Is it Acceptable to Use Dice to Determine Who to Attack?
General forum
Posted on Aug. 7, 2025, 8:37 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
I admit that I occasionally use dice to determine which opponents to attack, in games with more than two players, if no particular opponent is the most appealing target, as I regard that as a fair and equitable tactic, one that shall not invoke the ire of the player whom I attack.
However, I recently read this article on EDHREC, and I was very surprised at the number of players who dislike that tactic, as they say that it absolves the player of accountability for their actions, or, at the very least, makes them look indecisive and unreliable, so I would like to ask everyone else here for their opinions, on this matter.
What does everyone else here say, about this? Is it acceptable to use dice to determine who to attack? I certainly am interested to hear your thoughts, on this matter!
TheoryCrafter says... #3
I've done it. Went to a store to play for a while where some of the players often took it personal if they were attacked. I started rolling dice, 'cause hey, the dice never lie*. In addition to attacking, once or twice I even rolled on who would be a target for a spell or ability. I never got a complaint from the defending players and the only criticism I ever received was how I had trouble sometimes keeping track of which number applies to which player.
However, after reading the article, I agree with Going Gongaga and the people on the thread. At some point you need to recognize you are going to get attacked by the strongest player in the game, regardless and you need to act accordingly. You can't play to win if you're afraid to hurt feelings. If I could advise Going Gongaga, it's to offer to help D build a group hug deck around an Alternate win card that doesn't require combat. Or have her play the next few games in Archenemy so she can get used to the idea of everyone ganging up on her and how to react to it. If that doesn't work then you'll have to come to terms with her strategy hurting you more than helping her.
*Unless they're weighted, of course.
August 7, 2025 10:45 p.m.
FormOverFunction says... #4
Generally I’ve only seen it around turn one, as mentioned earlier. It never bothers me, but I can see how some circumstances result in seriously salty feelings. If a person is “causing trouble” for the table with especially oppressive play (like a stacks lockdown), and then they attack randomly… the problem isn’t really the random attacks. The problem in that case would be the inability to wrap the game up promptly. A lot of times - the problem isn’t the problem ;P
August 8, 2025 9:34 a.m.
ouroborobelisk says... #6
Who cares what other players think or care about. Play the game and your deck however you want to. If anyone complains, just mine that salt. People get so hung up on the analytics of how the game is play, they forget they are playing an f'n game. Crack packs, make stacks, shuffle up & play!
August 8, 2025 2:21 p.m.
indieinside says... #7
DemonDragonJ, I think that it is completely reasonable to use dice in this way. However, if there is a threat, obviously I personally start doing what I have to in order to deal with those obstacles. I agree with ouroborobelisk. Play how you want to play.
August 8, 2025 4:51 p.m.
Katreyasaunt says... #8
My table rule is that if you are going to use a die to attack randomly, just attack me instead.
August 8, 2025 10:26 p.m.
artcwolf22 says... #9
Generally, if there are multiple choices of people to attack, no. You should be tactical with your opponents based on their present boards.
Howevever using dice can also be a litnus test. If someone complains, they're probably not worth playing against. And the dice keep making disadvantageous decisions, it's the hands of fate.
So tl:dr yes.It's a game, and the less salt you can enter, the better.
August 9, 2025 11:22 a.m.
It's a weird question because the correct answer is often wrong; you never want to make random choices in this game, but if people get salty you might get ganged up on, either that game or the next one. IMHO there is always a deck that is more likely to be an issue later, even if everyone is at the same state early on. The problem is some players take the casual aspect of this game very seriously, and those players can get offended if they feel 'singled out' by you 'choosing' to attack them, in such a group the 'right' answer is the 'wrong' answer to the question, and you should just roll the dice until it's overwhelmingly obvious who is the most threatening. Note, doing this will likely cost you at least some games you could have won with better threat assessment.
Obviously if you find one of those anti-dice groups then you should just make the most optimal choices, but I've never heard of whole groups like that, just individuals with grudges because a die pushed them into a puddle when they were little.
I second the whole 'if someone complains when you can reasonably defend targeting them they're probably not fun to play with' thing. If someone actually complains that the dice is being mean to them (and you're not using weighted dice) then you can be confident they are a turd and avoid them in the future.
August 9, 2025 12:28 p.m.
indieinside says... #11
DreadKhan - when it comes to casual players not being casual I just don't get that. Some of my decks are two aggressive for my playgroup. And, I have even kept a deck but changed the commander to make it less effective for group fun evenness. For a player/s to gang up you on the next game because of the previous game is ridiculous. That is not casual at all. If that is the group mentality, then maybe I do need to get a weighted die. LOL
legendofa says... #2
If I ever use random chance to decide who to attack, one of two things is going on. (a) It's my first attack of the game on like turn 2-3 and everyone's developing more or less evenly, or (b) I care more about my attack triggers than dealing damage, and I expect to be blocked or Fogged or whatever. So I'm generally in agreement with the article--random attacks are fine in certain circumstances, but they don't replace board vision, threat assessment, and other lines of critical thought.
If anyone accuses me of being indecisive and unreliable for attacking randomly at a multiplayer game, I will happily ask for advice on threat assessment then and there--"Okay, so help me out. Who would be the best person to attack right now, and why?". Hasn't happened yet, so no reports on how well it works. Either they're helpful and I learn something, or they're unhelpful and become my new target.
I suspect there's some selection bias in the comments. The commenters don't seem to just dislike dice rolling. Stuff like "chickening out" and "COWARD way of playing" and "reliant on the crutch" and "I'll totally target them" and "you don't have the guts" go way beyond dislike, and "I hate" gets used more than once. The people who don't mind dice rolling (in my anecdotal experience, the huge majority) don't care enough to comment, and I don't think anyone loves random attacks with the fervor that these people loathe it to balance out the comments. So the only people who care about this enough to comment are the ones who despise it.
Honestly, some of the commenters come across as obsessed with full optimization and disrespectful to people who don't want to be at their level of competitiveness. (Fancy way of saying "casual Magic isn't real Magic" gatekeepers.) Maybe I'm just reading too much into this, but if someone starts freaking out just because I don't care who I'm attacking with a 1/1 lifelink on turn 2, I might leave, or ask them to leave.
August 7, 2025 10:16 p.m. Edited.