Honestly conceding in response to being attacked for lethal is stupid. I can see doing it during a long game or a combo that takes a couple of minutes, but in response to a lethal attack or burn spell, it is just pointless. Just let people actually win if they can do it in the same amount of time as it would take for you to concede.
That's the whole point, they are conceding just because they know they are losing. If they were not losing they wouldn't concede. They are not conceding because they want to save time, they do it to bother the other player.
No one can kill that guy because he will concede? So, what? We just let him kill us?
How is this still your position? I've clearly identified situations where a threat of concession has real strategic weight, whether or not you think such situations are sporting or not. There's more to consider than just poor losers.
I think you're overestimating the weight that such an act has, on average. I mean, I get that you wanted triggers and such from your attacking creatures. But is getting them the only way you stay in the game? Are you dead to a simple Fog? Perhaps that specific case was true for you in the offending game(s) that caused you to make this thread, but it can't possibly be commonplace. How often are you performing all-out attacks on one player when others are waiting by to punish you for it? How often is the full force of your attack necessary to finish a player off who is already in a losing position?
This. Play around it, just as you play around mass removal, counterspell etc.. If he is so weak you kill him in one turn, play it safe and kill him in 2 or 3 with just a few attacks. Simple as that.
This is not a card. This is not an strategy. This is a rule bug.
This is not fair.
You can use your charm and charisma to convince all the players that I'm the biggest threat. I'm totally fine with that.
But you can't wield a bug just because this hasn't been covered by Wizard of the Coast and tell it's strategy.
Something that bothers you because it was not on your radar is not a bug.
You can always complain about it on a gaming forum, though, while people continue doing this for a variety of reasons that have been mentioned.
It is called a tactical scoop and it is a completely valid, while annoying, strategy. I'll employ it if someone goes "all in" on me leaving themselves vulnerable if they do not get the expected combat triggers like life gain. The next time we play I'll assure you that same person will not try it again. I've also done a tactical scoop if someone tries to go infinite on my turn. As soon as I leave the game, my turn is over and you can go infinite on your own turn, if it is still a possibility (hopefully not). It is rare, but in a points based league it is sometimes the best option to drop out of the game to retain what points you've earned. For example, my league has a rule that subtracts points for mass land destruction. If someone is playing Kaalia and casts a MLD, but someone else responds by removing the huge dragon or whatever the Kaalia player expected to win with, it might be the best option to concede and not take the negative points for MLD without winning.
It sucks to be on the receiving end of this, and I have, but knowing players have the tactical scoop as an option ends up keeping players in the game longer (because no one goes all in), and it should dictate how you declare your attacks.
While you can't prevent them from walking away, you can change how that impacts what is going on in the game. You can make it so that triggers still resolve as though the player were there.
How exactly? If the player takes away his cards with him, it would be quite difficult to resolve a lot of triggers because the lack of targets. I can see something like that implemented on Magic Online, but it's impossible to do on paper Magic.
Most of the triggers we are talking about aren't related to targets that would be disappearing, they depend on the player himself. So it is easy to play out the triggers as though that player was still there.
so whats the difference between him conceding and him playing fog?
Presumably, if someone is playing Fog, they still have some intent of winning the game, whereas conceding by definition allows for no such possibility.
This is not a card. This is not an strategy. This is a rule bug.
This is not fair.
The rules around conceding the game are the only fair means by which we can acknowledge that this is, in fact, real life. You can discourage the behavior in your group (I mentioned above how my league does exactly that), but you can'r -- in my opinion, shouldn't -- remove it or try to fix that which is not broken.
Simply put, if you concede mid-combat in order to deny someone their triggers you're being a petty douchebag. We don't allow it in my group, it is just poor sportsmanship.
Conceding mid-combat is an admission that your personality is ill-suited to withstand the hate of a table should you be in a position to deserve it. Or even if you didn't deserve it but are in a suitable position to lose the game.
People never told me "don't attack me or I will concede". No social aspect involved whatsoever. They were just offended people who couldn't do anything during the game or other players denied them the chance to.
This is not a "play", you are not casting anything, it's not a card. This is a rule bug that you want to take advantage of. Call things as they are.
Since the beginning of the topic we are talking about multiplayer games and damage being dealt (not controlling a player who has left the game, nor targeting a permanent of a player who has left the game. Just damage).
All what you wrote about 1v1 I agree but this is a multiplayer game at one game only so you are not hiding info about your deck by conceding. And I don't see why you shouldn't concede, just do it before attackers are declared.
How is this not a play?
Also how I'm 100% sure that I lose before you declare attackers? Maybe you'll attack somewhere else? Maybe some other player saves me? etc.
OP, don't take this the wrong way, but you really just sound like you are crying that the player you are taking out of the game isn't letting you benefit further from it. Maybe instead of complaining that the losing player isn't helping you out after you kill them, you should look at what's wrong with your deck that it hurts you that badly to not get the combat damage triggers that turn. I get that you rely on them for CA and lifegain, but you should be expecting that if your attack is going to take someone out, you won't get the triggers that turn, and plan accordingly.
Its especially whiny since you suggested that you would be ok with them conceding before combat, so you would be able to attack someone else. You have a problem with them conceding after a lethal attack because it harms you by denying you triggers, but you are fine with them conceding before combat because it lets you essentially take them out for free while still getting to attack someone else. Newsflash, that behavior his harming another player by causing them to get attacked on a turn they otherwise wouldn't be.
Other players are under no obligation to help you win, so why would they when you are about to take them out of the game? Are you really expecting them to be "nice" to you, when you clearly aren't being "nice" to them? Have you considered that by conceding they are being "nice" to the other players at the table by not letting you get too far ahead, or maybe repaying them for something they did earlier in the game?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Its your fault for playing a Voltron deck and expecting your opponents to be cool with you killing them. I will scoop in response to attackers all the time. NO, you cannot attack another player, and NO you do not get your triggers. Don't kill me next time and maybe it will go differently (it won't because most people I play with online are the exact same way). Play a more fair deck, or play more strategically. Don't get enraged because your opponents are better strategic players than you, and want to punish you for FOCUSING on them in a multiplayer game. The most ****ed up thing in a multiplayer game is losing to one player focusing on you and having to watch and wait out the rest of the game when the player that killed you is disrupted (after you die).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Rivenor for the signature and XenoNinja for the Avi!
OP, don't take this the wrong way, but you really just sound like you are crying that the player you are taking out of the game isn't letting you benefit further from it. Maybe instead of complaining that the losing player isn't helping you out after you kill them, you should look at what's wrong with your deck that it hurts you that badly to not get the combat damage triggers that turn. I get that you rely on them for CA and lifegain, but you should be expecting that if your attack is going to take someone out, you won't get the triggers that turn, and plan accordingly.
Its especially whiny since you suggested that you would be ok with them conceding before combat, so you would be able to attack someone else. You have a problem with them conceding after a lethal attack because it harms you by denying you triggers, but you are fine with them conceding before combat because it lets you essentially take them out for free while still getting to attack someone else. Newsflash, that behavior his harming another player by causing them to get attacked on a turn they otherwise wouldn't be.
Other players are under no obligation to help you win, so why would they when you are about to take them out of the game? Are you really expecting them to be "nice" to you, when you clearly aren't being "nice" to them? Have you considered that by conceding they are being "nice" to the other players at the table by not letting you get too far ahead, or maybe repaying them for something they did earlier in the game?
It's not an offense at all.
As I said, I want to know all the users opinions. I want to compare opinions. I'm trying to defend a point of view against people who think this is in no way wrong and force them to justify their opinions in a context where English is not my main language, I know that sometimes I can sound that way. I don't know what would be your definition of crying but I don't expect WotC to change things and even less because of this thread...
And people doesn't think this is wrong because they have been using it normally and/or don't affect their strategies so others can't use it against them.
I don't want people to help me to win and I never did. I just think this is not normal. I'm totally fine if someone kills himself with say, Necropotence.
I no longer think someone should only concede before combat. Someone could cast instants or something that can harm a player's deck "privacy" for further games (see hand/library and get information). I think the problem goes around rule 800.4e.
Its your fault for playing a Voltron deck and expecting your opponents to be cool with you killing them. I will scoop in response to attackers all the time. NO, you cannot attack another player, and NO you do not get your triggers. Don't kill me next time and maybe it will go differently (it won't because most people I play with online are the exact same way). Play a more fair deck, or play more strategically. Don't get enraged because your opponents are better strategic players than you, and want to punish you for FOCUSING on them in a multiplayer game. The most ****ed up thing in a multiplayer game is losing to one player focusing on you and having to watch and wait out the rest of the game when the player that killed you is disrupted (after you die).
I can't finish off people while playing with a strategy that relies on creatures, that sounds fair.
I don't usually focus people unless they can close the game within the next few turns. I don't focus early turns even if I could kill someone.
Thinking about it, as any player can scoop at any time it will be actually more convenient for me to focus early turns. I would rather be open wide while people don't have an army than in lategame where a player can one-shot you. I rely on creatures but not in an army of them.
Fug it, you're right. I'm gonna stop playing Voltron and lead towards a more strategic and fair deck like Stasis. At least people won't be able to say that they lose in a few turns...
Its your fault for playing a Voltron deck and expecting your opponents to be cool with you killing them. I will scoop in response to attackers all the time. NO, you cannot attack another player, and NO you do not get your triggers. Don't kill me next time and maybe it will go differently (it won't because most people I play with online are the exact same way). Play a more fair deck, or play more strategically. Don't get enraged because your opponents are better strategic players than you, and want to punish you for FOCUSING on them in a multiplayer game. The most ****ed up thing in a multiplayer game is losing to one player focusing on you and having to watch and wait out the rest of the game when the player that killed you is disrupted (after you die).
Just FYI, you sound like a pretty salty jerk here. Don't think I'd want to play multiplayer magic with you.
Did you forget that EDH is supposed to be casual, or do you think that casual means no one ever loses?
OP, don't take this the wrong way, but you really just sound like you are crying that the player you are taking out of the game isn't letting you benefit further from it. Maybe instead of complaining that the losing player isn't helping you out after you kill them, you should look at what's wrong with your deck that it hurts you that badly to not get the combat damage triggers that turn. I get that you rely on them for CA and lifegain, but you should be expecting that if your attack is going to take someone out, you won't get the triggers that turn, and plan accordingly.
Its especially whiny since you suggested that you would be ok with them conceding before combat, so you would be able to attack someone else. You have a problem with them conceding after a lethal attack because it harms you by denying you triggers, but you are fine with them conceding before combat because it lets you essentially take them out for free while still getting to attack someone else. Newsflash, that behavior his harming another player by causing them to get attacked on a turn they otherwise wouldn't be.
Other players are under no obligation to help you win, so why would they when you are about to take them out of the game? Are you really expecting them to be "nice" to you, when you clearly aren't being "nice" to them? Have you considered that by conceding they are being "nice" to the other players at the table by not letting you get too far ahead, or maybe repaying them for something they did earlier in the game?
It's not an offense at all.
As I said, I want to know all the users opinions. I want to compare opinions. I'm trying to defend a point of view against people who think this is in no way wrong and force them to justify their opinions in a context where English is not my main language, I know that sometimes I can sound that way. I don't know what would be your definition of crying but I don't expect WotC to change things and even less because of this thread...
And people doesn't think this is wrong because they have been using it normally and/or don't affect their strategies so others can't use it against them.
I don't want people to help me to win and I never did. I just think this is not normal. I'm totally fine if someone kills himself with say, Necropotence.
I no longer think someone should only concede before combat. Someone could cast instants or something that can harm a player's deck "privacy" for further games (see hand/library and get information). I think the problem goes around rule 800.4e.
Its your fault for playing a Voltron deck and expecting your opponents to be cool with you killing them. I will scoop in response to attackers all the time. NO, you cannot attack another player, and NO you do not get your triggers. Don't kill me next time and maybe it will go differently (it won't because most people I play with online are the exact same way). Play a more fair deck, or play more strategically. Don't get enraged because your opponents are better strategic players than you, and want to punish you for FOCUSING on them in a multiplayer game. The most ****ed up thing in a multiplayer game is losing to one player focusing on you and having to watch and wait out the rest of the game when the player that killed you is disrupted (after you die).
I can't finish off people while playing with a strategy that relies on creatures, that sounds fair.
I don't usually focus people unless they can close the game within the next few turns. I don't focus early turns even if I could kill someone.
Thinking about it, as any player can scoop at any time it will be actually more convenient for me to focus early turns. I would rather be open wide while people don't have an army than in lategame where a player can one-shot you. I rely on creatures but not in an army of them.
Fug it, you're right. I'm gonna stop playing Voltron and lead towards a more strategic and fair deck like Stasis. At least people won't be able to say that they lose in a few turns...
It is part of the game, and people will use it. Conceding in response to being attack and letting you hit are both plays, because its the last choice a player has that can impact the game. Letting you hit helps you win, conceding helps the other players. No matter what choice the attacked player makes, he or she is helping someone, and it is ok for them to choose who they help. Maybe they are using the threat of concession to stave off attack, maybe they are conceding to help another player that helped them earlier in some way, or maybe they are conceding solely to hurt you because you targeted them or because they think attacking them was a stupid play on your part that took them out without actually helping you win (if their concession causing you to miss your triggers causes you to lose, they were right). Voltron also does tick some people off because it often abuses commander damage, and some players find that cheesy and will target who or try to hurt your chances of winning for it, but the same is true for combo, LD, certain commanders, really anything people play some people will have a problem with.
People have pointed out how this is not a bug, it is not in conflict with the rules, and how it is a valid strategy. Voltron usually shouldn't have a problem with it, so if you are running into this as a problem regularly, its not the fault of the other players, and its not a problem with Voltron, its a problem with how you are building your deck and how you are piloting it. Continuing to complain in light of this serves not purpose. We get it, you don't like it. Nobody likes it when someone does something in the game that hurts their chances of winning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
It is part of the game, and people will use it. Conceding in response to being attack and letting you hit are both plays, because its the last choice a player has that can impact the game. Letting you hit helps you win, conceding helps the other players. No matter what choice the attacked player makes, he or she is helping someone, and it is ok for them to choose who they help. Maybe they are using the threat of concession to stave off attack, maybe they are conceding to help another player that helped them earlier in some way, or maybe they are conceding solely to hurt you because you targeted them or because they think attacking them was a stupid play on your part that took them out without actually helping you win (if their concession causing you to miss your triggers causes you to lose, they were right). Voltron also does tick some people off because it often abuses commander damage, and some players find that cheesy and will target who or try to hurt your chances of winning for it, but the same is true for combo, LD, certain commanders, really anything people play some people will have a problem with.
People have pointed out how this is not a bug, it is not in conflict with the rules, and how it is a valid strategy. Voltron usually shouldn't have a problem with it, so if you are running into this as a problem regularly, its not the fault of the other players, and its not a problem with Voltron, its a problem with how you are building your deck and how you are piloting it. Continuing to complain in light of this serves not purpose. We get it, you don't like it. Nobody likes it when someone does something in the game that hurts their chances of winning.
And other people have also pointed out how they think this is a bug. There are different opinions since the beginning of the thread.
Just to clarify something, one thing are gentlemen rules (i.e don't focus one player at the beginning of the game) and other are the actual rules of the game. I feel that in your comment you are mixing them together. Like, "Well... if you broke this gentlemen rule they can now use this actual rule". They are not the same.
Rules must be precise, must be without a doubt one way and one way only. "Rules are intended to be the ultimate authority for the game", quote from Magic: The Gathering Comprehensive Rules.
If a rule let you use it or not as you please and can't be distinguished with gentlemen rules then I see a flaw.
I'm now more awere of this and I will keep it in mind as you say for future games.
I'm not against it because I use Voltron tho. That's why I'm saying since the beginning of the post that I play Voltron, so people can't say in the middle of a discussion "Oh but you are against this because you are a Voltron player". Yes, I am.
Worst part goes for the guy who's strategy is gain control of things. An opponent leaves and you just lost everything. That player can't play his deck in a serious environment because someone who's utterly competitive will leave you without anything just because. And it's totally fine because rules says it.
It is part of the game, and people will use it. Conceding in response to being attack and letting you hit are both plays, because its the last choice a player has that can impact the game. Letting you hit helps you win, conceding helps the other players. No matter what choice the attacked player makes, he or she is helping someone, and it is ok for them to choose who they help. Maybe they are using the threat of concession to stave off attack, maybe they are conceding to help another player that helped them earlier in some way, or maybe they are conceding solely to hurt you because you targeted them or because they think attacking them was a stupid play on your part that took them out without actually helping you win (if their concession causing you to miss your triggers causes you to lose, they were right). Voltron also does tick some people off because it often abuses commander damage, and some players find that cheesy and will target who or try to hurt your chances of winning for it, but the same is true for combo, LD, certain commanders, really anything people play some people will have a problem with.
People have pointed out how this is not a bug, it is not in conflict with the rules, and how it is a valid strategy. Voltron usually shouldn't have a problem with it, so if you are running into this as a problem regularly, its not the fault of the other players, and its not a problem with Voltron, its a problem with how you are building your deck and how you are piloting it. Continuing to complain in light of this serves not purpose. We get it, you don't like it. Nobody likes it when someone does something in the game that hurts their chances of winning.
And other people have also pointed out how they think this is a bug. There are different opinions since the beginning of the thread.
You really must not understand what people are saying. It isn't a bug. You think it is, but you are wrong. This isn't an opinion, its a fact. The rule functions exactly as it is supposed to, you just don't like it. A bug would be if the player conceding in response to being attacked stopped the game from progressing because the player can't declare blockers. A bug breaks the game, its not just a rule you don't happen to like. Some people didn't like the Tuck Rule for EDH, but it wasn't a bug, just a rule they didn't like that eventually got changed when the rules committee and WotC decided they no longer liked the gameplay.
Just to clarify something, one thing are gentlemen rules (i.e don't focus one player at the beginning of the game) and other are the actual rules of the game. I feel that in your comment you are mixing them together. Like, "Well... if you broke this gentlemen rule they can now use this actual rule". They are not the same.
Rules must be precise, must be without a doubt one way and one way only. "Rules are intended to be the ultimate authority for the game", quote from Magic: The Gathering Comprehensive Rules.
If a rule let you use it or not as you please and can't be distinguished with gentlemen rules then I see a flaw.
Now you are just rambling. Conceding has nothing in common with "gentlemens rules". I don't see why someone utilizing the rules of the game to punish someone for breaking a gentleman's rule negates the validity of the actual rule. That's like saying if a player breaks the gentleman's rule by targeting a player, then the targeted player shouldn't be able to do the same thing back to them. Maybe you could consider conceding in response to attacks breaking a gentleman's rule, but that's as far as you could go.
I'm now more awere of this and I will keep it in mind as you say for future games.
I'm not against it because I use Voltron tho. That's why I'm saying since the beginning of the post that I play Voltron, so people can't say in the middle of a discussion "Oh but you are against this because you are a Voltron player". Yes, I am.
Worst part goes for the guy who's strategy is gain control of things. An opponent leaves and you just lost everything. That player can't play his deck in a serious environment because someone who's utterly competitive will leave you without anything just because. And it's totally fine because rules says it.
I play a "steal stuff" deck a lot, and your stolen creatures and other things going away when their owner loses is just part of the game. Work with it as the minor downside effect attached to having one less opponent. If you can't afford losing that player's stuff, you avoid taking them out. If you get in a situation where you have no real good plays because you can't let the opponent live but you don't want to lose his or her stuff, that's no different from a situation where your opponent's ensnaring bridge is protecting you but you still need to kill them with the fireball in your hand before they combo off. Those situations are going to happen, and they don't feel good, but they are part of the game.
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I do wonder where did you get the idea that edh is casual.
I find it hard to call any game that relies so much on outside gameplay factors (in game politics, people who like/dislike each other, etc.) competitive.
It would be impossible to have a GP that had EDH as a format and have it mean anything.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
This is not a card. This is not an strategy. This is a rule bug.
This is not fair.
You can use your charm and charisma to convince all the players that I'm the biggest threat. I'm totally fine with that.
But you can't wield a bug just because this hasn't been covered by Wizard of the Coast and tell it's strategy.
You can always complain about it on a gaming forum, though, while people continue doing this for a variety of reasons that have been mentioned.
It sucks to be on the receiving end of this, and I have, but knowing players have the tactical scoop as an option ends up keeping players in the game longer (because no one goes all in), and it should dictate how you declare your attacks.
Most of the triggers we are talking about aren't related to targets that would be disappearing, they depend on the player himself. So it is easy to play out the triggers as though that player was still there.
Presumably, if someone is playing Fog, they still have some intent of winning the game, whereas conceding by definition allows for no such possibility.
The rules around conceding the game are the only fair means by which we can acknowledge that this is, in fact, real life. You can discourage the behavior in your group (I mentioned above how my league does exactly that), but you can'r -- in my opinion, shouldn't -- remove it or try to fix that which is not broken.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
WUBRGReaper King - Superfriends
WUBRGChild of Alara - The Nauseating Aurora
WUBSharuum the Hegemon - Christmas In Prison
WUBZur the Enchanter - Ow My Face
WRJor Kadeen, the Prevailer - Snow Goats
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden - International Goblin All Purpose Recycling Facility Number 12
WGSaffi Eriksdotter - Saffi Combosdotter
UPatron of the Moon - The Age of Aquarius
BHorobi, Death's Wail - Bring Out Your Dead
GSachi, Daughter of Seshiro - Sneks
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
Do not do it.
The Unidentified Fantastic Flying Girl.
EDH
Xenagos, the God of Stompy
The Gitrog Monster: Oppressive Value.
Marchesa, Marionette Master - Undying Robots
Yuriko, the Hydra Omnivore
I make dolls as a hobby.
How is this not a play?
Also how I'm 100% sure that I lose before you declare attackers? Maybe you'll attack somewhere else? Maybe some other player saves me? etc.
Its especially whiny since you suggested that you would be ok with them conceding before combat, so you would be able to attack someone else. You have a problem with them conceding after a lethal attack because it harms you by denying you triggers, but you are fine with them conceding before combat because it lets you essentially take them out for free while still getting to attack someone else. Newsflash, that behavior his harming another player by causing them to get attacked on a turn they otherwise wouldn't be.
Other players are under no obligation to help you win, so why would they when you are about to take them out of the game? Are you really expecting them to be "nice" to you, when you clearly aren't being "nice" to them? Have you considered that by conceding they are being "nice" to the other players at the table by not letting you get too far ahead, or maybe repaying them for something they did earlier in the game?
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
My cube
My cube on Cube tutor
I'm OP_Forever. I'll be putting this in my signature for a while so everyone know I change my nickname.
Thanks to Rivenor for the signature and XenoNinja for the Avi!
Quotes:
It's not an offense at all.
As I said, I want to know all the users opinions. I want to compare opinions. I'm trying to defend a point of view against people who think this is in no way wrong and force them to justify their opinions in a context where English is not my main language, I know that sometimes I can sound that way. I don't know what would be your definition of crying but I don't expect WotC to change things and even less because of this thread...
And people doesn't think this is wrong because they have been using it normally and/or don't affect their strategies so others can't use it against them.
I don't want people to help me to win and I never did. I just think this is not normal. I'm totally fine if someone kills himself with say, Necropotence.
I no longer think someone should only concede before combat. Someone could cast instants or something that can harm a player's deck "privacy" for further games (see hand/library and get information). I think the problem goes around rule 800.4e.
I can't finish off people while playing with a strategy that relies on creatures, that sounds fair.
I don't usually focus people unless they can close the game within the next few turns. I don't focus early turns even if I could kill someone.
Thinking about it, as any player can scoop at any time it will be actually more convenient for me to focus early turns. I would rather be open wide while people don't have an army than in lategame where a player can one-shot you. I rely on creatures but not in an army of them.
Fug it, you're right. I'm gonna stop playing Voltron and lead towards a more strategic and fair deck like Stasis. At least people won't be able to say that they lose in a few turns...
Just FYI, you sound like a pretty salty jerk here. Don't think I'd want to play multiplayer magic with you.
Did you forget that EDH is supposed to be casual, or do you think that casual means no one ever loses?
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
It is part of the game, and people will use it. Conceding in response to being attack and letting you hit are both plays, because its the last choice a player has that can impact the game. Letting you hit helps you win, conceding helps the other players. No matter what choice the attacked player makes, he or she is helping someone, and it is ok for them to choose who they help. Maybe they are using the threat of concession to stave off attack, maybe they are conceding to help another player that helped them earlier in some way, or maybe they are conceding solely to hurt you because you targeted them or because they think attacking them was a stupid play on your part that took them out without actually helping you win (if their concession causing you to miss your triggers causes you to lose, they were right). Voltron also does tick some people off because it often abuses commander damage, and some players find that cheesy and will target who or try to hurt your chances of winning for it, but the same is true for combo, LD, certain commanders, really anything people play some people will have a problem with.
People have pointed out how this is not a bug, it is not in conflict with the rules, and how it is a valid strategy. Voltron usually shouldn't have a problem with it, so if you are running into this as a problem regularly, its not the fault of the other players, and its not a problem with Voltron, its a problem with how you are building your deck and how you are piloting it. Continuing to complain in light of this serves not purpose. We get it, you don't like it. Nobody likes it when someone does something in the game that hurts their chances of winning.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I do wonder where did you get the idea that edh is casual.
And other people have also pointed out how they think this is a bug. There are different opinions since the beginning of the thread.
Just to clarify something, one thing are gentlemen rules (i.e don't focus one player at the beginning of the game) and other are the actual rules of the game. I feel that in your comment you are mixing them together. Like, "Well... if you broke this gentlemen rule they can now use this actual rule". They are not the same.
Rules must be precise, must be without a doubt one way and one way only. "Rules are intended to be the ultimate authority for the game", quote from Magic: The Gathering Comprehensive Rules.
If a rule let you use it or not as you please and can't be distinguished with gentlemen rules then I see a flaw.
I'm now more awere of this and I will keep it in mind as you say for future games.
I'm not against it because I use Voltron tho. That's why I'm saying since the beginning of the post that I play Voltron, so people can't say in the middle of a discussion "Oh but you are against this because you are a Voltron player". Yes, I am.
Worst part goes for the guy who's strategy is gain control of things. An opponent leaves and you just lost everything. That player can't play his deck in a serious environment because someone who's utterly competitive will leave you without anything just because. And it's totally fine because rules says it.
Maybe from the Official Wizard of the Coast EDH segment. Literally first three words.
Lol, perfect reply. Thanks!
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
You really must not understand what people are saying. It isn't a bug. You think it is, but you are wrong. This isn't an opinion, its a fact. The rule functions exactly as it is supposed to, you just don't like it. A bug would be if the player conceding in response to being attacked stopped the game from progressing because the player can't declare blockers. A bug breaks the game, its not just a rule you don't happen to like. Some people didn't like the Tuck Rule for EDH, but it wasn't a bug, just a rule they didn't like that eventually got changed when the rules committee and WotC decided they no longer liked the gameplay.
Now you are just rambling. Conceding has nothing in common with "gentlemens rules". I don't see why someone utilizing the rules of the game to punish someone for breaking a gentleman's rule negates the validity of the actual rule. That's like saying if a player breaks the gentleman's rule by targeting a player, then the targeted player shouldn't be able to do the same thing back to them. Maybe you could consider conceding in response to attacks breaking a gentleman's rule, but that's as far as you could go.
I play a "steal stuff" deck a lot, and your stolen creatures and other things going away when their owner loses is just part of the game. Work with it as the minor downside effect attached to having one less opponent. If you can't afford losing that player's stuff, you avoid taking them out. If you get in a situation where you have no real good plays because you can't let the opponent live but you don't want to lose his or her stuff, that's no different from a situation where your opponent's ensnaring bridge is protecting you but you still need to kill them with the fireball in your hand before they combo off. Those situations are going to happen, and they don't feel good, but they are part of the game.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I find it hard to call any game that relies so much on outside gameplay factors (in game politics, people who like/dislike each other, etc.) competitive.
It would be impossible to have a GP that had EDH as a format and have it mean anything.