MBT guy was wrong, you have the known counter. Onus is on you to respond or accept that the game can be lost because you cannot control other players (barring spell effects that can let you)
I think the focus on P4 is incorrect. P2 made it known they had the mbt. They wanted to use their position to try and gamble with the other players and he lost. P4 did absolutely nothing wrong. They didn't reveal any interaction at the time. P2 is the actual buschleage player for thinking he could politic a game ending play. It's the definition of fuck around and find out
Also Ryan. The reason people were mentioning gaslighting is because player 2 was absolutely gaslighting player 3. "I know you want to sandbag YOUR interaction", "you're throwing the game". All things said by a player with a known counterspell in hand. Language, and tone specifically meant to dishonestly call into question player 3's perception of reality.
Yep the idea that this is equal here is kinda crazy. One person immediately had an argumentative tone and tried to politic everyone with a threat that got met with another threat. Don’t start anything, won’t be anything.
@@cdee34 I agree with Ryan below here. Player2 was asking the table to have a discussion about what everyone had so they could coordinate how to stop player1. Player3 and 4 were being childish and refusing to cooperate, Player2 repeatedly said they would spend their MBT just that spending it on the abolisher was not a smart decision.
@@danielschmidt7143 You might need to rewatch the clip. Player 4 was completely in player 2's camp saying they should save the MBT for dockside. Player 2 was the one that demanded info, and gaslighted player 3. They lied about being willing to cast MBT, they had multiple opportunities and chose not to.
I disagree with Ryan stating they were bullying each other. It was known information he had mindbreak trap. The other guy was only assuming he had interaction. They weren't saying the same thing. One was known, and one wasn't.
Agreed. Plus no one seems to be addressing the physical/psychological aspect of the MBT player , who was acting very aggressive and rude. That in itself, regardless of what game we are playing, would cause me to stiff arm someone. It’s a life lesson: you have to try to contain your frustration under stress. Talking over people and acting aggressively pushes people away. The Thrassios player was at least acting cool and calm. I’m with him.
They even said they don't like "mana bullying". Bro kept saying well tap out for Thrasios and if you don't have anything it'll reset prio for me. Player 2 was aggressive and thinking he could bully players into playing how he wanted. Fuck that guy.
It’s fairly obvious one party was aggressive from the start. This zero tolerance kind of “well everyone is wrong” doesn’t happen without someone starting it.
@@cdee34 I get that they're supposed to be a neutral party, but if they're gonna supply a clip like they, no other way to look at it besides that guy was a douche. You act like a bitch, don't be mad when you get fucked over.
"Priority bullying" is a legit tool to employ. That said, player B telling to player D that he's giving player A the game *with known interaction in hand* is just dumb
In the clip I thought the non-MBT player brought up a good point that I haven't seen talked about much - If I tell you what my interaction is or use it on the Grand Abolisher, then they won't end up casting the Dockside yet at all, whereas if you use the MBT now with no further discussion they'll still go for it.
@Thomas Noonan MBT player having that information still opted to not use his resource and put player 4 behind the 8 ball, then blamed player 4 for not giving in.
@@slymcfly123 Yup! I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. I just liked that Ryan acknowledged that Player four blamed the other guy too just the same. A lot of people seem to be ignoring that "this is a two way street" / "it takes two to tango" / whatever your favorite idiom is. :P
My guess is that it the "Playing with Power" crew universally started using a new terminology consistently, the rest of the cEDH community would follow suit. I see that "priority pushing" was suggested, but that has some of the same pitfalls (i.e., pushing is a form of bullying). I suggest "Leveraging Priority" - truer to the nature of the situation.
I don’t know man, if they were being respectful about it I’d totally agree with using different terminology but as we've all seen they were pretty aggressively pushing player 4 and he decided not to give in. In this situation using different terminology just feels like sugarcoating the shitty situation they put player 4 in..
Priority bullying is a big issue. You wouldn't attempt to do it without additional intentions, it's not just resolving an issue together, it's gaining advantage off of someone else's win attempt to win yourself.
it comes down to known and unknown information. if it wasn't known that player 2 had the MBT before passing priority its all cool. But him passing like he did is 100% him announcing "i can stop this but im not going to because i think you have an answer and i want more value" it was a very shitty move on the MBT player IMO and he is the one that gave away the game. cheers to the other guy for not taking his shit.
I agree with this. Known information vs unknown is they key factor here. Player 3 correctly stated that if he counters abolisher, player 1 would obviously not cast a dockside into a known MBT. However if MBT counters abolisher, player 1 might decide to attempt a win thinking he’s drawn out the interaction. When they started arguing about it, they were just giving player 1 free information.
IMO I think player 2 did what he thought was in the best interest for him to win the game (side note player 3 said I would rather not disclose that information 100/100 times im betting you have counter magic) I think both players were over aggressive and very rude but still feel like if player 3 was playing to win he would of countered the spell but I understand player 3 doubling down
100% agree, you’re all there to win, someone being aggressive telling you what to do or revealing information they don’t have is obviously a play for him to try and win and testing to see what player 3 has. It failed. Player said stood his ground and didn’t let someone dictate his plays for what may have specifically been player 2’s benefit. Talking and bargaining is one thing, just passing is one thing, THREATENING or trying to hold a players choice hostage with aggressive attitude, much less okay in my book. I absolutely would have done the same thing.
Both players took game losing actions. After listening to the game audio, I can definitely see why player 4 took the actions he did. Even from the first statement in your clip, "Do you want to let me know what you have? Are we dead?" says the player with a known counter trying to gain additional information, and trying to deflect the blame for the loss onto the other player. They keep doing this, which causes that player to not want to give away any information or take any actions. If the fault for the loss was an insurance claim, I'd put the blame down as a 70-30 split.
Disagree, if the abolisher was countered with the MBT, the other player still had the win in hand, I would argue the player with MBT was trying to not kingmake as the thrasios player might have interaction or might even have a win on top and the MBT is much better saved for the dockside which may not come down due to the known information but that helps the whole table not die. Both were wrong in the way they approached it
I would've totally done the same. The entire table knows you have an answer, and you're holding your response hostage to force me to waste my resources? We'll all sink together, bro. If I were the player with Mindbreak Trap and the entire table knew I had it, I would've just used it.
If you were the player with the Trap and that was your only counterspell passing to the guy who has at the least a game action FACE UP on board is the right play. Forcing him to tap out into your turn without the counterspell or use a counterspell is the right play. I also understand the guy letting the game go however the argument of its CEDH and not taking actions (or lack there of) that lower your chances of winning intentionally is kind of a rule 0. This is as bad as quitting off of a bad mulligan, he should have politicked like they mentioned. THEY NEEDED 2 COUNTERS so the guy with 2 counters should have said something to that guy like I'll counter this one but you better handle the dockside. If he passed on the dockside or if he mana bullied I'd have let it go and concede but not on the abolisher.
Good for Ping. Known interaction is the double-edged sword of keeping folks at bay but putting yourself on the spot when turn order and priority come knocking. I play with both of those guys fairly frequently and appreciate keeping the spirit of the game alive and well.
Priority "Bullying" should be renamed, as it's a cEDH term and carries negative implications, but "gaslighting" is just a real world term, and MBT player was objectively gaslighting Player 4. "its up to you my friend." "you are kinda the one getting screwed here." "you are just giving him the game." - things the player with a known counterspell said
No one was wrong. They tried politicing and it didnt work out. I think the grand abolisher player played well because he hinted player 4 did have something which encouraged player 2 to pass. Player 2 wanted free information that would let him know what he had to fight over. Both were bad at politicing and they both lost. It is what it is.
What I was concerned about is whay happened afterward on Twitter was that people immediately jumped on sides (including PWP members). That was the real travesty afterward that hurt feelings and really showed what some people are like. There’s a lot of doors that could be potentially opened, and I’m hoping some people learn to take neutral positions, especially since PWP partners with the tournament organizers. Ultimately, both players made bad decisions due to factors X-Y-Z, and deserved the loss. The after-effect of it was, IMO, worse.
I think although what happened afterwards was dramatic overall it’s progressing the format forward in the right direction, ultimately good in the end as this situation would’ve happened eventually, heck this person and many others would continue to priority bully with quite unpleasant attitudes. Comparable to history events, strikes, unionisation. Stand up to the bullies fight for fairness. I think it’s good this happened
@@tibx2617 I hope so. I hope it leads to PWP team members and Eminence team members staying neutral when these situations arise. There was a lot to learn and take away from the game itself, but there is still a lot of reflection and learning to be taken away from the response on social media. Alas, I don’t think that will happen but my hopes is that the CEDH internet community is better than what they displayed earlier when this occurred.
I think it definitely competitive to try and make player two play known MBT instead of using his resources to either interact or cast his spells. Player two wanted to clear opponents interaction for himself. I don’t think either player was uncompetitive.
This is the most tournament grinder magic bullshit of all time. MTB player knew they were in a position to have to blow interaction and then immediately got personal and offensive telling someone they were “Sus” and saying “if you wanna lose that’s fine my guy”. They were a shitty car salesman act. They fucked around and found out.
My understanding was that tapping a land for mana does not use the stack and therefore doesn't reset priority? I've never seen or heard of mana abilities going on the stack. Is there a rule I'm not familiar with?
I think you're right. The rule that "resets" priority is Rule 117.3b: "117.3b: The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves." This can be combined with 117.3c: "117.3c: If a player has priority when they cast a spell, activate an ability, or take a special action, that player receives priority afterward." to tell you that when a player activates an ability or casts a spell, they receive priority again ("holding priority"), and then the *actual* reset of priority occurs when that ability/spell resolves.
It's an obscure ruling. Mana abilities dont use the stack true, but priority specifically resets when "a game action" is taken. The specific rule being "exploited", "117.4. If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves or, if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends."So even though the tapping of the land doesn't go on the stack, it counts as a literal game action so everyone gets another round of priority.
Being an action, and being on the stack, are different things. Morphing a creature is also an action that doesn't use the stack. Tapping something to generate mana is an action, and will reset priority. This can be seen even in Mtgo.
I think player 2 definitely is in the wrong. If you look at the words said and listen to the tone they're said in, he's mocking and rude, saying things like "you're the one getting screwed" and "he just wanted to go to sleep". That above all is not okay, regardless of what happens in game. He also had the revealed information to interact with Abolisher and tried to force information out of Ping when all he said was he could deal with Dockside. That could be a destroy spell in response to Curio trigger, Resculpt on Dockside, or a counter spell. Trying to bully the information when either way it takes both of you to interact is just ludicrous to me, and the fact the player tried to make it into a game of chicken and used those kind of taunts when the next player wouldn't be priority bullied is not okay. He even was given multiple chances to cast MBT and chose not to and Ping did exactly what he said he would do, that's it.
"I would rather die standing than live on my knees" And now everyone knows that player 2 is a jackass and that player 4 is no bitch, for future games' reference. I’d have done the same, no regrets.
Easy new term for priority bullying, priority squeeze or priority pressure. It's also a lot closer to the actual meaning of putting an opponent in a situation where they are pressured to use their interaction. As for passing with interaction in hand, just call it a flutter. (Informally a flutter is a small bet.)
The guy with MBT was being a jackass, thats the type of behavior that if you did that in your LGS people would shuffle up with you afterward. P4 was well within his right to pass on it. He made it clear, whether he had interaction or not, that he was willing to die on that hill
Tapping mana technically uses the stack but it can’t be responded to, even with other mana abilities, so the priority is just auto passed in that case. Mana abilities basically have super split second
@@noteveryday only one player has priority to activate abilities at a time. At the beginning of each phase the active player is the player whose turn it is. They pass priority every time they take a game action or attempt to move to the next phase
I think the player 2 had no right to priority push/bullying since he had a counterspell known. He also started the politicking cause everyone knew he had the MBT. He should have used it in the first place then the rest of the table will do their best to stop the win. They knew player 1 was gonna win there’s no point of politicking in the first place.
Also “it’s pointless to MBT bc if no one has interaction it’s over anyway”. If someone else does they’re not casting dockside into MBT. So just cast it and hope for help when you’re out. The more P2 talked the more info P1 got and briefed the table
I put more of the blame on player 2. They jocky'd for a more favorable position too many times. Fact is player 1 thought they had MBT beat if no one had anything else. So if player 3 is forced to interact, they aren't going to shove their win into the still present MBT, but they may or may not have shoved dockside win into player 3's unknown interaction. Player 3 flat out said they could handle the combo. I think player 2 just got too greedy.
If player 2 came at me like that I dont give af, im passing prio. He was cool with losing the game when he passed prio, shouldn't be mad when players don't play how they want.
I probably have a misunderstand about what happened, but it was mentioned that for priority bullying someone would request player 4 to tap a land to start a new round of priority, but if mana abilities don't use the stack and can't be responded to how would that work?
Yeah, I’ve seen this in a few videos now, the Rograk player tapped their Mox, but idk how that reset the stack, because that doesnt go on the stack, I wish a judge talked on this so we knew what happened and if that was just a misplay or what
117.4. If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves or, if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends. Simply, "rounds of priority" don't exist as such. Spells and phases only resolve and end respectively when all players pass priority in sequence. Activating a mana ability is taking an action - not passing - so when that player then passes priority, they are the first in sequence to pass and all other players must follow suit for the game to progress automatically.
@@delta3244 Thank you! I actually dug deeper into this because it’s really an interesting topic of discussion that not a lot of people know about. I let my LGS players know and they were also confused but knowing now how to explain it really helps!
No need to find new terminology for priority bullying. It perfectly describes what's happening. Oxford Languages defines bully as "seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable)." No reason to cater to fragile minds. This is the correct term.
What generally frustrates me is that every single player gaslights Ping in this scenario when Waffle is literally the only one with known information. It's a very frustrating situation overall.
I have a crazy suggestion. When you're fed up with priority pushing and you really want to force the player who has interaction to use it; just don't run blue XD.
If someone attempts to control you, and you refuse to be controlled, that does NOT make you manipulative. This was NOT a case of "mutual" bullying. It does inspire me to bluff a counter and bait people like Mr.Mindbreak when I do not have counter-magic though...that way I can reveal my hand as empty after we all lose... 😁😈🤪
There’s also a staunch difference between politicking and bullying. It’s easier to say if there’s no known info. If no one knows p2 has MBT, passing is fine because p3 is more obliged to activate thrasios. But GA was cast into MBT. There’s a back up or a back up back up to this if he’s just jamming it. Cast your counter and rely on interaction to stop a back up win attempt.
Regarding Priority Exploitation, Player 2 in first position had the the nuts and folded. He deserved to lose. You see this in poker all the time. The button player always has an advantage. Even with the loss, Player 4 is now in Player 1’s head in that it’s known that in future games, he could pass priority in a game ending situation.
my personal take is that if the player had successfully pulled of the politics, this would have instead been seen as a master class in cedh politics vs a kingmaking scenario.
From what i remember of the dialogue p4 said he could manage dockside. And nothing else. What that tells me is that hes not coming to the table unless mbt gets resolved. Thats telling the rest of the table all they need about his stance, totally defensible. That said p1 had defense grid in the yard and an open goblin engineer, so it really was a moot point all round. It kinda bums me out that everyone is talking about the drama and not the player with the great mardu deck that won. I think theres a time and place for priority pressure or whatever but i think this was managed pretty badly by p2. The language was not great and from the perspective of p4 it really wouldnt matter who won if it wasn't gonna be him.
I don't get why anyone would be salty at SOMEONE ELSE'S game's outcome! Agree or disagree with what happened, but don't throw stones when you weren't the one personally involved.
Considering the fact that this result sets a mild precedence, it's important to have a community discussion about the problem. If you don't want people talking about you, it's best advised that you don't make $300 dollar losing decisions that impact the overall environment of cEDH gameplay. I'm very much on Ping's side here. There's a time for politics and there's a time not for that.
@@nicholas8739 I don't think there's anything wrong about discussing it, in fact I welcome that, but getting upset and sending threats or other negative messages aren't warranted.
Wow, just realised that the problem i had with these rules was truly: 1) the loaded language and 2) the use or ommision of these interactions by different players (some use it, some don't) 3) lastly, the lying, if you say (promise) you won't do something, you shouldn't do it (or your word means nothing for a long time/forever)
@@hang03 Learn something new everyday. Thanks for the info! It's rule 117.4 for any dummies like me who thought they knew better than seasoned cEDH players lol
the difference between priority bullying and gaslighting is the verbal component. In the clip provided, MBT player was being very much an asshole and was using gaslighting tactics to actually manipulate the following player in priority. If he just passed priority once without stating that if the last player did nothing then the last player would be throwing the game repeatedly and aggressively, that's priority bullying. Adding in the verbal manipulation is what crosses the line from acceptable gameplay to actual gaslighting. Its the difference between blowing somebody out in combat and yelling at them disrespectfully and belittling them for their error, and simply calmly executing the game actions and offering a good game handshake afterwards. The situations are mechanically the same but contextually vastly different.
I dont know if this is valid. But as player 4 in te stack I would have said to player 2 that if he passes I am reporting him for giving the win to other person or at least trying to do it, and then using my interaction after the Thrasios activation and failing to find. Its a format where you always try to win and others try to stop you, I dont know if its a rule or it should be, but people should use known interaction or actions to stop other's win attempt, if you dont do that you are giving the win to the other player, therefore I have the right to suspect that you are colluded with the guy that is trying to win. What are your thoughts guys?
I think this has been pushed a bit farther than it needs to be. He wasn’t necessarily priority bullying, I think he was asking what he had initially for another threat for a decent reason. He wanted the dockside exiled rather than the grand abolisher. Semi fair for a bit, but towards the end it got out of hand.
Using priority to your advantage is not always “mana bullying” I think, but what player 2 did was 100% “priority bullying”. Known info is completely different from unknown information, and it was the behavior of player 2 that was an issue
Noone was wrong other than the person saying "You're losing us the game if you don't stop this". This is just wildly disingenuous, they had interaction as well and if they decide to priority bully to force someone else's interaction, they're just as guilty of the loss as the last player. Edit: I think exploitation might be a little charged, but it does describe the situation well as you're essentially treating the other player like a resource, another hand, to be exploited.
Thats table politics. If as the last player in prio you always let the enemy "bully" you into using your interaction, you will have issues on the long run. If as the first player you always immediately use your interaction without "bullying" the people behind you into taking action, you will have issues in the long run. I feel like "player 1" was kinda in more of a reasonable spot here saying "if i blow my mbt here i wanna see sth for it". He gave word he will spend his card, but he wants to have the last player spend ressources on it aswell. Basicly he is looking for a deal "i trade my mbt vs gaining information about you". The deal offered (assuming player 1 would also hold his word), both players were in a position to stop the win. Player 1 by casting mbt. Player 4 by resetting prio to make player 1 hold his word and then use mbt in a new round of prio. Also the general gamestate matters. If player 4 feels if he uses his ressources now he aint gonna win the game anyways, passing hardly makes a difference. And then i´d rather see the player win that goes for it than the player that tried to save his interaction. If player 1 felt he would lose anyway if he gives up on his mbt, he´d rather see the guy who goes for it winning, than the one who refuses to activate thrasios to stop it. We have had this happen on our tables and i think its fair game. There could be any variety of deals made. You could also make a deal with the others saying "look i have 1 mbt as interaction. If i blow this the next one to go for the win will have 1 player less with interaction. So i require we do not make a win attempt next turn cycle". Multiplayer will have diplomacy. In german we say "wenn sich zwei streiten freut sich der dritte" (when two people argue, the third celebrates). They couldnt make a deal that both are happy with, so both lose. Fair enough.
This honestly just seems like this is blown out of proportion. Its a competitive game and people are using their own strategies to try and get the best outcome for themselves.
Maybe this is a super hot take and a pretty flawed idea, but from an outside perspective (I only play EDH) I feel like these kind of situations where multiple players have known interaction against a win-con but refuse to play any of it because of priority bullying could be put into a situation where one player is forced to play their interaction. For example have each player roll 2 d6s and the player with the lowest rolls is decided to be the one who'll play their interaction. This approach itself would be hard to codify into the rules and probably open to exploitation in different ways but at least it would in my view prevent situations like this where priority bullying causes players to argue and not play competitively.
Sigi (what ever happened to that guy? is labmaniacs still around?) warned us about this years ago and had that open letter, anyone remember that? I wish the RC would take responsibility for a few of the inellegancies in the format. maybe priority bullying couldn't be totally solved by some intervention by the RC, but i bet it could be reduced. I'm just saying it would be nice if they at least tried. or at least addressed the issue. has Sheldon said anything about the subject ever?
I'll play devils advocate because I know this will be incredibly unpopular. I wish politics and information commingling was prohibited in cEDH and people played mostly silently, aside from taking taking an action or passing, so the person who's last in priority isn't leaned on or "pushed" into playing their interaction. Example: If player 1 goes for a win and player 2 has interaction, they should be responsible for using their interaction and if they pass on the hopes that players 3 and 4 have interaction and they don't, the game is over. This would mitigate a lot of the shitty behavior and poor politics that cEDH encourages.
Integrity above all. Not only gaslighting from p2, it was a complete negative IQ from p2 to try and force others to act when it was known he had interaction. P2 was inherently in a weaker position, period. Trying to shift blame, disrespect others and try to be "smart", only strengthened p1 position as he could wait another turn to combo, where had p2 taken the bullet without inadvertently helping p1, p1 would likely try to combo and lose his piece to p3-4.
It looks to me like there is an attempt to communicate and strategize by two players, and one player (Ping) tries to avoid communication. Then Freedom loses his cool a little bit and from there it's basically over.
I just really hope player one had some popcorn ready so they could watch the MBT player hand them the game. Seems like a ridiculous interaction. Player four telling them they could handle the dockside was more than enough info to share. So asking for more was pretty greedy. What’s next? Every time someone has a thassa’s Oracle on the stack I need to show my hand to a player before they will counter it?
The bully is 100% in the wrong. Mana bullying screams I’m going for a win. So he’s trying to get someone to kingmake for him. It’s sad anyone defends this and it’s sad that Cedh it devolving to this sad shit
Both had a point, where is the issue? I make the thrassios player dig before I use my stuff, because they are sitting there with mana up and cards to draw.
Okay but one had KNOWN interaction it wasn’t known the thrasios player had interaction until after so in that moment the only one who SHOULD have cast the spell is the guy with MBT bc he’s the only one that had guaranteed interaction (obviously we found out that wasn’t the case later)
I feel like it was bullying though. Player with MBT was accusing the Thrasios player of throwing the game even though he had a known counterspell. He should have just played to his out
I'm not sure if I missed it but I would like to point out that while they were doing the same thing the person who was first in priority was the one abusing their position of power.
I don't think this is a hard conversation at all. All those accusations on player 4 are EXACTLY the same. "Omg he passed with a counterspell in hand" player 2 literally had that face up. I'll never be convinced otherwise
I think priority bullying is annoying and bad for the game. But it is currently something that is allowed within the rules (wich were clearly made for 1v1 play where it doesn't exist) and therefore I think it is totally ok to use it. Imo, future TOs or even the RC should create a new rule that sais that activating mana abilities doesn't reset priority. This would have little impact on anything other than priority bullying (the only thing I can think of is an Urza player tapping a Trinisphere for mana and giving priority back to a player who couldn't interact before because of the Trinisphere).
I really respect y’all experience but I do think bullying and exploitation are the correct terms in a version of the game that seeks to be competitive, especially in a tournament context. To use a baseball analogy the positional defensive shift to exploit a ruling that disadvantages hitters that primarily pull the ball appears scummy but was for many teams it is the most competitive approach and in the confines of the game they were taking advantage of an opposing player difficulties. In multiplayer magic turn order has an implied effect on the game that is unavoidable, and subject to chance, therefore, like all other games their are rules that can be exploited to utilize an inherent advantage to assist in attain victory. Again this is contingent upon the spirit of Cedh being about taking steps to win the game as the primary objective. Bullying someone within the rules and confines of the games is part of being competitive and playing to win. If winning wasn’t the primary objective this wouldn’t be a discussion but it is. I do think that it is complicated but magic is the most complicated game in existence and this just feels like part of playing the game competitively in a multiplayer format based on the current rules. I think the greater issue is the lack of ability of people to conceptualize “bullying” in a game is what makes it have the potential to be competitive within the confines of the game. Lastly, i do not condone cheating as that is not utilizing rules to gain an edge rather it is taking actions beyond the game to gain an advantage. Also, politicing and discussion should not involve things outside the game like threats, insults, or personal attacks.
So I've known about what I've always referred to as "mana bullying" since before this, with a similar idea, except instead of trying to make opponents use their interaction, just simply forcing the pair of non-win attempting opponents to tap an equal number of lands (between them) to you (basically they tap, you tap, they tap, ect until you stop and play your spell), and doing this in order to make your opponent have less mana to interact on your turn. Personally I've always been of the opinion that to not participate in the mana bully, even if you hate it, should be seen as kingmaking and very much not allowed (so long as I don't have a known win. I might have a probably win, but if its not known, i may not actually have it, if its known, thats a whole different thing). Talking "spirit" of either the format, in my opinion, the spirit is to *win*. I think cEDH should be about trying to make the high percentage play at all times (now saying that, I keep my word while playing cEDH, but i wont make a promise that guarantees I lose - see what P4 did), but in either the case in the tourny or in my example case, both have a known 100% way to not lose right this second: just tap your mana to force the MBT out eventually because he cant keep bouncing priority, This method also works to keep the force in hand (because MTB will end up being used if you just pass the priority back to him enough times), so even if he does have a win, you still have free interaction, even if you completely tap out (which in this case, i dont believe P4 would end up completely tapped). TL;DR, I think cEDH is about winning, and in this case, even if P4 didnt want to cast his spell, he had another out that didn't force it that he should have used instead, and by passing he threw the game, which is not about winning, and not what cEDH is about Edit: got to the part of the video where they specifically talk about mana bullying. Could be that I'm completely at odds and in the minority for how i think about cEDH, could be that I'm to new to the format to have dealt with mana bullying enough to despise it and believe it has no place. Not sure which it is, but for now I think my above opinion holds true
I am of the opinion in tournaments this is acceptable behavior, anywhere else not a chance. Instead of “bullying”maybe change it to “politicing” just my 2 cents
"they were both bullying each other". THANK YOU Ryan! I thought I was a crazy person here, almost exclusively hearing that ping was the one getting bullied...
@@slymcfly123 There are other complicating factors (such as MBT being better saved for dockside, but there are others) that add up to me thinking it's not quite as simple as you're presenting here. And for that reason I don't quite agree with what you're saying. But that's ok, I'm not trying to change your mind! :)
@Thomas Noonan they both could have made some kind of agreement but it was clear player 2 believed he could get player 4 do act with the risk of the game on the line. That's bullying and Player 4 recognized it and decided not to play along.
So much focus is on Players 2 and 4. I agree that they both were wrong here, but overall I'm on P4's side. I think. Maybe. But more interesting to me is Player 3's perspective. They lost entirely because these two were so busy fighting. They brought up the very real fact that Mindbreak Trap *exiles* the target, making it much better to save and permanently deal with Dockside Extortionist - making Player 2's choice not simply a priority bullying issue, but a strategic one. I can't tell if Player 4 factored that in or ignored it entirely, as there was a lot of arguing and also I'm not a mind reader.
"lets not use terms like bullying and gaslighting, it makes people not want to play our game" why am I not shocked a manipulator wants to protect other manipulators. First and last time I'll waste time watching one of these.
I think player 2 made a good move. Your every action should be taken to win. Player 2 was trying to increase his chances and player 4 was willing to lose to prove a point. One of these is not cEDH in my mind.
I agree initially. However after priority had been reset and player 2 had their chance to cast MBT they were aware player 3 would not be intimidated. So the correct choice to increase their odds of winning was to cast their MBT.
I think Player 2 is the insane one. Why would you ever think you have leverage in that situation with a KNOWN counter spell. He made the decision to lose $300.
Everyone agrees MBT would be better saved for dockside and Ping has no response except “I’m gonna make us all lose because I can” I’m 100% with waffle on this one.
MBT guy was wrong, you have the known counter.
Onus is on you to respond or accept that the game can be lost because you cannot control other players (barring spell effects that can let you)
I think the focus on P4 is incorrect. P2 made it known they had the mbt. They wanted to use their position to try and gamble with the other players and he lost.
P4 did absolutely nothing wrong. They didn't reveal any interaction at the time. P2 is the actual buschleage player for thinking he could politic a game ending play. It's the definition of fuck around and find out
Also Ryan. The reason people were mentioning gaslighting is because player 2 was absolutely gaslighting player 3. "I know you want to sandbag YOUR interaction", "you're throwing the game". All things said by a player with a known counterspell in hand. Language, and tone specifically meant to dishonestly call into question player 3's perception of reality.
Yep the idea that this is equal here is kinda crazy. One person immediately had an argumentative tone and tried to politic everyone with a threat that got met with another threat. Don’t start anything, won’t be anything.
I disagree. Player 3 refused to have a reasonable discussion and was passive aggressive. I think player 2 made the right plays.
@@cdee34 I agree with Ryan below here. Player2 was asking the table to have a discussion about what everyone had so they could coordinate how to stop player1. Player3 and 4 were being childish and refusing to cooperate, Player2 repeatedly said they would spend their MBT just that spending it on the abolisher was not a smart decision.
@@danielschmidt7143 You might need to rewatch the clip. Player 4 was completely in player 2's camp saying they should save the MBT for dockside. Player 2 was the one that demanded info, and gaslighted player 3. They lied about being willing to cast MBT, they had multiple opportunities and chose not to.
Using MBT on abolisher doesn't stop the win attempt so there was no gaslighting there
I disagree with Ryan stating they were bullying each other. It was known information he had mindbreak trap. The other guy was only assuming he had interaction. They weren't saying the same thing. One was known, and one wasn't.
Agreed. Plus no one seems to be addressing the physical/psychological aspect of the MBT player , who was acting very aggressive and rude. That in itself, regardless of what game we are playing, would cause me to stiff arm someone. It’s a life lesson: you have to try to contain your frustration under stress. Talking over people and acting aggressively pushes people away. The Thrassios player was at least acting cool and calm. I’m with him.
They even said they don't like "mana bullying". Bro kept saying well tap out for Thrasios and if you don't have anything it'll reset prio for me. Player 2 was aggressive and thinking he could bully players into playing how he wanted. Fuck that guy.
It’s fairly obvious one party was aggressive from the start. This zero tolerance kind of “well everyone is wrong” doesn’t happen without someone starting it.
@@cdee34 I get that they're supposed to be a neutral party, but if they're gonna supply a clip like they, no other way to look at it besides that guy was a douche. You act like a bitch, don't be mad when you get fucked over.
"Priority bullying" is a legit tool to employ.
That said, player B telling to player D that he's giving player A the game *with known interaction in hand* is just dumb
In the clip I thought the non-MBT player brought up a good point that I haven't seen talked about much - If I tell you what my interaction is or use it on the Grand Abolisher, then they won't end up casting the Dockside yet at all, whereas if you use the MBT now with no further discussion they'll still go for it.
That would be true if the non-MBT player hadn't said "I can deal with dockside". Now the person trying to win knows either of them can stop it.
@Thomas Noonan MBT player having that information still opted to not use his resource and put player 4 behind the 8 ball, then blamed player 4 for not giving in.
@@slymcfly123 Yup! I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. I just liked that Ryan acknowledged that Player four blamed the other guy too just the same. A lot of people seem to be ignoring that "this is a two way street" / "it takes two to tango" / whatever your favorite idiom is. :P
My guess is that it the "Playing with Power" crew universally started using a new terminology consistently, the rest of the cEDH community would follow suit. I see that "priority pushing" was suggested, but that has some of the same pitfalls (i.e., pushing is a form of bullying). I suggest "Leveraging Priority" - truer to the nature of the situation.
I don’t know man, if they were being respectful about it I’d totally agree with using different terminology but as we've all seen they were pretty aggressively pushing player 4 and he decided not to give in. In this situation using different terminology just feels like sugarcoating the shitty situation they put player 4 in..
Priority bullying is a big issue.
You wouldn't attempt to do it without additional intentions, it's not just resolving an issue together, it's gaining advantage off of someone else's win attempt to win yourself.
it comes down to known and unknown information. if it wasn't known that player 2 had the MBT before passing priority its all cool. But him passing like he did is 100% him announcing "i can stop this but im not going to because i think you have an answer and i want more value" it was a very shitty move on the MBT player IMO and he is the one that gave away the game. cheers to the other guy for not taking his shit.
I agree with this. Known information vs unknown is they key factor here. Player 3 correctly stated that if he counters abolisher, player 1 would obviously not cast a dockside into a known MBT. However if MBT counters abolisher, player 1 might decide to attempt a win thinking he’s drawn out the interaction. When they started arguing about it, they were just giving player 1 free information.
IMO I think player 2 did what he thought was in the best interest for him to win the game (side note player 3 said I would rather not disclose that information 100/100 times im betting you have counter magic) I think both players were over aggressive and very rude but still feel like if player 3 was playing to win he would of countered the spell but I understand player 3 doubling down
100% agree, you’re all there to win, someone being aggressive telling you what to do or revealing information they don’t have is obviously a play for him to try and win and testing to see what player 3 has. It failed. Player said stood his ground and didn’t let someone dictate his plays for what may have specifically been player 2’s benefit. Talking and bargaining is one thing, just passing is one thing, THREATENING or trying to hold a players choice hostage with aggressive attitude, much less okay in my book. I absolutely would have done the same thing.
Both players took game losing actions. After listening to the game audio, I can definitely see why player 4 took the actions he did. Even from the first statement in your clip, "Do you want to let me know what you have? Are we dead?" says the player with a known counter trying to gain additional information, and trying to deflect the blame for the loss onto the other player. They keep doing this, which causes that player to not want to give away any information or take any actions. If the fault for the loss was an insurance claim, I'd put the blame down as a 70-30 split.
Disagree, if the abolisher was countered with the MBT, the other player still had the win in hand, I would argue the player with MBT was trying to not kingmake as the thrasios player might have interaction or might even have a win on top and the MBT is much better saved for the dockside which may not come down due to the known information but that helps the whole table not die. Both were wrong in the way they approached it
@@PhoenixRNH Ping said he could take care of the Dockside which was Resculpt in his hand.
I see both sides but I like what boshnroll said roughly on sadnaus, "I'm going to play responsibly if I have interaction I'm going to use it"
I would've totally done the same. The entire table knows you have an answer, and you're holding your response hostage to force me to waste my resources? We'll all sink together, bro.
If I were the player with Mindbreak Trap and the entire table knew I had it, I would've just used it.
Then you lose to a reanimate or underworld on dockside, the point was to exile the dockside
@@chritsfootballs Like I said, we'll all sink together. Blame the person who had the response but chose to be a jerk about it.
If you were the player with the Trap and that was your only counterspell passing to the guy who has at the least a game action FACE UP on board is the right play. Forcing him to tap out into your turn without the counterspell or use a counterspell is the right play. I also understand the guy letting the game go however the argument of its CEDH and not taking actions (or lack there of) that lower your chances of winning intentionally is kind of a rule 0. This is as bad as quitting off of a bad mulligan, he should have politicked like they mentioned. THEY NEEDED 2 COUNTERS so the guy with 2 counters should have said something to that guy like I'll counter this one but you better handle the dockside. If he passed on the dockside or if he mana bullied I'd have let it go and concede but not on the abolisher.
Good for Ping. Known interaction is the double-edged sword of keeping folks at bay but putting yourself on the spot when turn order and priority come knocking. I play with both of those guys fairly frequently and appreciate keeping the spirit of the game alive and well.
Priority "Bullying" should be renamed, as it's a cEDH term and carries negative implications, but "gaslighting" is just a real world term, and MBT player was objectively gaslighting Player 4. "its up to you my friend." "you are kinda the one getting screwed here." "you are just giving him the game." - things the player with a known counterspell said
No one was wrong. They tried politicing and it didnt work out. I think the grand abolisher player played well because he hinted player 4 did have something which encouraged player 2 to pass. Player 2 wanted free information that would let him know what he had to fight over. Both were bad at politicing and they both lost. It is what it is.
Mindbreak should have been cast in this scenario specifically because it was known.
Priority bullying only makes sense with unknown info.
What I was concerned about is whay happened afterward on Twitter was that people immediately jumped on sides (including PWP members). That was the real travesty afterward that hurt feelings and really showed what some people are like.
There’s a lot of doors that could be potentially opened, and I’m hoping some people learn to take neutral positions, especially since PWP partners with the tournament organizers.
Ultimately, both players made bad decisions due to factors X-Y-Z, and deserved the loss. The after-effect of it was, IMO, worse.
I think although what happened afterwards was dramatic overall it’s progressing the format forward in the right direction, ultimately good in the end as this situation would’ve happened eventually, heck this person and many others would continue to priority bully with quite unpleasant attitudes. Comparable to history events, strikes, unionisation. Stand up to the bullies fight for fairness. I think it’s good this happened
@@tibx2617 I hope so. I hope it leads to PWP team members and Eminence team members staying neutral when these situations arise. There was a lot to learn and take away from the game itself, but there is still a lot of reflection and learning to be taken away from the response on social media. Alas, I don’t think that will happen but my hopes is that the CEDH internet community is better than what they displayed earlier when this occurred.
I think it definitely competitive to try and make player two play known MBT instead of using his resources to either interact or cast his spells. Player two wanted to clear opponents interaction for himself. I don’t think either player was uncompetitive.
This is the most tournament grinder magic bullshit of all time. MTB player knew they were in a position to have to blow interaction and then immediately got personal and offensive telling someone they were “Sus” and saying “if you wanna lose that’s fine my guy”. They were a shitty car salesman act. They fucked around and found out.
Sounds more like an attitude and personal attack/language thing than actual gameplay mechanics to me in this case
My understanding was that tapping a land for mana does not use the stack and therefore doesn't reset priority? I've never seen or heard of mana abilities going on the stack. Is there a rule I'm not familiar with?
Pretty sure you're right
Double checked you are correct podcasters are wrong.
I think you're right. The rule that "resets" priority is Rule 117.3b:
"117.3b: The active player receives priority after a spell or ability (other than a mana ability) resolves."
This can be combined with 117.3c:
"117.3c: If a player has priority when they cast a spell, activate an ability, or take a special action, that player receives priority afterward." to tell you that when a player activates an ability or casts a spell, they receive priority again ("holding priority"), and then the *actual* reset of priority occurs when that ability/spell resolves.
It's an obscure ruling. Mana abilities dont use the stack true, but priority specifically resets when "a game action" is taken. The specific rule being "exploited", "117.4. If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves or, if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends."So even though the tapping of the land doesn't go on the stack, it counts as a literal game action so everyone gets another round of priority.
Being an action, and being on the stack, are different things. Morphing a creature is also an action that doesn't use the stack.
Tapping something to generate mana is an action, and will reset priority. This can be seen even in Mtgo.
I've got a blue farm deck, it's farm themed and runs some blue.
I think player 2 definitely is in the wrong. If you look at the words said and listen to the tone they're said in, he's mocking and rude, saying things like "you're the one getting screwed" and "he just wanted to go to sleep". That above all is not okay, regardless of what happens in game. He also had the revealed information to interact with Abolisher and tried to force information out of Ping when all he said was he could deal with Dockside. That could be a destroy spell in response to Curio trigger, Resculpt on Dockside, or a counter spell. Trying to bully the information when either way it takes both of you to interact is just ludicrous to me, and the fact the player tried to make it into a game of chicken and used those kind of taunts when the next player wouldn't be priority bullied is not okay. He even was given multiple chances to cast MBT and chose not to and Ping did exactly what he said he would do, that's it.
I didn't know tapping for mana reset priority, I thought since it didn't go into the stack it didn't.
Same
I'm in the Player 4 camp because after 10 hours of Magic and only $250 on the line - I'd rather go outside then continue playing the game
"I would rather die standing than live on my knees"
And now everyone knows that player 2 is a jackass and that player 4 is no bitch, for future games' reference. I’d have done the same, no regrets.
Easy new term for priority bullying, priority squeeze or priority pressure. It's also a lot closer to the actual meaning of putting an opponent in a situation where they are pressured to use their interaction. As for passing with interaction in hand, just call it a flutter. (Informally a flutter is a small bet.)
There’s a huge difference between passing to someone you know has a counterspell and someone you know has a Thrasios activation.
The guy with MBT was being a jackass, thats the type of behavior that if you did that in your LGS people would shuffle up with you afterward.
P4 was well within his right to pass on it. He made it clear, whether he had interaction or not, that he was willing to die on that hill
Maybe tapping mana specifically doesn’t use the stack and thus shouldn’t create new round of priority. Thrasios activation is a different story
Tapping mana technically uses the stack but it can’t be responded to, even with other mana abilities, so the priority is just auto passed in that case. Mana abilities basically have super split second
@@noteveryday only one player has priority to activate abilities at a time. At the beginning of each phase the active player is the player whose turn it is. They pass priority every time they take a game action or attempt to move to the next phase
@@prestonrasmussen1758 just saying that people should be allowed to regain priority from just tapping mana
I think the player 2 had no right to priority push/bullying since he had a counterspell known. He also started the politicking cause everyone knew he had the MBT. He should have used it in the first place then the rest of the table will do their best to stop the win. They knew player 1 was gonna win there’s no point of politicking in the first place.
Also “it’s pointless to MBT bc if no one has interaction it’s over anyway”. If someone else does they’re not casting dockside into MBT. So just cast it and hope for help when you’re out. The more P2 talked the more info P1 got and briefed the table
"Cowards die many times before their own death. The valiant never taste of death but once."
- Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
I put more of the blame on player 2. They jocky'd for a more favorable position too many times. Fact is player 1 thought they had MBT beat if no one had anything else. So if player 3 is forced to interact, they aren't going to shove their win into the still present MBT, but they may or may not have shoved dockside win into player 3's unknown interaction. Player 3 flat out said they could handle the combo. I think player 2 just got too greedy.
If player 2 came at me like that I dont give af, im passing prio. He was cool with losing the game when he passed prio, shouldn't be mad when players don't play how they want.
I probably have a misunderstand about what happened, but it was mentioned that for priority bullying someone would request player 4 to tap a land to start a new round of priority, but if mana abilities don't use the stack and can't be responded to how would that work?
Yeah, I’ve seen this in a few videos now, the Rograk player tapped their Mox, but idk how that reset the stack, because that doesnt go on the stack, I wish a judge talked on this so we knew what happened and if that was just a misplay or what
117.4. If all players pass in succession (that is, if all players pass without taking any actions in between passing), the spell or ability on top of the stack resolves or, if the stack is empty, the phase or step ends.
Simply, "rounds of priority" don't exist as such. Spells and phases only resolve and end respectively when all players pass priority in sequence.
Activating a mana ability is taking an action - not passing - so when that player then passes priority, they are the first in sequence to pass and all other players must follow suit for the game to progress automatically.
@@delta3244 Thank you! I actually dug deeper into this because it’s really an interesting topic of discussion that not a lot of people know about. I let my LGS players know and they were also confused but knowing now how to explain it really helps!
No need to find new terminology for priority bullying. It perfectly describes what's happening. Oxford Languages defines bully as "seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable)." No reason to cater to fragile minds. This is the correct term.
What generally frustrates me is that every single player gaslights Ping in this scenario when Waffle is literally the only one with known information. It's a very frustrating situation overall.
I have a crazy suggestion. When you're fed up with priority pushing and you really want to force the player who has interaction to use it; just don't run blue XD.
And I'll just be junding over here with my Shepard in play and Pyroblast in hand.
I mean I spent $300 on a few booster boxes so is the prize more important than the lesson? I don’t think so.
If someone attempts to control you, and you refuse to be controlled, that does NOT make you manipulative. This was NOT a case of "mutual" bullying.
It does inspire me to bluff a counter and bait people like Mr.Mindbreak when I do not have counter-magic though...that way I can reveal my hand as empty after we all lose... 😁😈🤪
I have saying at the table: "I don't negotiate with terrorists"
People know I won't be bullied and would rather take the loss :)
I don’t understand how tapping a land resets priority. Mana abilities don’t use the stack, so how does that introduce a new priority?
There’s also a staunch difference between politicking and bullying. It’s easier to say if there’s no known info. If no one knows p2 has MBT, passing is fine because p3 is more obliged to activate thrasios. But GA was cast into MBT. There’s a back up or a back up back up to this if he’s just jamming it. Cast your counter and rely on interaction to stop a back up win attempt.
Does anyone know what else player 2 had? The one with the mindbreak
Regarding Priority Exploitation, Player 2 in first position had the the nuts and folded. He deserved to lose. You see this in poker all the time. The button player always has an advantage. Even with the loss, Player 4 is now in Player 1’s head in that it’s known that in future games, he could pass priority in a game ending situation.
my personal take is that if the player had successfully pulled of the politics, this would have instead been seen as a master class in cedh politics vs a kingmaking scenario.
From what i remember of the dialogue p4 said he could manage dockside. And nothing else. What that tells me is that hes not coming to the table unless mbt gets resolved. Thats telling the rest of the table all they need about his stance, totally defensible.
That said p1 had defense grid in the yard and an open goblin engineer, so it really was a moot point all round. It kinda bums me out that everyone is talking about the drama and not the player with the great mardu deck that won.
I think theres a time and place for priority pressure or whatever but i think this was managed pretty badly by p2. The language was not great and from the perspective of p4 it really wouldnt matter who won if it wasn't gonna be him.
Can we get a link to that persons TH-cam channel?
I don't get why anyone would be salty at SOMEONE ELSE'S game's outcome! Agree or disagree with what happened, but don't throw stones when you weren't the one personally involved.
I think it's fair to be salty at someone else's actions during the game though. They perpetuate a bad part of the culture.
Considering the fact that this result sets a mild precedence, it's important to have a community discussion about the problem. If you don't want people talking about you, it's best advised that you don't make $300 dollar losing decisions that impact the overall environment of cEDH gameplay. I'm very much on Ping's side here. There's a time for politics and there's a time not for that.
@@nicholas8739 I don't think there's anything wrong about discussing it, in fact I welcome that, but getting upset and sending threats or other negative messages aren't warranted.
@@Varler_ Agree there. I just haven't seen the threats and whatever. Just a TON of discussion.
Wow, just realised that the problem i had with these rules was truly: 1) the loaded language and 2) the use or ommision of these interactions by different players (some use it, some don't) 3) lastly, the lying, if you say (promise) you won't do something, you shouldn't do it (or your word means nothing for a long time/forever)
3:40 I'm pretty sure you can't respond to someone tapping a land. Mana abilities don't use the stack, so they don't create a new round of priority.
You can, because the CR uses the term "any action", which includes tapping land for mana
@@hang03 Learn something new everyday. Thanks for the info! It's rule 117.4 for any dummies like me who thought they knew better than seasoned cEDH players lol
How does mana bullying work? I thought that mana abilities don't use stack
You catch more honeys being fly.😎
So you are saying I should run more Silence/Grand Abolisher/Myriel/Dromoka?
the difference between priority bullying and gaslighting is the verbal component. In the clip provided, MBT player was being very much an asshole and was using gaslighting tactics to actually manipulate the following player in priority. If he just passed priority once without stating that if the last player did nothing then the last player would be throwing the game repeatedly and aggressively, that's priority bullying. Adding in the verbal manipulation is what crosses the line from acceptable gameplay to actual gaslighting.
Its the difference between blowing somebody out in combat and yelling at them disrespectfully and belittling them for their error, and simply calmly executing the game actions and offering a good game handshake afterwards. The situations are mechanically the same but contextually vastly different.
Don't the rules specifically state that mana abilities both do not require priority and do not cause a new round of priority?
I dont know if this is valid. But as player 4 in te stack I would have said to player 2 that if he passes I am reporting him for giving the win to other person or at least trying to do it, and then using my interaction after the Thrasios activation and failing to find. Its a format where you always try to win and others try to stop you, I dont know if its a rule or it should be, but people should use known interaction or actions to stop other's win attempt, if you dont do that you are giving the win to the other player, therefore I have the right to suspect that you are colluded with the guy that is trying to win. What are your thoughts guys?
I think this has been pushed a bit farther than it needs to be. He wasn’t necessarily priority bullying, I think he was asking what he had initially for another threat for a decent reason. He wanted the dockside exiled rather than the grand abolisher. Semi fair for a bit, but towards the end it got out of hand.
Using priority to your advantage is not always “mana bullying” I think, but what player 2 did was 100% “priority bullying”. Known info is completely different from unknown information, and it was the behavior of player 2 that was an issue
Noone was wrong other than the person saying "You're losing us the game if you don't stop this". This is just wildly disingenuous, they had interaction as well and if they decide to priority bully to force someone else's interaction, they're just as guilty of the loss as the last player. Edit: I think exploitation might be a little charged, but it does describe the situation well as you're essentially treating the other player like a resource, another hand, to be exploited.
This is exactly what he was doing. He essentially told the other player he was there to allow him to win. Player 2 was not cool.
Thats table politics.
If as the last player in prio you always let the enemy "bully" you into using your interaction, you will have issues on the long run.
If as the first player you always immediately use your interaction without "bullying" the people behind you into taking action, you will have issues in the long run.
I feel like "player 1" was kinda in more of a reasonable spot here saying "if i blow my mbt here i wanna see sth for it". He gave word he will spend his card, but he wants to have the last player spend ressources on it aswell. Basicly he is looking for a deal "i trade my mbt vs gaining information about you".
The deal offered (assuming player 1 would also hold his word), both players were in a position to stop the win. Player 1 by casting mbt. Player 4 by resetting prio to make player 1 hold his word and then use mbt in a new round of prio.
Also the general gamestate matters. If player 4 feels if he uses his ressources now he aint gonna win the game anyways, passing hardly makes a difference. And then i´d rather see the player win that goes for it than the player that tried to save his interaction.
If player 1 felt he would lose anyway if he gives up on his mbt, he´d rather see the guy who goes for it winning, than the one who refuses to activate thrasios to stop it.
We have had this happen on our tables and i think its fair game. There could be any variety of deals made. You could also make a deal with the others saying "look i have 1 mbt as interaction. If i blow this the next one to go for the win will have 1 player less with interaction. So i require we do not make a win attempt next turn cycle".
Multiplayer will have diplomacy. In german we say "wenn sich zwei streiten freut sich der dritte" (when two people argue, the third celebrates).
They couldnt make a deal that both are happy with, so both lose. Fair enough.
This honestly just seems like this is blown out of proportion. Its a competitive game and people are using their own strategies to try and get the best outcome for themselves.
Maybe this is a super hot take and a pretty flawed idea, but from an outside perspective (I only play EDH) I feel like these kind of situations where multiple players have known interaction against a win-con but refuse to play any of it because of priority bullying could be put into a situation where one player is forced to play their interaction. For example have each player roll 2 d6s and the player with the lowest rolls is decided to be the one who'll play their interaction. This approach itself would be hard to codify into the rules and probably open to exploitation in different ways but at least it would in my view prevent situations like this where priority bullying causes players to argue and not play competitively.
As for the terminology, I think "priority cheesing" would be better.
I would rather lose 300 dollars to the person who cast abolisher instead of the person who sandbagged me.
What a cop out lol
There was known interaction that wasn't used 100% his fault not close.
Sigi (what ever happened to that guy? is labmaniacs still around?) warned us about this years ago and had that open letter, anyone remember that? I wish the RC would take responsibility for a few of the inellegancies in the format. maybe priority bullying couldn't be totally solved by some intervention by the RC, but i bet it could be reduced. I'm just saying it would be nice if they at least tried. or at least addressed the issue. has Sheldon said anything about the subject ever?
I first saw priority bullying in cEDH in a Lab maniacs video, those that have seen it know the names of the offender and victim in this instance.
I'll play devils advocate because I know this will be incredibly unpopular. I wish politics and information commingling was prohibited in cEDH and people played mostly silently, aside from taking taking an action or passing, so the person who's last in priority isn't leaned on or "pushed" into playing their interaction. Example: If player 1 goes for a win and player 2 has interaction, they should be responsible for using their interaction and if they pass on the hopes that players 3 and 4 have interaction and they don't, the game is over. This would mitigate a lot of the shitty behavior and poor politics that cEDH encourages.
Integrity above all. Not only gaslighting from p2, it was a complete negative IQ from p2 to try and force others to act when it was known he had interaction. P2 was inherently in a weaker position, period. Trying to shift blame, disrespect others and try to be "smart", only strengthened p1 position as he could wait another turn to combo, where had p2 taken the bullet without inadvertently helping p1, p1 would likely try to combo and lose his piece to p3-4.
It looks to me like there is an attempt to communicate and strategize by two players, and one player (Ping) tries to avoid communication. Then Freedom loses his cool a little bit and from there it's basically over.
I just really hope player one had some popcorn ready so they could watch the MBT player hand them the game. Seems like a ridiculous interaction. Player four telling them they could handle the dockside was more than enough info to share. So asking for more was pretty greedy. What’s next? Every time someone has a thassa’s Oracle on the stack I need to show my hand to a player before they will counter it?
So we not gonna talk about the 3rd player instigating lol? 😂
If someone mana bullys someone else, I hope they lose because the other person can no longer meaningfully interact.
The last player in priority who didn’t use their FoW is based. Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.
Absolute Chad
The bully is 100% in the wrong. Mana bullying screams I’m going for a win. So he’s trying to get someone to kingmake for him. It’s sad anyone defends this and it’s sad that Cedh it devolving to this sad shit
from my understanding, tapping a land for mana does not use the stack and thus does not give a round of priority
Tapping a land doesn’t use the stack but it does restart priority. Has been discussed at length but cedh tv has a good video on it
@Kenneth Polsky while you have priority it'll reset priority
Both had a point, where is the issue? I make the thrassios player dig before I use my stuff, because they are sitting there with mana up and cards to draw.
You not just making him draw. You're also making him tap completely out and then it's your turn afterwards if P2 doesn't succeed in winning.
Okay but one had KNOWN interaction it wasn’t known the thrasios player had interaction until after so in that moment the only one who SHOULD have cast the spell is the guy with MBT bc he’s the only one that had guaranteed interaction (obviously we found out that wasn’t the case later)
@@markesewilliams240 I do not see how that makes a difference. To bitch about that is bad sports, but none is entitled to someone's interaction.
I feel like it was bullying though. Player with MBT was accusing the Thrasios player of throwing the game even though he had a known counterspell. He should have just played to his out
The correct response to priority bullying is this
I am an American and by law I will not negotiate with terrorist
I wonder if "priority pushing" would be a better phrase?
I'm not sure if I missed it but I would like to point out that while they were doing the same thing the person who was first in priority was the one abusing their position of power.
Or they understood MBT doesn't save them
@@wilfulbuckle13 but we're provided that the other player could handle the follow up Dockside. You may have missed that.
Both were in the right, but I would've done a little more talking.
I don't think this is a hard conversation at all. All those accusations on player 4 are EXACTLY the same. "Omg he passed with a counterspell in hand" player 2 literally had that face up. I'll never be convinced otherwise
I think priority bullying is annoying and bad for the game. But it is currently something that is allowed within the rules (wich were clearly made for 1v1 play where it doesn't exist) and therefore I think it is totally ok to use it. Imo, future TOs or even the RC should create a new rule that sais that activating mana abilities doesn't reset priority. This would have little impact on anything other than priority bullying (the only thing I can think of is an Urza player tapping a Trinisphere for mana and giving priority back to a player who couldn't interact before because of the Trinisphere).
Wow you have the original Bro as a patreon?
Player 4 was in the wrong he was the one with the last chance to stop the game from ending and he chose to out of spite.
I really respect y’all experience but I do think bullying and exploitation are the correct terms in a version of the game that seeks to be competitive, especially in a tournament context. To use a baseball analogy the positional defensive shift to exploit a ruling that disadvantages hitters that primarily pull the ball appears scummy but was for many teams it is the most competitive approach and in the confines of the game they were taking advantage of an opposing player difficulties. In multiplayer magic turn order has an implied effect on the game that is unavoidable, and subject to chance, therefore, like all other games their are rules that can be exploited to utilize an inherent advantage to assist in attain victory. Again this is contingent upon the spirit of Cedh being about taking steps to win the game as the primary objective. Bullying someone within the rules and confines of the games is part of being competitive and playing to win. If winning wasn’t the primary objective this wouldn’t be a discussion but it is. I do think that it is complicated but magic is the most complicated game in existence and this just feels like part of playing the game competitively in a multiplayer format based on the current rules. I think the greater issue is the lack of ability of people to conceptualize “bullying” in a game is what makes it have the potential to be competitive within the confines of the game. Lastly, i do not condone cheating as that is not utilizing rules to gain an edge rather it is taking actions beyond the game to gain an advantage. Also, politicing and discussion should not involve things outside the game like threats, insults, or personal attacks.
So I've known about what I've always referred to as "mana bullying" since before this, with a similar idea, except instead of trying to make opponents use their interaction, just simply forcing the pair of non-win attempting opponents to tap an equal number of lands (between them) to you (basically they tap, you tap, they tap, ect until you stop and play your spell), and doing this in order to make your opponent have less mana to interact on your turn. Personally I've always been of the opinion that to not participate in the mana bully, even if you hate it, should be seen as kingmaking and very much not allowed (so long as I don't have a known win. I might have a probably win, but if its not known, i may not actually have it, if its known, thats a whole different thing). Talking "spirit" of either the format, in my opinion, the spirit is to *win*. I think cEDH should be about trying to make the high percentage play at all times (now saying that, I keep my word while playing cEDH, but i wont make a promise that guarantees I lose - see what P4 did), but in either the case in the tourny or in my example case, both have a known 100% way to not lose right this second: just tap your mana to force the MBT out eventually because he cant keep bouncing priority, This method also works to keep the force in hand (because MTB will end up being used if you just pass the priority back to him enough times), so even if he does have a win, you still have free interaction, even if you completely tap out (which in this case, i dont believe P4 would end up completely tapped).
TL;DR, I think cEDH is about winning, and in this case, even if P4 didnt want to cast his spell, he had another out that didn't force it that he should have used instead, and by passing he threw the game, which is not about winning, and not what cEDH is about
Edit: got to the part of the video where they specifically talk about mana bullying. Could be that I'm completely at odds and in the minority for how i think about cEDH, could be that I'm to new to the format to have dealt with mana bullying enough to despise it and believe it has no place. Not sure which it is, but for now I think my above opinion holds true
I vote to rename “priority bullying” to playing “priority popcorn.” Who’s with me?
I am of the opinion in tournaments this is acceptable behavior, anywhere else not a chance. Instead of “bullying”maybe change it to “politicing” just my 2 cents
"they were both bullying each other". THANK YOU Ryan! I thought I was a crazy person here, almost exclusively hearing that ping was the one getting bullied...
One person was bullying and the other responded by not allowing. One person thought he weilded more power and realized he didn't.
@@slymcfly123 There are other complicating factors (such as MBT being better saved for dockside, but there are others) that add up to me thinking it's not quite as simple as you're presenting here. And for that reason I don't quite agree with what you're saying. But that's ok, I'm not trying to change your mind! :)
@Thomas Noonan they both could have made some kind of agreement but it was clear player 2 believed he could get player 4 do act with the risk of the game on the line. That's bullying and Player 4 recognized it and decided not to play along.
Just because one person agrees with you, you can still be crazy.
@@wilfulbuckle13 Hahaha fair point! But because it's RYAN saying it, I'm going to pretend that counts for something. :P
So much focus is on Players 2 and 4. I agree that they both were wrong here, but overall I'm on P4's side. I think. Maybe.
But more interesting to me is Player 3's perspective. They lost entirely because these two were so busy fighting. They brought up the very real fact that Mindbreak Trap *exiles* the target, making it much better to save and permanently deal with Dockside Extortionist - making Player 2's choice not simply a priority bullying issue, but a strategic one. I can't tell if Player 4 factored that in or ignored it entirely, as there was a lot of arguing and also I'm not a mind reader.
Can't use MBT on dockside if the game is over. 😂
"lets not use terms like bullying and gaslighting, it makes people not want to play our game" why am I not shocked a manipulator wants to protect other manipulators. First and last time I'll waste time watching one of these.
Player 3 is based
I think player 2 made a good move. Your every action should be taken to win. Player 2 was trying to increase his chances and player 4 was willing to lose to prove a point. One of these is not cEDH in my mind.
I agree initially. However after priority had been reset and player 2 had their chance to cast MBT they were aware player 3 would not be intimidated. So the correct choice to increase their odds of winning was to cast their MBT.
@@addicted2SODA1 so it turns out all the players had interaction. The Rog Si player also had a free counterspell.
@@alexandermalarkey3773 wtf lol
Player 2 was willing to lose to prove a point.
@@trollsearching8968 player2? You mean player 3 right?
Two dudes lost a game when they had 3 counters in hand because they were trying to inch every advantage they could. Great job, guys!
The moral of this story is: Blue players gonna blue.
@@Luciferian.Latino blue players get blue balled
I think Player 2 is the insane one. Why would you ever think you have leverage in that situation with a KNOWN counter spell. He made the decision to lose $300.
It’s very much like “A counter spell’s a counter spell. But the top of your deck, that could be anything! Even a counter spell!”
Everyone agrees MBT would be better saved for dockside and Ping has no response except “I’m gonna make us all lose because I can” I’m 100% with waffle on this one.
Dude they’re right you want to exile to dockside. Why would you not exile to dockside and permanently stop that loop. Freedom was right here.
Because the MBT is public knowledge so you'd never run Dockside into it.