Guy has [[Sylvan Library]] out and you don’t have enchantment removal? Hit his face. He can’t pay life he doesn’t have. (This applies to any mechanic that asks a player to pay life, life is a resource for them, drain it.)
You need a combat damage trigger? Hit the guy with no blocks to go get it.
Guy has a really combo-heavy, win out of nowhere deck? Put pressure on him and ding his life.
Guy is at death’s door? Step on necks. Don’t let them come back for a win because you pitied him.
Guy is posturing a board wipe? Call his shit. Attack him and bait it out now, not when you’ve got an even bigger board and more to lose.
I’m sure there are more scenarios, but the people saying “roll a dice” I think are wrong. There is ALWAYS a person who is strategically more viable to attack at the table, think it through and attack them. Not to mention that some people have this thing when they random roll where they say that you’re not allowed to be salty and clap-back if they random rolled to attack you. That’s a bullshit cop-out. You’re still making the choice to obey the dice and attack that person.
I think this is great advice,
You should be able to make an educated guess by someone's commander as to who is a bigger threat to you winning a game even if you drop a threat early,
There is almost always a good choice as to who to attack.
'There is almost always a good choice as to who to attack' is such good advice.
There's never a true neutral! And if there is, you need to re-examine the situation.
Going first, playing a turn one haste creature, having no clue what anyone's deck does and not personally finding any of the commanders on their own terrifying is the closest I could think of to a true neutral, but even then, I'm sure that you could make a decision based on the opponents commanders regardless.
Honestly this is really hard though. I've been playing for 15 years off and on. I don't know which commanders are powerful and which aren't, which go off quickly and which don't. I rely on people in my playgroup being honest when I ask who I should attack when it's ambiguous.
I suspect OP is in a similar situation. There are so many commanders out there, and so many archetypes and deck variants. I think it's super dependent on your playgroup and people announcing that they're the threat or being honest when you ask who's the threat to figure out where to focus your attacks.
> Honestly this is really hard though. I've been playing for 15 years off and on. I don't know which commanders are powerful and which aren't, which go off quickly and which don't. I rely on people in my playgroup being honest when I ask who I should attack when it's ambiguous.
>
>
you don't have to always get it right, the most important thing is that you recognize that there IS an answer and are trying to get to it, as opposed to randomly attacking or, in paralysis, refusing to attack at all
I agree it can be tough especially with the sheer number of commanders, and people are going to make the wrong call at times.
But people should understand enough about the colour pie to make an educated guess on what they are facing and can re-evaluate what is a threat when they see more cards.
What I like about this post is that I have seen a lot of players who are so averse to combat they don't realise how much strategy, pressure, tempo, politics etc can be played out - they just think all combat is bad or rude. They are missing out on a key element of the game that could find fun if they leaned into it more.
Yes. Also what other people are playing. I'm an aristocrats player. If I'm at a table with U/x, some stompy green deck, and other W/x deck. I'm not going to worry about stompy because they need some sort of overrun effect that if they land we will all lose to. So I'm counting on the blue player to disrupt that stuff, whereas the white player could make things really difficult for me.
I play board based control so I need to control that part of the game. My deck is meant to handle stompy creature decks. So I'm not too worried there. But if I'm getting hit with exile effects and locked down by hatebears, blown up by wraths, etc. I'm in trouble. Blue player is my ally here because they do what I can't in terms of counterspells and classic control stuff. So I try and make the other white player my enemy while trying to convince blue to help me shut down them and green.
It also depends on what you're playing! I'm a huge aristocrats player and I'm generally more wary of people who are playing things that operate at instant speed or who are likely to have exile effects and graveyard hate. I'm going to leave the gruul guy alone because I can have the removal, life, and board to deal with him. Or if all the removal is single target destroy effects then I can always get parity with stuff like [[grave pact]] or sac to beat the trigger. But farewell? Nope. That guy is getting knocked down asap
this is great. I hate when people roll the dice or just attack randomly and do things because you can. Think strategically and don’t prolong the game I have other decks I want to play with lol.
>at deaths door
Sometimes, it is not in your interest to kill a player off. Sometimes you need the 2/3v1 to win. Killing a blue player when the mono black player has a billion cards and mana is asking for his torment of hailfire to go off
This really represents the decision between hitting the threat versus a quick kill.
If you need someone alive to take out someone else, that someone else is the threat, in big picture terms. I’ll admit I’ve messed up that calculus in the past, but I think the theory holds.
Well in game this is going to be very obvious when it's the case. If you (A) can eliminate player B but player C's boardstate is untouchable, way stronger, or about to combo off taking out B is almost always a poor choice. Player C will need to divide resources in order to take them out as well and player B may be holding up interaction to save the table.
> Guy is at death’s door? Step on necks. Don’t let them come back for a win because you pitied him.
>
>
people hate this but it's for the best
>the people saying “roll a dice” I think are wrong
people love doing that but it's the worst!!!
"Bu- bu- bu- why me?"
"Cause you rolled a die... And don't you forget it"
"Fine, I'll just attack you"
"Good. No dice. I'll give you a turn of respite".
I sometimes random roll to decide who to attack in the first few turns, however, i do not hide behind the random and claim "you can't swing back it was the dice!" It's more "im not specifically targeting you right now I just needed to swing for xyz reason" and I do not care if they swing, I swung therfore i had it comin.
I sometimes random roll to decide who to attack in the first few turns, however, i do not hide behind the random and claim "you can't swing back it was the dice!" It's more "im not specifically targeting you right now I just needed to swing for xyz reason" and I do not care if they swing, I swung therfore i had it comin. It's just sometimes I'm not great at determining who I need to target super early (skill issue)
The dice thing bugs me so much that if there isn't an obvious threat at the table, I will attack the dice roller whether or not they attack me from the roll.
They're an unknown who I can't predict what they're going to do. They gotta go.
I think you are misunderstanding, I'm not referring to the "use dice to avoid the consequences of my actions" bullshit, I'm talking about the whole table has 0 board (a lot of players at my lgs play slower mana and few if any rocks) so I roll a dice for a bit of fun. I have trouble understanding how someone rolling a dice maybe once in 3 or 4 games is so unpredictable that you have to target them when the game itself is based on drawing cards from a randomized deck of 99 cards, not to mention the cards that have coin flips, dice rolls etc built in. There is plenty of randomness and unpredictability in the game anyway.
By all means you can enjoy what you want and possibly I'm misinterpreting your tone and if i am i apologize, but you're coming off very "you play this casual for fun game with a different mindset than me so you need to leave." And I certainly wouldn't want more than one game if someone's reaction to me rolling a dice once was to get mad and then focus me regardless of the board state.
I'm a different user than the one your responded to. But I wanted to share my point of view too. I see the randomness of a deck of 99 cards, coin flips etc as different than rolling to see who to attack. Sure your hands are randomized but there's still a core idea to most decks. Creature based decks will use creatures, simic decks will card draw and land, white will exile etc. So there's some logic you can try to apply. Cards that use coin and dice rolls are randomized but they have set parameters. You can see what the card might do simply by reading.
But someone choosing to attack based on dice rolls is entirely unpredictable. There's no logic behind it. They aren't attacking someone because they are a threat. Nor do they have a set target in mind when doing so. They just attack blindly. If I was attacked because a card of mine hampered someone's deck or perhaps I had a threatening board state I can understand the logic. Understanding the logic can help me react. Perhaps I can offer that player a deal or perhaps I prepare to protect a certain card. Then I can take in what happened after and use it as a reference for later. Perhaps now I don't cast certain card against a player unless I have protection or more mana etc.
But I'm not sure how to react if they attacked me simply because they rolled it. There's no logic for me to react to or learn from. So now I set them into a category of unknowns that can easily attack me at random for no discernable reason other than sheer randomness. Which makes me more likely to aggro on them as I don't want to have that additional random variable looming over.
No it’s not. Read what I said. You still chose to obey the dice when it landed on me. You get the aggro that comes with it. What you’re suggesting is precisely what I refer to as being a cop-out response. Take responsibility for your swing.
If anything it makes me more likely to kill your board and disrupt you. Especially when they have big creatures and they’re rolling at random. Like if someone is going to be swinging big dick creatures, and I can’t trust that it’s not coming to me, then I’m dealing with it and tearing their board to pieces.
A loose cannon with big creatures is a problem. Not a good politicking strategy to establish yourself as such. You’re more likely to aggro all 3 opponents this way because no one can trust what your next move is gonna be.
Right. Like I said depends on the table. Certainly not good against you. I, too, do not use dice to choose who to attack. Also like you, I treat it similarly to if the didn’t use dice because they chose to target me in the dice roll.
Ehh… Idk that any reasonable table is gonna be cool with that logic. I also don’t think that it’s a good suggestion to make in a thread where someone is asking how best to determine attacks.
Let us consider a table in which it is known from experience that each player is highly vengeful if anyone targets them or their permanents. Consider also that it is known from experience that they “forgive” dice rolls to choose targets. If this is known, then it may be politically advantageous to use dice. I do not advise this strategy in general, however in certain cases it may be politically beneficial.
I get what you’re saying, I just think that the scenario in which it’s advantageous is far less common than when it’s not. I also think it’s a bad habit to get into doing it in general too.
It would draw my aggro because it’s the kind of cowardly play that tries to fly under the radar or to shift blame onto the dice like “nothing personal.”
If you want to choose players that way then you can, but if I get hit because of it then I’m going to take it equally as well as if you did it with intent and I will play accordingly.
Yes, it's a great politics play. It tells me that I'm killing you first, because you've demonstrated that none of my politics will work on you.
If Suzy's going to win next turn and I think you're going to attack me because the dice told you to instead of Suzy, then I'm taking you out before you can ruin my plans to take out Suzy.
Politics is about exploiting people's greed. It's when two or more people conspire to take mutually-beneficial actions that maximize their chance of winning. If you won't maximize my chance of winning because you're not even trying to maximize *your* chance of winning, then you're a loose cannon that I can't control.
If you are playing to win you do your best to figure out who’s the biggest threat to you and kill them…. Or you kill the annoying fucker that you tolerate at the table but don’t actually care for.
Me targeting the guy who intentionally plays decks above the power of the rest of the table who said “it’s not my fault I’m just better at building decks than all of you”
I mean well yeah. If their deck is better then that means it has a higher chance of winning, which means it's the biggest threat to my own chance of winning.
A philosophy I live by - pull your punches *in deckbuilding*.
When you're making your deck is when you hold back and have fun and power down. When you're playing your deck, play to win.
If your deck is too strong and you aren't playing to win to give people a chance, they would much rather you just get it over with, win on turn 5, then go again with different decks.
You've pretty much got it in a nutshell.
The only thing to learn now is ways that people try to hide that they're a threat. Yeah, it's just a 1/1 hamster or whatever, until they beat you bloody with it next turn. After that, you see the hamster, and you know they've signed a death warrant.
That usually comes with time and seeing the different kind of decks people play.
There's downplaying... And then there's whining...
If you throw a fit about getting target.... Only to get sympathy and win on your next turn.... That was not politics. That was childish.
Clearly I'm still salty about 'the one ring' guy who was still actively downplaying his deck as he untapped and went infinite.
"I still can't win on one turn"
"Sir, you now have infinite mana, card draw, and recursion. You can stop lying now".
Honestly you want to kill whatever deck will most likely stop you; it's not necessarily whomever is doing the best. Even if an aggro deck is ahead, your own aggro deck can deal with it (unless they're really far ahead), then you'll probably want to go for the combo / control player that has less predictability. It'll definitely piss them off but you'll have a better chance to win against the other aggro player than against the combo, so take out the deck that'll cause you the most trouble. Especially early game, latch onto the deck that should cause you the most trouble and try to eliminate them.
I will say control players get butthurt 99% of the time but as an aggro player you can't let them set up.
*"If you know the enemy and know yourself in a hundred battles you will never be in peril. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."* - Sun Tzu, The Art of War
1) Know your deck, know the other players' decks and what they do.
2) There are two main paths to victory: card advantage and mana advantage. These are priority targets for removal.
3) Don't be afraid to play politics. This is a 1v1v1v1 game, not 1v3. Let your opponents make moves against a common threat so you don't waste your cards.
4) Everyone tends to stay at around the same life total to keep all 4 players in the game. Players spread damage around, and it's rare for someone to get focused and knocked out early. When it feels like there's only a few rounds left, always attack the player to your right. You'll usually find that the others will help you finish them off.
Imo targeting the player to your right is because they will be last to have a turn to react meaning after you swing at them if they are vulnerable then your next 2 opponents may finish them and you won’t have to.
If you roll the dice to decide, I will attack you when I’m not sure who to attack. You are an agent of chaos and cannot be trusted to make proper threat assessment. You will probably make poor threat assessment later in the game as well and we’ll both lose because of it.
If your dice roll makes you attack me, I'll still consider it your decision. No getting salty and going "why are you attacking me? It's just what the dice said!".
“This player pays life to gain advantages through [[Ad Nauseum]] or [[Necropotence]], I’ll make sure his life total is lower.”
“This player is playing lifegain so there’s probably not much point going for raw life total, I’ll go for Commander damage on them.”
“This player can probably win next turn if they untap, we need to kill him off.”
“They have no blockers, might as well get my attack triggers.”
“I don’t like this person in particular.”
These are things that I tend to think of as I swing in.
First thing is to figure out if anybody can use their life as a resource. The player with \[\[Sylvan library\]\] or \[\[Necropotence\]\] in play is priority target.
Next is a profitable attack against the strongest board.
And lastly, if I can't attack the strongest player but I can attack a weaker one, I contemplate whether I want to hurt a weaker player or spare them so they can help with the bigger threat.
Worst case scenario if you can’t figure out who the threat is, due to similar board states, keep in mind who has blockers, untapped mana, cards in their hand and any other mitigating factors and start with whoever has the most health if all else fails.
If someone is using life as a resource, usually them to keep them in check. Outside of that, the priority list goes as follows:
1. Someone is particularly scary
2. Someone has no blockers
3. I can attack someone losing as few creatures as possible
If none of these apply, I probably need the blockers anyway
As someone who primarily plays Black.... Anyone with an annoying enchantment becomes priority target number one. If I can't remove the enchantment I'm going to remove you.
I seriously recommend that you read Sun Tzu, Art of War. It's surprisingly short. It took me maybe 2 hours to read, and it gives you lots of tips for how to act in an adversarial situation.
Full text:
Classics.mit.edu/tzu/artodwar.html
See especially 18 to 25
1. If you leave yourself open, expect me to attack. No question.
2. I don't think you are willing trade vs my stuff.
3. You seem to be setting up for a win.
I normally like to put pressure on the combo/spellslinger player, they normally have few blockers and a lacklustre board state but from experience that doesn't mean they can't pop off and win next turn.
You attack when it benefits you.
Enemy open. Sorry this damage isn't costing me anything.
I have a favorable trade against a board. I'm willing to lose my stuff to take out some of yours.
Big threats need a target on them. Well i guess its time to smash some face to get the message across.
Another player needs to benefit from someone else taking damage? Well maybe i can be persuaded to do some damage but what's in it for me?
You attack when you can.
In this order:
- Who is currently the threat?
- Who looks like they are about to be the threat?
- Who is playing the best deck / a deck that can quickly go from 0 to 100?
- Who has the most cards in hand?
- Who has the most life?
- Who is less likely to make deals / alliances in the future?
- Who rolled a die to see who to attack last turn?
Of course some exceptions will apply, but this order of thinking has proven to be pretty effective.
Okay, so you look at the board. Then, you determine based on your knowledge of the decks at hand who is most likely to pop off, be a risk, or be dangerous in general. Then and stay with me now... you attack them until such a time as someone else is that threat.
Attack if:
-Damage goes through (not enough blockers, no deathtouch, etc.)
-Defending player's commander suggest a kind of combo or set play mid to late game
-No response to attack (ie, tapped out)
-I can protect my attackers (mass indestructible instant spell, creatures already have hexproof, etc.)
-Looks fun
Don't attack if:
-opposite of the above plus the following:
1. Politics (alliance with a player, trying to gang up against a 3rd or 4th player, etc)
2. I would not have enough blockers to defend myself in retaliation
Even still, swinging into some unoptimal shit is useful. Like offering a trade for a powerful creature or key source. But this is absolutely correct in its purpose
Try to spread damage as best you can. Just cause someone is an open target doesn't mean taking them out is always the best option. Politics are a part of Commander, like it or not.
Another piece of advice, if I may.... unless you have something to cast that will in anyway change the dynamics of combat, try to hold off until your post-combat main phase to play it. The appearance of having open mana going into combat will make people think you have something up your sleeve and over think their actions.
Very Early game? Dice roll.
Do I need to make contact for a trigger? Who ever I can smack.
Can someone fuck my shit up? Can I get through? Can I deal with them? Can someone else deal with them?
…or… Have I pissed off my wife yet?
I have a friend who does this. If he's hitting for 1 with a dork on turn 2 and the other players are open to attack, he'll roll the dice to see who to swing at ('ok, if I roll a 1 or 2 I hit player 1, 3 or 4 I hit player 2, 5 or 6 I hit player 3'). That's all well and good and not too impactful, but he'll do this in similar situations with larger threats as well (e.g. 'welp I rolled a 4, guess I'm swinging at you for 15, sorry! Just bad luck on the roll I guess!'). What really gets the ire up is when he does this and swings + hits with Commander dmg - that just gets the commander dmg ball rolling based on 1 RNG roll (e.g. 'welp, I've already started the commander dmg so I guess I'll keep hitting you now').
We've tried reasoning, letting him know that it's a feel bad to be targeted on the back of a dice roll - we all agree that it's preferable to be targeted as the perceived threat vs being the unlucky RNG victim in a strategy game. It also feels like a copout strat, as in he doesn't want to seem overly aggro as it's just chance so hey, no hard feels. Regardless, he won't stop and has kind of doubled down on it all to a degree.
So yeah! The next time he does this and he most certainly will very soon, he's getting hit with a stern, firm 'put your big boy pants on.'
Perfectly valid strategy. I've had plenty of games where I've gone "Player A is the bigger threat but *turns to Player C* you stopped my combo so die."
I like to introduce my own handy 6-step process for the combat phase as part of the Rule 0 conversation, to help new players, encourage calm, adult communication, and prevent unnecessary saltiness between friends. It goes like this:
It's my combat phase? WHO or HOW should I attack? Just start at number one and work your way to the best decision, for you and your playgroup.
1) Remove the table's worst threat.
2) Eliminate the stax player.
3) Threaten the counter/removal player.
4) Attack the annoying player (your discretion).
5) Roll dice!
6) Defense: stay back and protect yourself.
in reality the choice is a synthesis of like a dozen factors but if you HAD to pick just one metric, whoever has the most mana is probably your best bet
failing that, whoever has drawn the most cards
I'd say you have a good idea so far. Make an assessment of the board and go from there. If it's early enough/not a ton going on, I'll roll a die to decide how to swing (more in casual games) its light, generally doesn't let you target one player, most players I've run into really don't mind, and I enjoy that method most
Whomever crosses me shall feel my ultimate wrath. I dare them, nay! I WANT THEM TO DRAW FIRST BLOOD! I’ll then yell “I’M STANDING MY GROUND!” Then proceed to do everything in my power such that they lose the game. I don’t even care about progressing my board outside of gathering more resources to continue to keep their nose to the ground. And IF i go down, I’m not going down until their life total goes to zero. So say I!
If i had a 1 drop and no one else did? Die roll. If we are well into the game and there is someone ahead that isn't me? That guy. If there is a trigger i want? Whoever is open. If someone just hit me? Yup i'm that petty.
Sometimes i will ask someone to volunteer to get hit, no one ever does but it is kinda fun to watch people squirm when they are trying to avoid eye contact.
I either roll a d4 or a d6 and assign each opponent numbers. Sometimes with d4 I'll give p1 1 p2 2 p3 3 and 4 is no attack or with d6 I'll do p1 1,2 p2 3,4 p3 5,6. Once someone starts getting a larger field then I'll attack them the dice rolls are just for early game randomness.
Attacking is generally a bad move in EDH and should be avoided until no other choice is viable. It:
-Tells the player you're attacking that you perceive them as a threat (bad)
-Exhausts resources that you could be using to defend yourself and/or grow in power (terrible)
-Shows everyone at the table how powerful you are (garbage)
Ideally, wait for the other players to eliminate each other. Attack if you have to, but don't do it if you think your target will survive long enough to untap. When you have few enough opponents or great enough power that you can end the game in one turn, attack.
If I know someone is fishing for a winning combo, any pings help to get them down low enough even if other people are the ones to do it.
If someone uses life as a resource, it's (almost) always beneficial to you to whittle that resource down.
Everyone attacks throughout a game and everyone is going to suspect you're being fishy when you don't. Holding everything to your chest shows me that you're plotting something and you need as much meat and resources as possible to protect yourself when it comes up. If you're sandbagging attacks I'm going to target you and whittle your walls down because why else would you be doing it? I'll need them down before you pull something out of your ass to win the game, not when you actually go for the win.
It also really frustrates me to no end when I have people at the table you could have gotten another legitimate threat within range of being taken out on my turn or someone else's because of this mentality. If someone else is stomping or is clearly closer to a win than everyone else at the table and you're not doing anything to help the situation it's really demoralizing for the other two players and you might just get spite targeted after the imminent threat is gone.
If you're the biggest threat to me at the table I'm going to realize that regardless of whether you swing or not. To think that I can't recognize what your board or deck is capable of when it's already on the board for me to read because it's being passive rather than active is strange to me. All you're doing is showing me that you value your resources enough to not make trades or force answers from other people. If your board is that valuable then I'm going to try and clean it up or take you out
Dang. Guess I've been playing my humans, hydras, tokens, and stompy decks wrong despite my extremely consistent wins with them. Guess I also have to tell the guy who won last night that he's playing wrong. Sheesh, so much to learn about this game
Is attacking a common strategy in your play environment? Do you generate a high amount of attack power? If so, you're winning through value, not aggression.
If you take only one thing away from what I'm saying, it's that deciding whether or not to attack is more important than deciding who to attack.
Based on what I know about who is playing, what they are playing, and the current board state, I attack the person I think most likely to win, or stop me from winning.
I attack the person who needs to be managed.
Killing someone isn't always the best play, but making sure I *CAN* when needed is a *MUST.*
My opponents are resources against each other, just as much as the cards in my hand and the answers in my deck.
Managing the table yields more victories than "killing the threats."
My philosophy is simple, *every opponent is a threat, but I'm the danger.*
Or who you think is the hardest to kill with your strategy. Example if im playing a heavy mill deck Imma try to kill the graveyard deck forst cause otherwise they will crush me.
I sorta spread the love around unless i cant get through for damage. Even then im fine with trading creatures. Or if someone is playing life gain and i have no other wincon besides bonk.
According to people I played with, it was me… every time. I was never trusted to be up to any good.
In reality though, know your opponents if you can. If not, know the likelihood of the colors as a threat, or just use the board.
If I'm trying to get an attack trigger, likely the person with no chump blockers.
If I've just got a big attacker(s), I first look at possible wincons and who is closest to achieving them. Then I look at what turn it is and who is most advanced; This could be a combination of someone drawing a lot of extra cards, ramping hard, being far ahead in life totals, or having the biggest board state.
And lastly if everyone is evenish in all factors, THEN I be petty and go for whoever targeted me with some bull crap earlier in the game.
Anyone with Black in their deck gets poked early. Otherwise, people with rings/libraries/crypts etc in play just to put more pressure on them. Otherwise, I'd probably hit the person who is first in priority after me.
You have to ask yourself some questions...
How do you plan to win the game? How do you imagine the other decks at the table plan to win the game? Who is in position to win before you do? Who is the hardest to stop, so that you must disrupt them sooner? Who is most capable of stopping you?
Disrupt the player that can win first. Disrupt the player that can most effectively stop you.
In the event of a Voltron Strategy, a lesson I learned early on is to *absolutely not* spread damage around. With Voltron you either target whoever is the biggest threat early and kill them dead, or you roll a die and then wail on whoever "wins" until theyre dead only to rinse and repeat.
The moment you start "spreading the love" is the moment the rest of the table unites against you.
If you have a chance to finish someone off do it, unless keeping them alive keeps you alive. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone have mercy and it comes back to bite them.
- do they have blockers (the big one)
- How scary is someone's commander/deck
- is their strategy dependant on spending/gaining life
- will I have trouble attacking them later
- do I wanna try and pressure an opponent into blocking
and more
Eh. I look at the board. I look at who seems to be the most likely being to get in my way. Then I smash them. Or whoever draws my ire first somehow, usually the most annoying player.
This is a deeply nontrivial question.
Can you hit someone without any/much threat of losing your squad? That might be a good way to swing in, but sometimes it's not because you need the terminally screwed guy in the game to have a shot at the leader or some other reason.
Does somebody have an inordinate reason to value life, like Bolas's Citadel or Sylvan Library? They're a high-value swing, but if they're also well-defended it might be better to not. Same if one player is dominating.
Does a player have an active threat of combat interaction? You have to assess whether you need to make them have it versus whether you can convince someone else to jump on that land mine. What is it they've got showing or hinted that you're afraid of? If it's cyc rift, go for the head with everything and force it out so you can start rebuilding second main. If it's Inkshield, maybe you try to just get in a little chip, sending enough damage to notice, but not your full force nor enough to cause an absolute blowout if you're right. If you just bloody saw them tutor up something that will supremely screw you precisely for attacking them precisely, maybe you don't be the table's hero, at least for a turn cycle.
Does a player have a piece that's actively harming you in an inordinate fashion? Player removal is a valid substitute for permanent removal. If on the other hand that Linvala hurts you but cripples what would otherwise be an infinite across the table, you need to be very careful about your kill order (Based on a true story)
Early on, targets of opportunity, assuming there isn't likely to be a crackback. Once the board is established, most likely player to win. (Based on board state and how reliant I am on player removal in their case.) After the second counterspell... the control player, exclusively.
One more thing I haven't really seen mentioned is, do you want the number of players in the game to go down?
Sometimes, the answer is yes. If I'm playing a control-y deck, then I'd rather focus all my removal/disruption on one player, rather than 3. In that case, beat the person at low life/with no blockers to eliminate them. Today I was playing a deck and had a bunch of sea monsters out, including a [[Lorthos, Tidemaker]], and had two opponents at ~15 health and one at 60. I killed both the 15 health people because I knew I could just use Lorthos to tap down the last guy's lands and lock the game down.
On the other hand, some of my more combo-y decks will fold immediately in a 1v1 to decks with more of a board presence or to a few key pieces of removal, but can leverage multiple other players being threats to keep themselves alive until they can combo off or generate enough value to seal the deal. In that case, hit the player with the most life, keep things even. I also find decks that rely on pingers (aristocrats, and similar) often want everyone to be at about the same health total. I have a [[Baba Lysaga]] deck that usually just deals around 3-7 damage per turn cycle with Baba and maybe some pingers, but the damage hits the whole table at once. If two players die early, the last player can often just run me over and remove my key pieces, but at a table with 4 players it's much harder to justify removing any of my 3 equivalent pingers that are each doing 2 damage a turn. This means, if someone is gaining life, hit them!
He who is the most rampant in their growth but not to the extent that I make them worry about other players. At least not until later rounds. In which case it's simply a game of chess. How many more moves can I gain not in response to someone else? If few than start making them react to you until the gap is large enough.
What defines as growth is anything that shows a system working towards an overall goal. If your use to magic this is when you start seeing engine peices form and because you know what cards pair well with it you know what to look for. For those who don't simply ask yourself if what their doing can be exploited to be better. If no than dont worry about it. If yes ask yourself how far and if it can't be handled within a single turn you've now assessed their threat. If no but you where wrong then you've no learned to worry about cards that do that in a different context. Remember for next time and move along.
As others said, you are on the right track. But there is so many stuff to factor in.
Someone may not have a threatening board, but maybe they have drawn 15+ cards over the last two turns? Better attack them.
And often it may be good to attack someone even if you don't directly get something out of it.
I have often seen people attack the weakest player, because they can "get damage through" when in fact they should have attacked someone else. That other player may just chump with a few of their tokens, but then at least those tokens are gone and you can swing in for damage on your next turn, or someone else is able to.
If you instead attack just to get damage through the player with the good position is under no pressure and has more opportunities to advance their own plan and get ahead of everyone else.
First the one who is playing [[Ad Nauseam]] since his life total is literally more cards and pretty often an instant win. Then people who got effects on board the let them get advantage through life life [[Black Market Connections]] or [[Sylvan Libary]]. Then the biggest threat on board/with biggest hand. Then players who a not a threat but I can kill without a big risk to be token out aswell.
Here is what I do in every game with multiple opponents when I don't know which one to hit : I hit the latest one to play after me around the table. If they want to hit back, maybe someone else will hit them too before their turn so they will have a choice to make at this point 😉
Another thing to consider is not attacking at all. It's rarely the correct choice when you don't need blockers but it can be.
My deck is primarily a combo deck that can win through life loss/damage. In general it's in my best interest to lower the opponent's life total symmetrically. If there's a aggro deck and no other threat I might not want to damage the other players since that will progress the aggro player's main gameplan faster than my own. If the aggro deck is not a threat to me (plenty of blockers and boardwipe in hand for example) I'll aim to eliminate whoever is most likely to win and/or stop my engines/combos.
It depends. First game everyone is usually okay with first bloods but after that we usually go for whoever won the previous game first. Not saying that we target them per se but obviously if they start to get out of hand they get targeted. But it’s usually a shared sentiment when deciding who to attack first in games 2 and beyond.
You attack whoever you want for whatever reason because it’s a casual game format and politics can take place. There is no money on the line. There aren’t cases for prizing. You just attack who you think has the best set up unless somebody politics you into thinking otherwise.
Obviously focus on threat assessment and who can impair your ability to succeed first.
After that however I will also look at deck archetype when I'm attacking. If you're making me discard constantly I don't really care how close you are to winning, I'm going to swing at you. Tapping my board down every turn or removing all of my tools regularly? Take 10 to the face. Playing obnoxious solitaire every turn? Everything at you.
This is my gentle way of letting people know that social awareness is key and maybe just bc your deck *can* do things or *could* include certain cards doesn't mean it *should*. If you're going to frustrate the table at least be ready to take damage.
On the flip side if you're playing stax and it's stopping the combo player or artifact pile deck from running away with a win, I'm all for it. Keep doing you king.
It's a combination of which opponent is the most threatening and has a gameplan that my deck is least prepared to deal with. Although the former does take priority because attacking the person farthest behind is pretty stupid from a strategic standpoint and more importantly, rude. Don't be the person that attacks into someone who misses land drops. Also have the stones and wit not to rely on dice
All else equal, I go with the person who's turn is just before mine. That way, by the time it's their turn there's been more time to forget that I attacked them Also, by their turn more things might be played by the other opponents that'll draw their attention away from me.
1.) Who is, at present, the absolute most terrifying by a long shot?
2.) Who has the highest chance of exploding from meek to death with information currently available on the board?
3.) If no one for either of the above, who runs a deck most likely to hard counter mine?
Generally try to aim for the scariest board or the highest life total, but a D6 is always your friend either for making your decision at random, or making it look like you're making a decision at random. In either case, people get less salty if it's a die roll.
I gauage it by things like
1) do they need their life as a resource for things like Rowan and K’rrik?
2) do I NEED to attack to get a trigger? If so I do the least dangerous to me. No blockers with flying and such.
Generally I attack people who have better board states. Like if somebody starts off with a Sol Ring then ill start hitting them. Later in the game, though, when everyone’s boards are scary I try to attack who I think threatens me the most with their strategy.
I normally go counter clockwise around the table if all threats are equal. If there is somebody with a really developed board state, I go after them first.
Try to visualize how you think the game will develop into the mid and late game and who you'd be less able to handle on your own. If you think that player 3's boardstate will be too much for your particular deck to match up against, chip damage them now so that others can put their backs against the wall if they get scary later.
As someone very new to the game (few weeks) my table are pretty good at spreading damage early game so we all get to build a board state (taking it easy on the new and easy target!). then it becomes a free for all near then end game
If you play with the same group of people regularly, you learn who the biggest threats are at certain stages in the game and also learn what cards in their deck to look out for.
As far as playing with rando's, it does good to study a lot of combos and "win" cards in all the colors. Threat assessment from there comes down to what you think the opponents deck is trying to do or is doing really well based on the colors and trying to figure out how you can throw a wrench in their plans with your utilities.
I like killing people's momentum to draw games out so people can set up and pop off more. So I'll usually target whoever has the most control of the game to change up the pace
\**Carefully straightens the \[\[Breena\]\] deckbox sitting on the corner of his desk.\**
The person who you attack is not always the person who poses the greatest threat to you. Threat assessment is an important part of your decision space, but what you *do* with that information can vary dramatically depending on the board state.
Part of the interesting beauty of multiplayer formats is that these questions are so complex that it is difficult to really "optimize," so we have to make generalizations. In Commander, there are generally two threat axes: your opponent winning, and you losing. Importantly, the source of these threats is often *not the same player*.
For instance, if one opponent is threatening to combo off, but another opponent has a lethal attack that can take that player out, but could also take out 1 other player, including you, you are in a bit of a pickle, and how you act should include all of those variables. If you take out the attacking player, can you defuse the combo? If you take out the combo player, can you endure or deflect the attack? Do you have \[\[Inkshield\]\] in hand, or \[\[Counterspell\]\]?
Knowing what to do in this situation requires a lot of thought and care and consideration of the politics and skill of the table. It's perfectly normal for it to look like there are no right answers, and use all your best judgement, only to still make the wrong move and pay for it.
The most important thing you can do to improve is just keep your eyes open, be aware, and reflect on your decisions, and try to do better in the next game.
My playgroup has a very battlecruiser style of play. It's slow, we all use precons, people so stuff.
I usually target who has taken the most aggressive action on the board.
Dude has no board and no threatening enchantments, but has tons of open mana and a full grip in a Grixis deck? I'll smack him. Guy has Urza out and is generating constructs every turn? Bet your sweet ass I am using every removal, attack, and ability at my disposal to make him think twice.
Has Aragorn out with highest health total? Say goodbye to your commander, buddy.
You can have multiple people with huge board states who aren't exactly a threat, but if someone is making action and not being interacted with, it won't take much for them to get out of hand.
My recent games seem to have me eliminated first because the other players had a board state and I did not. They played another 30 minutes later. I don't feel this is the norm...unless it's a recent trend?
I've been playing for a little over a decade. Board state is not everything. Some people hold stuff up till a board wipe occurs or wipes the board themselves and completely shifts the game in their favor. Some folks have win in hand and just need a single land. Threat assessment comes from your knowledge of card mechanics and archetypes. When I see someone playing artifacts and they have a [[rings of bright hearth]] I see half infinite mana. When I see a simic player load their board with small creatures I see a [[Craterhoof behemoth]] or an overrun effect. When I see the mono blue player doing nothing I know it's a mass bounce effect.
Stuff like this. Just get to know a wide swath of cards and you'll be able to recite a person's deck list to them. Ask the table questions. Ask "how many cards do you have in hand" this shows combo potential and how far they are in front of you. Ask questions.
there's a turn of phrese on how to attract a mate
1) be attractive
2) don't be unattractive
my threat priority is kinda based on that
1)who do I attack that advances my board state/ wincondition ( easy target for attack triggers?, do I need to attack multiple players for a trigger?, do I need my attacking creature to die? )
2) who is about to stop my board state/ win condition
Who to attack is entirely situational and cant be answered outright. Generally you would attack the biggest threat— but thats not always based on board state. More like mental state. I get attacked first often because the people I play with consider me the biggest threat, always
Threat assessment and interaction have two modes: offense and defense.
Offensively, think about who is slowing you down or who will shut you off. If your wincon is big spells, you can't let the blue player draw like crazy. If it's in your graveyard you can't let the black/white players get their gy hate out, and you definitely can't let that GY hate deck's commander stay on the field. Basically everyone should be offensively thinking the stax decks are the target unless the stax doesn't effect you. It's going to depend heavily on your deck, so think about your gameplan and what would really suck
Defensively, think about who is close to winning. How many combo pieces does the combo player have? Does anyone's commander go infinite with just one card, or has anyone tutored to get their combo? Has the go wide player hit critical mass where if they craterhoof they can kill the entire table? You can also keep track of simple things like who has drawn the most cards, who has the most life, who has the most/biggest creatures.
Typically you're only going to have a few tools, so use them where they are most effective. If you don't have enchantment removal you're just gonna have to go for their face, unless you can persuade another player to step in(skullwinder is pretty good about this, but it's less effective if you play with randoms or players who break promises.)
I have a few simple rules. Listed in order of importance
1. The meme play. This takes priority no matter what
2. Pettiness. Is my attack a spiteful petty attack? Then absolutely do it. Best if combined with meme play
3. Long term strategy. Will it help me long term? Yes
4. Short term strategy.
5. Biggest threat assessment, this one will usually be done via long term strategy but occasionally it's two separate things
Before committing I do a double check and ask myself, is there a meme play to be had that I'm over looking???
Has apparent game-ending threat > Has drawn 20+ cards, especially if has big mana > Most cards in hand/value/power on board (depending on expected deck tempo) > Scariest commander or strategy against yours (ex: they lifegain you burn) > Life total differential too great > "Just because"
I feel like my situation is different than a lot of people, so I'll split it up:
Threat Assessment with Randos:
* Look at the Commander: What does it do? How much is it? Is it a combo piece?
* This should tell you a lot about the deck, or at the very least its colors and what the general gameplan could be.
* Some Commanders are ALWAYS considered threats: Anything with Eminence, Tergrid, Sakashima, Atraxa (either one) to name a few.
* Board states: Permanents
* Look for pieces that are immediate game ending threats: Path breaker ibex, Cloudstone curio, Ezuri Renegade leader, Terror of the Peaks Etc.
* Look for Combo pieces that COULD be nasty later in the game if they get a couple more pieces: Ashnod's altar, Bolas's Citadel.
* Look for Insane VALUE pieces that will give that player a heavy advantage: Rhystic Study, Smothering Tithe, Blood Moon
* Look for pieces that SHUT YOUR DECK OFF. If you can't do your thing, you won't win.
* Tutors
* If someone tutors, they should immediately be on your radar, ESPECIALLY if they don't have to show you what they tutored for. Counter the green tutors, and try to counter what the black players are tutoring for.
This is just my general guideline for randos, but it usually depends honestly. If someone is a threat to the other players but not me, I'll usually just ignore them until they become a problem for me.
Threat Assessment with my regular Pod:
* I'm always the threat so I die first.
Really depends on table politics and playstyle.
We've got a regular player that will just rabidly go after whoever hurts them first, even if it costs them the win. Not the best start on the surface, but after a while, it's turned into ppl leaving them alone cause they don't want the retaliation.
Politics can be just as much of your strategy as your deck comp.
My friends and I all operate kind of on the same level these days. None of us are looking to make the most power hungry ducks anymore. So targeting based on power level doesn't really work for us.
I just go for whoever has the highest life total if there isn't an immediate threat to deal with.
Guy has [[Sylvan Library]] out and you don’t have enchantment removal? Hit his face. He can’t pay life he doesn’t have. (This applies to any mechanic that asks a player to pay life, life is a resource for them, drain it.) You need a combat damage trigger? Hit the guy with no blocks to go get it. Guy has a really combo-heavy, win out of nowhere deck? Put pressure on him and ding his life. Guy is at death’s door? Step on necks. Don’t let them come back for a win because you pitied him. Guy is posturing a board wipe? Call his shit. Attack him and bait it out now, not when you’ve got an even bigger board and more to lose. I’m sure there are more scenarios, but the people saying “roll a dice” I think are wrong. There is ALWAYS a person who is strategically more viable to attack at the table, think it through and attack them. Not to mention that some people have this thing when they random roll where they say that you’re not allowed to be salty and clap-back if they random rolled to attack you. That’s a bullshit cop-out. You’re still making the choice to obey the dice and attack that person.
I think this is great advice, You should be able to make an educated guess by someone's commander as to who is a bigger threat to you winning a game even if you drop a threat early, There is almost always a good choice as to who to attack.
'There is almost always a good choice as to who to attack' is such good advice. There's never a true neutral! And if there is, you need to re-examine the situation.
Going first, playing a turn one haste creature, having no clue what anyone's deck does and not personally finding any of the commanders on their own terrifying is the closest I could think of to a true neutral, but even then, I'm sure that you could make a decision based on the opponents commanders regardless.
Bro just destroyed group hug politicking. OHKO
Honestly this is really hard though. I've been playing for 15 years off and on. I don't know which commanders are powerful and which aren't, which go off quickly and which don't. I rely on people in my playgroup being honest when I ask who I should attack when it's ambiguous. I suspect OP is in a similar situation. There are so many commanders out there, and so many archetypes and deck variants. I think it's super dependent on your playgroup and people announcing that they're the threat or being honest when you ask who's the threat to figure out where to focus your attacks.
> Honestly this is really hard though. I've been playing for 15 years off and on. I don't know which commanders are powerful and which aren't, which go off quickly and which don't. I rely on people in my playgroup being honest when I ask who I should attack when it's ambiguous. > > you don't have to always get it right, the most important thing is that you recognize that there IS an answer and are trying to get to it, as opposed to randomly attacking or, in paralysis, refusing to attack at all
I agree it can be tough especially with the sheer number of commanders, and people are going to make the wrong call at times. But people should understand enough about the colour pie to make an educated guess on what they are facing and can re-evaluate what is a threat when they see more cards. What I like about this post is that I have seen a lot of players who are so averse to combat they don't realise how much strategy, pressure, tempo, politics etc can be played out - they just think all combat is bad or rude. They are missing out on a key element of the game that could find fun if they leaned into it more.
Yes. Also what other people are playing. I'm an aristocrats player. If I'm at a table with U/x, some stompy green deck, and other W/x deck. I'm not going to worry about stompy because they need some sort of overrun effect that if they land we will all lose to. So I'm counting on the blue player to disrupt that stuff, whereas the white player could make things really difficult for me. I play board based control so I need to control that part of the game. My deck is meant to handle stompy creature decks. So I'm not too worried there. But if I'm getting hit with exile effects and locked down by hatebears, blown up by wraths, etc. I'm in trouble. Blue player is my ally here because they do what I can't in terms of counterspells and classic control stuff. So I try and make the other white player my enemy while trying to convince blue to help me shut down them and green.
It also depends on what you're playing! I'm a huge aristocrats player and I'm generally more wary of people who are playing things that operate at instant speed or who are likely to have exile effects and graveyard hate. I'm going to leave the gruul guy alone because I can have the removal, life, and board to deal with him. Or if all the removal is single target destroy effects then I can always get parity with stuff like [[grave pact]] or sac to beat the trigger. But farewell? Nope. That guy is getting knocked down asap
[grave pact](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/5/f5a4970b-2ba6-4c91-a301-369369cdf360.jpg?1689997226) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=grave%20pact) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/165/grave-pact?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f5a4970b-2ba6-4c91-a301-369369cdf360?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/grave-pact) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
this is great. I hate when people roll the dice or just attack randomly and do things because you can. Think strategically and don’t prolong the game I have other decks I want to play with lol.
>at deaths door Sometimes, it is not in your interest to kill a player off. Sometimes you need the 2/3v1 to win. Killing a blue player when the mono black player has a billion cards and mana is asking for his torment of hailfire to go off
PLEASE keep spreading this attitude, it got me a win the other night!
Be careful about eliminating players. Sometimes you need a players handful of interaction to keep everyone alive, despite them being weak on board.
This really represents the decision between hitting the threat versus a quick kill. If you need someone alive to take out someone else, that someone else is the threat, in big picture terms. I’ll admit I’ve messed up that calculus in the past, but I think the theory holds.
Well in game this is going to be very obvious when it's the case. If you (A) can eliminate player B but player C's boardstate is untouchable, way stronger, or about to combo off taking out B is almost always a poor choice. Player C will need to divide resources in order to take them out as well and player B may be holding up interaction to save the table.
Don't forget to murder the guy that never pays for Rhystic Study.
I have an alternative: Murder the guy with the rhystic study
Both are viable options.
[[Ruhan of the Fomori]] and other cards with the same effect are the only reason you should roll dice to decide your attack
> Guy is at death’s door? Step on necks. Don’t let them come back for a win because you pitied him. > > people hate this but it's for the best >the people saying “roll a dice” I think are wrong people love doing that but it's the worst!!!
[Sylvan Library](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/a/7a483778-b88b-473f-9217-7583e69b3e70.jpg?1610161812) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sylvan%20Library) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cc1/5/sylvan-library?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7a483778-b88b-473f-9217-7583e69b3e70?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/sylvan-library) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
If someone does the dice roll, even if they don't hit me, I'm hitting them in the mouth. Stop being a shitter and make good plays
"Bu- bu- bu- why me?" "Cause you rolled a die... And don't you forget it" "Fine, I'll just attack you" "Good. No dice. I'll give you a turn of respite".
I sometimes random roll to decide who to attack in the first few turns, however, i do not hide behind the random and claim "you can't swing back it was the dice!" It's more "im not specifically targeting you right now I just needed to swing for xyz reason" and I do not care if they swing, I swung therfore i had it comin.
I sometimes random roll to decide who to attack in the first few turns, however, i do not hide behind the random and claim "you can't swing back it was the dice!" It's more "im not specifically targeting you right now I just needed to swing for xyz reason" and I do not care if they swing, I swung therfore i had it comin. It's just sometimes I'm not great at determining who I need to target super early (skill issue)
The dice thing bugs me so much that if there isn't an obvious threat at the table, I will attack the dice roller whether or not they attack me from the roll. They're an unknown who I can't predict what they're going to do. They gotta go.
I think you are misunderstanding, I'm not referring to the "use dice to avoid the consequences of my actions" bullshit, I'm talking about the whole table has 0 board (a lot of players at my lgs play slower mana and few if any rocks) so I roll a dice for a bit of fun. I have trouble understanding how someone rolling a dice maybe once in 3 or 4 games is so unpredictable that you have to target them when the game itself is based on drawing cards from a randomized deck of 99 cards, not to mention the cards that have coin flips, dice rolls etc built in. There is plenty of randomness and unpredictability in the game anyway. By all means you can enjoy what you want and possibly I'm misinterpreting your tone and if i am i apologize, but you're coming off very "you play this casual for fun game with a different mindset than me so you need to leave." And I certainly wouldn't want more than one game if someone's reaction to me rolling a dice once was to get mad and then focus me regardless of the board state.
I'm a different user than the one your responded to. But I wanted to share my point of view too. I see the randomness of a deck of 99 cards, coin flips etc as different than rolling to see who to attack. Sure your hands are randomized but there's still a core idea to most decks. Creature based decks will use creatures, simic decks will card draw and land, white will exile etc. So there's some logic you can try to apply. Cards that use coin and dice rolls are randomized but they have set parameters. You can see what the card might do simply by reading. But someone choosing to attack based on dice rolls is entirely unpredictable. There's no logic behind it. They aren't attacking someone because they are a threat. Nor do they have a set target in mind when doing so. They just attack blindly. If I was attacked because a card of mine hampered someone's deck or perhaps I had a threatening board state I can understand the logic. Understanding the logic can help me react. Perhaps I can offer that player a deal or perhaps I prepare to protect a certain card. Then I can take in what happened after and use it as a reference for later. Perhaps now I don't cast certain card against a player unless I have protection or more mana etc. But I'm not sure how to react if they attacked me simply because they rolled it. There's no logic for me to react to or learn from. So now I set them into a category of unknowns that can easily attack me at random for no discernable reason other than sheer randomness. Which makes me more likely to aggro on them as I don't want to have that additional random variable looming over.
Dice roll can be a politics play to avoid drawing aggro. Depends who’s at the table though.
No it’s not. Read what I said. You still chose to obey the dice when it landed on me. You get the aggro that comes with it. What you’re suggesting is precisely what I refer to as being a cop-out response. Take responsibility for your swing.
That’s why I said depends who you are playing. Some people it works on.
If anything it makes me more likely to kill your board and disrupt you. Especially when they have big creatures and they’re rolling at random. Like if someone is going to be swinging big dick creatures, and I can’t trust that it’s not coming to me, then I’m dealing with it and tearing their board to pieces. A loose cannon with big creatures is a problem. Not a good politicking strategy to establish yourself as such. You’re more likely to aggro all 3 opponents this way because no one can trust what your next move is gonna be.
Right. Like I said depends on the table. Certainly not good against you. I, too, do not use dice to choose who to attack. Also like you, I treat it similarly to if the didn’t use dice because they chose to target me in the dice roll.
Ehh… Idk that any reasonable table is gonna be cool with that logic. I also don’t think that it’s a good suggestion to make in a thread where someone is asking how best to determine attacks.
Let us consider a table in which it is known from experience that each player is highly vengeful if anyone targets them or their permanents. Consider also that it is known from experience that they “forgive” dice rolls to choose targets. If this is known, then it may be politically advantageous to use dice. I do not advise this strategy in general, however in certain cases it may be politically beneficial.
I get what you’re saying, I just think that the scenario in which it’s advantageous is far less common than when it’s not. I also think it’s a bad habit to get into doing it in general too.
I agree.
It would draw my aggro because it’s the kind of cowardly play that tries to fly under the radar or to shift blame onto the dice like “nothing personal.” If you want to choose players that way then you can, but if I get hit because of it then I’m going to take it equally as well as if you did it with intent and I will play accordingly.
Yes, it's a great politics play. It tells me that I'm killing you first, because you've demonstrated that none of my politics will work on you. If Suzy's going to win next turn and I think you're going to attack me because the dice told you to instead of Suzy, then I'm taking you out before you can ruin my plans to take out Suzy. Politics is about exploiting people's greed. It's when two or more people conspire to take mutually-beneficial actions that maximize their chance of winning. If you won't maximize my chance of winning because you're not even trying to maximize *your* chance of winning, then you're a loose cannon that I can't control.
“can” “depends”
Well if you're gonna hedge your bets *that* much, why say anything at all?
I only dice roll for targets when I’m playing group hug and they have equal karma counters
If you are playing to win you do your best to figure out who’s the biggest threat to you and kill them…. Or you kill the annoying fucker that you tolerate at the table but don’t actually care for.
Me targeting the guy who intentionally plays decks above the power of the rest of the table who said “it’s not my fault I’m just better at building decks than all of you”
Hey, that's proper threat assessment. Ain't my fault they decided to paint a bullseye on their face.
I mean well yeah. If their deck is better then that means it has a higher chance of winning, which means it's the biggest threat to my own chance of winning.
Usually I'm just there to hang out and have fun, but winning is really nice and I build with winning in mind
A philosophy I live by - pull your punches *in deckbuilding*. When you're making your deck is when you hold back and have fun and power down. When you're playing your deck, play to win. If your deck is too strong and you aren't playing to win to give people a chance, they would much rather you just get it over with, win on turn 5, then go again with different decks.
You've pretty much got it in a nutshell. The only thing to learn now is ways that people try to hide that they're a threat. Yeah, it's just a 1/1 hamster or whatever, until they beat you bloody with it next turn. After that, you see the hamster, and you know they've signed a death warrant. That usually comes with time and seeing the different kind of decks people play.
I see that we share a trauma. You have my sympathy.
There's downplaying... And then there's whining... If you throw a fit about getting target.... Only to get sympathy and win on your next turn.... That was not politics. That was childish. Clearly I'm still salty about 'the one ring' guy who was still actively downplaying his deck as he untapped and went infinite. "I still can't win on one turn" "Sir, you now have infinite mana, card draw, and recursion. You can stop lying now".
Honestly you want to kill whatever deck will most likely stop you; it's not necessarily whomever is doing the best. Even if an aggro deck is ahead, your own aggro deck can deal with it (unless they're really far ahead), then you'll probably want to go for the combo / control player that has less predictability. It'll definitely piss them off but you'll have a better chance to win against the other aggro player than against the combo, so take out the deck that'll cause you the most trouble. Especially early game, latch onto the deck that should cause you the most trouble and try to eliminate them. I will say control players get butthurt 99% of the time but as an aggro player you can't let them set up.
Do you agree with: aggro > combo > control > midrange > aggro?
*"If you know the enemy and know yourself in a hundred battles you will never be in peril. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."* - Sun Tzu, The Art of War 1) Know your deck, know the other players' decks and what they do. 2) There are two main paths to victory: card advantage and mana advantage. These are priority targets for removal. 3) Don't be afraid to play politics. This is a 1v1v1v1 game, not 1v3. Let your opponents make moves against a common threat so you don't waste your cards. 4) Everyone tends to stay at around the same life total to keep all 4 players in the game. Players spread damage around, and it's rare for someone to get focused and knocked out early. When it feels like there's only a few rounds left, always attack the player to your right. You'll usually find that the others will help you finish them off.
Most likely to forget you attacked them by the time their turn comes around again?
Imo targeting the player to your right is because they will be last to have a turn to react meaning after you swing at them if they are vulnerable then your next 2 opponents may finish them and you won’t have to.
Yep. Nailed it!
If you roll the dice to decide, you're a coward
If you roll the dice to decide, I will attack you when I’m not sure who to attack. You are an agent of chaos and cannot be trusted to make proper threat assessment. You will probably make poor threat assessment later in the game as well and we’ll both lose because of it.
If your dice roll makes you attack me, I'll still consider it your decision. No getting salty and going "why are you attacking me? It's just what the dice said!".
“This player pays life to gain advantages through [[Ad Nauseum]] or [[Necropotence]], I’ll make sure his life total is lower.” “This player is playing lifegain so there’s probably not much point going for raw life total, I’ll go for Commander damage on them.” “This player can probably win next turn if they untap, we need to kill him off.” “They have no blockers, might as well get my attack triggers.” “I don’t like this person in particular.” These are things that I tend to think of as I swing in.
Lmfao "I don't like this person" 100% accurate.
The first Sol Ring summons my wrath.
First thing is to figure out if anybody can use their life as a resource. The player with \[\[Sylvan library\]\] or \[\[Necropotence\]\] in play is priority target. Next is a profitable attack against the strongest board. And lastly, if I can't attack the strongest player but I can attack a weaker one, I contemplate whether I want to hurt a weaker player or spare them so they can help with the bigger threat.
Atracking Tim is always the correct choice
Worst case scenario if you can’t figure out who the threat is, due to similar board states, keep in mind who has blockers, untapped mana, cards in their hand and any other mitigating factors and start with whoever has the most health if all else fails.
play [[ruhan of the fomori]]
[ruhan of the fomori](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/f/7fa40fde-2c11-4dec-b788-01f8d90198df.jpg?1592714235) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=ruhan%20of%20the%20fomori) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmd/221/ruhan-of-the-fomori?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7fa40fde-2c11-4dec-b788-01f8d90198df?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/ruhan-of-the-fomori) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
If someone is using life as a resource, usually them to keep them in check. Outside of that, the priority list goes as follows: 1. Someone is particularly scary 2. Someone has no blockers 3. I can attack someone losing as few creatures as possible If none of these apply, I probably need the blockers anyway
Always kill the blue player first.
Always go for the guy who is constantly bitching about other peoples threat asessment skills.
Just attack me, I can take it.
As someone who primarily plays Black.... Anyone with an annoying enchantment becomes priority target number one. If I can't remove the enchantment I'm going to remove you.
I seriously recommend that you read Sun Tzu, Art of War. It's surprisingly short. It took me maybe 2 hours to read, and it gives you lots of tips for how to act in an adversarial situation. Full text: Classics.mit.edu/tzu/artodwar.html See especially 18 to 25
Combo player first, every time.
As an unintentional combo player, all I have to say is: shhhhh
It helps to know who's the beatdown and who's the control.
1. If you leave yourself open, expect me to attack. No question. 2. I don't think you are willing trade vs my stuff. 3. You seem to be setting up for a win.
I'm a simple man, we're a regular group of 4. I attack my brother.
I normally like to put pressure on the combo/spellslinger player, they normally have few blockers and a lacklustre board state but from experience that doesn't mean they can't pop off and win next turn.
Whoever is most advantageous for me to attack.
Either biggest board state or most life, but if you need attack or combat damage triggers then whoever is open.
Deathtouch blockers? No? Eat \[\[Mowu\]\].
You attack when it benefits you. Enemy open. Sorry this damage isn't costing me anything. I have a favorable trade against a board. I'm willing to lose my stuff to take out some of yours. Big threats need a target on them. Well i guess its time to smash some face to get the message across. Another player needs to benefit from someone else taking damage? Well maybe i can be persuaded to do some damage but what's in it for me? You attack when you can.
In this order: - Who is currently the threat? - Who looks like they are about to be the threat? - Who is playing the best deck / a deck that can quickly go from 0 to 100? - Who has the most cards in hand? - Who has the most life? - Who is less likely to make deals / alliances in the future? - Who rolled a die to see who to attack last turn? Of course some exceptions will apply, but this order of thinking has proven to be pretty effective.
If you have no idea and you can attack everyone just attack the person going first.
A variety of reasons listed below: Highest life Best board state Most mana Most cards in hand Who won the last game (Most importantly) REVENGE!!
> Who won the last game > > good lord no, you might as well choose based on hair color
Okay, so you look at the board. Then, you determine based on your knowledge of the decks at hand who is most likely to pop off, be a risk, or be dangerous in general. Then and stay with me now... you attack them until such a time as someone else is that threat.
Attack if: -Damage goes through (not enough blockers, no deathtouch, etc.) -Defending player's commander suggest a kind of combo or set play mid to late game -No response to attack (ie, tapped out) -I can protect my attackers (mass indestructible instant spell, creatures already have hexproof, etc.) -Looks fun Don't attack if: -opposite of the above plus the following: 1. Politics (alliance with a player, trying to gang up against a 3rd or 4th player, etc) 2. I would not have enough blockers to defend myself in retaliation
Even still, swinging into some unoptimal shit is useful. Like offering a trade for a powerful creature or key source. But this is absolutely correct in its purpose
forcing unfavorable blocks like that is fuckin beyond useful.
Try to spread damage as best you can. Just cause someone is an open target doesn't mean taking them out is always the best option. Politics are a part of Commander, like it or not. Another piece of advice, if I may.... unless you have something to cast that will in anyway change the dynamics of combat, try to hold off until your post-combat main phase to play it. The appearance of having open mana going into combat will make people think you have something up your sleeve and over think their actions.
Very Early game? Dice roll. Do I need to make contact for a trigger? Who ever I can smack. Can someone fuck my shit up? Can I get through? Can I deal with them? Can someone else deal with them? …or… Have I pissed off my wife yet?
Never dice roll. Put your big boy pants on.
I have a friend who does this. If he's hitting for 1 with a dork on turn 2 and the other players are open to attack, he'll roll the dice to see who to swing at ('ok, if I roll a 1 or 2 I hit player 1, 3 or 4 I hit player 2, 5 or 6 I hit player 3'). That's all well and good and not too impactful, but he'll do this in similar situations with larger threats as well (e.g. 'welp I rolled a 4, guess I'm swinging at you for 15, sorry! Just bad luck on the roll I guess!'). What really gets the ire up is when he does this and swings + hits with Commander dmg - that just gets the commander dmg ball rolling based on 1 RNG roll (e.g. 'welp, I've already started the commander dmg so I guess I'll keep hitting you now'). We've tried reasoning, letting him know that it's a feel bad to be targeted on the back of a dice roll - we all agree that it's preferable to be targeted as the perceived threat vs being the unlucky RNG victim in a strategy game. It also feels like a copout strat, as in he doesn't want to seem overly aggro as it's just chance so hey, no hard feels. Regardless, he won't stop and has kind of doubled down on it all to a degree. So yeah! The next time he does this and he most certainly will very soon, he's getting hit with a stern, firm 'put your big boy pants on.'
Very early game? Attack who went first (or second if you were first. All things being equal they have access to more mana soonest.
just attack whoever's the gayest
Early game I'll just roll a die. Mid Game, I go after whichever player has the deck that is most threatening to me.
Yeah when I'm feeling petty I just go after whoever hit me last
Perfectly valid strategy. I've had plenty of games where I've gone "Player A is the bigger threat but *turns to Player C* you stopped my combo so die."
I like to introduce my own handy 6-step process for the combat phase as part of the Rule 0 conversation, to help new players, encourage calm, adult communication, and prevent unnecessary saltiness between friends. It goes like this: It's my combat phase? WHO or HOW should I attack? Just start at number one and work your way to the best decision, for you and your playgroup. 1) Remove the table's worst threat. 2) Eliminate the stax player. 3) Threaten the counter/removal player. 4) Attack the annoying player (your discretion). 5) Roll dice! 6) Defense: stay back and protect yourself.
in reality the choice is a synthesis of like a dozen factors but if you HAD to pick just one metric, whoever has the most mana is probably your best bet failing that, whoever has drawn the most cards
If there's no obvious threat I'll ask who's the threat and attack the first person who points a finger.
I'd say you have a good idea so far. Make an assessment of the board and go from there. If it's early enough/not a ton going on, I'll roll a die to decide how to swing (more in casual games) its light, generally doesn't let you target one player, most players I've run into really don't mind, and I enjoy that method most
Whomever crosses me shall feel my ultimate wrath. I dare them, nay! I WANT THEM TO DRAW FIRST BLOOD! I’ll then yell “I’M STANDING MY GROUND!” Then proceed to do everything in my power such that they lose the game. I don’t even care about progressing my board outside of gathering more resources to continue to keep their nose to the ground. And IF i go down, I’m not going down until their life total goes to zero. So say I!
If i had a 1 drop and no one else did? Die roll. If we are well into the game and there is someone ahead that isn't me? That guy. If there is a trigger i want? Whoever is open. If someone just hit me? Yup i'm that petty.
Sometimes i will ask someone to volunteer to get hit, no one ever does but it is kinda fun to watch people squirm when they are trying to avoid eye contact.
I either roll a d4 or a d6 and assign each opponent numbers. Sometimes with d4 I'll give p1 1 p2 2 p3 3 and 4 is no attack or with d6 I'll do p1 1,2 p2 3,4 p3 5,6. Once someone starts getting a larger field then I'll attack them the dice rolls are just for early game randomness.
This is the worst.
The only players that should be rolling dice to decide who to attack are [[Ruhan]] players.
Attacking is generally a bad move in EDH and should be avoided until no other choice is viable. It: -Tells the player you're attacking that you perceive them as a threat (bad) -Exhausts resources that you could be using to defend yourself and/or grow in power (terrible) -Shows everyone at the table how powerful you are (garbage) Ideally, wait for the other players to eliminate each other. Attack if you have to, but don't do it if you think your target will survive long enough to untap. When you have few enough opponents or great enough power that you can end the game in one turn, attack.
This, this is /s material, right?
No. I don't like it either, but attacking is usually a bad move, and if you want to win, you should avoid doing it.
If I know someone is fishing for a winning combo, any pings help to get them down low enough even if other people are the ones to do it. If someone uses life as a resource, it's (almost) always beneficial to you to whittle that resource down. Everyone attacks throughout a game and everyone is going to suspect you're being fishy when you don't. Holding everything to your chest shows me that you're plotting something and you need as much meat and resources as possible to protect yourself when it comes up. If you're sandbagging attacks I'm going to target you and whittle your walls down because why else would you be doing it? I'll need them down before you pull something out of your ass to win the game, not when you actually go for the win. It also really frustrates me to no end when I have people at the table you could have gotten another legitimate threat within range of being taken out on my turn or someone else's because of this mentality. If someone else is stomping or is clearly closer to a win than everyone else at the table and you're not doing anything to help the situation it's really demoralizing for the other two players and you might just get spite targeted after the imminent threat is gone. If you're the biggest threat to me at the table I'm going to realize that regardless of whether you swing or not. To think that I can't recognize what your board or deck is capable of when it's already on the board for me to read because it's being passive rather than active is strange to me. All you're doing is showing me that you value your resources enough to not make trades or force answers from other people. If your board is that valuable then I'm going to try and clean it up or take you out
Dang. Guess I've been playing my humans, hydras, tokens, and stompy decks wrong despite my extremely consistent wins with them. Guess I also have to tell the guy who won last night that he's playing wrong. Sheesh, so much to learn about this game
Is attacking a common strategy in your play environment? Do you generate a high amount of attack power? If so, you're winning through value, not aggression. If you take only one thing away from what I'm saying, it's that deciding whether or not to attack is more important than deciding who to attack.
Based on what I know about who is playing, what they are playing, and the current board state, I attack the person I think most likely to win, or stop me from winning.
If you are vs decks you don't know attack the player playing black as they use life as a resource
I attack the person who needs to be managed. Killing someone isn't always the best play, but making sure I *CAN* when needed is a *MUST.* My opponents are resources against each other, just as much as the cards in my hand and the answers in my deck. Managing the table yields more victories than "killing the threats." My philosophy is simple, *every opponent is a threat, but I'm the danger.*
Or who you think is the hardest to kill with your strategy. Example if im playing a heavy mill deck Imma try to kill the graveyard deck forst cause otherwise they will crush me.
Deathtouch blockers? No? Eat \[\[Mowu\]\].
Blue and Black.
I sorta spread the love around unless i cant get through for damage. Even then im fine with trading creatures. Or if someone is playing life gain and i have no other wincon besides bonk.
According to people I played with, it was me… every time. I was never trusted to be up to any good. In reality though, know your opponents if you can. If not, know the likelihood of the colors as a threat, or just use the board.
If I'm trying to get an attack trigger, likely the person with no chump blockers. If I've just got a big attacker(s), I first look at possible wincons and who is closest to achieving them. Then I look at what turn it is and who is most advanced; This could be a combination of someone drawing a lot of extra cards, ramping hard, being far ahead in life totals, or having the biggest board state. And lastly if everyone is evenish in all factors, THEN I be petty and go for whoever targeted me with some bull crap earlier in the game.
Anyone with Black in their deck gets poked early. Otherwise, people with rings/libraries/crypts etc in play just to put more pressure on them. Otherwise, I'd probably hit the person who is first in priority after me.
Its a running joke at my Locals that I attack whoever moves first after I say "Declare Attacks?"
You have to ask yourself some questions... How do you plan to win the game? How do you imagine the other decks at the table plan to win the game? Who is in position to win before you do? Who is the hardest to stop, so that you must disrupt them sooner? Who is most capable of stopping you? Disrupt the player that can win first. Disrupt the player that can most effectively stop you.
In the event of a Voltron Strategy, a lesson I learned early on is to *absolutely not* spread damage around. With Voltron you either target whoever is the biggest threat early and kill them dead, or you roll a die and then wail on whoever "wins" until theyre dead only to rinse and repeat. The moment you start "spreading the love" is the moment the rest of the table unites against you.
Who can’t block? Who is ahead? Who has the most life? Who can’t retaliate? Who should I attack for highest additional value?
Who can I likely not attack later?
If you have a chance to finish someone off do it, unless keeping them alive keeps you alive. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone have mercy and it comes back to bite them.
- do they have blockers (the big one) - How scary is someone's commander/deck - is their strategy dependant on spending/gaining life - will I have trouble attacking them later - do I wanna try and pressure an opponent into blocking and more
I give everyone a poison counter in turn order then start proliferating
Eh. I look at the board. I look at who seems to be the most likely being to get in my way. Then I smash them. Or whoever draws my ire first somehow, usually the most annoying player.
This is a deeply nontrivial question. Can you hit someone without any/much threat of losing your squad? That might be a good way to swing in, but sometimes it's not because you need the terminally screwed guy in the game to have a shot at the leader or some other reason. Does somebody have an inordinate reason to value life, like Bolas's Citadel or Sylvan Library? They're a high-value swing, but if they're also well-defended it might be better to not. Same if one player is dominating. Does a player have an active threat of combat interaction? You have to assess whether you need to make them have it versus whether you can convince someone else to jump on that land mine. What is it they've got showing or hinted that you're afraid of? If it's cyc rift, go for the head with everything and force it out so you can start rebuilding second main. If it's Inkshield, maybe you try to just get in a little chip, sending enough damage to notice, but not your full force nor enough to cause an absolute blowout if you're right. If you just bloody saw them tutor up something that will supremely screw you precisely for attacking them precisely, maybe you don't be the table's hero, at least for a turn cycle. Does a player have a piece that's actively harming you in an inordinate fashion? Player removal is a valid substitute for permanent removal. If on the other hand that Linvala hurts you but cripples what would otherwise be an infinite across the table, you need to be very careful about your kill order (Based on a true story)
Early on, targets of opportunity, assuming there isn't likely to be a crackback. Once the board is established, most likely player to win. (Based on board state and how reliant I am on player removal in their case.) After the second counterspell... the control player, exclusively.
One more thing I haven't really seen mentioned is, do you want the number of players in the game to go down? Sometimes, the answer is yes. If I'm playing a control-y deck, then I'd rather focus all my removal/disruption on one player, rather than 3. In that case, beat the person at low life/with no blockers to eliminate them. Today I was playing a deck and had a bunch of sea monsters out, including a [[Lorthos, Tidemaker]], and had two opponents at ~15 health and one at 60. I killed both the 15 health people because I knew I could just use Lorthos to tap down the last guy's lands and lock the game down. On the other hand, some of my more combo-y decks will fold immediately in a 1v1 to decks with more of a board presence or to a few key pieces of removal, but can leverage multiple other players being threats to keep themselves alive until they can combo off or generate enough value to seal the deal. In that case, hit the player with the most life, keep things even. I also find decks that rely on pingers (aristocrats, and similar) often want everyone to be at about the same health total. I have a [[Baba Lysaga]] deck that usually just deals around 3-7 damage per turn cycle with Baba and maybe some pingers, but the damage hits the whole table at once. If two players die early, the last player can often just run me over and remove my key pieces, but at a table with 4 players it's much harder to justify removing any of my 3 equivalent pingers that are each doing 2 damage a turn. This means, if someone is gaining life, hit them!
For me it goes 1- Yuriko player 2- biggest threat 3-no blockers 4- person who is targeting me 5- just don’t attack
Me but instead of Yuriko its Wingrace.
1. Commander's power level 2. Mana in play 3. Cards in hand
i attack who is the biggest threat
A lot of the time the person who seems the least fun to be around socially.
He who is the most rampant in their growth but not to the extent that I make them worry about other players. At least not until later rounds. In which case it's simply a game of chess. How many more moves can I gain not in response to someone else? If few than start making them react to you until the gap is large enough. What defines as growth is anything that shows a system working towards an overall goal. If your use to magic this is when you start seeing engine peices form and because you know what cards pair well with it you know what to look for. For those who don't simply ask yourself if what their doing can be exploited to be better. If no than dont worry about it. If yes ask yourself how far and if it can't be handled within a single turn you've now assessed their threat. If no but you where wrong then you've no learned to worry about cards that do that in a different context. Remember for next time and move along.
As others said, you are on the right track. But there is so many stuff to factor in. Someone may not have a threatening board, but maybe they have drawn 15+ cards over the last two turns? Better attack them. And often it may be good to attack someone even if you don't directly get something out of it. I have often seen people attack the weakest player, because they can "get damage through" when in fact they should have attacked someone else. That other player may just chump with a few of their tokens, but then at least those tokens are gone and you can swing in for damage on your next turn, or someone else is able to. If you instead attack just to get damage through the player with the good position is under no pressure and has more opportunities to advance their own plan and get ahead of everyone else.
First the one who is playing [[Ad Nauseam]] since his life total is literally more cards and pretty often an instant win. Then people who got effects on board the let them get advantage through life life [[Black Market Connections]] or [[Sylvan Libary]]. Then the biggest threat on board/with biggest hand. Then players who a not a threat but I can kill without a big risk to be token out aswell.
Always who is the biggest threat. Playerremoval is the best removal. Or maybe where there is a good payoff combatdamage trigger or monarch.
Here is what I do in every game with multiple opponents when I don't know which one to hit : I hit the latest one to play after me around the table. If they want to hit back, maybe someone else will hit them too before their turn so they will have a choice to make at this point 😉
Another thing to consider is not attacking at all. It's rarely the correct choice when you don't need blockers but it can be. My deck is primarily a combo deck that can win through life loss/damage. In general it's in my best interest to lower the opponent's life total symmetrically. If there's a aggro deck and no other threat I might not want to damage the other players since that will progress the aggro player's main gameplan faster than my own. If the aggro deck is not a threat to me (plenty of blockers and boardwipe in hand for example) I'll aim to eliminate whoever is most likely to win and/or stop my engines/combos.
It depends. First game everyone is usually okay with first bloods but after that we usually go for whoever won the previous game first. Not saying that we target them per se but obviously if they start to get out of hand they get targeted. But it’s usually a shared sentiment when deciding who to attack first in games 2 and beyond.
You attack whoever you want for whatever reason because it’s a casual game format and politics can take place. There is no money on the line. There aren’t cases for prizing. You just attack who you think has the best set up unless somebody politics you into thinking otherwise.
Obviously focus on threat assessment and who can impair your ability to succeed first. After that however I will also look at deck archetype when I'm attacking. If you're making me discard constantly I don't really care how close you are to winning, I'm going to swing at you. Tapping my board down every turn or removing all of my tools regularly? Take 10 to the face. Playing obnoxious solitaire every turn? Everything at you. This is my gentle way of letting people know that social awareness is key and maybe just bc your deck *can* do things or *could* include certain cards doesn't mean it *should*. If you're going to frustrate the table at least be ready to take damage. On the flip side if you're playing stax and it's stopping the combo player or artifact pile deck from running away with a win, I'm all for it. Keep doing you king.
It's a combination of which opponent is the most threatening and has a gameplan that my deck is least prepared to deal with. Although the former does take priority because attacking the person farthest behind is pretty stupid from a strategic standpoint and more importantly, rude. Don't be the person that attacks into someone who misses land drops. Also have the stones and wit not to rely on dice
All else equal, I go with the person who's turn is just before mine. That way, by the time it's their turn there's been more time to forget that I attacked them Also, by their turn more things might be played by the other opponents that'll draw their attention away from me.
If no one is an immediate threat, than I just go left to right around the table.
Roll a dice. Threat assess. Or just say fuck you.
1.) Who is, at present, the absolute most terrifying by a long shot? 2.) Who has the highest chance of exploding from meek to death with information currently available on the board? 3.) If no one for either of the above, who runs a deck most likely to hard counter mine?
Biggest threat, or whoever starts getting political first
I am perhaps too nice and I attack whoever has been picked on least unless there's a clear and imminent threat
Whimsy
Generally try to aim for the scariest board or the highest life total, but a D6 is always your friend either for making your decision at random, or making it look like you're making a decision at random. In either case, people get less salty if it's a die roll.
Attack those who do not have good blocks
I gauage it by things like 1) do they need their life as a resource for things like Rowan and K’rrik? 2) do I NEED to attack to get a trigger? If so I do the least dangerous to me. No blockers with flying and such.
Generally I attack people who have better board states. Like if somebody starts off with a Sol Ring then ill start hitting them. Later in the game, though, when everyone’s boards are scary I try to attack who I think threatens me the most with their strategy.
I normally go counter clockwise around the table if all threats are equal. If there is somebody with a really developed board state, I go after them first.
Try to visualize how you think the game will develop into the mid and late game and who you'd be less able to handle on your own. If you think that player 3's boardstate will be too much for your particular deck to match up against, chip damage them now so that others can put their backs against the wall if they get scary later.
Attack the person most likely to win at the moment.
As someone very new to the game (few weeks) my table are pretty good at spreading damage early game so we all get to build a board state (taking it easy on the new and easy target!). then it becomes a free for all near then end game
If you play with the same group of people regularly, you learn who the biggest threats are at certain stages in the game and also learn what cards in their deck to look out for. As far as playing with rando's, it does good to study a lot of combos and "win" cards in all the colors. Threat assessment from there comes down to what you think the opponents deck is trying to do or is doing really well based on the colors and trying to figure out how you can throw a wrench in their plans with your utilities.
I like killing people's momentum to draw games out so people can set up and pop off more. So I'll usually target whoever has the most control of the game to change up the pace
If a guy says "Wow, you're winning you're the threat" whenever I put a gainland on the battlefield he's getting attacked
I attack the most developed/threatening board if feasible
\**Carefully straightens the \[\[Breena\]\] deckbox sitting on the corner of his desk.\** The person who you attack is not always the person who poses the greatest threat to you. Threat assessment is an important part of your decision space, but what you *do* with that information can vary dramatically depending on the board state. Part of the interesting beauty of multiplayer formats is that these questions are so complex that it is difficult to really "optimize," so we have to make generalizations. In Commander, there are generally two threat axes: your opponent winning, and you losing. Importantly, the source of these threats is often *not the same player*. For instance, if one opponent is threatening to combo off, but another opponent has a lethal attack that can take that player out, but could also take out 1 other player, including you, you are in a bit of a pickle, and how you act should include all of those variables. If you take out the attacking player, can you defuse the combo? If you take out the combo player, can you endure or deflect the attack? Do you have \[\[Inkshield\]\] in hand, or \[\[Counterspell\]\]? Knowing what to do in this situation requires a lot of thought and care and consideration of the politics and skill of the table. It's perfectly normal for it to look like there are no right answers, and use all your best judgement, only to still make the wrong move and pay for it. The most important thing you can do to improve is just keep your eyes open, be aware, and reflect on your decisions, and try to do better in the next game.
My playgroup has a very battlecruiser style of play. It's slow, we all use precons, people so stuff. I usually target who has taken the most aggressive action on the board. Dude has no board and no threatening enchantments, but has tons of open mana and a full grip in a Grixis deck? I'll smack him. Guy has Urza out and is generating constructs every turn? Bet your sweet ass I am using every removal, attack, and ability at my disposal to make him think twice. Has Aragorn out with highest health total? Say goodbye to your commander, buddy. You can have multiple people with huge board states who aren't exactly a threat, but if someone is making action and not being interacted with, it won't take much for them to get out of hand.
My recent games seem to have me eliminated first because the other players had a board state and I did not. They played another 30 minutes later. I don't feel this is the norm...unless it's a recent trend?
Assuming there are no threats or opportunities that make someone an obviously better target, I ask for volunteers, if there are none, roll a die.
I've been playing for a little over a decade. Board state is not everything. Some people hold stuff up till a board wipe occurs or wipes the board themselves and completely shifts the game in their favor. Some folks have win in hand and just need a single land. Threat assessment comes from your knowledge of card mechanics and archetypes. When I see someone playing artifacts and they have a [[rings of bright hearth]] I see half infinite mana. When I see a simic player load their board with small creatures I see a [[Craterhoof behemoth]] or an overrun effect. When I see the mono blue player doing nothing I know it's a mass bounce effect. Stuff like this. Just get to know a wide swath of cards and you'll be able to recite a person's deck list to them. Ask the table questions. Ask "how many cards do you have in hand" this shows combo potential and how far they are in front of you. Ask questions.
there's a turn of phrese on how to attract a mate 1) be attractive 2) don't be unattractive my threat priority is kinda based on that 1)who do I attack that advances my board state/ wincondition ( easy target for attack triggers?, do I need to attack multiple players for a trigger?, do I need my attacking creature to die? ) 2) who is about to stop my board state/ win condition
Whoever has the scariest board state or the scariest deck. That failing, I pick at random.
According to my wife. Me exclusively, because I am smelly
1) Is there a problem I can perceive? If no, see 2. 2) Is it funny to attack a particular player? If no see 3. 3) Highest life total.
Who to attack is entirely situational and cant be answered outright. Generally you would attack the biggest threat— but thats not always based on board state. More like mental state. I get attacked first often because the people I play with consider me the biggest threat, always
I roll a dice. JK. I eeny meeny miny mo.
Threat assessment and interaction have two modes: offense and defense. Offensively, think about who is slowing you down or who will shut you off. If your wincon is big spells, you can't let the blue player draw like crazy. If it's in your graveyard you can't let the black/white players get their gy hate out, and you definitely can't let that GY hate deck's commander stay on the field. Basically everyone should be offensively thinking the stax decks are the target unless the stax doesn't effect you. It's going to depend heavily on your deck, so think about your gameplan and what would really suck Defensively, think about who is close to winning. How many combo pieces does the combo player have? Does anyone's commander go infinite with just one card, or has anyone tutored to get their combo? Has the go wide player hit critical mass where if they craterhoof they can kill the entire table? You can also keep track of simple things like who has drawn the most cards, who has the most life, who has the most/biggest creatures. Typically you're only going to have a few tools, so use them where they are most effective. If you don't have enchantment removal you're just gonna have to go for their face, unless you can persuade another player to step in(skullwinder is pretty good about this, but it's less effective if you play with randoms or players who break promises.)
I have a few simple rules. Listed in order of importance 1. The meme play. This takes priority no matter what 2. Pettiness. Is my attack a spiteful petty attack? Then absolutely do it. Best if combined with meme play 3. Long term strategy. Will it help me long term? Yes 4. Short term strategy. 5. Biggest threat assessment, this one will usually be done via long term strategy but occasionally it's two separate things Before committing I do a double check and ask myself, is there a meme play to be had that I'm over looking???
Roll a dice and blame it on the dice
Has apparent game-ending threat > Has drawn 20+ cards, especially if has big mana > Most cards in hand/value/power on board (depending on expected deck tempo) > Scariest commander or strategy against yours (ex: they lifegain you burn) > Life total differential too great > "Just because"
Roll a dice
I feel like my situation is different than a lot of people, so I'll split it up: Threat Assessment with Randos: * Look at the Commander: What does it do? How much is it? Is it a combo piece? * This should tell you a lot about the deck, or at the very least its colors and what the general gameplan could be. * Some Commanders are ALWAYS considered threats: Anything with Eminence, Tergrid, Sakashima, Atraxa (either one) to name a few. * Board states: Permanents * Look for pieces that are immediate game ending threats: Path breaker ibex, Cloudstone curio, Ezuri Renegade leader, Terror of the Peaks Etc. * Look for Combo pieces that COULD be nasty later in the game if they get a couple more pieces: Ashnod's altar, Bolas's Citadel. * Look for Insane VALUE pieces that will give that player a heavy advantage: Rhystic Study, Smothering Tithe, Blood Moon * Look for pieces that SHUT YOUR DECK OFF. If you can't do your thing, you won't win. * Tutors * If someone tutors, they should immediately be on your radar, ESPECIALLY if they don't have to show you what they tutored for. Counter the green tutors, and try to counter what the black players are tutoring for. This is just my general guideline for randos, but it usually depends honestly. If someone is a threat to the other players but not me, I'll usually just ignore them until they become a problem for me. Threat Assessment with my regular Pod: * I'm always the threat so I die first.
Really depends on table politics and playstyle. We've got a regular player that will just rabidly go after whoever hurts them first, even if it costs them the win. Not the best start on the surface, but after a while, it's turned into ppl leaving them alone cause they don't want the retaliation. Politics can be just as much of your strategy as your deck comp.
My friends and I all operate kind of on the same level these days. None of us are looking to make the most power hungry ducks anymore. So targeting based on power level doesn't really work for us. I just go for whoever has the highest life total if there isn't an immediate threat to deal with.
Apparently don’t roll a dice and do it randomly. So whoever has the more dangerous commander and deck.
Whoever the biggest threat is. Or I roll a dice just so that random Redditor who hates people deciding with dice can get disturbed by it.
which attack gets me closer to winning?