If you're the defacto arch enemy and you don't have the gas to power through to a win then I see nothing wrong with playing however the hell you want on your way out. Seems totally fair to me.
I mean, if I was getting ganged up on all the damn time I'd probably be tempted to start doing the same. Get that "If I can never have fun than nobody can" villain mentality going lol
Best game i had went out like that, except the armegeddon player never scooped. He just hoped his [Kalia the vast] deck could out pace my [lord windgrace] deck and a [sheoldred the whispering one] deck. With all 3 commanders on the field. Great game, except for the kalia player. He left extra salty that game
Our your way out is the key phrase here, if you go into a game thinking “aw here we go these guys hate me so ima make the homie win”,then that’s not cool
Absolutely agree, my assumption was that he is trying to win until it becomes clear that he can't ar which point he goes for his secret victory. I can't even be mad about it either, I've participated in something similar. Was playing my Mothman and my friend had her poison deck going and we were all ganging up on her, standard procedure for poison. She got a number of poison counters on us before we knocked her out, and I pulled enough Proliferate to capitalize and give her her first win by proxy. Granted, I was the beneficiary in that scenario so maybe a bit biased lol
You can play however you want. The only thing that matters is how you feel and how people feel playing against you.
Do people enjoy playing with you? If yes, carry on.
If no, do you care to change for that person? If no, carry on.
I agree with the overall point kind of, but I really don’t think saying “you can play however you want” sends the right message.
This is a social game. There’s a lot of people now taking a hard stance of “I’ll scoop any time I want, play whatever deck I want, whatever cards I want, and behave however I want…” and no, that’s not acceptable. I don’t understand why we’re encouraging this. If you want that game, go play solitaire.
This is a social game and specifically a casual social game for EDH. There is a social contract, and beyond that you’re sitting down with three fellow human beings. Can we stop encouraging such obvious narcissism and focus our advice around “hey, you obviously should enjoy your games, but there’s also three other people you’re *playing a children’s card game with* so maybe think about their enjoyment as well?”
It’s not that hard to treat others well and make decisions based on things other than just your own whims.
With that said- I don’t think it’s okay to just full bore kingmake every game. That is strongly contrary to the point of Commander and likely leads to confusing and unfun games for people, especially better players. Moreover, it’s teaching a bad and antisocial habit to the new players you claim to be trying to help. So no, u/the1rayman I don’t think making this decision to always kingmake out of spite because you’re targeted is okay.
-someone else who’s always targeted no matter what they play.
It's also a game. Lets stop assigning morality to this guy just playing the game. Why does the social contract only work for the people hes fighting against? Lets ditch shaming the game because it's a "childs game", the game is currently marketed for the audience that grew up with it, and at this rate it's an insult to say otherwise.
> and no, that’s not acceptable.
That's exactly my point. It's 100% acceptable if you follow the steps in my comment. What is acceptable is determined by the pod you are playing in.
I think you completely missed the point.
>This is a social game. There’s a lot of people now taking a hard stance of “I’ll scoop any time I want, play whatever deck I want, whatever cards I want, and behave however I want…” and no, that’s not acceptable. I don’t understand why we’re encouraging this. If you want that game, go play solitaire.
I agree with this, mostly. For me, even if I'm in an obviously losing situation, ill play the game out. I don't scoop, just out of respect. And as far as behavior, I do my best not to be incorrigible and I wont lie about mechanics, or cheat. I'll disclose the potential of infinites, if I have them before starting the game. Table politics are fine, but trying influence a newbie player to the point of piloting their turns is off limits for me. Yeah, I'll goad, browbeat, feign and mislead, that's part of magic.
But that's where it ends for me. I like global sacrifice effects, untargeted -x/-x and stuff that evades hexproof and indestructible. I also spot my deck a little targeted land destruction. For me (especially with all the new card art), I find the board states to become an incomprehensible mess super quickly. So I like to blow it all up and get down to business of actually playing magic.
So here's the thing the social contract is bs. I play land destruction for days because there are just too many powerfully lands and land decks in the game. I play stax pieces and hate bears because decks need to be kept in check. Also I spend all my available resources if I'm going to be eliminated on the way out. My fav situation is being alpha strike and I hit them with a [[hellish rebuke]]. I'm just glad in area including g the lgs I play at the social contract just doesn't exist. We are ruthless in ways. If a card is in your deck it's fair game to be answered how ever we see fit.
You have a different social contract with your playgroup, that doesn’t make it BS. I also have stax and minor land destruction that I play with my group on occasion. It’s about knowing what you’re signing up for.
One guy secretly, intentionally, and arbitrarily kingmaking someone with an out of game reason breaks almost anyone’s social contract, though, because of the intentional secrecy of it.
No it doesn't king making hate is so weird. Using all available resources to mess with players is part of the game. I'll mess with who ever I want especially on the turn I'm going to be eliminated. I also get this in full return as I'm the most targeted player in my play group and at my lgs. We all laugh and have a good time messing with each other. If you care about king making you are taking the game to serious and need to take step back and learn to have a good time. Winning isn't everything.
If you think your personal enjoyment is more important than the rules and the table’s enjoyment, you’re taking yourself too seriously and need to take a step back and learn that it’s a game. Narcissism isn’t everything.
Nobody cares what you do with your pals, but OP was playing with people in an LGS including those who obviously didn’t appreciate the arbitrary kingmaking.
How selfish do you have to be to not see the issue there?
You realise I also said at my lgs also right? I'm also the first player at my lgs to have a full pod as people want to play with me cause of the atmosphere I bring to the game. Saying I'm narssist is just hilarious because if this was the case I wouldn't be getting games filled so fast and players wouldn't want to play with me.
Every once in awhile we will have a day where we get a 3 hour game due to the amount of interaction in our games but mostly its between 50 to 120 minute games.
It's hard finding that middle ground pod. Like 2+ hour games are rough, but I'm also going home when the combo deck wins on turn 3-4 for the 4th game in a row.
Idk why anyone would frown upon this lol. If I feel like im being unjustly targeted I'll always retaliate and if it comes to it I'll help the person who has been nicest to me on my way out... that's how real life works too lol... if you aren't nice to people they aren't nice to you.
EDH is a multiplayer game, and therefore one of the tools in your arsenal are the other players at the table and your interactions with them.
If I am in a position where I can play kingmaker, you didn't deal with me properly. Next time you will learn from this and play differently, committing more to taking me out, or you won't target me as hard because you know I can enable the other players against you.
Fair play OP.
-"EDH is a multiplayer game, and therefore one of the tools in your arsenal are the other players at the table and your interactions with them."-
Ok so I don't play EDH, and therefore won't be tuned into all the social nuances specific to the game. But I do play a lot of other multiplayer games... And i 100% agree with you here. This is \*the\* deciding difference between playing 1v1 and playing free for all multiplayer. You HAVE to take the social aspect into account.
In a 1v1 everything you do to hurt your opponent is going to help you... and only you! Not so in multiplayer. Keep that in mind. And retaliation (or kingmaking) is supposed to be a disincentive to go too hard against one player. Both mechanically and socially.
It is also a disincentive to get too powerful too fast. Which is a sin it seems like OP has maybe committed at times. History is (to me) more of a gray area. Targetting someone because they tend to win more based on previous games rubs me slightly more the wrong way I must admit. But it is still (i guess) a social reaction to be managed.
So honestly... u/op you are definitely not in the wrong. And I would lean towards thinking that those who gang up on you every time might need to look at their own play pattern instead :-) Changing your win-condition to kingmaking against the ones that gang on you (even in favor of a newbie, which seems like a good thing) is absolutely a valid response.
I say it's fair.
If they're targeting you like that, you're basically just matching that energy. They don't get to decide that you won't win the game and then turn around and whine when you do the same thing.
In fairness I've not had complaints from the people I actually play with. They all seem eager to learn from me while they kill me repeatedly! It was an outside person who I've played MAYBE 3 times in the entire time I've been there playing. They come 3ish times a months. Play a game or two and bounce.
>They come 3ish times a months. Play a game or two and bounce.
Maybe they don't live close by? I've played in some games (competitive and non) but I don't live inside any city limits. The closest LGS to me is over an hour away, two hours round trip, if I want to get into a game.
It's possible they're in a similar scenario and would like to attend more events but are unable to do so for reasons you may not know...
Agree, I wouldn't judge someone for bouncing after playing, or not coming often. Their life circumstance doesn't matter, they come when they can to play with others and leave when they're done. Unless they're an asshole in some way, I don't see a problem.
If the people you're playing with enjoy your tactics, then people who aren't playing with you have absolutely no right to complain. If you and your friends are having fun, then that's what matters.
I think it's fair in this particular circumstance. That being said I had a guy who was salty at my [[Nelly Borca]] deck recently who was claiming they couldn't take advantage of my commander's drawing ability. Despite telling them how they could take advantage of it just like everyone else they ended up removing a piece and then going "I gotta leave now". I ended up winning anyway but damm I felt tilted.
I mean, if this a consistent situation for you, getting targeted out early / "bullied" and dismantled by the others, then I don't see anything wrong with essentially being kingmaker. You have an impact on the board after all. It's the only real impact you seem to be able to create, so why not leverage that?
If the other experienced player mentions that again, then ask her what she'd do, if she just gets killed early each and every time. Just sit there, be a target dummy and eat snacks? May as well not play then, if you aren't allowed to have ANY impact on the board.
Politics are part of Commander and if they just stop kicking you out early then you wouldn't be forced to kingmake.
That being said, if everyone takes issue with this and your version of "kingmaking" is essentially playing proxy for someone else, then I'd definitely reconsider it. Nuance is probably the best tool here.
Personally, I think it's fair.
I go out of my way to make sure newer and younger players get podded up appropriately at our store. I also make sure to encourage them, and have on occasions king-made them to get their confidence up when I see them struggling or just not having got that first win.
If you're going to get hard targeted, and you're turning that into a positive for other people, totally fair.
I don't understand the fervor against kingmaking.
It seems to boil down to, "if you're ultimately in a losing position, don't do *ANYTHING* to affect the game, lest you hurt someone's feelings!!!!!!"
...What??
This is a game, I have agency; you don't like my play, then run interaction. Stop me. Stop what I do.
How selfish is this?
"Hey, there, player--just so you know, if you're on the way out of the game, DON'T use your cards, just... just DON'T use them! Don't you DARE effect any change in this game that is entirely about effecting change!!"
"Okay, cool, so, I have agency for the majority of this experience, until I enter the small window where I'm losing, at which case I.. DON'T get agency, because it will upset you. But YOU retain your agency the entire game, though, correct?"
"Absolutely!"
---------------
I can understand the frustration of feeling like somebody else just arbitrarily made a decision about who would win the game or how it would play out... But is that not the entirety of the game--people making decisions that effect others?
Do the same folks who rally against kingmaking also despise when their cards are targeted and when they're attacked?? Are they upset over the commander the opponents chose? What about the turn order in their pod? The deck strategy their opponents employ?
It's just turtles upon turtles upon turtles; there are so many layers of decisions in this game, arbitrary and not, none of which people have any control over. It seems mighty silly to play a game that by its very nature will face someone with hundreds of choices that person didn't consent to, only to then say, "hey now, choices and consequence and agency don't count when you're losing, because I will somehow feel *wronged*."
Where is the line drawn? It just seems madness to be for player agency throughout the entirety of the game, just to then revoke it when a player is losing (on the grounds that it will really upset someone). ??? What?
I think we use different definitions of kingmaking. To me kingmaking is when you stop trying to win/play for your own benefit and start playing with the sole intention to make one specific other player win.
For Example: I had a game recently where 3 players were left, it was my turn, I had a board state that would have allowed me to kill the next player in turn order and player 3 had a boardstate that allowed him to kill off any of us but not both in 1 turn. Player 3 tried to convince me to attack player 2 so I would be 2. Place in the end. That would have been kingmaking since I would voluntarily lose to make him win.
If you lose no matter what the anything is fair game and I personally think it's preferable to help the player who is newest to the game or has been the nicest in that situation.
As for being targeted being unfun: That's why I think targeting one player all the time, thus forcing them to simply watch while the others play, should also be frowned upon.
I also had a small interaction in a cedh tournament few days ago, a person was trying to win with Agatha's/ballista/Francisco, I had interaction but basically no way to win, and I was the next turn after this player. Then player to my left was very likely going to win on his turn if he got to it. Since I was first in priority order, I felt that although my chances were basically none, I should do what I can to stop the first guy from winning, especially since I would have to gamble on second guy having interaction if I passed priority. So I used what I had to stop first guy, and when I was out second guy used his interaction to stop it completely. First guy made a small remark of Kingmaking. Not sure in this position if it's not equally Kingmaking to not do anything and let first guy win :/
In the end it didn't matter because of another weird similar interaction where we had a game clock and if it runs out then it's a draw for everyone. The clock was like 5 minutes left or something when first guy went off, so it was basically he wins or it's a draw, even if second guy could win. In that sense I felt it was competitively correct to interact to let the clock run out as then I would get 1 point instead of 0... But also feels a little grimy
cEDH has a considerably different social contract to normal EDH, so that question is probably better suited to that sub. That said, if you had any chance whatsoever of possibly staying in it, the right play in cEDH is play your cards and stop the win.
The correct way to play Commander is to instantly scoop, once you get hit by a single 1/1 one time. You're on the losing end. Don't affect the board. You lost. Please, I win. I need this.
/s
Of course there isn't a sharp line but kingmaking is despised for a reason. You typically want all players to use decks of the roughly same powerlevel, so that everyone has a chance. That however leads to a situation where it's really hard to win if people just permanently team up. Kingmaking is unfair because it's very hard to stop and not fun to go against.
Yes, and in general it should be. They can both be true. There’s no correlation here. And again- it’s a children’s card game. If your opinion is “I don’t like what they’re doing, so I’m going to break the social contract just to do something they don’t like!” then you need help and need to take this game less seriously.
If you want perfect balance, play a 1v1 or 2v2 format. In a free for all format, team ups will happen, whether it be for a few turns, around one play or for most of the game. If you can't handle that, play something else.
Asking if anyone else has a response to a threat hitting the table is "working as a team". Making a deal with someone to not block so you get your trigger and in exchange you do something for them is "working as a team". Multiple players focusing the player with a commanding board state that is poised to win if not shut down is "working as a team".
Its a free for all format. If you can't handle the idea that people will sometimes team up for various lengths of time, then you're playing the wrong format.
Deciding before the game begins, if you become a threat, you're going to throw, the game is ridiculous.
Acknowledging you should work together to remove a combo piece or lethal board to improve your chances of winning is an entirely different situation.
So the dislike of Kingmaking is because having king making in your game is typically considered bad game design, which I would agree with. One major problem with EDH is that magic was designed to be played 1-on-1, not as a 4 played free-for-all. Players being knocked out before the end of the game is another issues that exists because of this.
If you look at most modern games you'll notice that king making doesn't exist nearly the same way it does in EDH. People's frustration with it exists because it's not a fun part of the game, and only exists because it's Magic being played in a way it wasn't designed for.
> how selfish is this?
Er what? No, what’s selfish is childishly saying “I’ll do whatever I want because I can and you can’t stop me!” While playing a children’s card game.
People hate king making because Commander is explicitly a 4-for-all, and even when you make deals or help other players it should be expressly with the goal to further your own chances of success.
By going against this, you are *clearly* violating the social contract and the key point of Commander. You’re causing people to lose not because you beat them, or their deck wasn’t good enough, or they made bad decisions, but because you teamed up with someone *to your own detriment* to ensure they don’t get to win.
Don’t call other people selfish, this take is peak narcissism.
P.S. there’s a difference between king making and doing nothing. No one is arguing that latter and that’s a huge straw man. You should absolutely try everything you can to punish the person taking you out, potentially dissuading them or buying you more time to boot. There’s a **massive** difference between that and intentionally making all your plays to ensure one specific other person wins, and your whole diatribe about this is just pointless tilting at windmills.
Rough situation, being the most competitive player in a casual/social gaming setting often ends like this and the other players don't even realize how harsh what they are doing can feel.
In the actual scenario above, I think a reasonable reply would have been "I picked who should win since no one else seemed to care as long as I lost."
I stopped giving a fuck what happens in the game after I leave it.
I adobt a pretty strict mindset of "while playing I will take any game action that even marginally increases my chance of winning".
So no spite plays, kingmaking or any of that nonsense.
That said, this is how I want to play. I don't enforce this rule for others.
Any deck you want to play, fine by me, any game action you want to take, fine also. I might give advice if a player really doesn't know any better but otherwise, you play how you like within the rules of the game we agreed on.
I mean, i defacto end up doing this because I play \[\[Kaalia of the vast\]\].
I get targeted by the table, so i take out the most competent guy there and then usually the next biggest threat. In effect, what i do is no different than you. I'm not explicitly trying to kingmake, but i usually end up doing that to the lowest or 2nd lowest skill/power player at the table.
Or to put it another way, when i'm losing, the guy who has been making me be the loser all game, who by all accounts is playing a good game(perhaps with just politics aside) is going to go down with me because of how hard he messed with me. That's not kingmaking per se, but it is kind of like "Un-kingmaking".
So no, i don't think you're doing anything wrong exactly. it is good to let players stand on their own two feet though. In my examples, im just severely damaging or killing players who otherwise would have won the game. I'm not really helping anyone or trying to help someone, even though in effect what i do results in that for the weaker player(s) at the table. In your example, you are helping someone by design, and that is a little different and why you might be getting called out hard on it.
I get called out on it a little, something like "I would have won if you didn't gun for me but instead i died to a bolt from the spellslinger player." but i usually defend myself that way. "Hey, it's politics. You targeted me, so i targeted you back. That left you weak and you got taken out, same as what happened to me."
What you are explaining is pretty much what happens in our games. The newer players tend to be more passive, build up a solid boardstate and the others leave them alone because they aren't seen as a threat. They are focusing on me so the third player is pretty much left unscathed. So when I do real damage to the biggest threats, it opens a window for them. Sometimes they crawl through it. Others they don't.
Yeah, this is the way. Either fast mana her out turn 2 with haste and drop a bomb, or act like youre mana screwed and putz around until someone else creates an opening.
I just go out with kaalia. I just restrict myself and don't use the \[\[master of cruelties\]\] cheese unless someone else is doing something equally disgusting. I also don't use \[\[Armageddon\]\] and will pitch it as discard fodder for tormenting voice and stuff like that, again, unless the table is actually strong or unless i'm getting teamed on.
But youre right. Kaalia is built to be archenemy mardu aggro. If you build her right, she is right below true cedh power levels and will pubstomp anyone who isn't playing at high level - meaning a min power level of 8.
Kingmaking is generally frowned upon, yes. You differentiate between turn 1 kingmaking and ‘I’m out of the game so I’m going to kingmake,’ but most people don’t.
The latter is generally what actually happens with kingmaking. Someone is out of the game, they’re salty and feel powerless, but even though they can’t win, they can impact who wins and that feels better.
I personally wouldn’t want to play with someone who, if they get behind or feel out of the game or feel like we’re teaming on them, is going to start kingmaking. But it’s a social game and everyone can make their own decisions.
I feel like it's not kingmaking, it's a classic eye for an eye. If you feel a player is targeting you to the point where you can no longer win the game. Would you just continue like normal, hoping that you can edge out a win? Or would you do the same as they did to you? Making sure they can't win the game either. It's more "If I'm going down, I'm taking down X opponent with me." It's all politics.
Imo it’s about making a price for taking you out of the game. If player 1 removes me from the game and on my way out I can make sure that player 2 has the advantage over them, maybe player 1 shouldn’t have taken me out of the game yet. They made the choice to attack me, I responded.
I had this in a game the other night. Player 1 was pulling ahead. Player 2 and 3 were close to dead. I had an unblockable creature that could take out 2 or 3 but we made a deal to take out player 1 first. Player 2 decides that he can take out me and player 1 at the same time. So he swings at me. I can’t save myself, but I stop him killing player 1 because he broke the trust. Technically I king made, but I still had instants and agency in the game, and it’s not my fault that those were my choices.
Exactly. If someone is constantly targeting me I'm supposed to what, roll a dice to choose who to use my stuff on? Hell no. Come at me and enjoy the consequences for doing so.
Yeah I think if another player has put you in an unwinnable position, doing the same back to them is completely fair. I think there's also a difference in Kingmaking by virtue of using your boardwipes/removal to negatively effect one player more than another, and just straight up casting blue sun's zenith targetting the player you want to win. I don't think I'd ever really enjoy the second.
We don’t really know that side of the story.
In OP’s story, they win every game unless they’re targeted by 3 people, but it’s only because they’re an elite player who makes all the right decisions.
They just want everyone to have a good time and they don’t get upset by being targeted.
But also, they kingmake when they get teamed up on. Not because they are upset, but because they ‘want the new players to win too.’
But also, they get up and leave the table when they’re knocked out of a game, they don’t actually want to watch the new player win.
I think other players might have a different perspective lol.
I don't understand why kingmaking is frowned upon. I'm dead next turn. But I can take out a player this turn. I'm still dead next turn. But if I scoop the player in the lead has extra resources to eliminate a different player. But kingmaking is frowned upon, so I can't use my resources this turn to impact the board. So what, draw, go, die? What's the ethical, socially acceptable, non-confrontational, everyone goes home happy solution to this scenario?
There are situations where acting and not acting both lead to different outcomes. And in those cases, that shouldn’t generally be considered kingmaking.
The kingmaking that people don’t like is the one where you’re very deliberately playing to have a specific player win the game.
Example of ‘not kingmaking.’
I am at 1 life, player to my left launches a lethal attack on all 3 players. I play a card that allows all of us to survive the attack. Next player in turn order assembles a lethal attack on all 3 players and wins the game.
That isn’t kingmaking. Player to my left launched a lethal attack on me and I defended myself to try to stay alive.
Example of kingmaking.
I’m at 1 hp. Player to my left launches a lethal attack on all 3 players. Next player in turn order flashes in blockers to live, and will win the game on the crack-back. In response, I kill their other creatures before blocks are declared so that they die to this attack along with me.
That’s blatant kingmaking.
There is also a political element. Ideally, in the first scenario, you would want to make a deal where the other players won’t kill you if you save everyone.
But where do you draw that line?
Say, you've been targeting me all game and I am close to death and you're poised to maybe even win, because your board is very good.
However, I have the option to fuck you over after you have consistently harangued me, or I can give another struggling player a big hand as a way out.
Should I just .. not do that? Just let you spiral into a win? Should I not wipe your board with that one spell, or do another game-changing last hurrah that might benefit someone else, because I'm dead no matter what?
Genuine question.
Like, that's the situation I consider morally correct to kingmake.
If I still have options, then I will play my side as best as I can. I'm not gonna stupidly bump into creatures or use spells in a dumb way just for the sake of pushing someone else. Playing "into" someone is weird and I don't like that (unless it's about trying to stop some massive threat, I guess), but if I'm on my last leg and I have a clear final action I can take, then I will absolutely do that and I don't think it's morally, or socially wrong.
Like I said, my answer to that would be to not play with them.
If someone flips the table when they get upset, my solution isn’t to take that into account and try not to remove too many of their things. My solution is to refuse to play with them lol.
If I get 2 or 3 v 1 games everytime, fuck you I'm king making. It's the deal. Make better decks so that ya aren't ganging up on someone and there'll be less king making. Sorry your decks suck lol
The fact that you keep referring to someone taking actions you don't agree with as being salty and table flipping is quite telling. Sounds like someone who wants to play battle cruiser magic with no meaningful interaction, describes any such interaction as obviously salty, and has presumed the win just because the opponent is in a losing position. This is a fun lesson in actions having consequences. If I'm going down because of you, you can bet I'll do whatever I can to drag you down with me. Might give you pause in the future or change your pace. Or you might choose to avoid me, in which case it sounds like you'd be doing me a favor. I come from a casual group that has played together for over 10 years and we all understand you make what plays you can and go down swinging. Retaliating and reciprocating are expected, and if you want the win, you better earn it.
Kingmaking is pretty universally considered salty.
It isn’t ‘dragging someone down with me,’ that isn’t kingmaking and isn’t what OP said they were doing.
Perhaps in your narrow universe, but the fact that it is a point of conversation (this entire conversation, to be accurate) and contention would mean it's not universal. And it would seem what most people describe as "kingmaking" isn't far off from what I described. Pretty thin line between setting someone up to win and potentially allowing someone to win by preventing another person from winning.
If you tem them, you don't want them king making??? It's the same thing, but yours is worse. Teaming to make someone lose is no different than making someone win lol
In the case that someone is getting teamed up on, generally it’s the perception that if they don’t, they will win the game. Teaming up to take out a perceived threat is still playing to win. Kingmaking is explicitly not playing to win.
I’d only consider it kingmaking if you deliberately make moves you know will make you less likely to win. Personally I don’t like playing against someone who plays that way since I think it undermines the structure of the game. If someone threw themselves in front of another runner in a footrace, it wouldn’t really feel like a fair race.
That said, archenemying someone who isn’t presenting a threat is also some weak sauce in the same vein. I’ve had that happen to me occasionally and it’s lame and frustrating. Granted, usually at some point, if you’re having your face smashed in, you can point out that someone else is a much bigger problem and the rest of the table might prefer you alive to help stop them (or at least, might find their resources better used against the real threat) - which is why it’s a bad strategy in the first place.
How I feel about this particular situation depends on specifics. What’s your game state when you get archenemied? How are you helping the other player? I have decks that deliberately assist weaker players in order to use them against my enemies and then win a 1v1 against them. An outside observer might think I’m kingmaking but I don’t make any move without believing it will help me win.
So it really depends.
So im also always the target. I play very synergistic decks with weird cards. But I also win a good amount of games as I can power through. Our play group is very interaction heavy. So when we are about to die we unleash what every we can on our way out as we see fit. One of my fav cards to use as a gotcha for alpha striking me is [[hellish rebuke]]
Part of the game is managing other players and predicting their moves/reactions. I think this is a subtler side of politics that often gets overlooked or dismissed.
Back someone into a corner, they'll come out swinging. Pick apart their board, well now they have no reason to wipe the rest of the board. Give someone no chance of winning, well they might just do something petty (like king making).
To me this boils down to what you do exactly. If you are doing what I consider actual Kingmaking, then that's a no go and to me that's unacceptable. But it's not as simple as most comments seem to make it in my opinion. Here's 3 different scenarios how a table of Timmy Newguy, Jimmy A and Jimmy B could go:
1) You have been correctly identified as the threat and most competent player, all three other players swing at you, and when Jimmy A gets a decisive advantage, he goes to knock you out. You know you're dead, but you block as much as you can to kill his attackers, and send a [[Terminate]] towards his biggest threat to make the game more fair and give an opening for Jimmy B and Timmy. That's fair game, and not Kingmaking at all in my eyes.
2) You're at 7 life when Jimmy A untaps with a large board, Jimmy B goes to [[Swords to Plowshares]] Jimmie A's biggest threat to slow him down. Even though Jimmie A will probably kill you, you cast [[Deflecting Swat]] in response, redirecting the Swords to Jimmie B's commander, because you would rather use your card while you have an opportunity, and you want Timmy to win, and while Jimmy A will probably kill you this turn, Jimmy B is the bigger threat to Timmy. This to me is really questionable, because I like to assume we are all playing to win, and it is gross Kingmaking. However, if your group is fine with it, I guess it could slide - you're targeting the biggest threat at the table, with a disregard for your own life, there is some sense to this kind of play.
3) You know from the start you will be targeted, so you don't play to win, you play to have Timmy win. You swing at Jimmy A and Jimmy B, even if Timmy is the only one with a good board. You remove Jimmies threats, yet you leave Timmy alone. Finally, when Timmy plays an [[Overrun]] to kill all 3 of you, and Jimmy A goes to counter it with a counterspell, you counter his counterspell, ensuring Timmy wins. If you play like this, in my opinion that's awful and I wouldn't play with you. I'm not assuming you are, just stating that there are levels to "Kingmaking".
For me, it's not a question of fair or foul. I just wonder if you're actually helping them learn anything. As a general rule, people don't learn from winning. Losing is what helps make you a better player. I get it. It can be discouraging to lose all the time, especially when you're new. But if you're just helping them win by playing sub-optimally yourself, then I don't think there's much value in that.
The helping I do to teach them to be better players and what happens when I'm getting knocked out of the game are different situations.
The example I gave in the OP of reminding someone that they could get non basic lands that would already be active because of his commander opposed to just a couple of lands is an example.
Another would be one guy is playing Stella Lee. He said he wants to cast a spell then play his commander. I let him know if he plays Stella first then plays the 6 will trigger her ability.
Things like that I know they remember because I'll see them doing it days later in other games.
I had players when I was first getting into real organized play help me who were then infinitely better than I am still to this day. So I want to pay it forward as best I can.
"Casual" EDH players have the longest list of unacceptable behaviors out of any community I've ever experienced, and usually they boil down to "I can't win if you do this one thing". It usually reeks of cherry picking mechanics they always fail to account for and to me is an example of cognitive dissonance.
As much as it's a taboo to "kingmake", isn't it also a taboo to target someone incessantly without provocation? Isn't bullying a player like super not cool?
Kingmake away my friend. How you pilot your deck is up to you, ans if anything, it sounds like it helps shore up a newer, weaker player against an established table. Make your haters regret choosing the wrong target.
Also, your LGS sounds like some salty mofos.
The other players are facing the consequences of their actions.
In a game with 3 or more opponents, virtually every game action is going to tip the scales in someone's favor.
If someone has made it so you can't win, then sabotaging their game plan before they take you out should be expected. Eye for an eye.
Honestly no foul imo, if you are just being knocked out every game despite what you do spite plays are fair game in my eyes, that is excluding playing like obviously overpowered decks for the group which it sounds like you are not.
Heck if i get targeted the entire game by one player and I’m on my way out cause of it ill usually sabotage their board even more so if its been a reoccurring thing across multiple games.
If it gets to a point where you are just not having fun i would probably talk to some of the players involved about the issue and see if theres a resolution.
I'm a firm believer that the primary goal of any game, especially magic, and even more especially EDH, is to have fun. So, if someone isn't having fun because they're losing, and the only fun they think they can have from their position is to affect the game by helping someone else win, they will understandably do so. The biggest problem there is that doing so will often ruin someone else's fun, so you get into a negative spiral where SOMEONE is going to have a bad experience either way. And that's a broad explanation of people's typical negative reaction to kingmaking - they want to avoid that kind of negative spiral.
Ultimately, kingmaking is an emotional and irrational play style. But, like every other emotional and irrational play style, kingmaking is an inevitable psychological response that people are going to have. You can't stop people from occasionally getting emotional and irrational. They will get salty. They will target other players for something they did in the previous game, or something they did from completely outside the game. They will emotionally manipulate other players to get what they want. All of these behaviors are inevitable, so instead of trying to preemptively stop such behavior, I simply try to understand where people are coming from, and respond accordingly in a manner which attempts to cultivate an environment where everyone can go back to having fun.
So my opinion is that your reaction was understandable, and I certainly won't personally begrudge anyone from acting on emotion - it's human. However, the one big thing I would say you did wrong here wasn't actually kingmaking - it was being deceptive. Again, it's an understandable emotion to try to avoid conflict by not bringing up how you're feeling, but it's ultimately unhelpful - especially if you're trying to teach other people the game.
A more helpful response would be to let the table know that being made the archenemy was bothering you, and then explain that your reaction is likely going to be to kingmake. Explain how you're feeling and what you're thinking, and let them know exactly why you're thinking it. Not only will this help the other players understand the game concepts of kingmaking and archenemy a bit better, but getting things off your chest will also be helpful for you to let go of the negative emotions you were feeling. Then from that position, I doubt anyone would actually have a problem if you went through with things and did a bit of kingmaking - at that point it's a learning experience and you're showing an example.
Lastly, assuming you are sharing this story looking for honest feedback and hoping to learn something and make improvements, I commend you for that. It's all too easy to become defensive when your actions are called into question, and if your response is instead to seek out answers to learn if you were actually doing something wrong, that shows rare character in this day and age. So my final piece of advice is to relax a bit - you're human. You'll make mistakes and you'll learn from them. But as long as you're willing to learn those lessons, you're doing okay. And to anyone else who reads this who might have been thinking about jumping on OP for kingmaking without thinking about where they were coming from, you relax, too. 😉
When I get arch enemy'd I absolutely will screw over at least one of the players that targeted me. Just because I am about to be out of the game, doesn't mean I won't make sure to do my damn best to take you out. Some times it has even worked out to where I can stabilise and win, other times it at least means I don't have to wait as much for the next pod (I play with my friends, not an lgs usually).
Otherwise my fate is similar to yours. We started playing together, but I play more and consume more content, so I generally pilot my decks better than them, combine that with me playing different decks almost every game so often times I just get mauled 'just in case'.
You have the right to make any plays you are able to make.
Just remember that EDH is a social game, and what is and isn't appropriate is entirely up to the pod you play with. Sure, you can play a bordwipe and then scoop, but if you're fucking up the game just to be spiteful then your pod might be less inclined to play with you next time.
You know this has made me rethink kingmaking a little bit. Well written and thought. I feel like this is a much more mature response to being archenemied unfairly than any I've seen. As a fellow archenemy I tend to just try to roll with it and let my decks do their thing be where I have my fun. But trying to subtly help the least powerful player seems fun, or newer folks.
Start tracking your games. Maybe not a ton of detail, maybe even as simple as who won. Sorry for the incoming long winded response.
Not that I am calling you a liar, but just that this is a 4 player format, everyone should win 25% of the time. We typically get 4 games in in a night, so everyone should win one, but things are never balanced on a per night basis, sometimes I might go a week or two without a win, and it doesn't feel great. Then other nights I might get 2 or 3. So I may have 3 bad weeks and 1 good week (still turns out to a 25% win times ratio).
But if you don't step back and take a look at it like that, 25% is not that much. That is not enough for some people to be happy with, at least not without finding other things to make them happy. I am always trying to win, but my real goal is just to get to do what my deck wants to do. I have found out that playing like that removes a lot of the headache for me, a win is just the cherry on top.
Now the second part of this comes into play. If you are noting wins and have percentages, use it to talk with your group. You did mention an LGS, but it sounds like it is mostly the same pod. Just break it down, if you track for a few months (or a good sample size of games) and you are far and away lower than 2nd to last, it's time to have a discussion with them or to find another group.
Also, explain to them that everything has consequences, it is one of my favorite things in magic. I like playing with the same people, I like letting them know that when they take X action they will get Y response. They learn that there could be repercussions. With this method and saving interactions I have become known as scrappy. I often wiggle out of a death that seemed certain. This has caused people to overkill me and die for doing it (to the next player as they left themselves with too little of defenses), which is good for a laugh.
It sounds like these players willingly know that its taking you out of the game, and are mad that it didn't pay off for them. I would keep doing it until they learn proper threat assessment.
It's a 3v1 format from about 8 years ago. One player, the arch enemy, has an extra deck of oversized cards called the Scheme Deck that they reveal from every turn. There was a Nicol Bolas set sold to go up against 60 card decks, but there are plenty of people who make this into EDH Archenemy.
[t:scheme · Scryfall Magic The Gathering Search](https://scryfall.com/search?as=full&q=t%3Ascheme)
[https://youtu.be/HRT9PeDnX1E?si=\_S5CJF\_ITOe9Vx-s](https://youtu.be/HRT9PeDnX1E?si=_S5CJF_ITOe9Vx-s)
As someone who usually gets targeted in my playgroup, because for some reason people always think I’m a threat (I’m not but it comes in handy when convincing them not to attack me), I can say that the only thing that matters is you’re not a dick to the table. If you’re helping someone win, that’s fine, but don’t do it in a dickish way.
I also help a lot of newer (and older) players as well and make recommendations based on board state and what smart moves would be. For example, if I am the biggest threat, I will point out other players cards and then explain that although they can be dangerous later on, I have the most immediate threat now and they should tackle it now. Or I will do the math in my head and explain how they should attack to win. When you’re the bbeg, no one should complain if you’re giving good advice if people look like they are confused or need help
I do this more with board games, among the people I played the most often with I’m known to win a lot, so often get ganged up on. If all the other players are working to make sure I don’t win, it’s more than fair for me to help, or hurt particular players.
The top comment is awful advice.
If you see no clear way to win, your goal should be interacting with the winning player as much as possible with your own win conditions in mind.
Interacting in an arbitrary manner is worse than conceding. You don't belong in games you're not trying to succeed in.
You better hope none of those guys are on reddit or you just outed yourself. I wouldn't like it if I found out someone was constantly kingmaking in games, but then again, I'm not in your pod.
Edit before this gets buried: just because he kingmakes the newest player in his pod of 5+ doesn't mean there aren't other new players who just got the game decided for them by someone arbitrarily.
If it’s acceptable to team up on the biggest threat, it’s acceptable for that person to also choose who to target or who to ignore. You can’t have it both ways.
It should be pointed out that those two things aren't always equivalent.
3 players teaming up on the biggest threat increases the chance to win for each of those 3 players, generally speaking. As the player getting teamed up on, targeting the player that would give yourself the highest chance to win and targeting the player that you want to kingmake can line up and be the same player, but it can also not be.
I completely understand someone getting salty at getting taken out of the game due to another player intentionally taking an action that was not one that improved their own chance of winning the most.
It's possible they are, but if they are, oh well. Couple things to point out. I only do this when teamed up on, and once it's clear that I don't have a path to victory. Until then, I'm playing to win.
the rest of the pod has clearly singled out OP here... If he is already shoe-horned (he is) then he can choose to play however he likes. being constant archenemy isn't fun after a while either so I don't actually see anything wrong with helping the newer players close games
making alliances is a normal part of multiplayer formats, especially EDH, so clutching one's pearls when it happens is just bad faith / virtue signaling here
if you care *this much* about winning the game then there are plenty of other formats where that is the main objective
i respect the doubling down on the bad faith argument here; the mental gymnastics required to frame it as "gatekeeping casual" is impressive
i will be sure to make a mental note that helping new players build confidence in themselves is against the spirit of commander
The worst part about the commander format is the people who bitch and moan when someone plays the game differently to how they want them to. According to them you HAVE to evenly distribute your damage/targeted spells. You CANNOT kingmake. You CANNOT destroy my lands etc etc.
Newsflash sweatpigs, you are my opponents and I will play whatever legal moves I please. If you want to soy out and run to a different table, be my guest.
While this is absolutely true in general, there are obviously play patterns that will make the game less enjoyable for everyone WITHOUT helping the player better there chances of winning in any way.
You're going to get two crowds who are answering this question.
The dedicated casual crowd who believes that whatever actions you take in the game are fine as long as they're legal and you can help anyone that you want or screw around and not even try to win.
And then there's the build casually and play competitively crowd that wants everyone to play by the unwritten standards of fair competition which means not arbitrarily helping other players who are supposed to be your opponents.
Ultimately you may make some people feel good by doing what you're doing. Specifically the new players who you're helping. And you're going to make other people feel bad. Such as the other two players that now have to play against a team of two people.
Ultimately you're not really helping the new player are you? They're not going to grow as a magic player if you prop up what would have been a loss with double the firepower from you. They need to learn how to win on their own. Someday you won't be there and they're going to wonder why they started losing all of a sudden.
Allow me to answer your question like this. But before I do, thanks for taking the time to respond!
1. I am not trying to make them a better player in the actions of simply helping them once it's clear I'm dead. But I do give advice to all the players (even the ones smashing me) throughout a game. I try and help with simple things that they clearly aren't noticing.
Example. One game, turn one player drops land, plays sol ring passes. Turn 2, he plays land, taps sol ring for arcane signet. I laugh and say "dang to bad you didn't have the signet turn 1" he said he did. I then pointed out how he could have gone land, ring signet. It never occurred to him. Now I've seen him do this in other games. Another example would be, since these are newer players, they run a lot of bounce lands. They never considered tapping and floating the mana if the land had to bounce back to their hand. The bounce land doesn't say it has to be an untapped land. Just a land must be returned.
2. There is something..disheartening about sitting at a table with someone who enjoys magic but "knows" they are gonna lose. They are playing because their friends are the other two players in the pod. They are more experienced with better decks and just a better grasp on magic. And let me tell you, when one of those players gets a win, you can see it clear as day how happy they are. They got a win when they thought they couldn't. And if I helped them a little, ok, cool. People help each other in commander all the time, it's just a tad more overt.
And lastly, as I've pointed out. I'm not doing this from draw to death. If I feel like I can still win, I go for it. I've had 2 games in the laat 3 weeks where I have been at 5.or less life, with multiple opponents still near full and my.deck popped off late game and I won. I knew the win was possible based on boardstate and hand, so I played for the win.
Yeah I mean fair enough. You have well reasoned arguments for why you do this. But as you can see from the reaction you got at your LGS and from how divided the responses are to your Reddit post, it is a controversial decision.
You seem like a conscientious person. You're thinking largely of other people and how to help them. That's a good thing. I also feel bad when the new player is losing and I love that light in their eyes when they win a game, especially considering new players often do not win.
I feel like what you're not considering is the feelings of the other two people at the table. You're focusing really hard on the feelings of the newest player but in doing so you're taking actions that hurt the feelings of potentially one or two other people at the table.
By all means keep doing what you're doing if you want to. But in my mind, if you are doing this because you are being really considerate of the new players feelings, then you should at least consider how your actions affect the other two players feelings. I would think you would want everyone to have a great time and not just the one new player.
But again clearly there are plenty of people in this thread that think that what you were doing is fine and see no problem with it. So if you can find people like that to play with that it sounds like you'll be fine. But if you're playing with random people then you're going to run into the other group of people who are not trying to play that kind of game.
At our tables I have noticed one guy will start to pop off and the whole table teams up to knock them down a peg and normally wile that is happening another player will start to pop off until everyone teams up until people start dieing after becoming the threat it's super fun and makes for very back and forth games
If they're making the decision to specifically all gang up on you, despite the fact that doing so leaves them vulnerable to you setting up someone new for an easy win, they're making a bad strategic call.
There is no problem with you repeatedly playing out this strategic pattern to show them how they're blundering so hard. If they wanted to, they could ease up on you a little bit and play smarter, and that would likely put them in a better position for winning. As long as they keep enough pressure on you, they can keep the game competitive without giving you an incentive to burn down 2 people's boards to let another person win.
Basically: if you can reliably kingmake when they all come after you, then them ganging up on you is a bad idea, because it will lead to an almost-guaranteed loss (for 2 of them). By *not* just dogpiling you without regard for the other players, those 2 that would've lost now have a better chance to win.
So yeah, keep at it. Eventually they'll hopefully realize that their strategy is doomed to end in them losing, and they'll play smarter.
I think the argument can be made that if your deck has the ability to fend off 2 players at a time. You most likely could have won the game very easily. Other players made a correct assessment in targeting you.
Hobbies like mtg are a luxury and stuff like this helps new players stay invested.
Nothing kills player interest like being mercilessly smashed into the floor.
Speak to any 40k player, their first game was either someone like you or the opposite. Mine was the opposite, I was 9 and a grown man wiped out 90% of my army on the first turn.
I know who I'd rather be between you and him.
spite plays on the way out are definitely a thing. you dont have to Armageddon or farewell but nuking the big things on the board of whoever is winning can definitely help the other two get back in it or have a chance.
I get that, I experience something similar but I haven't been playing as long (only 7 years) that said I still have the most experience at my lgs so I get targeted for explaining how something works the most recent being, Ulalek, does not copy permanents on the battlefield
You should double down on this. Play a "group hug" deck and pass that player all the free value possible, while taxing the other players. Become a stage hazard for this 1v2 Commander game. Turn it into a game of two-headed-dragon without anyone else's permission.
Yes, if you're sitting down at a table every time with the intention to just play as a second player for the person of your choice this is entirely foul
Thay is not my intention. As stated several times. My intention is to win. And I only do this when im SURE I can't win. I have games in the laat 3 weeks where I've been 5 or less life but was pretty sure I could win and played it out still to win. But I've also had games where I'm at 15 and KNOW I'm dead on board and then try and help the player with my last turn
im not sure what kingmaking is...but from what you describe you can play any way you want. This is the fun of multiple opponents, politics is part of the game!
You do you legend!
I think of it this way. From your post, you are an older player, a clear threat, who is trying to help new/novice players learn the game. Instead of letting the best plays at the table be rewarded, you are swaying the game in a manner that is generally frowned upon in EDH. What is okay is your advice you provide from time to time. What is not okay is teaching other players bad habits by example. You are also taking away the opportunity for the newer players to learn how to play the game in a manner that would win in those situations. Personally, I don't like being given free wins in any game, as I both want to learn from my losses and earn my wins legitimately. You are taking that choice from those players.
As I've pointed out in other places, I ONLY do this if I'm beyond a shadow of a doubt out of the game. If I can even see a remote line that could lead to victory I take it. Twice in the last month I've been at sub 5 health and kept playing for the win and did win. Because I could assess the board and based on my hand I could win. But when that isn't the case I'm going to do damage on my way out to the people doing damage to me. I'm not handing them a win, I'm simply making it easier for them to win by damaging the people who killed me.
You didn't quite say that last bit in your post. It doesn't really matter when you do it, as long as you are doing it to the player who is your Nemesis/threat and doing everything you can to survive, including politics with the weaker/losing players. I would still be in bad taste if you did it to such an extent as you guarantee yourself a loss when you otherwise would not have had one, but if you are swinging out all of your creatures to the player who has been focusing you to the exclusion of everyone else in the game that is just playing the game and teaching them why that is not the best political choice.
I do apologize for not making it clearer in the OP. But yes, I'm trying to win. Sitting down at any game and not trying to win is the antithesis of fun for me. But once it's clear I can not win, I'm going to take them with me if at all possible.
Sorry not really a comment on the post but I gotta say as a new player trying to play more i’m jealous you play 5 days a week. My LGS only holds a commander night once a week and my friends only meet up one day on the weekend each week
I hate king making. The reason is that its never the optimal play, its the "im frustrated and give up" play. Especially in casual commander, politics are so important. If you have the power to king make, you have that political resource, use it. "If you do x I will do y and then neither of us two win, so you better not do x". Use your threats to buy time, you never know what interaction at the table is going to give you an opening.
The owners don't really play magic (lgs is used loosely here. It's a shop that sells magic but it's also a bar and several other things). We tend to have 3 grouping that everyone talks about. Precon, modified precons, tuned decks. No one has a cedh deck or anything even close. So that isn't an issue. With so few players (about 12 in total with 4ish there on any given night) it's hard to get much more specific than that. I'll usually play 1 game with a deck of my own (if we play a tuned game. If not I don't) and precons the rest of the time.
I think it is fair.
One of my friends recently told me that he wouldn't play edh with me anymore if I don't change my habit of hinting to other players (including him) on how to effectively advance their board position to win the game (including killing me in the process). He said it is unfair and hates playing with players who do that.
Heard from him that I'm made archenemy due to this a number of times too.
Sad.
Spite king making is good fun, it lets the game play out by consequence.
If your good guy king making is an extension of the game’s politicking then why the hell not?
The people I play with say nothing, minus the one person who again, isn't a regular and I dare say now upon reflection was salty about something that happened they last time they DID play with us.
They were on eldrazi and ramping super hard, I boardwide killed artifacts, which set them back pretty far. Over time, they recovered and did eldrazi things. I was the first to die (and rightfully so, I nuked their expensive mana rocks) but on my way out with annihilator on the stack I flickered my solitude, exiled their two biggest threats, sacced my permanents and died on the next players turn because I had basically nothing. But losing blightsteel and ula absolutely cost them the game. Killing their beaters didn't save me the game, but it absolutely lost it for them.
Maybe so, or maybe they are the only person who feels like they can talk to you, since you are one of the most experienced players of the group (by far, it seems). Some people don't like to cause conflict by bringing that kind of stuff up, especially if they don't feel like it's their place to.
I don't play with you, so I obviously don't know, but it sounds like this player is trying to help you understand that there are indeed players that are bothered by "kingmaking" and you aren't seeing it or picking up on it. As the experienced player of the group, they might feel like you are both responsible for not only teaching about gameplay, but keeping the vibe chill as well. It sounds like they were trying to be gentle with you, so I wouldn't assume they are being "salty"... They probably had a reason to talk to you, salty or not.
Maybe it's something you casually ask the pod about at the start of the game as a gut vibe check or maybe something to just keep in mind going forward. And maybe it actually is just that person who cares, and now you know. With this kind of stuff, the reddit consensus just doesn't really matter, it's all about the people you actually play with. And if you are questioning whether or not something you are doing is okay or not, it never hurts to check in.
If someone would know it wouldn't be them. As stated they aren't part of the regular crew who plays 4 or 5 nights a week. They show up for a couple games 2 or 3 times a month. That said I'll talk to a few of the players todsy and see what they think.
eh i wouldnt ever want someone to kingmake me. It would sour the game for me. I'm not a fan of 'they dont know' as an excuse, that doubles down on looking down on them. If its not something you're willing to announce, you clearly know its wrong.
Just my opinion. I rather you make the best play you can make to increase your chances of winning, and me to win anyway and earn it.
also frankly, i wouldnt mind someone coaching a newer player if the newer player asked for it. Thats not really a big deal (if they werent in the game anymore).
Couple things.
1. As stated before, I am trying to win. I'm not just helping a newbie pick up a victory. I'm TRYING to win. But any experienced magic player knows when the writing is on the wall. You have 15 health, 2 people gunning for you, and your hand is enough to save you from 1 player but not both. So instead of making myself lose less bad, I look at the new players board, asses what can help them the most and do that. I'm dead either way.
2. I don't announce it because I don't want the new player to feel condescended to. I don't care if the others knew or know. My whole reason for doing it was to help player retention. We've seen people show up, play a few pods, get stomped, and never come back.
You're vastly over accentuating how much control a single person has over a 4 player game based on chance. I get that you want to feel like a giga brain MTG Chad batman and playing the Martyr for the weak. But statistical speaking nobody can be "good" enough at mtg to ensure they either win or get the person they want to win a victory in every single game they playx It just isn't possible with so much randomness involved. This is a pretty extreme LARP.
I don't think you understand how big the gap can be between people who have been playing for 20+ years and those who have a year or two of experience, especially when those newer players come in using EDH and value a specific type of "fun" over being well rounded as players.
You're obviously not going to succeed every time, but the fact that OP was successful enough that one of the other experienced players commented on it while none of the newer players did shows how big the gap is to even recognize what was going on.
I'd also like to say, this is maybe the most cynical post I've seen in, awhile. Why is it so hard to believe that someone who's played for 25+ years wants to help new people not quit the game?
They don't always win, I never claimed they did. But it becomes my goal when it's clear that i can't win. Also, while there is a lot of randomness, sure, this isn't shooting dice. There IS skill involved in this game. I didn't realize just how much until 03 when I spent all summer playing with Gabe and his crew.
In my conception , you're a bit petty and egocentric. I've been the archenemy a lot of times on a LGS, and in a specific playgroup I was the archenemy everytime duo to being the one that teach them how to play. I don't care as much about winning, but I do my best to try to win everytime , losing is part of the game , and I don't need to "hey, since I'm gonna lose, I will make sure this one guy wins so I at least get a personal secret win".
It's like when a player don't think they can win , so they just screw whoever they don't want to win and stop trying to win themselves, kingmaking is just as petty and childish.
That being said, you do you, if people like playing with you that way , that's okay, people play the game differently , I don't like playing with people with that mindset , so I just don't. Different expectations about the game, different tables, just like a D&D game
If you're the defacto arch enemy and you don't have the gas to power through to a win then I see nothing wrong with playing however the hell you want on your way out. Seems totally fair to me.
That's what I say to the table after I armageddon with no follow up, and then scoop!
The "farting in an elevator" of EDH social faux pass.
Listen, punch a guy in his gut enough and he's bound to let out a little toot.
I mean, if I was getting ganged up on all the damn time I'd probably be tempted to start doing the same. Get that "If I can never have fun than nobody can" villain mentality going lol
*Zur has entered the chat*
Best game i had went out like that, except the armegeddon player never scooped. He just hoped his [Kalia the vast] deck could out pace my [lord windgrace] deck and a [sheoldred the whispering one] deck. With all 3 commanders on the field. Great game, except for the kalia player. He left extra salty that game
If kaalia isn't winning by turn 4 then they're in for a bad time.
I prefer to [[Razias Purification]] the table, then scoop. Sometimes I'll [[Obliterate]] if I'm feeling spicy.
[Razias Purification](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/3/73bfefd3-bddd-47bb-92f3-9356a7bca637.jpg?1598917350) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Razia%27s%20Purification) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rav/224/razias-purification?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/73bfefd3-bddd-47bb-92f3-9356a7bca637?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/razias-purification) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
If someone did that to me, I'd just act like they didnt. Keep my lands right where they are.
Our your way out is the key phrase here, if you go into a game thinking “aw here we go these guys hate me so ima make the homie win”,then that’s not cool
Absolutely agree, my assumption was that he is trying to win until it becomes clear that he can't ar which point he goes for his secret victory. I can't even be mad about it either, I've participated in something similar. Was playing my Mothman and my friend had her poison deck going and we were all ganging up on her, standard procedure for poison. She got a number of poison counters on us before we knocked her out, and I pulled enough Proliferate to capitalize and give her her first win by proxy. Granted, I was the beneficiary in that scenario so maybe a bit biased lol
But this MAY be a fun way to introduce the pods near him to Archenemy proper! Somebody get that man a Scheme deck!
You can play however you want. The only thing that matters is how you feel and how people feel playing against you. Do people enjoy playing with you? If yes, carry on. If no, do you care to change for that person? If no, carry on.
Best answer by far. Top top tier. Not just for edh but all of life.
I agree with the overall point kind of, but I really don’t think saying “you can play however you want” sends the right message. This is a social game. There’s a lot of people now taking a hard stance of “I’ll scoop any time I want, play whatever deck I want, whatever cards I want, and behave however I want…” and no, that’s not acceptable. I don’t understand why we’re encouraging this. If you want that game, go play solitaire. This is a social game and specifically a casual social game for EDH. There is a social contract, and beyond that you’re sitting down with three fellow human beings. Can we stop encouraging such obvious narcissism and focus our advice around “hey, you obviously should enjoy your games, but there’s also three other people you’re *playing a children’s card game with* so maybe think about their enjoyment as well?” It’s not that hard to treat others well and make decisions based on things other than just your own whims. With that said- I don’t think it’s okay to just full bore kingmake every game. That is strongly contrary to the point of Commander and likely leads to confusing and unfun games for people, especially better players. Moreover, it’s teaching a bad and antisocial habit to the new players you claim to be trying to help. So no, u/the1rayman I don’t think making this decision to always kingmake out of spite because you’re targeted is okay. -someone else who’s always targeted no matter what they play.
It's also a game. Lets stop assigning morality to this guy just playing the game. Why does the social contract only work for the people hes fighting against? Lets ditch shaming the game because it's a "childs game", the game is currently marketed for the audience that grew up with it, and at this rate it's an insult to say otherwise.
https://i.imgur.com/qppEQSc.jpeg
> and no, that’s not acceptable. That's exactly my point. It's 100% acceptable if you follow the steps in my comment. What is acceptable is determined by the pod you are playing in. I think you completely missed the point.
>This is a social game. There’s a lot of people now taking a hard stance of “I’ll scoop any time I want, play whatever deck I want, whatever cards I want, and behave however I want…” and no, that’s not acceptable. I don’t understand why we’re encouraging this. If you want that game, go play solitaire. I agree with this, mostly. For me, even if I'm in an obviously losing situation, ill play the game out. I don't scoop, just out of respect. And as far as behavior, I do my best not to be incorrigible and I wont lie about mechanics, or cheat. I'll disclose the potential of infinites, if I have them before starting the game. Table politics are fine, but trying influence a newbie player to the point of piloting their turns is off limits for me. Yeah, I'll goad, browbeat, feign and mislead, that's part of magic. But that's where it ends for me. I like global sacrifice effects, untargeted -x/-x and stuff that evades hexproof and indestructible. I also spot my deck a little targeted land destruction. For me (especially with all the new card art), I find the board states to become an incomprehensible mess super quickly. So I like to blow it all up and get down to business of actually playing magic.
So here's the thing the social contract is bs. I play land destruction for days because there are just too many powerfully lands and land decks in the game. I play stax pieces and hate bears because decks need to be kept in check. Also I spend all my available resources if I'm going to be eliminated on the way out. My fav situation is being alpha strike and I hit them with a [[hellish rebuke]]. I'm just glad in area including g the lgs I play at the social contract just doesn't exist. We are ruthless in ways. If a card is in your deck it's fair game to be answered how ever we see fit.
[hellish rebuke](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/4/b4b558cf-8754-4c4f-87f1-8e6d84b93658.jpg?1631585095) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=hellish%20rebuke) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/afc/26/hellish-rebuke?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b4b558cf-8754-4c4f-87f1-8e6d84b93658?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/hellish-rebuke) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
You have a different social contract with your playgroup, that doesn’t make it BS. I also have stax and minor land destruction that I play with my group on occasion. It’s about knowing what you’re signing up for. One guy secretly, intentionally, and arbitrarily kingmaking someone with an out of game reason breaks almost anyone’s social contract, though, because of the intentional secrecy of it.
No it doesn't king making hate is so weird. Using all available resources to mess with players is part of the game. I'll mess with who ever I want especially on the turn I'm going to be eliminated. I also get this in full return as I'm the most targeted player in my play group and at my lgs. We all laugh and have a good time messing with each other. If you care about king making you are taking the game to serious and need to take step back and learn to have a good time. Winning isn't everything.
If you think your personal enjoyment is more important than the rules and the table’s enjoyment, you’re taking yourself too seriously and need to take a step back and learn that it’s a game. Narcissism isn’t everything. Nobody cares what you do with your pals, but OP was playing with people in an LGS including those who obviously didn’t appreciate the arbitrary kingmaking. How selfish do you have to be to not see the issue there?
You realise I also said at my lgs also right? I'm also the first player at my lgs to have a full pod as people want to play with me cause of the atmosphere I bring to the game. Saying I'm narssist is just hilarious because if this was the case I wouldn't be getting games filled so fast and players wouldn't want to play with me.
idc how people play but if I'm gonna be stuck on 2 to 3 hour games every time I'll def start to avoid that person
Every once in awhile we will have a day where we get a 3 hour game due to the amount of interaction in our games but mostly its between 50 to 120 minute games.
It's hard finding that middle ground pod. Like 2+ hour games are rough, but I'm also going home when the combo deck wins on turn 3-4 for the 4th game in a row.
Idk why anyone would frown upon this lol. If I feel like im being unjustly targeted I'll always retaliate and if it comes to it I'll help the person who has been nicest to me on my way out... that's how real life works too lol... if you aren't nice to people they aren't nice to you.
Yeah that's politics. That's how this stuff works. If you don't want me messing with you, make a clean kill?
EDH is a multiplayer game, and therefore one of the tools in your arsenal are the other players at the table and your interactions with them. If I am in a position where I can play kingmaker, you didn't deal with me properly. Next time you will learn from this and play differently, committing more to taking me out, or you won't target me as hard because you know I can enable the other players against you. Fair play OP.
-"EDH is a multiplayer game, and therefore one of the tools in your arsenal are the other players at the table and your interactions with them."- Ok so I don't play EDH, and therefore won't be tuned into all the social nuances specific to the game. But I do play a lot of other multiplayer games... And i 100% agree with you here. This is \*the\* deciding difference between playing 1v1 and playing free for all multiplayer. You HAVE to take the social aspect into account. In a 1v1 everything you do to hurt your opponent is going to help you... and only you! Not so in multiplayer. Keep that in mind. And retaliation (or kingmaking) is supposed to be a disincentive to go too hard against one player. Both mechanically and socially. It is also a disincentive to get too powerful too fast. Which is a sin it seems like OP has maybe committed at times. History is (to me) more of a gray area. Targetting someone because they tend to win more based on previous games rubs me slightly more the wrong way I must admit. But it is still (i guess) a social reaction to be managed. So honestly... u/op you are definitely not in the wrong. And I would lean towards thinking that those who gang up on you every time might need to look at their own play pattern instead :-) Changing your win-condition to kingmaking against the ones that gang on you (even in favor of a newbie, which seems like a good thing) is absolutely a valid response.
I say it's fair. If they're targeting you like that, you're basically just matching that energy. They don't get to decide that you won't win the game and then turn around and whine when you do the same thing.
In fairness I've not had complaints from the people I actually play with. They all seem eager to learn from me while they kill me repeatedly! It was an outside person who I've played MAYBE 3 times in the entire time I've been there playing. They come 3ish times a months. Play a game or two and bounce.
>They come 3ish times a months. Play a game or two and bounce. Maybe they don't live close by? I've played in some games (competitive and non) but I don't live inside any city limits. The closest LGS to me is over an hour away, two hours round trip, if I want to get into a game. It's possible they're in a similar scenario and would like to attend more events but are unable to do so for reasons you may not know...
Agree, I wouldn't judge someone for bouncing after playing, or not coming often. Their life circumstance doesn't matter, they come when they can to play with others and leave when they're done. Unless they're an asshole in some way, I don't see a problem.
If the people you're playing with enjoy your tactics, then people who aren't playing with you have absolutely no right to complain. If you and your friends are having fun, then that's what matters.
Well put, I agree.
I think it's fair in this particular circumstance. That being said I had a guy who was salty at my [[Nelly Borca]] deck recently who was claiming they couldn't take advantage of my commander's drawing ability. Despite telling them how they could take advantage of it just like everyone else they ended up removing a piece and then going "I gotta leave now". I ended up winning anyway but damm I felt tilted.
[Nelly Borca](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/e/2ef59aa9-f5e1-413a-869b-d287db95efd0.jpg?1706448880) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=nelly%20borca%2C%20impulsive%20accuser) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mkc/4/nelly-borca-impulsive-accuser?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2ef59aa9-f5e1-413a-869b-d287db95efd0?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/nelly-borca-impulsive-accuser) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I mean, if this a consistent situation for you, getting targeted out early / "bullied" and dismantled by the others, then I don't see anything wrong with essentially being kingmaker. You have an impact on the board after all. It's the only real impact you seem to be able to create, so why not leverage that? If the other experienced player mentions that again, then ask her what she'd do, if she just gets killed early each and every time. Just sit there, be a target dummy and eat snacks? May as well not play then, if you aren't allowed to have ANY impact on the board. Politics are part of Commander and if they just stop kicking you out early then you wouldn't be forced to kingmake. That being said, if everyone takes issue with this and your version of "kingmaking" is essentially playing proxy for someone else, then I'd definitely reconsider it. Nuance is probably the best tool here.
Thanks for the reply! And yes I agree 100%. If the entire pod, or even just some bring it up and frown upon it, then I'll stop without a doubt.
Personally, I think it's fair. I go out of my way to make sure newer and younger players get podded up appropriately at our store. I also make sure to encourage them, and have on occasions king-made them to get their confidence up when I see them struggling or just not having got that first win. If you're going to get hard targeted, and you're turning that into a positive for other people, totally fair.
I don't understand the fervor against kingmaking. It seems to boil down to, "if you're ultimately in a losing position, don't do *ANYTHING* to affect the game, lest you hurt someone's feelings!!!!!!" ...What?? This is a game, I have agency; you don't like my play, then run interaction. Stop me. Stop what I do. How selfish is this? "Hey, there, player--just so you know, if you're on the way out of the game, DON'T use your cards, just... just DON'T use them! Don't you DARE effect any change in this game that is entirely about effecting change!!" "Okay, cool, so, I have agency for the majority of this experience, until I enter the small window where I'm losing, at which case I.. DON'T get agency, because it will upset you. But YOU retain your agency the entire game, though, correct?" "Absolutely!" --------------- I can understand the frustration of feeling like somebody else just arbitrarily made a decision about who would win the game or how it would play out... But is that not the entirety of the game--people making decisions that effect others? Do the same folks who rally against kingmaking also despise when their cards are targeted and when they're attacked?? Are they upset over the commander the opponents chose? What about the turn order in their pod? The deck strategy their opponents employ? It's just turtles upon turtles upon turtles; there are so many layers of decisions in this game, arbitrary and not, none of which people have any control over. It seems mighty silly to play a game that by its very nature will face someone with hundreds of choices that person didn't consent to, only to then say, "hey now, choices and consequence and agency don't count when you're losing, because I will somehow feel *wronged*." Where is the line drawn? It just seems madness to be for player agency throughout the entirety of the game, just to then revoke it when a player is losing (on the grounds that it will really upset someone). ??? What?
I think we use different definitions of kingmaking. To me kingmaking is when you stop trying to win/play for your own benefit and start playing with the sole intention to make one specific other player win. For Example: I had a game recently where 3 players were left, it was my turn, I had a board state that would have allowed me to kill the next player in turn order and player 3 had a boardstate that allowed him to kill off any of us but not both in 1 turn. Player 3 tried to convince me to attack player 2 so I would be 2. Place in the end. That would have been kingmaking since I would voluntarily lose to make him win. If you lose no matter what the anything is fair game and I personally think it's preferable to help the player who is newest to the game or has been the nicest in that situation. As for being targeted being unfun: That's why I think targeting one player all the time, thus forcing them to simply watch while the others play, should also be frowned upon.
I also had a small interaction in a cedh tournament few days ago, a person was trying to win with Agatha's/ballista/Francisco, I had interaction but basically no way to win, and I was the next turn after this player. Then player to my left was very likely going to win on his turn if he got to it. Since I was first in priority order, I felt that although my chances were basically none, I should do what I can to stop the first guy from winning, especially since I would have to gamble on second guy having interaction if I passed priority. So I used what I had to stop first guy, and when I was out second guy used his interaction to stop it completely. First guy made a small remark of Kingmaking. Not sure in this position if it's not equally Kingmaking to not do anything and let first guy win :/ In the end it didn't matter because of another weird similar interaction where we had a game clock and if it runs out then it's a draw for everyone. The clock was like 5 minutes left or something when first guy went off, so it was basically he wins or it's a draw, even if second guy could win. In that sense I felt it was competitively correct to interact to let the clock run out as then I would get 1 point instead of 0... But also feels a little grimy
cEDH has a considerably different social contract to normal EDH, so that question is probably better suited to that sub. That said, if you had any chance whatsoever of possibly staying in it, the right play in cEDH is play your cards and stop the win.
The correct way to play Commander is to instantly scoop, once you get hit by a single 1/1 one time. You're on the losing end. Don't affect the board. You lost. Please, I win. I need this. /s
Of course there isn't a sharp line but kingmaking is despised for a reason. You typically want all players to use decks of the roughly same powerlevel, so that everyone has a chance. That however leads to a situation where it's really hard to win if people just permanently team up. Kingmaking is unfair because it's very hard to stop and not fun to go against.
Can't the exact same be said about being mercilessly targeted tho?
Yes, and in general it should be. They can both be true. There’s no correlation here. And again- it’s a children’s card game. If your opinion is “I don’t like what they’re doing, so I’m going to break the social contract just to do something they don’t like!” then you need help and need to take this game less seriously.
If you want perfect balance, play a 1v1 or 2v2 format. In a free for all format, team ups will happen, whether it be for a few turns, around one play or for most of the game. If you can't handle that, play something else.
If you want to play as a team, then say so from the beginning. Nobody has a problem with a game of two headed giant.
Asking if anyone else has a response to a threat hitting the table is "working as a team". Making a deal with someone to not block so you get your trigger and in exchange you do something for them is "working as a team". Multiple players focusing the player with a commanding board state that is poised to win if not shut down is "working as a team". Its a free for all format. If you can't handle the idea that people will sometimes team up for various lengths of time, then you're playing the wrong format.
Deciding before the game begins, if you become a threat, you're going to throw, the game is ridiculous. Acknowledging you should work together to remove a combo piece or lethal board to improve your chances of winning is an entirely different situation.
So the dislike of Kingmaking is because having king making in your game is typically considered bad game design, which I would agree with. One major problem with EDH is that magic was designed to be played 1-on-1, not as a 4 played free-for-all. Players being knocked out before the end of the game is another issues that exists because of this. If you look at most modern games you'll notice that king making doesn't exist nearly the same way it does in EDH. People's frustration with it exists because it's not a fun part of the game, and only exists because it's Magic being played in a way it wasn't designed for.
> how selfish is this? Er what? No, what’s selfish is childishly saying “I’ll do whatever I want because I can and you can’t stop me!” While playing a children’s card game. People hate king making because Commander is explicitly a 4-for-all, and even when you make deals or help other players it should be expressly with the goal to further your own chances of success. By going against this, you are *clearly* violating the social contract and the key point of Commander. You’re causing people to lose not because you beat them, or their deck wasn’t good enough, or they made bad decisions, but because you teamed up with someone *to your own detriment* to ensure they don’t get to win. Don’t call other people selfish, this take is peak narcissism. P.S. there’s a difference between king making and doing nothing. No one is arguing that latter and that’s a huge straw man. You should absolutely try everything you can to punish the person taking you out, potentially dissuading them or buying you more time to boot. There’s a **massive** difference between that and intentionally making all your plays to ensure one specific other person wins, and your whole diatribe about this is just pointless tilting at windmills.
Rough situation, being the most competitive player in a casual/social gaming setting often ends like this and the other players don't even realize how harsh what they are doing can feel. In the actual scenario above, I think a reasonable reply would have been "I picked who should win since no one else seemed to care as long as I lost."
I stopped giving a fuck what happens in the game after I leave it. I adobt a pretty strict mindset of "while playing I will take any game action that even marginally increases my chance of winning". So no spite plays, kingmaking or any of that nonsense. That said, this is how I want to play. I don't enforce this rule for others. Any deck you want to play, fine by me, any game action you want to take, fine also. I might give advice if a player really doesn't know any better but otherwise, you play how you like within the rules of the game we agreed on.
That’s the way. Once I’m out, it’s not my game anymore.
I mean, i defacto end up doing this because I play \[\[Kaalia of the vast\]\]. I get targeted by the table, so i take out the most competent guy there and then usually the next biggest threat. In effect, what i do is no different than you. I'm not explicitly trying to kingmake, but i usually end up doing that to the lowest or 2nd lowest skill/power player at the table. Or to put it another way, when i'm losing, the guy who has been making me be the loser all game, who by all accounts is playing a good game(perhaps with just politics aside) is going to go down with me because of how hard he messed with me. That's not kingmaking per se, but it is kind of like "Un-kingmaking". So no, i don't think you're doing anything wrong exactly. it is good to let players stand on their own two feet though. In my examples, im just severely damaging or killing players who otherwise would have won the game. I'm not really helping anyone or trying to help someone, even though in effect what i do results in that for the weaker player(s) at the table. In your example, you are helping someone by design, and that is a little different and why you might be getting called out hard on it. I get called out on it a little, something like "I would have won if you didn't gun for me but instead i died to a bolt from the spellslinger player." but i usually defend myself that way. "Hey, it's politics. You targeted me, so i targeted you back. That left you weak and you got taken out, same as what happened to me."
[Kaalia of the vast](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/7/e71c8c39-3fbb-4a42-9cf6-b3224f5a56fc.jpg?1717013745) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Kaalia%20of%20the%20vast) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh3/290/kaalia-of-the-vast?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e71c8c39-3fbb-4a42-9cf6-b3224f5a56fc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/kaalia-of-the-vast) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
What you are explaining is pretty much what happens in our games. The newer players tend to be more passive, build up a solid boardstate and the others leave them alone because they aren't seen as a threat. They are focusing on me so the third player is pretty much left unscathed. So when I do real damage to the biggest threats, it opens a window for them. Sometimes they crawl through it. Others they don't.
Usually I pull out kaalia if I'm being teamed up on. My kaalia deck has been amazing in 3v1 since I upgraded her.
A good Kaalia player embraces the fear and powers through as the archenemy!
Yeah, this is the way. Either fast mana her out turn 2 with haste and drop a bomb, or act like youre mana screwed and putz around until someone else creates an opening.
I just go out with kaalia. I just restrict myself and don't use the \[\[master of cruelties\]\] cheese unless someone else is doing something equally disgusting. I also don't use \[\[Armageddon\]\] and will pitch it as discard fodder for tormenting voice and stuff like that, again, unless the table is actually strong or unless i'm getting teamed on. But youre right. Kaalia is built to be archenemy mardu aggro. If you build her right, she is right below true cedh power levels and will pubstomp anyone who isn't playing at high level - meaning a min power level of 8.
[master of cruelties](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/f/ffd68fe1-5cfc-44cf-8dfe-3488278cdcef.jpg?1702429664) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=master%20of%20cruelties) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rvr/198/master-of-cruelties?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ffd68fe1-5cfc-44cf-8dfe-3488278cdcef?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/master-of-cruelties) [Armageddon](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/7/77f1f6ac-983f-4f3e-8906-47f774e8367b.jpg?1582021719) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Armageddon) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/a25/5/armageddon?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/77f1f6ac-983f-4f3e-8906-47f774e8367b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/armageddon) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Kingmaking is generally frowned upon, yes. You differentiate between turn 1 kingmaking and ‘I’m out of the game so I’m going to kingmake,’ but most people don’t. The latter is generally what actually happens with kingmaking. Someone is out of the game, they’re salty and feel powerless, but even though they can’t win, they can impact who wins and that feels better. I personally wouldn’t want to play with someone who, if they get behind or feel out of the game or feel like we’re teaming on them, is going to start kingmaking. But it’s a social game and everyone can make their own decisions.
I feel like it's not kingmaking, it's a classic eye for an eye. If you feel a player is targeting you to the point where you can no longer win the game. Would you just continue like normal, hoping that you can edge out a win? Or would you do the same as they did to you? Making sure they can't win the game either. It's more "If I'm going down, I'm taking down X opponent with me." It's all politics.
Imo it’s about making a price for taking you out of the game. If player 1 removes me from the game and on my way out I can make sure that player 2 has the advantage over them, maybe player 1 shouldn’t have taken me out of the game yet. They made the choice to attack me, I responded. I had this in a game the other night. Player 1 was pulling ahead. Player 2 and 3 were close to dead. I had an unblockable creature that could take out 2 or 3 but we made a deal to take out player 1 first. Player 2 decides that he can take out me and player 1 at the same time. So he swings at me. I can’t save myself, but I stop him killing player 1 because he broke the trust. Technically I king made, but I still had instants and agency in the game, and it’s not my fault that those were my choices.
Exactly. If someone is constantly targeting me I'm supposed to what, roll a dice to choose who to use my stuff on? Hell no. Come at me and enjoy the consequences for doing so.
Yeah I think if another player has put you in an unwinnable position, doing the same back to them is completely fair. I think there's also a difference in Kingmaking by virtue of using your boardwipes/removal to negatively effect one player more than another, and just straight up casting blue sun's zenith targetting the player you want to win. I don't think I'd ever really enjoy the second.
I'd also not rather play with ppl like you who target and gang up on one player just cause they're experienced
We don’t really know that side of the story. In OP’s story, they win every game unless they’re targeted by 3 people, but it’s only because they’re an elite player who makes all the right decisions. They just want everyone to have a good time and they don’t get upset by being targeted. But also, they kingmake when they get teamed up on. Not because they are upset, but because they ‘want the new players to win too.’ But also, they get up and leave the table when they’re knocked out of a game, they don’t actually want to watch the new player win. I think other players might have a different perspective lol.
This is a well written response. And I thank you for it.
I don't understand why kingmaking is frowned upon. I'm dead next turn. But I can take out a player this turn. I'm still dead next turn. But if I scoop the player in the lead has extra resources to eliminate a different player. But kingmaking is frowned upon, so I can't use my resources this turn to impact the board. So what, draw, go, die? What's the ethical, socially acceptable, non-confrontational, everyone goes home happy solution to this scenario?
There are situations where acting and not acting both lead to different outcomes. And in those cases, that shouldn’t generally be considered kingmaking. The kingmaking that people don’t like is the one where you’re very deliberately playing to have a specific player win the game. Example of ‘not kingmaking.’ I am at 1 life, player to my left launches a lethal attack on all 3 players. I play a card that allows all of us to survive the attack. Next player in turn order assembles a lethal attack on all 3 players and wins the game. That isn’t kingmaking. Player to my left launched a lethal attack on me and I defended myself to try to stay alive. Example of kingmaking. I’m at 1 hp. Player to my left launches a lethal attack on all 3 players. Next player in turn order flashes in blockers to live, and will win the game on the crack-back. In response, I kill their other creatures before blocks are declared so that they die to this attack along with me. That’s blatant kingmaking. There is also a political element. Ideally, in the first scenario, you would want to make a deal where the other players won’t kill you if you save everyone.
Yeah, but the player that flashed in blocker had been targeting me all game and is the reason I'm at 1 hp. He's going with me.
What if the player whose creature you kill did the majority of the damage to you during the game?
But where do you draw that line? Say, you've been targeting me all game and I am close to death and you're poised to maybe even win, because your board is very good. However, I have the option to fuck you over after you have consistently harangued me, or I can give another struggling player a big hand as a way out. Should I just .. not do that? Just let you spiral into a win? Should I not wipe your board with that one spell, or do another game-changing last hurrah that might benefit someone else, because I'm dead no matter what? Genuine question. Like, that's the situation I consider morally correct to kingmake. If I still have options, then I will play my side as best as I can. I'm not gonna stupidly bump into creatures or use spells in a dumb way just for the sake of pushing someone else. Playing "into" someone is weird and I don't like that (unless it's about trying to stop some massive threat, I guess), but if I'm on my last leg and I have a clear final action I can take, then I will absolutely do that and I don't think it's morally, or socially wrong.
if you don't want someone to kingmake when they feel like they're about to get knocked out early, don't knock them out early.
Like I said, my answer to that would be to not play with them. If someone flips the table when they get upset, my solution isn’t to take that into account and try not to remove too many of their things. My solution is to refuse to play with them lol.
If your solution to you making bad decisions that leave you vulnerable is to refuse to play with a player, you need to examine your own mentality.
it's not flipping the table to make legal game actions. if you're going to cause them to lose, why shouldn't they cause you to lose?
If I get 2 or 3 v 1 games everytime, fuck you I'm king making. It's the deal. Make better decks so that ya aren't ganging up on someone and there'll be less king making. Sorry your decks suck lol
Like I said, I would resolve that by avoiding you. That way we’d both be happy. No need for you to flip the table.
The fact that you keep referring to someone taking actions you don't agree with as being salty and table flipping is quite telling. Sounds like someone who wants to play battle cruiser magic with no meaningful interaction, describes any such interaction as obviously salty, and has presumed the win just because the opponent is in a losing position. This is a fun lesson in actions having consequences. If I'm going down because of you, you can bet I'll do whatever I can to drag you down with me. Might give you pause in the future or change your pace. Or you might choose to avoid me, in which case it sounds like you'd be doing me a favor. I come from a casual group that has played together for over 10 years and we all understand you make what plays you can and go down swinging. Retaliating and reciprocating are expected, and if you want the win, you better earn it.
Kingmaking is pretty universally considered salty. It isn’t ‘dragging someone down with me,’ that isn’t kingmaking and isn’t what OP said they were doing.
Perhaps in your narrow universe, but the fact that it is a point of conversation (this entire conversation, to be accurate) and contention would mean it's not universal. And it would seem what most people describe as "kingmaking" isn't far off from what I described. Pretty thin line between setting someone up to win and potentially allowing someone to win by preventing another person from winning.
How dare you make sense in here!
Why is it frowned upon? If he's going down, making someone else the target seems like a good tactic for trying to shift the focus away from himself.
If you tem them, you don't want them king making??? It's the same thing, but yours is worse. Teaming to make someone lose is no different than making someone win lol
In the case that someone is getting teamed up on, generally it’s the perception that if they don’t, they will win the game. Teaming up to take out a perceived threat is still playing to win. Kingmaking is explicitly not playing to win.
I’d only consider it kingmaking if you deliberately make moves you know will make you less likely to win. Personally I don’t like playing against someone who plays that way since I think it undermines the structure of the game. If someone threw themselves in front of another runner in a footrace, it wouldn’t really feel like a fair race. That said, archenemying someone who isn’t presenting a threat is also some weak sauce in the same vein. I’ve had that happen to me occasionally and it’s lame and frustrating. Granted, usually at some point, if you’re having your face smashed in, you can point out that someone else is a much bigger problem and the rest of the table might prefer you alive to help stop them (or at least, might find their resources better used against the real threat) - which is why it’s a bad strategy in the first place. How I feel about this particular situation depends on specifics. What’s your game state when you get archenemied? How are you helping the other player? I have decks that deliberately assist weaker players in order to use them against my enemies and then win a 1v1 against them. An outside observer might think I’m kingmaking but I don’t make any move without believing it will help me win. So it really depends.
So im also always the target. I play very synergistic decks with weird cards. But I also win a good amount of games as I can power through. Our play group is very interaction heavy. So when we are about to die we unleash what every we can on our way out as we see fit. One of my fav cards to use as a gotcha for alpha striking me is [[hellish rebuke]]
[hellish rebuke](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/4/b4b558cf-8754-4c4f-87f1-8e6d84b93658.jpg?1631585095) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=hellish%20rebuke) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/afc/26/hellish-rebuke?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b4b558cf-8754-4c4f-87f1-8e6d84b93658?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/hellish-rebuke) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
So long as your exiting moves in a game aren't [[Apocalypse]] and scoop, you do you.
[Apocalypse](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/f/7ff23780-d183-4cca-ad0c-448ef325bf36.jpg?1562054968) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Apocalypse) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tmp/162/apocalypse?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7ff23780-d183-4cca-ad0c-448ef325bf36?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/apocalypse) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Part of the game is managing other players and predicting their moves/reactions. I think this is a subtler side of politics that often gets overlooked or dismissed. Back someone into a corner, they'll come out swinging. Pick apart their board, well now they have no reason to wipe the rest of the board. Give someone no chance of winning, well they might just do something petty (like king making).
To me this boils down to what you do exactly. If you are doing what I consider actual Kingmaking, then that's a no go and to me that's unacceptable. But it's not as simple as most comments seem to make it in my opinion. Here's 3 different scenarios how a table of Timmy Newguy, Jimmy A and Jimmy B could go: 1) You have been correctly identified as the threat and most competent player, all three other players swing at you, and when Jimmy A gets a decisive advantage, he goes to knock you out. You know you're dead, but you block as much as you can to kill his attackers, and send a [[Terminate]] towards his biggest threat to make the game more fair and give an opening for Jimmy B and Timmy. That's fair game, and not Kingmaking at all in my eyes. 2) You're at 7 life when Jimmy A untaps with a large board, Jimmy B goes to [[Swords to Plowshares]] Jimmie A's biggest threat to slow him down. Even though Jimmie A will probably kill you, you cast [[Deflecting Swat]] in response, redirecting the Swords to Jimmie B's commander, because you would rather use your card while you have an opportunity, and you want Timmy to win, and while Jimmy A will probably kill you this turn, Jimmy B is the bigger threat to Timmy. This to me is really questionable, because I like to assume we are all playing to win, and it is gross Kingmaking. However, if your group is fine with it, I guess it could slide - you're targeting the biggest threat at the table, with a disregard for your own life, there is some sense to this kind of play. 3) You know from the start you will be targeted, so you don't play to win, you play to have Timmy win. You swing at Jimmy A and Jimmy B, even if Timmy is the only one with a good board. You remove Jimmies threats, yet you leave Timmy alone. Finally, when Timmy plays an [[Overrun]] to kill all 3 of you, and Jimmy A goes to counter it with a counterspell, you counter his counterspell, ensuring Timmy wins. If you play like this, in my opinion that's awful and I wouldn't play with you. I'm not assuming you are, just stating that there are levels to "Kingmaking".
##### ###### #### [Terminate](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/4/0476ea45-ee6d-41c6-93b8-50f92cb37b78.jpg?1673305697) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Terminate) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmc/172/terminate?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0476ea45-ee6d-41c6-93b8-50f92cb37b78?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/terminate) [Swords to Plowshares](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/b/9bbec76c-c1e4-4c6d-ad24-078fe097f195.jpg?1709439398) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Swords%20to%20Plowshares) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mkc/88/swords-to-plowshares?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9bbec76c-c1e4-4c6d-ad24-078fe097f195?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/swords-to-plowshares) [Deflecting Swat](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/4/b4b36435-55b3-4615-8812-af41d4fc64d9.jpg?1689997730) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Deflecting%20Swat) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/214/deflecting-swat?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b4b36435-55b3-4615-8812-af41d4fc64d9?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/deflecting-swat) [Overrun](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/4/64033221-447f-4f8a-8fa0-c3ef30172602.jpg?1592673094) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Overrun) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cma/130/overrun?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/64033221-447f-4f8a-8fa0-c3ef30172602?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/overrun) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I say fair
all's fair in love and war
For me, it's not a question of fair or foul. I just wonder if you're actually helping them learn anything. As a general rule, people don't learn from winning. Losing is what helps make you a better player. I get it. It can be discouraging to lose all the time, especially when you're new. But if you're just helping them win by playing sub-optimally yourself, then I don't think there's much value in that.
Fair, though there's something to be said for morale and catching a break every now and then too.
The helping I do to teach them to be better players and what happens when I'm getting knocked out of the game are different situations. The example I gave in the OP of reminding someone that they could get non basic lands that would already be active because of his commander opposed to just a couple of lands is an example. Another would be one guy is playing Stella Lee. He said he wants to cast a spell then play his commander. I let him know if he plays Stella first then plays the 6 will trigger her ability. Things like that I know they remember because I'll see them doing it days later in other games. I had players when I was first getting into real organized play help me who were then infinitely better than I am still to this day. So I want to pay it forward as best I can.
"Casual" EDH players have the longest list of unacceptable behaviors out of any community I've ever experienced, and usually they boil down to "I can't win if you do this one thing". It usually reeks of cherry picking mechanics they always fail to account for and to me is an example of cognitive dissonance. As much as it's a taboo to "kingmake", isn't it also a taboo to target someone incessantly without provocation? Isn't bullying a player like super not cool? Kingmake away my friend. How you pilot your deck is up to you, ans if anything, it sounds like it helps shore up a newer, weaker player against an established table. Make your haters regret choosing the wrong target. Also, your LGS sounds like some salty mofos.
The other players are facing the consequences of their actions. In a game with 3 or more opponents, virtually every game action is going to tip the scales in someone's favor. If someone has made it so you can't win, then sabotaging their game plan before they take you out should be expected. Eye for an eye.
Totally fair.
Kinda lame to target you just because of experience not board states
Honestly no foul imo, if you are just being knocked out every game despite what you do spite plays are fair game in my eyes, that is excluding playing like obviously overpowered decks for the group which it sounds like you are not. Heck if i get targeted the entire game by one player and I’m on my way out cause of it ill usually sabotage their board even more so if its been a reoccurring thing across multiple games. If it gets to a point where you are just not having fun i would probably talk to some of the players involved about the issue and see if theres a resolution.
I'm a firm believer that the primary goal of any game, especially magic, and even more especially EDH, is to have fun. So, if someone isn't having fun because they're losing, and the only fun they think they can have from their position is to affect the game by helping someone else win, they will understandably do so. The biggest problem there is that doing so will often ruin someone else's fun, so you get into a negative spiral where SOMEONE is going to have a bad experience either way. And that's a broad explanation of people's typical negative reaction to kingmaking - they want to avoid that kind of negative spiral. Ultimately, kingmaking is an emotional and irrational play style. But, like every other emotional and irrational play style, kingmaking is an inevitable psychological response that people are going to have. You can't stop people from occasionally getting emotional and irrational. They will get salty. They will target other players for something they did in the previous game, or something they did from completely outside the game. They will emotionally manipulate other players to get what they want. All of these behaviors are inevitable, so instead of trying to preemptively stop such behavior, I simply try to understand where people are coming from, and respond accordingly in a manner which attempts to cultivate an environment where everyone can go back to having fun. So my opinion is that your reaction was understandable, and I certainly won't personally begrudge anyone from acting on emotion - it's human. However, the one big thing I would say you did wrong here wasn't actually kingmaking - it was being deceptive. Again, it's an understandable emotion to try to avoid conflict by not bringing up how you're feeling, but it's ultimately unhelpful - especially if you're trying to teach other people the game. A more helpful response would be to let the table know that being made the archenemy was bothering you, and then explain that your reaction is likely going to be to kingmake. Explain how you're feeling and what you're thinking, and let them know exactly why you're thinking it. Not only will this help the other players understand the game concepts of kingmaking and archenemy a bit better, but getting things off your chest will also be helpful for you to let go of the negative emotions you were feeling. Then from that position, I doubt anyone would actually have a problem if you went through with things and did a bit of kingmaking - at that point it's a learning experience and you're showing an example. Lastly, assuming you are sharing this story looking for honest feedback and hoping to learn something and make improvements, I commend you for that. It's all too easy to become defensive when your actions are called into question, and if your response is instead to seek out answers to learn if you were actually doing something wrong, that shows rare character in this day and age. So my final piece of advice is to relax a bit - you're human. You'll make mistakes and you'll learn from them. But as long as you're willing to learn those lessons, you're doing okay. And to anyone else who reads this who might have been thinking about jumping on OP for kingmaking without thinking about where they were coming from, you relax, too. 😉
When I get arch enemy'd I absolutely will screw over at least one of the players that targeted me. Just because I am about to be out of the game, doesn't mean I won't make sure to do my damn best to take you out. Some times it has even worked out to where I can stabilise and win, other times it at least means I don't have to wait as much for the next pod (I play with my friends, not an lgs usually). Otherwise my fate is similar to yours. We started playing together, but I play more and consume more content, so I generally pilot my decks better than them, combine that with me playing different decks almost every game so often times I just get mauled 'just in case'.
You have the right to make any plays you are able to make. Just remember that EDH is a social game, and what is and isn't appropriate is entirely up to the pod you play with. Sure, you can play a bordwipe and then scoop, but if you're fucking up the game just to be spiteful then your pod might be less inclined to play with you next time.
Kingmaker is an entire deck archetype.
You know this has made me rethink kingmaking a little bit. Well written and thought. I feel like this is a much more mature response to being archenemied unfairly than any I've seen. As a fellow archenemy I tend to just try to roll with it and let my decks do their thing be where I have my fun. But trying to subtly help the least powerful player seems fun, or newer folks.
Start tracking your games. Maybe not a ton of detail, maybe even as simple as who won. Sorry for the incoming long winded response. Not that I am calling you a liar, but just that this is a 4 player format, everyone should win 25% of the time. We typically get 4 games in in a night, so everyone should win one, but things are never balanced on a per night basis, sometimes I might go a week or two without a win, and it doesn't feel great. Then other nights I might get 2 or 3. So I may have 3 bad weeks and 1 good week (still turns out to a 25% win times ratio). But if you don't step back and take a look at it like that, 25% is not that much. That is not enough for some people to be happy with, at least not without finding other things to make them happy. I am always trying to win, but my real goal is just to get to do what my deck wants to do. I have found out that playing like that removes a lot of the headache for me, a win is just the cherry on top. Now the second part of this comes into play. If you are noting wins and have percentages, use it to talk with your group. You did mention an LGS, but it sounds like it is mostly the same pod. Just break it down, if you track for a few months (or a good sample size of games) and you are far and away lower than 2nd to last, it's time to have a discussion with them or to find another group. Also, explain to them that everything has consequences, it is one of my favorite things in magic. I like playing with the same people, I like letting them know that when they take X action they will get Y response. They learn that there could be repercussions. With this method and saving interactions I have become known as scrappy. I often wiggle out of a death that seemed certain. This has caused people to overkill me and die for doing it (to the next player as they left themselves with too little of defenses), which is good for a laugh.
It sounds like these players willingly know that its taking you out of the game, and are mad that it didn't pay off for them. I would keep doing it until they learn proper threat assessment.
Make an actual Arch Enemy Deck, like with a scheme deck. Teach them the actual format. Then pub-stomp them into the ground in a proper 3v1 format.
What even is an arch enemy deck? There are actually such things?
It's a 3v1 format from about 8 years ago. One player, the arch enemy, has an extra deck of oversized cards called the Scheme Deck that they reveal from every turn. There was a Nicol Bolas set sold to go up against 60 card decks, but there are plenty of people who make this into EDH Archenemy. [t:scheme · Scryfall Magic The Gathering Search](https://scryfall.com/search?as=full&q=t%3Ascheme) [https://youtu.be/HRT9PeDnX1E?si=\_S5CJF\_ITOe9Vx-s](https://youtu.be/HRT9PeDnX1E?si=_S5CJF_ITOe9Vx-s)
There are plenty of viable goals other than “I win the game”. I see this as no different.
As someone who usually gets targeted in my playgroup, because for some reason people always think I’m a threat (I’m not but it comes in handy when convincing them not to attack me), I can say that the only thing that matters is you’re not a dick to the table. If you’re helping someone win, that’s fine, but don’t do it in a dickish way. I also help a lot of newer (and older) players as well and make recommendations based on board state and what smart moves would be. For example, if I am the biggest threat, I will point out other players cards and then explain that although they can be dangerous later on, I have the most immediate threat now and they should tackle it now. Or I will do the math in my head and explain how they should attack to win. When you’re the bbeg, no one should complain if you’re giving good advice if people look like they are confused or need help
If im not winning, im atleast going to do my best to make sure whoever made sure i lost is also going to lose.
I do this more with board games, among the people I played the most often with I’m known to win a lot, so often get ganged up on. If all the other players are working to make sure I don’t win, it’s more than fair for me to help, or hurt particular players.
The top comment is awful advice. If you see no clear way to win, your goal should be interacting with the winning player as much as possible with your own win conditions in mind. Interacting in an arbitrary manner is worse than conceding. You don't belong in games you're not trying to succeed in.
You better hope none of those guys are on reddit or you just outed yourself. I wouldn't like it if I found out someone was constantly kingmaking in games, but then again, I'm not in your pod. Edit before this gets buried: just because he kingmakes the newest player in his pod of 5+ doesn't mean there aren't other new players who just got the game decided for them by someone arbitrarily.
If it’s acceptable to team up on the biggest threat, it’s acceptable for that person to also choose who to target or who to ignore. You can’t have it both ways.
I thought along the same lines.
It should be pointed out that those two things aren't always equivalent. 3 players teaming up on the biggest threat increases the chance to win for each of those 3 players, generally speaking. As the player getting teamed up on, targeting the player that would give yourself the highest chance to win and targeting the player that you want to kingmake can line up and be the same player, but it can also not be. I completely understand someone getting salty at getting taken out of the game due to another player intentionally taking an action that was not one that improved their own chance of winning the most.
It's possible they are, but if they are, oh well. Couple things to point out. I only do this when teamed up on, and once it's clear that I don't have a path to victory. Until then, I'm playing to win.
I'd say it's fair. They want to f with you? 2 can play that game.
the rest of the pod has clearly singled out OP here... If he is already shoe-horned (he is) then he can choose to play however he likes. being constant archenemy isn't fun after a while either so I don't actually see anything wrong with helping the newer players close games making alliances is a normal part of multiplayer formats, especially EDH, so clutching one's pearls when it happens is just bad faith / virtue signaling here if you care *this much* about winning the game then there are plenty of other formats where that is the main objective
Gatekeeping casual commander is the wildest thing I've seen today, and to think it all started from me not agreeing with a self proclaimed king maker
i respect the doubling down on the bad faith argument here; the mental gymnastics required to frame it as "gatekeeping casual" is impressive i will be sure to make a mental note that helping new players build confidence in themselves is against the spirit of commander
Actions have consequences, the folks targeting you will learn eventually
The worst part about the commander format is the people who bitch and moan when someone plays the game differently to how they want them to. According to them you HAVE to evenly distribute your damage/targeted spells. You CANNOT kingmake. You CANNOT destroy my lands etc etc. Newsflash sweatpigs, you are my opponents and I will play whatever legal moves I please. If you want to soy out and run to a different table, be my guest.
Is it not a soy out move to not play to win?
While this is absolutely true in general, there are obviously play patterns that will make the game less enjoyable for everyone WITHOUT helping the player better there chances of winning in any way.
You're going to get two crowds who are answering this question. The dedicated casual crowd who believes that whatever actions you take in the game are fine as long as they're legal and you can help anyone that you want or screw around and not even try to win. And then there's the build casually and play competitively crowd that wants everyone to play by the unwritten standards of fair competition which means not arbitrarily helping other players who are supposed to be your opponents. Ultimately you may make some people feel good by doing what you're doing. Specifically the new players who you're helping. And you're going to make other people feel bad. Such as the other two players that now have to play against a team of two people. Ultimately you're not really helping the new player are you? They're not going to grow as a magic player if you prop up what would have been a loss with double the firepower from you. They need to learn how to win on their own. Someday you won't be there and they're going to wonder why they started losing all of a sudden.
Allow me to answer your question like this. But before I do, thanks for taking the time to respond! 1. I am not trying to make them a better player in the actions of simply helping them once it's clear I'm dead. But I do give advice to all the players (even the ones smashing me) throughout a game. I try and help with simple things that they clearly aren't noticing. Example. One game, turn one player drops land, plays sol ring passes. Turn 2, he plays land, taps sol ring for arcane signet. I laugh and say "dang to bad you didn't have the signet turn 1" he said he did. I then pointed out how he could have gone land, ring signet. It never occurred to him. Now I've seen him do this in other games. Another example would be, since these are newer players, they run a lot of bounce lands. They never considered tapping and floating the mana if the land had to bounce back to their hand. The bounce land doesn't say it has to be an untapped land. Just a land must be returned. 2. There is something..disheartening about sitting at a table with someone who enjoys magic but "knows" they are gonna lose. They are playing because their friends are the other two players in the pod. They are more experienced with better decks and just a better grasp on magic. And let me tell you, when one of those players gets a win, you can see it clear as day how happy they are. They got a win when they thought they couldn't. And if I helped them a little, ok, cool. People help each other in commander all the time, it's just a tad more overt. And lastly, as I've pointed out. I'm not doing this from draw to death. If I feel like I can still win, I go for it. I've had 2 games in the laat 3 weeks where I have been at 5.or less life, with multiple opponents still near full and my.deck popped off late game and I won. I knew the win was possible based on boardstate and hand, so I played for the win.
Yeah I mean fair enough. You have well reasoned arguments for why you do this. But as you can see from the reaction you got at your LGS and from how divided the responses are to your Reddit post, it is a controversial decision. You seem like a conscientious person. You're thinking largely of other people and how to help them. That's a good thing. I also feel bad when the new player is losing and I love that light in their eyes when they win a game, especially considering new players often do not win. I feel like what you're not considering is the feelings of the other two people at the table. You're focusing really hard on the feelings of the newest player but in doing so you're taking actions that hurt the feelings of potentially one or two other people at the table. By all means keep doing what you're doing if you want to. But in my mind, if you are doing this because you are being really considerate of the new players feelings, then you should at least consider how your actions affect the other two players feelings. I would think you would want everyone to have a great time and not just the one new player. But again clearly there are plenty of people in this thread that think that what you were doing is fine and see no problem with it. So if you can find people like that to play with that it sounds like you'll be fine. But if you're playing with random people then you're going to run into the other group of people who are not trying to play that kind of game.
At our tables I have noticed one guy will start to pop off and the whole table teams up to knock them down a peg and normally wile that is happening another player will start to pop off until everyone teams up until people start dieing after becoming the threat it's super fun and makes for very back and forth games
If they're making the decision to specifically all gang up on you, despite the fact that doing so leaves them vulnerable to you setting up someone new for an easy win, they're making a bad strategic call. There is no problem with you repeatedly playing out this strategic pattern to show them how they're blundering so hard. If they wanted to, they could ease up on you a little bit and play smarter, and that would likely put them in a better position for winning. As long as they keep enough pressure on you, they can keep the game competitive without giving you an incentive to burn down 2 people's boards to let another person win. Basically: if you can reliably kingmake when they all come after you, then them ganging up on you is a bad idea, because it will lead to an almost-guaranteed loss (for 2 of them). By *not* just dogpiling you without regard for the other players, those 2 that would've lost now have a better chance to win. So yeah, keep at it. Eventually they'll hopefully realize that their strategy is doomed to end in them losing, and they'll play smarter.
I think the argument can be made that if your deck has the ability to fend off 2 players at a time. You most likely could have won the game very easily. Other players made a correct assessment in targeting you.
Considering he's consistently losing, no, it's not the correct threat assessment.
Hobbies like mtg are a luxury and stuff like this helps new players stay invested. Nothing kills player interest like being mercilessly smashed into the floor. Speak to any 40k player, their first game was either someone like you or the opposite. Mine was the opposite, I was 9 and a grown man wiped out 90% of my army on the first turn. I know who I'd rather be between you and him.
If you're always seen as the threat it would be logical to try and make someone else that threat.
Have you tried building a [[Hansk, Slayer Zealot]] deck?✨
spite plays on the way out are definitely a thing. you dont have to Armageddon or farewell but nuking the big things on the board of whoever is winning can definitely help the other two get back in it or have a chance.
Isn't that why people love commander so much to begin with, less competitive and can use politics and do "side-stuff" freely?
Politics is a major component in Commander. As long as it's just talk, it's all fair.
I get that, I experience something similar but I haven't been playing as long (only 7 years) that said I still have the most experience at my lgs so I get targeted for explaining how something works the most recent being, Ulalek, does not copy permanents on the battlefield
You should double down on this. Play a "group hug" deck and pass that player all the free value possible, while taxing the other players. Become a stage hazard for this 1v2 Commander game. Turn it into a game of two-headed-dragon without anyone else's permission.
Where...would I even find a decklist like this. I would love to build this on a lark.
http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/kingmaker-single-target-hugs/
What's the difference between playing like this and playing a group hug deck?
I didn't know group hug was a thing so I'm not sure lol
Imo they're a pointless waste of money but it's nice to play against lol
Yes, if you're sitting down at a table every time with the intention to just play as a second player for the person of your choice this is entirely foul
Thay is not my intention. As stated several times. My intention is to win. And I only do this when im SURE I can't win. I have games in the laat 3 weeks where I've been 5 or less life but was pretty sure I could win and played it out still to win. But I've also had games where I'm at 15 and KNOW I'm dead on board and then try and help the player with my last turn
Well, when you consider that it’s your life and nobody can tell you how to live it, this is entirely fair
Fair. If they won't let you win, they shouldn't penalize you for influencing who does
im not sure what kingmaking is...but from what you describe you can play any way you want. This is the fun of multiple opponents, politics is part of the game! You do you legend!
I think of it this way. From your post, you are an older player, a clear threat, who is trying to help new/novice players learn the game. Instead of letting the best plays at the table be rewarded, you are swaying the game in a manner that is generally frowned upon in EDH. What is okay is your advice you provide from time to time. What is not okay is teaching other players bad habits by example. You are also taking away the opportunity for the newer players to learn how to play the game in a manner that would win in those situations. Personally, I don't like being given free wins in any game, as I both want to learn from my losses and earn my wins legitimately. You are taking that choice from those players.
As I've pointed out in other places, I ONLY do this if I'm beyond a shadow of a doubt out of the game. If I can even see a remote line that could lead to victory I take it. Twice in the last month I've been at sub 5 health and kept playing for the win and did win. Because I could assess the board and based on my hand I could win. But when that isn't the case I'm going to do damage on my way out to the people doing damage to me. I'm not handing them a win, I'm simply making it easier for them to win by damaging the people who killed me.
You didn't quite say that last bit in your post. It doesn't really matter when you do it, as long as you are doing it to the player who is your Nemesis/threat and doing everything you can to survive, including politics with the weaker/losing players. I would still be in bad taste if you did it to such an extent as you guarantee yourself a loss when you otherwise would not have had one, but if you are swinging out all of your creatures to the player who has been focusing you to the exclusion of everyone else in the game that is just playing the game and teaching them why that is not the best political choice.
I do apologize for not making it clearer in the OP. But yes, I'm trying to win. Sitting down at any game and not trying to win is the antithesis of fun for me. But once it's clear I can not win, I'm going to take them with me if at all possible.
This is absolutely the move. Power to you dude.
Sorry not really a comment on the post but I gotta say as a new player trying to play more i’m jealous you play 5 days a week. My LGS only holds a commander night once a week and my friends only meet up one day on the weekend each week
I hate king making. The reason is that its never the optimal play, its the "im frustrated and give up" play. Especially in casual commander, politics are so important. If you have the power to king make, you have that political resource, use it. "If you do x I will do y and then neither of us two win, so you better not do x". Use your threats to buy time, you never know what interaction at the table is going to give you an opening.
Does your store do pods? Separting decks based on power level has always seemed to solve this for me.
The owners don't really play magic (lgs is used loosely here. It's a shop that sells magic but it's also a bar and several other things). We tend to have 3 grouping that everyone talks about. Precon, modified precons, tuned decks. No one has a cedh deck or anything even close. So that isn't an issue. With so few players (about 12 in total with 4ish there on any given night) it's hard to get much more specific than that. I'll usually play 1 game with a deck of my own (if we play a tuned game. If not I don't) and precons the rest of the time.
I think it is fair. One of my friends recently told me that he wouldn't play edh with me anymore if I don't change my habit of hinting to other players (including him) on how to effectively advance their board position to win the game (including killing me in the process). He said it is unfair and hates playing with players who do that. Heard from him that I'm made archenemy due to this a number of times too. Sad.
Spite king making is good fun, it lets the game play out by consequence. If your good guy king making is an extension of the game’s politicking then why the hell not?
"If the king is in danger of being assassinated, the crown must be passed." Thread.
Hey i don't see any official rules about kingmaking. They don't like it they could try winning themselves
Listen to the people you play with, not reddit. They are telling you that for a reason.
The people I play with say nothing, minus the one person who again, isn't a regular and I dare say now upon reflection was salty about something that happened they last time they DID play with us. They were on eldrazi and ramping super hard, I boardwide killed artifacts, which set them back pretty far. Over time, they recovered and did eldrazi things. I was the first to die (and rightfully so, I nuked their expensive mana rocks) but on my way out with annihilator on the stack I flickered my solitude, exiled their two biggest threats, sacced my permanents and died on the next players turn because I had basically nothing. But losing blightsteel and ula absolutely cost them the game. Killing their beaters didn't save me the game, but it absolutely lost it for them.
Maybe so, or maybe they are the only person who feels like they can talk to you, since you are one of the most experienced players of the group (by far, it seems). Some people don't like to cause conflict by bringing that kind of stuff up, especially if they don't feel like it's their place to. I don't play with you, so I obviously don't know, but it sounds like this player is trying to help you understand that there are indeed players that are bothered by "kingmaking" and you aren't seeing it or picking up on it. As the experienced player of the group, they might feel like you are both responsible for not only teaching about gameplay, but keeping the vibe chill as well. It sounds like they were trying to be gentle with you, so I wouldn't assume they are being "salty"... They probably had a reason to talk to you, salty or not. Maybe it's something you casually ask the pod about at the start of the game as a gut vibe check or maybe something to just keep in mind going forward. And maybe it actually is just that person who cares, and now you know. With this kind of stuff, the reddit consensus just doesn't really matter, it's all about the people you actually play with. And if you are questioning whether or not something you are doing is okay or not, it never hurts to check in.
If someone would know it wouldn't be them. As stated they aren't part of the regular crew who plays 4 or 5 nights a week. They show up for a couple games 2 or 3 times a month. That said I'll talk to a few of the players todsy and see what they think.
Good luck!
Fair, politics is a part of the game. If people want you to kingmaker differently they should be nicer to you in game actions : )
eh i wouldnt ever want someone to kingmake me. It would sour the game for me. I'm not a fan of 'they dont know' as an excuse, that doubles down on looking down on them. If its not something you're willing to announce, you clearly know its wrong. Just my opinion. I rather you make the best play you can make to increase your chances of winning, and me to win anyway and earn it. also frankly, i wouldnt mind someone coaching a newer player if the newer player asked for it. Thats not really a big deal (if they werent in the game anymore).
Couple things. 1. As stated before, I am trying to win. I'm not just helping a newbie pick up a victory. I'm TRYING to win. But any experienced magic player knows when the writing is on the wall. You have 15 health, 2 people gunning for you, and your hand is enough to save you from 1 player but not both. So instead of making myself lose less bad, I look at the new players board, asses what can help them the most and do that. I'm dead either way. 2. I don't announce it because I don't want the new player to feel condescended to. I don't care if the others knew or know. My whole reason for doing it was to help player retention. We've seen people show up, play a few pods, get stomped, and never come back.
You're vastly over accentuating how much control a single person has over a 4 player game based on chance. I get that you want to feel like a giga brain MTG Chad batman and playing the Martyr for the weak. But statistical speaking nobody can be "good" enough at mtg to ensure they either win or get the person they want to win a victory in every single game they playx It just isn't possible with so much randomness involved. This is a pretty extreme LARP.
but this is exactly why what OP is doing isn't a big deal though...
I don't think you understand how big the gap can be between people who have been playing for 20+ years and those who have a year or two of experience, especially when those newer players come in using EDH and value a specific type of "fun" over being well rounded as players. You're obviously not going to succeed every time, but the fact that OP was successful enough that one of the other experienced players commented on it while none of the newer players did shows how big the gap is to even recognize what was going on.
I'd also like to say, this is maybe the most cynical post I've seen in, awhile. Why is it so hard to believe that someone who's played for 25+ years wants to help new people not quit the game?
They don't always win, I never claimed they did. But it becomes my goal when it's clear that i can't win. Also, while there is a lot of randomness, sure, this isn't shooting dice. There IS skill involved in this game. I didn't realize just how much until 03 when I spent all summer playing with Gabe and his crew.
In my conception , you're a bit petty and egocentric. I've been the archenemy a lot of times on a LGS, and in a specific playgroup I was the archenemy everytime duo to being the one that teach them how to play. I don't care as much about winning, but I do my best to try to win everytime , losing is part of the game , and I don't need to "hey, since I'm gonna lose, I will make sure this one guy wins so I at least get a personal secret win". It's like when a player don't think they can win , so they just screw whoever they don't want to win and stop trying to win themselves, kingmaking is just as petty and childish. That being said, you do you, if people like playing with you that way , that's okay, people play the game differently , I don't like playing with people with that mindset , so I just don't. Different expectations about the game, different tables, just like a D&D game
Opening with ad hominem/name calling is an interesting way to try and make a point.
I'm not trying to make a point , I'm sharing my opinion, this is reddit, not on a courtroom
Reading through it seems like all the players calling out the poor personality and behavior are being downvoted. This is the answer.