This issue came up in a recent Cockatrice game. It was turn four, someone had just played Lazav, Dimir Mastermind a turn earlier, then resolved Liliana of the Veil before using her +1. Another person said, "Let's have some fun!" and discarded Kozilek, Butcher of Truth. Naturally, everyone else was quite perturbed and berated the guy who let Lazav become a turn-four Eldrazi titan, but I was just all, "Eh... **** happens." It was a move that was perfectly legal within the parameters of the game, after all, and EDH is supposed to be filled with unexpected challenges to overcome. We ended up losing horribly, lol.
So what's everyone's take on situations like this? What do you think of people who just want to watch the world burn?
I'm one of them. Sure, winning is nice, but having fun is better. Especially in casual formats like EDH.
One more of these and I'm going to puke.
It's a social format.
Anyway, to the OP: I'm fine with it if it happens occasionally, if it we're a guy in my playgroup I'd not be having much fun.
Random acts kind of destroy the whole "strategy" aspect that magic has. And eventually the game will lose it's purpose and people will get bored. I don't really want to see this happen, hence. "rather not, but once is fine"
I'm one of them. Sure, winning is nice, but having fun is better. Especially in casual formats like EDH.
The problem is, the play the OP described is likely only fun for the player who pitched Kozilek, because he got to play puppeteer. Even if I'd been the Lazav player it wouldn't have felt like much of a satisfying play (unless for some reason the Kozilek was the last card in the player's hand. Then it would feel legitimate to me.) So if a casual format is about having fun.. then the consideration becomes, do I get to have fun at the expense of the entire table's fun? I think I'd rather lose to a Palinchron combo or Kaalia / Master of Cruelties or some other cheesy way to win that's actually BY DESIGN than just somebody who randomly plays kingmaker. At least then you get to see something work as intended and you can at least admire it even if you don't want to play against it again.
I'm ok with this up to a point, what you described sounds pretty ridiculously awesome to be completely honest and I would not be mad at all to have that or similar happen.
However more often than not I see these types of people gravitate toward a more kingmaker (Ahem, Grouphug) playstyle/deck and in my eyes that ceases to be acceptable because then you are not playing for your own self interest, whatever that may be, but for another.
Again, i'm fine with those who don't care about the ending but play for the stories EDH creates. Epic plays and memories that last are what I really enjoy about this format.
I always play to win, no matter if other people think it's un-fun (which i see here way too often, a lot of man-babies on this forum). Winning is fun regardless.
And when I can't win, messing other people as much as possible is the next best thing.
I always play to win, no matter if other people think it's un-fun (which i see here way too often, a lot of man-babies on this forum). Winning is fun regardless.
And when I can't win, messing other people as much as possible is the next best thing.
Exactly, when you CAN'T win. I agree with you, playing to win is always in the best interest of fun, or has been at every table I've ever played with. I think it's not the playstyle so much as the deck-building process that separates the competetive from the laid-back, and both have a place somewhere in the format. But the specific situation the OP described is basically one person deciding THEY were going to get some amusement in a game they might still have won if they didn't decide to pitch an Eldrazi with Lazav on the field. Chaos gets old for everyone after the novelty wears off, except for the one causing it.
totally fine. if the game was with random peeps on cockatrice and i was in previously in 'play to win' mode i have no problem flipping the switch to 'play because lol.'
I wouldn't find it fun. Magic is a fairly strategical game and I play it because
1) I love card games
2) The setting is cool
3) I like strategy games that pit my skill against others
When you take out the strategy of game if no longer becomes fun to me. Hence my distaste for kingmaker and group hug/chaos.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Level 1 Judge-
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane for the awesome Sig.
I've got one friend who isn't a very skilled player or deckbuilder so in multiplayer games he tries to do as many random and chaotic things as possible to screw up the game state. Now, I'm not talking running a chaos deck - that I wouldn't mind. It would require him putting thought into his deck, doing research, and having a concept. Plus I like convoluted game states that resemble something Rube Goldberg would have thought of. No, he just spends his time alternating between helping and hurting random players, like he's playing group hug one turn and group slug the next. We just started playing with him less and less until he just wound up getting weeded out of our group.
It's fun for the first time, but if this happens a lot, it'll be annoying. At least you can prepare against very annoying decks, but you can't prepare against this kinda move.
Chaos gets old for everyone after the novelty wears off, except for the one causing it.
^This.
If a player in a group consistently brings chaos with no other goal it is destructive to the group and the person should probably remove him/herself or someone in the group should speak to the person privately. This sort of mentality is harmful to society in general, not just to gaming or MtG in particular. Don't be an agent of chaos, it destroys you and those around you.
Good sportsmanship isn't just about self-control and fair play. It's also about trying, as hard as you can, to win.
That said, this particular turn-four flameout sounds relatively innocuous. Playing kingmaker is far more problematic when someone flips the switch two hours into a game. In the worst case, everyone who was still in contention feels like they wasted their time.
I used to think I was clever. When I was no longer in a position to win, I would try to even up the game between the remaining players. Really, I was just making all the eliminated players sit out longer. These days, I concede as soon as I can't win, and games in my group are faster and more harmonious.
Turn four, this doesn't seem like a big deal. No one's invested enough time or strategy into the game yet. If this consistently happened, I'd probably get a little cheesed, because I want to play a game of Magic instead of losing turn four every time.
I'd be pissed if I was anyone but the guy who discarded Kozilek, and I'd be that guy if someone remanded my T3 Kodama's Reach or Commandeered my Crop Rotation.
It's a social format, and by doing that I say "counter or f*** over my early game minor plays in a multiplayer setting if you want, but I'll make you wish you didn't."
Kinda like when my friend used Hatred on an opponent's unblocked 2/2 for 38 because someone wanted the cantrip off of dismiss when he was playing some crappy creature like Vampire Hexmage. (Killing the guy who countered his spell and losing the next turn.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Decks:
Aggro: WUBRGHorde of Notions Goodstuff, RUBCheesy Aggro, GR Xenagod Gruul Goodstuff
Control: GWBGhave, Guru of Adaptability, UBWrexial, Milling Deep UAzami, Lady of No Infinite Combos GWU Derevi, Tempo Beats
Other: URGRiku of Too Much Mana, WUBRG Sliver Queen Enchantress
That said, this particular turn-four flameout sounds relatively innocuous. Playing kingmaker is far more problematic when someone flips the switch two hours into a game. In the worst case, everyone who was still in contention feels like they wasted their time.
I couldn't possibly disagree with this more. After a certain point in multiplayer, you can generally tell when you can't reasonably win a game due to lack of resources. At that time, you can either just flat out quit... which I'm not a fan of, not at all! Youu can sit and do nothing to affect the game, and suffer an inevitable slow death. Or, you can gain a minor victory by choosing who wins when you can't, and do whatever you can to end the game in the matter of your choosing. If you take this third option, it even opens up routes to yourself winning the game if done right, because you're essentially painting a bullseye on a blissfully thankful target, giving yourself the space you need to recover from setbacks.
Letting stupid stuff end the game in an opponent's favor when you were in a decent spot, though? I'm not a fan, unless it's something really, really stupid. Like, give everyone a 50 card hand on turn 7 stupid.
My (And my playgroup)'s primary goal in EDH is to win. We love the format, we play for fun, but we're all fairly competitive players who enjoy winning as much if not more than just playing. So, anyone who does something as inane as that guy did immediately becomes Kill on Sight at the table. It's kind of funny when someone shows up with group hug, they're usually dead T3-4. The reason is because giving a certain opponent overwhelming resources causes the other players to lose (obviously) so the player enabling such a loss is a must go to allow the game to actually continue.
There are few things that irritate me more than a Pheldagriff player with group hug, or someone making a stupid play like letting the U/W control player draw 50 cards off a random Blue Sun's Zenith just for "fun" any player that does that is going to get mercilessly targeted by myself from the getgo. My decks tend to be pretty competitive, so that means that player probably gets totally effed by the middle of the game. The way I figure it is:
Sure, play the way you want to play. The way you want to play goes against the way I want to play. Thankfully, my deck is capable of destroying yours to end this problem in my favor. If you don't like not being able to play because I'm hyper-targeting you and everything you happen to try to drop on the board, build a better ****ing deck that can compete against mine, not some inane, annoying group hug/kingmaker deck.
This is why I hate multiplayer commander. I want my games to be decided, win or lose, by who played better; not by Person C doing something arbitrary to help Person A and losing to something I have no control of.
Stick to 1v1; it's cleaner, and you don't have to deal with six hour monstrosities and stupid politics.
I couldn't possibly disagree with this more. After a certain point in multiplayer, you can generally tell when you can't reasonably win a game due to lack of resources. At that time, you can either just flat out quit... which I'm not a fan of, not at all! Youu can sit and do nothing to affect the game, and suffer an inevitable slow death. Or, you can gain a minor victory by choosing who wins when you can't, and do whatever you can to end the game in the matter of your choosing. If you take this third option, it even opens up routes to yourself winning the game if done right, because you're essentially painting a bullseye on a blissfully thankful target, giving yourself the space you need to recover from setbacks.
Letting stupid stuff end the game in an opponent's favor when you were in a decent spot, though? I'm not a fan, unless it's something really, really stupid. Like, give everyone a 50 card hand on turn 7 stupid.
Don't get me wrong. I've played kingmaker more than I like to admit. It's far more satisfying than conceding. It's also bad for the group's health. The eventual winner feels like he won because of me, not because of his skill; the loser feels like I stole his win.
All too often, my kingmaking did little more than spark a shouting match over who "deserves" to win, when we could all be shuffling up for the next game instead.
I often become that guy. I wouldn't do it turn 4, but would rather work out some kind of deal with the lazav player saying something like "i'll discard Kozilek, but you have to swing at me last". In my group we normally stick by agreements like this unless given a reason to do so otherwise.
Still, I don't try and completely disbalance the game like this. I normally do wind up pulling punches, especially in Azami. If I draw into Mind over Matter turn like 4 or 5, I won't play it for a good long while. I don't like using it as it's a pretty cheap way to win, and would rather keep the game interactive and fun for a bit longer. I could probably win with any one of my decks if I gunned it for my winconditions from the start and didn't pull punches, but I know the same can be said for others in our group. We all play pretty competitive decks, but play pretty casually.
This is why I hate multiplayer commander. I want my games to be decided, win or lose, by who played better; not by Person C doing something arbitrary to help Person A and losing to something I have no control of.
Stick to 1v1; it's cleaner, and you don't have to deal with six hour monstrosities and stupid politics.
I've been looking for 1v1 EDH or Duel Commander in my area but no one plays
They all love multi. Secret Partners mixes it up though so that is fun sometimes.
I've been looking for 1v1 EDH or Duel Commander in my area but no one plays
They all love multi. Secret Partners mixes it up though so that is fun sometimes.
If you can't beat them you join them. You'll be amazed how far politics can get you in multiplayer. It flat out wins games. I'm not a fan of French specifically because this unique interaction is lost that is present in multiplayer. However, in a hypercompetitive meta I can see this being bothersome.
If you can't beat them you join them. You'll be amazed how far politics can get you in multiplayer. It flat out wins games. I'm not a fan of French specifically because this unique interaction is lost that is present in multiplayer. However, in a hypercompetitive meta I can see this being bothersome.
If we aren't playing for points I'm open to anything. But if it's League for points, I wish we could play 1v1 instead of multi.
But everyone at the LGS wants to play multi. My Geist deck is waaaaaay too 1v1 for that. So I'm building Ruhan for those multi games. That will mess with everyone lol.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So what's everyone's take on situations like this? What do you think of people who just want to watch the world burn?
One more of these and I'm going to puke.
It's a social format.
Anyway, to the OP: I'm fine with it if it happens occasionally, if it we're a guy in my playgroup I'd not be having much fun.
Random acts kind of destroy the whole "strategy" aspect that magic has. And eventually the game will lose it's purpose and people will get bored. I don't really want to see this happen, hence. "rather not, but once is fine"
[Primer] Kozilek, Butcher with Juice.
The problem is, the play the OP described is likely only fun for the player who pitched Kozilek, because he got to play puppeteer. Even if I'd been the Lazav player it wouldn't have felt like much of a satisfying play (unless for some reason the Kozilek was the last card in the player's hand. Then it would feel legitimate to me.) So if a casual format is about having fun.. then the consideration becomes, do I get to have fun at the expense of the entire table's fun? I think I'd rather lose to a Palinchron combo or Kaalia / Master of Cruelties or some other cheesy way to win that's actually BY DESIGN than just somebody who randomly plays kingmaker. At least then you get to see something work as intended and you can at least admire it even if you don't want to play against it again.
However more often than not I see these types of people gravitate toward a more kingmaker (Ahem, Grouphug) playstyle/deck and in my eyes that ceases to be acceptable because then you are not playing for your own self interest, whatever that may be, but for another.
Again, i'm fine with those who don't care about the ending but play for the stories EDH creates. Epic plays and memories that last are what I really enjoy about this format.
GUGEdric, Spymaster of Trest - Elfball
WUBOloro, Ageless Ascetic- Doomsday!
RWUEphara, God of the Polis - Blink + Control
GBGGlissa, the Traitor - Stax & Lands
URGMaelstrom Wanderer - Goodstuff RUG
RGWMayael the Anima - Timmy
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher - The One Hit Wonder
RGWMarath, Will of the Wild - Old-school Enchantress Hate
RWRAurelia, the Warleader - Equipment Aggro
GGGReki, the History of Kamigawa - Legends + Banding
UBRSedris, the Traitor King - Creatures with : Ability
BUBPhenax, God of Deception - Mill
*Sidenote, I specifically excluded infinite combos from all these decks with the exception of Marath and the squirrel nest + Earthcraft combo.
Looking for something Aggressive in modern? Try - BR Aggro
And when I can't win, messing other people as much as possible is the next best thing.
Exactly, when you CAN'T win. I agree with you, playing to win is always in the best interest of fun, or has been at every table I've ever played with. I think it's not the playstyle so much as the deck-building process that separates the competetive from the laid-back, and both have a place somewhere in the format. But the specific situation the OP described is basically one person deciding THEY were going to get some amusement in a game they might still have won if they didn't decide to pitch an Eldrazi with Lazav on the field. Chaos gets old for everyone after the novelty wears off, except for the one causing it.
1) I love card games
2) The setting is cool
3) I like strategy games that pit my skill against others
When you take out the strategy of game if no longer becomes fun to me. Hence my distaste for kingmaker and group hug/chaos.
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane for the awesome Sig.
Currently Playing- EDH
GGGOmnath, Locus of the LifestreamGGG
BBBShirei, Lord of PoniesBBB
UWRasputin Dreamweaver, Russia's Greatest Love MachineUW
UBWZur, Killer of FunUBW
UGWTreva, Princess of CanterlotUGW
RWTajic, Master of the Reverse BladeRW
RRRZirilan, How to Train Your DragonRRR
PDH Decks
Gelectrode
Ascended Lawmage
Blaze Commando
^This.
If a player in a group consistently brings chaos with no other goal it is destructive to the group and the person should probably remove him/herself or someone in the group should speak to the person privately. This sort of mentality is harmful to society in general, not just to gaming or MtG in particular. Don't be an agent of chaos, it destroys you and those around you.
That said, this particular turn-four flameout sounds relatively innocuous. Playing kingmaker is far more problematic when someone flips the switch two hours into a game. In the worst case, everyone who was still in contention feels like they wasted their time.
I used to think I was clever. When I was no longer in a position to win, I would try to even up the game between the remaining players. Really, I was just making all the eliminated players sit out longer. These days, I concede as soon as I can't win, and games in my group are faster and more harmonious.
It's a social format, and by doing that I say "counter or f*** over my early game minor plays in a multiplayer setting if you want, but I'll make you wish you didn't."
Kinda like when my friend used Hatred on an opponent's unblocked 2/2 for 38 because someone wanted the cantrip off of dismiss when he was playing some crappy creature like Vampire Hexmage. (Killing the guy who countered his spell and losing the next turn.)
Aggro: WUBRGHorde of Notions Goodstuff, RUB Cheesy Aggro, GR Xenagod Gruul Goodstuff
Control: GWBGhave, Guru of Adaptability, UBWrexial, Milling Deep UAzami, Lady of No Infinite Combos GWU Derevi, Tempo Beats
Other: URGRiku of Too Much Mana, WUBRG Sliver Queen Enchantress
Playtesting | Karador, Ghost Chieftain | Narset, Enlightened Master | Ephara, God of the Polis
Established | Gahiji, Honored One | Shirei, Shizo's Caretaker | Opal-Eye, Konda's Yojimbo | Rubinia Soulsinger
Retired | Medomai the Ageless | Diaochan, Artful Beauty
I couldn't possibly disagree with this more. After a certain point in multiplayer, you can generally tell when you can't reasonably win a game due to lack of resources. At that time, you can either just flat out quit... which I'm not a fan of, not at all! Youu can sit and do nothing to affect the game, and suffer an inevitable slow death. Or, you can gain a minor victory by choosing who wins when you can't, and do whatever you can to end the game in the matter of your choosing. If you take this third option, it even opens up routes to yourself winning the game if done right, because you're essentially painting a bullseye on a blissfully thankful target, giving yourself the space you need to recover from setbacks.
Letting stupid stuff end the game in an opponent's favor when you were in a decent spot, though? I'm not a fan, unless it's something really, really stupid. Like, give everyone a 50 card hand on turn 7 stupid.
There are few things that irritate me more than a Pheldagriff player with group hug, or someone making a stupid play like letting the U/W control player draw 50 cards off a random Blue Sun's Zenith just for "fun" any player that does that is going to get mercilessly targeted by myself from the getgo. My decks tend to be pretty competitive, so that means that player probably gets totally effed by the middle of the game. The way I figure it is:
Sure, play the way you want to play. The way you want to play goes against the way I want to play. Thankfully, my deck is capable of destroying yours to end this problem in my favor. If you don't like not being able to play because I'm hyper-targeting you and everything you happen to try to drop on the board, build a better ****ing deck that can compete against mine, not some inane, annoying group hug/kingmaker deck.
That is all.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics
[Primer]WIsamaru, the Howling BladeW[Primer]
[Primer]BGSkullbriar: From Life, Death Eternal (1v1)GB[Primer]
BGRbighaben and Feverous' Prossh, Skyraider of KherRGB
BGRProssh-Gro (1V1)RGB
Stick to 1v1; it's cleaner, and you don't have to deal with six hour monstrosities and stupid politics.
Steel Sabotage'ng Orbs of Mellowness since 2011.
Don't get me wrong. I've played kingmaker more than I like to admit. It's far more satisfying than conceding. It's also bad for the group's health. The eventual winner feels like he won because of me, not because of his skill; the loser feels like I stole his win.
All too often, my kingmaking did little more than spark a shouting match over who "deserves" to win, when we could all be shuffling up for the next game instead.
One guy played with really heavy destruction.
He gave me props when I Gush'd in response to his Jokulhaups lol
Still, I don't try and completely disbalance the game like this. I normally do wind up pulling punches, especially in Azami. If I draw into Mind over Matter turn like 4 or 5, I won't play it for a good long while. I don't like using it as it's a pretty cheap way to win, and would rather keep the game interactive and fun for a bit longer. I could probably win with any one of my decks if I gunned it for my winconditions from the start and didn't pull punches, but I know the same can be said for others in our group. We all play pretty competitive decks, but play pretty casually.
UBRSedris, the Necromancer KingUBR
I've been looking for 1v1 EDH or Duel Commander in my area but no one plays
They all love multi. Secret Partners mixes it up though so that is fun sometimes.
If you can't beat them you join them. You'll be amazed how far politics can get you in multiplayer. It flat out wins games. I'm not a fan of French specifically because this unique interaction is lost that is present in multiplayer. However, in a hypercompetitive meta I can see this being bothersome.
UBRSedris, the Necromancer KingUBR
If we aren't playing for points I'm open to anything. But if it's League for points, I wish we could play 1v1 instead of multi.
But everyone at the LGS wants to play multi. My Geist deck is waaaaaay too 1v1 for that. So I'm building Ruhan for those multi games. That will mess with everyone lol.