EDH will be used for example, but the situation can be generalized.
>3 player EDH
>Player A resolves a wincon that comes into effect his next turn
>Players B and C both have sorcery speed removal to it
>They also know this about the other player's hands
>If neither of them remove it, they both lose
>But both of them want to play their own wincons instead
>Player B resolves his wincon instead of removing A's
>He passes to C
>C is forced to remove A's wincon
>C gets salty about this
Should C be invited back?
No. But he can demand a different player order next game.
>>45240862
Welcome to game theory, be sure to check out the panel on making your opponents do your dirty work. Don't forget your free Sun Tzu t-shirt and button on your way over!
C is rightly justified in being salty. You cannot kick someone because they were forced to lose.
>>45243214
He's justified, but we don't know the degree of salt he gave to A and B
Player C resolves his wincon. Mutually assured salt-struction.
>>45243266
Yes, but if you were dealt a losing hand and lost would it be justified to kick you from a gaming group because of the loss?
>>45243318
No but if he flipped a table because of it, then yes.
OP what was the nature of this salt? All justifications for booting said player tie into exactly what his salt was.
>>45240862
I got into a situation like this with wonders in Age of Mythology. Basically it was this setup but instead of resolving spells ala mtg player A built a wonder and player B broke the truce with me to take my third town center so he would be in a better position once we killed it.
I attacked player B because I knew I couldn't win with 2 vs 4 town centers and I wanted to discourage him from doing things like this in future games.
Breathing to do in C's case is play pic since A and B used up all their mana summoning their wincon and probably have 0 playable counters with their remaining mana.
>>45243616
Best thing*
Autocorrect I swear.
>>45240862
Basically, no.
Although the correct play is to allow A to win and feast on the salt of B
>>45243688
We cannot determine what C's reaction was and if it dictates removal from group. Getting salty that you got dicked out of a win is completely normal and acceptable behavior.
>>45243314
This is the only correct line of play, it would had teach player B that in future games he would rather lose than being other players tools.
>>45243722
Or, you know, you could acknowledge the reasoning behind B's play and not be an entitled cunt?
>"B-b-but I should have won if only YOU had done what I wanted you to!"
No one was "denied" a victory they "deserved". Multiplayer happened. QQ moar.
>>45243902
Uh, by "you" I mean a hypothetical person. Not (You)
>>45240862
In that situation, you're relying on your opponent playing kingmaker your way. I'm going to make one assumption here: I'm going to assume that the sorcery speed answer C has can answer both A and B's win condition. This wasn't implicit in the problem, but it is likely, and it's the only way your problem is really useful anyways. It's just a lot of pointless greentext with no educational value without that assumption.
C is rightfully salty, because B misplayed.
Since C only knows that B has sorcery speed removal in hand, C is unaware that B also has a win condition in hand. In this situation, B should not play any spot removal at all, but also not play his win condition. This gives C a choice between possibly letting B win (if he has the win condition in hand), or definitely letting A win. C, being a rational actor, should take A out of the game, and possibly lose to B, or possibly win.
The alternative which you described gives C a guaranteeed loss either way, which means you have a 50/50 chance of losing yourself, based on C's whims.
To maximize your chances of winning, you have to force C to choose A, and then play your win condition.
This holds true even if C knows that you have a win condition in your hand.
When C knows that you have a win condition, you sandbag it, and leave A winning unless C removes A's card. C has a choice. He can either certainly lose to A, or possibly lose to B (he could draw an out in between B playing the win condition, and using it). When faced with the choice of possibly winning, or certainly not, a rational C will take the possibly winning play of removing A's Win condition. This gets C's answer out of his hand, thus improving B's chances of winning.
When B slams his win condition out before C removes A, B's chances of winning were 50/50, and dependent on C's mood.
When B holds his win condition, B's chances of winning are 1-the odds of C drawing a second out, and just dependent on luck.
>>45243902
Honestly C should have done a "fuck you B" play and screwed over HIS wincon because of that dick move. Mutually assured destruction as I like to say.
>>45243616
But my win con is Ruric Thar+Grafted Exoskeleton+furnace of Rath.
/tg/ needs to play more liar's dice. Pure mind games. It will teach you how to handle these situations.
>>45244019
Counter spell.
>>45243371
>>45243318
Yeah, it depends on the level of salt.
Getting a little salty about the unlucky nature of how the player order is structured isn't weird, but if he doesn't know that B has a way to fix player A's wincon, it shouldn't be more than a small moment of sodium
>>45244197
right but that's just stopping B, not A's already resolved wincon, and as such C couldn't have a solution for both B and A at the same time
>>45243902
What exactly do you think being salty means, son?
![126323_1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HhqJVnw.jpg "126323_1[1].jpg")
>>45244474
Why not?
>>45243420
"Fuck you, I don't remove A's wincon, you lose B. I'm not playing this game again until you stop playing like that"
>>45243983
You're a dumbass for not considering that A has a turn to do something about B's action. And it was also not confirmed that B's wincon was a winner on his next turn. B has no reason to remove A's wincon, he can force C to do so, so he can do anything else on his turn to advance his position.
C removes A
A is then forced to remove B, IF A has removal.
>>45245117
B doesn't know C has an answer though
>>45245194
>>Players B and C both have sorcery speed removal to it
>>They also know this about the other player's hands
You're illiterate
>>45245253
I misread it as the exact opposite of that, as an explicit statement that they did not, for some reason. I blame it being 5 AM.
Disregard my last post, I suck cocks etc.
>>45245117
A doesn't change anything inj the problem presented though. The only thing that's known about him is that he wins unless disrupted. If you want to introduce more things about A, you're changing the problem.
I'm also pretty sure you didn't actually read what I wrote, because I'm talking about sandbagging B's win condition.
>>45245463
You also know he's playing EDH and will presumably draw a card on the next turn in addition to anything he has in his hand.
C can't win if he doesn't remove A's wincon. C might win if he does.
Doing anything other than maximizing your chance of winning (or in some cases dare I say it, amount of fun) is being a dick and fucking up the game
>>45245517
I don't get what you're even saying.
I'm only talking about how B maximizes his chance of winning by not playing his win con against C while A has his out. You're either confusing my post, or confused about who you're responding to.
>>45245636
>The alternative which you described gives C a guaranteeed loss either way, which means you have a 50/50 chance of losing yourself, based on C's whims.
This right here is wrong you idiot. That's the point I'm making.
The reality of the situation is a gamble on whether or not A has removal for B's wincon.
C has to remove A's, because it's a garunteed loss right there.
It then breaks into two cases :
A has removal -> C probably wins as the only one with a wincon still, but draws could happen
A doesn't have removal -> B wins outright because he resolved his wincon
A obviously has to remove B's wincon if he can, because it's the only way HE can win.
C's maximization of win probability dictates they remove A's wincon and roll the dice.
(this is ignoring that removal might be wrath based)
>>45245783
A having a removal spell doesn't make a difference in your decision tree. You're quibbling on a technicality that doesn't actually change the main point or the logical thought processes involved.
>>45240862
C isn't forced to do anything. He can let A win to spite B.
That's the nature of multiplayer games, and letting people know what you have in your hand.
>>45245968
A having a removal spell doesn't change your decision tree, because it is unknown*
>>45243983
>C is rightfully salty, because B misplayed.
>B playing wincon forces C to block A
>allowing B to win
>misplayed
As someone else said, 'multiplayer happened'. Maybe run decks that don't feature automatic win-cons if they're making people salty
>>45245968
>>45245989
How the bloody hell do you come to that conclusion?
B and C know A is playing EDH, therefore, (ignoring fringe cases) A has removal in his deck, and is about to draw a card. He might even have a hand! There is a positive, non-zero amount of cards available to A on his next turn, each of which has a positive non-zero possibility of being removal. It is a 100% chance of losing if A's wincon isn't removed. But due to A's incentive to win, and their chance of having removal, C has a chance to win by removing A's wincon. It might be abysmally low, but it's better than 100% loss to A.
Get your shit together before you open your mouth again.
>>45246022
B not playing his wincon forces C to respond to A instead of B.
How could you possibly misread things as much as you have?
>>45246076
>There is a positive, non-zero amount of cards available to A on his next turn, each of which has a positive non-zero possibility of being removal.
Correct. This does not change whether you play your wincon or not.
The only thing that changes is the number of cards that A might see in addition to his current hand, based on how long it takes you to win.
Sandbagging your win condition for a turn lets A and C see one more card from the draw phase. That's it. A typical EDH deck will be at most 10% answers, only some of which can respond to your win condition. I'll be conservative and assume that there is a 10 percent chance of player A drawing an answer or having an answer to your win condition. I'll be conservative and assume that there is the same chance for C to draw a second answer that can remove your win condition.
If you play your win condition immediately after A, you force C to choose between you or him as the winner. You have a 50/50 shot of winning.
If you sandbag your win condition, C is forced to remove A. C now has a 10% chance of drawing a second out to your win condition. A has similar odds of having or drawing an out to your win condition. Whatever the odds of them drawing an answer, they are most likely not going to be worse than your earlier 50/50 shot of losing.
Ergo, you improve your odds of winning by holding your win condition in hand for a turn and forcing C to remove A's win condition.
This is so unbelievably simple you should feel ashamed of yourself for not getting it.
>>45246675
C DOESN"T HAVE A CHOICE REGARDLESS OF YOUR WINCON BEING PLAYED OR NOT
IT'S 100% CHANCE OF LOSS TO A, WHAT YOU DO DOESNT' MATTER.
>>45246806
C obviously has a choice: it's a 100% chance to lose either way. If he annihlates A's stuff, he loses to you. If he stops your stuff, he loses to A.
There may be some bizarre scenario in the card pool of magic that lets him get out of this dilemma, or makes either A or B (but not both) less likely to win, but that's beyond the scope of the scenario I'm starting to think you're legitimately retarded.
>>45246871
Jesus titty fucking CHRIST MAN
A GETS A TURN TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT B
THAT IS C'S ONLY HOPE
>>45244008
This is how I play. When the other player's know you are motivated by 100% spite they don't take you so lightly.
Why's C salty? He gets to decide who gets to win. If he's angry about B not dealing with A's oncoming victory, he allows A to win to spite B.
Is C just a Spike?
>>45246888
JESUS TITTY FUCKING CHRIST MAN
WE're playing EDH, the format invented to encourage spite and passive aggressive dick moves.
But really, the main problem with your analysis assumes that B's win condition behaves exactly the same as A's despite nothing saying that.
All we can assume is that it B's win con doesn't win on the spot. It could very well win before A's win con.
>>45246888
>Player A detected.
>>45247059
>All we can assume is that it B's win con doesn't win on the spot. It could very well win before A's win con.
That assumption makes the decision trivial, because there's no reason for B to do anything but play their (faster) wincon. Since there's no difference between C's turn and A's turn.
So no, you don't assume that. B wins some time after A's turn.
>>45247107
Actually, this is a game theory reconstruction in EDH for simplicity of explaining a retarded play that happened in Lords of Waterdeep.
It was the last round, my father needed the double rogue to complete his last quest. I was B, I ignored double rogue to build up my own score and told my mother that she "didn't have a choice" and then she didn't block him and he crushed us both. To top it off, she took last because of it.
If I was C I would resolve my win con. Better to be a loser than be a tool to someone else's underhanded scheme.
So let us say there is Player A and Player B
Player B is playing a monored deck
Player A resolves an Iona
Is it wrong of Player B to try and hate Player A out of every match there after?
>>45247167
If B's win condition is faster, but you know C has an answer for it and A's win con, you sandbag still. C is forced to use their answer against A to stay in the game, and then later you resolve a win con that they are less likely to answer.
>>45247205
>underhanded
>>45247238
C would still be salty, because even in doing nothing you have used turn order to get ahead of them, because you still have your removal.
Use your brain.
>>45247167
>i made a topic where I misunderstand game theory to bitch about how my parents played their game.
Your mother wasn't playing to win. She let your father win because she's despises the husk of a man that you've become.
>>45247167
Wait
did you just kick your own goddamn mother?
You terrible piece of shit
>>45247408
I stopped playing with my brother because he literally never won, and I never won a game he played in, because every game we ever played, he made it his mission to see me lose. My mother has something like an 80% win rate when the four of us play and doesn't realize it.
Games can get fucking toxic if people aren't playing to win.
>>45247611
Are you sure it wasn't because you were playing to win and not have fun with the rest of your family?
you piece of shit.
>>45245019
Yeah...
In any multiplayer game these plays can rear their heads. You don't have control over how the board is gonna play out. Therefore C is a dick for not realizing that he himself is stating unless B makes plays that favor C, C won't participate.
Dick
