A good friend of mine plays some explosive mono-red aggro decks like Neheb the Eternal or Valduk, Keeper of the Flame, that are able to take out players quite early in the game. He usually opts to do so, because as the game goes on, his aggro strategy will be less effective. Sometimes his decks are explosive enough to actually win the entire game. Other times they aren't, and there have been situations in the past where other players felt unfairly targeted and taken out without being able to actually play a game of commander. I have sympathy with this sentiment because I do not want to get taken out much earlier than the other players myself, since that usually means waiting and watching for a long time until the game is finished (we usually only have enough people to have only one game going on at a time). Hence, I try to spread my damage and disruption around to keep the most powerful player in check. If I am the most powerful player myself, I try to attack all my opponents in equal measure and usually do not take out anyone until the late game. This strategy in turn often means I do not end up as the last man standing, since it encourages my opponents to unite against me (the games are usually still a ton of fun regardless).
Do you usually try to focus your actions on a certain opponent early on in order to take them out, or do you try to use your resources against all opponents equally, or against whoever seems most threatening? Or is your go to strategy to hang back, consolidate your resources and slowly build your board up, and then show your strength at an opportune moment, i.e. when the other players have exhausted their resources against each other? Which factors determine your tactic? Your commander and deck strategy? Opposing commanders? Social issues?
Riku of Two Reflections - Copy, then copy again | Shattergang Brothers - Token Sac&Recur | Gahiji, Honored One - Multiple attack steps | Karametra, God of Harvests - Landfall, Creaturefall, Shroud | Ruhan of the Fomori - Stop hitting yourself | Zurgo Helmsmasher - Equipment&Wraths | Crosis, the Purger - Dragon Tribal Reanimator | Derevi, Empyrial Tactician - No stax, just tap and untap fun | Anafenza, the Foremost - Enduring Ideal Enchantress | Sharuum, the Hegemon - Sphinx Tribal Control | Noyan Dar - Spellslinger | The Mimeoplasm - Counterpalooza
Lists can be found here.
Still convinced the guy on Beseech the Queen is wearing a Mitra-type hat. Wake up sheeple!
It's kind of weird actually, it doesn't really matter which you choose in this instance. It typically does matter when your consideration is just the deck you're playing and the decks your opponents are playing.
If you target a single person and take them out early, then they get to sit and wait for the next game.
If you spread the damage and disruption, then it'll slow down the game so anyone that get's eliminated might have to wait longer for the next game.
If you sit back and bide your time, then you might be the one eliminated and you'll be the one waiting for the next game.
It really doesn't matter. In a meta of aggro decks, the games are going to be pretty short. In a meta of control decks, the games are going to be really long. Mixing and matching, it comes down to who's the better player and how quickly their deck can win.
Recently, I've been playing a Traxos Voltron and I've found that latching onto a single player until they're actually dead is usually good politics. Provoking one opponent at a time is way more survivable than threatening three simultaneously.
Recently, I've been playing a Traxos Voltron and I've found that latching onto a single player until they're actually dead is usually good politics. Provoking one opponent at a time is way more survivable than threatening three simultaneously.
Do you end up winning many of these games, or do you often find you have exerted yourself too much while taking out one or two players to take down the remaining ones?
Riku of Two Reflections - Copy, then copy again | Shattergang Brothers - Token Sac&Recur | Gahiji, Honored One - Multiple attack steps | Karametra, God of Harvests - Landfall, Creaturefall, Shroud | Ruhan of the Fomori - Stop hitting yourself | Zurgo Helmsmasher - Equipment&Wraths | Crosis, the Purger - Dragon Tribal Reanimator | Derevi, Empyrial Tactician - No stax, just tap and untap fun | Anafenza, the Foremost - Enduring Ideal Enchantress | Sharuum, the Hegemon - Sphinx Tribal Control | Noyan Dar - Spellslinger | The Mimeoplasm - Counterpalooza
Lists can be found here.
Still convinced the guy on Beseech the Queen is wearing a Mitra-type hat. Wake up sheeple!
Unlike many players, my group plays to win over creating a shared experience. To us, the fun of the shared experience is taking people out, which I attribute to our 60 card history. We can and do have fun even when we don’t win, but we still always play to win. That being said, our decks are not all that cEDH. With some variety of decks in our group, my approach to each game depends on several factors.
1. My deck - If I’m playing Sliver Queen tokens, I seek to build my biomass to a needed critical mass so I can use Gaea’s Cradle for some big, splashy bomb event. This is the one most likely to kill everyone within a couple of turns when I “flip that switch” if opponents don’t hold me down. Zegana was designed to sit back and play a patient, reactive strategy. I have only 25 creatures, so I don’t get into creature battles wantonly. Instead, I let people make their moves and then I do stuff, kind of like other people’s kung fu decks. Xenagos is pure aggression, but I do spread things around if someone doesn’t rise up as a big threat; if someone does, I go after them. Jenara likes to put as many critters out and smash through evasively, using my sweepers and mass-recursion to recover faster than my opponents, and it is therefore a non-land resource attrition deck. So in a nutshell, I do play based on how the deck was built and I’m disciplined enough to trust my cards.
2 My opponents decks - since our group doesn’t play cEDH, we have to be mindful of our opponents’ strategies as the are building, insteaf of just stopping them when they go off. My friend has a Sen Triplets deck that slowly lays down defense after defense (very pillowfort-ish) backed by counterspells. So in that case, I’ve learned I have to disrupt him before he gets too layered in with too many counters and defenses. Another friend plays a Selvala grouphug deck, so everyone draws lots of cards and it can be chaos because it nullifies people who plan ahead with card draw. So in that environment where resources are flush, I just have strike where it hurts to stop people taking over or when the opening presents itself. I do stop Selvala sometimes by just nuking the board to reset conditions for my deck in that game to thrive better.
3. Opportunity - I have sweepers and other trick cards in my decks for a couple reasons, often one-sided, to catch people in an over-extended state and cost them as many cards as I can, or else to save my bacon. The two are often linked, but not always. I sometimes do it because I see an opportunity too good to pass up. Since we are all looking to win in my group, and only one can except under really bizarre circumstances, I do not hesitate to take someone out or at least annihilate their board state when I see it advantageous to my game. After all, they will and often do the same to me when they can, so it’s understood. Every now and then there are a few feel bads, but since we’ve been friends for decades we work through it and they aren’t severe in any case. When the next person dies, those two often play 60 card side duels so no one is out of play for long in our group unless they want to grab a bite in the kitchen or watch the game while talking.
i'll generally just try to kill the table all at once.
if i have a particularly explosive play that someone stops i'll tend to go after them exclusively
i think ultimately it really comes down to how your deck is built and how you play. if you make yourself an obvious target, say if you have a board state that eliminate another strong player, the rest will generally gang up on you, so you better be able to survive that.
if you spread the love, everyone goes after you, maybe not right away, but eventually you're going to get pressure on all sides
1. This is by far the most important factor. Say i'm playing a rather shaky and explosive deck like Zada, Hedron Grinder i'll take out as many players as early in the game as possible to reduce the number of players able to disrupt my game plan. I'll always opt for more aggressive and game ending moves - even if just against a single player - if my deck is somewhat prone to disruption. On the other hand a deck like Gonti, Lord of Luxury even profits from more opponents/decks to steal from and will therefor go a more patient route.
2. This is mostly the deciding factor if and who i'm going to take out, if possible. If there's a high power deck that needs to be kept in check and no clear advantage on the board at the time i'll go for the potential top dog first. On the other hand if there's a rather low powered deck with an advantageous start i might have that opponent take his chance, as he'll usually end up drawing disruption of my opponents while i'm holding onto mine for as long as i can. My measures certainly scale by deck strength of my opponents.
3. This one's the most fluid and undefined one. E.g. a friend of mine is a dedicated midrange player and often declared he doesn't want to "waste" too many deck slots on early safety nets, "just" for the few fast paced decks in our meta. If i'm facing him and have the opportunity to take him out early because he lacks chump blockers or else, i will, unless he may be of use for me later on. For one i know his decks are a force to reckon with if i allow him too much time to durdle and secondly i think his approach on deck building is a tad ignorant of our meta and deserves to be punished in a way (the Rafiq of the Many player in our group agrees heavily on this one). Generally speaking my usual decision is "is it worth it?". Comet Storms, Exsanguinates and Torment of Hailfires that may only kill a single player are a waste, considering their potential, unless that someone is too far ahead to keep in check otherwise.
Which factors determine your tactic? Your commander and deck strategy? Opposing commanders? Social issues?
I'd never base an in game decision on social issues, as that would always be game warping. The moment i'm focusing a player i don't particularily like i'm granting an undeserved advantage to the other players at the table.
A friend of mine has the habit of "teaching lessons" in game and i hate it. Focusing another player for a bad threat assessment instead of the threat that player should've dealt with is plain dumb and nothing short of playing kingmaker.
Glissa: I am just going to try to exhaust my opponents and just keep presenting threats, probably on the spreading the damage plan to whoever is the greatest threat at any particular moment... although I am probably going to finish the job if I can.
UW control: Survive the first wave then try to quickly gain insurmountable advantage. Target whoever will recover the fastest or still has the most remaining resources. But I should have the resources to take on anyone so spreading the damage is an option as long as I continue to gain advantage.
Bird tribal: Kill kill kill, Whoever has the most wraths or whoever is the most open will die first and then onto the next one. Less players less wraths
Zirilan: You lack the ability to interact If there is a combo deck they must die. But my prefered method is to actually bide my time here complete my engine than bamn fire my glass cannon hit someone for 40 damage and hope that the other players are low enough that I can burn them out afterwards, after the realise my deck is insane when it gets to do what it wants but before they can stop or kill me.
As most have said, it depends on my deck, what I'm playing against, and when opportunity knocks.
Captain Sisay = More than any other, this deck personifies flexibility. Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind = VERY much a pseudo-kingmaker, this needs to be more focused on the damage. If I see token decks, tunnel vision ensues with it, because otherwise I know I'll die. Merieke Ri Berit = Much the same as the above, but more of a 'spread the love', as I don't want to lose half my stolen board by knocking someone out too early. Thraximundar = Killkillkillkillkill! Edgar Markov = Still trying to figure this one out...I THINK it's focus fire more than anything, though.
For me it depends a lot on who I am playing against and what level of decks they have. I tend to prefer taking things a little more laid back and I tend to not play all in aggro decks that fall off later but if someone is playing a deck that will absolutely crush me later via combo or just crazy resource generation I don't have a problem focusing them down.
I guess some of it for me comes down to what the focus of my deck is. If I am playing a more control based deck I like to spread it out a little more and take my time rather than trying to end one player.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
I think that in general, I would normally spread the damage around until one particular player became the consensus biggest threat and then concentrate on that player. But I would add to this that I would have no qualms about taking out a player early if the opportunity presented itself because my playgroup typically does not pull punches like that. Granted I'm less likely to dogpile on a player who is struggling with their mana or is getting flooded because they are likely less of a threat at that point so the focus goes elsewhere.
But I agree with most of the other responses in that it is very deck/situation dependent. Like for example, if I was playing an artifact deck and a player drops Aura Shards, if I can't remove it then I'm removing the player ASAP. Likewise for someone controlling an Alms Collector and I'm playing Niv-Mizzet and I can't remove it for some reason, or if they play a Stranglehold or Mindlock Orb against my Captain Sisaydeck. I also agree that if I'm playing an aggro deck then I'm surely attacking someone if the coast is clear no matter what, so sometimes that is a player who is behind.
In a general sense (as in, about 80% if the time) I prefer to play a slower game that spreads out the focus during the game. Namely, I try to handle threats from other people without being too aggressive. Then, once players' threats have been eliminated, I will start whittling them down with my board. How quickly I start on the aggressive plan is dependent on the deck I am playing.
I do have a Gisela, Blade of Goldnight where it starts aggressive and tries to focus on a single player as much as possible. This is because the deck has a hard time going the long game and having to deal with 3 players on turn 15 is a legitimate problem. Getting it down to even 2 opponents at that time helps out immensely.
The other factor is what my opponents are playing. If they are playing Superfriends, I tend to be more aggressive to keep the planeswalkers in check. And, if they are playing Group Hug, I will focus on that player exclusively until one of us are out of the game. I despise Group Hug and I will do whatever I can to eliminate that player and answer all their plays as soon as possible.
My favorite deck allows me to choose how aggressive I become depending on who I am playing and how things are evolving. The main tactic is to wait it out, letting other players use their resources on each other, and then going for the win when all the remaining players are within striking distance and don't have the resources to stop me. The deck also packs enough efficient offense that players who try this same thing will be punished for not attacking each other, and I can pull off surprisingly early wins. Yesterday I played a game that I knew would be hard for me to win against one of my opponents, but easier against the others. In that case, I picked apart the defense of the only player who was a threat, allowing openings for the other players to bring the threat player within striking distance of me, and then wasted everyone at the table when no one had the resources to stop me. This tactic actually required me to save a non-threatening player from an earlier loss so I could use them as a hammer to beat the threat player with, effectively expanding my card draw and offense to two decks and two attack phases each turn, mine and the player I saved. Sometimes I actually use this same tactic, only spread out amongst all opponents, concentrating on stripping the board of defenses, and keeping the strife going at the table, and holding my offense until everyone is in striking distance or a single player is left. Being flexible has been key to this, and the ability to bring strong offense when no one else has any is the usual decision point. Midrange and aggro opponents can be left alone as I sit back and bide my time as long as I can encourage them to attack someone else, while combo and control always needs to be pressured early, either by me alone, or better yet, by helping out the aggro and midrange players to take them out.
Recently, I've been playing a Traxos Voltron and I've found that latching onto a single player until they're actually dead is usually good politics. Provoking one opponent at a time is way more survivable than threatening three simultaneously.
Do you end up winning many of these games, or do you often find you have exerted yourself too much while taking out one or two players to take down the remaining ones?
The deck has a variety of stax cards in it, which I usually sandbag until I need to hold the last two players down while Traxos mauls them. I win the games where that strategy is successful (15-30%)and lose nearly every game in which vandalblast resolves at least once (40%).
Furthermore, Traxos is pretty fast as far as voltron goes. I can smack someone off the table as early as turn 4 with a lucksack of ramp and a dash of hasty footwear, but usually around turn 6 someone is on the precipice of death unless concerted efforts are made to kill me or Traxos. Granted it's nothing against a combo deck, but if I want to present lethal to a table on turn 5, I'll just go play selvala.
This is a question about threat assessment. If you sit down in a pod of four with a creature aggro deck, it is imperative to reduce the number of possible boardwipes that can be played to slow you down. Take somebody out as fast as you can; I even go so far as to target and kill the person most likely to be able to stop me. If somebody is stuck on two lands or plays a deck that can't consistently interact with my gameplan they're not the immediate target. A deck that only plays two or three mass removal spells isn't as important to kill as a Zurgo deck that plays 11.
Killing somebody fast should not cause somebody to sit on the sidelines for 2 hours. Removing interaction from the table accelerates the game. If your playgroup prefers one three-hour game over three one-hour games, that's up to them though. You can still play to win with a non-optimized deck and have fun interactive games that don't take as long as a DnD session to complete.
I think this completely depends on your playgroup. In mine, we spread the damage usually until someone becomes the biggest threat. Then everyone latches onto that person. Yes eliminating one person is faster and more efficient. But for the sake of casual play and interactivity, we spread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Do you usually try to focus your actions on a certain opponent early on in order to take them out, or do you try to use your resources against all opponents equally, or against whoever seems most threatening? Or is your go to strategy to hang back, consolidate your resources and slowly build your board up, and then show your strength at an opportune moment, i.e. when the other players have exhausted their resources against each other? Which factors determine your tactic? Your commander and deck strategy? Opposing commanders? Social issues?
Tamanoa - Welcome to the Jungle
Lists can be found here.
If you target a single person and take them out early, then they get to sit and wait for the next game.
If you spread the damage and disruption, then it'll slow down the game so anyone that get's eliminated might have to wait longer for the next game.
If you sit back and bide your time, then you might be the one eliminated and you'll be the one waiting for the next game.
It really doesn't matter. In a meta of aggro decks, the games are going to be pretty short. In a meta of control decks, the games are going to be really long. Mixing and matching, it comes down to who's the better player and how quickly their deck can win.
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain
B Toshiro Umezawa
BG Pharika, God of Affliction - Necromancy and Politics
WWW The Church of Heliod
WBR Zurgo, Helmsmasher
RG Wort, the Raidmother
UBR Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge
UG Vorel of the Hull Clade
Tamanoa - Welcome to the Jungle
Lists can be found here.
Unlike many players, my group plays to win over creating a shared experience. To us, the fun of the shared experience is taking people out, which I attribute to our 60 card history. We can and do have fun even when we don’t win, but we still always play to win. That being said, our decks are not all that cEDH. With some variety of decks in our group, my approach to each game depends on several factors.
1. My deck - If I’m playing Sliver Queen tokens, I seek to build my biomass to a needed critical mass so I can use Gaea’s Cradle for some big, splashy bomb event. This is the one most likely to kill everyone within a couple of turns when I “flip that switch” if opponents don’t hold me down. Zegana was designed to sit back and play a patient, reactive strategy. I have only 25 creatures, so I don’t get into creature battles wantonly. Instead, I let people make their moves and then I do stuff, kind of like other people’s kung fu decks. Xenagos is pure aggression, but I do spread things around if someone doesn’t rise up as a big threat; if someone does, I go after them. Jenara likes to put as many critters out and smash through evasively, using my sweepers and mass-recursion to recover faster than my opponents, and it is therefore a non-land resource attrition deck. So in a nutshell, I do play based on how the deck was built and I’m disciplined enough to trust my cards.
2 My opponents decks - since our group doesn’t play cEDH, we have to be mindful of our opponents’ strategies as the are building, insteaf of just stopping them when they go off. My friend has a Sen Triplets deck that slowly lays down defense after defense (very pillowfort-ish) backed by counterspells. So in that case, I’ve learned I have to disrupt him before he gets too layered in with too many counters and defenses. Another friend plays a Selvala grouphug deck, so everyone draws lots of cards and it can be chaos because it nullifies people who plan ahead with card draw. So in that environment where resources are flush, I just have strike where it hurts to stop people taking over or when the opening presents itself. I do stop Selvala sometimes by just nuking the board to reset conditions for my deck in that game to thrive better.
3. Opportunity - I have sweepers and other trick cards in my decks for a couple reasons, often one-sided, to catch people in an over-extended state and cost them as many cards as I can, or else to save my bacon. The two are often linked, but not always. I sometimes do it because I see an opportunity too good to pass up. Since we are all looking to win in my group, and only one can except under really bizarre circumstances, I do not hesitate to take someone out or at least annihilate their board state when I see it advantageous to my game. After all, they will and often do the same to me when they can, so it’s understood. Every now and then there are a few feel bads, but since we’ve been friends for decades we work through it and they aren’t severe in any case. When the next person dies, those two often play 60 card side duels so no one is out of play for long in our group unless they want to grab a bite in the kitchen or watch the game while talking.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
if i have a particularly explosive play that someone stops i'll tend to go after them exclusively
i think ultimately it really comes down to how your deck is built and how you play. if you make yourself an obvious target, say if you have a board state that eliminate another strong player, the rest will generally gang up on you, so you better be able to survive that.
if you spread the love, everyone goes after you, maybe not right away, but eventually you're going to get pressure on all sides
2. This is mostly the deciding factor if and who i'm going to take out, if possible. If there's a high power deck that needs to be kept in check and no clear advantage on the board at the time i'll go for the potential top dog first. On the other hand if there's a rather low powered deck with an advantageous start i might have that opponent take his chance, as he'll usually end up drawing disruption of my opponents while i'm holding onto mine for as long as i can. My measures certainly scale by deck strength of my opponents.
3. This one's the most fluid and undefined one. E.g. a friend of mine is a dedicated midrange player and often declared he doesn't want to "waste" too many deck slots on early safety nets, "just" for the few fast paced decks in our meta. If i'm facing him and have the opportunity to take him out early because he lacks chump blockers or else, i will, unless he may be of use for me later on. For one i know his decks are a force to reckon with if i allow him too much time to durdle and secondly i think his approach on deck building is a tad ignorant of our meta and deserves to be punished in a way (the Rafiq of the Many player in our group agrees heavily on this one). Generally speaking my usual decision is "is it worth it?". Comet Storms, Exsanguinates and Torment of Hailfires that may only kill a single player are a waste, considering their potential, unless that someone is too far ahead to keep in check otherwise. I'd never base an in game decision on social issues, as that would always be game warping. The moment i'm focusing a player i don't particularily like i'm granting an undeserved advantage to the other players at the table.
A friend of mine has the habit of "teaching lessons" in game and i hate it. Focusing another player for a bad threat assessment instead of the threat that player should've dealt with is plain dumb and nothing short of playing kingmaker.
Glissa: I am just going to try to exhaust my opponents and just keep presenting threats, probably on the spreading the damage plan to whoever is the greatest threat at any particular moment... although I am probably going to finish the job if I can.
UW control: Survive the first wave then try to quickly gain insurmountable advantage. Target whoever will recover the fastest or still has the most remaining resources. But I should have the resources to take on anyone so spreading the damage is an option as long as I continue to gain advantage.
Bird tribal: Kill kill kill, Whoever has the most wraths or whoever is the most open will die first and then onto the next one. Less players less wraths
Zirilan: You lack the ability to interact If there is a combo deck they must die. But my prefered method is to actually bide my time here complete my engine than bamn fire my glass cannon hit someone for 40 damage and hope that the other players are low enough that I can burn them out afterwards, after the realise my deck is insane when it gets to do what it wants but before they can stop or kill me.
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
Captain Sisay = More than any other, this deck personifies flexibility.
Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind = VERY much a pseudo-kingmaker, this needs to be more focused on the damage. If I see token decks, tunnel vision ensues with it, because otherwise I know I'll die.
Merieke Ri Berit = Much the same as the above, but more of a 'spread the love', as I don't want to lose half my stolen board by knocking someone out too early.
Thraximundar = Killkillkillkillkill!
Edgar Markov = Still trying to figure this one out...I THINK it's focus fire more than anything, though.
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
I guess some of it for me comes down to what the focus of my deck is. If I am playing a more control based deck I like to spread it out a little more and take my time rather than trying to end one player.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
But I agree with most of the other responses in that it is very deck/situation dependent. Like for example, if I was playing an artifact deck and a player drops Aura Shards, if I can't remove it then I'm removing the player ASAP. Likewise for someone controlling an Alms Collector and I'm playing Niv-Mizzet and I can't remove it for some reason, or if they play a Stranglehold or Mindlock Orb against my Captain Sisaydeck. I also agree that if I'm playing an aggro deck then I'm surely attacking someone if the coast is clear no matter what, so sometimes that is a player who is behind.
Jalira, Master Polymorphist | Endrek Sahr, Master Breeder | Bosh, Iron Golem | Ezuri, Renegade Leader
Brago, King Eternal | Oona, Queen of the Fae | Wort, Boggart Auntie | Wort, the Raidmother
Captain Sisay | Rhys, the Redeemed | Trostani, Selesnya's Voice | Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight | Obzedat, Ghost Council | Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind | Vorel of the Hull Clade
Uril, the Miststalker | Prossh, Skyraider of Kher | Nicol Bolas | Progenitus
Ghave, Guru of Spores | Zedruu the Greathearted | Damia, Sage of Stone | Riku of Two Reflections
I do have a Gisela, Blade of Goldnight where it starts aggressive and tries to focus on a single player as much as possible. This is because the deck has a hard time going the long game and having to deal with 3 players on turn 15 is a legitimate problem. Getting it down to even 2 opponents at that time helps out immensely.
The other factor is what my opponents are playing. If they are playing Superfriends, I tend to be more aggressive to keep the planeswalkers in check. And, if they are playing Group Hug, I will focus on that player exclusively until one of us are out of the game. I despise Group Hug and I will do whatever I can to eliminate that player and answer all their plays as soon as possible.
WUBSente: The Politics and Metaphor of Stones
My Vampire Hunter Kit Innistrad Themed Cube!
The deck has a variety of stax cards in it, which I usually sandbag until I need to hold the last two players down while Traxos mauls them. I win the games where that strategy is successful (15-30%)and lose nearly every game in which vandalblast resolves at least once (40%).
Furthermore, Traxos is pretty fast as far as voltron goes. I can smack someone off the table as early as turn 4 with a lucksack of ramp and a dash of hasty footwear, but usually around turn 6 someone is on the precipice of death unless concerted efforts are made to kill me or Traxos. Granted it's nothing against a combo deck, but if I want to present lethal to a table on turn 5, I'll just go play selvala.
Killing somebody fast should not cause somebody to sit on the sidelines for 2 hours. Removing interaction from the table accelerates the game. If your playgroup prefers one three-hour game over three one-hour games, that's up to them though. You can still play to win with a non-optimized deck and have fun interactive games that don't take as long as a DnD session to complete.