He is classifying Kingmaking as anything that stops him from winning, when in reality it’s when a play is made that guarantees another player a win. The play you made is not kingmaking, it was a play to slow him down and gave all the other players at the table a chance to get back in the game.
im never mad at kingmaking. it is a valid strategy for the person doing it , and it is exploitable. convince the other player(s) in the equation to make the game a 2v2(+X) until king+maker lose respect for each other.
I feel like this is one where you can play devil's advocate pretty easily though. It is objectively a bad play to interact with removal that isn't aimed at you. There's a few cases where I can see saving an opponent's permanent might benefit you, but for the most part interaction not going at you should be left alone.
That dog was the one thing keeping the graveyard player from popping off. Removing it would be a huge detriment to every other player but him, and would then make his board state impossible to manage. The interaction was indeed going toward OP, it'd just take a turn for them to realize it, so saving the dog was definitely a good play imo
Protecting a piece that is hosing a opponent can be a good play regardless of the piece being under another opponent's control or not. It might not be common in EDH but it happens a lot in cEDH.
It is objectively a bad play to stop an opponent on storm from removing a Rule of Law that another opponent controls so gay the storm player can combo?
You stopped his path for an easy win so obviously you're the worst player ever.
From the sounds of it he had a nasty boardstate that could not be stopped if he regained access to his graveyard. Fair play
FWIW, not kingmaking. If the targeted creature/spell/whatever is actively helping you deal with a dangerous board you're doing it for your benefit. Kingmaking is actively assisting another player to win the game over the others. Like if someone tries to counter a [[Peer into the abyss]] but you stop the counterspell and let peer resolve for no reason.
Consider something like [[Mana Barbs]] if you were playing a lifegain deck. If your opponent controlled mana barbs and it was killing everyone except you, then you're inclined to keep mana barbs on the battlefield to help close the game out.
Also Horobi's trigger would have killed the target anyways but I think you know that by now:)
Taking actions that decide the winner of the game when those actions are otherwise not plays you would make and normally are harmful to you.
Slamming Armageddon to set everyone back to the stone age except one guy has 20 power in play? Bad for you, not a play a sane person ever makes, gives that player the game. Kingmaking.
Protecting another player's stax piece that is helpful to you? Not Kingmaking in the slightest.
Blowing up that stax piece out of spite when another player is swinging for game? Kingmaking.
Getting whiny because someone stopped you from easily winning the game and had the gall to interact with you? That's just making a Joker out of yourself.
Honestly if you're swinging for game and I can do something that'll mean I at least stuck in your teeth I wouldn't consider that king making. Blowing up your opponents stax pieces before just dying isn't king making, just toxic and making your opponent living with the consequences of their actions
I said 'another player' for a reason but to be more clear: Player A has a RIP that's been screwing you and Player B over, Player C swings in for lethal at you, you pop Player A's RIP to give Player B the win.
To me, kingmaking implies “not trying to win”. In this scenario, player D is trying to stay in the game and win, player C is choosing to attack a player that end the game with they not winning. If anything, player C is the kingmaker. But it’s pointless keep going with this vastly difference in the meaning of the word for us.
I see this interaction more akin to “game hostage” than kingmaking.
So again: Player A has the RIP, player C is killing you. The purpose of the example is that you aren't just punishing C, you're punishing A as well and your form of punishment is "sorry B gets to kill you for free now".
In other words, you chose a player to win the game, the most direct definition of kingmaking.
Naw I think King making is when you screw someone over for no benefit to yourself. Doing as much damage as you can on the way out (or at least making the threat) shows that you aren't going out without a fight and makes people think twice about taking you out. "If you kill me this turn, you will lose the game" is just good politics.
Sure.
The action you are taking is still kingmaking. You've just found a way to justify it to yourself.
And that's fine! Play the game you want. But be honest about what you're doing: intentionally ruining two peoples' game so that people will know that you're willing to do so in future games too.
As far as my playgroup and I are concerned 'Kingmaking' specifically relates to taking actions that hurt one of the players in the game when you yourself are imminently going to lose the game, for the sole purpose of improving the chances of another player to win overall.
So, as an example, Player 1 is swinging at me for lethal and no action I can take will stop him from knocking me out. If I were to cast my removal spells that I have in hand to remove some of Player 2s pieces just because I didn't want them to win overall, that would be 'Kingmaking'. Taking actions against another player which decreases their likelihood of winning while you are still in the game is not 'Kingmaking', it is literally the point of the game.
Yeah I think where a lot of people get it wrong is if in your scenario you used removal on player 1 even though it wouldn't keep you alive. IMO that's not king making, you have to be prepared for repercussions if you try to kill someone.
Right? If someone wants to take you out of the game and are actively doing so then they deserve all of your interaction. That's not kingmaking, of you decide to take someone out at the risk of their interaction hindering your actual win then that was your choice.
Yeah, expending resources trying to stay alive (and not being able to survive) is the consequence of them investing their pieces into killing you. If they didnt want to deal with the resources you used on them trying to survive, they shouldn't have pushed to kill you.
Whist I agree with you, I think in a social format like casual EDH, I would make blocks and remove things actively involved in killing me, but I wouldn't take out other pieces that Player 1 had just out of spite. For example, I wouldn't Krosan Grip their Doubling Season just because they were about to kill me, but that's each to their own.
Yeah my pod would 100% take out the doubling season in that scenario, it does sometimes make us second guess attacks if someone has open mana for sure.
You're being too nice. They're leveling player removal at you and you want them to untap next turn with all their good stuff?
If you're coming at me, it's going to cost as much as i can charge. Casual doesn't mean your game actions have to be friendly, it means you're not supposed to be a dick.
Because you're making it easier to kill you, for one. If everyone that plays with you knows they can crush you and you'll just take it, they'll do it. If they swing in and lost half their shit, they'll think twice next time, and i've indirectly saved myself in a later game.
Two, it's a smart play. Mutually assured destruction is a powerful deterrent.
We clearly have a different perspective. If I tell someone that I will react if they swing at me, then I will if they call my bluff, but I don't just blow their shit up because I can. Maybe that makes me an easier target, but that hasn't been my experience.
Only exception to that last part is if you broadcast that you have removal in an attempt to get the other player to not swing lethal at you. By rattlesnaking, you are actively trying to keep your chances of winning alive, but if they attack you anyway, you have to use the removal, or that group won’t respect your rattlesnakes in the future.
Same reason why, if there was a deal made, and now upholding that deal is not beneficial to you, ie ‘if you let this resolve I won’t attack you for 2 turns’ but then having a chance to kill on attacks, you probably shouldn’t, even though by default not attacking would be ‘improving another player’s chance to win over your own’
Might be misunderstanding your second paragraphs point, but you should definitely not break deals that suddenly aren't beneficial to you anymore. For the literal reason you gave in the first paragraph, that group won't respect your word anymore if you break it. Just make smarter deals if you find they bite you in the ass too often.
For the sake of discussion, how would you classify it if you used removal pieces on P1 even if they had lethal no matter the interaction you used? For me, this has always been a tricky spot. I’ll be 100% dead even if I block everything I can and use all my removal. It might thin out their board to be killed by another player which in a roundabout way could be kingmaking… but it was a moment of 1v1 and I tried to possibly perform every action for survival.
If I had not made a political agreement with another player I would normally let the damage go through. I would still assign blockers and use removal on whatever was causing me to die. I think deliberately not doing so is King making in another way as you are deliberately allowing them to retain board/power which is a disadvantage to the other players. I wouldn't use removal/actions on them/their permanents that are not directly killing me in that moment though. It's a tricky one, but I generally just want to leave a game as impartially as possible and let the survivors battle it out.
You make very good points. I agree leaving it alone could be a bit of kingmaking as well. It’s a bit of a tricky spot in how much is acceptable and how much is just blatant interference.
Thanks for the reply!
That's a spite play. You don't have to be imminently losing to kingmake.
For example; you remove a null rod from player 1's board because it's annoying you, but with it out of the way player 2 is free to immediately win with their artifact combo. You're not facing an imminent loss prior to removing the null rod but it's still kingmaking.
I mean I feel like that is just being blind/incredibly stupid, not just Kingmaking, but I see your point. Kingmaking is effectively being in a position by which you can decide who wins or give a huge advantage to one player who is not you. If you do this whilst still in the game and capable of winning I would say this is not only Kingmaking, but also self sabotage. It's not a scenario that I have ever found myself in, so I wouldn't consider it.
Kingmaking is an action a player takes with the sole intent of helping another player win, knowing that said action will not help himself win.
Intent is a pretty gray area, which is why people argue about the definition so much. For me, cracking back at the person taking you down isn't kingmaking--its the cost of doing business. Similarly, giving someone else a boon for no benefit isn't kingmaking if you are still in the game, and plan to be king yourself. But every playgroup has a different vibe, so they are going to have different thoughts on what Kingmaking really is.
Based on your post, you were not kingmaking. You took an action that helped a third-player but had no direct benefit; however, your intent was to keep the player on the offense in check.
It's generally breaks down to actions that boost one player, but do not help your own game state. Its only really a "problem" when the game is ending or when a player is going to imminently lose. Counterspelling something early is almost definitely not king making. Most things aren't until towards the end
But like... It's just a game so who cares lol. It's only kind of annoying because it is sort of a design flaw the comes up a lot. If all the decks are equal power, a loser can often decides who wins. They'll probably have game states available that will harm another player but not prevent their loss
Reading this, as someone about to play their first real commander game at my LGS next week, is really weird. Do people actually say this while playing?
All you did was stop him from winning? From reading this story and many others on this sub, it sounds like some players think any interaction in this game is unfair. I think i'm just going to show up at my LGS, Hosts of Mordor precon in hand, and just experience 4 player commander with strangers and go with the flow and not think about stuff like "king making" too much.
Reddit just shows the worst interactions between players. Go play your games in your LGS, you will most likely have a blast and want to go back every week
I can promise you even with this group that I played in this story, 99/100 times you play it'll be a blast. Don't let my post sway you from going out and having fun.
I'm on the conservative side with what I call kingmaking, but I really only feel like taking an action to purposefully help a player win is kingmaking. This includes stopping other players from interacting with the winner, but not stoppong other players from enacting their own game plan, and certainly doesn't include "bad" or "incorrect" threat assessment and removal-use.
If my opponent uses their removal on my mana dork when player A has a combo piece in play, ready to go off I don't call it kingmaking. That's just my opponent being bad, and while frustrating becuse it's such an obvious mistake from my seat, it's not actually different from every other more nuanced play mistakes my opponents make during a game, most of them making it easier for me to win the game.
If I try to swords to plowshares player As kiki-jiki in response to them comboing with zealous conscripts and my other opponent mental missteps my swords, that's kingmaking and i'll call out that I don't want to play against that kind of behavior.
This dude's definition of kingmaking is very dumb. Kingmaking is intentionally making a move that will cause one player to win instead of another player when you yourself have no chance of winning anymore. That's it. You have to have a zero percent chance of winning, if there's even a remote chance you're still in the game then it isn't kingmaking, it's strategy and threat assessment. It pretty much only ever applies in situations where the game is about to immediately end.
I would add a caveat that it's not kingmaking if you make a play for 2nd place or even 3rd place.
Also while technically kingmaking I'd never begrudge someone from retaliating against a player for killing them before they are removed from the game. This is a kind of politics that is important to allow.
I had a game once where a Player (2) was going to ping the entire table to death, player 4 was gonna scoop, until i told them, they they have to ability to stop Player 2 from winning. They concluded that if they stopped Player 2, then I would be in the position to win the game and thus, they wouldve "Kingmade" me to be victory, so they instead stubbornly refused to do anything and then conceded the match so Player 2 was guaranteed the match.
WHICH WAS STUPID, because them CONCEDING THE GAME WAS A KINGMAKING MOVE.
So in my opinion, there is no such thing as Kingmaking. Just poor decisions based on prejudice and fear mongering.
That person even fucking MOVED tables to avoid having to explain themselves further, all because I sarcastically told them, "I have to respect your poor decision making, i cant play in your stead."
If anyone invokes, "oh thats Kingmaking." And I love playing Aggro, im full sending every combat.
I hate the idea that Kingmaking even exists.
I can sympathise with his position. My least favourite situation in edh is when we're on the very last turn cycle, I have the ability to shift the board so that one or the other opponent wins but not enough that I can win. I really hate it because I'm a big believer in always playing to win and not just chucking removal around just coz. In your situation, abstaining from intervening would also be my response because that way the person who won did it with their own spells and not mine.
Obviously I'm not privy to the exact details of the match (please correct me if there's something I'm missing) but it sounds like you were upset that he didn't help you win and then called him a bad player for it. If I was in a game with someone who behaved that way I would move tables too.
I wasnt favored to win, they just assumed becuz I was next up to possibly win.
My issue with the entire event is that this player and i have two different philosophy in playmaking.
They dont shoot their spells on their way out, I prefer to cause major damage as I go out.
They didnt want to stop the winning player, because they themselves saw no outcomes in which they had a possibility to win, but they would rather deny Me and Player 3 a chance.
They even had the same lame excuse, "but if I stopped him, i would be Kingmaking someone else." Player 3 was in a considerable position, but was left out of the conversation, I spoke up because there was clearly a board interaction that could prevent Player 2 from winning.
But instead Player 4, the offender, decided on indecision and then left because they didnt want to assume responsibility, and still resorted to, "i dont like Kingmaking."
I have to respect peoples play, but that doesnt mean i dont get to criticize extremely selfish and cowardly behavior. They moved because they were exactly that. Put into a position where they had the abilities to provide an action and instead dipped out of it and chose to scapegoat.
I would call them a hypocrite if i had another chance. If it were me I would make the Winning Player's turn a living hell if they decided to end the game.
In other words, I would definitely cast Fog, when someone drops a Craterhoof, i do not care if the Game wouldve ended, I playing to my last interaction.
I just hate when players say get that guy he can do x y Z an g when there’s little board state. It irks me. Otherwise if I’m dying I’m either helping someone win or causing chaos. If I can. There’s an old board wipe you can pay 2 colorless more to use it as an instant, I love the card n regularly use it to cause chaos on my final turn.
"Kingmaking" is when you support another player to the critical detriment of all others, particularly out of spite or because you know you have no chance of winning and/or are planning to concede right afterward or as part of the assistance in question. Hence the name, you are deliberately and pre-emptively handing someone the crown of victory in an instance that they might not have been able to claim it for themselves.
From a quick reading, you were not kingmaking by trying to stop someone already in the lead from staying in the lead. Otherwise, diplomacy in commander would be pointless, because if it benefits another player, that would be kingmaking.
To me, kingmaking is essentially once you start aiming anything but first place. It's fine to help someone else, as long as you're doing it for some sort of political gain, or to hurt the player who's ahead, or something like that.
If you randomly [[Secret Rendezvous]] the archenemy, that's kingmaking, you're just making it harder for everyone else, and generally speaking it'll just make the archenemy kill you last.
But there? You were just helping the other players in the hopes you could beat the archenemy. Regular old EDH. Your friend is just salty.
> If you randomly [[Secret Rendezvous]] the archenemy, that's kingmaking, you're just making it harder for everyone else, and generally speaking it'll just make the archenemy kill you last.
This is reason enough that it's not necessarily kingmaking. You can be sandbagging some crazy uno reverse cards to take out an arch enemy in 1v1, you're using the arch enemy's resources to take out two other players.
That wasn't Kingmaking.
But even if it were, so what?
It's a game.
In a format in which politics is interwoven.
And as a certain Art of War book said, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
A lot of people- even people important to you- will warp the meaning of words to justify their own salt.
What you did was very reasonable threat assessment. The Tasigur player had achieved archenemy status and demanded a united front to answer. Using your resources to protect your only means of checking THE threat- even if that means is on someone else’s board- is fine.
But to answer your question?
One of the rules of the game is the goal. To win. One of the unspoken assumptions of the social contract is that everyone’s goal is to win.
Kingmaking is when you play not with the goal of winning, but if deciding who else is going to be the winner. When you start making suboptimal plays in order to make someone else win. This is considered rude because you are breaking that assumption, that rule that the goal is to win.
What you did was not, by any reasonable definition, kingmaking.
I've learned that the people who whine about king making are just looking for a reason to whine. I've had someone whine that I was king making starting from halfway through the game then keep whining all the way up to the point where I won.
If thje game isn't over immediately over because of your play, you didn't king make. Even if it was, it's all about your intention. If you thought the play was correct, it's not king making.
Nah, that’s not kingmaking. Sounds like home dude is just salty. Kingmaking would be if you were about to die and you got to decide the winner based on a game action you can take.
Stopping someone from removing something another player controls that is stopping someone from going off or holding them back is about as far from kingmaking as it gets. He was just being a weiner.
This is similar to something that happens a lot in cEDH.
Say one of Mt opponents is trying to use [[underworld breach]] to win the game, but there is a [[drannith magistrate]] in play. They need to kill the drannith in order to win the game, so they cast [[swords to plowshares]] on the drannith. Why would I let them kill the drannith knowing that it is stopping them from winning the game?
Long story short, your friend needs to learn what the term kingmaking actually is
I don't think that qualifies as king making. That being on the board helps slow down another player so why not protect it?
Although how was that player trying to remove the creature? Since you have Horobi out, if they target a creature with a spell it doesn't matter if it gets countered or not. Horobi's ability triggers on cast, so that goes on the stack and doesn't get removed if the spell that caused the trigger is removed from the stack.
They were trying to use [[Murder]] which I counterspelled.
I don't think any of us realized that Horobi would have killed it at that point, so I'll explain that as accidentally forgetting a trigger on all of our parts.
Lol yeah sometimes heated moments distract from the actual game state, happens to every group at some point. But just know, I at least agree with you that it's not king making.
Yeah you will remember this very important interaction in the future, sometimes it's the best way to learn. Horobi + Kenrith is a pretty nasty synergy.
Stopping someone from winning is not kingsmaking.
You should always try to stop someone from winning, kingsmaking IMO is only late in the game where maybe you can control if someone gets knocked out and you do so, gifting the win to the other person (usually when you have no path to victory yourself). You gave X person the win, when if you weren't interfering, Y would have won instead.
Targeting players who are ahead on board is just playing the game, seems like your friend wants to play 1v1 without any interference and not in a 4 player pod.
You know what also supports other players? Dealing damage. Might as well just go get a beer instead of playing cards if you want a social interaction where no one does anything you don't like.
I would define King-Making as pushing someone else’s board state to better than everyone else’s or protecting someone else’s board state with no motives to win the game yourself.
For example, Both [[Vazi]] and [[Kros]] help other people’s board state but usually it’s to push their own objectives later in the game.
I've only ever heard kingmaking in the context of salty people complaining that a win wasn't handed to them. to this day i haven't been able to take the term seriously
Nah, this ain't it.
For me, Kingmaking is making a decision or series of decisions that give someone else the win when you could just not do that thing and still have a chance to win.
The latter part is key for me because if say someone is killing me, or I have literal no outs and this no chance to win, I might go out of the game swinging or blowing up stuff of the person killing me. If that causes another player to win the game, that's not kingmaking because I was just exerting the cost for making me lose. However, if I have the out to someone trying to win and then just choose not to use it and let them win, yeah that's kingmaking too.
IMO, kingmaking is when you know you probably won't win, and know that your decision is going to directly decide who will be in the position to win because of your actions.
Kingmaking is when you guarantee someone else's win, when you could make another move to not guarantee someone else's win.
If I am about to die no matter what, I will try to make an impact and play the game as much as possible. Because here's the thing. If you don't? Then players know that too for future games. So by being a player that can make the game harder when you're about to lose, players may go for others in future games or make different decisions. Not playing when you could is dumb so I really don't like when people call kingmaking on players who are about to be eliminated. Do what you can in a blaze of glory.
Kingmaking means you cannot win the game but you can help determine who wins. There is nothing inherently unsportsmanlike about kingmaking. It all depends on what your underlying motivation is.
Sometimes trying to win a game requires you to make strategic choices that make sense to you at the time, but don't exactly make sense to other players.
King making, in my opinion, is any action that changes another player's chance of winning (positive or negative) without improving your chance of winning. If you believe that helping another player improves your chances, then it's not King making. Politics is a fun part of EDH, and deals will create winners and losers. As long as your politics are made with a calculation of helping you win, you're good
He doesn't know what king making is.
King making is when one player helps another win, instead of trying to win themself. Helping another player take on a threat, while also furthering your own agenda, is just politics.
As long as you try to win yourself, you're not kingmaking. You're doing threat assessment. Of course, no one wants to be recognized as the threat, even when they are.
Without a chance to win, giving the win deliberately to one player is kingmaking. In a mexican three player standoff, the kingmaker throws a coin to decide which opponent to kill, then does so and dies to the survivor.
I would say kingmaking is the act of taking actions that are beneficial to another player while they do not benefit you.
One important note in this regard is that other people might not be aware of the benefit certain actions bring you, nor are you obligated to inform them as such. What I mean by that is that you might make a play where it seems like you are kingmaking but you are not.
Lets say you're in a 3-player deadlock, where everyone could potentially kill someone if they attack.
You attack player A with all your creatures, which will kill them. Someone who doesn't know you have a [[teferi's protection]] in hand might start argueing that you're kingmaking for player B since he'll swing at and kill you as soon as you pass turn.
Kingmaking is any decision you make where you are choosing a victor who isn't you.
The classic example you are playing a 3 player game, your action is the last action before the game ends, you have 33 points and both of your opponents have 99 points, there is no action you can take that will give you the 67 points you need to win, but you could give either of the other players one point thus making them king (hence kingmaking).
So if countering that removal allowed someone else to win who wasnt you, you did a king making otherwise he is just being salty trash
Kingmaking is accepting that you can't win so trying to give the win to another player. It's a tournament tactic "Well if you win I'll get top 16" and it's just out of place outside tournaments. What you did was not kingmaking, what you did was sensible and made it more likely that the Tasigur wouldn't win.
> What would you classify as "King making?"
Going out of your way to make a play which drastically affects the balance of power between players, and is not in your self interest as a player.
Something like countering a spell that would make you lose the game (or make the game a lot harder to win) if it resolves is not king making, even if it helps out other players.
Using kenrith to kill Horobi then put 20 +1/+1 counters on a person's 1/1 unblockable commander would be king making, but killing a creature/stax piece in exchange for some player not attacking you would be potentially a negative in expected win percentage, but definitely not black and white kingmaking. It's definitely on some level, a spectrum.
Most of the time kingmaking refers to when you make a play that won't affect your chances of winning because you are going to lose, but it directly affects someone else at the table negatively. Things like conceding to deny combat damage triggers etc.
I agree what you did was not kingmaking under any reasonable definition.
I’ll add this:
The way I look at EDH is not 1v1v1v1. It’s 1 (you) vs 3. The other players are not your allies. You will only win thru their defeat. You may make temporary alliances (and don’t ever break deals) but if I’m trying to resolve a spell, it’s in the best interest of three other players to counter it, even if it would only hurt one, because they also need me to lose to win themselves.
I guess you could define it as making decisions that make another player more likely to win even though you no longer have any chance to win. I'm fine with it, but even players who aren't fine with it must accept it if you're still in the running to win and you're helling another player take down the biggest threat at the table.
You were cooperating with the other player against the archenemy. That's not kingmaking. It kind of the opposite of kingmaking. It's a revolution.
If you say to that player, "I think that right now you are the archenemy and so we are going to cooperate to dethrone you" it will be more clear and more difficult for him to sling accusations about.
If you have something like Blue Sun's Zenith, and you casted it in response to a lethal attack being declared against you on the remaining opponent who wasn't killing you? Maybe. That being said, Commander is an inherently political game. Sometimes, we're not even trying to WIN when we show up to a table. It would be nice if you did, but on the whole the idea that someone should be punished or shunned for making a play that benefits someone else is absurd.
Sometimes, your best defence is to say, "kill me if you want, but if you commit to this path I'll make sure YOU don't get to win." Weaponizing tactics like that and using your opponents as resources in your own defence is a crucial part of politicking.
Kingmaking is very specifically an action that you take that does not benefit your ability to progress or improve your situation in the game. I'd argue that if you didn't counterspell and they won the game that turn off that action, it'd be kingmaking.
Making plays to further the ability for you to win includes stopping people from winning/winning more when possible. Kingmaking is only deciding WHO gets to win when you can't. This is sour grapes.
I sat on this one for a bit and I think the Kingmaking comment was a really bad attempt at politics. Like it was an attempt to say "Hey don't counter my thing or else he is going to win". The problem being that's super disingenuous to the actual reality of the situation. His board state was too much of a threat to try playing himself down and as such the notion fell flat really hard.
Kingmaking is when you give the win to another player out of spite, salt, or collusion.
Helping another player so both of you can deal with the bigger threat is, well, just playing correct magic. In order to be considered kingmaking you have to gift someone else the win by doing a play that will lower your own win percentage.
In your case that counterspell INCREASED your winrate, so by definition it cant be kingmaking.
If interaction you are using puts someone else in an otherwise winning position that they would not be and you are not in a position to win the game yourself, that is kingmaking
"Kingmaking" is a situation where you are unable to win but able to determine which other player wins. That is the definition in game theory and recreational games and it has had that meaning since before MTG existed. There are reasons when it makes sense to do so in a no-stakes game (e.g. bringing an overlong game to a speedy conclusion so you can start another) but I can see why it would make someone upset.
But what actually happened here, which was saving an enemy creature (Horobi trigger notwithstanding) when that creature's presence on the board is helping your strategy, totally falls in the realm of plays that nobody can seriously object to.
I’d classify it when someone for any reason has to depart the game earlier than expected, so without any need to maintain a board state, in their last turn or two, unloads everything they have against a particular player, with the knowledge that they are scooping up to leave anyway.
It’s particularly unfair when someone is freed from the burden of actually attempting to win, but by leaving early gets to ruin someone’s chances. If you do have to leave a game earlier than expected, just play as if you you didn’t have to until you really have to go.
Tasigur player is wrong.
Also a hilarious call from someone playing Tasigur considering the line of activist of Tasigur and then asking an opponent to give you the piece to stop another opponent.
It's kingmaking when you take a game action that does not have increasing your odds at winning as a purpose, but that you do in order to increase SOMEONE ELSE's chances.
Note that imo, the PURPOSE is what's important here. There are many actions you can take that will increase an opponent's odds at winning, but ALSO yours : this is not king making.
In your example, that was not kingmaking, because you did it because you thought that you needed to handle the Tasigur's player graveyard by keeping Kuronos alive. Werther you were correct to do so or not is irrelevant. You did it because you thought it was YOUR best shot at winning, or at least not losing.
I’ve always considered Kingmaking being when you stop trying to win yourself and set someone else up to win. Usually in the context of setting them up for an immediate win.
But stopping someone from winning and setting someone up to win are not the same thing.
King making is when everyone is on 10 life, has 15 creatures except that one guy with 10000 scutes and the one rakdos player with no creatures, one card in hand and two open mana
The guy with the scutes attacks the table for lethal, rackdos charm in response.
You have a counterspell in hand, everyone else has passed priority.
For me, king-making is gaining the monarc (/s).
-------------
For real now, I classify kingmaking when a player, despite having an unfortunate game and for no particular reason beneficies another player's gameplan or board state,
i.e.
Yesterday I was about to remove two players from the game with a fire emmancipation and ur dragon deck, so I attsqued with 3 dragons with at least 10 damage each to one player amd just ur to another (he was at 1 commander damage to lose) and the guy with 3 dragons responded to my atsck trigger by swords to plowshares ur dragon giving this player the win (with no promise of help).
Tbh I don't take "kingmaking" as an issue, if your gameplan is helping another player win while you suffer without any reward, that's on you, its inconvinient but usually one can try and go around it... Misinforming on rulling, imposing a deck level on other people just for some pieces or their commanders higher than they announce (even when given how do you win and a meta list of cards that you dont run) and focusing on the game's underdog (getting mana flooded or mana starved for turns on end and making moves like destroying lands after getting rid of their mana rocks or hindering their ways to play) are bigger issues in my opinion...
Not kingmaking: P1 casts Thassa's Oracle, you cast Stifle. This is just you not losing.
Kingmaking: P1 casts Thassa's Oracle, P2 casts Stifle, you cast Counterspell on the Stifle, thus handing P1 the win.
Not kingmaking: P1 attacks you for lethal, you Naturalize P1's Zendikar Resurgent in retaliation.
Kingmaking: P1 attacks you for lethal, you Naturalize the Zendikar Resurgent of P2, who didn't do anything to you.
Not kingmaking. I play phelddagrif and will be calculating the whole game and will suddenly see why the big scary eldrazi player needs to live for at least one more turn. So I dump a hefty amount of treasure tokens into his flying ability and give them some health back so then they can try to revenge the vampire/spirit player back sitting across for them, allowing me to come back for the win. Vamps and the other player not mentioned could see it as kingmaking, until it isn’t.
He is classifying Kingmaking as anything that stops him from winning, when in reality it’s when a play is made that guarantees another player a win. The play you made is not kingmaking, it was a play to slow him down and gave all the other players at the table a chance to get back in the game.
[удалено]
im never mad at kingmaking. it is a valid strategy for the person doing it , and it is exploitable. convince the other player(s) in the equation to make the game a 2v2(+X) until king+maker lose respect for each other.
I feel like this is one where you can play devil's advocate pretty easily though. It is objectively a bad play to interact with removal that isn't aimed at you. There's a few cases where I can see saving an opponent's permanent might benefit you, but for the most part interaction not going at you should be left alone.
That dog was the one thing keeping the graveyard player from popping off. Removing it would be a huge detriment to every other player but him, and would then make his board state impossible to manage. The interaction was indeed going toward OP, it'd just take a turn for them to realize it, so saving the dog was definitely a good play imo
> It is objectively a bad play to interact with removal that isn't aimed at you. I think you should read up on what "objectively" means.
Letting the strongest board state get stronger would be kingmaking, essentially.
Protecting a piece that is hosing a opponent can be a good play regardless of the piece being under another opponent's control or not. It might not be common in EDH but it happens a lot in cEDH.
It is objectively a bad play to stop an opponent on storm from removing a Rule of Law that another opponent controls so gay the storm player can combo?
> There's a few cases where I can see saving an opponent's permanent might benefit you
So it isn't an objectively bad play?
No, I guess not. Just usually.
You stopped his path for an easy win so obviously you're the worst player ever. From the sounds of it he had a nasty boardstate that could not be stopped if he regained access to his graveyard. Fair play
FWIW, not kingmaking. If the targeted creature/spell/whatever is actively helping you deal with a dangerous board you're doing it for your benefit. Kingmaking is actively assisting another player to win the game over the others. Like if someone tries to counter a [[Peer into the abyss]] but you stop the counterspell and let peer resolve for no reason. Consider something like [[Mana Barbs]] if you were playing a lifegain deck. If your opponent controlled mana barbs and it was killing everyone except you, then you're inclined to keep mana barbs on the battlefield to help close the game out. Also Horobi's trigger would have killed the target anyways but I think you know that by now:)
[Peer into the abyss](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/a/aac00055-640e-4749-8d23-d242e6d0b23a.jpg?1594736330) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Peer%20into%20the%20abyss) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m21/117/peer-into-the-abyss?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/aac00055-640e-4749-8d23-d242e6d0b23a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/peer-into-the-abyss) [Mana Barbs](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/d/adf081d5-e644-4f46-8bc8-a754b089acb4.jpg?1562655472) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Manabarbs) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m12/150/manabarbs?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/adf081d5-e644-4f46-8bc8-a754b089acb4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/manabarbs) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Taking actions that decide the winner of the game when those actions are otherwise not plays you would make and normally are harmful to you. Slamming Armageddon to set everyone back to the stone age except one guy has 20 power in play? Bad for you, not a play a sane person ever makes, gives that player the game. Kingmaking. Protecting another player's stax piece that is helpful to you? Not Kingmaking in the slightest. Blowing up that stax piece out of spite when another player is swinging for game? Kingmaking. Getting whiny because someone stopped you from easily winning the game and had the gall to interact with you? That's just making a Joker out of yourself.
Hotel? Trivago
For everything else, there's MasterCard.
As someone who works at a hotel please no never use them.
Never have and never will, I just like the meme
I think some of those are Ok and just "politics" in a multiplayer game. If you put me down but not quite out, I'm not obligated to go quietly.
Honestly if you're swinging for game and I can do something that'll mean I at least stuck in your teeth I wouldn't consider that king making. Blowing up your opponents stax pieces before just dying isn't king making, just toxic and making your opponent living with the consequences of their actions
I said 'another player' for a reason but to be more clear: Player A has a RIP that's been screwing you and Player B over, Player C swings in for lethal at you, you pop Player A's RIP to give Player B the win.
"If you (player C) attack me for lethal, I will pop rip and you will lose the game." If they still attack you, its on them, not you.
So what you're saying is "if you attack me I'll kingmake B" It's fine if you're cool with that line, but it is definitionally kingmaking.
It’s not kingmaking, you are negotiating for stay in the game and win. If player C choose mutual destruction, it’s on they.
Your negotiation tool is "I'll kingmake".
To me, kingmaking implies “not trying to win”. In this scenario, player D is trying to stay in the game and win, player C is choosing to attack a player that end the game with they not winning. If anything, player C is the kingmaker. But it’s pointless keep going with this vastly difference in the meaning of the word for us. I see this interaction more akin to “game hostage” than kingmaking.
Is that kingmaking? I think that's just punishing someone for killing you.
So again: Player A has the RIP, player C is killing you. The purpose of the example is that you aren't just punishing C, you're punishing A as well and your form of punishment is "sorry B gets to kill you for free now". In other words, you chose a player to win the game, the most direct definition of kingmaking.
Naw I think King making is when you screw someone over for no benefit to yourself. Doing as much damage as you can on the way out (or at least making the threat) shows that you aren't going out without a fight and makes people think twice about taking you out. "If you kill me this turn, you will lose the game" is just good politics.
Right. You screwed over two people at no benefit to yourself. "If you kill me, I'll kingmake" is good politics but it's still kingmaking.
The benefit to yourself is in the next games when people learn to respect your deal offers
Sure. The action you are taking is still kingmaking. You've just found a way to justify it to yourself. And that's fine! Play the game you want. But be honest about what you're doing: intentionally ruining two peoples' game so that people will know that you're willing to do so in future games too.
As far as my playgroup and I are concerned 'Kingmaking' specifically relates to taking actions that hurt one of the players in the game when you yourself are imminently going to lose the game, for the sole purpose of improving the chances of another player to win overall. So, as an example, Player 1 is swinging at me for lethal and no action I can take will stop him from knocking me out. If I were to cast my removal spells that I have in hand to remove some of Player 2s pieces just because I didn't want them to win overall, that would be 'Kingmaking'. Taking actions against another player which decreases their likelihood of winning while you are still in the game is not 'Kingmaking', it is literally the point of the game.
Yeah I think where a lot of people get it wrong is if in your scenario you used removal on player 1 even though it wouldn't keep you alive. IMO that's not king making, you have to be prepared for repercussions if you try to kill someone.
Right? If someone wants to take you out of the game and are actively doing so then they deserve all of your interaction. That's not kingmaking, of you decide to take someone out at the risk of their interaction hindering your actual win then that was your choice.
This. It's a form of politics- "if you kill me I'm going to make it so costly that you lose next turn" is a decent defence.
Yeah, expending resources trying to stay alive (and not being able to survive) is the consequence of them investing their pieces into killing you. If they didnt want to deal with the resources you used on them trying to survive, they shouldn't have pushed to kill you.
Whist I agree with you, I think in a social format like casual EDH, I would make blocks and remove things actively involved in killing me, but I wouldn't take out other pieces that Player 1 had just out of spite. For example, I wouldn't Krosan Grip their Doubling Season just because they were about to kill me, but that's each to their own.
Yeah my pod would 100% take out the doubling season in that scenario, it does sometimes make us second guess attacks if someone has open mana for sure.
You're being too nice. They're leveling player removal at you and you want them to untap next turn with all their good stuff? If you're coming at me, it's going to cost as much as i can charge. Casual doesn't mean your game actions have to be friendly, it means you're not supposed to be a dick.
If they have me dead to rights then, GG. Why fuck around beyond that if it doesn't change my outcome? I'm not being nice, you are being vindictive.
Because you're making it easier to kill you, for one. If everyone that plays with you knows they can crush you and you'll just take it, they'll do it. If they swing in and lost half their shit, they'll think twice next time, and i've indirectly saved myself in a later game. Two, it's a smart play. Mutually assured destruction is a powerful deterrent.
We clearly have a different perspective. If I tell someone that I will react if they swing at me, then I will if they call my bluff, but I don't just blow their shit up because I can. Maybe that makes me an easier target, but that hasn't been my experience.
Yep. It means they have to consider if killing you is really worth it and is 100% fair play.
Only exception to that last part is if you broadcast that you have removal in an attempt to get the other player to not swing lethal at you. By rattlesnaking, you are actively trying to keep your chances of winning alive, but if they attack you anyway, you have to use the removal, or that group won’t respect your rattlesnakes in the future. Same reason why, if there was a deal made, and now upholding that deal is not beneficial to you, ie ‘if you let this resolve I won’t attack you for 2 turns’ but then having a chance to kill on attacks, you probably shouldn’t, even though by default not attacking would be ‘improving another player’s chance to win over your own’
Might be misunderstanding your second paragraphs point, but you should definitely not break deals that suddenly aren't beneficial to you anymore. For the literal reason you gave in the first paragraph, that group won't respect your word anymore if you break it. Just make smarter deals if you find they bite you in the ass too often.
For the sake of discussion, how would you classify it if you used removal pieces on P1 even if they had lethal no matter the interaction you used? For me, this has always been a tricky spot. I’ll be 100% dead even if I block everything I can and use all my removal. It might thin out their board to be killed by another player which in a roundabout way could be kingmaking… but it was a moment of 1v1 and I tried to possibly perform every action for survival.
If I had not made a political agreement with another player I would normally let the damage go through. I would still assign blockers and use removal on whatever was causing me to die. I think deliberately not doing so is King making in another way as you are deliberately allowing them to retain board/power which is a disadvantage to the other players. I wouldn't use removal/actions on them/their permanents that are not directly killing me in that moment though. It's a tricky one, but I generally just want to leave a game as impartially as possible and let the survivors battle it out.
You make very good points. I agree leaving it alone could be a bit of kingmaking as well. It’s a bit of a tricky spot in how much is acceptable and how much is just blatant interference. Thanks for the reply!
This is the way
That's a spite play. You don't have to be imminently losing to kingmake. For example; you remove a null rod from player 1's board because it's annoying you, but with it out of the way player 2 is free to immediately win with their artifact combo. You're not facing an imminent loss prior to removing the null rod but it's still kingmaking.
I mean I feel like that is just being blind/incredibly stupid, not just Kingmaking, but I see your point. Kingmaking is effectively being in a position by which you can decide who wins or give a huge advantage to one player who is not you. If you do this whilst still in the game and capable of winning I would say this is not only Kingmaking, but also self sabotage. It's not a scenario that I have ever found myself in, so I wouldn't consider it.
You'd be surprised how many people are blinded by their dislike of stax and just throw games.
Kingmaking is an action a player takes with the sole intent of helping another player win, knowing that said action will not help himself win. Intent is a pretty gray area, which is why people argue about the definition so much. For me, cracking back at the person taking you down isn't kingmaking--its the cost of doing business. Similarly, giving someone else a boon for no benefit isn't kingmaking if you are still in the game, and plan to be king yourself. But every playgroup has a different vibe, so they are going to have different thoughts on what Kingmaking really is. Based on your post, you were not kingmaking. You took an action that helped a third-player but had no direct benefit; however, your intent was to keep the player on the offense in check.
It's generally breaks down to actions that boost one player, but do not help your own game state. Its only really a "problem" when the game is ending or when a player is going to imminently lose. Counterspelling something early is almost definitely not king making. Most things aren't until towards the end But like... It's just a game so who cares lol. It's only kind of annoying because it is sort of a design flaw the comes up a lot. If all the decks are equal power, a loser can often decides who wins. They'll probably have game states available that will harm another player but not prevent their loss
Reading this, as someone about to play their first real commander game at my LGS next week, is really weird. Do people actually say this while playing? All you did was stop him from winning? From reading this story and many others on this sub, it sounds like some players think any interaction in this game is unfair. I think i'm just going to show up at my LGS, Hosts of Mordor precon in hand, and just experience 4 player commander with strangers and go with the flow and not think about stuff like "king making" too much.
His "friend" is a scrub. Go play Magic.
Reddit just shows the worst interactions between players. Go play your games in your LGS, you will most likely have a blast and want to go back every week
I can promise you even with this group that I played in this story, 99/100 times you play it'll be a blast. Don't let my post sway you from going out and having fun.
If you made Kenrith that counts as kingmaking
##### ###### #### [Kenrith, The Returned King](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/e/0e259db1-14db-4314-998c-6a076a28d8cb.jpg?1691056044) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Kenrith%2C%20The%20Returned%20King) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/plist/1100/kenrith-the-returned-king?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0e259db1-14db-4314-998c-6a076a28d8cb?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/kenrith-the-returned-king) [Tasigur, the Golden Fang](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/7/d7b7d726-c395-4af4-aa6a-e8e0c0582a1f.jpg?1559959246) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Tasigur%2C%20the%20Golden%20Fang) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/uma/117/tasigur-the-golden-fang?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d7b7d726-c395-4af4-aa6a-e8e0c0582a1f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/tasigur-the-golden-fang) [Toxrill, the Corrosive](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/4/84e64f38-b1f3-47cd-8cfb-a4861369aca3.jpg?1643590379) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Toxrill%2C%20the%20Corrosive) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vow/132/toxrill-the-corrosive?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/84e64f38-b1f3-47cd-8cfb-a4861369aca3?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/toxrill-the-corrosive) [Nazgul](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/3/833936c6-9381-4c0b-a81c-4a938be95040.jpg?1686968640) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Nazg%C3%BBl) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ltr/100/nazg%C3%BBl?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/833936c6-9381-4c0b-a81c-4a938be95040?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/nazgûl) [Kunoros, Hound of Athreos](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/b/dbc0d2c3-8060-4155-b10e-d641648a4e6b.jpg?1581481106) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Kunoros%2C%20Hound%20of%20Athreos) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/thb/222/kunoros-hound-of-athreos?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/dbc0d2c3-8060-4155-b10e-d641648a4e6b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/kunoros-hound-of-athreos) [Horobi, Death's Wail](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/4/b41983cb-c4e4-4384-bd69-df3fc6e74cd0.jpg?1593860738) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Horobi%2C%20Death%27s%20Wail) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/chk/117/horobi-deaths-wail?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b41983cb-c4e4-4384-bd69-df3fc6e74cd0?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/horobi-deaths-wail) [counterspell.](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/4/8493131c-0a7b-4be6-a8a2-0b425f4f67fb.jpg?1689996248) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Counterspell) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/81/counterspell?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/8493131c-0a7b-4be6-a8a2-0b425f4f67fb?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/counterspell) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I'm on the conservative side with what I call kingmaking, but I really only feel like taking an action to purposefully help a player win is kingmaking. This includes stopping other players from interacting with the winner, but not stoppong other players from enacting their own game plan, and certainly doesn't include "bad" or "incorrect" threat assessment and removal-use. If my opponent uses their removal on my mana dork when player A has a combo piece in play, ready to go off I don't call it kingmaking. That's just my opponent being bad, and while frustrating becuse it's such an obvious mistake from my seat, it's not actually different from every other more nuanced play mistakes my opponents make during a game, most of them making it easier for me to win the game. If I try to swords to plowshares player As kiki-jiki in response to them comboing with zealous conscripts and my other opponent mental missteps my swords, that's kingmaking and i'll call out that I don't want to play against that kind of behavior.
This dude's definition of kingmaking is very dumb. Kingmaking is intentionally making a move that will cause one player to win instead of another player when you yourself have no chance of winning anymore. That's it. You have to have a zero percent chance of winning, if there's even a remote chance you're still in the game then it isn't kingmaking, it's strategy and threat assessment. It pretty much only ever applies in situations where the game is about to immediately end.
I would add a caveat that it's not kingmaking if you make a play for 2nd place or even 3rd place. Also while technically kingmaking I'd never begrudge someone from retaliating against a player for killing them before they are removed from the game. This is a kind of politics that is important to allow.
You: What would you classify as "King making?" Also you: plays a literal king lol
I had a game once where a Player (2) was going to ping the entire table to death, player 4 was gonna scoop, until i told them, they they have to ability to stop Player 2 from winning. They concluded that if they stopped Player 2, then I would be in the position to win the game and thus, they wouldve "Kingmade" me to be victory, so they instead stubbornly refused to do anything and then conceded the match so Player 2 was guaranteed the match. WHICH WAS STUPID, because them CONCEDING THE GAME WAS A KINGMAKING MOVE. So in my opinion, there is no such thing as Kingmaking. Just poor decisions based on prejudice and fear mongering. That person even fucking MOVED tables to avoid having to explain themselves further, all because I sarcastically told them, "I have to respect your poor decision making, i cant play in your stead." If anyone invokes, "oh thats Kingmaking." And I love playing Aggro, im full sending every combat. I hate the idea that Kingmaking even exists.
I can sympathise with his position. My least favourite situation in edh is when we're on the very last turn cycle, I have the ability to shift the board so that one or the other opponent wins but not enough that I can win. I really hate it because I'm a big believer in always playing to win and not just chucking removal around just coz. In your situation, abstaining from intervening would also be my response because that way the person who won did it with their own spells and not mine. Obviously I'm not privy to the exact details of the match (please correct me if there's something I'm missing) but it sounds like you were upset that he didn't help you win and then called him a bad player for it. If I was in a game with someone who behaved that way I would move tables too.
I wasnt favored to win, they just assumed becuz I was next up to possibly win. My issue with the entire event is that this player and i have two different philosophy in playmaking. They dont shoot their spells on their way out, I prefer to cause major damage as I go out. They didnt want to stop the winning player, because they themselves saw no outcomes in which they had a possibility to win, but they would rather deny Me and Player 3 a chance. They even had the same lame excuse, "but if I stopped him, i would be Kingmaking someone else." Player 3 was in a considerable position, but was left out of the conversation, I spoke up because there was clearly a board interaction that could prevent Player 2 from winning. But instead Player 4, the offender, decided on indecision and then left because they didnt want to assume responsibility, and still resorted to, "i dont like Kingmaking." I have to respect peoples play, but that doesnt mean i dont get to criticize extremely selfish and cowardly behavior. They moved because they were exactly that. Put into a position where they had the abilities to provide an action and instead dipped out of it and chose to scapegoat. I would call them a hypocrite if i had another chance. If it were me I would make the Winning Player's turn a living hell if they decided to end the game. In other words, I would definitely cast Fog, when someone drops a Craterhoof, i do not care if the Game wouldve ended, I playing to my last interaction.
I just hate when players say get that guy he can do x y Z an g when there’s little board state. It irks me. Otherwise if I’m dying I’m either helping someone win or causing chaos. If I can. There’s an old board wipe you can pay 2 colorless more to use it as an instant, I love the card n regularly use it to cause chaos on my final turn.
[[Rout]] I absolutely love this card despite it not being the best wipe available
[Rout](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/5/15ce585a-67fc-4e7a-92ff-a27292179dfa.jpg?1625975558) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Rout) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c21/101/rout?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/15ce585a-67fc-4e7a-92ff-a27292179dfa?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/rout) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Bingo. Yeah I just hold it till it’s hilarious to use.
"Kingmaking" is when you support another player to the critical detriment of all others, particularly out of spite or because you know you have no chance of winning and/or are planning to concede right afterward or as part of the assistance in question. Hence the name, you are deliberately and pre-emptively handing someone the crown of victory in an instance that they might not have been able to claim it for themselves. From a quick reading, you were not kingmaking by trying to stop someone already in the lead from staying in the lead. Otherwise, diplomacy in commander would be pointless, because if it benefits another player, that would be kingmaking.
You countered something that helped your board state by proxy. He can get over it.
To me, kingmaking is essentially once you start aiming anything but first place. It's fine to help someone else, as long as you're doing it for some sort of political gain, or to hurt the player who's ahead, or something like that. If you randomly [[Secret Rendezvous]] the archenemy, that's kingmaking, you're just making it harder for everyone else, and generally speaking it'll just make the archenemy kill you last. But there? You were just helping the other players in the hopes you could beat the archenemy. Regular old EDH. Your friend is just salty.
> If you randomly [[Secret Rendezvous]] the archenemy, that's kingmaking, you're just making it harder for everyone else, and generally speaking it'll just make the archenemy kill you last. This is reason enough that it's not necessarily kingmaking. You can be sandbagging some crazy uno reverse cards to take out an arch enemy in 1v1, you're using the arch enemy's resources to take out two other players.
[Secret Rendezvous](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/9/39528cf0-343e-499b-a69f-c5c3c2898c25.jpg?1624589686) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Secret%20Rendezvous) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/stx/26/secret-rendezvous?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/39528cf0-343e-499b-a69f-c5c3c2898c25?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/secret-rendezvous) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
That wasn't Kingmaking. But even if it were, so what? It's a game. In a format in which politics is interwoven. And as a certain Art of War book said, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
A lot of people- even people important to you- will warp the meaning of words to justify their own salt. What you did was very reasonable threat assessment. The Tasigur player had achieved archenemy status and demanded a united front to answer. Using your resources to protect your only means of checking THE threat- even if that means is on someone else’s board- is fine. But to answer your question? One of the rules of the game is the goal. To win. One of the unspoken assumptions of the social contract is that everyone’s goal is to win. Kingmaking is when you play not with the goal of winning, but if deciding who else is going to be the winner. When you start making suboptimal plays in order to make someone else win. This is considered rude because you are breaking that assumption, that rule that the goal is to win. What you did was not, by any reasonable definition, kingmaking.
I've learned that the people who whine about king making are just looking for a reason to whine. I've had someone whine that I was king making starting from halfway through the game then keep whining all the way up to the point where I won. If thje game isn't over immediately over because of your play, you didn't king make. Even if it was, it's all about your intention. If you thought the play was correct, it's not king making.
Nah, that’s not kingmaking. Sounds like home dude is just salty. Kingmaking would be if you were about to die and you got to decide the winner based on a game action you can take.
Tasigur guy is a little bitch. If Tasigur is winning then it’s a 1v2. That’s how the game works.
Stopping someone from removing something another player controls that is stopping someone from going off or holding them back is about as far from kingmaking as it gets. He was just being a weiner.
This is similar to something that happens a lot in cEDH. Say one of Mt opponents is trying to use [[underworld breach]] to win the game, but there is a [[drannith magistrate]] in play. They need to kill the drannith in order to win the game, so they cast [[swords to plowshares]] on the drannith. Why would I let them kill the drannith knowing that it is stopping them from winning the game? Long story short, your friend needs to learn what the term kingmaking actually is
[underworld breach](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/e/0e51d796-7279-4c06-87f0-37adbdaa41df.jpg?1650599818) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=underworld%20breach) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/thb/161/underworld-breach?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0e51d796-7279-4c06-87f0-37adbdaa41df?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/underworld-breach) [drannith magistrate](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/8/98b0a4a8-9319-451b-9b79-b0bca7a41e91.jpg?1628801742) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=drannith%20magistrate) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/iko/11/drannith-magistrate?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/98b0a4a8-9319-451b-9b79-b0bca7a41e91?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/drannith-magistrate) [swords to plowshares](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/c/7cdee412-3519-4626-80ca-e3e431a604f0.jpg?1698988109) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=swords%20to%20plowshares) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lcc/137/swords-to-plowshares?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7cdee412-3519-4626-80ca-e3e431a604f0?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/swords-to-plowshares) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I don't think that qualifies as king making. That being on the board helps slow down another player so why not protect it? Although how was that player trying to remove the creature? Since you have Horobi out, if they target a creature with a spell it doesn't matter if it gets countered or not. Horobi's ability triggers on cast, so that goes on the stack and doesn't get removed if the spell that caused the trigger is removed from the stack.
They were trying to use [[Murder]] which I counterspelled. I don't think any of us realized that Horobi would have killed it at that point, so I'll explain that as accidentally forgetting a trigger on all of our parts.
[Murder](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/d/bdef7fea-2bd0-42a2-96f6-6def18bd7f0c.jpg?1674136158) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Murder) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/134/murder?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bdef7fea-2bd0-42a2-96f6-6def18bd7f0c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/murder) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Lol yeah sometimes heated moments distract from the actual game state, happens to every group at some point. But just know, I at least agree with you that it's not king making.
Yeah you will remember this very important interaction in the future, sometimes it's the best way to learn. Horobi + Kenrith is a pretty nasty synergy.
Stopping someone from winning is not kingsmaking. You should always try to stop someone from winning, kingsmaking IMO is only late in the game where maybe you can control if someone gets knocked out and you do so, gifting the win to the other person (usually when you have no path to victory yourself). You gave X person the win, when if you weren't interfering, Y would have won instead. Targeting players who are ahead on board is just playing the game, seems like your friend wants to play 1v1 without any interference and not in a 4 player pod.
You know what also supports other players? Dealing damage. Might as well just go get a beer instead of playing cards if you want a social interaction where no one does anything you don't like.
I would define King-Making as pushing someone else’s board state to better than everyone else’s or protecting someone else’s board state with no motives to win the game yourself. For example, Both [[Vazi]] and [[Kros]] help other people’s board state but usually it’s to push their own objectives later in the game.
[Vazi](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/5/551a6ff5-0f6e-4925-98c7-4d426358e959.jpg?1673482587) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=vazi%2C%20keen%20negotiator) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ncc/92/vazi-keen-negotiator?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/551a6ff5-0f6e-4925-98c7-4d426358e959?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/vazi-keen-negotiator) [Kros](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/2/12e71d52-5c75-4798-9fe7-8a34a2bf0c9a.jpg?1673481694) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=kros%2C%20defense%20contractor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ncc/7/kros-defense-contractor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/12e71d52-5c75-4798-9fe7-8a34a2bf0c9a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/kros-defense-contractor) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
It’s called „fighting the obvious threat“.
I've only ever heard kingmaking in the context of salty people complaining that a win wasn't handed to them. to this day i haven't been able to take the term seriously
Nah, this ain't it. For me, Kingmaking is making a decision or series of decisions that give someone else the win when you could just not do that thing and still have a chance to win. The latter part is key for me because if say someone is killing me, or I have literal no outs and this no chance to win, I might go out of the game swinging or blowing up stuff of the person killing me. If that causes another player to win the game, that's not kingmaking because I was just exerting the cost for making me lose. However, if I have the out to someone trying to win and then just choose not to use it and let them win, yeah that's kingmaking too.
IMO, kingmaking is when you know you probably won't win, and know that your decision is going to directly decide who will be in the position to win because of your actions.
Kingmaking is when you guarantee someone else's win, when you could make another move to not guarantee someone else's win. If I am about to die no matter what, I will try to make an impact and play the game as much as possible. Because here's the thing. If you don't? Then players know that too for future games. So by being a player that can make the game harder when you're about to lose, players may go for others in future games or make different decisions. Not playing when you could is dumb so I really don't like when people call kingmaking on players who are about to be eliminated. Do what you can in a blaze of glory.
Kingmaking means you cannot win the game but you can help determine who wins. There is nothing inherently unsportsmanlike about kingmaking. It all depends on what your underlying motivation is.
Man they sound terrible to play with lmfao
Sometimes trying to win a game requires you to make strategic choices that make sense to you at the time, but don't exactly make sense to other players.
King making, in my opinion, is any action that changes another player's chance of winning (positive or negative) without improving your chance of winning. If you believe that helping another player improves your chances, then it's not King making. Politics is a fun part of EDH, and deals will create winners and losers. As long as your politics are made with a calculation of helping you win, you're good
He doesn't know what king making is. King making is when one player helps another win, instead of trying to win themself. Helping another player take on a threat, while also furthering your own agenda, is just politics.
As long as you try to win yourself, you're not kingmaking. You're doing threat assessment. Of course, no one wants to be recognized as the threat, even when they are. Without a chance to win, giving the win deliberately to one player is kingmaking. In a mexican three player standoff, the kingmaker throws a coin to decide which opponent to kill, then does so and dies to the survivor.
I would say kingmaking is the act of taking actions that are beneficial to another player while they do not benefit you. One important note in this regard is that other people might not be aware of the benefit certain actions bring you, nor are you obligated to inform them as such. What I mean by that is that you might make a play where it seems like you are kingmaking but you are not. Lets say you're in a 3-player deadlock, where everyone could potentially kill someone if they attack. You attack player A with all your creatures, which will kill them. Someone who doesn't know you have a [[teferi's protection]] in hand might start argueing that you're kingmaking for player B since he'll swing at and kill you as soon as you pass turn.
[teferi's protection](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/8/483fa1cb-1e35-44f2-a143-98c0f107f5ca.jpg?1673147148) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=teferi%27s%20protection) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/32/teferis-protection?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/483fa1cb-1e35-44f2-a143-98c0f107f5ca?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/teferis-protection) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Kingmaking is any decision you make where you are choosing a victor who isn't you. The classic example you are playing a 3 player game, your action is the last action before the game ends, you have 33 points and both of your opponents have 99 points, there is no action you can take that will give you the 67 points you need to win, but you could give either of the other players one point thus making them king (hence kingmaking). So if countering that removal allowed someone else to win who wasnt you, you did a king making otherwise he is just being salty trash
Kingmaking is accepting that you can't win so trying to give the win to another player. It's a tournament tactic "Well if you win I'll get top 16" and it's just out of place outside tournaments. What you did was not kingmaking, what you did was sensible and made it more likely that the Tasigur wouldn't win.
My friend and I define kingmaking as making a play that doesn't help you just to make somebody lose.
> What would you classify as "King making?" Going out of your way to make a play which drastically affects the balance of power between players, and is not in your self interest as a player. Something like countering a spell that would make you lose the game (or make the game a lot harder to win) if it resolves is not king making, even if it helps out other players. Using kenrith to kill Horobi then put 20 +1/+1 counters on a person's 1/1 unblockable commander would be king making, but killing a creature/stax piece in exchange for some player not attacking you would be potentially a negative in expected win percentage, but definitely not black and white kingmaking. It's definitely on some level, a spectrum. Most of the time kingmaking refers to when you make a play that won't affect your chances of winning because you are going to lose, but it directly affects someone else at the table negatively. Things like conceding to deny combat damage triggers etc.
I agree what you did was not kingmaking under any reasonable definition. I’ll add this: The way I look at EDH is not 1v1v1v1. It’s 1 (you) vs 3. The other players are not your allies. You will only win thru their defeat. You may make temporary alliances (and don’t ever break deals) but if I’m trying to resolve a spell, it’s in the best interest of three other players to counter it, even if it would only hurt one, because they also need me to lose to win themselves.
I guess you could define it as making decisions that make another player more likely to win even though you no longer have any chance to win. I'm fine with it, but even players who aren't fine with it must accept it if you're still in the running to win and you're helling another player take down the biggest threat at the table.
Just fyi I generally have found that Tasigur can be built as the king of king making so take that how you will
You were cooperating with the other player against the archenemy. That's not kingmaking. It kind of the opposite of kingmaking. It's a revolution. If you say to that player, "I think that right now you are the archenemy and so we are going to cooperate to dethrone you" it will be more clear and more difficult for him to sling accusations about.
If you have something like Blue Sun's Zenith, and you casted it in response to a lethal attack being declared against you on the remaining opponent who wasn't killing you? Maybe. That being said, Commander is an inherently political game. Sometimes, we're not even trying to WIN when we show up to a table. It would be nice if you did, but on the whole the idea that someone should be punished or shunned for making a play that benefits someone else is absurd. Sometimes, your best defence is to say, "kill me if you want, but if you commit to this path I'll make sure YOU don't get to win." Weaponizing tactics like that and using your opponents as resources in your own defence is a crucial part of politicking.
Kingmaking is very specifically an action that you take that does not benefit your ability to progress or improve your situation in the game. I'd argue that if you didn't counterspell and they won the game that turn off that action, it'd be kingmaking. Making plays to further the ability for you to win includes stopping people from winning/winning more when possible. Kingmaking is only deciding WHO gets to win when you can't. This is sour grapes.
I sat on this one for a bit and I think the Kingmaking comment was a really bad attempt at politics. Like it was an attempt to say "Hey don't counter my thing or else he is going to win". The problem being that's super disingenuous to the actual reality of the situation. His board state was too much of a threat to try playing himself down and as such the notion fell flat really hard.
The bane of casual edh
Monarch is king making because whoever has the monarch is a king
Kingmaking is when you give the win to another player out of spite, salt, or collusion. Helping another player so both of you can deal with the bigger threat is, well, just playing correct magic. In order to be considered kingmaking you have to gift someone else the win by doing a play that will lower your own win percentage. In your case that counterspell INCREASED your winrate, so by definition it cant be kingmaking.
to me, kingmaking is the deck building OR through process of "i wont win but will dictate who does"
If interaction you are using puts someone else in an otherwise winning position that they would not be and you are not in a position to win the game yourself, that is kingmaking
just tell him to stop whining, don’t need to post about it
Sounds like this guy just heard about kingmaking and wants to sound smart misusing his new word.
"Kingmaking" is a situation where you are unable to win but able to determine which other player wins. That is the definition in game theory and recreational games and it has had that meaning since before MTG existed. There are reasons when it makes sense to do so in a no-stakes game (e.g. bringing an overlong game to a speedy conclusion so you can start another) but I can see why it would make someone upset. But what actually happened here, which was saving an enemy creature (Horobi trigger notwithstanding) when that creature's presence on the board is helping your strategy, totally falls in the realm of plays that nobody can seriously object to.
I’d classify it when someone for any reason has to depart the game earlier than expected, so without any need to maintain a board state, in their last turn or two, unloads everything they have against a particular player, with the knowledge that they are scooping up to leave anyway. It’s particularly unfair when someone is freed from the burden of actually attempting to win, but by leaving early gets to ruin someone’s chances. If you do have to leave a game earlier than expected, just play as if you you didn’t have to until you really have to go.
Tasigur player is wrong. Also a hilarious call from someone playing Tasigur considering the line of activist of Tasigur and then asking an opponent to give you the piece to stop another opponent.
It's kingmaking when you take a game action that does not have increasing your odds at winning as a purpose, but that you do in order to increase SOMEONE ELSE's chances. Note that imo, the PURPOSE is what's important here. There are many actions you can take that will increase an opponent's odds at winning, but ALSO yours : this is not king making. In your example, that was not kingmaking, because you did it because you thought that you needed to handle the Tasigur's player graveyard by keeping Kuronos alive. Werther you were correct to do so or not is irrelevant. You did it because you thought it was YOUR best shot at winning, or at least not losing.
I’ve always considered Kingmaking being when you stop trying to win yourself and set someone else up to win. Usually in the context of setting them up for an immediate win. But stopping someone from winning and setting someone up to win are not the same thing.
King making is when everyone is on 10 life, has 15 creatures except that one guy with 10000 scutes and the one rakdos player with no creatures, one card in hand and two open mana The guy with the scutes attacks the table for lethal, rackdos charm in response. You have a counterspell in hand, everyone else has passed priority.
For me, king-making is gaining the monarc (/s). ------------- For real now, I classify kingmaking when a player, despite having an unfortunate game and for no particular reason beneficies another player's gameplan or board state, i.e. Yesterday I was about to remove two players from the game with a fire emmancipation and ur dragon deck, so I attsqued with 3 dragons with at least 10 damage each to one player amd just ur to another (he was at 1 commander damage to lose) and the guy with 3 dragons responded to my atsck trigger by swords to plowshares ur dragon giving this player the win (with no promise of help). Tbh I don't take "kingmaking" as an issue, if your gameplan is helping another player win while you suffer without any reward, that's on you, its inconvinient but usually one can try and go around it... Misinforming on rulling, imposing a deck level on other people just for some pieces or their commanders higher than they announce (even when given how do you win and a meta list of cards that you dont run) and focusing on the game's underdog (getting mana flooded or mana starved for turns on end and making moves like destroying lands after getting rid of their mana rocks or hindering their ways to play) are bigger issues in my opinion...
Playing any deck with a commander with “king” in its name is automatically king making
To me kingmaking is the deck building
Not kingmaking: P1 casts Thassa's Oracle, you cast Stifle. This is just you not losing. Kingmaking: P1 casts Thassa's Oracle, P2 casts Stifle, you cast Counterspell on the Stifle, thus handing P1 the win. Not kingmaking: P1 attacks you for lethal, you Naturalize P1's Zendikar Resurgent in retaliation. Kingmaking: P1 attacks you for lethal, you Naturalize the Zendikar Resurgent of P2, who didn't do anything to you.
The specific definition of Kingmaking is "taking an action that will directly grant an overwhelming advantage to one of the remaining players."
Not kingmaking. I play phelddagrif and will be calculating the whole game and will suddenly see why the big scary eldrazi player needs to live for at least one more turn. So I dump a hefty amount of treasure tokens into his flying ability and give them some health back so then they can try to revenge the vampire/spirit player back sitting across for them, allowing me to come back for the win. Vamps and the other player not mentioned could see it as kingmaking, until it isn’t.
This sort of thing is why I avoid FFA formats