A rather simple question, really. How can I teach my group on proper threat assessment when it comes to opponent's generals/cards? How can three other opponents not Realize that Kamahl, Fist of Krosa is a horrible general to play against? It took Kamahl to hardcast an Emrakul before he was taken out of the game, the whole time of the match I was professing that Kamahl was the true threat on the table, particularly when he started to nuke lands in response to Wrath Effects. Sadly, personal player vendettas got in the way of seeing what was the most threatening card out there.

I'm just somewhat wondering if you've tried to teach other players on threat assessment, and how did you go about doing so?

Simple question, complex topic. I think most playgroups do have similar issues.

There are quite some aspects which influence the players' choices. These decisions aren't made on a pure rational basis, but there are also emotional components, which is where things are becoming difficult.

Consider the following factors / thoughts / ...:

-> Friendship / sympathy
-> "Who nuked my whole board 4 times in a row / disrupted my combos / ... the last time?"
-> Fear for certain strategies
-> Underestimations of certain strategies
-> ...

The issue is that everyone in the playgroup needs to play logically in order for emotion to stay out of the equation. Emotional plays are often responded to with more emotion. I know at my store. we've begun list (not a physical copy in any way) of people we will and will not play with. I can't count the times in the past that someone would randomly cast a spell that completely handed someone else the game. That being said, we've recently added 2 people from the other side of the fence that wanted to improve, and it's been really productive.

Threat assessment is a skill that develops over time, and with effort. You can try and teach them, but if they are being rewarded in some way by playing emotionally, it's going to be tough separating them from that behavior. I think the only thing you can do is continue to dispense advice and hope that it clicks eventually.

Great topic btw. I'm really interested to see how this develops.

I think far to many players, many of whom have been playing for some time take the position of "he hasn't done anything to me..." While at the same time refusing to realize he is 1 card/ land/ turn/ etc. away from hitting an infinite Timestretch combo or some other shenanigans. They know his deck can do it. They know that unchecked his deck WILL do it. And yet, time and time again, they decide that someone else at the table is the threat because they are casting spells or attacking Combo boy.

You can lead an EDHer to his biggest threat, but you can't make him do a damn thing about it.

I believe that most people scare when a deck starts playing 3 or 4 creatures, they panic and start "controlling" that player until the combo deck finishes them, paving them the win.

I played a game against Circu, Dimir Lobotomist and Zur the Enchanter. Circu had a UB control deck, with permission, spot removal and sweepers. I was playing with Momir Vig. I played Wistful Selkie, leveled up to level 6 a Kazandu Tuskcaller, played Winged Coatl to take out Zur and Silhana Starfletcher. Circu thought I was a greater threat than Zur and his Necropotence + Empyrial Armor combo, even though Zur announced he had a creatureless deck. Needless to say, Zur combo'ed, and took out Circu, then took out me. That game also was my fault, since I tried to kill Circu in spite, when the correct play is to mob Zur so he can't win instantly.

Really there is no way to teach folks that unless they want to learn. Some folks never learn , listen , or become decent players.

I suggest asking about combos or stating combos as hints ..

I'm often targeted simply because I almost always use blue, lol.

But yeah, you can try and nudge them into making better decisions or find a way to take advantage of their poor judgment.


and I like this, lol.

Proper Threat Assessment, the Teacher's Guide:
1) Assemble the best deck that you can make and shuffle it up for a game. If you're in a position to truly teach people threat assessment in a multiplayer format, you're most likely the more experienced player and will hopefully have the cards to back this up.
2) Announce that you have the 'best deck' and explain what this means. Point out your weak spots ("I need to ramp early, so counterspells wreck me". "This Ivory Tower may not look like much, but the life boost makes my Necropotence unstoppable")
3) Avoid 'chicken little' behaviour ("HE COULD DESTROY US ALL!") and replace it with a reasoned and measured explanation of the things that the general can do ("Rafiq swings for a minimum of 8 general damage each turn/Kamahl makes it impossible to wrath/Azami generates really good card advantage and is the favoured general for combo players"). If your opponents ignore you, point out that you called the result of the match during the first turn. Avoid gloating. Avoid misleading table-talk. Avoid bullying. Avoid emotional play (don't retaliate against non-threatening players). Avoid condescension ("You really don't know how to play the game, do you? Geez.").
4) Acknowledge help from other players and acknowledge when people make a successful threat assessment and follow through.
5) Act the Underdog. If you're building up enough of a board position to wipe out the rest of the table, nobody will buy that the Azami player stuck on two lands is planning to destroy the whole world (In Australia, you receive a +2 Narrative bonus to winning games because the entire continent is attuned to rewarding the underdog).
6) ASK people what they think. Ask people why they believe one person is a threat but the other person isn't. Ask people why they followed your advice, why they followed other people's advice and why they just started flipping coins.

In Summary:
ASSEMBLE a killer deck as a tool for teaching people about how to make good threat assessment, ANNOUNCE when you're using the best deck and the ways that the 'best deck' works, AVOID negative reinforcements, ACKNOWLEDGE good behaviour and ACT the underdog when seeking help. ASK for feedback.

A lot of Magic players in my group are more used to one-on-one than multiplayer. I'm not sure this is the case in your group. But what this often results in is an overreaction to ANY kind of board presence. In a duel, you pretty much systematically destroy/disrupt anything you can that your opponent plays. But in multiplayer, a lot of people don't understand that they need to prioritize because their answers are thinned out between a few enemies. So, they see somebody play SOMETHING, anything, and end up destroying it. Then, when somebody plays something that's actually a high-value target, they don't have the removal/disruption; they were too busy killing that team of mana dorks, just because because they were on the board.

A good example of this was recently, I had Jaya Ballard, Task Mage out with Magebane Armor. The mono-green player immediately shits himself, Krosan Grips the Armor, and then the next turn the guy playing the Sliver Queen combo deck goes infinite. It's not like we didn't know the Queen deck is a combo deck, either. That's literally all it does.

Unfortunately, there's not much you can do about this. Some people don't bother to learn from mistakes. Others just don't understand the dynamics of multiplayer well, often screwing themselves and the table. That's just the way it is.

Though I will say, I get super annoyed by the guy who is always sitting there screaming (usually with a shrill, cracking voice) "WHY AREN'T YOU DESTROYING THIS OTHER THING OH MY GOD WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU GUYS". I often attack that player out of spite (but also often because they're trying to redirect attention immediately prior to their combo).

I also have a protocol when I play EDH. Attack combo deck, attack players with Islands, go from there. This might sound pretty stupid, but it's working out pretty well for me given the metagame.

God.
Threat Assessment is my pet peeve.
I've been working on an article for over 9 months on how to assess threats properly.

It's an incredibly complex issue that requires a tremendous amount of constant evaluation/reevaluation and a very good base of experience. The main issue is really that your threat prioritization is going to change as the game changes because the player who's the strongest on Turn 1 may not be the same player who's the strongest on Turn 5 or Turn 8 or Turn 14.

So essentially I prioritize players who use known fast combo decks before anyone else (Turn 4 win or sooner).
After that it's usually based on the following order; CA, win potential, board position.

Especially if you're doing it right; if you're removing their threats in Turn 2 and/or 3 somebody else should be overtaking them by Turn 5 or 8.

Bahahahaha!

My old multiplayer playgroup had a similar protocol....

1. Kill the combo player
2. Kill Marcus
3. Kill the Blue player
4. ??????
5. PROFIT!

It worked well most of the time, but I would normally be classified in the first category... It's not my fault that T2 Lore Broker, T3 Abyssal Nocturnus, T4 Urza's Guilt wiped people out quickly! Or that Confusion in the Ranks + Norin the Wary was way too much fun....

Ok, I guess I had it coming...

It can be difficult to correctly assess the board position. Multiple reasons affect people's decision making differently. Just because you see the board in a certain light, does not mean everyone else sees the board in the same light.

As an example: If you often play with the same guys, you all pretty much know each other's decks and plays. If some player there has put together some powerful decks, and often wins a disproportionate number of victories (30%+ in 5 player games 50% or more in 3 player games, for example), then that player cannot really be surprised that everyone gangs up on him, regardless of the actual board position in that particular match. In fact, such a player would have to be in an extremely unadvantageous position for the other players to ignore him.

Similarly, a person whose position of power is obvious, is a more obvious target, than the combo-player, merely because of the fact, that the combo-player's power is hidden. He may have the play, or he may not. At the same time, however, Ulasht the Hate Seed has a tank full of tokens on the table. Sure, you could ignore the tokens and kill the blue player, but to do so will definitely weaken you to Ulasht. And you have to try to correctly judge, just how far away the combo is. It isn't immediately apparent what the correct play is.

Often, I find the correct play is to wait. In almost every Multiplayer EDH game, it pays to wait out the correct play. Going too fast too early, is a sure-fire way to get horribly crippled and mangled. Don't play out all lands when facing white. Don't blast creatures just because you can.

Do you make T-shirts with this slogan on them? WHY NOT!?

It should have the fire hippo on the back.