Play to win Sparky-style vs be equal to all? What's your approach?
The Kitchen Table forum
Posted on July 17, 2022, 11:29 a.m. by MortisAngelus
Just want to hear your experiences and opinions on similar situations.
I've been faced with this dilemma so many times now, especially since I made much more serious decks to keep up with my playgroup. So my aggro decks are really good at taking out single opponents really fast and efficiently and having one less opponent to defend against is usually better.
However, I also know that I really hate being on the receiving end of a single-target assault. Feels a bit unfair and unfun. Furthermore, in our playgroup we usually attack whoever has the most HP and/or board presence regardless of how difficult the opposition becomes late game.
So my question is: is it better to play a fair game, that is more fun for everyone, or should one go for the throat so to speak, and play in such a way that I will get the upper hand, despite having to knock out one player very early in the game? How would you play?
Extra anecdote: Many players feel it is less fun and unfair to be killed brutally from nowhere, but are completely okay when someone just combos off out of nowhere too. Myself, I hate to see that someone gets to build up their board to what everyone knows will be the game ending combo machine, but as soon as I throw out a single big creature, that one gets removed as it is a more immediate threat. This was very true when I did my best to keep the enemy Korvold off the board, but I got killed first for being so aggressive against one player. Korvold player then wins.
RNR_Gaming - that's a perfect response, I can't think of anything to add.
July 18, 2022 1:02 p.m.
MortisAngelus says... #4
In essence, I do agree with you. But what to do then when you know that of you don't kill the mono-blue counter spell, infinite combo deck asap, they are unstoppable mid- to late game. Or the inevitable commander damage defeat if you dont kill the Korvold or skithyrix asap.
This is the result my decks the past two years have gone from gimmicky fun-decks to more serious and focused because fun gimmick just dont cut it anymore. Especially since precons like Aura of courage have begun to release.
I dont know.... Again, at the core I agree with you and commander should be more casual. But when even precons have become a serious threat, then it's hard not to start thinking more competitively...
July 18, 2022 3:50 p.m.
FormOverFunction says... #5
My kitchen table experiences have primarily been 1v1, so I’ll replace my super-casual-but-still-Commander-legal experiences for the sake of the discussion. Talking it out is great, so I agree with the above, but my response to this situation (as I don’t think you’re alone with this challenge) was my Torture deck. It’s stacks, which is sort of unpopular at times, but it generally punishes repeated draws, infinite turns, tutors, and a lot of the other “you’re trapped in a wizard loop and I’ll grind you out of existence” mechanics. Because it doesn’t PREVENT people from doing their thing, no one really seems to mind. Maybe it’s worth putting something stacks-ey together that primarily endangers the combo folks... while also pinging everyone else a bit? With everyone low, you can maybe close it out with a stolen creature or something fun and weird.
July 18, 2022 7:10 p.m.
Assuming those late-game infinite combos and commander damage creatures are an appropriate power level for your group, the problem is not power level, but the common misconception that “casual” is synonymous with “do not run interaction.” It sounds a lot like you are relying on player removal for your interaction, which forces your deck into a timer, meaning you have to be constantly working to beat that timer or just putter out in the late game.
A mix of having a casual win condition and actual interaction can keep a deck nice and low-powered and mitigate some of the need for optimising the win condition itself.
July 18, 2022 7:37 p.m.
RNR_Gaming says... #7
MortisAngelus - I assure you none of those decks are unbeatable even in the late game. All combos have a counter and part of playing the game is understanding timing and breaking parity. Adapt and overcome, power creep has always been a thing and pre-cons typically set the baseline. Nothing wrong with playing gimmicks but understanding that if you're struggling against precons you'll likely be on the back foot against most decks is imperative to improved brewing/playing. Also, I don't think commander should be played in any certain way just so long as it's fun and no one is blind sided.
July 19, 2022 11:27 a.m.
Necrosis24 says... #8
Player removal is removal in its own right, but if you are capable of taking out the problematic player you are likely able to take out the other players as well. That will create a target on your back and it is easier to team up (be political) to take you out rather than wait till you dwindle the group down. So your playgroup will use all their resources killing you rather than holding onto their removal for the late game to take care of the late game issue.
I think you fail to see that you are just as much of a threat as the late game Korvold player who combos off. If I knew I was playing against someone who can take me out early I too would put my resources to kill you. Although Korvold can become an issue in the late game if I don't deal with your aggro-deck first it doesn't matter if Korvold is a threat because we won't get to that point in the game. Also if you have a consistent playgroup you should be well aware of the key cards in the deck, so you only really need to remove those specific cards to tear apart the combo rather than the player.
So you could add protection (Teferi's Protection, Counterspell, etc) to maintain your boardstate, make your decks even more efficient to kill everyone early (but you may be breaching into cedh territory), or you could also just change up your deck strategy to be more mid-late game so you are not the initial threat on the table where everyone is targeting you. And although it is not unfair to be killed early on it is un-fun as you are potentially sat there for an hour or more as everyone else plays without you.
July 19, 2022 8:08 p.m.
MortisAngelus says... #9
I don't fail to recognize that I'm a threat. In fact, when I play with my Xenagos deck, I expect to become the archenemy. I dont think I have won but 1 or 2 games ever with that deck because of the gang-up. And that I am completely fine with.
The issue at hand is that the late game players get so angry if one starts targeting them immediatedly.
The blue combo-player I mentioned finally dismantled his deck because others were also complaining it was too strong and always ended with infinite turns and damage. Yet, everytime we played against it, people did not go for that player while he didnt have a board presence (because bad sportsmanship to attack defenseless player and all that), but everyone knew he could win any turn just depending on draw-luck and like a million draw cards spells.
So that scenario is the issue.
July 20, 2022 2:11 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #10
It sounds like one of two things is happening here. Either the strength of the decks in your playgroup have raised without a corresponding raise in attitude toward what is "fair" or the later game threats are trying to be "political" and are mad that you do not buy their "I'm not a threat" act. Either way a turn 0 talk as RNR_Gaming originally suggested is the solution.
July 20, 2022 6:14 a.m.
I was in a similar situation as you. My play group has been playing off and on together for going on 10 years now. At first, all we built were weird, very casual decks that were super fun to play. As it happens with most groups, over the years we started to improve these decks, removing the weird cards for hyper efficient staples. While not CEDH, it got to the point where our decks would consistently lock out a table or simply win by the fifth or sixth turn. I hated it. I didn’t actually like any of the decks I was playing; I only ran cards to defeat or answer other decks at the table. Deck building was atrocious and stale. To me, there is no fun in ‘crafting a deck’ when 90% of the cards are chosen for you through staples and ‘required’ answers to my opponents’ game plans. You could also feel a shift in attitude towards games in my group. Everyone wanted to win and when you got locked or knocked out, it tended to end in a feel bad.
A lot of groups find a way to navigate through power creep and embrace playing at new, higher levels of play. However, I was just simply sick of it. I did not want to play that way. So I didn’t. I didn’t try to shift any of my other group member’s perspective or tell them the power level they should play; I just focused on what I could do to make myself happy and for me, it was all about going back to making those stupid, terrible janky decks. I brought those terrible decks to games and I lost... a lot! And I didn’t care. To me, the joy of building a deck I truly love and playing off-the-wall cards no one has ever seen was enough. I knew I wouldn’t win against these other decks, but that’s okay.
As a side effect, me bringing these decks started to diffuse the table in a way. They still have some of those very powerful decks but, over time, they also started to craft lower powered decks that also had weird, fun cards. I still don’t win all that often and I am definitely still running the least competitive decks out there, but I am having more fun than I have ever had in Magic. And when I do pull off those wins, the whole table is excited :)
By no means am I saying that you should go down this route; I just wanted to demonstrate that there is another way to approach power creep. Your mileage may vary.
July 20, 2022 10:04 a.m.
420MensRightsActivist says... #12
on the rare occasion i'm in a game with more than 2 players, i play to win the whole thing, not just finish someone off because i can. whether i finish them off vs let them live depends on which gets me closer to defeating the other players as well.
but if the players in your group are letting someone build up a board state they "know" will lead to an infinite combo, while using their creature removal on you instead, they're just bad players if the infinite combo involves creatures. if the combo doesn't include creatures, then yeah it makes sense they'd use what removal they can.
RNR_Gaming says... #2
Have a discussion about expectations about the type of game you'd like to play before the game starts and pivot your play style to match it.
If you're asking how to avoid drawing hate from the table basically don't do anything that's unnecessary. Basically, You don't have to remove threats if they're not coming at you, you don't need to counter things that don't effect you and be political; make deals when you have the upper hand and barrel roll the table when you're so far ahead in the arms race that no one can do anything about it.
July 18, 2022 9:43 a.m.