Politics cards done right.

[robort]

Is there any reason that you would choose to do that? It seems entirely suboptimal.

I don't know if this was aimed at me or......... I actually enjoy variance and with variance I learn more, Sticking with the scheming symmetry example and I play it without politics. I now have to make a decision of whom to pick and that can vary. Such as is there a blue player, is there a player who is behind, is there someone far ahead of the rest of us(, (this is where I may politic and ask "Does anybody have anything that can help the rest of us deal with whomever is ahead"), is it early game, is it late game, do I really need something specific, and so on. Plus in the end it is just a game. I enjoy the many different possible outcomes variance brings without trying to control variance. If there was an outcome that was suboptimal, I'll note it and try not to get that outcome again,

[anjinsan]

Well, yes. You said you almost never do politics. Why? I can't see that it has anything to do with variance. If someone offers you something, and it's a smart move to accept, why would you be any less likely to do that than any other smart move?

[Lain Iwakura]

I think Wandering Archaic is a good example of politics done right. Players may choose to pay the cost to avoid its effect, but you can promise them that you will copy their spells and choose non-allied targets. If they accept, you can do exactly that or outright betray them. In one case, I copied two exile spells and betrayed the caster.

Funny story: I made an agreement with a player to attack me and draw cards from blocking with Flumph. After I declared it blocking, he cast something like Tread Upon to try killing the Flumph. Not only did he not get the card draw, but I copied it with Wandering Archaic to save my Flumph.

[anjinsan]

Often I find that people just try to kill Wandering Archaic ASAP. Occasionally though someone will get smart and offer deliberately not to pay the 2 so long as the copy goes somewhere else. A doubly-smart person might do something like point removal at something that isn't the big threat, so that the Archaic player has to use their copy for that (same idea with Council's Judgement etc)... though that sort of smartness can backfire.

[Morganator 2.0]

I think Wandering Archaic is a good example of politics done right. Players may choose to pay the cost to avoid its effect, but you can promise them that you will copy their spells and choose non-allied targets. If they accept, you can do exactly that or outright betray them. In one case, I copied two exile spells and betrayed the caster.

Funny story: I made an agreement with a player to attack me and draw cards from blocking with Flumph. After I declared it blocking, he cast something like Tread Upon to try killing the Flumph. Not only did he not get the card draw, but I copied it with Wandering Archaic to save my Flumph.

That's what I'm talking about! A condition and a consequence. I have Wandering Archaic in one deck, so I should start making that deal. Hopefully now it's usefulness will increase, so it'll be even better than it already is. Thank you Lain Iwakura.

[anjinsan]

I once had to really help someone out with that. They were trying to kill something and went to pay the 2. I was like “do you really want to do that?”. Took them a moment to realise that they could basically get double removal for less cost. 

You can do a similar thing with Kaervek the Merciless. Usually the archenemy kills him anyway as they know that stuff will be directed at them, but you can offer people to choose where to send the damage they cause so long as it’s not at you.

[robort]

Well, yes. You said you almost never do politics. Why? I can't see that it has anything to do with variance. If someone offers you something, and it's a smart move to accept, why would you be any less likely to do that than any other smart move?

You don't see how a humble defector gives variance? You have 3 players to give that to and denying that player (who played defector) to draw 2 more cards because I didn't give it back has changed the variance. If I actually receive defector and don't use it that is also changing variance because I haven't drawn cards.

Scheming Symmetry also carries variance. You pick 2 players and 1 of those doesn't have to be yourself. Letting any player get whatever card they want is variance because you don't know honestly what a player is going to tutor for. Controlling the outcome of such variance isn't much variance at all.

With the plethora of variance that magic offers I rather learn from it then trying to control it.

[anjinsan]

I suspect we’re talking at cross-purposes here.

If I understand what you’re saying, you won’t agree to give someone else’s Humble Defector back because that makes the game more predictable, because they know they’re getting it back?

I guess this is true but, what, do you only ever play chaos decks? Do you not draw cards, cast spells, remove things, and so on? I don’t really see why saying “I’ll accept two cards and send this thing back to you” is all that different to saying, for example, “I’ll cast Divination and draw two cards” or “I’ll kill that creature that might attack me next turn”. They’re all just actions and choices, which have effects, and should each be evaluated on their own merits. I’m all for the odd suboptimal play in the name of “fun”, too, but flat-out refusing to do politics doesn’t seem to accomplish anything and frankly just seems kinda weird.

[robort]

I never said I flat out refuse to do politics. I said about 90% of the time which was a guestimate that is a little high. I'd say around 70 to 75% of the time. With humble defector yes it is predictable which it isn't hard to predict that someone is going to draw 4 cards while I draw 2.mThere is a total of 6 cards with player A getting the first 2. With that there are 3 other players that can change the outcome of the other 4 cards being drawn. Player A is trying to control that card draw by simply saying "give that back".

Chaos decks and I only have 1. It is fun but doesn't really have a win condition so it just collects dust. Oh I cast spells, remove stuff and so forth. I just don't always do it the conventional way. I stick with my choices as weird as they may seem but you see me play enough you'll get to know why. With that again I like variance and I learn much more from variance then from conventional play

[stuffnsuch]

I'm a little surprised to not see Fortunate Few on here.  It takes some really great politicking, but it's absolutely amazing when done right.  You can usually get at least someone, if not a couple someones, to agree to pick something you want to keep as long as you promise to deal with a threat on the board.  They may not be happy about getting their boards wiped, but if you make some deals before showing the card, usually, you can really come out ahead.