"What are you doing!? That other player is the threat, not me!"

How familiar is that phrase? How often have you found yourself in a game where one person was ten strides ahead of everyone else, and yet some person had taken it into their heads that you were the person who should be expunged?

And more importantly, what are you going to do about it?

Today, I want to talk about a topic that I first broached several weeks ago; I mentioned that I was going to perform an experiment in our Magic games to find out if Anthony Alongi actually happens to know what he is talking about.

Anthony mentioned in one of his previous articles that one of the things that he does in multiplayer games is to go after someone relentlessly if he is attacked without any provocation. His theory is that by doing this, he will teach his playing group not to do anything to him until he actually starts having an effect on the table. This theory is flawed, but there is a sentiment here that I can support...

But I get ahead of myself. First, let me explain how it's flawed.

Anthony has mentioned on numerous occasions that he enjoys playing in such a way that he makes sure to have an impact on the game. Perfectly fine... Except that if his style of play is based on this, his decks are going to automatically be a problem for others.

I don't know about others - but when I play, if I recognize a deck that's going to stop me in my tracks, I am going after that person. I do not care if I've been given any provocation or not; my win is on the line, and I am simply striking preemptively.

The only question is when I am going to be able to do anything. Ideally, I would like to do it when my opponent is still trying to get things set up, not after his deck is up and functioning at optimum speed. Anthony is either missing the tactical reasoning behind his opponents hitting him while he is still getting set up, or is ignoring it completely in favor of his own self-serving interests. I can't really say I blame him, since he is a self-described alpha-male.

Of course, if someone attacks him without provocation, isn't he actually achieving his own desire in the game already by having an impact on it? Simply by his choice of deck, he is dictating what another person does, even before he has had any actual overt affect on the table. This has a domino effect, because by that one person going after Anthony so early, someone else is probably free to advance his or her own plans, and so on... Although I am pretty sure that this is not the type of impact on the game Anthony is talking about when he says he wants to be remembered.

Now comes the sentiment that I can agree with. Note, please, that in all of my discussion so far, there has not been any questioning whether a person is a true threat to you or not. It is presumed that they are.

But what if you really aren't? What if you not only are not the threat, but there is someone who is actually a threat - not just to yourself but everyone else at the table? What do you then? In Anthony's case, he makes it a distinct point of hammering on the transgressor, even to the point of costing him the game. And I agree with his methods when it comes to this sort of situation.

Wait a minute, you say. Why am I retaliating against the person who attacked me when there is someone else whose deck is going to kill everyone if nothing is done about it?

Like Anthony, my hope here is to eventually teach the person who attacked me that if they choose to attack me over the person who poses the true threat, then they're going to deal with me exclusively until either I am dead or they are... Or possibly, we all are, if the person who shouldn't have been ignored has their deck"go off," as it were.

Yes, this will cost me games. No, this might not be the most logical way to play. But there is reasoning behind this: It might not be the most logical way for me to play - but with any luck, I will be increasing the use of logic in the other players at the table.

In case I have now completely confused you, permit me to explain.

First of all, keep in mind that ninety-five percent of my decks are beatdown. I do have one controllish white deck, which is the sole exception. I have one-third lands, creatures, and spells in all of my decks - so while they are hardly the fastest-moving decks, they are very consistent. If you take away all of my lands, all of my creatures, or both, I will steadily recover. Any surprises that my decks have deal solely with combat... And all of the players in my group know this.

Since my decks are built the way they are, none of them are exactly sprinting out of the gate as soon as my turn comes around. Other people, on the other hand, have the capability of putting out second-turn Rith, the Awakener and other assorted nasty nonsense.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are at least three members of my group who can identify another person's deck by the second land played, so the whole idea that someone doesn't know what another person's deck is capable of is not an argument that can be used among us. We know perfectly well which cards are the most important in any given deck and to keep an eye out for them.

Despite all of this, three months ago, I was in a multiplayer free-for-all, and the Blue Mage of our group was attacking me with one of his assorted Specters. Once, I could understand, as part of a round robin effort where everyone got hit... But not in this case. This time around, I was the lucky recipient for three turns in a row. And what was amazing me at the time was that his brother, the Black Mage, was playing a deck that even I could recognize as a distinct danger.

(In case I neglected to mention it, out of the regular members who try to play faithfully every week, I suck the most at deck identification - so for me to say that I recognized it is saying something.)

So here I am, getting pounded on, and the Black Mage is getting more powerful, and eventually the Blue Mage decides that maybe he should shift his focus to the actual threat finally.

And I thought to myself, nope. No way are you just going to walk away from me. You are now going to deal with me now, whether you wanted to or not.

Not that I got very far at all or that I succeeded at causing the Blue Mage any true damage per se, but I thought it highly amusing - not to mention slightly gratifying - to hear him complain about my interference. Until he finally killed me, he constantly tried to inform me that he had no problem with me, and that he would be more than happy to leave me alone while he dealt with his brother.

Too bad. He should have thought of that back when his brother was still weak and trying to get established. (Unfortunately for me, not only did I die, but the Black Mage still failed, despite the noble distraction I caused for him.)

But I didn't think the game a total loss. I say this because this was the game that gave me the idea to try this strategy in future games: When someone doesn't realize who's the most dangerous to them or the table and attack me instead, they need to know that I will attack them to the exclusion of anyone else - even if it means that someone else will win the game because neither my opponent or I can invest any resources towards helping defeat the third party.

Note, please, that I am trying to emphasize the use of logic here. As I mentioned earlier, I have a white creature control deck. To someone else who's playing a creature beatdown deck, it makes perfect sense her to attack me if I'm playing it. If I am playing green and play a City of Solitude with a Scragnoth or two, I should only expect any existing blue players to have a vested interest in my immediate demise. It is only when I am playing a deck that doesn't do anything spectacular except beatdown, and someone else has a horde of flying dragons out, that I am apt to become perturbed at being someone else's main target.

I had wanted to try out this new philosophy for several weeks, but it was only recently that the opportunity finally arose for another general melee game. This time around, the person who died first (by my hand, ironically enough) was the person who should have been attacked first by everyone else at the table. After that, however, things got more difficult. I went after the blue player next - but in retrospect, I should have waited. As the game progressed, I realized that after the blatant threat had been removed, the other decks seemed to all cause potential complications for me. What I should have done was go into my traditional sit-back-and-wait pose, until someone else either started gunning for me, or it was time for me to try cleaning things up.

This example also shows why I love this game, and the multiplayer format in particular. The endless strategy that is involved in each game, the possible permutations - and, oh, hell, everything about the game.

In my next article, I will be talking about some blue and black decks and combinations thereof. Until next time, take care.