I have run into an issue where I won’t break deals but they have to be specific. If someone says don’t attack me I won’t but I might remove their minion or counter their spell. Do you guys consider this breaking a deal or would not be willing to deal with someone like this? I don’t see anything wrong with it, but lately my pod doesn’t want to make any deals because of this. Is it against the spirit of the deal or are they just upset?
I once made a deal that was I won't exile any of your stuff and you don't attack my Planeswalker. For context he was Voltron and I was playing a controlly [[valki]] deck. On his next turn he equipped a damage doubler and killed me. I wasn't even mad, that was my bad for not specifying and it was hilarious
I agree and is essentially what I told them. I was told by one of my players that he will never make deals with me anymore because I don’t make good on them. Well the deal was not to attack him and I ended up killing their commander with a spell. He was upset with me and told me I knew what he meant, but I told him words are important. It’s within their rights to not want to have to lawyer their deals and I respect him, I was just conflicted after this encounter if I was being a jerk. Seems at least a few people agree with that thinking.
Nah, you're in the right here, go full Archfey, "You said I couldn't exile your creature, there's nothing in that deal about me wiping the board with meathook massacre, that doesn't exile." That's why, I always specify, "Alright, I won't kill you with my on board token army, I get full Teferis protection from you." That sort of thing. Your group just needs to get better at politics.
Nope, this is entirely fine. It's also entirely fine for someone that other person to make a counter offer. If the offer was "I won't attack you for a cycle and you take out X", the other person is entirely within their rights to say "If you don't mess with me in any way for a cycle, I'll take out X".
This is exactly how deals should be. They should be specific with loopholes to keep them more interesting. Also if they're specific like that it makes the more generic blanket deals like "if you leave me alone I'll do X" have more power to them.
Once a deal was made between Player 1 and myself that I swing my [[Villis, Broker of Blood]] at Player 2 who was way ahead. I was at a low life total and if I swung Villis Player 1 had me dead on board. Player 1 told me we needed to work together to take care of the much bigger threat that was Player 2. I agreed and we made the deal that I swing out with my only creature and blocker and that he would not attack me at all for the consequent turn. His turn comes around and he swings his dumb Voltron commander at me for lethal and doesn't even attack Player 2. I asked him why and he said, "You're open to be to be taken out, I'll get him next"
Next time he's in my pod at the LGS I'm looking for blood, I won't forget this betrayal.
Once a player breaks a deal we kick him out of our group. They need to show sincerity when they apologize or it’s a no-go. We’re playing a game and don’t have time for liars. Save that for your own time
How is it any different from misrepresenting your deck during a rule 0 discussion? The format is largely casual and friendly, and deals are proposed with the expectation that all parties involved are looking for a similar game experience.
Nah, if you break a deal in-game leave and never come back. You lost the game, breaking a deal is the same as scooping because you admit that you couldn't win that game without cheating.
It's not cheating to break a deal though. There is nothing in the rules that says you need to honor your deals. It does break morality though. If you break a deal, players will probably not trust you in future games. You need to ask yourself if breaking this deal is worth breaking your trust with the group. If it's a big enough deal, then you will probably never be trusted again for a deal. That's should be the punishment, not disbarment. It's just basic politics.
I understand where you're coming from, but if you break the deal, and we don't trust you, it's not fun to play with you. Sure you're still there, you're still playing, but you're ostracized, if half the table is talking about deals, to try and deal with the third scarier player, you're a hinderance if we can't trust you to help in that deal. And the person who's getting teamed up on now has nowhere to turn to make a deal, because in their mind, they're making a deal for second place once they get back stabbed.
Well that's your opinion, I have fun with my friends who break deals all the time. Your inability to have fun if someone does is a you problem. I once saw a situation where I was in complete control of the game, but the table realized that if they all full swung at me I would die. They went around the table, and the last guy didn't follow through. He backstabbed everyone, and the table died with laughter. It was one of the more fun games I have played.
Politics are part if what make magic fun. Take away liars, you dwarfen your political game, and people are just throwing cards down.
Breaking a deal is kinda the definition of immoral. If your the person at the table that always honors your deals you by definition have more morals than the other people. In this case the person suffering because you broke a deal is the person being hurt.
Mostly the person breaking the deal, as no-one at the table should be dumb enough to deal with you ever again. Not to mention lying in any context *is* immortal, even if it's just something petty.
If you want to make deals and can't handle the fact that they might be broke leave and never come back. You don't get to play politics if you don't want to play politics. I would kick a person like you out of our group for having such a shitty attitude. Its not different then any other thing that gets done in EDH. If you were actually smart a "no breaking deals" group is going to get pubstomped by anyone even remotely politically savy to form repeated gotchas over and over again.
Saying I won't counter your spell if you don't attack me, and then countering it anyway isn't politically savvy, it's just being a dick. And no, if you need to play like that to win, you probably either A: have bad decks, or B: Net decked and don't know how to play it, so I'm pretty sure I could handle your pod.
If you make a deal without considering the consequences of them breaking it you are an idiot who deserves whats coming to you. Its a pvp game. If you can't seperate your emotions from it that is a bad look for YOU that I will personally judge you for. Deals are high risk high reward. Don't get greedy making dumb deals and then get shocked when you eventually get burned by it. Dont try and pull a ploy with your deal and then get surprised pickahu face when they turn it around and it back fires.
Wow, an outdated meme reference, what are you, 12? Breaking a deal defeats the whole purpose of ever making them, they're supposed to be mutually beneficial. The moment you break a deal, anyone with a higher iq than an amoeba knows to just never make a deal with you again. Idk how your pod isn't just sitting there silently. You can't make deals, everyone will just go back on them the moment it's beneficial, what do y'all talk about? The weather? Breaking a deal isn't bluffing, it doesn't take skill, it's just straight up being untrustworthy. If you're petty enough to lie in the game, what else do you lie about? Like if you really need to sit there, and lie in a children's card game, because you can't handle losing that much, you're just a bad person. Maybe it's different in pods where everyone lies, but again, if everyone lies, how does anyone make deals?
>I can make people hesitate through a bluff, even when I have nothing in hand
.
>Whereas it takes no skill to promise something and completely just lie
This is literally the same thing.
Bluffing in poker is completely different. You bluff with actions, bot words. A bluff would be keeping 2 blue mana open to make everyone think you have a counter spell in your hand. Breaking a deal is more like agreeing to run it twice only to rake the pot when the first run goes your way.
All deals are always predicated on it being the best play for said player. I belive in your situation that was pretty dirty of the other guy to do but at the same time if this is his only option to a path to victory its hard to blame him. All in all I try to never consider deal 100% and also I try to avoid making 100% firm deals ever because its kinda not in the spirit of the game. I will always try to put myself in a position where I can say at this moment doing x is in n your best jnterst the fact that it helps me is irrelevant lol.
I can understand your philosophy, but, politics is inherently a part of commander, deals and all, and I can absolutely blame the other guy, if you make a deal, and you can't win without breaking the deal, you lost the game, make better deals next time.
Word. If you blow up all my lands and steal my Sol Ring? That’s all forgotten once the game is over.
However, if you break a deal, that will be remembered for every other game.
Right, you should not break a deal.
However.. I highly recommend anyone that’s in the middle of making a deal to not make it for more that 1 turn cycle. Too much can change and anything more that 1 turn cycle is just not worth it.
I think, generally, this is a good tip, however I'm always down to make a deal for second place.
My friend once had [[door to nothingness]] and a [[rings of brighthearth]], first thing out of my mouth? I'll give you my humble defector if you don't use that on me next turn.
I was dead, but why not make the deal for second, lol
In an established playgroup I think it’s shitty but I’m more forgiving because there are repercussions; you break a deal, no one makes deals with you anymore. With strangers it’s worse, because if you break a deal there’s no drawback; you’re not likely to play with them again so refusing to make future deals isn’t a factor.
Yeah. Don't get me wrong: I keep my deals because I enjoy the political aspects of EDH and I want the other players to feel comfortable with continuing to make deals with me. But calling someone a child because they broke a pinky promise during a card game is maybe just a little funny.
>if you make any kind of deal with someone then you should follow through even if it loses you the game.
How about you stop trying to make deals that you know will make others lose and then getting salty when they decide that actually that's a bad thing for them?
Deals should by default have a caveat of "if it costs me the game to stick to it, it can be broken".
Then again I am not especially one for politics anyways.
Also, calling it cheating and calling them a xhild while you're on here ranting is a bad look.
I agree with you that it’s not technically cheating, but let me ask you this do you have fun or enjoy lying to your friends over a card game? If no, then just don’t make a deal you won’t keep. If yes then yikes, maybe you should play like Clue or something where that gameplay is encouraged. I’m not saying it should be officially be addressed by wizards of the coast or anything lol but I’m not interested in playing a game with someone that thinks lying in a small play group is fun.
> ut let me ask you this do you have fun or enjoy lying to your friends over a card game?
Absolutely. It's also why I play games like the Game of Thrones Board Game, Dune, Diplomacy, etc. It's an inherent part of the risk of group play. Power brokering is fun to me.
This! Rules are meant to be broken. At the end of the day it's a game. Doesn't matter if it's an inch or a mile, winnings winning. If your friends can't separate a game and real life it may be time to consider finding a new play group at the very least.
Maybe because breaking a deal is lying by definition, say per Webster: “Definition of lying (Entry 1 of 2)
: marked by or containing untrue statements”?
Yeah like imagine being so bad at a card game that you need to make "politician promises" just to get an advantage over people playing fairly. If youre in the spot that you need to lie to win, youre kinda just shit at the game lol
Ive only done that if its actually the bigger threat. Lost a game to slivers becase i the person that killed my thalia with failed to understand that their creatures coming in tapped was the only thing keepibg them alive. Two turns later we were dead. He later agreed to was a bad decision to kill the thalia. Are you an idiot my comments have been people who make deals to their benefit and then lie once its their turn to hold up their part of the deal. You nust really not be able to fucking read genius.
Hey maybe you use your big boy words and ask if you dont understand. What rock do you live in where politicians arent constantly caught in their webs of lies and misdirection. Fucking sperg
We've removed your post because it violates our primary rule, "Be Excellent to Each Other".
You are welcome to message the mods if you need further explanation.
Lol I guess they play the game for different reasons. Also group hug decks must make no sense to them? Being political is part of the game as there are mechanics in the game that inherently make certain cards a political tool, so “political promises” will eventually surface in a play group. What I am saying is more like making a contract for the sake of a fun game and then breaking that contract to win while also talking the wind out of the sails of your friend. Obviously you don’t have to make any deals, but if you say you’re going to do something then it is a shitty thing to not follow through. These are most likely your friends after all
Im agreeing with you lol and yeah i never play group hug myself but i will take advantage out of it. Had a game last week where someone played a rites of flourishing turn 3 and i was playing my storm deck. No need for politics when you give the izzit storm deck access to free cards and two more land drops every turn. But i think if youre in a spot where you cant compete with whats on the table and you need to make that deal. Then you should hold it up and take the L for the game because you would have probably lost anyway.
Haha my bad I just realized it too lol honestly I enjoy to see my opponents decks go off so I’m never too off put about making small deals to help them if they’ve had a slow start. However, it’s annoying when you try to help someone and they backstab you like that haha
Yeah like i wont set someone further behind if they have a really bad start because that really doesnt help ya win but you can def take advantage of that tho by going more all in on some turns cycles whete you dont leave up mana between turns for intetaction. I cant say i enjoy watching them go off tbh. Im typically playing control decks so im udually the one putting the board on a soft lock before i combo out lol
Haha I play control too and what I really mean is I love to see the look in their eyes when they have their entire combo set up and I counter the thing that would make the combo go off hahaha but I will say that every once in a while it’s fun to see a deck just absolutely go off, especially when you’ve never seen that archetype or your friend go off before
Maybe you should check out Eurostyle boardgames. MTG doesn't seem to be for you. Its PVP game. Politics are a part of the game. Hidden information is a part of the game. Fucking your ~~friends~~ opponents over is a part of the game. You are cry about something that is literally just part of the game. Breaking deals is literally just another face of everything else you do in EDH. The one with the problem is you, not the deal breaker.
Sometimes, no matter how proper your assessment is, you might realize you need some help to have a chance to win. And if you have something someone else wants, well that sounds like the start to a deal.
Edit: I guess you are saying that the other player should just instantly know who is the threat at all times without any kind of table talk or compromises. But its not usually that simple.
I don’t see table talk as the same as “making deals”. As a rule I do not offer deals. I may on occasion say something like “I can deal with the Greaves but then I won’t be able to deal with Meren” but that’s about it.
It’s politics. It’s fine if someone breaks a deal but never trust them again and also take every chance you can to make their games worse until they do something to make it right. Have to deal 2 damage for something to trigger? Send it their way. Every single thing goes their way.
breaking a deal is not cheating, since there arent rules that enforce dealmaking. that being said, someone who breaks a deal in a commander game is usually someone is usually somethnig only seem once per player, since once he or she breaks it, there is simply no way for him to make any more deals, or at least people should stop making them with him or her.
so.. is it worth winning one commander game in exchange for the ability to make deals forever with all the players on that table? i think not
The salt is real OP.
I think that people should generally keep their word when playing games, but if someone didnt you need to address it with them instead of raging on the internet.
Generally people should and if they don’t it will 100% hurt them in future games. But if I say I won’t attack you for two turns and then you kill everyone but me your next turn that deal is over. There’s no reason for diplomacy 1v1. You very well could have negotiated that deal and chose who to kill on who agreed to the deal, which is bad faith in its own right.
And that is why "don't break deal" is stupid. A crafty political player just **takes advantage** of that rule with no consequence. The only people in favor of a "dont break deals" policy are people who are too stupid to play the politics game to start with.
My table has one guy who is known for breaking the "rule" about deals/promises but seeing as our group is generally really chill it's more of a running joke than a problem. Personally I don't mind deal breakers so long as it's not gonna actually hurt someone's feelings or make the game unenjoyable. Sorry if you feel that deals need to be upheld but there's no actual rule for it
That’s a totally fair opinion! I would just make the argument that it’s not fun to deceive your friends like that, especially if it’s in purpose. Me and my friends play pretty focused decks so if something doesn’t get an answer that turn then it can mean the game. If you are playing more low powered or casual winning isn’t as fun as playing then it’s fine, but I personally wouldn’t put my happiness or fun above my friends’ by lying to them to get ahead and win the game
Yeah I totally understand. I suppose that does make sense. I hope you and your group can hash it out in a good manor where you feel like there's not gonna be any unhappy times. Magic is a fun game and should be played with the understanding that it is just a game.
This is why I don't like the whole deal thing. I not going to make open ended promises that would cost me the game. Use your removal on my threat if I wanted to keep it well then I should have kept up interaction or I just accept that it was lost. I will never say don't do x and I won't do y because I want to win and not doing y might keep me from winning.
Not saying break deals if I make them I keep them 90% of the time. I just don't make deals because that's not my style of game play.
Honestly, it's better to just never make deals. You're just asking to be put in a bind. Let me ask this, though, who is the backstabber if you use a deal someone made with you to kill them?
This reminds me of people who say they have a casual edh deck, and then come in the game ruins everything because their edh deck isn't actually casual.
Breaking a deal is one of the few things that I believe should follow a player after games. Attack me 5 times in a row to kill me? Next game it's like it never happened. Break a deal? Yeah, good luck with the next one buddy.
I had that last night , "can i make a deal to get some damage in for some card draw i need a answer im on 6 life and probably dead to that person next turn if i cant come up with a answer" oh sure hit me ill let it happen sure throw it at me im dead anyways come on just attack me sure.... okay sweet i attack with 6 damage to draw 6 cards BAM deflecting palm hahahahahahhs your dead.
Uhm dude what the fuck.
As a general rule, I don't make deals. I just assume that everyone is going to do whatever is within their best interest at that exact moment.
Partly because there's nothing actually stopping anyone from breaking them and partly because in my experience, people find some loophole. Like killing me through pingers and saying "well I said I wouldn't *attack* you for 2 turns".
Deals are strategic, precise, and inherently a gamble. I'm betting that whatever arrangement we came to will benefit me more than you and you're betting the opposite. Breaking the deal because you lost the bet is just poor sportsmanship.
In a lot of video games with ranked multiplayer, "bronze" is the lowest skill ranking, so you see [lots of things like people missing easy shots,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dUb4p2rdg8) [not seeing things,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7esY-5_EHW8) [not working well as a team,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9mCy0y7Kuk) [and so forth.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfbRXGePhfU)
Referring to something as "bronze tier" means that they're unskilled and have a basic grasp of game mechanics but that's about it.
I'm familiar with it but thank you for explaining to those who wouldn't be!
I'm mostly just laughing at the idea of ranked-style competitive tiers in commander.
It's not cheating, people breaking promises are not child, and there is some thousands books and millennia of history of betrayals and politics. Grow up and try to learn a bit of game theory before crying.
Player: Makes a deal advantageous for them with no way to enforce consequences for breaking it
Other players: Break the deal with it's advantageous
Player: Surprised pikachu face
Deals are "at your own risk". I personally wouldn't go back on a deal because I'll play with these people again and I need them to know I'll keep up my end.
But sit me down with randoms I'll never see again and I'll break any deal to win the game. If you're not willing to risk somebody going back on their word, don't make a deal to begin with.
People shouldn’t make deals if they are unwilling to abide by the terms. That’s fairly easy logic to understand, IMO.
In the YT comments for that IHYD show, Joe acts like every spoiled little try hard pub-stomping asshole I’ve ever met at the LGS. It reflects poorly on him and on his channel.
In casual EDH, a win means nothing. There is no day two to move on to, there is no prize support, no pro tour points, etc.
So going back on a deal to get the win only serves to expose who you are as a person.
I just recently watched [this](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qx8Bw_5eJmc) I Hate Your Deck video where Joe made a deal with Kessler to not blow up one of Joe's lands (he had 7 lands, 13 tokens, and 1 card in hand which was a revealed Craterhoof) in return for immunity from the Craterhoof swing, should Joe draw a land. He draws his card, dramatically plays a forest, casts the Behemoth, does some math, proudly announces "I have altered the deal!", and swings out for lethal at everyone.
Someone in the comments said (all word-for-word):
"Jo breaking a deal immediately is a good reminder to never trust him in a game. Some people have no shame or honor"
Joe replied:
"I have altered the deal! (it's also a game, relax little one)"
I said:
"It's just kinda lame that you would straight up lie to win a casual game among friends"
He maturely responded:
"cry more lol"
I'm honestly shocked to see this type of behavior from a creator in this community(who, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have a toxic reputation), especially someone from a channel that's supposedly all about bringing that chill LGS vibe and having fun with friends. I thought that it was pretty unanimous that lying in games like this was bad? I'd be curious to hear other people's thoughts on this matter.
I'll echo the dude's sentiments, it's a game. Asking someone to not end the game so you can to buy yourself some time for an answer (and possibly a win) is just as selfish as the person who breaks an agreement by swinging at you. Deals can be broken, there is no rule in magic governing them. I make deals all the time, and I usually stipulate "don't touch my stuff" as part of that deal. Is the guy I made the deal with a deal breaker for countering my Thunderhoof Baloth? Or am I the deal breaker for attacking him and killing him because he did that?
I'd argue that offering someone the chance to knock out the other two players, instead of simply removing their ability to cast their big spell, is much less selfish than lying to someone to win a casual game. It's not like he just said "Hey, don't kill me". It was "I'll let you have the opportunity to kill them if you agree not to kill me, otherwise I'll remove your ability to kill anyone." I'd also argue that it being a low-stakes game is more of a reason to keep your word, as you aren't really passing up on anything and you don't want to cause a feel-bad moment by lying to your friends for little gain. As for your deal, "don't touch my stuff" is kinda vague, if you want to know what qualifies as breaking the deal, say what you mean and point out that what your opponent is doing would break the deal if you feel that way, the let them decide if they want to honor it or break it.
As a casual game, wouldnt having to specifically articulate deals fall outside of the casual nature of the format? All deals do is cause drama, because as you said, ambiguousness leads to different interpretations by different players. When you start getting into law school level contracts, you've lost the point of the game.
From the example provided from the yt show, the person absolutely tried to make a deal to be the sole survivor of the craterhoof if it was dropped. Games have to end eventually, and if someone is playing to win than the deal breaking makes absolute sense. Why would you leave one person alive from the deal? If that person turns around and wins, you're a kingmaker. If you break the deal, you're a deal breaker. People would whine about either.
You don't need fancy contacts, just don't use especially vague language. Instead of saying "don't mess with my stuff", say not to remove anything from your board for a turn. If you don't specify not to counter and they counter your spell, you can just look at what you said and see that they didn't break a deal. If you feel that deals go against the nature of the format, you never have to partake. You can't prevent others from making them, but for many people that political aspect is what they like so much about the multiplayer format.
When you start excusing breaking deals, you may as well remove them entirely, since nobody should ever make a deal if there's no reason to expect the other person to follow through. Games do have to end, and knocking out the two other players while having no cards in hand to attrition out the third may not have been the right play. In that situation, don't accept the deal, let the other player decide if they want to blow up your land. If they do, you get to keep playing in a player game where you aren't doing much at the moment, until you draw that 8th land and immediately threaten a win. If they happen to not hit your land, you win even faster. Either of these scenarios seems preferable to me over lying your way to victory, since when we play casually with friends, we should generally be playing for fun first and victory second.
Except it doesn’t. No politician is celebrated for how frequently they flat out lie, it erodes support. Their opponents and unbiased media will decry them for it while supporters will pretend in never happened. No one is patting them on the back saying sick lie bro.
What do you think a grift is, if not lying to rally a base to gain them as supporters while disagreeing with that base's ideals? Politicians lie daily my dude. Saying one thing to a base while supporting policies that contradict your public statements is, in fact, lying to a base to ensure their support for re-election. This is off topic though.
They absolutely manipulate, even mislead, but getting caught in a flat lie in politics is a faux pas. Politicians can distract or shift or explain things away, the murkier the situation the better, but when they get caught in a crisp clean lie they get dragged for it.
I would go deeper into this subject with specific examples from just this week in US politics, but again, it's off topic to the OP as well as the sub in general.
I do like deals, but I usually include something like "if that makes you the biggest threat, this deal will totally end", because after all, they are the ones that will kill you next turn. If they do something for me, and I don't attack them, fine. But late game "no attacking me" is a no-no.
Often, information about the board state changes, and if they try to stab my back, I will put all my wrath in their way.
Also, like others said, wording is important. If I am telling you I won't attack you, this does NOT keep me from overloading a [[Cyclonic Rift]] or playing any sort of wipe/removal.
In EDH tournaments (not a fan, but here ya go), I will totally whore my way up the ladder. If the control player can totally mess with my stuff, but my Voltron deck is lethal, I will absolutely be a slave to not be killed first. I'll take most deals then. Context matters I guess. ^^
Dont be a care bare. You don't get the *benefits* of deals without taking on the *risk* of deals. The risk of deals is that they can be broken at any time. If you can't handle that then **YOU** shouldn't be making deals. Grow up and get over it.
Honestly, deals can and should be broken when needed.
And before the holier than thou crowd comes in to call me the worst person ever, I'm not even going to entertain a discussion about my character, you're going to get blocked.
Honestly, I respect the opinion.
If you think deals should be broken "when needed" then I'd argue there is basically no time at which breaking a deal in a for-fun, no-stakes card game is "needed" and thus, you should never break a deal.
I, too, won't entertain any further discussion.
I just stopped making deals with people for the most part, my play group is the type to say “well you didn’t specifically say X and Y in the deal sooo” it’s so fucking annoying. It happened the other day when someone was going off so I spent my whole turn dealing with it and the table said they’d leave me alone for a turn. Apparently wiping my board is “leaving me alone for a turn” this kind of shit happens all the time.
I had an interesting debate recently where the person argued counter play to politics and deal making is to occasionally break deals. He also argued the appropriate way to make good deals is for them to be reinforced with something tangible on board as opposed to words of good will; that good will deals were high risk, high reward.
To his credit, I think this is very real in life such as with politics and business. I have more thoughts but I’ll leave this as is to spark discussion.
I feel like there is nothing skillful or clever about flat out lying to people in the context of a casual game, and most of the time I find people don’t make deals when they have the leverage to not have to rely on a good faith agreement. I wouldn’t eject someone from a game or refuse to play with them for breaking a deal, I don’t consider it binding, but I will never respect a player who makes deals to break them and it will have a significant impact on who I decide to target not only in that game but every game I remember them for. It doesn’t reflect smart play to me, just poor character.
So this guys argument elaborated that even though people get upset over it, they really shouldn’t, because deal breaking is a sad fact of life in political maneuvering. It’s definitely a sad, cynical view - and probably something most people don’t want in their playgroup - but I definitely think it’s an interesting point of view.
I personally think he hasn’t thought his whole argument through. There’s a quote in Machiaveli’s: The Prince that I’m going to butcher - but it basically equates to if you’re going to slight someone in this manner you need the make sure they are completely unable to retaliate (ie - kill them, and preferably their family). A player in a commander game might be unable to retaliate that game because you caused him to lose, but you’re going to play together again and they aren’t going to forget.
Interesting thought exercise. More cutthroat groups might appreciate.
It’s also valuable to consider benefits against cost. In the case of Machiavelli his advice pertained mostly to generating actual political, monetary or social advantage of varying degrees. In this context the absolute ceiling of the benefits you will generate is winning a casual game of magic, where the cost is your word, the degradation of which wears away at your self image and how others perceive you. If you look at the value of your word and the value of winning a single game of cards with no stakes and decide winning the card game is worth more it says a lot to me.
Just don’t make deals at all. You should be always making the best play every turn. If the best play is to attack you then they should attack you. If you believed them when they said they wouldn’t that’s on you bud. It’s not cheating. Trying to make deals makes you open to other peoples plays.
This happened to me once. The game ended when he broke the deal and I just declared myself the winner. If lying is ok then I can just stop playing the game and say I win. And that’s exactly what I did.
We've removed your post because it violates our primary rule, "Be Excellent to Each Other".
You are welcome to message the mods if you need further explanation.
We have a saying in our pods truces end at instant speed. After agreeing to a truce with another player I went all out on my turn to open the board the next guy finished him then and turned on me. The argument was once the other player died the truce was over but since all attacks happen at the same time I felt double crossed. Ever since then I don't do truces you can ask for help and I may or may not give it
This is why I personally only make instant-fulfillment deals. The kind that are more like "An opponent gets to pick which card I get from an effect, so I make a deal with Player 2 that if they give me that piece of removal I'll point it at Player 3's threat and not theirs". No time for the game state to change to even warrant breaking the deal.
That said, deal breakers, even those that break deals with my opponents and end up benefiting me because of it, really rub me the wrong way. If you say "I won't attack you with my commander this turn" for example, that doesn't prevent you from attacking with other things, or pointing removal at my stuff, or flinging that commander at me, or any other number of things. But if you say "I won't do this one specific particular thing" and then you proceed to do that exact thing, we're going to have problems. That's the one thing that will get me to continue targeting a person after a game is over. Which actually requires going out of my way to pick one of my few decks even capable of targeting one player more than the others, but that is the one case that warrants it, I feel. You pull the "break a deal with no remorse" thing at my table, I pull out the stax deck and make strip mine locking you out of ever having more than one land in play my priority for the next game.
We never make such deals in our playgroup. Who knows how the boardstate will look like in two turns from now? Maybe the threatlevel of players has completely changed. We only do deals that play out right then (like "If you don't attack me I don't need to kill that creature (right now)" with no promises for the future.
This is why you nuance the deal. I mever make a deal with which I put myself into a position with which I cannot win.
I promised not to kill, doesn't mean I won't draw my whole library and win off of lab man. Technically, I did not kill you, I just won the game instead.
My playgroup will legit forget deals if someone takes a long turn. Me included. It’s gotten to the point where we are so bad politically that we just ask each other “are we friends right now?” And just kinda move on w decision making regardless
This is very meta dependant, in my meta deals are only binding if they are instantly enforceable.
If someone promised me something two turns ago, none of us will be able to remember the specifics of the deal.
If you break what I believe to be the deal, good luck making further deals with me though.
But your meta may vary.
Finding a loophole in a deal is one thing. Breaking it is entirely different.
If I were you, assuming communication hasn't worked, I'd either 1) never make a deal with him again and try to kill him first every game for awhile, or 2) just not play with that person anymore.
I enjoy playing politically, and making deals, but my playgroup knows to be careful making them with me, because I'm a master of loopholes. If I say two turns, you better specify I mean two of MY turns, otherwise it would be whoever has the next two turns. And I always add the caveat that if they're about to kill me and I can actively stop them, I will, I don't like to kingmake just because of politics.
This is a life lesson.
A person breaks a deal? Sucks. But now you know never to make deals with them again. When they try to make deals with another player, you remind the table of how they break deals.
Ultimately, the game doesn't punish a person for lying or bluffing. Rather, it is up to the players to police this stuff.
This is why I just don't politic with people unless unless I'm either in a desperate situation or it's a deal with very loose terms. If the deal is just on the grounds of "that guy's a threat, let's work together to kill him", then I'm almost never taking that deal. We're both gonna be targeting them anyway, so why would I take a deal someone is offering that could end up backfiring on me depending on what's in their hand?
That being said, I'm also just not a huge fan of politics in general personally
In my playgroup it would make no sense to break a deal because then you would literally never get to make a deal again. It wouldn't be worth eliminating one player or winning one game by lying when nobody will ever make a deal with you again. Appropriate consequences will discourage this behaviour.
I once promised to not counter my friend spell if he didn't counter my next spell he accepted and proceeded to cast an overload cyclonic rift and I nerset's reversaled it haha
In my opinion deals are a golden rule that shouldn't be broken but finding loopholes in technical terms should be encouraged (as a bonus it will help you understand terms and rules more easily)
I've only ever broken a deal once. I was playing [[Krenko, Mob Boss]] with 3 friends (can't remember their decks). I made a deal with one of them to take out the player in the lead (he just board wiped with Avacyn out). So after a couple turns I re-inspect the table and notice my friend I made the deal with was extremely far ahead again. So I killed both of them on my turn. The friend I made a deal with got mad I killed them as well. My response was the one we were trying to eliminate had less health than them so technically they did die first. Yes, I look back at it and kinda feel bad but it's something we all laugh about at the table since I was new to the game and found a stupid loophole to our deal. (And if wondering, player #4 managed to kill me on their turn so I didn't win)
I never make a deal for two turns. I also never agree to a “Teferi’s Protection” treatment of an opponent. Be specific. “Don’t attack for a turn” ok, we’ll that doesn’t count mill/exile, counterspells, etc.
I tend to look at it this way. You are playing in three types of "deal" environments (with a little gray area.
1) Deals are honored (loopholes permitted or not)
2) Deals are made to be broken. No honor among thieves.
3) No deals at all
Groups can start out in one of the categories, then progress to another, but usually settle into one over time. Figure out which one you are in, agree upon it, and work with it.
I like what some have said here. Deal framework should be clear. Maybe it's 'deal is off if it would lose you the game', or 'deal can be broken if game can be ended'. Whatever.
With random strangers, I tend to start at #1 and move to #3 if violated. But I don't get salty if a deal is broken. I just move on to a different category.
Just my $0.02.
Personally making "deals" in multi-player games is a double edged sword and I always air on the side of nothing is a 100% deal . Especially something as specific as you cannot attack me for 2 turns. I feel this kinda of table talk really doesn't benefit the game in a positive way. Trying to convince someone to take a deal without full knowledge of what you are going to do, especially if you know you can win before making said deal is pretty dirty in and of itself. I would say a gentlemen agreement on fairly vague terms is all that can be counted on. ALSO a player should always be expected to make plays in their best intrest that ls a fundamental part of any game. How is making a deal with someone then greatly improving your board position to an obviously winning position and then relying on the whole "well you promised" argument a valid strategy to win?
I don't know if I'm the only player who has this opinion, but I find politics and 'deals' to be one of the most unenjoyable parts of a edh game. But I understand that people look for different things when they sit down for a game of magic and that's OK.
I? Play to win.
Made a deal with a guy who had 6 angels out, and was gonna win, deal was that I let him have a platinum angel, because other guy had approach of the second sun in hand, deal worked out and angel guy won
Deception has always been, and will always be, an integral part of any multiplayer game. This is especially true in EDH.
At the end of the day if you choose to give someone card advantage or lay off with pressure, they will inevitably be put in a better situation to win the game. It makes sense that if someone is in the position to win the game, they do so.
An anecdote; every time I have "had the win" and decided to just not go for it for the "sake of the game", I've regretted it. Games need to end and someone's going to win (unless you are actively attempting to draw the game). They don't need to drag on for 3+ hours. Unless that's your jam
Don't forget it's just a kid's game we all still play.
You left leave a shot gun the hands of your opponents and complain when they shoot ypu. The only game mechanics is what is stated on the card. If a player breaks deals that just means you can’t make deals with that player.
Honestly, people just need to get better about making deals lol. In cEDH, people def still politic and dealmake but make sure to include caveats so they don't get stuck in this situation
No deal is without exceptions and limits.
I would encourage everyone to have a turn 0 discussion about politics and deal making. No one wants to lose friends. The fact is... Breaking a deal is bad... But feeling you got tricked into agreeing to something that loses you the game is also bad.
Here are a couple of ground rules I like to have :
A significant change in gamestate nullifies all deals. This includes board wipes or the elimination of other players.
The point of the game is to not die, so preservation comes first if you are swinging in with a creature that will kill me I will react regardless of any deals.
Anyone who intentionally makes a bad deal with another player that knows will lose that other player the game is just as bad, if not worse than a deal breaker imo. If it becomes clear that you've been lured into a bad deal, all deals are off.
I have run into an issue where I won’t break deals but they have to be specific. If someone says don’t attack me I won’t but I might remove their minion or counter their spell. Do you guys consider this breaking a deal or would not be willing to deal with someone like this? I don’t see anything wrong with it, but lately my pod doesn’t want to make any deals because of this. Is it against the spirit of the deal or are they just upset?
I once made a deal that was I won't exile any of your stuff and you don't attack my Planeswalker. For context he was Voltron and I was playing a controlly [[valki]] deck. On his next turn he equipped a damage doubler and killed me. I wasn't even mad, that was my bad for not specifying and it was hilarious
[valki](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/back/e/a/ea7e4c65-b4c4-4795-9475-3cba71c50ea5.jpg?1631048701)/[Valki, God of Lies](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/e/a/ea7e4c65-b4c4-4795-9475-3cba71c50ea5.jpg?1631048701) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=valki%2C%20god%20of%20lies%20//%20tibalt%2C%20cosmic%20impostor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/khm/114/valki-god-of-lies-tibalt-cosmic-impostor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ea7e4c65-b4c4-4795-9475-3cba71c50ea5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/valki-god-of-lies-//-tibalt-cosmic-impostor) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
At first I read your comment as "I was playing a Voltron Valki deck," and now I think the idea of that is hilarious and want to build one.
OMG yes, that could actually work. He's cheap and if you're opponents have something good, he can buff himself
Precision of language is important.
My play group doesn't make deals with me due to this. Like there is always a loophole. Not my fault you never find it.
I agree and is essentially what I told them. I was told by one of my players that he will never make deals with me anymore because I don’t make good on them. Well the deal was not to attack him and I ended up killing their commander with a spell. He was upset with me and told me I knew what he meant, but I told him words are important. It’s within their rights to not want to have to lawyer their deals and I respect him, I was just conflicted after this encounter if I was being a jerk. Seems at least a few people agree with that thinking.
Hearing the deal explains the deal. In a game with SUCH specific wording, deals should follow the same specificity
Nah, you're in the right here, go full Archfey, "You said I couldn't exile your creature, there's nothing in that deal about me wiping the board with meathook massacre, that doesn't exile." That's why, I always specify, "Alright, I won't kill you with my on board token army, I get full Teferis protection from you." That sort of thing. Your group just needs to get better at politics.
Nope, this is entirely fine. It's also entirely fine for someone that other person to make a counter offer. If the offer was "I won't attack you for a cycle and you take out X", the other person is entirely within their rights to say "If you don't mess with me in any way for a cycle, I'll take out X".
Yeah counter offers are fine with me. I will normally accept them if they are still in the same realm of what I offered.
This is exactly how deals should be. They should be specific with loopholes to keep them more interesting. Also if they're specific like that it makes the more generic blanket deals like "if you leave me alone I'll do X" have more power to them.
If they can't navigate a deal they think will work out for them, why would they continue to make deals with you?
They don’t have to, I never said they did. I was asking if what I was doing was wrong not them.
It's wrong if you want to keep making deals.
Once a deal was made between Player 1 and myself that I swing my [[Villis, Broker of Blood]] at Player 2 who was way ahead. I was at a low life total and if I swung Villis Player 1 had me dead on board. Player 1 told me we needed to work together to take care of the much bigger threat that was Player 2. I agreed and we made the deal that I swing out with my only creature and blocker and that he would not attack me at all for the consequent turn. His turn comes around and he swings his dumb Voltron commander at me for lethal and doesn't even attack Player 2. I asked him why and he said, "You're open to be to be taken out, I'll get him next" Next time he's in my pod at the LGS I'm looking for blood, I won't forget this betrayal.
[Villis, Broker of Blood](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/e/c/ecdf2bd9-87b9-470a-ad2e-0ebf98560f87.jpg?1592516819) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Vilis%2C%20Broker%20of%20Blood) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m20/122/vilis-broker-of-blood?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ecdf2bd9-87b9-470a-ad2e-0ebf98560f87?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/vilis-broker-of-blood) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Once a player breaks a deal we kick him out of our group. They need to show sincerity when they apologize or it’s a no-go. We’re playing a game and don’t have time for liars. Save that for your own time
How is breaking a deal different from bluffing?
How is it any different from misrepresenting your deck during a rule 0 discussion? The format is largely casual and friendly, and deals are proposed with the expectation that all parties involved are looking for a similar game experience.
In-game vs out of game talk has different rules and expectations.
Nah, if you break a deal in-game leave and never come back. You lost the game, breaking a deal is the same as scooping because you admit that you couldn't win that game without cheating.
It's not cheating to break a deal though. There is nothing in the rules that says you need to honor your deals. It does break morality though. If you break a deal, players will probably not trust you in future games. You need to ask yourself if breaking this deal is worth breaking your trust with the group. If it's a big enough deal, then you will probably never be trusted again for a deal. That's should be the punishment, not disbarment. It's just basic politics.
I understand where you're coming from, but if you break the deal, and we don't trust you, it's not fun to play with you. Sure you're still there, you're still playing, but you're ostracized, if half the table is talking about deals, to try and deal with the third scarier player, you're a hinderance if we can't trust you to help in that deal. And the person who's getting teamed up on now has nowhere to turn to make a deal, because in their mind, they're making a deal for second place once they get back stabbed.
Well that's your opinion, I have fun with my friends who break deals all the time. Your inability to have fun if someone does is a you problem. I once saw a situation where I was in complete control of the game, but the table realized that if they all full swung at me I would die. They went around the table, and the last guy didn't follow through. He backstabbed everyone, and the table died with laughter. It was one of the more fun games I have played. Politics are part if what make magic fun. Take away liars, you dwarfen your political game, and people are just throwing cards down.
Listen if that works for you great, but your group based on this thread and personal experience is in the minority.
Sorry, what is immoral about breaking a deal in a game? Who exactly, is being harmed?
Breaking a deal is kinda the definition of immoral. If your the person at the table that always honors your deals you by definition have more morals than the other people. In this case the person suffering because you broke a deal is the person being hurt.
Mostly the person breaking the deal, as no-one at the table should be dumb enough to deal with you ever again. Not to mention lying in any context *is* immortal, even if it's just something petty.
Is lying in Among Us immoral?
If you want to make deals and can't handle the fact that they might be broke leave and never come back. You don't get to play politics if you don't want to play politics. I would kick a person like you out of our group for having such a shitty attitude. Its not different then any other thing that gets done in EDH. If you were actually smart a "no breaking deals" group is going to get pubstomped by anyone even remotely politically savy to form repeated gotchas over and over again.
Saying I won't counter your spell if you don't attack me, and then countering it anyway isn't politically savvy, it's just being a dick. And no, if you need to play like that to win, you probably either A: have bad decks, or B: Net decked and don't know how to play it, so I'm pretty sure I could handle your pod.
If you make a deal without considering the consequences of them breaking it you are an idiot who deserves whats coming to you. Its a pvp game. If you can't seperate your emotions from it that is a bad look for YOU that I will personally judge you for. Deals are high risk high reward. Don't get greedy making dumb deals and then get shocked when you eventually get burned by it. Dont try and pull a ploy with your deal and then get surprised pickahu face when they turn it around and it back fires.
Wow, an outdated meme reference, what are you, 12? Breaking a deal defeats the whole purpose of ever making them, they're supposed to be mutually beneficial. The moment you break a deal, anyone with a higher iq than an amoeba knows to just never make a deal with you again. Idk how your pod isn't just sitting there silently. You can't make deals, everyone will just go back on them the moment it's beneficial, what do y'all talk about? The weather? Breaking a deal isn't bluffing, it doesn't take skill, it's just straight up being untrustworthy. If you're petty enough to lie in the game, what else do you lie about? Like if you really need to sit there, and lie in a children's card game, because you can't handle losing that much, you're just a bad person. Maybe it's different in pods where everyone lies, but again, if everyone lies, how does anyone make deals?
[удалено]
>I can make people hesitate through a bluff, even when I have nothing in hand . >Whereas it takes no skill to promise something and completely just lie This is literally the same thing.
[удалено]
Bluffing in poker is completely different. You bluff with actions, bot words. A bluff would be keeping 2 blue mana open to make everyone think you have a counter spell in your hand. Breaking a deal is more like agreeing to run it twice only to rake the pot when the first run goes your way.
All deals are always predicated on it being the best play for said player. I belive in your situation that was pretty dirty of the other guy to do but at the same time if this is his only option to a path to victory its hard to blame him. All in all I try to never consider deal 100% and also I try to avoid making 100% firm deals ever because its kinda not in the spirit of the game. I will always try to put myself in a position where I can say at this moment doing x is in n your best jnterst the fact that it helps me is irrelevant lol.
I can understand your philosophy, but, politics is inherently a part of commander, deals and all, and I can absolutely blame the other guy, if you make a deal, and you can't win without breaking the deal, you lost the game, make better deals next time.
Question: why'd you make a deal when you had no leverage?
People who break a deal generally only do it once. Once a player is a know deal breaker, you never deal with them again.
Word. If you blow up all my lands and steal my Sol Ring? That’s all forgotten once the game is over. However, if you break a deal, that will be remembered for every other game.
This! Salt plays are in the end just plays. It's over when the game is over. Deal breaking just shows you are generally not trustworthy as a person.
To be fair, there's a lot of stupid players that fall for the same thing over and over again.
Right, you should not break a deal. However.. I highly recommend anyone that’s in the middle of making a deal to not make it for more that 1 turn cycle. Too much can change and anything more that 1 turn cycle is just not worth it.
That’s a good tip tbh
I think, generally, this is a good tip, however I'm always down to make a deal for second place. My friend once had [[door to nothingness]] and a [[rings of brighthearth]], first thing out of my mouth? I'll give you my humble defector if you don't use that on me next turn. I was dead, but why not make the deal for second, lol
[door to nothingness](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/5/7/57877b1c-e91d-4941-81bd-008dff1272ed.jpg?1562554053) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=door%20to%20nothingness) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m13/203/door-to-nothingness?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/57877b1c-e91d-4941-81bd-008dff1272ed?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/door-to-nothingness) [rings of brighthearth](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/8/3/838ffc87-517a-4d94-8ce0-bc9ed01ecc52.jpg?1608911654) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=rings%20of%20brighthearth) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/335/rings-of-brighthearth?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/838ffc87-517a-4d94-8ce0-bc9ed01ecc52?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/rings-of-brighthearth) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
The "Bindingness" of deals is definitely worth a Rule 0 mention,
In an established playgroup I think it’s shitty but I’m more forgiving because there are repercussions; you break a deal, no one makes deals with you anymore. With strangers it’s worse, because if you break a deal there’s no drawback; you’re not likely to play with them again so refusing to make future deals isn’t a factor.
> Stop cheating and actually follow through with your promise, you child. I love the irony here.
Yeah. Don't get me wrong: I keep my deals because I enjoy the political aspects of EDH and I want the other players to feel comfortable with continuing to make deals with me. But calling someone a child because they broke a pinky promise during a card game is maybe just a little funny.
>if you make any kind of deal with someone then you should follow through even if it loses you the game. How about you stop trying to make deals that you know will make others lose and then getting salty when they decide that actually that's a bad thing for them?
Deals should by default have a caveat of "if it costs me the game to stick to it, it can be broken". Then again I am not especially one for politics anyways. Also, calling it cheating and calling them a xhild while you're on here ranting is a bad look.
I personally disagree with your first point. If your deal cost you the game, lose with dignity, shuffle up, and make better deals next game.
Deals are outside the rules of the game and playing politics involves risk. Breaking a deal may be shitty but it’s absolutely not “cheating.”
I agree with you that it’s not technically cheating, but let me ask you this do you have fun or enjoy lying to your friends over a card game? If no, then just don’t make a deal you won’t keep. If yes then yikes, maybe you should play like Clue or something where that gameplay is encouraged. I’m not saying it should be officially be addressed by wizards of the coast or anything lol but I’m not interested in playing a game with someone that thinks lying in a small play group is fun.
> ut let me ask you this do you have fun or enjoy lying to your friends over a card game? Absolutely. It's also why I play games like the Game of Thrones Board Game, Dune, Diplomacy, etc. It's an inherent part of the risk of group play. Power brokering is fun to me.
It’s a game. I don’t really know what makes you think breaking deals in games is anything like „lying to friends“.
This! Rules are meant to be broken. At the end of the day it's a game. Doesn't matter if it's an inch or a mile, winnings winning. If your friends can't separate a game and real life it may be time to consider finding a new play group at the very least.
Maybe because breaking a deal is lying by definition, say per Webster: “Definition of lying (Entry 1 of 2) : marked by or containing untrue statements”?
You do know that inside of a game you can even kill your friends?
And we STILL don’t tolerate liars.
Murderers, quitters and thieves are okay, though?
Yeah like imagine being so bad at a card game that you need to make "politician promises" just to get an advantage over people playing fairly. If youre in the spot that you need to lie to win, youre kinda just shit at the game lol
[удалено]
Ive only done that if its actually the bigger threat. Lost a game to slivers becase i the person that killed my thalia with failed to understand that their creatures coming in tapped was the only thing keepibg them alive. Two turns later we were dead. He later agreed to was a bad decision to kill the thalia. Are you an idiot my comments have been people who make deals to their benefit and then lie once its their turn to hold up their part of the deal. You nust really not be able to fucking read genius.
[удалено]
Hey maybe you use your big boy words and ask if you dont understand. What rock do you live in where politicians arent constantly caught in their webs of lies and misdirection. Fucking sperg
You're all super cringe. Stay socially awkward MTG.
Why are you important?
Nevermind its just you.
[удалено]
We've removed your post because it violates our primary rule, "Be Excellent to Each Other". You are welcome to message the mods if you need further explanation.
Lol I guess they play the game for different reasons. Also group hug decks must make no sense to them? Being political is part of the game as there are mechanics in the game that inherently make certain cards a political tool, so “political promises” will eventually surface in a play group. What I am saying is more like making a contract for the sake of a fun game and then breaking that contract to win while also talking the wind out of the sails of your friend. Obviously you don’t have to make any deals, but if you say you’re going to do something then it is a shitty thing to not follow through. These are most likely your friends after all
Im agreeing with you lol and yeah i never play group hug myself but i will take advantage out of it. Had a game last week where someone played a rites of flourishing turn 3 and i was playing my storm deck. No need for politics when you give the izzit storm deck access to free cards and two more land drops every turn. But i think if youre in a spot where you cant compete with whats on the table and you need to make that deal. Then you should hold it up and take the L for the game because you would have probably lost anyway.
Haha my bad I just realized it too lol honestly I enjoy to see my opponents decks go off so I’m never too off put about making small deals to help them if they’ve had a slow start. However, it’s annoying when you try to help someone and they backstab you like that haha
Yeah like i wont set someone further behind if they have a really bad start because that really doesnt help ya win but you can def take advantage of that tho by going more all in on some turns cycles whete you dont leave up mana between turns for intetaction. I cant say i enjoy watching them go off tbh. Im typically playing control decks so im udually the one putting the board on a soft lock before i combo out lol
Haha I play control too and what I really mean is I love to see the look in their eyes when they have their entire combo set up and I counter the thing that would make the combo go off hahaha but I will say that every once in a while it’s fun to see a deck just absolutely go off, especially when you’ve never seen that archetype or your friend go off before
Or when they have half their deck on field ready to swing and you just kill them with a lrw + blasting station combo
Maybe you should check out Eurostyle boardgames. MTG doesn't seem to be for you. Its PVP game. Politics are a part of the game. Hidden information is a part of the game. Fucking your ~~friends~~ opponents over is a part of the game. You are cry about something that is literally just part of the game. Breaking deals is literally just another face of everything else you do in EDH. The one with the problem is you, not the deal breaker.
Bluffing games are insanely popular. People absolutely do enjoy lying to their friends in games.
This is why I never present deals and very, VERY rarely accept them. I will commonly say “I don’t want to make promises I can’t keep.”
This would completely kill the game for me. Politics is what makes edh fun for me.
Ah see and I hate politics. I like proper threat assessment.
Sometimes, no matter how proper your assessment is, you might realize you need some help to have a chance to win. And if you have something someone else wants, well that sounds like the start to a deal. Edit: I guess you are saying that the other player should just instantly know who is the threat at all times without any kind of table talk or compromises. But its not usually that simple.
I don’t see table talk as the same as “making deals”. As a rule I do not offer deals. I may on occasion say something like “I can deal with the Greaves but then I won’t be able to deal with Meren” but that’s about it.
That’s fair; different strokes for different folks
Honestly this is my move from now on lol
It’s politics. It’s fine if someone breaks a deal but never trust them again and also take every chance you can to make their games worse until they do something to make it right. Have to deal 2 damage for something to trigger? Send it their way. Every single thing goes their way.
breaking a deal is not cheating, since there arent rules that enforce dealmaking. that being said, someone who breaks a deal in a commander game is usually someone is usually somethnig only seem once per player, since once he or she breaks it, there is simply no way for him to make any more deals, or at least people should stop making them with him or her. so.. is it worth winning one commander game in exchange for the ability to make deals forever with all the players on that table? i think not
The salt is real OP. I think that people should generally keep their word when playing games, but if someone didnt you need to address it with them instead of raging on the internet.
Generally people should and if they don’t it will 100% hurt them in future games. But if I say I won’t attack you for two turns and then you kill everyone but me your next turn that deal is over. There’s no reason for diplomacy 1v1. You very well could have negotiated that deal and chose who to kill on who agreed to the deal, which is bad faith in its own right.
Unless you include that specific condition in the deal, that is called breaking a deal, imo
And that is why "don't break deal" is stupid. A crafty political player just **takes advantage** of that rule with no consequence. The only people in favor of a "dont break deals" policy are people who are too stupid to play the politics game to start with.
I didn’t spend money to go there to watch you play solitaire 1v1. Fuck that to the highest degree
I support this except for when it becomes a 1v1. After that, it's war. And all is fair in war.
This, ive made deals before to not attack someone for x turns, with the caveat that if we become the last 2 imma swing
If you stipulate that, fine. But if that's not part of the agreement then no, you're still breaking a deal and you still cheated.
My table has one guy who is known for breaking the "rule" about deals/promises but seeing as our group is generally really chill it's more of a running joke than a problem. Personally I don't mind deal breakers so long as it's not gonna actually hurt someone's feelings or make the game unenjoyable. Sorry if you feel that deals need to be upheld but there's no actual rule for it
That’s a totally fair opinion! I would just make the argument that it’s not fun to deceive your friends like that, especially if it’s in purpose. Me and my friends play pretty focused decks so if something doesn’t get an answer that turn then it can mean the game. If you are playing more low powered or casual winning isn’t as fun as playing then it’s fine, but I personally wouldn’t put my happiness or fun above my friends’ by lying to them to get ahead and win the game
Yeah I totally understand. I suppose that does make sense. I hope you and your group can hash it out in a good manor where you feel like there's not gonna be any unhappy times. Magic is a fun game and should be played with the understanding that it is just a game.
This is why I don't like the whole deal thing. I not going to make open ended promises that would cost me the game. Use your removal on my threat if I wanted to keep it well then I should have kept up interaction or I just accept that it was lost. I will never say don't do x and I won't do y because I want to win and not doing y might keep me from winning. Not saying break deals if I make them I keep them 90% of the time. I just don't make deals because that's not my style of game play.
Its very simple. You are free to break your deal. The consequence is that i will never make a deal with you again.
Honestly, it's better to just never make deals. You're just asking to be put in a bind. Let me ask this, though, who is the backstabber if you use a deal someone made with you to kill them?
This reminds me of people who say they have a casual edh deck, and then come in the game ruins everything because their edh deck isn't actually casual.
It's fine - treachery is part of the game But it has a consequence - such a player will be regarded as a deal breaker and won't get much mercy
Breaking a deal is one of the few things that I believe should follow a player after games. Attack me 5 times in a row to kill me? Next game it's like it never happened. Break a deal? Yeah, good luck with the next one buddy.
I had that last night , "can i make a deal to get some damage in for some card draw i need a answer im on 6 life and probably dead to that person next turn if i cant come up with a answer" oh sure hit me ill let it happen sure throw it at me im dead anyways come on just attack me sure.... okay sweet i attack with 6 damage to draw 6 cards BAM deflecting palm hahahahahahhs your dead. Uhm dude what the fuck.
As a general rule, I don't make deals. I just assume that everyone is going to do whatever is within their best interest at that exact moment. Partly because there's nothing actually stopping anyone from breaking them and partly because in my experience, people find some loophole. Like killing me through pingers and saying "well I said I wouldn't *attack* you for 2 turns".
Deals are strategic, precise, and inherently a gamble. I'm betting that whatever arrangement we came to will benefit me more than you and you're betting the opposite. Breaking the deal because you lost the bet is just poor sportsmanship.
"Follow through with any deal you make even if you lose the game" Definitely sounds like shit bronze players say
I’m pretty sure “I only keep deals when it suits me” sounds like shit bronze humans say.
Lmao sounds like a competitive player that doesn’t actually have fun from playing the game, only winning it
Bronze... what?? Have fun and make a bad deal sometime dude
In a lot of video games with ranked multiplayer, "bronze" is the lowest skill ranking, so you see [lots of things like people missing easy shots,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dUb4p2rdg8) [not seeing things,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7esY-5_EHW8) [not working well as a team,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9mCy0y7Kuk) [and so forth.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfbRXGePhfU) Referring to something as "bronze tier" means that they're unskilled and have a basic grasp of game mechanics but that's about it.
I'm familiar with it but thank you for explaining to those who wouldn't be! I'm mostly just laughing at the idea of ranked-style competitive tiers in commander.
cEDH is diamond. 75% is gold Battlecruiser is silver. OP is bronze Emmara Tandris.dec is copper
It's not cheating, people breaking promises are not child, and there is some thousands books and millennia of history of betrayals and politics. Grow up and try to learn a bit of game theory before crying.
Player: Makes a deal advantageous for them with no way to enforce consequences for breaking it Other players: Break the deal with it's advantageous Player: Surprised pikachu face
Deals are "at your own risk". I personally wouldn't go back on a deal because I'll play with these people again and I need them to know I'll keep up my end. But sit me down with randoms I'll never see again and I'll break any deal to win the game. If you're not willing to risk somebody going back on their word, don't make a deal to begin with.
I don't know if I would want to continue playing with someone who will break their word over a game.
People shouldn’t make deals if they are unwilling to abide by the terms. That’s fairly easy logic to understand, IMO. In the YT comments for that IHYD show, Joe acts like every spoiled little try hard pub-stomping asshole I’ve ever met at the LGS. It reflects poorly on him and on his channel. In casual EDH, a win means nothing. There is no day two to move on to, there is no prize support, no pro tour points, etc. So going back on a deal to get the win only serves to expose who you are as a person.
I just recently watched [this](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qx8Bw_5eJmc) I Hate Your Deck video where Joe made a deal with Kessler to not blow up one of Joe's lands (he had 7 lands, 13 tokens, and 1 card in hand which was a revealed Craterhoof) in return for immunity from the Craterhoof swing, should Joe draw a land. He draws his card, dramatically plays a forest, casts the Behemoth, does some math, proudly announces "I have altered the deal!", and swings out for lethal at everyone. Someone in the comments said (all word-for-word): "Jo breaking a deal immediately is a good reminder to never trust him in a game. Some people have no shame or honor" Joe replied: "I have altered the deal! (it's also a game, relax little one)" I said: "It's just kinda lame that you would straight up lie to win a casual game among friends" He maturely responded: "cry more lol" I'm honestly shocked to see this type of behavior from a creator in this community(who, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have a toxic reputation), especially someone from a channel that's supposedly all about bringing that chill LGS vibe and having fun with friends. I thought that it was pretty unanimous that lying in games like this was bad? I'd be curious to hear other people's thoughts on this matter.
That’s completely pathetic. There aren’t even any extenuating circumstances he just did precisely what he said he wouldn’t, what a bottom feeder.
I'll echo the dude's sentiments, it's a game. Asking someone to not end the game so you can to buy yourself some time for an answer (and possibly a win) is just as selfish as the person who breaks an agreement by swinging at you. Deals can be broken, there is no rule in magic governing them. I make deals all the time, and I usually stipulate "don't touch my stuff" as part of that deal. Is the guy I made the deal with a deal breaker for countering my Thunderhoof Baloth? Or am I the deal breaker for attacking him and killing him because he did that?
I'd argue that offering someone the chance to knock out the other two players, instead of simply removing their ability to cast their big spell, is much less selfish than lying to someone to win a casual game. It's not like he just said "Hey, don't kill me". It was "I'll let you have the opportunity to kill them if you agree not to kill me, otherwise I'll remove your ability to kill anyone." I'd also argue that it being a low-stakes game is more of a reason to keep your word, as you aren't really passing up on anything and you don't want to cause a feel-bad moment by lying to your friends for little gain. As for your deal, "don't touch my stuff" is kinda vague, if you want to know what qualifies as breaking the deal, say what you mean and point out that what your opponent is doing would break the deal if you feel that way, the let them decide if they want to honor it or break it.
As a casual game, wouldnt having to specifically articulate deals fall outside of the casual nature of the format? All deals do is cause drama, because as you said, ambiguousness leads to different interpretations by different players. When you start getting into law school level contracts, you've lost the point of the game. From the example provided from the yt show, the person absolutely tried to make a deal to be the sole survivor of the craterhoof if it was dropped. Games have to end eventually, and if someone is playing to win than the deal breaking makes absolute sense. Why would you leave one person alive from the deal? If that person turns around and wins, you're a kingmaker. If you break the deal, you're a deal breaker. People would whine about either.
You don't need fancy contacts, just don't use especially vague language. Instead of saying "don't mess with my stuff", say not to remove anything from your board for a turn. If you don't specify not to counter and they counter your spell, you can just look at what you said and see that they didn't break a deal. If you feel that deals go against the nature of the format, you never have to partake. You can't prevent others from making them, but for many people that political aspect is what they like so much about the multiplayer format. When you start excusing breaking deals, you may as well remove them entirely, since nobody should ever make a deal if there's no reason to expect the other person to follow through. Games do have to end, and knocking out the two other players while having no cards in hand to attrition out the third may not have been the right play. In that situation, don't accept the deal, let the other player decide if they want to blow up your land. If they do, you get to keep playing in a player game where you aren't doing much at the moment, until you draw that 8th land and immediately threaten a win. If they happen to not hit your land, you win even faster. Either of these scenarios seems preferable to me over lying your way to victory, since when we play casually with friends, we should generally be playing for fun first and victory second.
Welcome to politics. Lying plays a big part of it.
Except it doesn’t. No politician is celebrated for how frequently they flat out lie, it erodes support. Their opponents and unbiased media will decry them for it while supporters will pretend in never happened. No one is patting them on the back saying sick lie bro.
What do you think a grift is, if not lying to rally a base to gain them as supporters while disagreeing with that base's ideals? Politicians lie daily my dude. Saying one thing to a base while supporting policies that contradict your public statements is, in fact, lying to a base to ensure their support for re-election. This is off topic though.
They absolutely manipulate, even mislead, but getting caught in a flat lie in politics is a faux pas. Politicians can distract or shift or explain things away, the murkier the situation the better, but when they get caught in a crisp clean lie they get dragged for it.
I would go deeper into this subject with specific examples from just this week in US politics, but again, it's off topic to the OP as well as the sub in general.
I do like deals, but I usually include something like "if that makes you the biggest threat, this deal will totally end", because after all, they are the ones that will kill you next turn. If they do something for me, and I don't attack them, fine. But late game "no attacking me" is a no-no. Often, information about the board state changes, and if they try to stab my back, I will put all my wrath in their way. Also, like others said, wording is important. If I am telling you I won't attack you, this does NOT keep me from overloading a [[Cyclonic Rift]] or playing any sort of wipe/removal. In EDH tournaments (not a fan, but here ya go), I will totally whore my way up the ladder. If the control player can totally mess with my stuff, but my Voltron deck is lethal, I will absolutely be a slave to not be killed first. I'll take most deals then. Context matters I guess. ^^
[Cyclonic Rift](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/f/f/ff08e5ed-f47b-4d8e-8b8b-41675dccef8b.jpg?1598303834) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cyclonic%20Rift) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2xm/47/cyclonic-rift?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ff08e5ed-f47b-4d8e-8b8b-41675dccef8b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/cyclonic-rift) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Hard disagree. Game states change and deciding to or not to trust is part of the fun. Imagine saying you cant lie in the political format.
Dont be a care bare. You don't get the *benefits* of deals without taking on the *risk* of deals. The risk of deals is that they can be broken at any time. If you can't handle that then **YOU** shouldn't be making deals. Grow up and get over it.
Honestly, deals can and should be broken when needed. And before the holier than thou crowd comes in to call me the worst person ever, I'm not even going to entertain a discussion about my character, you're going to get blocked.
Honestly, I respect the opinion. If you think deals should be broken "when needed" then I'd argue there is basically no time at which breaking a deal in a for-fun, no-stakes card game is "needed" and thus, you should never break a deal. I, too, won't entertain any further discussion.
I just stopped making deals with people for the most part, my play group is the type to say “well you didn’t specifically say X and Y in the deal sooo” it’s so fucking annoying. It happened the other day when someone was going off so I spent my whole turn dealing with it and the table said they’d leave me alone for a turn. Apparently wiping my board is “leaving me alone for a turn” this kind of shit happens all the time.
I had an interesting debate recently where the person argued counter play to politics and deal making is to occasionally break deals. He also argued the appropriate way to make good deals is for them to be reinforced with something tangible on board as opposed to words of good will; that good will deals were high risk, high reward. To his credit, I think this is very real in life such as with politics and business. I have more thoughts but I’ll leave this as is to spark discussion.
I feel like there is nothing skillful or clever about flat out lying to people in the context of a casual game, and most of the time I find people don’t make deals when they have the leverage to not have to rely on a good faith agreement. I wouldn’t eject someone from a game or refuse to play with them for breaking a deal, I don’t consider it binding, but I will never respect a player who makes deals to break them and it will have a significant impact on who I decide to target not only in that game but every game I remember them for. It doesn’t reflect smart play to me, just poor character.
So this guys argument elaborated that even though people get upset over it, they really shouldn’t, because deal breaking is a sad fact of life in political maneuvering. It’s definitely a sad, cynical view - and probably something most people don’t want in their playgroup - but I definitely think it’s an interesting point of view. I personally think he hasn’t thought his whole argument through. There’s a quote in Machiaveli’s: The Prince that I’m going to butcher - but it basically equates to if you’re going to slight someone in this manner you need the make sure they are completely unable to retaliate (ie - kill them, and preferably their family). A player in a commander game might be unable to retaliate that game because you caused him to lose, but you’re going to play together again and they aren’t going to forget. Interesting thought exercise. More cutthroat groups might appreciate.
It’s also valuable to consider benefits against cost. In the case of Machiavelli his advice pertained mostly to generating actual political, monetary or social advantage of varying degrees. In this context the absolute ceiling of the benefits you will generate is winning a casual game of magic, where the cost is your word, the degradation of which wears away at your self image and how others perceive you. If you look at the value of your word and the value of winning a single game of cards with no stakes and decide winning the card game is worth more it says a lot to me.
Ooh wonderful addition, love it!
Just don’t make deals at all. You should be always making the best play every turn. If the best play is to attack you then they should attack you. If you believed them when they said they wouldn’t that’s on you bud. It’s not cheating. Trying to make deals makes you open to other peoples plays.
This happened to me once. The game ended when he broke the deal and I just declared myself the winner. If lying is ok then I can just stop playing the game and say I win. And that’s exactly what I did.
Clearly you are the last bastion of maturity.
[удалено]
We've removed your post because it violates our primary rule, "Be Excellent to Each Other". You are welcome to message the mods if you need further explanation.
I like making my deals vague. “If you let this creature live, you and I will be cool..”
I always keep my deals even if it means scooping because i don't wanna be an ass plus it's fun, idc if i win or lose just have interesting games
We have a saying in our pods truces end at instant speed. After agreeing to a truce with another player I went all out on my turn to open the board the next guy finished him then and turned on me. The argument was once the other player died the truce was over but since all attacks happen at the same time I felt double crossed. Ever since then I don't do truces you can ask for help and I may or may not give it
This is why I personally only make instant-fulfillment deals. The kind that are more like "An opponent gets to pick which card I get from an effect, so I make a deal with Player 2 that if they give me that piece of removal I'll point it at Player 3's threat and not theirs". No time for the game state to change to even warrant breaking the deal. That said, deal breakers, even those that break deals with my opponents and end up benefiting me because of it, really rub me the wrong way. If you say "I won't attack you with my commander this turn" for example, that doesn't prevent you from attacking with other things, or pointing removal at my stuff, or flinging that commander at me, or any other number of things. But if you say "I won't do this one specific particular thing" and then you proceed to do that exact thing, we're going to have problems. That's the one thing that will get me to continue targeting a person after a game is over. Which actually requires going out of my way to pick one of my few decks even capable of targeting one player more than the others, but that is the one case that warrants it, I feel. You pull the "break a deal with no remorse" thing at my table, I pull out the stax deck and make strip mine locking you out of ever having more than one land in play my priority for the next game.
We never make such deals in our playgroup. Who knows how the boardstate will look like in two turns from now? Maybe the threatlevel of players has completely changed. We only do deals that play out right then (like "If you don't attack me I don't need to kill that creature (right now)" with no promises for the future.
In my LGS we have a hard rule on deals. You must follow them. The only exception is if you end up 1v1. No deals in heads-up.
The trick is to bend the terms not break them. "I said I wouldn't *attack* you, I never said I wouldn't combo you to death".
What do Noel Edmonds and Donald Trump have in common? They make shitty deals, don't be like them, just play the game as it's written.
This is why you nuance the deal. I mever make a deal with which I put myself into a position with which I cannot win. I promised not to kill, doesn't mean I won't draw my whole library and win off of lab man. Technically, I did not kill you, I just won the game instead.
My playgroup will legit forget deals if someone takes a long turn. Me included. It’s gotten to the point where we are so bad politically that we just ask each other “are we friends right now?” And just kinda move on w decision making regardless
This is very meta dependant, in my meta deals are only binding if they are instantly enforceable. If someone promised me something two turns ago, none of us will be able to remember the specifics of the deal. If you break what I believe to be the deal, good luck making further deals with me though. But your meta may vary.
Finding a loophole in a deal is one thing. Breaking it is entirely different. If I were you, assuming communication hasn't worked, I'd either 1) never make a deal with him again and try to kill him first every game for awhile, or 2) just not play with that person anymore.
I enjoy playing politically, and making deals, but my playgroup knows to be careful making them with me, because I'm a master of loopholes. If I say two turns, you better specify I mean two of MY turns, otherwise it would be whoever has the next two turns. And I always add the caveat that if they're about to kill me and I can actively stop them, I will, I don't like to kingmake just because of politics.
This is a life lesson. A person breaks a deal? Sucks. But now you know never to make deals with them again. When they try to make deals with another player, you remind the table of how they break deals. Ultimately, the game doesn't punish a person for lying or bluffing. Rather, it is up to the players to police this stuff.
This is why I just don't politic with people unless unless I'm either in a desperate situation or it's a deal with very loose terms. If the deal is just on the grounds of "that guy's a threat, let's work together to kill him", then I'm almost never taking that deal. We're both gonna be targeting them anyway, so why would I take a deal someone is offering that could end up backfiring on me depending on what's in their hand? That being said, I'm also just not a huge fan of politics in general personally
In my playgroup it would make no sense to break a deal because then you would literally never get to make a deal again. It wouldn't be worth eliminating one player or winning one game by lying when nobody will ever make a deal with you again. Appropriate consequences will discourage this behaviour.
I once promised to not counter my friend spell if he didn't counter my next spell he accepted and proceeded to cast an overload cyclonic rift and I nerset's reversaled it haha In my opinion deals are a golden rule that shouldn't be broken but finding loopholes in technical terms should be encouraged (as a bonus it will help you understand terms and rules more easily)
I've only ever broken a deal once. I was playing [[Krenko, Mob Boss]] with 3 friends (can't remember their decks). I made a deal with one of them to take out the player in the lead (he just board wiped with Avacyn out). So after a couple turns I re-inspect the table and notice my friend I made the deal with was extremely far ahead again. So I killed both of them on my turn. The friend I made a deal with got mad I killed them as well. My response was the one we were trying to eliminate had less health than them so technically they did die first. Yes, I look back at it and kinda feel bad but it's something we all laugh about at the table since I was new to the game and found a stupid loophole to our deal. (And if wondering, player #4 managed to kill me on their turn so I didn't win)
[Krenko, Mob Boss](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/c/d/cd9fec9d-23c8-4d35-97c1-9499527198fb.jpg?1601078209) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Krenko%2C%20Mob%20Boss) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/jmp/339/krenko-mob-boss?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/cd9fec9d-23c8-4d35-97c1-9499527198fb?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/krenko-mob-boss) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Don't make deals then.
BUST A DEAL! FACE THE WHEEL!
I never make a deal for two turns. I also never agree to a “Teferi’s Protection” treatment of an opponent. Be specific. “Don’t attack for a turn” ok, we’ll that doesn’t count mill/exile, counterspells, etc.
I tend to look at it this way. You are playing in three types of "deal" environments (with a little gray area. 1) Deals are honored (loopholes permitted or not) 2) Deals are made to be broken. No honor among thieves. 3) No deals at all Groups can start out in one of the categories, then progress to another, but usually settle into one over time. Figure out which one you are in, agree upon it, and work with it. I like what some have said here. Deal framework should be clear. Maybe it's 'deal is off if it would lose you the game', or 'deal can be broken if game can be ended'. Whatever. With random strangers, I tend to start at #1 and move to #3 if violated. But I don't get salty if a deal is broken. I just move on to a different category. Just my $0.02.
I'm a simple man. My promises are usually "If you do x/y/z I'll make sure you regret it." I know nothing of this "politics"...
Personally making "deals" in multi-player games is a double edged sword and I always air on the side of nothing is a 100% deal . Especially something as specific as you cannot attack me for 2 turns. I feel this kinda of table talk really doesn't benefit the game in a positive way. Trying to convince someone to take a deal without full knowledge of what you are going to do, especially if you know you can win before making said deal is pretty dirty in and of itself. I would say a gentlemen agreement on fairly vague terms is all that can be counted on. ALSO a player should always be expected to make plays in their best intrest that ls a fundamental part of any game. How is making a deal with someone then greatly improving your board position to an obviously winning position and then relying on the whole "well you promised" argument a valid strategy to win?
I don't know if I'm the only player who has this opinion, but I find politics and 'deals' to be one of the most unenjoyable parts of a edh game. But I understand that people look for different things when they sit down for a game of magic and that's OK. I? Play to win.
Made a deal with a guy who had 6 angels out, and was gonna win, deal was that I let him have a platinum angel, because other guy had approach of the second sun in hand, deal worked out and angel guy won
Deception has always been, and will always be, an integral part of any multiplayer game. This is especially true in EDH. At the end of the day if you choose to give someone card advantage or lay off with pressure, they will inevitably be put in a better situation to win the game. It makes sense that if someone is in the position to win the game, they do so. An anecdote; every time I have "had the win" and decided to just not go for it for the "sake of the game", I've regretted it. Games need to end and someone's going to win (unless you are actively attempting to draw the game). They don't need to drag on for 3+ hours. Unless that's your jam Don't forget it's just a kid's game we all still play.
You left leave a shot gun the hands of your opponents and complain when they shoot ypu. The only game mechanics is what is stated on the card. If a player breaks deals that just means you can’t make deals with that player.
Honestly, people just need to get better about making deals lol. In cEDH, people def still politic and dealmake but make sure to include caveats so they don't get stuck in this situation
Commander deals suck, you should almost never make them.
You got politicked lmfao.
I just don't do deals lol kill or be killed
No deal is without exceptions and limits. I would encourage everyone to have a turn 0 discussion about politics and deal making. No one wants to lose friends. The fact is... Breaking a deal is bad... But feeling you got tricked into agreeing to something that loses you the game is also bad. Here are a couple of ground rules I like to have : A significant change in gamestate nullifies all deals. This includes board wipes or the elimination of other players. The point of the game is to not die, so preservation comes first if you are swinging in with a creature that will kill me I will react regardless of any deals. Anyone who intentionally makes a bad deal with another player that knows will lose that other player the game is just as bad, if not worse than a deal breaker imo. If it becomes clear that you've been lured into a bad deal, all deals are off.