Douche-scooping (I refuse to call it "tactical" since losing the game is not a tactic) annoys the hell out of me. You play to win the game. I'm fine with people using removal to screw over someone who is about to kill them, but taking advantage of a rules technicality, because let's face it, that's exactly what douche-scooping is, is not ok. The rules were no designed around a multiplayer FFA setting.
Kingmaking and group hug are also things I can't stand, but that's an entirely different topic. You play to win the game.
Dont worry. Kingmaking is my next topic, considering the heat this one's generated. =)
Indeed, this is about scooping as a "trump-card" to force an opponent into any number of disadvantageous plays. It's interesting that some playgroups seem to play around it while others will simply ignore it. It's like the house-rule you didn't even know you were using.
There seems to be this insistence that players in a game of Magic must adhere to what game theory can tell us about player behaviour and modeling of strategies. Actors in games are not perfectly rational, and complaining about that reeks of "I would have won if you had played right."
And, again, if you can't think of a strategic reason to lose a game, you haven't considered the larger game of iteration. If you're playing a political game, knowing what your opponent may or may not do will effect subsequent games. Just like how a player in a 1v1 game may scoop a not unwinnable game to hide information for subsequent games.
There seems to be this insistence that players in a game of Magic must adhere to what game theory can tell us about player behaviour and modeling of strategies. Actors in games are not perfectly rational, and complaining about that reeks of "I would have won if you had played right."
And, again, if you can't think of a strategic reason to lose a game, you haven't considered the larger game of iteration. If you're playing a political game, knowing what your opponent may or may not do will effect subsequent games. Just like how a player in a 1v1 game may scoop a not unwinnable game to hide information for subsequent games.
No, I just expect a common-sense level of sportsmanship when mature adults sit down to play what is really a game. Part of that is the spirit of competition, where everyone sits down and plays to win with no ulterior motive. So as a result, yes, people can justifiably adopt game theory's assumption that other players will act rationally in a way that optimizes their chances to win (payoffs).
The flip side of that is that people won't take things personally, resent me, or use the game to leverage themselves into anything outside the game setting. So when one player is faced with a strategically neutral decision, conceding or remaining in a lost game, I consider it poor sportsmanship to make that decision based on some grumpiness toward me for eliminating them from the game, or some perceived duty or bias in favor of the other players.
The spirit of the freedom to concede is to allow people flexibility to leave a game that no longer interests them, and so the default is to remain in the game as long as it interests you. So when faced with a strategically neutral decision, you should opt for the default. Waiting until an exact time for your concession to have effect in the game is outside the spirit of that rule, on top of being poor sportsmanship.
That goes for politicking as well. When you sit down to a game with me, sportsmanship leads me to assume that you're not going to use the game in order to establish some duty with me to allow you to win future games, or gain any other benefit outside that game. You shouldn't play against someone with the purpose of duping them into something. Each game in isolation, not iteration, because the purpose of a sequence of games isn't to establish some ongoing run for you to weasel your way out of games. It's to play games for entertainment in the spirit of good sportsmanship.
It's the exact same if someone had the habit of offering pieces of their collection in exchange for favors in the game, or asking for people to buy them off with cash in exchange for pointing removal at other people's stuff. Don't attack me and I'll give you this rare, or some such. Clearly bad sportsmanship because you're using something outside the game to get a result in the game. That would wear really, really thin, and I would stop playing with that person. Same thing when someone tries to tempt me into not attacking them by exercising some technicality, in hopes that that pattern of behavior will allow them to win future games. Games that haven't even started yet shouldn't be so important to people that they'll do this kind of disrespect to others for the sake of improving their chances to win them. You shouldn't be so emotionally compelled toward the idea of your own future win that you'll exercise anything at your disposal, in the game or outside of it. It's crack-fiendish behavior for winning, and taken to that extreme it could really make people uncomfortable. More subtle fiendish attempts to win with inferior ability can also be really embarrassing. In fact, wins on technicalities shouldn't be very compelling at all because they don't reflect any actual ability, improvement, or successful strategizing, virtues that sportsmanship holds in esteem.
The problem is that the stated objective of the game is reducing each other player's life total to 0, stacking 10 poison, drawing with an empty library, or winning because a card says you did. The objective of the game is NOT to give everyone else the best chance of winning against the guy you don't like at the time, or to run around willy-nilly affecting the game in ways that don't lead to you winning.
You might as well put up a game with 1hr time limits, draw your first hand, then sit with priority and wait out your whole clock to screw with people. Passing priority is a game action. It has a likelihood of affecting the game, at least if you consider conceding a game action, because it's sure likely to get people to concede. It's just that NONE of those things can be strategized against because the objective of the game isn't to screw with people or force them to concede, it's to reduce life totals to 0 (or another reasonable win condition).
In the Wild Ricochet on Time Stretch example above, sure, you're probably going to lose. Given that, nothing else you do matters for your strategy because you're losing whatever you do. So, every game decision you make after that point is strategically neutral. You could do one thing as well as another, and if you have a marked preference for one, then it's because of considerations that are outside your game strategy. You already lost that game. People who are jumping in and saying, "Of course you concede!" are inventing their own, hidden game objectives. Suddenly somehow, it's your strategic objective to stop the Ricochet player from winning through extra turns, and instead ensure that the other players have a chance to win in some other way. You just arbitrarily give yourself the role of stopping everyone else from winning. Which you may as well do just by sitting there with priority.
I mean, try it sometime. Sit down with your group, stare at some game-ender on the stack, and when the caster asks if it's resolved, just say, "I haven't passed priority yet." There's no judge, so no one is going to call a clock on you. You can just sit there playing a staring contest instead of the game that everyone else sat down to play. Passing priority is a game action, right? Your strategy should just be to not pass priority. It gives you non-zero chance to win because other people could lose the staring contest and concede. Great strategy, right? Apparently so. Apparently punting on the game that everyone agreed to play and instead inventing your own objectives of screwing with people, affecting the game however you can, and raising ruckus are perfectly valid objectives once it's clear that you're not going to win an honest game.
This is EDH, you're not playing just to win. I play Modern to win. I play standard to win. When I play EDH(or cube) I'm playing to have fun. Sure I want to win. I build my deck with the intention of winning, but when I'm in game I'm trying to have fun. Its not that players aren't trying to win, it's just that they understand you can still enjoy losing. Preventing one person from winning by scooping and giving everyone else a fighting chance might not make sense strategically because it's not a strategy people go into a game expecting to do it's just a decision you make when the situation arises.
It might be a strategically neutral decision in that it doesn't benefit me either way but that doesn't mean it's a neutral decision overall. I lose either way, if I stay in the game the other player wins and the game ends, if I scoop the other player does not win and the game still ends for me. One situation ends the game entirely, the other allows everyone else to keep on playing. Which is more fun; Playing EDH or not playing EDH?
The priority comparison is silly. Friends or strangers would make you pass priority. No one is going to hold priority forever in a game with their friends, unless you like the idea of them not wanting to play with you again, and if you do this with strangers they'll have no problem just kicking you out of the game. Doing something like this is closer to literally flipping the table than to scooping.
Unfortunately every try hard from Sacramento to Shanghai preaches from the top of their 27 lands + Mana Reflection that Tooth and Nail and Time Stretch are fine to play in the same turn but Armageddon is unfair.
Same with people scooping before combat damage triggers, we still let people have their combat damage triggers ect. Just because one person wants to fold like a red hot mars bar does not mean the person killing them should suffer.
Sorry that I'm not going to talk about the topic much (I approve of concessions when bored of the game or when you are obviously dead on board and only when it's not going to affect other players, never ragescoops), but I had to say something about the bolded bit.
...why do you have a saying for that particular little mental image? :confused::confused: Do you see a lot of "red hot mars bar"s in your daily life? What do they even bend like? Wouldn't they just melt (or catch fire)? I'm so confused by your metaphor.
It might be a strategically neutral decision in that it doesn't benefit me either way but that doesn't mean it's a neutral decision overall. I lose either way, if I stay in the game the other player wins and the game ends, if I scoop the other player does not win and the game still ends for me. One situation ends the game entirely, the other allows everyone else to keep on playing. Which is more fun; Playing EDH or not playing EDH?
One of those situations is you losing and having to watch everyone struggle to still deal with the threat and maybe even still lose to it. Great, you dragged the game on. That's like casting Apocalypse and then passing turn for the rest of the game because you can't draw lands. The other situation is everyone loses to the player who successfully won the game using his cards and you ALL get to play again. Which is more fun, playing EDH or not playing EDH?
I disagree. Scooping is clearly defined in the rules as an action that you can take at any time during the game. When I play a game of Magic, I use the rules to my advantage in order to try and win the game. If player A is at 4 life and dead to a Chandra Ablaze activation from player C, he should realize that he's not going to be gaining life if he attacks me (player B), and thus he'll lose the game. It's a rattlesnake advantage that I'll use to my advantage.
Of course, if we're not playing for prizes, and me not scooping will end the game quicker, I may not scoop to guarantee another player's win. In the same way I'm determining the winner; I'm just assuring the person who kills me's victory, instead of letting the game progress further.
Just because "I would have won if 'player X' didn't scoop", it doesn't mean I should have won. Risking him scooping was a chance I took in order to knock player X out.
The second issue you described (with the "taking back" of a deck) is one of social etiquette, not game rules. If a player lends me a deck, I assume that that player is lending me that deck as a friend and in good faith. If that friend is petty enough to "steal" my deck back from me, then perhaps there is a bigger issue here than the rules of Magic. And yes, this is exactly why I wouldn't borrow a deck from a random stranger.
Conceding isn't something MTG allows, they have zero control over it. The comp rules saying you can scoop at any time is completely meaningless; of course you can quit the game at any time, is Wizards going to stop you? It's actually pretty silly they wrote it in there at all.
All the rules do is explain how to handle a player leaving the game. The reasons they leave, whether it's scooping out of spite, leaving for a phone call, or anything else, all fall equally under the jurisdiction of Magic's rules, which is not at all.
The point: The only part of scooping that's a game rule is how to handle the game after it's happened. Why you scooped is wholly social.
The way I look at it, there's no rule that can stop tactical scooping, because sometimes people just have to leave. If someone had an emergency, are you going to seriously tell them, "Wait! Let me finish killing you first so I can gain life!" or "Dude, I know someone in your family just died but I just played Insurrection and you have a lot of creatures! Just wait around then play Animate Dead on your uncle and you'll be golden!"? The only possible thing I could see in terms of real rules/house rules happening is sorcery-speed scooping, but really, then what's the point? If someone's going to destroy all of your lands with some Deadeye Navigator combo, do you really want to wait until your turn for them to durdle around when you could be doing something more productive with your time? It doesn't sound like a lot, but in a big multiplayer game, turns until your turn can be interminable.
My meta ignores the tactical scoop - we only allow actual game actions to affect game states. If someone scoops to void a combat trigger, we just pretend he got attacked then play on without him. We had one guy protest after quitting that it shouldn't be allowed to happen, but we told him right out that since he quit the game, he longer has any input on how the current game plays out, and if we decide to play on, he'll just have to deal with it.
Just play to the bitter end. We all play to win but should understand that losing is something that happens to. Playing EDH is to win or lose while having fun. My playgroup doesn't mind scooping. When people scoop, its usually everyone including the winner. We all know who won that game so we save time to move into the next game. Its not uncommon for players of my group to discourage scooping because "they cant win within X turns" or "you guys can come back". We all get the idea that we are suppose to have fun.
I've probably done it, I can't remember.
I don't like it, it really just seems like being a sore loser to me.
I don't mind if people cling on till the bitter end and disrupt the dominant player though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If combo should die before I wake I'll slide a Smokestack in every deck I play, roll in every shop wreck the Spirit of EDH.
I'm never bothered by someone scooping. It seems like a silly thing to get angry or irritated over. The game continues to go on after they leave and if it doesn't, then a new game can be started.
I once scooped in response to someone targetting me with their door to nothing. Ha! Sure showed them.
10 pages of:
A) scooping is never okay if it screws with the game in any way, shape, or form!
B) scooping is allowed by the rules, so not allowing scooping isn't playing magic!
A) scooping doesn't use cards, so scooping isn't playing magic!
...and so forth
So in response to this thread I scoop! Which fizzles the thread! Ha, serves you right for coming at me trying to get your opinion-triggers and i.r.life-gain!
*thread-flip, rage-logout*
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I had a wordy signature here once.
URGRiku, Sorcerer SupremeGRU Who needs permanents anyways? WUBRGDeckbuilder's ToolboxGRBUW Warning:Contents include 34 decks and growing
There seems to be this insistence that players in a game of Magic must adhere to what game theory can tell us about player behaviour and modeling of strategies. Actors in games are not perfectly rational, and complaining about that reeks of "I would have won if you had played right."
And, again, if you can't think of a strategic reason to lose a game, you haven't considered the larger game of iteration. If you're playing a political game, knowing what your opponent may or may not do will effect subsequent games. Just like how a player in a 1v1 game may scoop a not unwinnable game to hide information for subsequent games.
Sure. Just keep in mind the even larger political/social aspects of what you are doing. D-scooping might make me second guess attacking you for the rest of the night when I need triggers to resolve...but it will GUARANTEE that I take you off of the "EDH list" that I use to organize play sessions.
And in my play group there is a good chance we just ignore the strategic aspects of your D-scoop...so all you get is the negative social backlash.
What I really find amusing is the argument that it can be used as a political tool in future games - the argument that someone may hesitate to attack you because of the threat that you may scoop and deny him the triggers.
The truth is the complete opposite, in reality. If someone has shown a willingness to try to scoop to deny me resources in a critical situation, then in every game from that point on I'll be sure to do everything I can to kill that person off BEFORE it becomes a critical situation. Unpredictable people can't be trusted, and need to be dealt with first.
So if anything, using a "tactical scoop" will drastically lower your chances at future wins.
You are certainly entitled to that opinion, as everyone else is to theirs.
Yes, that is the entire point of the thread. But, if you really believed that you wouldn't restate it.
You are obviously just brushing his opinion aside condescendingly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If combo should die before I wake I'll slide a Smokestack in every deck I play, roll in every shop wreck the Spirit of EDH.
Yes, that is the entire point of the thread. But, if you really believed that you wouldn't restate it.
You are obviously just brushing his opinion aside condescendingly.
He is perfectly allowed to say that its not tactical and I am allowed to say that it is. I am in fact acknowledging his opinion while not becoming condescending to the rest of the thread. Now I must remind you that your post is not particularily on topic, where as mine simply shows that I remain neutral in the discussion.
I frankly don't believe the matter is either strictly right or wrong. I believe there are times when people are going to do it, whether they should or not. That's the point of this thread, to get people to talk about it and understand that their playgroup and others can have different schools of thought, and that in a social situation such as this, in a casual format, morality and reason are the deciding factors, not linear logic or pre-determined goals.
This is EDH, you're not playing just to win. I play Modern to win. I play standard to win. When I play EDH(or cube) I'm playing to have fun. Sure I want to win. I build my deck with the intention of winning, but when I'm in game I'm trying to have fun. Its not that players aren't trying to win, it's just that they understand you can still enjoy losing. Preventing one person from winning by scooping and giving everyone else a fighting chance might not make sense strategically because it's not a strategy people go into a game expecting to do it's just a decision you make when the situation arises.
It might be a strategically neutral decision in that it doesn't benefit me either way but that doesn't mean it's a neutral decision overall. I lose either way, if I stay in the game the other player wins and the game ends, if I scoop the other player does not win and the game still ends for me. One situation ends the game entirely, the other allows everyone else to keep on playing. Which is more fun; Playing EDH or not playing EDH?
The priority comparison is silly. Friends or strangers would make you pass priority. No one is going to hold priority forever in a game with their friends, unless you like the idea of them not wanting to play with you again, and if you do this with strangers they'll have no problem just kicking you out of the game. Doing something like this is closer to literally flipping the table than to scooping.
I'm not saying that there aren't any motivations outside of winning. In fact, just the opposite, that there are lots of (apparently petty) reasons for someone to scoop. After all, we're having this conversation for a reason. People do this.
What I'm saying is that all those reasons are outside the game. If your strategy is to win, then those motivations are outside your strategy as well, and therefore outside what you came to the game to do. If you came to the game with a sportsmanlike attitude of fair competition, then I'll enjoy playing with you. But if you come to the game with the idea that you'll put your best effort forward to win, but failing that, you're going to help everyone else against me whether it harms you or not, or to do whatever you can to have any effect on the game that you can, then I'm not going to submit myself to that. Those motivations might seem totally rational to you, but they have no basis in the game that everyone else came to play. They have a basis in some emotional impulse that most people don't want corrupting their games.
He is perfectly allowed to say that its not tactical and I am allowed to say that it is. I am in fact acknowledging his opinion while not becoming condescending to the rest of the thread. Now I must remind you that your post is not particularily on topic, where as mine simply shows that I remain neutral in the discussion.
Your logic is ridiculous, your post was completely off topic and added nothing to the thread.
You were just trying to backseat mod, just like you are now.
The post was condescending; There was nothing in his post that remotely suggested he was saying other people weren't entitled to their opinion.
You were being rude and are now trying to back-pedal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If combo should die before I wake I'll slide a Smokestack in every deck I play, roll in every shop wreck the Spirit of EDH.
Your logic is ridiculous, your post was completely off topic and added nothing to the thread.
You were just trying to backseat mod, just like you are now.
The post was condescending; There was nothing in his post that remotely suggested he was saying other people weren't entitled to their opinion.
You were being rude and are now trying to back-pedal.
In fact, saying "lol @" my terminology and putting it down by reusing arguments from pages past, as if I'm somehow in the wrong for expressing it this way, denotes a certain amount of disregard for my opinion and subsequent disregard for the reasons I gave for it. He either didn't read the thread or didn't get too far into it before feeling the need to retort to the title.
I may be defending the thread by trying to keep derogatory remarks at bay, but I'd prefer it not be locked because we got derailed. The topic is sensitive enough.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Kingmaking and group hug are also things I can't stand, but that's an entirely different topic. You play to win the game.
Indeed, this is about scooping as a "trump-card" to force an opponent into any number of disadvantageous plays. It's interesting that some playgroups seem to play around it while others will simply ignore it. It's like the house-rule you didn't even know you were using.
And, again, if you can't think of a strategic reason to lose a game, you haven't considered the larger game of iteration. If you're playing a political game, knowing what your opponent may or may not do will effect subsequent games. Just like how a player in a 1v1 game may scoop a not unwinnable game to hide information for subsequent games.
No, I just expect a common-sense level of sportsmanship when mature adults sit down to play what is really a game. Part of that is the spirit of competition, where everyone sits down and plays to win with no ulterior motive. So as a result, yes, people can justifiably adopt game theory's assumption that other players will act rationally in a way that optimizes their chances to win (payoffs).
The flip side of that is that people won't take things personally, resent me, or use the game to leverage themselves into anything outside the game setting. So when one player is faced with a strategically neutral decision, conceding or remaining in a lost game, I consider it poor sportsmanship to make that decision based on some grumpiness toward me for eliminating them from the game, or some perceived duty or bias in favor of the other players.
The spirit of the freedom to concede is to allow people flexibility to leave a game that no longer interests them, and so the default is to remain in the game as long as it interests you. So when faced with a strategically neutral decision, you should opt for the default. Waiting until an exact time for your concession to have effect in the game is outside the spirit of that rule, on top of being poor sportsmanship.
That goes for politicking as well. When you sit down to a game with me, sportsmanship leads me to assume that you're not going to use the game in order to establish some duty with me to allow you to win future games, or gain any other benefit outside that game. You shouldn't play against someone with the purpose of duping them into something. Each game in isolation, not iteration, because the purpose of a sequence of games isn't to establish some ongoing run for you to weasel your way out of games. It's to play games for entertainment in the spirit of good sportsmanship.
It's the exact same if someone had the habit of offering pieces of their collection in exchange for favors in the game, or asking for people to buy them off with cash in exchange for pointing removal at other people's stuff. Don't attack me and I'll give you this rare, or some such. Clearly bad sportsmanship because you're using something outside the game to get a result in the game. That would wear really, really thin, and I would stop playing with that person. Same thing when someone tries to tempt me into not attacking them by exercising some technicality, in hopes that that pattern of behavior will allow them to win future games. Games that haven't even started yet shouldn't be so important to people that they'll do this kind of disrespect to others for the sake of improving their chances to win them. You shouldn't be so emotionally compelled toward the idea of your own future win that you'll exercise anything at your disposal, in the game or outside of it. It's crack-fiendish behavior for winning, and taken to that extreme it could really make people uncomfortable. More subtle fiendish attempts to win with inferior ability can also be really embarrassing. In fact, wins on technicalities shouldn't be very compelling at all because they don't reflect any actual ability, improvement, or successful strategizing, virtues that sportsmanship holds in esteem.
/endrant
This is EDH, you're not playing just to win. I play Modern to win. I play standard to win. When I play EDH(or cube) I'm playing to have fun. Sure I want to win. I build my deck with the intention of winning, but when I'm in game I'm trying to have fun. Its not that players aren't trying to win, it's just that they understand you can still enjoy losing. Preventing one person from winning by scooping and giving everyone else a fighting chance might not make sense strategically because it's not a strategy people go into a game expecting to do it's just a decision you make when the situation arises.
It might be a strategically neutral decision in that it doesn't benefit me either way but that doesn't mean it's a neutral decision overall. I lose either way, if I stay in the game the other player wins and the game ends, if I scoop the other player does not win and the game still ends for me. One situation ends the game entirely, the other allows everyone else to keep on playing. Which is more fun; Playing EDH or not playing EDH?
The priority comparison is silly. Friends or strangers would make you pass priority. No one is going to hold priority forever in a game with their friends, unless you like the idea of them not wanting to play with you again, and if you do this with strangers they'll have no problem just kicking you out of the game. Doing something like this is closer to literally flipping the table than to scooping.
KAALIA SMASH!
Intet dreams of times ahead
and more
Sorry that I'm not going to talk about the topic much (I approve of concessions when bored of the game or when you are obviously dead on board and only when it's not going to affect other players, never ragescoops), but I had to say something about the bolded bit.
...why do you have a saying for that particular little mental image? :confused::confused: Do you see a lot of "red hot mars bar"s in your daily life? What do they even bend like? Wouldn't they just melt (or catch fire)? I'm so confused by your metaphor.
Radha, Heir to Keld, Vorel of the Hull Clade, Kemba, Kha Regent, Vela the Night-Clad, Kozilek, Butcher of Truth, Barrin, Master Wizard, Slobad, Goblin Tinkerer, Patron of the Orochi, Oloro, Ageless Ascetic, Thraximundar, Roon of the Hidden Realm, Prossh, Skyraider of Kher, Marath, Will of the Wild, Teneb, the Harvester
If you did this, tell me and I'll credit you!
One of those situations is you losing and having to watch everyone struggle to still deal with the threat and maybe even still lose to it. Great, you dragged the game on. That's like casting Apocalypse and then passing turn for the rest of the game because you can't draw lands. The other situation is everyone loses to the player who successfully won the game using his cards and you ALL get to play again. Which is more fun, playing EDH or not playing EDH?
Sharuum | Damia | Hermit Druid
Conceding isn't something MTG allows, they have zero control over it. The comp rules saying you can scoop at any time is completely meaningless; of course you can quit the game at any time, is Wizards going to stop you? It's actually pretty silly they wrote it in there at all.
All the rules do is explain how to handle a player leaving the game. The reasons they leave, whether it's scooping out of spite, leaving for a phone call, or anything else, all fall equally under the jurisdiction of Magic's rules, which is not at all.
The point: The only part of scooping that's a game rule is how to handle the game after it's happened. Why you scooped is wholly social.
EDH Decks
BGGlissa, the TraitorGB
URTibor and LumiaRU
WUBOloro, Ageless AsceticBUW
UBSygg, River CutthroatBU
RGXenagos, God of RevelsGR
UGVorel of the Hull CladeGU
GBSavra, Queen of the GolgariBG
URGMaelstrom WandererGRU
This is what our group does as well.
Wort/ Jor Kadeen/ Rasputin/BWG Karador/ Rakdos/ Edric/ Dralnu/ BBMikaeus
Mirror of Fate collection counter 98
I don't like it, it really just seems like being a sore loser to me.
I don't mind if people cling on till the bitter end and disrupt the dominant player though.
WBRG Saskia the Unyielding
WUB Sharuum the Hegemon
RWU Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest
RG Wort, the Raidmother
WU Brago, King Eternal
B Chainer, Dementia Master
There is nothing tactical about it. No matter how you try to spin it, it is spiteful, childish, and just plain poor form.
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
10 pages of:
A) scooping is never okay if it screws with the game in any way, shape, or form!
B) scooping is allowed by the rules, so not allowing scooping isn't playing magic!
A) scooping doesn't use cards, so scooping isn't playing magic!
...and so forth
So in response to this thread I scoop! Which fizzles the thread! Ha, serves you right for coming at me trying to get your opinion-triggers and i.r.life-gain!
*thread-flip, rage-logout*
URGRiku, Sorcerer SupremeGRU
Who needs permanents anyways?
WUBRGDeckbuilder's ToolboxGRBUW
Warning:Contents include 34 decks and growing
I was actually hoping for a thread about competitive Ice Cream tbh.
WBRG Saskia the Unyielding
WUB Sharuum the Hegemon
RWU Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest
RG Wort, the Raidmother
WU Brago, King Eternal
B Chainer, Dementia Master
Sure. Just keep in mind the even larger political/social aspects of what you are doing. D-scooping might make me second guess attacking you for the rest of the night when I need triggers to resolve...but it will GUARANTEE that I take you off of the "EDH list" that I use to organize play sessions.
And in my play group there is a good chance we just ignore the strategic aspects of your D-scoop...so all you get is the negative social backlash.
The truth is the complete opposite, in reality. If someone has shown a willingness to try to scoop to deny me resources in a critical situation, then in every game from that point on I'll be sure to do everything I can to kill that person off BEFORE it becomes a critical situation. Unpredictable people can't be trusted, and need to be dealt with first.
So if anything, using a "tactical scoop" will drastically lower your chances at future wins.
You are certainly entitled to that opinion, as everyone else is to theirs.
Yes, that is the entire point of the thread. But, if you really believed that you wouldn't restate it.
You are obviously just brushing his opinion aside condescendingly.
WBRG Saskia the Unyielding
WUB Sharuum the Hegemon
RWU Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest
RG Wort, the Raidmother
WU Brago, King Eternal
B Chainer, Dementia Master
He is perfectly allowed to say that its not tactical and I am allowed to say that it is. I am in fact acknowledging his opinion while not becoming condescending to the rest of the thread. Now I must remind you that your post is not particularily on topic, where as mine simply shows that I remain neutral in the discussion.
I frankly don't believe the matter is either strictly right or wrong. I believe there are times when people are going to do it, whether they should or not. That's the point of this thread, to get people to talk about it and understand that their playgroup and others can have different schools of thought, and that in a social situation such as this, in a casual format, morality and reason are the deciding factors, not linear logic or pre-determined goals.
I'm not saying that there aren't any motivations outside of winning. In fact, just the opposite, that there are lots of (apparently petty) reasons for someone to scoop. After all, we're having this conversation for a reason. People do this.
What I'm saying is that all those reasons are outside the game. If your strategy is to win, then those motivations are outside your strategy as well, and therefore outside what you came to the game to do. If you came to the game with a sportsmanlike attitude of fair competition, then I'll enjoy playing with you. But if you come to the game with the idea that you'll put your best effort forward to win, but failing that, you're going to help everyone else against me whether it harms you or not, or to do whatever you can to have any effect on the game that you can, then I'm not going to submit myself to that. Those motivations might seem totally rational to you, but they have no basis in the game that everyone else came to play. They have a basis in some emotional impulse that most people don't want corrupting their games.
Your logic is ridiculous, your post was completely off topic and added nothing to the thread.
You were just trying to backseat mod, just like you are now.
The post was condescending; There was nothing in his post that remotely suggested he was saying other people weren't entitled to their opinion.
You were being rude and are now trying to back-pedal.
WBRG Saskia the Unyielding
WUB Sharuum the Hegemon
RWU Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest
RG Wort, the Raidmother
WU Brago, King Eternal
B Chainer, Dementia Master
In fact, saying "lol @" my terminology and putting it down by reusing arguments from pages past, as if I'm somehow in the wrong for expressing it this way, denotes a certain amount of disregard for my opinion and subsequent disregard for the reasons I gave for it. He either didn't read the thread or didn't get too far into it before feeling the need to retort to the title.
I may be defending the thread by trying to keep derogatory remarks at bay, but I'd prefer it not be locked because we got derailed. The topic is sensitive enough.