Rites of Flourishing is one of the most infuriating cards in the game for multiplayer formats. Every time I have been in a game where Opponent A casts it, Opponent B wins as a direct result.
Never have I seen it be stronger for its owner than his or her opponents, largely influenced by the type of deck (some decks get radically greater benefit from it than others, and its the 'others' that always want to play the damn thing).
Oh what?? I love playing Rites of Flourishing! Nobody wants me to die when I have it in play.
I get this often when I play a few of my decks, because they have a very strong mid-late game and have very high win rates (Prossh, Thrun, Niv-Mizzet) and the table will complain the whole game about it. And, to be fair, I sometimes do kind of fall into an "oops I win" situation, but these decks aren't flawless, and they haven't learned to target my mana doublers/token doublers to make the deck harder to win with. Thrun often has 2 - 4 mana doublers out at a time, so when I happen to draw into Genesis Wave, I just win.
One of my friends has it worse tho. I feel bad because basically all of his decks our play group considers "BS and Unfair" and rarely do people stay in the whole game and scoop early. He runs Sliver Overlord, Narset puke my deck out, Sharuum artifacts and Angus Mackenzie pillowfort. Again, like my decks, they are strong, and can often just fall into "oops i win" draws, but, I fear that he's going to not want to play anymore with all the complaining. I try to make sure when I play with him that I never give up (I don't scoop early anyways unless I'm not feeling well, or I have an obligation I can't miss and i'm out of time), even though I often lose to his decks anyways because they're that good.
I can definately see the annoyance of people complaining about your decks/strats being unfair and unfun, and sometimes it's frustrating and makes you want to not play anymore. :/
If you can get me off my phone and engaged in the game then it's fun.
A game of Commander seems to go through three or four distinct phases.
1) Excitement and fun of playing cards you never imagined you'd get to play. Get my commander out and have fun doing it's thing for a while.
2) The sharks of the table start doing weird bull***** moves, and everyone starts arguing about choices and rules and why so-and-so should counter blah blah and I just retreat to my phone and let them do their big man things and when it's my turn I just quietly take my turn.
3) Eventually someone dies. Maybe it's me? I ask why they're even bothering when all I have left on the table is Purity and maybe Elspeth. Nobody ever seems to give a clear answer as to why they think I'm a threat when I've zoned out for the past 30 minutes.
4) Sometimes I'll survive phase 3 and the sharks have mostly been defeated. Then we can actually play the game and it's fun! If I lose, it's whatever, I'm just happy to make it out of phases 2 and 3 and play a fun game!
The worst part of Commander is the middle of the game, where all the fun gets thrown out the window. The big players get so wrapped up in trying to win that they don't seem to care that their behavior is creating a hostile and negative environment. And when I complain, I'm told to calm down.
Have you ever thought that being so passive-aggressive sucks the fun out of the game for others? Because I kill players that act like this first since I don't want to deal with that.
Personally, I think it depends entirely on your group whether or not something is "fun"/"unfun" and how frequently you play a particular strategy. Now my meta is a bit casual, but we don't shun more competitive decks when others whip them out at the LGS. So long as everyone gets to do a little of what their deck is intended to, it's usually acceptable. Even if someone does a turn 3/4 win, we tend to just shrug and go "cool story bro. Another game?" and naturally, we do target the individual with the 'best' deck after they win. A number of people have decks of differing power levels for this reason.
More often than not though, my friends and I have more of a problem with player attitudes. There are some people at my LGS who just whine and completely fail to politic, then take two hours to finish their turn when they're aware everyone else is perfectly fine with them shortcutting/explaining what they would do, and just giving them the win. There's no excuse for being obnoxious; it's also a social game.
If you can get me off my phone and engaged in the game then it's fun.
A game of Commander seems to go through three or four distinct phases.
1) Excitement and fun of playing cards you never imagined you'd get to play. Get my commander out and have fun doing it's thing for a while.
2) The sharks of the table start doing weird bull***** moves, and everyone starts arguing about choices and rules and why so-and-so should counter blah blah and I just retreat to my phone and let them do their big man things and when it's my turn I just quietly take my turn.
3) Eventually someone dies. Maybe it's me? I ask why they're even bothering when all I have left on the table is Purity and maybe Elspeth. Nobody ever seems to give a clear answer as to why they think I'm a threat when I've zoned out for the past 30 minutes.
4) Sometimes I'll survive phase 3 and the sharks have mostly been defeated. Then we can actually play the game and it's fun! If I lose, it's whatever, I'm just happy to make it out of phases 2 and 3 and play a fun game!
The worst part of Commander is the middle of the game, where all the fun gets thrown out the window. The big players get so wrapped up in trying to win that they don't seem to care that their behavior is creating a hostile and negative environment. And when I complain, I'm told to calm down.
Have you ever thought that being so passive-aggressive sucks the fun out of the game for others? Because I kill players that act like this first since I don't want to deal with that.
How is that passive aggressive at all? If anything that's me being submissive and letting them get their hyperaggression out. If you would target me for playing like that, I would tell you calmly how that's not a rational play, since focusing your resources on me will likely lead to someone else defeating you.
If you can get me off my phone and engaged in the game then it's fun.
A game of Commander seems to go through three or four distinct phases.
1) Excitement and fun of playing cards you never imagined you'd get to play. Get my commander out and have fun doing it's thing for a while.
2) The sharks of the table start doing weird bull***** moves, and everyone starts arguing about choices and rules and why so-and-so should counter blah blah and I just retreat to my phone and let them do their big man things and when it's my turn I just quietly take my turn.
3) Eventually someone dies. Maybe it's me? I ask why they're even bothering when all I have left on the table is Purity and maybe Elspeth. Nobody ever seems to give a clear answer as to why they think I'm a threat when I've zoned out for the past 30 minutes.
4) Sometimes I'll survive phase 3 and the sharks have mostly been defeated. Then we can actually play the game and it's fun! If I lose, it's whatever, I'm just happy to make it out of phases 2 and 3 and play a fun game!
The worst part of Commander is the middle of the game, where all the fun gets thrown out the window. The big players get so wrapped up in trying to win that they don't seem to care that their behavior is creating a hostile and negative environment. And when I complain, I'm told to calm down.
Have you ever thought that being so passive-aggressive sucks the fun out of the game for others? Because I kill players that act like this first since I don't want to deal with that.
How is that passive aggressive at all? If anything that's me being submissive and letting them get their hyperaggression out. If you would target me for playing like that, I would tell you calmly how that's not a rational play, since focusing your resources on me will likely lead to someone else defeating you.
You don't see the inherent passive-aggression in how you describe the other players? "wierd bull**** moves?" You don't see sitting there on your phone as disrespectful?
If you're not even willing to pay attention to the game, why even play?
If you can get me off my phone and engaged in the game then it's fun.
A game of Commander seems to go through three or four distinct phases.
1) Excitement and fun of playing cards you never imagined you'd get to play. Get my commander out and have fun doing it's thing for a while.
2) The sharks of the table start doing weird bull***** moves, and everyone starts arguing about choices and rules and why so-and-so should counter blah blah and I just retreat to my phone and let them do their big man things and when it's my turn I just quietly take my turn.
3) Eventually someone dies. Maybe it's me? I ask why they're even bothering when all I have left on the table is Purity and maybe Elspeth. Nobody ever seems to give a clear answer as to why they think I'm a threat when I've zoned out for the past 30 minutes.
4) Sometimes I'll survive phase 3 and the sharks have mostly been defeated. Then we can actually play the game and it's fun! If I lose, it's whatever, I'm just happy to make it out of phases 2 and 3 and play a fun game!
The worst part of Commander is the middle of the game, where all the fun gets thrown out the window. The big players get so wrapped up in trying to win that they don't seem to care that their behavior is creating a hostile and negative environment. And when I complain, I'm told to calm down.
Have you ever thought that being so passive-aggressive sucks the fun out of the game for others? Because I kill players that act like this first since I don't want to deal with that.
How is that passive aggressive at all? If anything that's me being submissive and letting them get their hyperaggression out. If you would target me for playing like that, I would tell you calmly how that's not a rational play, since focusing your resources on me will likely lead to someone else defeating you.
You don't see the inherent passive-aggression in how you describe the other players? "wierd bull**** moves?" You don't see sitting there on your phone as disrespectful?
If you're not even willing to pay attention to the game, why even play?
I'm sorry I don't care about what happens when you Tinker on Mox Whatever and there's a Dovescape and Karn's Whosit in play and someone somehow plays Capsize with Cascade and it takes the table 5 - 10 minutes to yell and argue about the EXACT INTRICATE DETAILS of what that particular combination of cards does.
^^^ That's me being passive aggressive BTW
Instead, tuning out and chatting on my phone while the game stalls is one of the nicest things I can do. I let the big boys do their big boy things, and I stay out of it.
If you can get me off my phone and engaged in the game then it's fun.
A game of Commander seems to go through three or four distinct phases.
1) Excitement and fun of playing cards you never imagined you'd get to play. Get my commander out and have fun doing it's thing for a while.
2) The sharks of the table start doing weird bull***** moves, and everyone starts arguing about choices and rules and why so-and-so should counter blah blah and I just retreat to my phone and let them do their big man things and when it's my turn I just quietly take my turn.
3) Eventually someone dies. Maybe it's me? I ask why they're even bothering when all I have left on the table is Purity and maybe Elspeth. Nobody ever seems to give a clear answer as to why they think I'm a threat when I've zoned out for the past 30 minutes.
4) Sometimes I'll survive phase 3 and the sharks have mostly been defeated. Then we can actually play the game and it's fun! If I lose, it's whatever, I'm just happy to make it out of phases 2 and 3 and play a fun game!
The worst part of Commander is the middle of the game, where all the fun gets thrown out the window. The big players get so wrapped up in trying to win that they don't seem to care that their behavior is creating a hostile and negative environment. And when I complain, I'm told to calm down.
Have you ever thought that being so passive-aggressive sucks the fun out of the game for others? Because I kill players that act like this first since I don't want to deal with that.
How is that passive aggressive at all? If anything that's me being submissive and letting them get their hyperaggression out. If you would target me for playing like that, I would tell you calmly how that's not a rational play, since focusing your resources on me will likely lead to someone else defeating you.
You don't see the inherent passive-aggression in how you describe the other players? "wierd bull**** moves?" You don't see sitting there on your phone as disrespectful?
If you're not even willing to pay attention to the game, why even play?
I'm sorry I don't care about what happens when you Tinker on Mox Whatever and there's a Dovescape and Karn's Whosit in play and someone somehow plays Capsize with Cascade and it takes the table 5 - 10 minutes to yell and argue about the EXACT INTRICATE DETAILS of what that particular combination of cards does.
^^^ That's me being passive aggressive BTW
Instead, tuning out and chatting on my phone while the game stalls is one of the nicest things I can do. I let the big boys do their big boy things, and I stay out of it.
I'm sure you'll grow up and act like a "big boy" adult one of these days.
Public Mod Note
(Jivanmukta):
Warning for Trolling - Jiv
It is rather annoying when my turns take less than 30 seconds and an opponent's takes 7 minutes. This is often how playing against Yidris feels. I'm not sure whether I dislike the time lost or being buried in its card advantage more.
Here is what I find unfun. These arrogant players who come acting like they know my deck because of a general I play and are always wrong. I never do it to other people, even if I know what we're in for.
I also find people who play global effects with the only reason behind them is to 'restart' the game to be annoying as well. I love my global effects. But you won't see me playing an Obliterate with out a win con coming right up in a couple turns. Two weeks ago, a player cast Decree of Annihilation. With zero game plan. Yeah we ended up scooping only a big longer after that.
I don't like people who counterspell one of my big spells (Genesis Wave for 11) and then quit a turn later. If that were to happen to anyone else I would have spoke up and said, whoa, no. If you had plans of quitting this early in the game, then why did you bother to sit down and ask the table to let the player have their spell.
I don't like people who claim that politics are just a given and that I should accept it. Which I never do, and I am never quiet about it. I've told many of these MTG Politicians that they really should just focus more on building their own deck and use their own skill to play rather than hoping to score a few brownie points at the table to keep people from attacking you. Generally, these tit-for-tat tactics work in abundance because of the turn over of new players. There are so many new people playing this format that it's easy to find at least 1/4 that will fall for that crap.
What I also find unfun, is the player who constantly is running counter intelligence for the entire game. Constantly asking assumptive questions hoping to get Intel from a player who is just tired of hearing it. I usually just keep quiet or lie to them.
There are a lot of facets to answering that question, but usually for me I kill players first who:
0. THEFT EFFECTS - Guaranteed Countering, Misery and untimely Death
1. Whine
2. Try to influence other people's decisions (namely into disadvantaging someone other than themselves)
3. Play on the politics (I always attack players who try to make deals, including with me even if it's for my benefit)
4. Anyone accelerating too fast or exploding early - have some tact. You will get shut down.
5. Group Hug
6. Aren't paying attention
7. Are playing cards that slow down or reset the game, threaten my strategy, or are generally chaotic in nature such as Land Destruction or constant board wipes
8. People who try to predict my cards, ask if I am playing such and such next, generally expecting me to divulge information
9. Rhystic Study
10. Someone playing generally annoying cards like Dovescape or having absurd combos like Ghave and Martyr Bond or whatever - inconveniencing everyone else with lockouts
11. Infinite Combo players
As a general idea of what I don't like beyond obviously retaliating, which is what one does in EDH.
If you can get me off my phone and engaged in the game then it's fun.
You die first.
I find this thread nonsensical. First you have to define casualness, then you have to define funness... I dunno, it all seems silly to me considering hashing out those definitions could take ages. Personally, the only Magic I don't enjoy in a game where there is nothing on the line would be non-interactive decks. Kill my creatures, blow up my lands, get rid of my hand, whatever. Just don't sit back all game doing nothing because I will politic you into the ground.
There are a lot of facets to answering that question, but usually for me I kill players first who:
0. THEFT EFFECTS - Guaranteed Countering, Misery and untimely Death
1. Whine
2. Try to influence other people's decisions (namely into disadvantaging someone other than themselves)
3. Play on the politics (I always attack players who try to make deals, including with me even if it's for my benefit)
4. Anyone accelerating too fast or exploding early - have some tact. You will get shut down.
5. Group Hug
6. Aren't paying attention
7. Are playing cards that slow down or reset the game, threaten my strategy, or are generally chaotic in nature such as Land Destruction or constant board wipes
8. People who try to predict my cards, ask if I am playing such and such next, generally expecting me to divulge information
9. Rhystic Study
10. Someone playing generally annoying cards like Dovescape or having absurd combos like Ghave and Martyr Bond or whatever - inconveniencing everyone else with lockouts
11. Infinite Combo players
As a general idea of what I don't like beyond obviously retaliating, which is what one does in EDH.
So... anyone doing anything is who you kill first? Impressive.
Fun EDH: The people you're playing with are great. We're cracking jokes, we're getting hyped at a big play and then we're laughing heartily when that play gets foiled in an amusing way. While balance between decks is a pipe dream we're congruent enough to where anyone can have their moment.
Not fun EDH: "Hi winning is everything to me and I will take your counters and removal personally. What is an inside voice when I didn't win before turn 5. This is not a bar stop trying to have goofy small talk with me. Ok I got my combo in...but the only thing I remembered about this combo from reading about it is that it just works. Let me have a couple of ten minutes to figure out what I just did. Pffft I won get on my commander tier scrubs can the next game be a 2v2?"
It's not right...Not...Right...I feel G...O...O...D...Friends...Argh! Yaaagh!: "I play Vedalken Orrery." "Me too."
Something that comes up repeatably in these discussions that I would like to quell or at least refute is the idea that having fun and having a desire for winning the game are somehow incompatible positions, like playing a multiplayer game that has a condition for victory and an intention that it ends with a victor for that goal is somehow some weird anathema to having a good time or being a person aware the whole thing is a social space with other people.
Also peoples definitions for what makes up casual and competitive vary wildly which makes them generally dysfunctional terms.
Something that comes up repeatably in these discussions that I would like to quell or at least refute is the idea that having fun and having a desire for winning the game are somehow incompatible positions, like playing a multiplayer game that has a condition for victory and an intention that it ends with a victor for that goal is somehow some weird anathema to having a good time or being a person aware the whole thing is a social space with other people.
Also peoples definitions for what makes up casual and competitive vary wildly which makes them generally dysfunctional terms.
They aren't fully opposite, but from a practical perspective the mechanics that win the game effectively and the mechanics that make for a fun night playing magic with friends have almost zero overlap.
Magic's core gameplay is a bad game.
Magic's core gameplay makes for some really bad multiplayer situations as well. Elimination games are generally bad multiplayer design when the game takes as long as EDH games do.
It's like dungeons and dragons, the players can break the game in half if they want, but that's not going to be a fun night.
If you don't think Magic is at its core a good game then why should I take your opinion on this matter seriously in the slightest? (This is a serious question and not meant to be either insulting or sarcastic) Also the D&D example is a bad faith one because the intention of those books is not what power gaming players twist them to be.
If you can get me off my phone and engaged in the game then it's fun.
You die first.
I find this thread nonsensical. First you have to define casualness, then you have to define funness... I dunno, it all seems silly to me considering hashing out those definitions could take ages. Personally, the only Magic I don't enjoy in a game where there is nothing on the line would be non-interactive decks. Kill my creatures, blow up my lands, get rid of my hand, whatever. Just don't sit back all game doing nothing because I will politic you into the ground.
There are a lot of facets to answering that question, but usually for me I kill players first who:
0. THEFT EFFECTS - Guaranteed Countering, Misery and untimely Death
1. Whine
2. Try to influence other people's decisions (namely into disadvantaging someone other than themselves)
3. Play on the politics (I always attack players who try to make deals, including with me even if it's for my benefit)
4. Anyone accelerating too fast or exploding early - have some tact. You will get shut down.
5. Group Hug
6. Aren't paying attention
7. Are playing cards that slow down or reset the game, threaten my strategy, or are generally chaotic in nature such as Land Destruction or constant board wipes
8. People who try to predict my cards, ask if I am playing such and such next, generally expecting me to divulge information
9. Rhystic Study
10. Someone playing generally annoying cards like Dovescape or having absurd combos like Ghave and Martyr Bond or whatever - inconveniencing everyone else with lockouts
11. Infinite Combo players
As a general idea of what I don't like beyond obviously retaliating, which is what one does in EDH.
So... anyone doing anything is who you kill first? Impressive.
Anyone playing chaotic strategies, not paying attention or relying on politics, yes.
Sometimes I wish we could retire this topic from the board. It's toxic.
People enjoy different things for different reasons. Not all players have compatible play styles, and that's ok. One of the things that keeps the format popular is its appeal to a wide variety of players. That's why WotC supports it with a yearly product; that's why they keep this format in mind when designing sets. The health of the format and the card supply depend on having multiple ideas of what constitutes fun. Let people have theirs and you find yours.
We should count our blessing we play a format where there is a play-group for everyone, even if not every play-group is for everyone.
It is almost as if a multiplayer game in which everyone is working for the same goal that only one person can have is inherently political.
When you try to influence the decisions of others (especially into disadvantaging someone else despite being a valid target) you get killed. I retaliate in commander. Someone, doing something, will inevitably inconvenience me and I'll retaliate. I like having reasons to make certain moves in-game. I don't tolerate convincing or playing table politics. People who tell others how to play out their moves rather than allow them to think and make their own misplays or do things their own unique way draw my ire in a game, but that's not from malice - one must attack or target someone… so nice to have criteria on who to start with.
If you don't think Magic is at its core a good game then why should I take your opinion on this matter seriously in the slightest? (This is a serious question and not meant to be either insulting or sarcastic) Also the D&D example is a bad faith one because the intention of those books is not what power gaming players twist them to be.
It's a multiplayer game where one player can lose in 10 minutes and then the game takes 2 hours to finish. That's just bad design from all angles.
It's a multiplayer game loaded with randomness and imbalance, greatly reducing the impact of skill compared to raw deck strength and luck. This wouldn't necessarily be bad design for all players, but it's bad design if you are trying to take the game seriously competitively.
At it's core, magic's raw game mechanics are not great.
Deckbuilding is fun and hanging out with friends is fun, but magic as a pure game is not.
It's up to the players to use the card pool available to try and create an enjoyable experience for the table, and trying to win is almost guaranteed to result in either reducing the game to it's bad core gameplay and/or not caring about if others at the table are enjoying themselves. This is why people have the general sentiment that trying to win and having fun are often in direct conflict.
See and this is where the problem comes in because I could just type out a post in which my personal anecdote to how Commander is played near me is the exact opposite in every regard of what you just posted and then we shake hands and walk our separate ways because there isn't a single answer or correct answer to this question.
But I don't believe you have the right that that is why people think fun and winning is are in conflict. I think people have that view because they have met something that takes the game on a level of seriousness well beyond them and that person also deeply cares about winning so that example has become the common definition for someone playing Commander who wants to win.
When you try to influence the decisions of others (especially into disadvantaging someone else despite being a valid target) you get killed. I retaliate in commander. Someone, doing something, will inevitably inconvenience me and I'll retaliate. I like having reasons to make certain moves in-game. I don't tolerate convincing or playing table politics. People who tell others how to play out their moves rather than allow them to think and make their own misplays or do things their own unique way draw my ire in a game, but that's not from malice - one must attack or target someone… so nice to have criteria on who to start with.
I get the impression that you don't win very much because of your poor threat assessment. You go after the person more likely to win immediately first, then the person most likely to cause you to lose second, then hope you have enough resources left to kill off the other guy. It usually breaks down like that. Of course it's more complicated than that, but as a rule of thumb it's not bad.
The "malice" from attacking someone who has the most threatening deck and/or board position isn't malice at all, it's good play. "Retaliation" is often counterproductive, devolving into you and that opponent having a pissing match while the other two players greatly benefit. It sounds to me like you're unskilled in politics so you go after those that are? I mean, sure, if a guy is always trying to play for other people, he's being obnoxious, but pointing out that there's an Aura Shards on the field and the Enchantress player has a Seal of Cleansing while I have an innocent ol' No Mercy benefits both of us. I get to keep my dissuading enchantment and the Enchantress player isn't blown out by Aura Mutation.
Total retaliation just doesn't benefit either party well. You're effectively saying, "I may lose, but at least you won't win," which seems very anti-social to me.
It's a multiplayer game where one player can lose in 10 minutes and then the game takes 2 hours to finish. That's just bad design from all angles.
It's a multiplayer game loaded with randomness and imbalance, greatly reducing the impact of skill compared to raw deck strength and luck. This wouldn't necessarily be bad design for all players, but it's bad design if you are trying to take the game seriously competitively.
At it's core, magic's raw game mechanics are not great.
Deckbuilding is fun and hanging out with friends is fun, but magic as a pure game is not.
It's up to the players to use the card pool available to try and create an enjoyable experience for the table, and trying to win is almost guaranteed to result in either reducing the game to it's bad core gameplay and/or not caring about if others at the table are enjoying themselves. This is why people have the general sentiment that trying to win and having fun are often in direct conflict.
Wait, is the subtext here that since Magic is a game that can be won, it's flawed?
I find Magic's gameplay to be rather excellent, which is of course 100% subjective, and your opinion is 100% valid as well. I just think your group would be better off playing a deckbuilder tabletop game or something if you want to have a beer and pretzels night if you perceive that multiplayer is ad hoc addition to Magic. Which it is.
re: D&D being broken: I dunno, if everyone is playing on the same field, super high power D&D can be a lot of fun.
When you try to influence the decisions of others (especially into disadvantaging someone else despite being a valid target) you get killed. I retaliate in commander. Someone, doing something, will inevitably inconvenience me and I'll retaliate. I like having reasons to make certain moves in-game. I don't tolerate convincing or playing table politics. People who tell others how to play out their moves rather than allow them to think and make their own misplays or do things their own unique way draw my ire in a game, but that's not from malice - one must attack or target someone… so nice to have criteria on who to start with.
I get the impression that you don't win very much because of your poor threat assessment. You go after the person more likely to win immediately first, then the person most likely to cause you to lose second, then hope you have enough resources left to kill off the other guy. It usually breaks down like that. Of course it's more complicated than that, but as a rule of thumb it's not bad.
The "malice" from attacking someone who has the most threatening deck and/or board position isn't malice at all, it's good play. "Retaliation" is often counterproductive, devolving into you and that opponent having a pissing match while the other two players greatly benefit. It sounds to me like you're unskilled in politics so you go after those that are? I mean, sure, if a guy is always trying to play for other people, he's being obnoxious, but pointing out that there's an Aura Shards on the field and the Enchantress player has a Seal of Cleansing while I have an innocent ol' No Mercy benefits both of us. I get to keep my dissuading enchantment and the Enchantress player isn't blown out by Aura Mutation.
Total retaliation just doesn't benefit either party well. You're effectively saying, "I may lose, but at least you won't win," which seems very anti-social to me.
I think you're misunderstanding. My point is that having criteria on when and with whom to go offensive is important to avoiding games of everyone passively building their board until someone wins or the game grinds. I have my reasons for that. It's not about "pissing matches" or how adept you think I am with politics. I don't play into them. I make the plays I choose to make and I act independently to see how well my deck and I can perform without the direct intervention of others or benefit of politics. I didn't say anything about pointing things out. We know players who will have a PW ready to bomb and use politics and move critiques to distract everyone from attacking them or stopping it, for example "Oh look over there, in 7 turns that Chronologist will level up giving him many extra turns, you should use your X and Y to destroy that, then return Solemnity to that player's hand, and don't forget to attack that other guy!" They die to me first. I like to observe people make their own decisions, not have their plays dictated to them by someone trying to benefit off their moves. If that's how they want to play EDH, play Mindslaver or Emrakul.
Retaliation means everyone is being passive, but you just Wrath'ed with an Avacyn out and I had the most creatures, so I choose you as my first target. *Something* needs to get players active. We're all friends having fun, but eventually someone's move gets someone else going. It's a fun way of having a reason to attack your friends.
I understand that, when Johira or other combo deck is in the table I play, I focus that one ASAP
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
One of my friends has it worse tho. I feel bad because basically all of his decks our play group considers "BS and Unfair" and rarely do people stay in the whole game and scoop early. He runs Sliver Overlord, Narset puke my deck out, Sharuum artifacts and Angus Mackenzie pillowfort. Again, like my decks, they are strong, and can often just fall into "oops i win" draws, but, I fear that he's going to not want to play anymore with all the complaining. I try to make sure when I play with him that I never give up (I don't scoop early anyways unless I'm not feeling well, or I have an obligation I can't miss and i'm out of time), even though I often lose to his decks anyways because they're that good.
I can definately see the annoyance of people complaining about your decks/strats being unfair and unfun, and sometimes it's frustrating and makes you want to not play anymore. :/
Legacy - GW Enchantress
Modern - U Urzatron (In construction)
Multiplayer - B ZOMBIES
Casual - B Suicide Black
Casual - WURx Krark-Clan Ironworks
Pauper - URBx Affinity
Pauper - B Pestilence
Pauper - W Steel Soldiers
EDH - W Isamaru, Hound of Konda 1V1
EDH - GRB Kresh the Bloodbraided
EDH - GW Trostani, Selesnya's Voice
EDH - UR Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind
EDH - RB Lyzolda, The Blood Witch
EDH - UW Bruna, Light of Alabaster (Reworking)
EDH - UB Grimgrin, Corpse-Born
EDH - UG Vorel of the Hull Clade
EDH - WUG Phelddagrif
EDH - BGR Prossh, Skyraider of Kher
Pauper EDH - G Garruk's Packleader
Pauper EDH - RG Bloodbraid Elf
CUBE:
500 Peasant Cube (52% Foil) Cube Tutor Page
Have you ever thought that being so passive-aggressive sucks the fun out of the game for others? Because I kill players that act like this first since I don't want to deal with that.
More often than not though, my friends and I have more of a problem with player attitudes. There are some people at my LGS who just whine and completely fail to politic, then take two hours to finish their turn when they're aware everyone else is perfectly fine with them shortcutting/explaining what they would do, and just giving them the win. There's no excuse for being obnoxious; it's also a social game.
You don't see the inherent passive-aggression in how you describe the other players? "wierd bull**** moves?" You don't see sitting there on your phone as disrespectful?
If you're not even willing to pay attention to the game, why even play?
^^^ That's me being passive aggressive BTW
Instead, tuning out and chatting on my phone while the game stalls is one of the nicest things I can do. I let the big boys do their big boy things, and I stay out of it.
I'm sure you'll grow up and act like a "big boy" adult one of these days.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
I also find people who play global effects with the only reason behind them is to 'restart' the game to be annoying as well. I love my global effects. But you won't see me playing an Obliterate with out a win con coming right up in a couple turns. Two weeks ago, a player cast Decree of Annihilation. With zero game plan. Yeah we ended up scooping only a big longer after that.
I don't like people who counterspell one of my big spells (Genesis Wave for 11) and then quit a turn later. If that were to happen to anyone else I would have spoke up and said, whoa, no. If you had plans of quitting this early in the game, then why did you bother to sit down and ask the table to let the player have their spell.
I don't like people who claim that politics are just a given and that I should accept it. Which I never do, and I am never quiet about it. I've told many of these MTG Politicians that they really should just focus more on building their own deck and use their own skill to play rather than hoping to score a few brownie points at the table to keep people from attacking you. Generally, these tit-for-tat tactics work in abundance because of the turn over of new players. There are so many new people playing this format that it's easy to find at least 1/4 that will fall for that crap.
What I also find unfun, is the player who constantly is running counter intelligence for the entire game. Constantly asking assumptive questions hoping to get Intel from a player who is just tired of hearing it. I usually just keep quiet or lie to them.
0. THEFT EFFECTS - Guaranteed Countering, Misery and untimely Death
1. Whine
2. Try to influence other people's decisions (namely into disadvantaging someone other than themselves)
3. Play on the politics (I always attack players who try to make deals, including with me even if it's for my benefit)
4. Anyone accelerating too fast or exploding early - have some tact. You will get shut down.
5. Group Hug
6. Aren't paying attention
7. Are playing cards that slow down or reset the game, threaten my strategy, or are generally chaotic in nature such as Land Destruction or constant board wipes
8. People who try to predict my cards, ask if I am playing such and such next, generally expecting me to divulge information
9. Rhystic Study
10. Someone playing generally annoying cards like Dovescape or having absurd combos like Ghave and Martyr Bond or whatever - inconveniencing everyone else with lockouts
11. Infinite Combo players
As a general idea of what I don't like beyond obviously retaliating, which is what one does in EDH.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
You die first.
I find this thread nonsensical. First you have to define casualness, then you have to define funness... I dunno, it all seems silly to me considering hashing out those definitions could take ages. Personally, the only Magic I don't enjoy in a game where there is nothing on the line would be non-interactive decks. Kill my creatures, blow up my lands, get rid of my hand, whatever. Just don't sit back all game doing nothing because I will politic you into the ground.
So... anyone doing anything is who you kill first? Impressive.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
Not fun EDH: "Hi winning is everything to me and I will take your counters and removal personally. What is an inside voice when I didn't win before turn 5. This is not a bar stop trying to have goofy small talk with me. Ok I got my combo in...but the only thing I remembered about this combo from reading about it is that it just works. Let me have a couple of ten minutes to figure out what I just did. Pffft I won get on my commander tier scrubs can the next game be a 2v2?"
It's not right...Not...Right...I feel G...O...O...D...Friends...Argh! Yaaagh!: "I play Vedalken Orrery." "Me too."
Also peoples definitions for what makes up casual and competitive vary wildly which makes them generally dysfunctional terms.
They aren't fully opposite, but from a practical perspective the mechanics that win the game effectively and the mechanics that make for a fun night playing magic with friends have almost zero overlap.
Magic's core gameplay is a bad game.
Magic's core gameplay makes for some really bad multiplayer situations as well. Elimination games are generally bad multiplayer design when the game takes as long as EDH games do.
It's like dungeons and dragons, the players can break the game in half if they want, but that's not going to be a fun night.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
People enjoy different things for different reasons. Not all players have compatible play styles, and that's ok. One of the things that keeps the format popular is its appeal to a wide variety of players. That's why WotC supports it with a yearly product; that's why they keep this format in mind when designing sets. The health of the format and the card supply depend on having multiple ideas of what constitutes fun. Let people have theirs and you find yours.
We should count our blessing we play a format where there is a play-group for everyone, even if not every play-group is for everyone.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
It's a multiplayer game where one player can lose in 10 minutes and then the game takes 2 hours to finish. That's just bad design from all angles.
It's a multiplayer game loaded with randomness and imbalance, greatly reducing the impact of skill compared to raw deck strength and luck. This wouldn't necessarily be bad design for all players, but it's bad design if you are trying to take the game seriously competitively.
At it's core, magic's raw game mechanics are not great.
Deckbuilding is fun and hanging out with friends is fun, but magic as a pure game is not.
It's up to the players to use the card pool available to try and create an enjoyable experience for the table, and trying to win is almost guaranteed to result in either reducing the game to it's bad core gameplay and/or not caring about if others at the table are enjoying themselves. This is why people have the general sentiment that trying to win and having fun are often in direct conflict.
But I don't believe you have the right that that is why people think fun and winning is are in conflict. I think people have that view because they have met something that takes the game on a level of seriousness well beyond them and that person also deeply cares about winning so that example has become the common definition for someone playing Commander who wants to win.
I get the impression that you don't win very much because of your poor threat assessment. You go after the person more likely to win immediately first, then the person most likely to cause you to lose second, then hope you have enough resources left to kill off the other guy. It usually breaks down like that. Of course it's more complicated than that, but as a rule of thumb it's not bad.
The "malice" from attacking someone who has the most threatening deck and/or board position isn't malice at all, it's good play. "Retaliation" is often counterproductive, devolving into you and that opponent having a pissing match while the other two players greatly benefit. It sounds to me like you're unskilled in politics so you go after those that are? I mean, sure, if a guy is always trying to play for other people, he's being obnoxious, but pointing out that there's an Aura Shards on the field and the Enchantress player has a Seal of Cleansing while I have an innocent ol' No Mercy benefits both of us. I get to keep my dissuading enchantment and the Enchantress player isn't blown out by Aura Mutation.
Total retaliation just doesn't benefit either party well. You're effectively saying, "I may lose, but at least you won't win," which seems very anti-social to me.
Wait, is the subtext here that since Magic is a game that can be won, it's flawed?
I find Magic's gameplay to be rather excellent, which is of course 100% subjective, and your opinion is 100% valid as well. I just think your group would be better off playing a deckbuilder tabletop game or something if you want to have a beer and pretzels night if you perceive that multiplayer is ad hoc addition to Magic. Which it is.
re: D&D being broken: I dunno, if everyone is playing on the same field, super high power D&D can be a lot of fun.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
Retaliation means everyone is being passive, but you just Wrath'ed with an Avacyn out and I had the most creatures, so I choose you as my first target. *Something* needs to get players active. We're all friends having fun, but eventually someone's move gets someone else going. It's a fun way of having a reason to attack your friends.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||