EDH will be used for example, but the situation can be generalized.
>3 player EDH
>Player A resolves a wincon that comes into effect his next turn
>Players B and C both have sorcery speed removal to it
>They also know this about the other player's hands
>If neither of them remove it, they both lose
>But both of them want to play their own wincons instead
>Player B resolves his wincon instead of removing A's
>He passes to C
>C is forced to remove A's wincon
>C gets salty about this
Should C be invited back?
I got into a situation like this with wonders in Age of Mythology. Basically it was this setup but instead of resolving spells ala mtg player A built a wonder and player B broke the truce with me to take my third town center so he would be in a better position once we killed it.
I attacked player B because I knew I couldn't win with 2 vs 4 town centers and I wanted to discourage him from doing things like this in future games.
Breathing to do in C's case is play pic since A and B used up all their mana summoning their wincon and probably have 0 playable counters with their remaining mana.
This is the only correct line of play, it would had teach player B that in future games he would rather lose than being other players tools.
Or, you know, you could acknowledge the reasoning behind B's play and not be an entitled cunt?
>"B-b-but I should have won if only YOU had done what I wanted you to!"
No one was "denied" a victory they "deserved". Multiplayer happened. QQ moar.
In that situation, you're relying on your opponent playing kingmaker your way. I'm going to make one assumption here: I'm going to assume that the sorcery speed answer C has can answer both A and B's win condition. This wasn't implicit in the problem, but it is likely, and it's the only way your problem is really useful anyways. It's just a lot of pointless greentext with no educational value without that assumption.
C is rightfully salty, because B misplayed.
Since C only knows that B has sorcery speed removal in hand, C is unaware that B also has a win condition in hand. In this situation, B should not play any spot removal at all, but also not play his win condition. This gives C a choice between possibly letting B win (if he has the win condition in hand), or definitely letting A win. C, being a rational actor, should take A out of the game, and possibly lose to B, or possibly win.
The alternative which you described gives C a guaranteeed loss either way, which means you have a 50/50 chance of losing yourself, based on C's whims.
To maximize your chances of winning, you have to force C to choose A, and then play your win condition.
This holds true even if C knows that you have a win condition in your hand.
When C knows that you have a win condition, you sandbag it, and leave A winning unless C removes A's card. C has a choice. He can either certainly lose to A, or possibly lose to B (he could draw an out in between B playing the win condition, and using it). When faced with the choice of possibly winning, or certainly not, a rational C will take the possibly winning play of removing A's Win condition. This gets C's answer out of his hand, thus improving B's chances of winning.
When B slams his win condition out before C removes A, B's chances of winning were 50/50, and dependent on C's mood.
When B holds his win condition, B's chances of winning are 1-the odds of C drawing a second out, and just dependent on luck.
Yeah, it depends on the level of salt.
Getting a little salty about the unlucky nature of how the player order is structured isn't weird, but if he doesn't know that B has a way to fix player A's wincon, it shouldn't be more than a small moment of sodium
You're a dumbass for not considering that A has a turn to do something about B's action. And it was also not confirmed that B's wincon was a winner on his next turn. B has no reason to remove A's wincon, he can force C to do so, so he can do anything else on his turn to advance his position.
C removes A
A is then forced to remove B, IF A has removal.
A doesn't change anything inj the problem presented though. The only thing that's known about him is that he wins unless disrupted. If you want to introduce more things about A, you're changing the problem.
I'm also pretty sure you didn't actually read what I wrote, because I'm talking about sandbagging B's win condition.
You also know he's playing EDH and will presumably draw a card on the next turn in addition to anything he has in his hand.
C can't win if he doesn't remove A's wincon. C might win if he does.
Doing anything other than maximizing your chance of winning (or in some cases dare I say it, amount of fun) is being a dick and fucking up the game
I don't get what you're even saying.
I'm only talking about how B maximizes his chance of winning by not playing his win con against C while A has his out. You're either confusing my post, or confused about who you're responding to.
>The alternative which you described gives C a guaranteeed loss either way, which means you have a 50/50 chance of losing yourself, based on C's whims.
This right here is wrong you idiot. That's the point I'm making.
The reality of the situation is a gamble on whether or not A has removal for B's wincon.
C has to remove A's, because it's a garunteed loss right there.
It then breaks into two cases :
A has removal -> C probably wins as the only one with a wincon still, but draws could happen
A doesn't have removal -> B wins outright because he resolved his wincon
A obviously has to remove B's wincon if he can, because it's the only way HE can win.
C's maximization of win probability dictates they remove A's wincon and roll the dice.
(this is ignoring that removal might be wrath based)
A having a removal spell doesn't make a difference in your decision tree. You're quibbling on a technicality that doesn't actually change the main point or the logical thought processes involved.
>C is rightfully salty, because B misplayed.
>B playing wincon forces C to block A
>allowing B to win
As someone else said, 'multiplayer happened'. Maybe run decks that don't feature automatic win-cons if they're making people salty
How the bloody hell do you come to that conclusion?
B and C know A is playing EDH, therefore, (ignoring fringe cases) A has removal in his deck, and is about to draw a card. He might even have a hand! There is a positive, non-zero amount of cards available to A on his next turn, each of which has a positive non-zero possibility of being removal. It is a 100% chance of losing if A's wincon isn't removed. But due to A's incentive to win, and their chance of having removal, C has a chance to win by removing A's wincon. It might be abysmally low, but it's better than 100% loss to A.
Get your shit together before you open your mouth again.
B not playing his wincon forces C to respond to A instead of B.
How could you possibly misread things as much as you have?
>There is a positive, non-zero amount of cards available to A on his next turn, each of which has a positive non-zero possibility of being removal.
Correct. This does not change whether you play your wincon or not.
The only thing that changes is the number of cards that A might see in addition to his current hand, based on how long it takes you to win.
Sandbagging your win condition for a turn lets A and C see one more card from the draw phase. That's it. A typical EDH deck will be at most 10% answers, only some of which can respond to your win condition. I'll be conservative and assume that there is a 10 percent chance of player A drawing an answer or having an answer to your win condition. I'll be conservative and assume that there is the same chance for C to draw a second answer that can remove your win condition.
If you play your win condition immediately after A, you force C to choose between you or him as the winner. You have a 50/50 shot of winning.
If you sandbag your win condition, C is forced to remove A. C now has a 10% chance of drawing a second out to your win condition. A has similar odds of having or drawing an out to your win condition. Whatever the odds of them drawing an answer, they are most likely not going to be worse than your earlier 50/50 shot of losing.
Ergo, you improve your odds of winning by holding your win condition in hand for a turn and forcing C to remove A's win condition.
This is so unbelievably simple you should feel ashamed of yourself for not getting it.
C obviously has a choice: it's a 100% chance to lose either way. If he annihlates A's stuff, he loses to you. If he stops your stuff, he loses to A.
There may be some bizarre scenario in the card pool of magic that lets him get out of this dilemma, or makes either A or B (but not both) less likely to win, but that's beyond the scope of the scenario I'm starting to think you're legitimately retarded.
JESUS TITTY FUCKING CHRIST MAN
WE're playing EDH, the format invented to encourage spite and passive aggressive dick moves.
But really, the main problem with your analysis assumes that B's win condition behaves exactly the same as A's despite nothing saying that.
All we can assume is that it B's win con doesn't win on the spot. It could very well win before A's win con.
>All we can assume is that it B's win con doesn't win on the spot. It could very well win before A's win con.
That assumption makes the decision trivial, because there's no reason for B to do anything but play their (faster) wincon. Since there's no difference between C's turn and A's turn.
So no, you don't assume that. B wins some time after A's turn.
Actually, this is a game theory reconstruction in EDH for simplicity of explaining a retarded play that happened in Lords of Waterdeep.
It was the last round, my father needed the double rogue to complete his last quest. I was B, I ignored double rogue to build up my own score and told my mother that she "didn't have a choice" and then she didn't block him and he crushed us both. To top it off, she took last because of it.
If B's win condition is faster, but you know C has an answer for it and A's win con, you sandbag still. C is forced to use their answer against A to stay in the game, and then later you resolve a win con that they are less likely to answer.
>i made a topic where I misunderstand game theory to bitch about how my parents played their game.
Your mother wasn't playing to win. She let your father win because she's despises the husk of a man that you've become.
I stopped playing with my brother because he literally never won, and I never won a game he played in, because every game we ever played, he made it his mission to see me lose. My mother has something like an 80% win rate when the four of us play and doesn't realize it.
Games can get fucking toxic if people aren't playing to win.
In any multiplayer game these plays can rear their heads. You don't have control over how the board is gonna play out. Therefore C is a dick for not realizing that he himself is stating unless B makes plays that favor C, C won't participate.