Sometimes when I'm facing such case: I rather give the victory to the player that "played cooler and more interesting deck" or to take the victory away from someone that constantly targeted me the whole game or did other nasty stuff - If I'm on the game and can take actions, even if I'm going to lose, I'll take those actions.
My cousin brought an Esix Fractal Bloom deck to our playgroup and at some point we literally would play Meteor Golems with the intent to allow him to copy them in deals to save ourselves from other decks. He then realized that he can just clone them additional times once he has the one, and now the kingmaker joke is “Who wants to give him a Meteor Golem?” 😂
Had a spite/concede/king making play once. I was in the lead with a large human and zombie token army, when one of my friends got a phone call. On his turn he dropped a boardwipe and then conceded and left, which killed all my tokens and I was ever able to fully recover and ended up losing.
I suffered because I am never the one being made king. After that, everybody gets mad about it and it's super uncool. My Marwyn deck is the strongest deck in the group, so I understand there. However, when I play my weaker decks, people will look at me and then try to buff the Atarka deck to one shot me before I can play the game, even though that means they will get one shot directly afterwards.
I love the new format with all three of our hosts! I hope Rachel is a permanent addition to the team and I hope we get more Jimmy, Josh, and Rachel episodes
My favorite instance of kingmaking was when Jimmy had a door to nothingness, could have killed one of the two other players and decided the game, but instead used it on himself. Classic Jimmy.
@@Tvboy777 i think you're right technically but heres the thing.. jimmy couldve made the ol proclomation of mutually assured destruction but the creative spontaneity and the narrative that making the 'wrong' decision can spin together can be a net positive as far as good gaming.
There's an expectation in my play group that if someone is actively in the process of killing you, it is expected that you'll use everything in your arsenal to hurt them on the way out. I call it the "From Hell's Heart" rule. If I'm going down I'm hurting you as much as possible. It helps discourage people from trying to kill someone too early, you know that if you try to kill someone you're opening yourself up to all the removal in their hand and all your creatures potentially dying in combat.
I am not a fan of this „on my way out“ I dump all I can. If someone attacks me for lethal or kills me any other way, the others should duke it out. I shouldnt do stuff just to do them. Thats just spite
@@SP-ik6cc I guess the big reason in why this is acceptable and your point isn't valid is that in this scenario this player picked on one person. It helps to stop the action of someone just going after an individual in the future. It is less about king making as it is to prevent future times where you see a person as an easy target.
@@matthewrose8002 I completely disagree with your statement. There are many playstyles, like voltron, where it'd be foolish not to start with the biggest threat and focus them. Hardly does anyone go out of there way to focus the weakest deck, or " go after someone for no good reason." Generally, the reason someone starts complaining of being targeted is they're simply being a sore loser. This is why I don't believe this comment fits the example and definition of kingmaking given in this episode, as were given no details of board state, number of players remaining, # of cards in hand, etc. Utilizing your spells to respond to and hurt someone who is targeting you is in no way "Kingmaking", which is why you're wrong.
It’s worth noting that in a game like MTG it’s difficult to be certain when you’re witnessing pure kingmaking by another player, because someone who appears to be out of the game may have some longshot way to win seemingly out of nowhere. Also, I’d put strategic threat fulfillment in a different box from kingmaking. “If you wipe the board, I’m sure to lose, so if you do I’ll target you with my Tree of Perdition before the sweeper resolves, allowing the other player to easily kill you.” If the player plays the wipe and I carry out my threat, it has the same effect as kingmaking, but I don’t think it belongs in the same conceptual box as kingmaking proper. The threat was made in an attempt to preserve my ability to win, and carrying it out signals the credibility of such threats, even though at the time the threat is carried out I’m no longer in a position to win.
If I'm guaranteed to die I try to make whatever play I would have made if I were to live, which is usually something that would hurt whoever is killing me. If response I take is going to cause another player to win, that is a consequence of them targeting me and is something that they should be taking into account when killing somebody.
I 100% agree with this! If you are going to take me out or cause me to lose, and I can hurt you in some form or fashion, I'm going to do so with a vengeance. That way going forward you always take into account that taking me down will cost you. So you better be ready for the consequence or to win on the spot.
Absolutely. I don't quite understand where something like this could be seen as spite. It should be a given in a multiplayer format that every move has the potential to cost you something. It comes up most often with targeted removal, but it should apply everywhere even when attempting to eliminate an opponent.
On spite play - I used to get way too invested personally in revenge and would focus on someone if they messed up my plan - realized this was actually leading to not enjoying my games and started building decks that were more versatile and less invested in a single strategy as well as able to "do the thing" without winning and found myself having much more fun
I think I've also noticed that, revenge rarely pays off unless you're taking out the thing that ruined your plan and WOULD ruin your plan if you tried again somehow. A lot of times I see that, if someone is playing something that threatens the board big time, other players WILL find an answer for it so it's almost better for you to hold your big effect for a little bit later to see if others respond AND because if you start 1 v 1ing in a 4 player game, you actually give your opponents a reprieve which means they can just sort of ramp, watch you guys duke it out and then come in and sweep the game.
A player at my old LGS used to say, "Even if you do not choose, you have chosen." Even if you ignore the kingmaking action, your inaction can still make a king of the other player. Personally, I will never concede where it could impact the results of who wins. But I will use game actions, abilities, and spells to do so, especially if my play causes a more interesting board state for the remaining players.
Yeah they didn't mentions this, even if you do nothing, people will try to paint you as the kingmaker for choosing not to intervene when you could have. It's the trolly problem.
when people concede when it would impact the game like if i attack with lifelink and they concede i always advocate for ignore that and gain your life anyway, i hate spite scoops when a lethal attack is declared when all you have to do is take the hit and the same thing happens anyway. or when you scoop when 1 person has lethal on either or but not both and the person that scoops was the biggest threat to them and 100% who they were going to attack with at least most of their board, my home group has a player like that we usually still say we attacked them.
There's a scenario that I don't like where you do win but don't feel good about it because you know the other player or players let you win. They don't end the game in a good way. This happens to me sometimes.
I don't make spite plays, but I do warn people if I can kill them in response to them trying to take me out and will do so. I also tend to be the arch enemy in my playgroup though, so it tends to be necessary to keep me in the game
I am always going to play whatever cards (literal or metaphorical) I have available to me to benefit myself or harm my opponents as much as possible. Me firing off a burn/counter/removal spell at an opponent who is threatening me is no different (IMHO) whether they are _threatening_ to kill me or whether they are _actually_ killing me.
31:57 I remember entering a Commander tournament that gave points based on which position you finished in your pod of 4, so second definitely mattered. I played the Silverquill Pre-con out of the box and I remember the obvious threat looked at the other 2 players and said “Hey let me do this cool thing, its going to be hilarious” because I had run my Breena out ASAP to give the card draw/incentive to attack for everyone. The obvious threat player plays Oko and proceeds to steal my Commander and realizes if they take me out they lose my commander and the other 2 players had 0 reach/flyers. Proceeds to just beatdown the other 2 players with my commander and his Oko/OP cards and I sit there finishing second because the other 2 did nothing to save me or deal with the Oko back during turn 2 😂
Kingmaking is fair enough cuz someone on their way out is well within their rights to fire a parting shot against their opponent. Nothing wrong with making them pay for taking you out within the rules. Conceding to deny advantage is a major no-no, though.
@@dmal4109 I guess just roll with it to suit each playgroup since individual mileage varies. Just really not our thing since we play fairly optimized but deliberately steer clear of getting to that point.
@@dmal4109 In cedh, you can make that argument, in regular edh, that doesn't work. There's plenty of things that are part of the game that people agree goes against the social contract, this is just another one of those.
I heard a saying recently that applies to the convo around 54:00 - friends don't have to share every hobby. There are people I just can't play D&D with, but those players are the ones I love to play cards with, etc.
I got my cousin and her husband into magic recently and so they're still very much learning. I started 22 years ago. I've learned alot on deck building and choice making, sort of toning my plays down. Keep up the good work everybody!
I have watched a good amount of The Command Zone videos and this is by far the best, most useful, and most interesting episode. I'm a nearly 100% CEDH player and it's refreshing to hear some aspects of the topic that touch on the CEDH perspective.
I love the social contract. It's amazing when people bring up the one and only contract that no one can point to and that everyone consents to immediately, even if you don't actually consent to the subjective terms the person brings up in each different situation.
It's against the social contract in our playgroup ... but that's because our playgroup is just me, my wife, and my two kids. I'm already the King... yeah, no, not really, I'm always the archenemy and my wife is the Queen. LMAO
5 player and 6 player are way better for this reason. Wouldn't recommend more than 6...space and sometimes the games can go a LOT longer depending on what's resolving on the table.
@@bobby45825 The biggest issue with 6 player games is they're just too long. You end up waiting like 15-20 minutes between each of your turns towards the middle of the game
I was in a recent game (where we had to pay to play) where one of the guys was being attacked. No matter how he blocked he was going to die. He went to scoop but I asked if he wanted to do blocks first. So he did and he blocked in the best way he could've which killed off one of the key creatures from the guy attacking. A few turns later the guy who killed him got legit angry (he was not kidding around, he was very salty about it) because the guy who died blocked and killed his creature and it was going to now, a few turns later, end up making him lose the game. He called this king making and called the block a spite block. I argued with him and told him I thought it was just playing the game correctly. His argument was that the block did absolutely nothing to help the guy who died. After getting home that night, another argument I have towards the salty dude, is that couldn't it have been considered (in the salty dude's opinion) spiteful if the guy who died hadn't made any blocks at all because then the salty dude would've had his creature he needed and it would've hurt the other people left in that game. I honestly feel like he was just on tilt and was being overly salty. What do you guys think in this situation? I think the guy who died was just playing the game correctly...even though he was going to die, he blocked in the best way he possibly could've, and that's just how it is.
If an attack is going to kill only one player out of several opponents, I feel like you should always finish resolving the attack. Because the results matter.
Usually, personally, i like to verbalize my thoughts in a commander game when there's a lot of unavoidable interaction, unless it's something simple where someone is bottom feeding and I'm clearly in last (my group likes pretending i'm on the throne constantly, even when I'm not).
There is no question here. Play the game to the best of your ability until you have 0 life points. Especially in commander, you couldn't even possibly know if another player might intervene at any point, but even if not, why should you just let the person who is kicking you out do so for free? That was exactly what was mentioned here, if these two players play again next time, the 'salty' attacker will remember that the other player wanted to just leave without blocking, basically taking it laying down, making it more likely that the salty player will just not consider them a problem to remove if they can, not having to fear losing anything for it. When you're going down, play the game still. It's a courtesy to yourself first and foremost, but to all other players also. If you don't want to play the game to the end (assuming it isn't a totally toxic experience), don't shuffle up in the first place.
"The cost of attacking me, needs to be taken into account." That's right, if you do nothing and let it happen, people know your easy and give up. If you keep me alive for 1 turn cuz "fun" it might be your doom.
I think Kingmaking happens less often when players learn priority. Didnt know what priority was until I started playing cedh because no casual youtube channels talk about priority and for example this channel just started talking about priority in the last couple of years. So for like 7 years or so I didnt know what priority was.
I politiced Josh into not tapping spear spewer to kill me at Magic Con Las Vegas because it would have gotten ride of my collector ouphe which was stopping a combo win from another player. Not killing me resulted in me winning with a boonweaver giant combo that Josh saw in my GY. I still had to go through my combo that had potential to be stopped by others, but killing me would have ended the game without an option to interact.
My playgroup uses conceding as a weapon, (I will/wont concede if...) and this may be an unpopular opinion, but we all really like it! It adds a whole new layer and depth to politicing, and makes our games turn into discussions and complex thoughts.
That's the beauty of magic, what works for your group doesn't need to work for others. In my personal group, if that were to happen, that person would never ever land another spell or creature on board without it being countered or blasted away lol
I'm surprised that concession as a way of kingmaking is a thing, when someone does so I just tell the ones affected to treat it as if it still happened
On the 'good sportsmanship' king making, i sat down with my tuned Marneus Calgar deck against the coven counter precon, new playerto our lgs and the game in general. He did his turn and had swings, but went to pass. I stopped him and said "you should attack me every turn, especially while i'm open, i'm going to quickly become a problem". The game ended with Him and I duking it out, and more then a few wide eyed moments while he watched all my triggers and value engine going. He could of taken me out early if I hadn't gotten down an early collective restraint to stop the swings.
My pod had a constructive talk about not getting into a spite-driven arms-race, but never rule-zeroed king-making plays. Generally we're doing cool stuff if we can, even if it isn't for the win, and definitely meeting attacks with as much impact as possible. Big fan of Rachel's deep cut: winning commander means making a story that's told after the cards are out away
I would never choose an opponent to win, but I will certainly do my best to ensure the person who vanquished me will lose. Mutally assured destruction is part of the game ;) I've definitely earthquaked the table for a draw, but that was a MAD decision as well.
Little story about kingmaking: I was once playing Trough the Ages (boardgame) with a group of friends, which can go on for hours. In the rulebook it is explicitly stated that one can concede and get out of the game during one's turn (let's say as a sorcery). Because of the early plays & drafts and the snowbally nature of the game I found myself in a pretty bad spot for about 3-4 hours and at some point I dediced to quit. Because of that the player that was on second place and farming me for victory points with attacks got super mad at me because I happened to be the cow-to-be-milked for him to have a chance at winning. I didn't want to sit there for another 2 hours feeling bad about my game. That episode almost ended the friendship. Board games are... intense, Commander included
31:57 There were times when I was younger when it was very obvious one player was winning. I remember playing a game with random people and I had an out like Fog to survive and buy me more time against the King/Lead player. For whatever reason, the blue player I had never even looked at countered my spell. I was so confused because I wasn’t the threat but this guy sealed my fafe. The blue player just said the game was already over and they were just speeding things along. They protected the Lead/King Player down to a 1v1 and thought they could stop/interrupt the untouched board of the King by themselves. Nope! They totally got stomped and I was pissed at this person’s logic and never played with them again. Like all the counterspells/removal spent to help the king could have been used against the king instead!
I’ve seen the same thing. I cast some removal on an artifact or enchantment that’s really hosing everyone else at the table and another player counters it. When asked why they would do that they just said because they could. So aggravating.
Another player could save you from dying if it helps them get closer to winning. So defend the best you can when someone is trying to kill you. For example, if they took some of your cards for themselves, they lose those when you die. They may need those even if not to win, but to at least survive. Even if they dont, they could still save you because they know they cant win solo but they have a chance if there is someone else too
I appreciate Rachel's sentiment that cEDH is a much cleaner social agreement. Coming primarily from 60 card formats with friends that were primarily interested in building skill piloting their decks, coming to casual Commander has been awkward in the best of times. The more casual the setting, weirdly the more difficult I've found it is to approach Commander. There are so many unwritten rules and expectations you can't know about a new playgroup in this format that I find myself wishing more people just adopted the cEDH mentality.
Just have a rule zero conversation while people are shuffling up. Asking a question like "What are the table rules?" can help to avoid mismatches in expectations, especially when joining a new play group. Most folks are attracted to EDH explicitly because it is a casual format, where the primary goal isn't always to win. Taking a moment to check in with the group both before and after a game about expectations and "house rules" will really help reduce the awkward moments.
Hey :-) Great Episode. About the second place, I don’t value second place in terms of success at all, however if you get second place you get to play until the game ends and don’t have to wait for the next round. That’s the only benefit of second place in my mind.
I'd love to see an episode of extra turns where everyone makes a deck they think would be fun and pass the deck to the player on the left (or right, doesn't matter) like they do on suffle up and play some time...could even get prof to be a part of it
@@abuelovinagres4411 he has done it. I love the concept. I'd love to see the command zone crew make decks for each other based on what they like/dislike
I was in one game where we had 6 players and the game had gone on for 3 hours and still no where near ending the game. The player next to me had pretty much their entire deck in the graveyard and showed me that he had a rise of the dark realms in hand. I had a counter spell in hand but just wanted the game to end. The guy played rise and drained everyone but one out. Another player noticed what was in my hand and told everyone that I played kingmaker and was told that I wasn't welcome to play there anymore.
I dont blame you, not everyone wants to be there that long for one game. Def need some clarification ahead of time on timed turns, alternative win cons, and more aggressive from players.
You are not required to try to win in my opinion. I have 2 grouphug decks. One of wich i activly try to make someone else of my choice to win. Wich actually makes for pretty fun games were we sometime evolve into this kinda 2v2 scenario
I see Kingmaking not so much as ensuring a specific player WINS, but ensuring a specific player LOSES. I will - and have - gladly thrown a game to ensure someone else loses for certain.
I kingmake everytime, with my last resources I will punish those who made me lose. Sometimes I also kingmake in order to make the game end faster so we can get to the next match.
Example of King Making for me: We were playing in a year end final tournament. The tournament goes 4 weeks. The top two places move on to the next week. We are in Week 2, and one player goes off on turn 7 and has enough power to kill two people. This means whomever he doesn't kill makes it to week three. He chose not to kill me. I kind of felt guilty, but his justification is that my deck had done the best out of us three, and he felt like I deserved to go on. I know that doesnt' mean much to the other two, but I was very thankfull. It would have been a tough place to be in, but he had to take out two so that he was guarenteed to move on.
But that's not really King Making. King Making generally is understood as being done by the person being behind, as in a person not having a chance to win themselves. Being strong enough to knock out two players with a perspective of winning still is not kingmaking, especially when as you point out they could apparently gotten you out also. That just means that they had a really strong hold on the game and already _were_ 'the king', they just got to decide who went on in the tournament. Not really the same.
My old playgroup in Grand Forks, ND at Grand Cities Games (an amazing LGS to visit if you are ever in the area) has a rule that if you scoop in response to an attack or targeted effect to deny resources to instigating player, they get to freely reassign those resources to someone else at 0 cost. This prevents people from scooping to the "I can only kill one player this turn" scenarios which would come up quite often in our play group back in the day. I felt it was quite the elegant solution to this specific version of the problem.
My playgroup consists of my closest childhood friends, however two of them are brothers and there tends to be a lot of spite plays. Usually we can get a laugh out it and we believe in letting each other play splashy have fun with weird cards
I don't mind a final hurrah or a retaliation play in game. However, the kingmaking scenario I loathe and why my group is largely a "If you are to conceed you do so at sorcery speed unless its an emergency." Is "oh you swing out on me? Before damage I conceed. Now you're tapped out, get no triggers, and they win. Ha." That type of deal infuriates me to no end. Note: posted before listening/watching.
@TurnUp that is another proposed fix we had as well! It just made games really unfun and a lot of strategies got turned off because it was frequent from one or two players in our 6-7 play group did it frequently
Yaaas non card review episode! Anyway some show ideas 1. Game Knights vs Extra Turns - A statistical analysis of games to find out if they are the same or different and why 2. Player Stat Breakdown - Basically stats on each player (i.e lands played, mana spent, winrate...) with player analysis 3. Directing the Command Zone - what decisions do you make for the story purposes - i.e. resolving rhystic study after the spell resolves and not cast 4. Historic Brawl vs Paper Commander. How 1v1 is different then a pod
Interesting discussion, this is maybe making me rethink building my first ever EDH deck. My plan was to build a Kor deck, with only cards featuring Kor’s in the artwork (and possibly Nahiri) and only artwork that I like. The artwork that I like factor, actually takes out some of the more powerful cards, such as some Nahiri ones. My plan was not to play to win games of EDH, but to play as thematically as possible. As my deck will be quite weak, won’t have any combos or game winning conditions to setup, essentially, I guess it is a Kingmaking deck. I might not survive long enough to have that, guaranteed making a king situation. But I will be chipping away at other players life totals. I guess I could try it out and if it’s really not fun for other players, change things up.
Kingmaking is about playing the *next* game. What precedents do you want to set that will make other players think twice about taking you down or hurting you? If you’re known as being able and willing to hurt people on your way out or down, others need to take that into account. But if you do it, you *should* really be doing it to try to win future games.
We had a situation where we had 3-way "kingmaker" situation. Either we wait untill someone draws a win or someone snatches the second place by kingmaking. Tricky
I had a situation that came up where I could one shot anyone on the board with infect but only one and all 3 were likely to win on their turn (strong boards, just tutored, etc, high power pod for the most part) I ended up holding back somewhat to "hold up interaction" that I didn't have and since I'm usually a bigger control player the buff worked and I was able to knock out 2 the next turn and almost the third but he was able to bounce enough to not die. I really liked the "game memory" segment
Good topic! I had a game where I had swung all my small creatures at a player late in the game to take them out. I have Derevi on board so I rely on combat damage to get the untap triggers, not a stax deck. He decides to concede before combat damage so I can't untap and therefore defenceless to the rest of the table. No one except me saw a problem with that and laughed!
It seems to me that Group Hug decks tend to be the decks most played by those aiming for second. It allows for everyone to move faster but typically don't have a win con themselves. In a way they get to do the thing when they cause everyone at the table to pop off.
It seems to me like your playing against straight unoptimized players. If they’re playing for second, so be it, but a true group hug deck leverages imbalance to win themselves
My favorite kingmaking moment was when I was playing my Xyris snake tribal deck. Had a metric ton of snakes and knew I needed to take one specific person out to win the game, but they teferi's protectioned right before I could attack. I knew I was dead when they came back, so I swung out at the other two players and then played goblin bombardment and yeeted my entire board at them, killing them both. 4th player game back to a smoking crater full of corpses with me on the top of the pile going "Kill me, for I have already won!" Everyone was super happy with how the game ended, they thought it was one of the funniest things they'd seen in a while and we all got to immediately shuffle up and play again.
Yes my playgroup absolutely allows king making as well. One of my friends even builds clunky decks he knows has very little chance of winning games but leads to him getting into lots of 'king making' situations and he loves it! lol As far as 'spite' plays go though, we're all pretty dang good about openly discussing the situations as they happen.
Yeah same here, were all good friends but have our petty moments. Theres times where I know I'm not gonna win but I like spreading the Ws around and helping.
recent game memory that hapened against me was my buddy said "of course, you always have anwsers", and that made me smile, cause i never used to be, i've grown a lot as a player, especially in terms of deck construction in the last year, and the biggest difference? Started watching command zone, not jokes, your brekas downs are huge
Kingmaking when it ends a long game so you can play another is totally fine. I love that CEDH has that social construct because every game actually matters.
For concession, I prefer if it happens when its down to 1v1 as before that simply being a presence will shape how the other players act. Even if you are wide open, you are a source of life gain to a lifelinked attack, an extra effect on cards counting opponents etc.
I've had folk concede in the scenario where they were about to get hit with Life linkers and/or Trigger effects. Whenever that happens, and I am another player at the table. I argue to treat the game though no attacks were blocked to progress forward. When inevitably the conceding player objects. I kindly explain that they are no longer playing the game and to please not interfere with the table rulings.
In my playgroup, if someone concedes as a weapon, we proceed through the turn as if they did not concede and they are unable to make decisions and they miss all triggers.
ive found my self in serveral situations of "king making" but i feel my definition of the tearm is wide but to me its where you make a move where you knowilingly prevent one player from winning most the situations ive run into none of us were going to win except that one player thats so far ahead that it doesnt matter if someone other than archenemy kills another player in a way that results in their own death leaving a 1v1 so far out of favor its a sweep
I'm a firm believer that your desicions about how you want to play the game are made during deckbuilding. Once decks are shuffled and the game is started, everything is fair so long as its printed on the cards. Its made my deck building a whole lot more interesting and games a lot more fun to play like this.
With my Shadrix deck, if a player misses their land drop, I usually target them with with Shadrix's card draw ability so they might not miss their next drop. I do this even if they have no creatures and I could target them with the +1/+1 counters ability for a one-sided advantage.
At around 18:45, you guys talked about leaving a "good" game state. Is it not equally valid to say, "I want to leave the most inequitable game state as I can when I die so the game ends as soon as possible and I can start playing three next game instead of sitting out for a long time"?
@Ornithopter470 That's my whole point, "good" is subjective. I think blocking, revenge killing, and using all your resources to affect the game state in whatever way you want for whatever reasons is perfectly understandable and justified. The only thing I hate is when people concede at a specific time to affect the game state. That's super lame. When I host, there's a house rule that you can only concede at Sorcery speed.
I had a moment like this. Was playing against my nephew and brother, and my brother was playing his Chatterfang deck, I was running wolves, and my nephew was playing a blue green commander. So around turn 5 or 6 my brother had accumulated enough forestwalking squirrels that he was definitely gonna win, so I politiced for him not to kill either me or my nephew until after my next turn bc I had a play that he would be able to take us both out in one swing. So he did what he was gonna do, skipped combat and passed the turn. I untap, draw, and make my only play, cast Coat of Arms. My nephew wasn't happy but we got another game in instead of wasting 15-20 minutes drawing the game out.
seeing the maturity of the gang these days is really nice, we've gone from josh and jimmy talking about how fuckin cool and powerful a card is and you have to get it to hearing them talk about playing the game with empathy for your other players.
I very much agree with the conceding issue where it nullifies an effect that other plays may have got - take this lifelink scenario. If I player one watches two attack three with lifelinkers and three concedes. I will enforce and plea that player two gains that life as if they hit as if player 3 didn't leave in that moment but after combat or something. Since I agree it really does irk me.
I think a spite is also targeting a player because of the commander. Example: Player openly told me at the beginning of the game, I have Lathril deck too. Then proceeded to attack me the entire game while ignoring others because he knows what his deck does and assumed mine does the same thing, but mine was built differently. Haven't gone back to that LGS because several players were doing those type of things all night.
Great episode, my way of working through these situations is to ask the table while I have priority. "I can stop x here but it won't increase my win chance, what's the tables view?"
This is why I always run 'Chance for Glory' in any deck I can, because it literally gives me one laaast opportunity to do something, then it directly says on the card 'I lose the game' at instant speed. Worst case, its just a way for me to stop playing when I am not having fun
Favorite spite card: illusionist's gambit! Throw someone else under the bus, come back and win. 😂 The natural flow is always a big factor, but I'll sometimes do what I can to give someone else a fighting chance, but the other way could lead to shuffle up for another game... I think I will try that, but announce what I'm doing. I can remove x, if you want, I'll remove y instead, and we can play again, thoughts?
One game that comes to mind, someone was playing Meren and went to kill me. I flashed in an Identity Crisis on him on the way out. He folded real quick after that.
Just wanted to chime in this bit: I don't think kingmaking is strictly done by a player who could not have taken the crown themselves. I kingmake frequently knowing I could have (probably) taken the W but choose not to because I don't need to win to feel good. Sometimes I'd rather another person win because I think s/he earned it (like when I'm intentionally playing to the table), or just wanted to see what a player could do given the chance etc... Edit: I had to add this after watching 23:39 Roll commercial!
I feel like they completely missed the issues sorrounding kingmaking. It's not about hating on people who are already on their way out, who play out what they can, but about people who systematically unbalance the game through their actions - the definition should instead be something aking to "knowingly and through aggregious or repeated actions, promote or support one or two players over the rest, without a plan or intention to win". - It's the same reason 'Group hug' decks can be so un-fun at times
Conceding at any time is allowed in our playgroup, but the remaining players are allowed to decide together how the game state is affected by the concession. We can rewind a few decisions, alter the board state, or whatever we want to keep the game going in a way we feel is fair. It's not like we can stop someone from getting up and leaving, and we wouldn't want to try. That just builds resentment.
Being a born again MTG player I’m loving the show everyone and I’m learning a lot. Sorry Josh and jimmy but, Rachel is my favorite. This is a hell of a trio you’ve got here.
When in doubt just default to not playing anything on your way out as you are dying - let the others duke it out. Sure block however you want to block but leave it at that, is how I like to do it.
Our playgroup is competitive. Our slogan is, "Y'all gonna die." Now, just because we're competitive, doesn't mean we frown on "bad" plays. It makes a more interesting game when things start to get crazy. The competitive nature just means we know everyone is playing to win. Spite plays on the verge of death? Yes please. That's how you make stories to remember
One thing that MTGO does quite nicely (at least a couple years ago) is that if somebody concedes the game when you have attacked them, it treats it as though all of your creatures were unblocked and all of your combat damage triggers and effects happen.
I've been playing EDH on mtgo for years and never heard of this being the case. MTGO enforces the official rules to the letter (other than bugs), so this seems pretty unlikely to have actually been true.
@@Tvboy777 I used to play dragonlord Ojutai as my commander and still got lifelink and his triggered ability when people conceded in response to an attack so dunno what to tell you 🤷♂️
In the same vein, I think sandbagging and the implications of when you MUST cast a spell because you can vs. holding a card (counterspell or removal) with the assumption another player can and must answer to avoid a loss is a good/bad play. Taking advantage of turn order and APNAP to hold onto resources is something that happens, but isn't necessarily kingmaking.
What kind of kingmaking situations have you found yourself in? What did you do?
Sometimes when I'm facing such case: I rather give the victory to the player that "played cooler and more interesting deck" or to take the victory away from someone that constantly targeted me the whole game or did other nasty stuff - If I'm on the game and can take actions, even if I'm going to lose, I'll take those actions.
My cousin brought an Esix Fractal Bloom deck to our playgroup and at some point we literally would play Meteor Golems with the intent to allow him to copy them in deals to save ourselves from other decks. He then realized that he can just clone them additional times once he has the one, and now the kingmaker joke is “Who wants to give him a Meteor Golem?” 😂
This was long ago, and he’s only had access to more and more scary cards…
Had a spite/concede/king making play once. I was in the lead with a large human and zombie token army, when one of my friends got a phone call. On his turn he dropped a boardwipe and then conceded and left, which killed all my tokens and I was ever able to fully recover and ended up losing.
I suffered because I am never the one being made king. After that, everybody gets mad about it and it's super uncool. My Marwyn deck is the strongest deck in the group, so I understand there. However, when I play my weaker decks, people will look at me and then try to buff the Atarka deck to one shot me before I can play the game, even though that means they will get one shot directly afterwards.
We need an episode of Game Knights where everyone uses a combo deck made by Josh.
Except Josh.
He has to use a red deck made by Jimmy.
THE Neheb deck
@@hoozoohleague8264 I bet he still wins
@@azneter I bet he will find a way to combo
@@azneter I think I saw Jimmy play it 3times, and have on average 3mana on turn5 😆 I swear someone was taking the lands out of his deck to troll him
YESSSSS I LOVE IT
I love the new format with all three of our hosts! I hope Rachel is a permanent addition to the team and I hope we get more Jimmy, Josh, and Rachel episodes
Rachael is the literal best. She says, "flliip the taaaaabbbllleeeeee....". She sounds guilty of it!
I'd like to see more of DJ too, he's one of my favorite guest hosts
@@blackdragoncustomdice6985 I haven't seen him on in a while. I hope everything is ok behind the scenes.
I think rachel is a part of team ,....shes been on for a while
@@john81blaze she has said it on her other podcast which she left to join full time here
My favorite instance of kingmaking was when Jimmy had a door to nothingness, could have killed one of the two other players and decided the game, but instead used it on himself. Classic Jimmy.
Lol I just watched that game lol love Jimmy's choice
Isn't that the opposite of king making?
Part of the Jimmy experience is finding new creative ways to lose.
@@Tvboy777 i think you're right technically but heres the thing.. jimmy couldve made the ol proclomation of mutually assured destruction but the creative spontaneity and the narrative that making the 'wrong' decision can spin together can be a net positive as far as good gaming.
@@darthbahnsen3832 I was just doing the old "well actually".
There's an expectation in my play group that if someone is actively in the process of killing you, it is expected that you'll use everything in your arsenal to hurt them on the way out. I call it the "From Hell's Heart" rule. If I'm going down I'm hurting you as much as possible.
It helps discourage people from trying to kill someone too early, you know that if you try to kill someone you're opening yourself up to all the removal in their hand and all your creatures potentially dying in combat.
Lol, literally hit the post button and JLK says the line.
But that’s not kingmaking or in the realm of ruining the game, if anything that’s an objective maximizing usage of resources.
I am not a fan of this „on my way out“ I dump all I can. If someone attacks me for lethal or kills me any other way, the others should duke it out. I shouldnt do stuff just to do them. Thats just spite
@@SP-ik6cc I guess the big reason in why this is acceptable and your point isn't valid is that in this scenario this player picked on one person. It helps to stop the action of someone just going after an individual in the future. It is less about king making as it is to prevent future times where you see a person as an easy target.
@@matthewrose8002 I completely disagree with your statement. There are many playstyles, like voltron, where it'd be foolish not to start with the biggest threat and focus them. Hardly does anyone go out of there way to focus the weakest deck, or " go after someone for no good reason." Generally, the reason someone starts complaining of being targeted is they're simply being a sore loser. This is why I don't believe this comment fits the example and definition of kingmaking given in this episode, as were given no details of board state, number of players remaining, # of cards in hand, etc. Utilizing your spells to respond to and hurt someone who is targeting you is in no way "Kingmaking", which is why you're wrong.
Love that is seems with Rachel on the team y’all are able to videos that aren’t so focused on set releases and we are getting the fun topic videos!
for sure. I'm loving the addition to the show
It’s worth noting that in a game like MTG it’s difficult to be certain when you’re witnessing pure kingmaking by another player, because someone who appears to be out of the game may have some longshot way to win seemingly out of nowhere. Also, I’d put strategic threat fulfillment in a different box from kingmaking. “If you wipe the board, I’m sure to lose, so if you do I’ll target you with my Tree of Perdition before the sweeper resolves, allowing the other player to easily kill you.” If the player plays the wipe and I carry out my threat, it has the same effect as kingmaking, but I don’t think it belongs in the same conceptual box as kingmaking proper. The threat was made in an attempt to preserve my ability to win, and carrying it out signals the credibility of such threats, even though at the time the threat is carried out I’m no longer in a position to win.
Yeah I would call that politics :P
eh i think terrible threat assessment in moment def feels the same, even if it wasnt intentional but it depends on the group/situation
@@maxpelaez4955 Some people are just not experienced enough for accurate threat assessment
I love the step up in content after Rachel joined the team
She's been a workhorse!
Definitely one of the best moves they’ve made! She’s a badass!
100%
If I'm guaranteed to die I try to make whatever play I would have made if I were to live, which is usually something that would hurt whoever is killing me. If response I take is going to cause another player to win, that is a consequence of them targeting me and is something that they should be taking into account when killing somebody.
I 100% agree with this! If you are going to take me out or cause me to lose, and I can hurt you in some form or fashion, I'm going to do so with a vengeance. That way going forward you always take into account that taking me down will cost you. So you better be ready for the consequence or to win on the spot.
100% scumbag move
I don’t think anyone disagrees with this. That’s you using resources at its maximum.
I agree with this point and do it myself. If you target me in the game I'm going to come after you.
Absolutely. I don't quite understand where something like this could be seen as spite. It should be a given in a multiplayer format that every move has the potential to cost you something. It comes up most often with targeted removal, but it should apply everywhere even when attempting to eliminate an opponent.
On spite play - I used to get way too invested personally in revenge and would focus on someone if they messed up my plan - realized this was actually leading to not enjoying my games and started building decks that were more versatile and less invested in a single strategy as well as able to "do the thing" without winning and found myself having much more fun
super important lesson for everyone to learn
I think I've also noticed that, revenge rarely pays off unless you're taking out the thing that ruined your plan and WOULD ruin your plan if you tried again somehow. A lot of times I see that, if someone is playing something that threatens the board big time, other players WILL find an answer for it so it's almost better for you to hold your big effect for a little bit later to see if others respond AND because if you start 1 v 1ing in a 4 player game, you actually give your opponents a reprieve which means they can just sort of ramp, watch you guys duke it out and then come in and sweep the game.
A player at my old LGS used to say, "Even if you do not choose, you have chosen." Even if you ignore the kingmaking action, your inaction can still make a king of the other player.
Personally, I will never concede where it could impact the results of who wins. But I will use game actions, abilities, and spells to do so, especially if my play causes a more interesting board state for the remaining players.
Yeah they didn't mentions this, even if you do nothing, people will try to paint you as the kingmaker for choosing not to intervene when you could have. It's the trolly problem.
when people concede when it would impact the game like if i attack with lifelink and they concede i always advocate for ignore that and gain your life anyway, i hate spite scoops when a lethal attack is declared when all you have to do is take the hit and the same thing happens anyway.
or when you scoop when 1 person has lethal on either or but not both and the person that scoops was the biggest threat to them and 100% who they were going to attack with at least most of their board, my home group has a player like that we usually still say we attacked them.
I would LOVE to see a part 2 episode on this discussing how Group Hug, Slug, and Chaos decks impact and warp the tables you are playing at.
Please 🙏
Huuuge call, amazing suggestion, I really love group slug and goad type decks but god they have to be built so carefully to stay fun
This would be so good yes please!!
This is a fantastic question that I am glad you all are addressing
"I am your king!"
"Well I didn't vote for you."
There's a scenario that I don't like where you do win but don't feel good about it because you know the other player or players let you win. They don't end the game in a good way. This happens to me sometimes.
I don't make spite plays, but I do warn people if I can kill them in response to them trying to take me out and will do so. I also tend to be the arch enemy in my playgroup though, so it tends to be necessary to keep me in the game
I am always going to play whatever cards (literal or metaphorical) I have available to me to benefit myself or harm my opponents as much as possible. Me firing off a burn/counter/removal spell at an opponent who is threatening me is no different (IMHO) whether they are _threatening_ to kill me or whether they are _actually_ killing me.
31:57 I remember entering a Commander tournament that gave points based on which position you finished in your pod of 4, so second definitely mattered.
I played the Silverquill Pre-con out of the box and I remember the obvious threat looked at the other 2 players and said “Hey let me do this cool thing, its going to be hilarious” because I had run my Breena out ASAP to give the card draw/incentive to attack for everyone.
The obvious threat player plays Oko and proceeds to steal my Commander and realizes if they take me out they lose my commander and the other 2 players had 0 reach/flyers. Proceeds to just beatdown the other 2 players with my commander and his Oko/OP cards and I sit there finishing second because the other 2 did nothing to save me or deal with the Oko back during turn 2 😂
Kingmaking is fair enough cuz someone on their way out is well within their rights to fire a parting shot against their opponent. Nothing wrong with making them pay for taking you out within the rules. Conceding to deny advantage is a major no-no, though.
concession is part of the game. If you can weaponize it, then you should.
@@dmal4109 I guess just roll with it to suit each playgroup since individual mileage varies.
Just really not our thing since we play fairly optimized but deliberately steer clear of getting to that point.
But strategic concession is identical to kingmaking
@@dmal4109 In cedh, you can make that argument, in regular edh, that doesn't work. There's plenty of things that are part of the game that people agree goes against the social contract, this is just another one of those.
Conceding to cause someone's triggers to fizzle is bad manners in cEDH.
I heard a saying recently that applies to the convo around 54:00 - friends don't have to share every hobby. There are people I just can't play D&D with, but those players are the ones I love to play cards with, etc.
I got my cousin and her husband into magic recently and so they're still very much learning. I started 22 years ago. I've learned alot on deck building and choice making, sort of toning my plays down.
Keep up the good work everybody!
I have watched a good amount of The Command Zone videos and this is by far the best, most useful, and most interesting episode. I'm a nearly 100% CEDH player and it's refreshing to hear some aspects of the topic that touch on the CEDH perspective.
I love the social contract. It's amazing when people bring up the one and only contract that no one can point to and that everyone consents to immediately, even if you don't actually consent to the subjective terms the person brings up in each different situation.
It's against the social contract in our playgroup ... but that's because our playgroup is just me, my wife, and my two kids. I'm already the King... yeah, no, not really, I'm always the archenemy and my wife is the Queen. LMAO
That sounds so much fun. I can't wait until my children get older for them to play with me.
Hold up. Curious. How old is everyone in the pod
I've really been enjoying these latest episodes! Great discussion around the topics. I also really appreciate the addition of the timestamps. 👍
I used to play in a three person pod and it was almost always a kingmaker situation. We found a fourth. It's difficult to not have that with three.
Three player sucks compared to four
Yeah, thats why imo most board games are better 4 as 3 just tends to that case.
5 player and 6 player are way better for this reason. Wouldn't recommend more than 6...space and sometimes the games can go a LOT longer depending on what's resolving on the table.
@@bobby45825 i don't like the length and how much there is to manage in a 4+ game
@@bobby45825 The biggest issue with 6 player games is they're just too long. You end up waiting like 15-20 minutes between each of your turns towards the middle of the game
I’ve been loving these social interaction review like podcast they’ve been really helping trying to improve the game play for my whole group
I was in a recent game (where we had to pay to play) where one of the guys was being attacked. No matter how he blocked he was going to die. He went to scoop but I asked if he wanted to do blocks first. So he did and he blocked in the best way he could've which killed off one of the key creatures from the guy attacking.
A few turns later the guy who killed him got legit angry (he was not kidding around, he was very salty about it) because the guy who died blocked and killed his creature and it was going to now, a few turns later, end up making him lose the game. He called this king making and called the block a spite block.
I argued with him and told him I thought it was just playing the game correctly. His argument was that the block did absolutely nothing to help the guy who died.
After getting home that night, another argument I have towards the salty dude, is that couldn't it have been considered (in the salty dude's opinion) spiteful if the guy who died hadn't made any blocks at all because then the salty dude would've had his creature he needed and it would've hurt the other people left in that game.
I honestly feel like he was just on tilt and was being overly salty. What do you guys think in this situation? I think the guy who died was just playing the game correctly...even though he was going to die, he blocked in the best way he possibly could've, and that's just how it is.
If an attack is going to kill only one player out of several opponents, I feel like you should always finish resolving the attack. Because the results matter.
Usually, personally, i like to verbalize my thoughts in a commander game when there's a lot of unavoidable interaction, unless it's something simple where someone is bottom feeding and I'm clearly in last (my group likes pretending i'm on the throne constantly, even when I'm not).
There is no question here. Play the game to the best of your ability until you have 0 life points. Especially in commander, you couldn't even possibly know if another player might intervene at any point, but even if not, why should you just let the person who is kicking you out do so for free? That was exactly what was mentioned here, if these two players play again next time, the 'salty' attacker will remember that the other player wanted to just leave without blocking, basically taking it laying down, making it more likely that the salty player will just not consider them a problem to remove if they can, not having to fear losing anything for it.
When you're going down, play the game still. It's a courtesy to yourself first and foremost, but to all other players also. If you don't want to play the game to the end (assuming it isn't a totally toxic experience), don't shuffle up in the first place.
"The cost of attacking me, needs to be taken into account." That's right, if you do nothing and let it happen, people know your easy and give up. If you keep me alive for 1 turn cuz "fun" it might be your doom.
I think Kingmaking happens less often when players learn priority. Didnt know what priority was until I started playing cedh because no casual youtube channels talk about priority and for example this channel just started talking about priority in the last couple of years. So for like 7 years or so I didnt know what priority was.
The Stack is a great channel for seeing this in display as well
I just recently learned what "priority bullying" is. It's not what you'd think from the name if you don't know and are trying to guess.
The second place statement is how I feel. Like 2nd place means I was last to loose and 9 times out of ten that means I was the least threatening imo.
I politiced Josh into not tapping spear spewer to kill me at Magic Con Las Vegas because it would have gotten ride of my collector ouphe which was stopping a combo win from another player. Not killing me resulted in me winning with a boonweaver giant combo that Josh saw in my GY. I still had to go through my combo that had potential to be stopped by others, but killing me would have ended the game without an option to interact.
My playgroup uses conceding as a weapon, (I will/wont concede if...) and this may be an unpopular opinion, but we all really like it! It adds a whole new layer and depth to politicing, and makes our games turn into discussions and complex thoughts.
That's the beauty of magic, what works for your group doesn't need to work for others. In my personal group, if that were to happen, that person would never ever land another spell or creature on board without it being countered or blasted away lol
I'm surprised that concession as a way of kingmaking is a thing, when someone does so I just tell the ones affected to treat it as if it still happened
On the 'good sportsmanship' king making, i sat down with my tuned Marneus Calgar deck against the coven counter precon, new playerto our lgs and the game in general. He did his turn and had swings, but went to pass. I stopped him and said "you should attack me every turn, especially while i'm open, i'm going to quickly become a problem". The game ended with Him and I duking it out, and more then a few wide eyed moments while he watched all my triggers and value engine going. He could of taken me out early if I hadn't gotten down an early collective restraint to stop the swings.
My pod had a constructive talk about not getting into a spite-driven arms-race, but never rule-zeroed king-making plays.
Generally we're doing cool stuff if we can, even if it isn't for the win, and definitely meeting attacks with as much impact as possible.
Big fan of Rachel's deep cut: winning commander means making a story that's told after the cards are out away
I would never choose an opponent to win, but I will certainly do my best to ensure the person who vanquished me will lose. Mutally assured destruction is part of the game ;)
I've definitely earthquaked the table for a draw, but that was a MAD decision as well.
Little story about kingmaking: I was once playing Trough the Ages (boardgame) with a group of friends, which can go on for hours. In the rulebook it is explicitly stated that one can concede and get out of the game during one's turn (let's say as a sorcery). Because of the early plays & drafts and the snowbally nature of the game I found myself in a pretty bad spot for about 3-4 hours and at some point I dediced to quit. Because of that the player that was on second place and farming me for victory points with attacks got super mad at me because I happened to be the cow-to-be-milked for him to have a chance at winning. I didn't want to sit there for another 2 hours feeling bad about my game. That episode almost ended the friendship. Board games are... intense, Commander included
Rachel, awesome jacket! So glad you have joined the Command Zone
31:57 There were times when I was younger when it was very obvious one player was winning. I remember playing a game with random people and I had an out like Fog to survive and buy me more time against the King/Lead player.
For whatever reason, the blue player I had never even looked at countered my spell. I was so confused because I wasn’t the threat but this guy sealed my fafe.
The blue player just said the game was already over and they were just speeding things along. They protected the Lead/King Player down to a 1v1 and thought they could stop/interrupt the untouched board of the King by themselves. Nope! They totally got stomped and I was pissed at this person’s logic and never played with them again. Like all the counterspells/removal spent to help the king could have been used against the king instead!
I’ve seen the same thing. I cast some removal on an artifact or enchantment that’s really hosing everyone else at the table and another player counters it. When asked why they would do that they just said because they could. So aggravating.
@@danielgoldberg2129 That seems like people who just don't understand the point of control.
So excited to see all of the new content lately. This was an amazing video. I want to make sure everyone in my playgroup watches this. 🙂
Another player could save you from dying if it helps them get closer to winning. So defend the best you can when someone is trying to kill you. For example, if they took some of your cards for themselves, they lose those when you die. They may need those even if not to win, but to at least survive. Even if they dont, they could still save you because they know they cant win solo but they have a chance if there is someone else too
Love this discussion format! And the energy of the three of you together is fantastic!
The episodes have been so interesting lately! As much as I love set reviews I'm so glad to see all of these unique episodes!
I appreciate Rachel's sentiment that cEDH is a much cleaner social agreement. Coming primarily from 60 card formats with friends that were primarily interested in building skill piloting their decks, coming to casual Commander has been awkward in the best of times.
The more casual the setting, weirdly the more difficult I've found it is to approach Commander. There are so many unwritten rules and expectations you can't know about a new playgroup in this format that I find myself wishing more people just adopted the cEDH mentality.
Just have a rule zero conversation while people are shuffling up. Asking a question like "What are the table rules?" can help to avoid mismatches in expectations, especially when joining a new play group. Most folks are attracted to EDH explicitly because it is a casual format, where the primary goal isn't always to win. Taking a moment to check in with the group both before and after a game about expectations and "house rules" will really help reduce the awkward moments.
This
Hey :-) Great Episode. About the second place, I don’t value second place in terms of success at all, however if you get second place you get to play until the game ends and don’t have to wait for the next round. That’s the only benefit of second place in my mind.
Probably one of my favorite discussions you guys did so far. 😊
I'd love to see an episode of extra turns where everyone makes a deck they think would be fun and pass the deck to the player on the left (or right, doesn't matter) like they do on suffle up and play some time...could even get prof to be a part of it
@@abuelovinagres4411 he has done it. I love the concept. I'd love to see the command zone crew make decks for each other based on what they like/dislike
I was in one game where we had 6 players and the game had gone on for 3 hours and still no where near ending the game. The player next to me had pretty much their entire deck in the graveyard and showed me that he had a rise of the dark realms in hand. I had a counter spell in hand but just wanted the game to end. The guy played rise and drained everyone but one out. Another player noticed what was in my hand and told everyone that I played kingmaker and was told that I wasn't welcome to play there anymore.
good
I dont blame you, not everyone wants to be there that long for one game. Def need some clarification ahead of time on timed turns, alternative win cons, and more aggressive from players.
They don’t sound fun.
You are not required to try to win in my opinion. I have 2 grouphug decks. One of wich i activly try to make someone else of my choice to win. Wich actually makes for pretty fun games were we sometime evolve into this kinda 2v2 scenario
Try playing Emperor when you have 6 players. It makes the game much quicker.
I see Kingmaking not so much as ensuring a specific player WINS, but ensuring a specific player LOSES. I will - and have - gladly thrown a game to ensure someone else loses for certain.
I believe how you play is more important than what you play.
It's a social game.
Wish some people in my playgroup would grasp this lmao
Sometimes how someone plays and what they play are more or less the same problem.
@@Dragon_Fyre Care to elaborate?
I kingmake everytime, with my last resources I will punish those who made me lose.
Sometimes I also kingmake in order to make the game end faster so we can get to the next match.
Rachel is such a good addition
I love Jimmy mo but ye she cool too she a+ Jimmy S+
Example of King Making for me:
We were playing in a year end final tournament. The tournament goes 4 weeks. The top two places move on to the next week. We are in Week 2, and one player goes off on turn 7 and has enough power to kill two people. This means whomever he doesn't kill makes it to week three. He chose not to kill me. I kind of felt guilty, but his justification is that my deck had done the best out of us three, and he felt like I deserved to go on. I know that doesnt' mean much to the other two, but I was very thankfull. It would have been a tough place to be in, but he had to take out two so that he was guarenteed to move on.
But that's not really King Making. King Making generally is understood as being done by the person being behind, as in a person not having a chance to win themselves. Being strong enough to knock out two players with a perspective of winning still is not kingmaking, especially when as you point out they could apparently gotten you out also. That just means that they had a really strong hold on the game and already _were_ 'the king', they just got to decide who went on in the tournament. Not really the same.
My old playgroup in Grand Forks, ND at Grand Cities Games (an amazing LGS to visit if you are ever in the area) has a rule that if you scoop in response to an attack or targeted effect to deny resources to instigating player, they get to freely reassign those resources to someone else at 0 cost. This prevents people from scooping to the "I can only kill one player this turn" scenarios which would come up quite often in our play group back in the day. I felt it was quite the elegant solution to this specific version of the problem.
My playgroup consists of my closest childhood friends, however two of them are brothers and there tends to be a lot of spite plays. Usually we can get a laugh out it and we believe in letting each other play splashy have fun with weird cards
I don't mind a final hurrah or a retaliation play in game. However, the kingmaking scenario I loathe and why my group is largely a "If you are to conceed you do so at sorcery speed unless its an emergency."
Is "oh you swing out on me? Before damage I conceed. Now you're tapped out, get no triggers, and they win. Ha."
That type of deal infuriates me to no end.
Note: posted before listening/watching.
i would just play it out like the guy did not concede, if the attacking person has lifelink creatures he gets all the life he would have gotten etc.
^^^^
@TurnUp that is another proposed fix we had as well! It just made games really unfun and a lot of strategies got turned off because it was frequent from one or two players in our 6-7 play group did it frequently
Yaaas non card review episode! Anyway some show ideas
1. Game Knights vs Extra Turns - A statistical analysis of games to find out if they are the same or different and why
2. Player Stat Breakdown - Basically stats on each player (i.e lands played, mana spent, winrate...) with player analysis
3. Directing the Command Zone - what decisions do you make for the story purposes - i.e. resolving rhystic study after the spell resolves and not cast
4. Historic Brawl vs Paper Commander. How 1v1 is different then a pod
Interesting discussion, this is maybe making me rethink building my first ever EDH deck. My plan was to build a Kor deck, with only cards featuring Kor’s in the artwork (and possibly Nahiri) and only artwork that I like.
The artwork that I like factor, actually takes out some of the more powerful cards, such as some Nahiri ones.
My plan was not to play to win games of EDH, but to play as thematically as possible.
As my deck will be quite weak, won’t have any combos or game winning conditions to setup, essentially, I guess it is a Kingmaking deck. I might not survive long enough to have that, guaranteed making a king situation. But I will be chipping away at other players life totals.
I guess I could try it out and if it’s really not fun for other players, change things up.
Kingmaking is about playing the *next* game. What precedents do you want to set that will make other players think twice about taking you down or hurting you? If you’re known as being able and willing to hurt people on your way out or down, others need to take that into account. But if you do it, you *should* really be doing it to try to win future games.
We had a situation where we had 3-way "kingmaker" situation. Either we wait untill someone draws a win or someone snatches the second place by kingmaking. Tricky
I had a situation that came up where I could one shot anyone on the board with infect but only one and all 3 were likely to win on their turn (strong boards, just tutored, etc, high power pod for the most part) I ended up holding back somewhat to "hold up interaction" that I didn't have and since I'm usually a bigger control player the buff worked and I was able to knock out 2 the next turn and almost the third but he was able to bounce enough to not die. I really liked the "game memory" segment
Good topic! I had a game where I had swung all my small creatures at a player late in the game to take them out. I have Derevi on board so I rely on combat damage to get the untap triggers, not a stax deck. He decides to concede before combat damage so I can't untap and therefore defenceless to the rest of the table. No one except me saw a problem with that and laughed!
Nice to have Josh and Jimmy on screen together again ❤
It seems to me that Group Hug decks tend to be the decks most played by those aiming for second. It allows for everyone to move faster but typically don't have a win con themselves. In a way they get to do the thing when they cause everyone at the table to pop off.
It seems to me like your playing against straight unoptimized players. If they’re playing for second, so be it, but a true group hug deck leverages imbalance to win themselves
My favorite kingmaking moment was when I was playing my Xyris snake tribal deck. Had a metric ton of snakes and knew I needed to take one specific person out to win the game, but they teferi's protectioned right before I could attack. I knew I was dead when they came back, so I swung out at the other two players and then played goblin bombardment and yeeted my entire board at them, killing them both. 4th player game back to a smoking crater full of corpses with me on the top of the pile going "Kill me, for I have already won!"
Everyone was super happy with how the game ended, they thought it was one of the funniest things they'd seen in a while and we all got to immediately shuffle up and play again.
Since Rachel joined, I just go right ahead and give a thumbs up on the video before I even watch. Because I know it’ll be awesome.
My play group allows Kingmaking because of spite within us all. I also am fine with Kingmaking if someone has to go and the game needs to end.
Yes my playgroup absolutely allows king making as well. One of my friends even builds clunky decks he knows has very little chance of winning games but leads to him getting into lots of 'king making' situations and he loves it! lol
As far as 'spite' plays go though, we're all pretty dang good about openly discussing the situations as they happen.
Yeah same here, were all good friends but have our petty moments. Theres times where I know I'm not gonna win but I like spreading the Ws around and helping.
recent game memory that hapened against me was my buddy said "of course, you always have anwsers", and that made me smile, cause i never used to be, i've grown a lot as a player, especially in terms of deck construction in the last year, and the biggest difference? Started watching command zone, not jokes, your brekas downs are huge
Show feels empty without jimmy. Glad he's back.
Back? He was just in the previous episode; he never left lol
Kingmaking when it ends a long game so you can play another is totally fine. I love that CEDH has that social construct because every game actually matters.
i always play the gruul way: "rage, rage until the world burns" 😂😂😂
i also tend to play only gruul decks^^
For concession, I prefer if it happens when its down to 1v1 as before that simply being a presence will shape how the other players act. Even if you are wide open, you are a source of life gain to a lifelinked attack, an extra effect on cards counting opponents etc.
I've had folk concede in the scenario where they were about to get hit with Life linkers and/or Trigger effects. Whenever that happens, and I am another player at the table. I argue to treat the game though no attacks were blocked to progress forward.
When inevitably the conceding player objects. I kindly explain that they are no longer playing the game and to please not interfere with the table rulings.
In my playgroup, if someone concedes as a weapon, we proceed through the turn as if they did not concede and they are unable to make decisions and they miss all triggers.
ive found my self in serveral situations of "king making" but i feel my definition of the tearm is wide but to me its where you make a move where you knowilingly prevent one player from winning most the situations ive run into none of us were going to win except that one player thats so far ahead that it doesnt matter if someone other than archenemy kills another player in a way that results in their own death leaving a 1v1 so far out of favor its a sweep
I'm a firm believer that your desicions about how you want to play the game are made during deckbuilding. Once decks are shuffled and the game is started, everything is fair so long as its printed on the cards. Its made my deck building a whole lot more interesting and games a lot more fun to play like this.
With my Shadrix deck, if a player misses their land drop, I usually target them with with Shadrix's card draw ability so they might not miss their next drop. I do this even if they have no creatures and I could target them with the +1/+1 counters ability for a one-sided advantage.
At around 18:45, you guys talked about leaving a "good" game state. Is it not equally valid to say, "I want to leave the most inequitable game state as I can when I die so the game ends as soon as possible and I can start playing three next game instead of sitting out for a long time"?
Yes, but it's not necessarily a "good" choice. It's very, very playgroup dependent.
@Ornithopter470 That's my whole point, "good" is subjective. I think blocking, revenge killing, and using all your resources to affect the game state in whatever way you want for whatever reasons is perfectly understandable and justified. The only thing I hate is when people concede at a specific time to affect the game state. That's super lame. When I host, there's a house rule that you can only concede at Sorcery speed.
I had a moment like this. Was playing against my nephew and brother, and my brother was playing his Chatterfang deck, I was running wolves, and my nephew was playing a blue green commander. So around turn 5 or 6 my brother had accumulated enough forestwalking squirrels that he was definitely gonna win, so I politiced for him not to kill either me or my nephew until after my next turn bc I had a play that he would be able to take us both out in one swing. So he did what he was gonna do, skipped combat and passed the turn. I untap, draw, and make my only play, cast Coat of Arms. My nephew wasn't happy but we got another game in instead of wasting 15-20 minutes drawing the game out.
As an adult, I connect on a spiritual level with Rachel’s little voice cracks. Me too, Rachel, me too.
seeing the maturity of the gang these days is really nice, we've gone from josh and jimmy talking about how fuckin cool and powerful a card is and you have to get it to hearing them talk about playing the game with empathy for your other players.
I very much agree with the conceding issue where it nullifies an effect that other plays may have got - take this lifelink scenario. If I player one watches two attack three with lifelinkers and three concedes. I will enforce and plea that player two gains that life as if they hit as if player 3 didn't leave in that moment but after combat or something. Since I agree it really does irk me.
I think a spite is also targeting a player because of the commander. Example: Player openly told me at the beginning of the game, I have Lathril deck too. Then proceeded to attack me the entire game while ignoring others because he knows what his deck does and assumed mine does the same thing, but mine was built differently. Haven't gone back to that LGS because several players were doing those type of things all night.
There's also the situations where you think you're kingmaking but the king has no idea they can win
Great episode, my way of working through these situations is to ask the table while I have priority. "I can stop x here but it won't increase my win chance, what's the tables view?"
This is why I always run 'Chance for Glory' in any deck I can, because it literally gives me one laaast opportunity to do something, then it directly says on the card 'I lose the game' at instant speed. Worst case, its just a way for me to stop playing when I am not having fun
Favorite spite card: illusionist's gambit! Throw someone else under the bus, come back and win. 😂
The natural flow is always a big factor, but I'll sometimes do what I can to give someone else a fighting chance, but the other way could lead to shuffle up for another game... I think I will try that, but announce what I'm doing. I can remove x, if you want, I'll remove y instead, and we can play again, thoughts?
One game that comes to mind, someone was playing Meren and went to kill me. I flashed in an Identity Crisis on him on the way out. He folded real quick after that.
Just wanted to chime in this bit: I don't think kingmaking is strictly done by a player who could not have taken the crown themselves. I kingmake frequently knowing I could have (probably) taken the W but choose not to because I don't need to win to feel good. Sometimes I'd rather another person win because I think s/he earned it (like when I'm intentionally playing to the table), or just wanted to see what a player could do given the chance etc...
Edit: I had to add this after watching
23:39 Roll commercial!
You are quickly becoming one of my favorite podcast 😂
I feel like they completely missed the issues sorrounding kingmaking. It's not about hating on people who are already on their way out, who play out what they can, but about people who systematically unbalance the game through their actions - the definition should instead be something aking to "knowingly and through aggregious or repeated actions, promote or support one or two players over the rest, without a plan or intention to win". - It's the same reason 'Group hug' decks can be so un-fun at times
Conceding at any time is allowed in our playgroup, but the remaining players are allowed to decide together how the game state is affected by the concession. We can rewind a few decisions, alter the board state, or whatever we want to keep the game going in a way we feel is fair.
It's not like we can stop someone from getting up and leaving, and we wouldn't want to try. That just builds resentment.
Being a born again MTG player I’m loving the show everyone and I’m learning a lot.
Sorry Josh and jimmy but, Rachel is my favorite. This is a hell of a trio you’ve got here.
When in doubt just default to not playing anything on your way out as you are dying - let the others duke it out. Sure block however you want to block but leave it at that, is how I like to do it.
Our playgroup is competitive. Our slogan is, "Y'all gonna die." Now, just because we're competitive, doesn't mean we frown on "bad" plays. It makes a more interesting game when things start to get crazy. The competitive nature just means we know everyone is playing to win. Spite plays on the verge of death? Yes please. That's how you make stories to remember
Used to have a dude in my pod who would concede in a “King Making” way. He called it a “Stretegic Scoop”. Yes, he was toxic.
9:27 That’s why you only concede at sorcery speed. 😎👍
One thing that MTGO does quite nicely (at least a couple years ago) is that if somebody concedes the game when you have attacked them, it treats it as though all of your creatures were unblocked and all of your combat damage triggers and effects happen.
I've been playing EDH on mtgo for years and never heard of this being the case. MTGO enforces the official rules to the letter (other than bugs), so this seems pretty unlikely to have actually been true.
@@Tvboy777 I used to play dragonlord Ojutai as my commander and still got lifelink and his triggered ability when people conceded in response to an attack so dunno what to tell you 🤷♂️
@@GeorgeAlone2277 Well that's very interesting then!
I play a ton of commander on mtgo. The lifelink thing happens if the blocker concedes, I can confirm
In the same vein, I think sandbagging and the implications of when you MUST cast a spell because you can vs. holding a card (counterspell or removal) with the assumption another player can and must answer to avoid a loss is a good/bad play. Taking advantage of turn order and APNAP to hold onto resources is something that happens, but isn't necessarily kingmaking.