playgroup game.
I enjoy the Commander format because it is more casual, and I want to play for a longer amount of time instead of wrecking my opponent as quickly as possible. If it takes me longer to drive to my local game store (15 minutes) than it takes to play a game of Commander, thats not worth it to me. I want to make sure its fun for me, and everyone else, and at the same time, I do enjoy winning when possible.
EDIT: Only 20 minutes into the game? Unless you're playing with potatoes, they should have something to do to you in return at this point, so don't feel bad going for blood.
If you can do it, do it! One player down, means at least one less card per turn cycle that can cripple your game. The player you take out may have to sit around idly for a while, but the whole game will be over way quicker so that a new game can begin.
It may feel unfair towards the player that loses while all other still get to play, but, do you really think that player can enjoy the game as much knowing, that he is only still playing because you had mercy with him? Even if he wins the game, that victory will feel hollow. Don't hold back, someone has to kick the bucket first.
Sure, make use of the Predator while you still have it. It won't be there for long!
Absoltely not! There is always a prime target for the attack: the player that can, or at least has the potential to, wreck your game the most.
This will just needlessly drag out games, and may very well be your downfall. I already said, each player left in the game means at least one more card per turn cycle that can be used against you. And with you being the obvious biggest threat in such a situation, those cards will be used against you.
The worst choice of all, in my opinion. You're the one that can act, while all others can only react. If you do nothing while being in that position, your chances of being kicked out of the game go way up with every turn you waste like this. Also, your position is well established, better to store cards for after the inevitable sweeper to recover.
If there is nothing else making another player a more imminent threat, yes.
Only if you can take him out, or that player is also the biggest threat to your own game. Otherwise, kicking another player out of the game is way more advanteous to you.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
Basically do whatever gives you the best chance to win. Any casual playgroup that has a problem with that is taking it way too far.
I, personally, make no distinction between choosing me as a threat and rolling die to target me, if only to discourage the practice as cowardly, but it's certainly better than not attacking at all, as you said as well.
When you have advantage, especially against many, take advantage.
Keep brewing.
If it works for you, cool. If you run into someone who thinks like I do, rolling a die is exponentially more likely to get you attacked in later games than ignored. It's just about the only in game action you can take that will get me to hold a grudge across following games.
What if their commander is Ruhan of the Fomori
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
It is both good and cost-effective to target currently weak players who will become strong players later in the game.
The Unidentified Fantastic Flying Girl.
EDH
Xenagos, the God of Stompy
The Gitrog Monster: Oppressive Value.
Marchesa, Marionette Master - Undying Robots
Yuriko, the Hydra Omnivore
I make dolls as a hobby.
I would think we can all agree EDH is a very political game and you probably realize your insistence to target a dice roller is a political move to try to prevent people from doing it. I have never ran into a person who had a problem with it, nor do I do it often, but there are absolutely times I believe it is the correct play and yes, the reason is politics and strategy, not cowardice.
Consider a game where you have a turn 1 creature (this is a pretty common situation and the sort of time I will occasionally roll). Turn 2 comes around and player A and B are both defenseless. You have determined player A to be a bigger threat to you. So why not just attack player A? Because just attacking player A gives him information. He now knows you would kill him over player B if given a choice and will most likely take this into consideration when he has to make a similar decision. It may sway him to kill you over player C later in the game. There is actually a legit possibility you would decrease your odds of winning the game by attacking player A.
Now roll a dice, you still have a 50% chance of hitting player A, but unless there is someone at the table who despises dice rollers, whoever you end up attacking will have no knowledge of your future plans and be more likely to take their one damage and think nothing of it.
In your scenario, reading that much into a T2, one damage swing is way overthinking things. Outside of comical overreactions to early attacks, I don't think I've known anyone who would think back to what happened that early when they're actually in a position to kill someone. Too many other things happen over the course of a game and it's almost assured that most of those things will be higher impact than your Llanowar Elves poking someone T2. I'm going to assume that someone hitting me for a damage or two early is just that player getting the most use out of their creatures, which I appreciate. I've run into too many players who don't attack because they think it's never going to matter or because they don't want to antagonize anyone, even though I've rarely seen that happen.
My other issue with a die roll is that I've never seen anyone just roll a die and swing. It's always been accompanied by some degree of theatrics, where the player announces to the table that they're rolling a die to decide who to hit and point out which players are attached to which numbers. If you're really doing it for political reasons, why not just roll a die then hit the person you were going to anyways, without telling anyone else the criteria? You get roughly the same amount of plausible deniability without the implication that you're not responsible for your actions.
As far as my example it was intentionally basic. There will be things that happen between the initial attack and them killing you, but if you don't think people are going to notice you chose to attack them over someone else I guess we just play in completely different playgroups.
That gives me a lot to think about.
I want people to have fun, and at the same time, I want to do what my deck is designed to do, and I want other people to do what they have designed their decks to do.
I think as long as my decisions makes sense to me, I should move forward with what my deck wants to do. Someone else is going to do what their deck wants to do which is OK with me, so I need to be OK when my deck goes off like that, lol.
I belive that the better my skills become at reading the table, and understanding what people are most likely playing, the better I can make decisions when I am in the position to attack people.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
U Azami, Lady of Scrolls - Knowledge is Power U [Primer]
R Heartless Hidetsugu - The Art of Ending Games R
GB Ishkanah, Grafwidow - The Cluster HungersBG
The only time you should be rolling a die to decide who to attack is if you control Ruhan of the Fomori.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
When running a deck like this, I always target Blue/White/___, then Blue/White, then whichever is the most control-y looking out of the blue and the white options at the table. Give those colours half a chance and they will wreck your game plan.
RRGrenzo plays your deck, GGYeva's mono green control, WW9-tails trys desperately for monowhite not to suck
RWBUTymna and Kraum's saboteur tribal, UWG Kestia's Enchantress Aggro, RUB Jeleva casts big dumb spells, RGB Vaevictis' big critters can kill your critters hard
Arena Standard
UUUU Tempo, since before it was cool
Various Wx decks running Fountain of Renewal and Day of Glory
Anything I can cram Chaos Wand in to
I have never played EDH with strangers, most games I play with friends/roommates and buddies who occasionally come over for a game. I also play with a lot of new players. In these scenarios, I will absolutely NOT go for the kill early in the game. We often play multiple rounds back-to-back and it's lame beyond reason to have to watch the table scuffle for another hour until you're able to participate again. Also, with new players I will sometimes roll a dice to determine early attacks, so the attacked person is not discouraged. I want new players to enjoy themselves, and that usually involves messy boardstates and risking sluggish games rather than cutthroat tactics. Often there are several "no attacking" deals at the table that can either be honored or theatrically broken, which is a huge part of multiplayer magic's amusement. However, not attacking at all when you could is lame.
I don't think that EDH is the right format for cutthroat magic, overly optimized agressive decks/playstyle or for sore losers. Remember that on a 4-player table, you will loose 75% of the matches given equally matched decks/opponents. If you are aiming for a significantly higher win percentage than that, you are either going to be very unhappy or make others feel misrable.
UR Mizzix of the Izmagnus ~~~ Build your own win-condition: Finite Spellslinging
UR Brudiclad, Telchor Engineer ~~~ We are the Borg. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.
WUB Oloro, Ageless Ascetic ~~~ A Guide to dying slowly
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose ~~~ Marchesa's undying Marionettes
RGW Mayael the Anima ~~~ All Hail the Big Chungus
GWU Chulane, Teller of Tales ~~~ Permanents Only ETB Shenanigans
BGU Sidisi, Brood Tyrant ~~~ Sidisi's Restless Servants
WUBRG The Ur-Dragon ~~~ Dragons eat your face
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
so much dice rolling hate come on man, politics should be used no matter what deck you are using. being an aggressor and being political aren't mutually exclusive
I've played with players that will hold a game-long grudge for an innocuous early-game attack. In my experience, those players will perceive a dice roll as being more impartial when deciding on attacks, and that goodwill can be a valuable asset later in the game. If winning is your goal, then playing around their emotion is absolutely important, and the dice are just a means to an end.
It's interesting to see players who would hold a grudge for using dice rolls at all. Absolutely, if you're in a group with players who feel that way, don't roll dice. It's unlikely to help you. Make an informed choice about the board state and consider all of the other feedback here about threat assessment and taking out the players who are likely to end you sooner.
Like most political decision-making in EDH, the answer here is nuanced and dependent on you and the players sitting around the table more than anything else.
Yeah, it's not a winning line, but multiplayer magic has never, ever been about winning.
It's something to do while you talk with friends. Eliminating someone is like taking them out of the conversation. It's terrible.
Well said. I will certainly be more careful with dice rolling with randoms in the future now that I know there may be hostility towards it.