Does your multiplayer group contain people who love to go in swinging? Or is it filled with people who hang back and see how things develop? A mix of both? In my opinion, a mix is probably the best possible choice. Why? Well, the downside revolves around nothing happening and games dragging on for too long if no one in the group starts swinging to get things rolling. I'm not sure what would happen in a group filled with aggressively attacking players; my best guess is that it would feel very similar to the 'Attack Left/Right' variant. Everyone's going in swinging anyway, right? Well, my group is basically filled with people who have a distinct tendency to hang back; no one wants to be the one who starts swinging (In fact, I made a deck to capitalize on this tendency).
About two weeks ago, I played a 3-man game of Commander. It wasn't a very big game and it had been a while since I played in one; it was nice playing some multi again. Commander itself is a sort of long, wait and see, wipe everything and restart repeatedly, kind of format. It's not too awesome for the ol' swing every turn, if only because everyone has twice as much life to start with. I started swinging anyway. Someone's usually (perhaps always) open. This proven to be the case in this match, so I swung at him. I think it's a tactically sound choice to do. Thanks to the Great Mana Screw, he was unable to respond, and I had a much larger creature than my other opponent (As a note, this seems much like kicking a man while he's down: tactically sound, but possibly distasteful. LD decks are basically keeping them down and raining blows in this analogy) . This left me in a dominant position for the early game.
I don't know about your group, but mine tends to to gang up on on the one who establishes this kinda hold early: perhaps it's why they don't like initiating hostilities. Very few people enjoy being ganged up on. But despite my early game lead, I ended up as the first to fall: my hand dried up in finding larger threats (not to mention that most of removal was rendered useless due to the 'nonblack' clause and they both played black), while my unmanascrewed opponent was able to drop several to keep me off of him and the other ate the brunt of my attacks. Had we had 20 life instead of 40, I still would've lost, though they both would've been in the low single digits and I probably would've rushed more than I did. It was not an unexpected outcome, really. And despite being first to fall, I actually enjoyed the game immensely.
But sometimes, I wish that someone else would take that role. My natural style isn't actually too aggressive at all, actually: I'm also inclined toward the 'wait and see' method (In fact, someone outside my current play group once remarked something along the lines of 'he can't do anything but weird decks that are slow and cumbersome'). I've tried it a few times, going closer to that. But I don't enjoy those games nearly as much as when I start attacking. It's not as if I actively dislike constantly sending my guys into the red zone; I'm rather fond of the general method of defeating your enemies. But almost always, no one else will start swinging until they've prepped considerably. Everyone will silently build up their forces, a cold war. I do not find that to be too enjoyable at all. Nothing's happening. It drags.
I'm guessing this general reluctance has something to with not wanting to be the first to fight: no one wants to fire the first shot. No one want to look too threatening in the beginning, possibly because they don't want to be ganged up on. But for something interesting to happen, someone has to step up: someone has to throw the first punch, fire the first shot, or commit the first crime.
Something has to shake up the status quo to begin the story. And in this case, that something is generally first attack. It's a risk: you may be leaving yourself open to reprisal, and much of white's removal suite is for attacking creatures. You're actively declaring hostilities against a person. You may seem more threatening for being willing to commit to an early attack. Before your attack, despite the ultimate goal of the game being the annihilation of your opponents, things are cold. You ignite things with a consistent choice to go on the offensive. At least one other person has something that's pounding on them, forcing them to think, decide, and act. And this will very likely put a few crosshairs on you.
But if you're like me, that doesn't matter. Those attacks will start something bigger. Your last moments may be laughably miserable as you get killed by an alliance of your opponents creatures, but that is good! For that moment, the old lie is truth: it is glorious to die in battle. Your threat may unite others against you, but the alliance will fracture: the end goal is the obliteration of one's enemies, after all. But through your actions, you upset the balance of power: They will have expended differing amounts of resources of eliminate you, and balance is lost: it will probably never be restored. There is no going back. This game will not be one of a slow buildup of forces that results in a draw from mutual boredom and unwillingness to start the attack. You have seen to that, and that is worth it.
For those of you who take this role on themselves and those of you who are naturally inclined towards this, I thank you for making multi a much less boring experience. Those of you who manage to consistently win despite this, you have my admiration.
For those of you who kill us, I leave you this:
No comments:
Post a Comment