Should I have disclosed that I had an instant to save my planeswalker?

Social Interaction

I’m playing a super friends deck and I have [[radstorm]] in hand for instant speed proliferation. My [[Ugin, the spirit dragon]] was at 4 loyalty and I had two other planes walkers at 1 loyalty. My opponent had a 4/4 flyer that I couldn’t block.

When choosing which of my planeswalkers to attack, I said that my opponent could technically kill any of my planeswalkers. They chose to attack my 4-loyalty Ugin, which I then responded with Radstorm to help it survive.

Another opponent said I was disingenuous and dishonest about the attacks, knowing that my Ugin wouldn’t die.

I’m okay with disclosing my board state, but I don’t feel the need to give my opponents hints on what’s in my hand.

So am I in the wrong here or were they being salty?

Update: Thanks everyone for the input. It appears from the general consensus that I could have been more judicious with my word choice or not say anything at all during that stage.

I do come from more competitive 60-card formats and have just begun playing commander in the last 4 months.

I also would admit that my deck-choice probably wasn’t the best at that time as everyone not everyone enjoys playing against planeswalkers, to which the same opponent muttered, but still clearly audible: “It’s not fun when you don’t let people play.”

The next game, I just went with a [[giada, font of hope]] deck and let everyone do their thing, though that’s not my preferred play style. It worked out in the end.

in EDHby ooookooo

879

86%

1mo

View all comments

Phymata

313

1mo

For myself, I use the phrase "based on what's on the board...". In your context, I might have said "well, based on the board state at the moment, I have no obvious responses, but I also have 4 mana untapped and two cards in hand."

While that CAN seem suspicious, it's become a bit of a standard in our group. It's late, you're tired, you want to swing, and you ask your opponent "hey, I'm tired, I can't remember your board - if I swing this at you, does it die?" and you get that kind of response - "well, based on the board, there's no way I could kill it. I've also got two mana untapped and cards in hand."

Not saying that what you did was wrong - I think it would have been really problematic to say something a bit more leading, like "oh man, there's no way I'll be able to save my planeswalkers! You should swing, there's definitely no way I can save them!". But you explained the board state at that moment, so I think that's in a murky area. Go with what works in your playgroup.

mutqkqkku

1mo

Not saying that what you did was wrong - I think it would have been really problematic to say something a bit more leading, like "oh man, there's no way I'll be able to save my planeswalkers! You should swing, there's definitely no way I can save them!"

I mean why are you trusting your opponents to give you reliable clues about their hidden information in a game where you're all trying to eliminate each other and there can only be one winner, especially in a situation where you're directly attacking each other? You shouldn't be taking anything your opponents say at face value.

BeatPeet

-4

1mo

That all depends on your playgroup. In my playgroups I want to play a fair game where I can trust what my opponents say, not a cut-throat meta where people will actively lie to gain an advantage.

There's a big difference between "Hey, if I attack Ugin with a 4/4 flyer, would that kill him?" "I have no flyers on the board and he's at 4 loyalty, so no answer to that on board" and "You should attack my Ugin, he'd be dead then. [...] Hah, I got a combat trick!"

Is that a way to get an advantage? Totally. But active misdirection isn't something I want in my playgroup. What I like to have is open communication of the board state and open deals. Having to ascertain whether the other players are actively lying to me doesn't sound like a fun time.

assassinfred

1mo

This is why all you have to say is "I have nothimg on board that can stop this, no". There's a reason hands aren't public knowledge. His opponent made the choice to attack a planeswalker in a superfriends deck while the owner of said planeswalker had mana up and cards in hand. If it were me, I'd assume a superfriends deck has ways to protect their planeswalkers.

His opponent misplayed, simple as that.