You say your leovold deck has a 50% winrate?? You are aware of the fact that it means you win as much as the 3 other players combined right? They have every right to take you down first in my opinion as you are clearly bringing decks with higher powerlevel to the table.
Depending on your group, how your attitude was when you played the cards etc. I would say that playing leovold lock-down says a lot about play style and attitude towards multiplayer games. If you build decks able to cripple all opponents and/or win 3v1's reliably. Then I would gladly encourage the table to give you that 3v1 and take you out first. Pretty much no matter what your commander is. Because i know you will run consistent and hard to disrupt strategies (tutors for 2 card inf combos etc.). And i don't necessarily know what the others will run yet, so if they play political, my priority target would always be you.
There's also a thing called tunnelvision. You said early lockdown, but not early win? I assume it was a long game where you played with a full grip vs. 3 other players with some sort of puzzle box lock in place? Being the archenemy for a long time creates focus on beating you. Ifa person can't beat you this game, they will most likely subconsciously want to beat you (and specifically you) the next game. Especially if their defeat was a long and grindy one.
edit: tl:dr: Playing oppressive decks will cause you to get all the "random" hate of the table the next round unless some other player is equally oppressive that game.
You say your leovold deck has a 50% winrate?? You are aware of the fact that it means you win as much as the 3 other players combined right? They have every right to take you down first in my opinion as you are clearly bringing decks with higher powerlevel to the table.
Depending on your group, how your attitude was when you played the cards etc. I would say that playing leovold lock-down says a lot about play style and attitude towards multiplayer games. If you build decks able to cripple all opponents and/or win 3v1's reliably. Then I would gladly encourage the table to give you that 3v1 and take you out first. Pretty much no matter what your commander is. Because i know you will run consistent and hard to disrupt strategies (tutors for 2 card inf combos etc.). And i don't necessarily know what the others will run yet, so if they play political, my priority target would always be you.
There's also a thing called tunnelvision. You said early lockdown, but not early win? I assume it was a long game where you played with a full grip vs. 3 other players with some sort of puzzle box lock in place? Being the archenemy for a long time creates focus on beating you. Ifa person can't beat you this game, they will most likely subconsciously want to beat you (and specifically you) the next game. Especially if their defeat was a long and grindy one.
edit: tl:dr: Playing oppressive decks will cause you to get all the "random" hate of the table the next round unless some other player is equally oppressive that game.
50% rate in all game i play with leovold, not at that table (Though i guess if you put it into perspective, won one game with leovold and lost 1 game with leovold counts as 50%) but I am speaking overall. We have a player named evil Adam who has won 90% of the games he plays with derevi. So if you put me in a game with leovold versus him and another person who has yet to lose a game with a deck. That is 50%+90%+100%. 240% jut because I win 50% of the games I play doe snot mean I win more than they do combined at all. (In fact Kev, one of the players I was against, usually clobbers us.)
And I don;t think Leovold Lockdown properly reflects how I play. It is fun to use a strategy that is different form how I usually play (Its been quite a few years since i last used Nin or Arcum (4 or 5 years now) I have been since then building gimmicky or for fun decks. Leovold is my most competitive deck i have had since Arcum (Even though Nin was competitive, i did not win as many games as I did with arcum.)
Still building leovold is one thing but thsi si coming form the guy who also built a Riku deck full of clones, and a Purphoros deck full of goblin token generators. Or a Sekki, seasons' guide with a bunch of universal pumps. So which one reflects who i am better?
Good players react to board state. I don't care if someone is playing a "non-threatening" general; if they slap down a Mirari's Wake or some other powerful goodstuff card it's getting answered or they're getting swung at.
Imo ganging up on players is childish. I feel like if you feel someone's deck is too powerful make your deck stronger or find other people to play with. It's also bad strategy because you waste resources that you'll need later, and while you're focusing on getting revenge someone else is winning the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If combo should die before I wake I'll slide a Smokestack in every deck I play, roll in every shop wreck the Spirit of EDH.
I prefer to play with random playgroups with a close friend. So in case they get grudge against one of us for no logical reasons, we help each other out.
I remember someone constantly trying to kill me because i was play gisela, blade of goldnight when i was stuck in four mana for most of the game, saying, he knows how strong gisela's deck are (it was my first time playing against him) Meanwhile, someone is playing 5 color, dropped vorinclex before, ultimated Ral Zarek , then drop Indestructible avacyn and then Armageddon... It was basically a 2v2 game for no reason at all..
I had a game i really got salty in 4v4, nobody was trying to help me against a Zurgo Helmsmasher artifact voltron deck because I played Kataki, war's wage as artifact hate, not even in a stax deck. Which he promptly removed just in two turns and proceed to target me singularly for 6 turns in a roll until i died. Meanwhile the other two players, won't do anything, saying won't help me since it doesn't help them...
yea, end of it, grab a friend, if someone holds a grudge against you without reasons, at least is a 2v1
I was the new guy to a local playgroup and I was told it wasn't going to be an ultra-competitive game(s) so I brought my Phenax, God of Deception deck because MILL is a CASUAL win-con in EDH and as my name might imply, I like the mill play style. Long story short, I pull 3 games in a row out of my ass and the next week, I never make it past T5. I won't even bring the deck to play there anymore.
I was taught to always gun for whomever won the prior game, even if it wasn't Magic you were playing.
I have been on both sides of game-spanning grudge matches, which in the cold light of morning are objectively poor decisions. At the time, though, it always seems a good idea. Emotional thinking at its finest.
For what it's worth, sometimes I go into games with a different definition of winning (typically involving playing a new card I just jammed in), and should I reach that condition, I am incapable of salt the rest of the game.
Cheers!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If in the area, check out Gamers N Geeks and Mini War Games in Mobile, Alabama and Underhill's Games in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
I would say I get salty from time to time. In my playgroup we had a guy who for the longest time only had a Zur the Enchanter deck that had very few win cons (like 2-3). His deck was pretty budget, but he had a good few pillowfort/stax cards. These cards weren't like backbreaking stax, but they were really irritating (Blind Obedience, Leyline of the Void, etc).
One night I decide to play my Marchesa deck with my playgroup and since his zur deck is his only deck he plays that. Opening hand has a few pieces to get my game plan going (sac outlet and some draw), and after we all keep the zur player drops a Leyline of the Void. my deck is pretty much shutdown from doing the fun stuff that the deck is supposed to do. I'm a wee bit salty because he says his opening hand was terrible (misses t3 land drop), and he only kept to screw me over (being the only graveyard deck at the table).
I decide to go straight after him claiming the way for me to play a good game is to kill you so I send all my attacks at him (with my 45 creature filled deck). Funnily enough after I kill him I happen to draw my combo the next turn that requires me to be able to use my graveyard (buried alive(grimgrim, kikijiki, anger)+necrotic ooze). My whole playgroup is then salty at me for gunning for the zur player then comboing off as soon as he is dead.
Is what I did wrong? I mean my deck doesn't have a lot of enchantment hate so the best form of removal I had was player removal. Then for the rest of the night I was sharked for that. I feel that getting sharked for that was a little uncalled for when the main reason I went after him was that I wanted to play my deck and the zur player kept that hand just to prevent me from doing that.
I don't think what you did was wrong. If he outright declared that he kept a bad hand specifically to get a card to spite you, I don't have any sympathy for him.
Some people are just win-centered so when they get beat it results in Rain of Salt. Especially winning with Stax, Mass LD, or heavy control, people generally don't like to lose in those fashions. It sucks but some people can't handle getting handled by control. I think also slow games cheese people, I try not to have things that slow games down to that level.
My advice talk it out with your group and let them know that you enjoy playing this way. Maybe you rotate your decks every third game or some rotation. Either way your group should be able to handle your concerns.
I have a guy in my playgroup that plays mono black Flip Liliana. He saves all his creature kill just for my guys. I tend to have an anti-planeswalker view when I play and try to kill them when they hit the board. Since they do allow for some unfair advantages if left alone. This constant attack towards my board will often leave me vulnerable to everyone else. He doesn't seem to care if he wins or not, as long as I die first.
I was taught to always gun for whomever won the prior game, even if it wasn't Magic you were playing.
I have been on both sides of game-spanning grudge matches, which in the cold light of morning are objectively poor decisions. At the time, though, it always seems a good idea. Emotional thinking at its finest.
For what it's worth, sometimes I go into games with a different definition of winning (typically involving playing a new card I just jammed in), and should I reach that condition, I am incapable of salt the rest of the game.
Cheers!
Then I'm afraid you had some poor teachers. No one taught me how to play I had to rough it with my friends with 75 card tournament decks (the randomized decks) and hope I got some decent cards in 5th edition, vision, boosters. We reacted to how the board was playing out and thought of solutions to the problems at hand. You should never try and gang up on a winner strictly for being a winner. Even the sun shines on a dogs ass sometimes and even the worst of worst of worst decks can pull off a win. You could be sitting at the table with the best deck you'll ever see but it could just fail as easily as anything else.
This is the toxic part of Commander. The idea that there has to be checks and balances in each game.
My group jokingly calls this the "blood feud". We're all pretty good-natured but if someone goes nuts and combos out on turn 4 one game they expect to be targeted the following game even if they change decks. It doesn't get too vindictive, but we're also a close group.
I know the Command Zone podcast guys' group does the same thing. I wish my group were a little closer. There are some core members, but some come and go and they're usually the ones I'd want to target.
Like today, we were playing Kingdoms, and on turn 3 the Selvala, Explorer Returned player casts Paradox Engine and proceeds to take about 10 minutes of "parley, add 5 to the pool, cast this for 3, 2 floating, untap, parley, add 4 to the pool, cast this for 4, 1 floating, untap, parley ..."
Eventually I scooped. I'm not mad at the guy's deck or even the guy. But I've got a very, very finite amount of time to play Magic in a given month, and watching that wasn't any good for me. The rest of the table scooped, told him his deck was awesome, and then he switched decks. I wanted so badly to Teeg him right out of that second game, but because I barely know the guy, I couldn't. Shame.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can't say I'm pleased to see you and must warn you I may have to do something about it.
EDH: UGEdric
Pauper: URDelver
Modern: UGRDelver
Draft my cube: Eric's 390 Unpowered
I actually managed to achieve salt on one occasion. I cloned my Thundermaw Hellkite with Progenitor Mimic and kept countering every attempt to rid my board of the hellkites until my opponents were soundly beat to death. The next game was pretty much me vs "Believe in The Shield". We are friends and it was all in good fun at the very least.
So here's the thing... if the first deck I see you pull out is a combo deck, then I'm going to assume your second deck is cutthroat or has some sort of 2 card combo in it. Unless you SHOW me your cards, I'm probably not going to take you at your word. I have a Ghave deck, and the only infinite combo I have is using Ashnod's Altar to make infinitely big creatures, and even then, the table still gets a turn to deal with it before I swing for the win. (And I can't get that infinite combo going until T5 or so at the least.) So people tend to trust me on my Ghave deck... but I doubt they would if I played a strong deck before that, especially if it was a control and/or combo deck that locks players out.
I've lost too many games to some two card TnN or Mike/Trisk combo to just trust someone I don't know blindly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Club Flamingo Entries: +50
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Depending on your group, how your attitude was when you played the cards etc. I would say that playing leovold lock-down says a lot about play style and attitude towards multiplayer games. If you build decks able to cripple all opponents and/or win 3v1's reliably. Then I would gladly encourage the table to give you that 3v1 and take you out first. Pretty much no matter what your commander is. Because i know you will run consistent and hard to disrupt strategies (tutors for 2 card inf combos etc.). And i don't necessarily know what the others will run yet, so if they play political, my priority target would always be you.
There's also a thing called tunnelvision. You said early lockdown, but not early win? I assume it was a long game where you played with a full grip vs. 3 other players with some sort of puzzle box lock in place? Being the archenemy for a long time creates focus on beating you. Ifa person can't beat you this game, they will most likely subconsciously want to beat you (and specifically you) the next game. Especially if their defeat was a long and grindy one.
edit: tl:dr: Playing oppressive decks will cause you to get all the "random" hate of the table the next round unless some other player is equally oppressive that game.
RWU Narset, jeskai burn
RUB Marchesa the black rose
R Daretti, reanimator goodstuff
BU Vela, ninja assasin
UG Ezuri, woodland critters.
And I don;t think Leovold Lockdown properly reflects how I play. It is fun to use a strategy that is different form how I usually play (Its been quite a few years since i last used Nin or Arcum (4 or 5 years now) I have been since then building gimmicky or for fun decks. Leovold is my most competitive deck i have had since Arcum (Even though Nin was competitive, i did not win as many games as I did with arcum.)
Still building leovold is one thing but thsi si coming form the guy who also built a Riku deck full of clones, and a Purphoros deck full of goblin token generators. Or a Sekki, seasons' guide with a bunch of universal pumps. So which one reflects who i am better?
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
Imo ganging up on players is childish. I feel like if you feel someone's deck is too powerful make your deck stronger or find other people to play with. It's also bad strategy because you waste resources that you'll need later, and while you're focusing on getting revenge someone else is winning the game.
WBRG Saskia the Unyielding
WUB Sharuum the Hegemon
RWU Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest
RG Wort, the Raidmother
WU Brago, King Eternal
B Chainer, Dementia Master
I remember someone constantly trying to kill me because i was play gisela, blade of goldnight when i was stuck in four mana for most of the game, saying, he knows how strong gisela's deck are (it was my first time playing against him) Meanwhile, someone is playing 5 color, dropped vorinclex before, ultimated Ral Zarek , then drop Indestructible avacyn and then Armageddon... It was basically a 2v2 game for no reason at all..
I had a game i really got salty in 4v4, nobody was trying to help me against a Zurgo Helmsmasher artifact voltron deck because I played Kataki, war's wage as artifact hate, not even in a stax deck. Which he promptly removed just in two turns and proceed to target me singularly for 6 turns in a roll until i died. Meanwhile the other two players, won't do anything, saying won't help me since it doesn't help them...
yea, end of it, grab a friend, if someone holds a grudge against you without reasons, at least is a 2v1
I have been on both sides of game-spanning grudge matches, which in the cold light of morning are objectively poor decisions. At the time, though, it always seems a good idea. Emotional thinking at its finest.
For what it's worth, sometimes I go into games with a different definition of winning (typically involving playing a new card I just jammed in), and should I reach that condition, I am incapable of salt the rest of the game.
Cheers!
Krichaiushii on PucaTrade.
One night I decide to play my Marchesa deck with my playgroup and since his zur deck is his only deck he plays that. Opening hand has a few pieces to get my game plan going (sac outlet and some draw), and after we all keep the zur player drops a Leyline of the Void. my deck is pretty much shutdown from doing the fun stuff that the deck is supposed to do. I'm a wee bit salty because he says his opening hand was terrible (misses t3 land drop), and he only kept to screw me over (being the only graveyard deck at the table).
I decide to go straight after him claiming the way for me to play a good game is to kill you so I send all my attacks at him (with my 45 creature filled deck). Funnily enough after I kill him I happen to draw my combo the next turn that requires me to be able to use my graveyard (buried alive(grimgrim, kikijiki, anger)+necrotic ooze). My whole playgroup is then salty at me for gunning for the zur player then comboing off as soon as he is dead.
Is what I did wrong? I mean my deck doesn't have a lot of enchantment hate so the best form of removal I had was player removal. Then for the rest of the night I was sharked for that. I feel that getting sharked for that was a little uncalled for when the main reason I went after him was that I wanted to play my deck and the zur player kept that hand just to prevent me from doing that.
My advice talk it out with your group and let them know that you enjoy playing this way. Maybe you rotate your decks every third game or some rotation. Either way your group should be able to handle your concerns.
(W/U)(B/R)GForm of Progenitus, Shape of a Scrubland
BRGJund Tokens with Prossh, the Magic Dragon Foil
URGAnimar, the RUG CleanerFoil
RRRFeldon of the Third Path 2.0 Foil
BG(B/G)Not Another Meren DeckFoil
UR(U/R)Mizzix, Y Control and X Burn Spells
(W/U)(B/R)GHarold Ramos - The 35 Foot Long Twinkie (In +1/+1 counters)
UB(U/B)Dragonlord Silumgar
BWREDGAR MARKOV VAMPIRESBWR
Then I'm afraid you had some poor teachers. No one taught me how to play I had to rough it with my friends with 75 card tournament decks (the randomized decks) and hope I got some decent cards in 5th edition, vision, boosters. We reacted to how the board was playing out and thought of solutions to the problems at hand. You should never try and gang up on a winner strictly for being a winner. Even the sun shines on a dogs ass sometimes and even the worst of worst of worst decks can pull off a win. You could be sitting at the table with the best deck you'll ever see but it could just fail as easily as anything else.
This is the toxic part of Commander. The idea that there has to be checks and balances in each game.
I know the Command Zone podcast guys' group does the same thing. I wish my group were a little closer. There are some core members, but some come and go and they're usually the ones I'd want to target.
Like today, we were playing Kingdoms, and on turn 3 the Selvala, Explorer Returned player casts Paradox Engine and proceeds to take about 10 minutes of "parley, add 5 to the pool, cast this for 3, 2 floating, untap, parley, add 4 to the pool, cast this for 4, 1 floating, untap, parley ..."
Eventually I scooped. I'm not mad at the guy's deck or even the guy. But I've got a very, very finite amount of time to play Magic in a given month, and watching that wasn't any good for me. The rest of the table scooped, told him his deck was awesome, and then he switched decks. I wanted so badly to Teeg him right out of that second game, but because I barely know the guy, I couldn't. Shame.
EDH: UGEdric
Pauper: UR Delver
Modern: UGR Delver
Draft my cube: Eric's 390 Unpowered
I've lost too many games to some two card TnN or Mike/Trisk combo to just trust someone I don't know blindly.
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!