I feel like you didn't read the scenario. Player 3 will definitely set off disk if player 2 attacks player 1 for lethal damage. Player 3 has to do this or he will lose 100%. Player 2 doesn't have an advantage to give up. He's a walking dead man.
That is the wrong play though, Player 3 -needs- player 1 to die. He will lose 100% if that 5/5 sticks because in your scenario. Player 3 has NO ANSWER for a 5/5 indestructible available to him unless his commander is something that can handle it..but you didn't say WHAT the commanders are, the set up you have doesn't even have to be commander as you haven't even stated it to be, this field is 100% possible in a kitchen table set up.
What you have done here is set up a completely false and flawed premise so you can try to lord "KINGMAKERZOMG!" on people and completely failed to set up an actual kingmaker situation as Player 2 is the one who controls destiny, if player 3 blows disk before attackers he is making an outright mistake because player 1 is JUST AS MUCH of a threat as player 2, just not as soon.
That is the wrong play though, Player 3 -needs- player 1 to die. He will lose 100% if that 5/5 sticks because in your scenario. Player 3 has NO ANSWER for a 5/5 indestructible available to him unless his commander is something that can handle it..but you didn't say WHAT the commanders are, the set up you have doesn't even have to be commander as you haven't even stated it to be, this field is 100% possible in a kitchen table set up.
What you have done here is set up a completely false and flawed premise so you can try to lord "KINGMAKERZOMG!" on people and completely failed to set up an actual kingmaker situation as Player 2 is the one who controls destiny, if player 3 blows disk before attackers he is making an outright mistake because player 1 is JUST AS MUCH of a threat as player 2, just not as soon.
Wow, mister technicality. Fine, everyone's commander is haakon, stromgald scourge. And I guess it's maga, traitor to mortals (man did that name ever end up being prophetic, LUL) instead of banefire or something.
There is the 10-damage-attack + banefire (or just cast banefire for 0 precombat) "solution" although that's technically still a guaranteed loss for player 3 in the situation as described (and so he wouldn't allow it), but in a more normal situation that's probably the correct play for player 2, or at least the correct play that doesn't involve wagering. If player 2 attacks for lethal with banefire still in hand and no wager made, then he's made a horrible mistake because player 3 will definitely wipe his board and he will definitely lose.
In the situation as described, player 3 has to use his kingmaking ability to force the wager from player 2, so he will absolutely set off the disk because that's his only leverage. If player 2 doesn't think he'll do it, then he'll just ignore him and win, which is obviously a loss for player 3, so player 3 is compelled to activate disk if player 2 tries to go for that win. That's not a mistake. If player 2 can't be wagered, then there is zero way for player 3 to win anyway, so at most you could say his decision to activate is arbitrary, but it's definitely not a mistake.
In the more-realistic scenario where p3 has potential outs, if player 2 goes for the lethal on p1 it'd be a HUGE mistake for p3 not to set off the disk, as he still has an actual chance to beat player 1, presumably, whereas he's guaranteed to lose immediately if he doesn't set off the disk. So player 2 would need to take that into account with making his plays, and discard the banefire to convince player 3 that he's better off in a 1v1 versus p2 instead of vs p1.
The point is that p2 AND p3 are kingmakers. Saying "you're stupid, player 3 isn't the kingmaker, player 2 is!" is completely missing the point. They both have exactly as much power (plus or minus a little trust).
Dirk, you're basing this off the fact that player 3 sees player 2 as a threat.
If player 3 has no access to his general and no win-cons left in his deck, as you described the scenario, then there's no reason to see Player 2 as any more or less of a threat than Player 1.
Without agreeing to coin flips, Player 3 isn't winning, he simply holds the means to decide who wins between player 1 and 2. He could choose to make a coin flip deal with either of them, since he's equally dead to both.
As you hinted at in your last post, the decision is purely arbitrary in the hypothetical you laid out.
Edit: you actually say Player 3 has no way to do damage in his deck or command zone. I suppose if there's another win-con left in Player 3's deck, like mill, the correct play would be, require Player 2 to banefire himself for 10, first main phase, attack player 1 for lethal and end turn. This leaves you and Player 2 in top-deck mode, you presumably saving disk to see if he misplays into it with his top-deck, then nuking the board. You hope to draw into your win-con before Player 2 does.
Dirk, you're basing this off the fact that player 3 sees player 2 as a threat.
If player 3 has no access to his general and no win-cons left in his deck, as you described the scenario, then there's no reason to see Player 2 as any more or less of a threat than Player 1.
Without agreeing to coin flips, Player 3 isn't winning, he simply holds the means to decide who wins between player 1 and 2. He could choose to make a coin flip deal with either of them, since he's equally dead to both.
As you hinted at in your last post, the decision is purely arbitrary in the hypothetical you laid out.
False. He cannot make a deal with player 1. If he makes a deal with player 1, and loses the wager, he loses, obviously. But if he wins, player 2 just banefires him in the face and he still loses because player 2 is ALSO a kingmaker. Player 1 is not a kingmaker. Making deals with him do not give any chance of winning.
Since everyone is having such a hard time with the particulars of the scenario, let me simplify it a bit.
Each player has 1 card which they can play only during their own turn. Player 1's say "you win the game." Player 2's and player 3's say "target opponent wins the game." This is exactly what's happening in the hypothetical, but if you can't see why then just take my word for it, I guess. And if you don't believe me, then just pretend we're talking about a totally different scenario, because I'm getting really tired of repeating myself.
Player 1 obviously has the best card, but he's the last in line to play it. Acting alone, neither player 2 nor player 3 have a reason to play their card, so player 1 will win. In order to have any chance of winning, they have to agree to some sort of method for determining who should play the card targeting the other person. Could be coin flips or something else, but at the end of the day, if they can't find some method for determining who will play the card, guaranteed they both lose, so then it IS their highest EV play. Whether you think that's fair or in the spirit of the game is debatable but it IS the best chance for those players to win the game.
Gambling the outcome of the game on a coin flip isn't a play at all. You're taking all of the decision-making out of the game itself.
So if a player makes an attack that guarantees lethal on the next turn, but risks losing if his opponent topdecks lightning bolt - is that "taking all the decision making out of the game?" It's basically the same situation - you're deciding on a play that has some chance of losing the game and some chance of winning, depending upon something random that you have no control over - whether your opponent draws bolt vs whether you lose the coin flip. In both cases, though, you are DECIDING to take that risk because you've decided that your chances of winning are better with that risk than without it. That's the decision making - if either player 2 or 3 thought they had a better chance to win by not taking the wager, they wouldn't take the wager. Just like if taking the big attack gave you a worse chance to win, you wouldn't do it.
No, it's not taking decision-making out of the game. The Lightning Bolt is part of the game, as is the chance of whether it's drawn or not. Agreeing to take actions in the game based on events outside the game is not part of the game.
No, it's not taking decision-making out of the game. The Lightning Bolt is part of the game, as is the chance of whether it's drawn or not. Agreeing to take actions in the game based on events outside the game is not part of the game.
Ah, I see what you mean now. I feel like your previous statement was misleading.
What you meant(?): some of the elements of decision making are taking place outside of normal game objects
What it sounded like: no decision making is taking place
I'm still a little confused about this argument, though. If someone rolls a dice to decide who to attack (with a creature other than ruhan of the fomori etc), is that just as problematic to you? And if player 2 and 3 agree to kill player 1 and then declare a draw, would that be fine with you? What if player 2 says "you kill player 1, then on my next turn if I topdeck a land, you scoop, and if I topdeck a nonland, I'll scoop" rather than flipping a coin? Then we're deciding with objects that are part of the game.
If you counter by saying that the problem is the agreement and not "playing naturally" then I'd say the same applies to working together to take down a more powerful opponent, which is, imo, a very common and commonly accepted part of the game (i.e. "if you attack him with all your creatures, I promise to kill him and not damage you, because that's the only way we can beat him.").
Dirk, you're basing this off the fact that player 3 sees player 2 as a threat.
If player 3 has no access to his general and no win-cons left in his deck, as you described the scenario, then there's no reason to see Player 2 as any more or less of a threat than Player 1.
Without agreeing to coin flips, Player 3 isn't winning, he simply holds the means to decide who wins between player 1 and 2. He could choose to make a coin flip deal with either of them, since he's equally dead to both.
As you hinted at in your last post, the decision is purely arbitrary in the hypothetical you laid out.
False. He cannot make a deal with player 1. If he makes a deal with player 1, and loses the wager, he loses, obviously. But if he wins, player 2 just banefires him in the face and he still loses because player 2 is ALSO a kingmaker. Player 1 is not a kingmaker. Making deals with him do not give any chance of winning.
Since everyone is having such a hard time with the particulars of the scenario, let me simplify it a bit.
Each player has 1 card which they can play only during their own turn. Player 1's say "you win the game." Player 2's and player 3's say "target opponent wins the game." This is exactly what's happening in the hypothetical, but if you can't see why then just take my word for it, I guess. And if you don't believe me, then just pretend we're talking about a totally different scenario, because I'm getting really tired of repeating myself.
Player 1 obviously has the best card, but he's the last in line to play it. Acting alone, neither player 2 nor player 3 have a reason to play their card, so player 1 will win. In order to have any chance of winning, they have to agree to some sort of method for determining who should play the card targeting the other person. Could be coin flips or something else, but at the end of the day, if they can't find some method for determining who will play the card, guaranteed they both lose, so then it IS their highest EV play. Whether you think that's fair or in the spirit of the game is debatable but it IS the best chance for those players to win the game.
Given your original hypothetical, I'm not sure why the edit in my last response wouldn't be at least a plausible correct line of play. If you want to change the hypothetical to oversimplify it, sure, the only chance player 2 and 3 have of winning is making some kind of deal involving random chance or playing a side-game to determine the victor. But that's not a fun puzzle to solve because you've oversimplified it.
iven your original hypothetical, I'm not sure why the edit in my last response wouldn't be at least a plausible correct line of play. If you want to change the hypothetical to oversimplify it, sure, the only chance player 2 and 3 have of winning is making some kind of deal involving random chance or playing a side-game to determine the victor. But that's not a fun puzzle to solve because you've oversimplified it.
The possibility of mill or whatever isn't a solution so much as something I didn't explicitly mention in the OP. I guess you could ASK if he might have mill (or some other wincon) for clarification, but just assuming he does is changing the situation. Of course if he has some way to win in his deck, then the "discard banefire, kill p1" play is good by player 2 because it's acceptable to p3, but that isn't the situation. You don't just get to assume things because I left them out.
The actual goal of the situation is to create the simplified problem I mentioned (p1 can win the game, p2 and p3 can choose an opponent to win the game) with real cards. It's less a puzzle of "how do you win in this scenario?" and more "what are the political implications of attempting playing like this, assuming everyone is playing to win as much as possible?" I'm sorry if that's "oversimplifying" it for you, but I don't think it's a type of situation that's ever been discussed before (at least on these forums), so I think it's reasonable to start simple.
You can spend a bunch of time trying to think of some reason why the original scenario I laid out might not be exactly analogous to the simplified problem, and I can patch the scenario to be more clear, but I don't see much point to that kind of back and forth since it ultimately just leads to solving the simplified problem anyway.
Just for fun, though, here's another interesting one: player 1 has door to nothingness, no cards in library, and player 2 and 3 each have grand abolisher in play. Life totals are high but forfeiting is allowed. In this case p1 is the kingmaker with no other kingmakers (unlike the first scenario with 2 kingmakers). This one is kind of fun since players 2 and 3 could ally and say that they won't accept any deals with p1 and ostensibly get a 50/50 winrate, with p1 activating door randomly. But p1 can counter this by turning to, say, p2 and telling him that he's going to be the target unless he takes some sort of deal, any kind of deal. In order to avoid that, p2 agrees to a 1/100 chance to forfeit, to which of course p3 is forced to take another, worse deal to avoid a 100% loss, and so on and so forth. Does that mean p1 has a 99+/100 chance to win eventually? Maybe. I mean irl people wouldn't be that easy to coerce, but in the theoretical life-or-death, no-betrayals-allowed game of magic, maybe.
These scenarios are obviously really simplified because irl there's always going to be outs and complications and people who don't care enough about winning, but I still think these are interesting scenarios that could have real applications when designing decks, in the abstract sense. Kingmaking is not necessarily just a losing proposition, if you can be clever about how to go about doing it.
... I feel like there's a lot of information missing, because I know I make decisions based on which creatures in particular there are and the Commanders. Because judging by the example, I think it'd depend entirely on the political dynamic when it comes down to this junction.
P2 has the means to kill P3 at Sorcery Speed.
P3 can take P2's army down in response.
P1 has the means to kill P2 if they last one more turn, assuming P2 couldn't block the 5/5 even if they held back.
As P3, whomever I end up 'supporting' probably depends on who I like more at that point. Because regardless the game is over: both my opponents have a clean, easy way to kill the other and I have nothing except my Disk. If I do nothing, P2 wins. If I interfere, P1 wins. As P3, there is no survival unless some kind of deal is brokered among the group (that results in me not being burnt to crisps by the mentioned Banefire). I'm not a big fan of the 'flip a coin?' question, because I prefer to make my choice and justify based on prior actions in the game. If P2 has been dominating from T1, I'd probably give the win to P1. If it's been a relatively even game, perhaps they just exploded (hence the 20 power), I'll laugh it off and accept the loss gracefully.
Mind you, if P2 has been dominating from the start, but P1 doesn't have a clear way to kill P2 in play or hand (say, the creature wasn't indestructible), I might let P2 win simply so the game doesn't drag on into misery. We end the game, shuffle up, and go again. If P2 has been targeting me all game, I might nuke them anyway because even if it doesn't end the game immediately, it puts P1 a step ahead, and I'd rather they have the chance to beat my 'bully'.
I do think a disclaimer is warranted in that while I do play to win, it's typically a secondary consideration in my deckbuilding. Number one is "do something ridiculous" or "do something well", and I like to interact with my group rather than grind them into dust as soon as possible.
Ok, we're all spending way too much time focusing on stuff that's not an intended part of the hypothetical. Rather than add tons of additional information to make it extremely clear what the situation is (every player's deck is nothing but basic lands! Player 3 has fewer cards and will deck first! etc) I've just revised the situation to the much simpler one, as described earlier but now moved into the OP. So let's stop arguing over whether p3's deck might contain mill or control magic or whatever other technicalities might help us avoid answering the damn question.
@ilovesaprolings: the point of the hypothetical wasn't to make it "realistic". The point was to explore how kingmaking can be used to have a chance to become the king, with a very simple example with no outs or alternatives. I'm amazed you've managed to miss the point so hard for so long, frankly.
@Baalphegor: IRL 99.999% of the time in the original hypothetical, p3 will decide based on however he's feeling, but how people tend to play isn't particularly useful imo, compared to finding the actual optimal play.
Also I 100% feel you as regards deck construction, but that's not exactly relevant here.
If someone rolls a dice to decide who to attack (with a creature other than ruhan of the fomori etc), is that just as problematic to you?
Yes. It's by biggest pet peeve, and every time one of my opponents do it I tell them to own the decision. Rolling a die to pick who to attack is coward's politics; every time I see it, it's used as an excuse to say something to the effect of "don't get mad at me for attacking you, get mad at the dice!"
And if player 2 and 3 agree to kill player 1 and then declare a draw, would that be fine with you?
I wouldn't be happy with it as player 2 or 3 (actually, I wouldn't agree to it it at all, but for the sake of argument let's assume I did for some reason), and it would piss me off if I were player 1. The only exception would be if we were scooping up due to time constraints, such as getting kicked out of the LGS that was closing for the night.
What if player 2 says "you kill player 1, then on my next turn if I topdeck a land, you scoop, and if I topdeck a nonland, I'll scoop" rather than flipping a coin? Then we're deciding with objects that are part of the game.
No, you're just replacing "coin" with "random library order".
If someone rolls a dice to decide who to attack (with a creature other than ruhan of the fomori etc), is that just as problematic to you?
Yes. It's by biggest pet peeve, and every time one of my opponents do it I tell them to own the decision. Rolling a die to pick who to attack is coward's politics; every time I see it, it's used as an excuse to say something to the effect of "don't get mad at me for attacking you, get mad at the dice!"
And if player 2 and 3 agree to kill player 1 and then declare a draw, would that be fine with you?
I wouldn't be happy with it as player 2 or 3 (actually, I wouldn't agree to it it at all, but for the sake of argument let's assume I did for some reason), and it would piss me off if I were player 1. The only exception would be if we were scooping up due to time constraints, such as getting kicked out of the LGS that was closing for the night.
What if player 2 says "you kill player 1, then on my next turn if I topdeck a land, you scoop, and if I topdeck a nonland, I'll scoop" rather than flipping a coin? Then we're deciding with objects that are part of the game.
No, you're just replacing "coin" with "random library order".
-I'll agree it's a little annoying, but I don't think I'd call it bad sportsmanship, mostly just lazy. Maybe we ought to clarify actually - what's your position on "the wager" - it's legal but unsportsmanlike, or it is/should be disallowed? Or something else?
-fair enough, I don't like ties either. But does it change your opinion of whether it's bad sportmanship/illegal/etc? You had objected to using outside events to dictate decisions in the game, which declaring a draw avoids.
-I feel like you're deliberately ignoring the reason why I brought that up as an example - you had objected to decision making being taken "out of the game" - i.e. based on events that aren't part of the game. This solves that problem by basing the decision on a random element that is part of the game. Do you want to clarify your position at all?
Ok, we're all spending way too much time focusing on stuff that's not an intended part of the hypothetical. Rather than add tons of additional information to make it extremely clear what the situation is (every player's deck is nothing but basic lands! Player 3 has fewer cards and will deck first! etc) I've just revised the situation to the much simpler one, as described earlier but now moved into the OP. So let's stop arguing over whether p3's deck might contain mill or control magic or whatever other technicalities might help us avoid answering the damn question.
@ilovesaprolings: the point of the hypothetical wasn't to make it "realistic". The point was to explore how kingmaking can be used to have a chance to become the king, with a very simple example with no outs or alternatives. I'm amazed you've managed to miss the point so hard for so long, frankly.
@Baalphegor: IRL 99.999% of the time in the original hypothetical, p3 will decide based on however he's feeling, but how people tend to play isn't particularly useful imo, compared to finding the actual optimal play.
Also I 100% feel you as regards deck construction, but that's not exactly relevant here.
Not to nitpick, but you created the original hypothetical. If it didn't convey clearly what you intended to convey, that's simply a flaw in how you designed the hypothetical - it seems like you're getting upset at people for trying to think outside the box =)
Commander isn't (generally) a sanctioned event, so I don't see anything wrong with two people flipping a coin for the win. That said, most people I've played Commander with wouldn't do that - they'd rather play it out.
Not to nitpick, but you created the original hypothetical. If it didn't convey clearly what you intended to convey, that's simply a flaw in how you designed the hypothetical - no need to get snippy with everyone responding. =)
Commander isn't (generally) a sanctioned event, so I don't see anything wrong with two people flipping a coin for the win. That said, most people I've played Commander with wouldn't do that - they'd rather play it out.
I still don't think people have poked any legitimate holes in the original hypothetical - it would be pretty stupid if the solution was that p3 had a control magic in his deck and I just didn't mention it because it doesn't directly deal damage. Mostly I just think the simplified version reduces people's preconceptions about how p2 "ought" to win or whatever, it doesn't actually change the calculus.
I think it's probably best to consider this hypothetical happening in the life-or-death, no-ties, no-reneging game, since ofc in a real game no one is likely to consider offering the wager (I guess I might, though I can't say I've done anything quite like it yet).
Okay this is reminding me of a modern masters 3 draft I had. Perhaps this was techinally illegal.
I was paired down at 1-1, anyone that goes 2/1 gets one Modern masters 3 pack.. 1-2 gets nothing (beyond thier draft picks)... 1-1-1 gets nothing.
We played our games but it was a blink deck mirrior match that was basically impossible to win quickly with huge complicated boardstates.
Its game three we have a minute left, no way of finishing a third game. He offers to scoop to me if... we dice roll for the rare in the modern master pack I will get. I am not a gambling man, he should scoop to me without this 50% change of me losing something, he can't get anything. But by making this offer he went from 0% chance of winning something to 50% of chance of winning but that was also true for me and I eventually accept.
I rolled a D20... hit 5... *not like this*.. he rolled a 2. I get my pack... and open Tarmogoyf :/ dice roll on $80..
Okay this is reminding me of a modern masters 3 draft I had. Perhaps this was techinally illegal.
I was paired down at 1-1, anyone that goes 2/1 gets one Modern masters 3 pack.. 1-2 gets nothing (beyond thier draft picks)... 1-1-1 gets nothing.
We played our games but it was a blink deck mirrior match that was basically impossible to win quickly with huge complicated boardstates.
Its game three we have a minute left, no way of finishing a third game. He offers to scoop to me if... we dice roll for the rare in the modern master pack I will get. I am not a gambling man, he should scoop to me without this 50% change of me losing something, he can't get anything. But by making this offer he went from 0% chance of winning something to 50% of chance of winning but that was also true for me and I eventually accept.
I rolled a D20... hit 5... *not like this*.. he rolled a 2. I get my pack... and open Tarmogoyf :/ dice roll on $80..
In a tourney that's definitely not allowed, you'd get kicked from the tourney for that iirc. I really do think that's 99% because of gambling laws, though. Personally I think it's a bit stupid that they care, especially in a casual REL tourney when you're just trying to avoid a tie for no prizes.
Actually, the no coin-flipping rule comes about (most likely) when counter-phoenix was sweeping state Vintage qualifiers about twenty years ago. It was winning so many games for the person who went first, and so many had that deck in play, that people all over were just agreeing to flip a coin instead of play three games where the person who plays first wins each game. It was legal at that point, but it probably really pissed WotC off (and they also banned key cards of counter-phoenix decks of that era.)
I am not missing the point, i simply do not that agree that you should turn kingmaking into... "kingbeing"(?) with coinflip, collusion or whatever. You should do that with game resources alone. And that's hard as hell and not easily to solve.
The point was to discuss the idea of using kingmaking as a means to give yourself a chance to win an otherwise unwinnable game. The point was not to talk about theoretical factors that might allow you to avoid making such a play. If you don't think you should use your leverage to get a chance to win the game, then your only answer is "I would choose to lose." That's it. Any discussion about what your deck OUGHT to include, or MIGHT include is MISSING THE POINT. Your deck HAS NO WAY TO WIN directly. Zero, zilch, nada. This is why I prefer discussing the simplified hypothetical, because despite being essentially the exact same situation, there's no room for you to wander off into the weeds about possibilities that are not part of the hypothetical.
To me, the best play is simply to tell player 2 "banefire payer 3 for 10, attack him for 10, then pass". After that, i would pop my disk and proceed to 1vs1 with player 2. That would be the optimal play given how my decks work and i would have chance to win by simply playing the cards instead of making weird monopoly agreement. So that's my answer to how "kingbeing": put yourself in best situation possible before resetting the board and then have a deck able to win 1vs1 when it starts from nothing.
Or i would just kingmake and let someone win just according to my feelings. I player 2 was a huge jerk for the whole game, i would let player 1 win. Emotions are important things too.
You are just ignoring many factors to support this coinflip thing. I don't play magic to coinflip, otherwise i would just...coinflip.
That "best play" is still a 100% loss. If you think that's more fun than just letting p2 banefire you or disking to give p1 the win, great, but it doesn't really matter. You're still choosing to lose.
If competitive rules allowed coinflips to determine games, in extremely high-stakes environments, it probably still wouldn't happen because in 1v1 one player should usually think they have a better-than-50% chance to win the game. If I've just mulliganed to 4 in the 3rd game of a draft match, I'd be happy to flip a coin to determine the winner, but my opponent probably wouldn't be.
Irl there are practical considerations, and stakes are very low, so I agree (and have agreed a bazillion times by now) that it's very unlikely that anyone would actually offer, let alone accept, the wager. That said, truly competitive players shouldn't care a whit about emotions. The only important question for a competitive player should be, "What is the play that gives me the best chance of winning?" And I think this is an interesting scenario because the answer to that question is fairly unintuitive. If, for you, venting your frustrations is more important than winning, that's fine, but I don't think that's particularly useful towards the goal of becoming a better magic player.
The last couple of posts seem kind of hostile, but I guess I will toss out an opinion.
I understand that you understand this is unlikely to ever result in the outcome you propose, but the only way it will ever come to pass is in a casual environment where emotions are influential. In a competitive environment, where you suggest that emotions should play less of a part, your result of "flipping a coin" is illegal so it isn't going to happen there either.
The way I see it, for player 2 to win, Player 2 is basically threatening to give Player 1 the win if Player 3 doesn't do what they want. And honestly, that is fine. They are attempting to take what little power they have over the game and use it. But, as you noted, this isn't going to change anything about the outcome. Player 3 is not going to accept this proposal.
Another point in regards to your last comment: Player 2 trying to come up with a win in this scenario with bartering and threats does not make them a better player. Gracefully bowing out and understanding they are going to lose makes them a better player. And, to be frank, building a deck that can actually win makes them a better player. To suggest that they have no way of winning after wrathing Player 3's board means they can never cast their general, they have nothing but lands in their library, and have built in no safeguards to deal with anything an opponent does beyond their Disk. I know you want to simplify the scenario for the sake of discussion, but that is going beyond being a believable scenario.
I would also like to voice my agreement with others who disagreed with your suggestion of using a random method to determine a winner. Flipping a coin, guessing a number, looking at the top card of the libraries and comparing CMCs are all random methods of winning that have nothing to do with the game being played. Since your hypothetical is based on random chance, it becomes much less interesting in the context of a real Magic game. I mean, EDH is about big plays, hilarious and surprising upsets, and having fun trying to build and play a fun/competitive deck. However, what in this scenario matches any of that?
Is player 2 going to brag to his friends later? "Hey, man, I managed to get Player 3 to Banefire himself and I ended up winning". "Oh, cool. How did you manage that". "Well my deck had no way to win on an empty board, so I forced him to bet on a coin flip so he wouldn't lose to Player 1". "Ah...sure. Sounds like you really got him /s".
So, I guess, the only real way I see this playing out is that Player 3 just attacks Player 1 and accepts that Player 2 gets to decide who wins based off of any criteria they want. Did Player 1 steal their girlfriend/boyfriend in High School? Did Player 3 kick their dog? Is Player 1 wearing that shirt showing a band they absolutely hate? The reason is irrelevant but the fact that Player 2 is in a Kingmaking position without any way to win themselves (after getting to a potentially empty board) does not make this interesting.
@dirk: and if you think upbraiding ilovesaprolings because he disagrees with this obscure (and I would argue worthless) case even remotely will make you a better player, then your actions aren't particularly useful either. Smh.
The last couple of posts seem kind of hostile, but I guess I will toss out an opinion.
I understand that you understand this is unlikely to ever result in the outcome you propose, but the only way it will ever come to pass is in a casual environment where emotions are influential. In a competitive environment, where you suggest that emotions should play less of a part, your result of "flipping a coin" is illegal so it isn't going to happen there either.
The way I see it, for player 2 to win, Player 2 is basically threatening to give Player 1 the win if Player 3 doesn't do what they want. And honestly, that is fine. They are attempting to take what little power they have over the game and use it. But, as you noted, this isn't going to change anything about the outcome. Player 3 is not going to accept this proposal.
Another point in regards to your last comment: Player 2 trying to come up with a win in this scenario with bartering and threats does not make them a better player. Gracefully bowing out and understanding they are going to lose makes them a better player. And, to be frank, building a deck that can actually win makes them a better player. To suggest that they have no way of winning after wrathing Player 3's board means they can never cast their general, they have nothing but lands in their library, and have built in no safeguards to deal with anything an opponent does beyond their Disk. I know you want to simplify the scenario for the sake of discussion, but that is going beyond being a believable scenario.
I would also like to voice my agreement with others who disagreed with your suggestion of using a random method to determine a winner. Flipping a coin, guessing a number, looking at the top card of the libraries and comparing CMCs are all random methods of winning that have nothing to do with the game being played. Since your hypothetical is based on random chance, it becomes much less interesting in the context of a real Magic game. I mean, EDH is about big plays, hilarious and surprising upsets, and having fun trying to build and play a fun/competitive deck. However, what in this scenario matches any of that?
Is player 2 going to brag to his friends later? "Hey, man, I managed to get Player 3 to Banefire himself and I ended up winning". "Oh, cool. How did you manage that". "Well my deck had no way to win on an empty board, so I forced him to bet on a coin flip so he wouldn't lose to Player 1". "Ah...sure. Sounds like you really got him /s".
So, I guess, the only real way I see this playing out is that Player 3 just attacks Player 1 and accepts that Player 2 gets to decide who wins based off of any criteria they want. Did Player 1 steal their girlfriend/boyfriend in High School? Did Player 3 kick their dog? Is Player 1 wearing that shirt showing a band they absolutely hate? The reason is irrelevant but the fact that Player 2 is in a Kingmaking position without any way to win themselves (after getting to a potentially empty board) does not make this interesting.
Saying "this will never happen in a real game, therefore the general principles involved are useless" is roughly analogous to saying "irl a triangle will never have perfectly straight sides or a perfectly right angle, so the pythagorean theorem is useless." The hypothetical is meant to show a particularly clear example of how kingmaking can be powerful, turning a no-win situation into a 50-50. Real examples are unlikely to be so cut-and-dried, but the general principles involved are the same.
The fact that the coin flip is illegal in tournaments is fairly moot since there are (nearly?) zero high level competitive multiplayer tournaments. No one seems particularly interested in actually discussing it, but I suspect there may be some legal way around it anyway - the draw is most likely legal (though I'm not familiar with any tournament rules that may exist for FFA play), and I'm not sure about the land/nonland topdeck reveal. Regardless, I suspect this sort of situation may be part of why some people find competitive play to be anathema to multiplayer, and why wotc generally avoids promoting it except as a casual format. At any rate, I still think it's interesting to consider optimal play regardless of whether anyone is likely to actually employ such a tactic at a kitchen table. Were this any competitive format, I guarantee there would be many people equally interested in min-maxing as hard as possible, and would find this line of thinking to be useful for improving the way they think about the game and ultimately improving their win percentage. But because it's commander, when we're talking about optimal play we're forced to contend with the significance of feelings. Yikes.
I think you messed at least one number around in your 3rd paragraph (I assume you meant p2 in the last sentence?). Also I'm not so sure that p2 wouldn't accept some kind of deal. Certainly depends on the person, but as p3 it would certainly be worth at least an attempt. I suspect emotionally p2 would be unlikely to accept a 50/50 because he probably isn't taking the game so seriously and isn't going to be too put out if he loses, but that doesn't mean it isn't the optimal play. Personally if I were p2, I'd take the wager if p3 offered it. I'd think he was pretty clever too, tbh. I might try to haggle for better than 50/50, just for fun. At that point, win or lose, I think I'd just be happy to have been involved in a game that got into such a weird situation that flipping a coin for the winner actually became the optimal play. But other people may well act differently.
I mean, maybe p2 got milled out or something and that's why he has no cards. I'm pretty sure the situation is the same even if he has no library and will lose next turn guaranteed. Who cares, it's a damn hypothetical, the point isn't to be realistic or to judge p3's deckbuilding skills. I just went for the simplest situation to focus on the crux of the issue and avoid getting into the weeds (which has worked perfectly, obviously).
As stated before, I think it's super weird and interesting that the optimal play could be to risk self-immolation on a coin flip. I think that's waaaay more interesting than the ways I've lost 99% of commander games. "oh wow, you looked like you were behind but then you actually had a way to make 10 tokens eot and then play craterhoof....what an amazing turnaround...this totally isn't like a million other games i've played...zzzzz." I won't say that I'd care much whether the person won or lost at that point (since it is, after all, a coin flip) but I'd be really impressed that they managed to find an out and think logically through their situation. I've gotten into somewhat similar situations and usually don't see the answer until sometime later.
Just for sake of argument, I wonder if you'd feel the same way, if you were in p2's shoes, and p3 asked for a 1/100 chance to win the game rather than 50/50. Does that change the math? Would you still refuse to take the wager, and lose the game (or at least risk p3 setting off the disk based on *blech* emotions) instead? This scenario can be played out roughly the same from p2s POV, as long as you assume that p3 is planning to block him from winning without some sort of compensation.
And au contraire, I think the fact that p3 (I assume, you keep getting the numbers mixed up so it's a little hard to follow) has no way to win makes it much more interesting, because there aren't any simple outs. This is the sort of weird, counterintuitive situation that can only ever happen in multiplayer. If you don't think it's interesting that the optimal play for p2 involves giving a chance to win to an opponent who should, by rights, have no chance to win whatsover, then I'd like to see what you DO think is interesting.
@dirk: and if you think upbraiding ilovesaprolings because he disagrees with this obscure (and I would argue worthless) case even remotely will make you a better player, then your actions aren't particularly useful either. Smh.
I'm not annoyed that he doesn't think it's good sportsmanship to make the wager (although I hold that, in the theoretical life-or-death, no-reneging game, he would take the wager), but I am annoyed that he keeps ignoring the premise and trying to add new information to the hypothetical. That's less about being a good player and more about understanding how hypotheticals work.
As far as this scenario making you a better player, sure, it's unlikely to come up in exactly this way irl - as I said, it's a highly simplified situation to give you a 0% chance to win without bartering. But the general case of "having control over who wins can give you power to barter for a better chance to win yourself" comes up relatively often, and I think it absolutely can make you a better player. This hypothetical just puts it into sharp relief.
That said, truly competitive players shouldn't care a whit about emotions.
Are we saying this while we are talking about multiplayer EDH? This, more than any other format, bring emotions into play. Right or wrong, they are stronger here than in other formats, that's why i considered them.
Sorry that my discussing the premise attitude is annoying you, but i don't understand the point of the thread. We can't:
- find an in-game way to win because the game is 100% unwinnable, as you said
- find a way to correctly which player need to win because we have to win
- refuse coinflip or other "gambling" methods because in-game methods won't work so you have to use these kinds of methods
In this situation, yeah, finding an agreement outside of the game is the only way to win the game.
so what should we discuss about? If coinflipping, dice throwing or rock-scissor-paper is best way to determine the win? We need to discuss the percentage needed for player 2 to accept the offer?
Personally i would offer player 2 a pizza to let me win.
I'm honestly curious wtf that bolded sentence is supposed to mean. Maybe you could clarify?
There are a few conversations we might have.
The conversation of how people are likely to react to certain plays - whether simple in-game plays or odd cooperation like in the example - is an ok topic...but kind of hard to make much headway on. If you were p2 you wouldn't take the deal, I'm to believe. Personally I would. I could set up a poll and see how many people would vs wouldn't (which might be interesting), but it's all just a matter of personal opinion with no correct answer.
The conversation of what the optimal play is for each party is a much more concrete one, and there are more black and white answers. If someone has a method to give player 3 (or player 2) a better chance of winning, I'd certainly be curious to hear it. Or if there are other, similar situations, either hypothetically or that have really occurred, and what might be the most optimal way for the players involved to interact. So far, not a lot of that one going on. To my sadness. The only productive part of this I remember coming up was someone wondering if p1 could make a deal, which I'm fairly certain is "no" because of the other players' abilities to sabotage any deal involving p1. But that's been about it.
There's also the topic of actual legality in a tournament setting. I'm fairly certain that the coin flip would be illegal, but I'm not sure about the topdeck reveal or the draw, or perhaps some other method used to determine a winner. I'm not actually even sure if there are any official policies regarding this sort of thing for FFA, or any official rules that are FFA specific at all.
As far as arguably-productive conversations go, there's the conversation of "is this different from buying the other player a pizza to win?" I would argue that they're completely different things, because the wager (or variant agreements) is the optimal play based solely on the state of the game and the motivation of every player to win. P3 would offer the wager based solely on his motivation to win the game, and if p2 accepts the offer, it's based solely on his motivation to win the game also. Whereas giving someone a pizza is obvious bribery and based on motivations completely outside the game.
As far as conversations I don't think are productive in any way, there's the conversation of trying to find tiny flaws in my hypothetical situation to avoid talking about the above. "maybe a control magic doesn't constitute a way to deal damage, and therefore theoretically maybe that could be in the deck! That must be the solution!". Yep, you solved it. It was a secret control magic I didn't mention in the OP because I was trying to trick you, but you outsmarted me. Rats.
So the situation is that player 3 will never win by natural, game state driven means. He's essentially lost, but offers a 50/50 deal with player 2. Wouldn't this naturally progress into a bidding war between players 1 and 2? Each progressively offering better odds to outbid the other, as player 3 clearly has the power to decide...
P3 cannot make a deal with p1 because p2 has the ability to sabotage it by killing p3 with fireball no matter what. So p3 cannot win if he makes a deal with p1.
P2 could make a deal with p1. P3 can set off the disk to attempt to sabotage the deal, but p1 can just concede regardless after p2 fireballs player 3, if player 2 wins the wager. This requires some trust on p2's part, but so does the previous wager (for player 3 trusting player 2).
Depending on how p3 reacts this could go a couple ways. P3 could basically say "if you even TRY to make a deal with p1, I'll set off the disk immediately and then p1 won't take the deal, he'll just kill you." If p3 lets the conversation take place, though, then the bidding war could happen and p2 "wins" (insofar as he'll have a great deal when the dust clears).
Assuming everyone takes the optimal line, conversation-wise, p2 and p3 have 50% and p1 has 0% (I think).
That is the wrong play though, Player 3 -needs- player 1 to die. He will lose 100% if that 5/5 sticks because in your scenario. Player 3 has NO ANSWER for a 5/5 indestructible available to him unless his commander is something that can handle it..but you didn't say WHAT the commanders are, the set up you have doesn't even have to be commander as you haven't even stated it to be, this field is 100% possible in a kitchen table set up.
What you have done here is set up a completely false and flawed premise so you can try to lord "KINGMAKERZOMG!" on people and completely failed to set up an actual kingmaker situation as Player 2 is the one who controls destiny, if player 3 blows disk before attackers he is making an outright mistake because player 1 is JUST AS MUCH of a threat as player 2, just not as soon.
Dragons of Legend, Lead by Scion of the UR-Dragon
The Gitrog Monster
Gonti, Lord of Luxury
Shogun Saskia
Hive World
Atraxa hates fun
Abzan
There is the 10-damage-attack + banefire (or just cast banefire for 0 precombat) "solution" although that's technically still a guaranteed loss for player 3 in the situation as described (and so he wouldn't allow it), but in a more normal situation that's probably the correct play for player 2, or at least the correct play that doesn't involve wagering. If player 2 attacks for lethal with banefire still in hand and no wager made, then he's made a horrible mistake because player 3 will definitely wipe his board and he will definitely lose.
In the situation as described, player 3 has to use his kingmaking ability to force the wager from player 2, so he will absolutely set off the disk because that's his only leverage. If player 2 doesn't think he'll do it, then he'll just ignore him and win, which is obviously a loss for player 3, so player 3 is compelled to activate disk if player 2 tries to go for that win. That's not a mistake. If player 2 can't be wagered, then there is zero way for player 3 to win anyway, so at most you could say his decision to activate is arbitrary, but it's definitely not a mistake.
In the more-realistic scenario where p3 has potential outs, if player 2 goes for the lethal on p1 it'd be a HUGE mistake for p3 not to set off the disk, as he still has an actual chance to beat player 1, presumably, whereas he's guaranteed to lose immediately if he doesn't set off the disk. So player 2 would need to take that into account with making his plays, and discard the banefire to convince player 3 that he's better off in a 1v1 versus p2 instead of vs p1.
The point is that p2 AND p3 are kingmakers. Saying "you're stupid, player 3 isn't the kingmaker, player 2 is!" is completely missing the point. They both have exactly as much power (plus or minus a little trust). That's why, when I play with you, I'm going to demand your jacket as collateral before I agree to the wager.
It's been said, dude.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
If player 3 has no access to his general and no win-cons left in his deck, as you described the scenario, then there's no reason to see Player 2 as any more or less of a threat than Player 1.
Without agreeing to coin flips, Player 3 isn't winning, he simply holds the means to decide who wins between player 1 and 2. He could choose to make a coin flip deal with either of them, since he's equally dead to both.
As you hinted at in your last post, the decision is purely arbitrary in the hypothetical you laid out.
Edit: you actually say Player 3 has no way to do damage in his deck or command zone. I suppose if there's another win-con left in Player 3's deck, like mill, the correct play would be, require Player 2 to banefire himself for 10, first main phase, attack player 1 for lethal and end turn. This leaves you and Player 2 in top-deck mode, you presumably saving disk to see if he misplays into it with his top-deck, then nuking the board. You hope to draw into your win-con before Player 2 does.
Since everyone is having such a hard time with the particulars of the scenario, let me simplify it a bit.
Each player has 1 card which they can play only during their own turn. Player 1's say "you win the game." Player 2's and player 3's say "target opponent wins the game." This is exactly what's happening in the hypothetical, but if you can't see why then just take my word for it, I guess. And if you don't believe me, then just pretend we're talking about a totally different scenario, because I'm getting really tired of repeating myself.
Player 1 obviously has the best card, but he's the last in line to play it. Acting alone, neither player 2 nor player 3 have a reason to play their card, so player 1 will win. In order to have any chance of winning, they have to agree to some sort of method for determining who should play the card targeting the other person. Could be coin flips or something else, but at the end of the day, if they can't find some method for determining who will play the card, guaranteed they both lose, so then it IS their highest EV play. Whether you think that's fair or in the spirit of the game is debatable but it IS the best chance for those players to win the game.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
What you meant(?): some of the elements of decision making are taking place outside of normal game objects
What it sounded like: no decision making is taking place
I'm still a little confused about this argument, though. If someone rolls a dice to decide who to attack (with a creature other than ruhan of the fomori etc), is that just as problematic to you? And if player 2 and 3 agree to kill player 1 and then declare a draw, would that be fine with you? What if player 2 says "you kill player 1, then on my next turn if I topdeck a land, you scoop, and if I topdeck a nonland, I'll scoop" rather than flipping a coin? Then we're deciding with objects that are part of the game.
If you counter by saying that the problem is the agreement and not "playing naturally" then I'd say the same applies to working together to take down a more powerful opponent, which is, imo, a very common and commonly accepted part of the game (i.e. "if you attack him with all your creatures, I promise to kill him and not damage you, because that's the only way we can beat him.").
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Given your original hypothetical, I'm not sure why the edit in my last response wouldn't be at least a plausible correct line of play. If you want to change the hypothetical to oversimplify it, sure, the only chance player 2 and 3 have of winning is making some kind of deal involving random chance or playing a side-game to determine the victor. But that's not a fun puzzle to solve because you've oversimplified it.
The actual goal of the situation is to create the simplified problem I mentioned (p1 can win the game, p2 and p3 can choose an opponent to win the game) with real cards. It's less a puzzle of "how do you win in this scenario?" and more "what are the political implications of attempting playing like this, assuming everyone is playing to win as much as possible?" I'm sorry if that's "oversimplifying" it for you, but I don't think it's a type of situation that's ever been discussed before (at least on these forums), so I think it's reasonable to start simple.
You can spend a bunch of time trying to think of some reason why the original scenario I laid out might not be exactly analogous to the simplified problem, and I can patch the scenario to be more clear, but I don't see much point to that kind of back and forth since it ultimately just leads to solving the simplified problem anyway.
Just for fun, though, here's another interesting one: player 1 has door to nothingness, no cards in library, and player 2 and 3 each have grand abolisher in play. Life totals are high but forfeiting is allowed. In this case p1 is the kingmaker with no other kingmakers (unlike the first scenario with 2 kingmakers). This one is kind of fun since players 2 and 3 could ally and say that they won't accept any deals with p1 and ostensibly get a 50/50 winrate, with p1 activating door randomly. But p1 can counter this by turning to, say, p2 and telling him that he's going to be the target unless he takes some sort of deal, any kind of deal. In order to avoid that, p2 agrees to a 1/100 chance to forfeit, to which of course p3 is forced to take another, worse deal to avoid a 100% loss, and so on and so forth. Does that mean p1 has a 99+/100 chance to win eventually? Maybe. I mean irl people wouldn't be that easy to coerce, but in the theoretical life-or-death, no-betrayals-allowed game of magic, maybe.
These scenarios are obviously really simplified because irl there's always going to be outs and complications and people who don't care enough about winning, but I still think these are interesting scenarios that could have real applications when designing decks, in the abstract sense. Kingmaking is not necessarily just a losing proposition, if you can be clever about how to go about doing it.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
P2 has the means to kill P3 at Sorcery Speed.
P3 can take P2's army down in response.
P1 has the means to kill P2 if they last one more turn, assuming P2 couldn't block the 5/5 even if they held back.
As P3, whomever I end up 'supporting' probably depends on who I like more at that point. Because regardless the game is over: both my opponents have a clean, easy way to kill the other and I have nothing except my Disk. If I do nothing, P2 wins. If I interfere, P1 wins. As P3, there is no survival unless some kind of deal is brokered among the group (that results in me not being burnt to crisps by the mentioned Banefire). I'm not a big fan of the 'flip a coin?' question, because I prefer to make my choice and justify based on prior actions in the game. If P2 has been dominating from T1, I'd probably give the win to P1. If it's been a relatively even game, perhaps they just exploded (hence the 20 power), I'll laugh it off and accept the loss gracefully.
Mind you, if P2 has been dominating from the start, but P1 doesn't have a clear way to kill P2 in play or hand (say, the creature wasn't indestructible), I might let P2 win simply so the game doesn't drag on into misery. We end the game, shuffle up, and go again. If P2 has been targeting me all game, I might nuke them anyway because even if it doesn't end the game immediately, it puts P1 a step ahead, and I'd rather they have the chance to beat my 'bully'.
I do think a disclaimer is warranted in that while I do play to win, it's typically a secondary consideration in my deckbuilding. Number one is "do something ridiculous" or "do something well", and I like to interact with my group rather than grind them into dust as soon as possible.
@ilovesaprolings: the point of the hypothetical wasn't to make it "realistic". The point was to explore how kingmaking can be used to have a chance to become the king, with a very simple example with no outs or alternatives. I'm amazed you've managed to miss the point so hard for so long, frankly.
@Baalphegor: IRL 99.999% of the time in the original hypothetical, p3 will decide based on however he's feeling, but how people tend to play isn't particularly useful imo, compared to finding the actual optimal play.
Also I 100% feel you as regards deck construction, but that's not exactly relevant here.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I wouldn't be happy with it as player 2 or 3 (actually, I wouldn't agree to it it at all, but for the sake of argument let's assume I did for some reason), and it would piss me off if I were player 1. The only exception would be if we were scooping up due to time constraints, such as getting kicked out of the LGS that was closing for the night.
No, you're just replacing "coin" with "random library order".
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
-fair enough, I don't like ties either. But does it change your opinion of whether it's bad sportmanship/illegal/etc? You had objected to using outside events to dictate decisions in the game, which declaring a draw avoids.
-I feel like you're deliberately ignoring the reason why I brought that up as an example - you had objected to decision making being taken "out of the game" - i.e. based on events that aren't part of the game. This solves that problem by basing the decision on a random element that is part of the game. Do you want to clarify your position at all?
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Not to nitpick, but you created the original hypothetical. If it didn't convey clearly what you intended to convey, that's simply a flaw in how you designed the hypothetical - it seems like you're getting upset at people for trying to think outside the box =)
Commander isn't (generally) a sanctioned event, so I don't see anything wrong with two people flipping a coin for the win. That said, most people I've played Commander with wouldn't do that - they'd rather play it out.
I think it's probably best to consider this hypothetical happening in the life-or-death, no-ties, no-reneging game, since ofc in a real game no one is likely to consider offering the wager (I guess I might, though I can't say I've done anything quite like it yet).
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I was paired down at 1-1, anyone that goes 2/1 gets one Modern masters 3 pack.. 1-2 gets nothing (beyond thier draft picks)... 1-1-1 gets nothing.
We played our games but it was a blink deck mirrior match that was basically impossible to win quickly with huge complicated boardstates.
Its game three we have a minute left, no way of finishing a third game. He offers to scoop to me if... we dice roll for the rare in the modern master pack I will get. I am not a gambling man, he should scoop to me without this 50% change of me losing something, he can't get anything. But by making this offer he went from 0% chance of winning something to 50% of chance of winning but that was also true for me and I eventually accept.
I rolled a D20... hit 5... *not like this*.. he rolled a 2. I get my pack... and open Tarmogoyf :/ dice roll on $80..
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
If competitive rules allowed coinflips to determine games, in extremely high-stakes environments, it probably still wouldn't happen because in 1v1 one player should usually think they have a better-than-50% chance to win the game. If I've just mulliganed to 4 in the 3rd game of a draft match, I'd be happy to flip a coin to determine the winner, but my opponent probably wouldn't be.
Irl there are practical considerations, and stakes are very low, so I agree (and have agreed a bazillion times by now) that it's very unlikely that anyone would actually offer, let alone accept, the wager. That said, truly competitive players shouldn't care a whit about emotions. The only important question for a competitive player should be, "What is the play that gives me the best chance of winning?" And I think this is an interesting scenario because the answer to that question is fairly unintuitive. If, for you, venting your frustrations is more important than winning, that's fine, but I don't think that's particularly useful towards the goal of becoming a better magic player.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I understand that you understand this is unlikely to ever result in the outcome you propose, but the only way it will ever come to pass is in a casual environment where emotions are influential. In a competitive environment, where you suggest that emotions should play less of a part, your result of "flipping a coin" is illegal so it isn't going to happen there either.
The way I see it, for player 2 to win, Player 2 is basically threatening to give Player 1 the win if Player 3 doesn't do what they want. And honestly, that is fine. They are attempting to take what little power they have over the game and use it. But, as you noted, this isn't going to change anything about the outcome. Player 3 is not going to accept this proposal.
Another point in regards to your last comment: Player 2 trying to come up with a win in this scenario with bartering and threats does not make them a better player. Gracefully bowing out and understanding they are going to lose makes them a better player. And, to be frank, building a deck that can actually win makes them a better player. To suggest that they have no way of winning after wrathing Player 3's board means they can never cast their general, they have nothing but lands in their library, and have built in no safeguards to deal with anything an opponent does beyond their Disk. I know you want to simplify the scenario for the sake of discussion, but that is going beyond being a believable scenario.
I would also like to voice my agreement with others who disagreed with your suggestion of using a random method to determine a winner. Flipping a coin, guessing a number, looking at the top card of the libraries and comparing CMCs are all random methods of winning that have nothing to do with the game being played. Since your hypothetical is based on random chance, it becomes much less interesting in the context of a real Magic game. I mean, EDH is about big plays, hilarious and surprising upsets, and having fun trying to build and play a fun/competitive deck. However, what in this scenario matches any of that?
Is player 2 going to brag to his friends later? "Hey, man, I managed to get Player 3 to Banefire himself and I ended up winning". "Oh, cool. How did you manage that". "Well my deck had no way to win on an empty board, so I forced him to bet on a coin flip so he wouldn't lose to Player 1". "Ah...sure. Sounds like you really got him /s".
So, I guess, the only real way I see this playing out is that Player 3 just attacks Player 1 and accepts that Player 2 gets to decide who wins based off of any criteria they want. Did Player 1 steal their girlfriend/boyfriend in High School? Did Player 3 kick their dog? Is Player 1 wearing that shirt showing a band they absolutely hate? The reason is irrelevant but the fact that Player 2 is in a Kingmaking position without any way to win themselves (after getting to a potentially empty board) does not make this interesting.
The fact that the coin flip is illegal in tournaments is fairly moot since there are (nearly?) zero high level competitive multiplayer tournaments. No one seems particularly interested in actually discussing it, but I suspect there may be some legal way around it anyway - the draw is most likely legal (though I'm not familiar with any tournament rules that may exist for FFA play), and I'm not sure about the land/nonland topdeck reveal. Regardless, I suspect this sort of situation may be part of why some people find competitive play to be anathema to multiplayer, and why wotc generally avoids promoting it except as a casual format. At any rate, I still think it's interesting to consider optimal play regardless of whether anyone is likely to actually employ such a tactic at a kitchen table. Were this any competitive format, I guarantee there would be many people equally interested in min-maxing as hard as possible, and would find this line of thinking to be useful for improving the way they think about the game and ultimately improving their win percentage. But because it's commander, when we're talking about optimal play we're forced to contend with the significance of feelings. Yikes.
I think you messed at least one number around in your 3rd paragraph (I assume you meant p2 in the last sentence?). Also I'm not so sure that p2 wouldn't accept some kind of deal. Certainly depends on the person, but as p3 it would certainly be worth at least an attempt. I suspect emotionally p2 would be unlikely to accept a 50/50 because he probably isn't taking the game so seriously and isn't going to be too put out if he loses, but that doesn't mean it isn't the optimal play. Personally if I were p2, I'd take the wager if p3 offered it. I'd think he was pretty clever too, tbh. I might try to haggle for better than 50/50, just for fun. At that point, win or lose, I think I'd just be happy to have been involved in a game that got into such a weird situation that flipping a coin for the winner actually became the optimal play. But other people may well act differently.
I mean, maybe p2 got milled out or something and that's why he has no cards. I'm pretty sure the situation is the same even if he has no library and will lose next turn guaranteed. Who cares, it's a damn hypothetical, the point isn't to be realistic or to judge p3's deckbuilding skills. I just went for the simplest situation to focus on the crux of the issue and avoid getting into the weeds (which has worked perfectly, obviously).
As stated before, I think it's super weird and interesting that the optimal play could be to risk self-immolation on a coin flip. I think that's waaaay more interesting than the ways I've lost 99% of commander games. "oh wow, you looked like you were behind but then you actually had a way to make 10 tokens eot and then play craterhoof....what an amazing turnaround...this totally isn't like a million other games i've played...zzzzz." I won't say that I'd care much whether the person won or lost at that point (since it is, after all, a coin flip) but I'd be really impressed that they managed to find an out and think logically through their situation. I've gotten into somewhat similar situations and usually don't see the answer until sometime later.
Just for sake of argument, I wonder if you'd feel the same way, if you were in p2's shoes, and p3 asked for a 1/100 chance to win the game rather than 50/50. Does that change the math? Would you still refuse to take the wager, and lose the game (or at least risk p3 setting off the disk based on *blech* emotions) instead? This scenario can be played out roughly the same from p2s POV, as long as you assume that p3 is planning to block him from winning without some sort of compensation.
And au contraire, I think the fact that p3 (I assume, you keep getting the numbers mixed up so it's a little hard to follow) has no way to win makes it much more interesting, because there aren't any simple outs. This is the sort of weird, counterintuitive situation that can only ever happen in multiplayer. If you don't think it's interesting that the optimal play for p2 involves giving a chance to win to an opponent who should, by rights, have no chance to win whatsover, then I'd like to see what you DO think is interesting. I'm not annoyed that he doesn't think it's good sportsmanship to make the wager (although I hold that, in the theoretical life-or-death, no-reneging game, he would take the wager), but I am annoyed that he keeps ignoring the premise and trying to add new information to the hypothetical. That's less about being a good player and more about understanding how hypotheticals work.
As far as this scenario making you a better player, sure, it's unlikely to come up in exactly this way irl - as I said, it's a highly simplified situation to give you a 0% chance to win without bartering. But the general case of "having control over who wins can give you power to barter for a better chance to win yourself" comes up relatively often, and I think it absolutely can make you a better player. This hypothetical just puts it into sharp relief.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
There are a few conversations we might have.
The conversation of how people are likely to react to certain plays - whether simple in-game plays or odd cooperation like in the example - is an ok topic...but kind of hard to make much headway on. If you were p2 you wouldn't take the deal, I'm to believe. Personally I would. I could set up a poll and see how many people would vs wouldn't (which might be interesting), but it's all just a matter of personal opinion with no correct answer.
The conversation of what the optimal play is for each party is a much more concrete one, and there are more black and white answers. If someone has a method to give player 3 (or player 2) a better chance of winning, I'd certainly be curious to hear it. Or if there are other, similar situations, either hypothetically or that have really occurred, and what might be the most optimal way for the players involved to interact. So far, not a lot of that one going on. To my sadness. The only productive part of this I remember coming up was someone wondering if p1 could make a deal, which I'm fairly certain is "no" because of the other players' abilities to sabotage any deal involving p1. But that's been about it.
There's also the topic of actual legality in a tournament setting. I'm fairly certain that the coin flip would be illegal, but I'm not sure about the topdeck reveal or the draw, or perhaps some other method used to determine a winner. I'm not actually even sure if there are any official policies regarding this sort of thing for FFA, or any official rules that are FFA specific at all.
As far as arguably-productive conversations go, there's the conversation of "is this different from buying the other player a pizza to win?" I would argue that they're completely different things, because the wager (or variant agreements) is the optimal play based solely on the state of the game and the motivation of every player to win. P3 would offer the wager based solely on his motivation to win the game, and if p2 accepts the offer, it's based solely on his motivation to win the game also. Whereas giving someone a pizza is obvious bribery and based on motivations completely outside the game.
As far as conversations I don't think are productive in any way, there's the conversation of trying to find tiny flaws in my hypothetical situation to avoid talking about the above. "maybe a control magic doesn't constitute a way to deal damage, and therefore theoretically maybe that could be in the deck! That must be the solution!". Yep, you solved it. It was a secret control magic I didn't mention in the OP because I was trying to trick you, but you outsmarted me. Rats.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
P2 could make a deal with p1. P3 can set off the disk to attempt to sabotage the deal, but p1 can just concede regardless after p2 fireballs player 3, if player 2 wins the wager. This requires some trust on p2's part, but so does the previous wager (for player 3 trusting player 2).
Depending on how p3 reacts this could go a couple ways. P3 could basically say "if you even TRY to make a deal with p1, I'll set off the disk immediately and then p1 won't take the deal, he'll just kill you." If p3 lets the conversation take place, though, then the bidding war could happen and p2 "wins" (insofar as he'll have a great deal when the dust clears).
Assuming everyone takes the optimal line, conversation-wise, p2 and p3 have 50% and p1 has 0% (I think).
See? This is interesting.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6