Warped DevotionWarped Devotion Illustrated by Dany Orizio
Hello, and welcome to Am I the Bolas? This week, a playgroup will impact how you build and play - that can feel good or bad.
This column is for all of you out there who've ever played some Magic and wondered if you were the bad guy. I'm here to take in your story with all of its nuances so I can bring some clarity to all those asking, "Am I the Bolas?"
I'm ready to hear you out and offer advice. All you have to do is email [email protected] with your story, a pseudonym you want to use, and of course, only include details you don't mind in the column! You might see your story below one day. You might even hear it on the podcast. Which podcast?
I'm Mike Carrozza and my signature card from now on is...
I can't stop writing pigeon jokes in my stand-up, it's a problem.
(Post edited for brevity, clarity, and then some.)
SUBMISSION
Hello Mike,
For the past four years, my partner and I have spent Monday evenings playing EDH with another neighborhood couple. While we usually have a great time, there's been a growing tension between me and one of the other players. They’ve expressed feeling unfairly targeted by me during games — particularly when I choose to attack them or remove their stuff.
Things came to a head recently when I had the choice to destroy a mana rock or their Sword of the AnimistSword of the Animist. I chose the Sword, and it sparked a pretty intense conflict.
This person is a very skilled Magic player. Outside of our weekly games, they mostly play Limited and don’t participate in multiplayer EDH with other groups. I mention this because I wonder if more exposure to EDH politics might help them develop thicker skin around threat assessment. But I also recognize that’s speculative.
We’ve talked at length about our dynamic, and I’ve admitted that I do sometimes target them more than others — mainly because they’re a strong player with finely tuned decks. That said, I don’t believe I overdo it.
They’ve shared that feeling singled out has affected how they build their decks. They’ve started including “anti-me” cards (like AetherizeAetherize, since I often run aggro), not because they want to, but because they feel they have to in order to survive. I think the impact on their sense of autonomy and self-expression as a deckbuilder is starting to weigh on them.
Ironically, I’ve also held back from attacking them at times — worried I might upset them — only to watch them win the game from two life after a 20-minute turn.
I know threat assessment is subjective. What I see as the right strategic move might not match others’ perceptions. And I could be wrong! But I don’t want our playgroup to fracture, and I don’t want this friend to feel alienated or attacked.
Am I their Bolas?
Appreciate you,
Hero of Preccinet One
VERDICT
Thank you for writing and asking me to weigh in on your story. As I mention every week, if folks don't write to me, there's no column. So if you want to send me a story, whether it's your own or one from Reddit or a friend's, please send it to [email protected] and I'll get to it here.
This submission feels a little more delicate than most. It feels like the continued conversations had between you two indicate that there's a desire on both ends for this to mesh better. That's an excellent sign. I think acknowledging this the next time you have a chat about this is a good start.
Laying everything out, we have a few points to touch on:
- Your friend believes themselves to be targeted more than most and you admit to targeting them more than others due to threat assessment, backed up by previous experience where the deck can pop off even at a low life total and them being a strong pilot.
- Your friend plays lots of Limited and this might or might not port over some experience.
- You're both building decks or playing differently than you want to so that you can accommodate or play around the other.
I think it's fair to cop to the accusation pointed your way. Your friend believes you target them more than the others and you've mentioned that you do, but your justification is in line with the nature of a multiplayer free-for-all. There's a lot more to take into consideration when it comes to executing your game plan and some strategies or players are greater threats to your plan.
Here is a lesson I had to learn a long time ago and I'm glad it comes up from time to time: Threats to your game are different from those of your opponents; you're all packing threats for each other and sometimes your opponents deal with yours.
I'd like to touch on the Limited piece of this. In Limited, you play to beat your only opponent and anything goes. There's no such thing as being mean unless you're angle shooting or just saying awful things. There are no hard feelings because you are enemies in the context of the game.
The same goes for Commander. However, I believe there might be a bit of threat self-assessment missing from your friend. It seems reasonable to hit the Sword of the AnimistSword of the Animist over a mana rock considering it can lead to more than the rock can produce pretty quickly. Them being upset signals to me a lack of self-awareness and maybe them forgetting that you are all opponents.
Sometimes players will forget they're a threat to their opponents because they don't always put themselves in their shoes. Sometimes you're the biggest threat! It's just a fact! It's not a crime or anything. Trading off the designation of "The Threat" throughout a game of Commander is one of the most dynamic parts of the game, even!
To the biggest threat though, the biggest threat is the second-biggest threat, and it sounds like you're both the more experienced players at the table. Whether it's because your deckbuilding and play styles are opposed or real recognizes real, it's inevitable. You're bound to lock horns.
If your friend regularly finds themselves backed into a corner only to finally find a missing piece to go ham with an engine, you've seen the scene enough times to know that they're an eventuality. So what do you do as the more aggro deck at the table? Curb that possibility. I understand why your threat assessment goes to your friend.
I will mention that the changes your friend is making to their deck is something they can turn to in order to combat your tactics. However, holding back on what you believe to be the correct play is a shift in playstyle that ends up adding an extra layer to losing games where you wonder "Would I have won if I'd just not taken it easy on my friend?"
I see myself a lot in your friend: I build decks that need a few pieces to get humming and can come back from two life if the right things come together. I love an explosive, moving puzzle. It's my responsibility to try to stick my permanents and protect them. This doesn't happen by hoping that my opponents won't remove or counter anything. Your friend is becoming a stronger deck builder within this playgroup's dynamic.
It seems like you're both compromising. I'm not sure how to help with this one from your perspective, as I believe that this falls to your friend more than anything. Unless you're actually firing off 20 removal spells at them while other players are way ahead and it's really malicious, I think what you've described seems reasonable. You have less of an out than your friend because you need to play poorly to accomplish the compromise and your friend has to build better to fend you off. So what is there really?
The only other compromise I can think of is the use of personal goal lists that you come up with and accomplish to alter the win condition to not only be killing your opponents, but also "assembling the Tron lands" or "controlling 30 creatures." This takes the pressure off the actual win of the pod and allows you to maybe let a few things fly a little more.
My advice is to switch it up. Force some Two-Headed Giant and partner up. Play the literal Archenemy variant or Kingdoms variant. Add something to the game that injects a pre-determined dynamic so that this is the focus on the reasoning.
Maybe you could benefit from a brief break. Challenge yourselves to build like one another. Create a budget tier and get everybody to build with constraints. Ultimately, the number one thing is what you've already done a few times, which is to talk to each other.
Unfortunately, at a certain point, it feels like you're talking in circles. As the person writing in to the column, I can only really address you when I say that you're in a tough spot. It sounds like you're playing things right, making the correct threat assessments and acting on them in order to win. I would opt to deprioritize winning for a stretch to see if this impacts the dynamic positively, however, I want you to be mindful of your own enjoyment of the game.
I would be curious to hear what a conversation between you two goes or get more info on the games themselves!
No Bolas this week!
Mike Carrozza
Mike Carrozza is a stand-up comedian from Montreal who’s done a lot of cool things like put out an album called Cherubic and worked with Tig Notaro, Kyle Kinane, and more people to brag about. He’s also been an avid EDH player who loves making silly stuff happen. @mikecarrozza on platforms.
Your opinions are welcome. We love hearing what you think about Magic! We ask that you are always respectful when commenting. Please keep in mind how your comments could be interpreted by others. Personal attacks on our writers or other commenters will not be tolerated. Your comments may be removed if your language could be interpreted as aggressive or disrespectful. You may also be banned from writing further comments.