Wow, I'm kind of surprised by the responses here. I guess it's 100% group dependent. If a player is about to 100% win the game (as in this scenario), scooping is acceptable in my group to continue the game for the remaining players.
On the other hand, If someone is going to knock you out with a 10/10 unblockable lifelink, we do consider it a "dick move" to scoop to deny the life gain and will probably just give him the life anyway. It's a nuance sort of thing.
How did the rest of the players group react to it? That's really all that matters. Everyone on this board's opinion is worth infinitely less than your actual friends/store-mates.
I've yet to encounter a group (across many states and cities) that is ok with this kind of "conceding".
The few times I've encountered said people doing it, I tend to just focus them out of the game as a tactical choice (since odds I've seen is they usually play combo too)
Regardless of personal opinions on the idea of "strategic concessions", assuming the worst of every Magic player you come across will only make you a better deck builder. In this case, we learn the valuable lesson of not relying on your opponent's existence for your win condition. Play Commander like your opponents aren't even there, and you'll only be pleasantly surprised when they are. Or, maybe you won't be, if they're the type to scoop out of spite if you had epic, spirit-of-commander game plays in your deck.
Wow, I'm kind of surprised by the responses here. I guess it's 100% group dependent. If a player is about to 100% win the game (as in this scenario), scooping is acceptable in my group to continue the game for the remaining players.
On the other hand, If someone is going to knock you out with a 10/10 unblockable lifelink, we do consider it a "dick move" to scoop to deny the life gain and will probably just give him the life anyway. It's a nuance sort of thing.
How did the rest of the players group react to it? That's really all that matters. Everyone on this board's opinion is worth infinitely less than your actual friends/store-mates.
While I can see on some groups scooping to deny life gain a "dick move" in others it's not only acceptable but expected but honestly " just giving him the life anyway" to me is cheating and no different than "playing for second" after you lose to combo and much more of a "dick move". Either way you should have established what is acceptable and fair before hand making decisions on what illegal moves are ok mid game is something that I would not enjoy. even if I was not the player scooping I would probably just quit too because I don't see a point in playing if your just making up rules as you go.
Chiming in with the perspective of someone who has played on the pro tour more times than I have played games of commander: I would scoop in most cases if it hurt the player attacking me.
Lets use the example of 3 players.
Player A (You) has nothing in hand/play, is at 10 life. Your deck is full of removal spells.
Player B has a 10/10 lifelink and is at 2 life.
Player C has a mage-ring bully and has 30 life.
Turn order is player A, then player B, then player C. After passing the turn, I will warn player B that if he attacks me (killing me), I will concede to the attack, then he will lose to mage-ring bully, which must attack (lets assume B drew land). If on the other hand he attacks player C, there is still a very real chance that I as player A will come back and win.
So, clearly strategic concession raises my win % here. It also raises your win % in the case of the insurrection example - if the insurrection player knows you will concede if it resolves, then they will be less likely to case it there. Basically, I will always try and damage the player who finises me off in multiplayer as much as possible. I will cultivate a reputation of using everything I have against the player that brings me down (but only if Im actually about to lose).
Now, is this mindset practical in casual? Probably not - hence why I dont play casual magic much. However, if a bunch of people with competitive mindsets all decide to play a multiplayer game with cash on the line - then it seems this type of behavior makes sense.
Moxnix, the issue I have with your Probe example is that by threatening to scoop on you mid-stack they are forcing you to make a suboptimal play by targeting yourself and thusly losing information on their hand. I have played and watched you enough to know you pride yourself on correct play so I know that while you will adapt you probably would prefer to target an opponent with open mana.
Regardless of personal opinions on the idea of "strategic concessions", assuming the worst of every Magic player you come across will only make you a better deck builder. In this case, we learn the valuable lesson of not relying on your opponent's existence for your win condition. Play Commander like your opponents aren't even there, and you'll only be pleasantly surprised when they are. Or, maybe you won't be, if they're the type to scoop out of spite if you had epic, spirit-of-commander game plays in your deck.
We are playing a multiplayer format designed around encouraging social interaction. Why would I build a deck with the mindset of not caring about or interacting with my opponents?
You don't need to nitpick his wording thoughtcast you know what he means XD. Sure I would like having a higher win % but not at the cost of enforcing a rule that is unenforceable by game rules. Let's say on MTGO your change is you can no longer scoop with spells or triggers on the stack which wouldn't fix the attack trigger issue at all but let's say that's how they "fix this problem" . The player just goes AFK until the game boots him same result. Assuming you see this as a problem how In paper do you stop a player from getting up and walking away? what rule could you implement that doesn't create more issues than it solves there is no clean way of fixing it period. But no as I've said in my play group we enjoy being able to do this. I would not rather have my probe be unscoopable even by agreement we don't care about spite plays or rule abuse we like this rule. We don't mind players getting mad and targeting someone out. I'll go back to what JWK said much earlier in one of these threads he doesn't think a scooping player should have that much power. We think you should be able to make any legal play at any given time for whatever reason you damn please that's what anything goes means to us as long as your not cheating play however you want. Trying to win in multiplayer in a volatile place like this where any player can do anything at any time is challenging and fun it feels very rewarding to win through teaming abuse and rage and we love it. You have to not only be aware of a players best lines but EVERY line someone can legally make against you and I love it.
A multiplayer victory has to exist beyond simply beating your opponent, there has to be a mutual enjoyment of everyone involved. If you win the game and everyone else is miserable then you've still lost. What gets played is irrelevant.
Moxnix, the issue I have with your Probe example is that by threatening to scoop on you mid-stack they are forcing you to make a suboptimal play by targeting yourself and thusly losing information on their hand. I have played and watched you enough to know you pride yourself on correct play so I know that while you will adapt you probably would prefer to target an opponent with open mana.
Regardless of personal opinions on the idea of "strategic concessions", assuming the worst of every Magic player you come across will only make you a better deck builder. In this case, we learn the valuable lesson of not relying on your opponent's existence for your win condition. Play Commander like your opponents aren't even there, and you'll only be pleasantly surprised when they are. Or, maybe you won't be, if they're the type to scoop out of spite if you had epic, spirit-of-commander game plays in your deck.
We are playing a multiplayer format designed around encouraging social interaction. Why would I build a deck with the mindset of not caring about or interacting with my opponents?
I agree with you, but if this thread is a reality on the ultimate evolution of the Spike, it might be prudent to have a deck that expects it. I put strategic concessions in the same category of MtG issues I disagree with as intentional draws in competitive events. I disagree, but recognize that any attempt to solve the problem at a rules level will only make the game worse. Neither are on a level where I'd invoke the refusal to play with you option.
You don't need to nitpick his wording thoughtcast you know what he means XD. Sure I would like having a higher win % but not at the cost of enforcing a rule that is unenforceable by game rules. Let's say on MTGO your change is you can no longer scoop with spells or triggers on the stack which wouldn't fix the attack trigger issue at all but let's say that's how they "fix this problem" . The player just goes AFK until the game boots him same result. Assuming you see this as a problem how In paper do you stop a player from getting up and walking away? what rule could you implement that doesn't create more issues than it solves there is no clean way of fixing it period. But no as I've said in my play group we enjoy being able to do this. I would not rather have my probe be unscoopable even by agreement we don't care about spite plays or rule abuse we like this rule. We don't mind players getting mad and targeting someone out. I'll go back to what JWK said much earlier in one of these threads he doesn't think a scooping player should have that much power. We think you should be able to make any legal play at any given time for whatever reason you damn please that's what anything goes means to us as long as your not cheating play however you want. Trying to win in multiplayer in a volatile place like this where any player can do anything at any time is challenging and fun it feels very rewarding to win through teaming abuse and rage and we love it. You have to not only be aware of a players best lines but EVERY line someone can legally make against you and I love it.
Well if the people you play with IRL did not like it if a player scooped you could discuss what rules modification best suits you. Just like you can opt to mulligan differently or house ban a card. If you and the people you play with are fine with players scooping to affect the game, then great.
I agree with you, but if this thread is a reality on the ultimate evolution of the Spike, it might be prudent to have a deck that expects it. I put strategic concessions in the same category of MtG issues I disagree with as intentional draws in competitive events. I disagree, but recognize that any attempt to solve the problem at a rules level will only make the game worse. Neither are on a level where I'd invoke the refusal to play with you option.
The great thing about EDH is that the people who quite literally run this format are active participants on this forum. When we as players present an argument in a well-thoughtout manner they listen to what we have to say. We also have the advantage of having RC members who are employed at Wizards and/or actively involved with them. So hypothetically speaking, if we gave them a compelling enough reason why the scoop rule should be changed for multiplayer they might discuss it amongst themselves and with Matt Tabak.
I agree but I don't think you would need rules modification simply saying "hey let's not scoop to deny triggers etc is that cool" should more than suffice. I firmly believe anyone should be able to quit at any time and even if you don't think "any reason" is good enough any rules change would be horrible making far more issues and flat out not making sense in game. I also honestly think simple asking players to not do it in that manner will be far more effective On my experince. You tell r you can't scoop at instant speed I find a way to spite you if I want anyway. You tell me hey let's not do that kind of stuff and I agree and you fix all those kinds of issues and if I do it anyway it's all on me and I'm the jackass with no foot to stand on. I find most people will not go against this kind of agreement. You try and police with rules and people will find ways to undermine them. You straight up say hey listen this is what we like could you please play the way the rest of us want to play and you end up with a far better result.
Never been a fan of "tactical" scoops. Feels like a glitch that exists in EDH simply because we are playing a game designed and optimized for 1v1 play, and I don't play EDH looking to work angles like that. I'll also add that in my experience the people who do this tend to be the childish, sore loser types who are doing it out of spite. So while I recognize the potential for tactical use I suspect in a lot of cases that is just a veneer that the person telling the story adds retroactively to excuse their behavior. In the moment they were just pissed at the person killing them and wanted to have one last burst of satisfaction that comes from denying a trigger or kill.
Just look at the OP for example, why do what he did? He doesn't claim any long term strategic reputation building goals. He just wanted to give the other players a chance. Why? Why help them instead of the player who is about to win? Maybe because he enjoyed that tiny little bit of remaining control he had over the game, the power to "give" someone something?
I read through the first few pages and wanted to get a response in to OP.
I probably wouldn't concede to Insurrection; but I don't have a problem with a strategic concession especially if it's too a lock type situation.
Scooping to deny someone lifelink or something similar is pretty spiteful, in my opionion; but if I had a Knowledge Pool in play and another player got Teferi out; then I'd realize that the game was being locked for the other players by my card and concede the game to free the other two.
I did have one game in my EDH league that was ruined by a player refusal to concede once. We had a month where ultimate a planeswalker was worth a point, think it would be pretty hard to do in a game. What ended up happening is that one player made 5-color paneswalkers which was fine; but he managed to get Doubling Season into Tamiyo Emblem and proceeded to lock the other players with Sorin ult, one of them realized it was over and conceded right way but another one was like "I don't scoop ever." and sat there lettin the player mindslaver him over and over and just built up more and more planeswalkers and ult them. That single game ended with the planeswalker player getting over 40 points, when normally a winner will get 4-6 if they are lucky. They ended up winning the entire months league without even needing to participate in any of the other EDH nights.
Is Spite conceding still a bit too accusatory of a term?
I've only done this once (against mindslaver lock, which I just downright refuse to play against in Commander nowadays), and even then, against my most hated strategy in the whole format, I still felt like a jerk afterwards, and feel like a jerk for doing it to this day.
If you did this to me, I would have a talk with you after the game was over and ask you not to do it in the future, or at least have a discussion about what we consider acceptable conduct, or what sort of things would cause you to do it so I could play around it in the future. I would also explain that I don't really enjoy non-interactive combo decks much, and that I'd prefer you didn't use scooping to screw over my preferred deck style, since we're both here to have fun.
If we can't come to an agreement on what we both find to be acceptable conduct, I just won't play with you. It's not a judgment on you, it's just a matter of us both finding different things fun, and our viewpoints being incompatible (I wouldn't play with people who go "Okay, you're out, now we're playing for second." either.)
Everyone in the no scooping camp seems to think it is done purely out of spite and that there is no logical reason why it should ever be done but that's just plain wrong. There are tons of reasons to scoop.
1. The threat of the scoop actually increases your chances of winning. Another user posted an example where threatening to scoop in order to deny life link was the only possible line of play that could win them the game. The example is below.
Player A (You) has nothing in hand/play, is at 10 life. Your deck is full of removal spells.
Player B has a 10/10 lifelink and is at 2 life.
Player C has a mage-ring bully and has 30 life.
Turn order is player A, then player B, then player C. After passing the turn, I will warn player B that if he attacks me (killing me), I will concede to the attack, then he will lose to mage-ring bully, which must attack (lets assume B drew land). If on the other hand he attacks player C, there is still a very real chance that I as player A will come back and win.
So, clearly strategic concession raises my win % here. It also raises your win % in the case of the insurrection example - if the insurrection player knows you will concede if it resolves, then they will be less likely to case it there. Basically, I will always try and damage the player who finises me off in multiplayer as much as possible. I will cultivate a reputation of using everything I have against the player that brings me down (but only if Im actually about to lose).
2. You want someone else to win. Imagine if you're playing in some sort of event with 4 player pods and a friend of yours happens to be in the same pod as you. If you are in a situation where you can't win but you can increase your friends chance by scooping than it only makes sense to do so.
3. You don't want a particular player to win. While this can be out of pure spite it doesn't have to be so. You could be playing in a league where some sort of point system matters. In which case you may find yourself in a situation where you are in a game that you don't necessarily need to win as long as some other specific player doesn't win. In this situation winning the game and winning the league aren't the same thing and your true goal is winning the league by having a specific player lose the game. In this example it is in your best interest to make sure that player loses no matter what. As a note I have been in this exact situation before.
4. It's expected in the group. One other user said something along this line and it holds true amongst my friends as well. Basically never go lethal on someone if you also need a combat trigger because they will scoop every time. For every group that just never scoops there is another group that always scoops. I personally think it adds an extra level of depth to the game. You will occasionally find yourself in situations where you have to pick between eliminating a player and getting your triggers which makes the optimal line of play not always obvious.
5. The threat of the scoop prevents what I call the "Blood in the water" effect(kudos if you can figure out why). This is the effect that is caused when one player is so far behind for whatever reason they can't defend themselves. The other players are all too intimidated by each others board states to attack each other so the weakened player is being constantly attacked and kept out of the game so that the other players can gain combat triggers to advance their board states. In this situation the player who is behind is basically a punching bag. They have no hope of winning if they keep getting attacked so the only line of play that can keep them in the game is to threaten to scoop in order to deny triggers.
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.
Strawman. I showed how to turn a 100% loss play into a non 100% loss play, and have from the start only argued to play to win.
You conceded. Literally the opposite of playing to win.
If you believe this you really don't understand storm combo and doomsday.
I mean, I do, I'm just not one to build a deck with one win condition, spite attack a player if someone removes my one win condition, and stack a pile up that depends on my opponents playing along to win. My respect for Moxnix's opinions keeps plummeting in these threads.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
No offense but you don't have to play the same way I do. You can note the deck I was showing you a line from was not the single bad deck i played 2 weeks years ago with 1 kill condition though your line of play is in fact horrible your grasping at straws here and im not sure why . If you don't like playing that way you don't have too but I do find it ironic when you act like spite are the devil no matter what you enjoy then turn around and say you would then auto target a player in every session for making a play you did not like, now how does that make any sense? If you cannot wrap your head around the idea of different play groups enjoying different kinds of games I don't know what to tell you. Its kind of funny to me that in all the playgroups i have ever played its the "casual" crowd that tends to be by far the least excepting of players, now dont get me wrong i dont think you should walk into a clearly casual group and wip out your hermit druid deck and start yelling suck deez nutz but they cant even seem to comprehend playing the game a different way. Most anything goes players i know don't care if you play group hug with no wincon they don't care if you play stax they don't care if you feel like scooping for whatever reason because your not having fun have to go or just don't want someone to get the mana off a mana drain we roll with the punches and have a good time regaurdless. Anyone is welcome in my group in fact we will let newer players proxy cards when we don't we will let them take plays back when we don't and if we come to your play group we will listen and watch and build a non optimized deck ment to make your experience enjoyable. If you cannot understand this is a social issue I don't know what to tell you. Its not rocket science in fact its really easy to tell if the group your playing with would be ok with tactical scooping its really easy to know if they don't mind Armageddon or storm combo ... you ask them .... I honestly don't know why it offends you that other players like playing a different way then you do but maybe you should go back and look at some of your post because from where im sitting im not the one making an ass out of myself though I admit its nto all your fault I do think thoughtcast is trolling / provoking/ choosing a poor way of explaining himself to people including you. Read vaults posts he makes some really good points. I can understand people not wanting this in their groups one point no one has even made is that in a casual group theft and copy effects are some of the most fun / interactive cards you can play I get it. No one is saying it makes sense to scoop those plays at a table like that. What we have been saying is this is not a rules issue the rule does exactly what it should do. They made the rule for MULTIPLAYER not 1v1 lets get this straight you dont need a rule stating what happens to cards in 1v1 during a scoop the games over!!! A rule chance is unnecessary because A. It would create problems with rules no cards no player to make decisions B. it would make no sense at a very basic level to pretend someone is half there for an arbitrary amount of time and most importantly C. this is player issue this is a playgroup issue, its a problem of people not being on the same page plain and simple. I don't think its inherently unsocial to scoop in fact i don't think any play is inherently unsocial. What is social is 100% dependant on what your individual group enjoys. I cant help but think when you say things in a manner such as this " You conceded. Literally the opposite of playing to win." your being intentionally obtuse he explained why people do it in other groups and why we see it as a good play and you just covered your ears and started yelling "No i don't want to hear that" . I know your smart enough to understand what we are saying, what I don't know is why it bothers you that we enjoy playing the game in a different way than you and why you cannot just ask he people you play with to not do those things when they don't make sense in your group and you don't enjoy them. Seriously whats your issue?
Fot me, it's ultimately just a game. If I'm bored OR I see no way to win, I concede. I had a game the other day where a player had destroyed all my lands and was about to take five extra turns get in a huff about my conceding... It's not my job to be the audience to someone's playing their deck.
The people I play with don't do concessions like this, and that's just fine. You do, and that's also fine. I'm don't actually really care much about the sportsmanship aspect, since sportsmanship really is whatever the social norm happens to be where you play. My first response in the rules change thread sounds like I think all concessions like this are game ruining, but that was specifically in response to the OP trying to make a rule to stop concessions from ruining the game. What I'm really interested in is the strategy of scooping because I think using scooping as a strategy is a mistake. For example, that person being targeted with Gitaxian Probe, if they don't have Swords, they lost right there, concession or not. If they choose not to concede, the game ends, they die with dignity, and you start a new game. If they concede, the game doesn't end, but it does for them, and the next time they get in the game, you'll be perfectly justified in removing them since you know from experience that they will literally kill themselves to make you lose.
It's just bad politics. But frankly any politics that requires you to explain your motives is bad politics. If you play politics using your actions, it's a powerful force for your benefit. Doom Blading a problem creature for the whole table, fogging for another player whose help you need, these are ways to use the other player's presence to your advantage through cooperation. Good politics. Making a threat like "I'll scoop if you do that to make sure you don't win" is not cooperation, it's antagonizing and manipulative. Bad politics. You can enjoy that type of game all you want, but you can't tell me that someone antagonizing or manipulating you makes them into less of a target. If someone does a tactical scoop to rob me of a win, in the next game, when I'm assessing threats, I'm going to be aware that happened. That person gets a jump start as being the biggest threat because the point of conceding to hurt me was literally a threat to take my win away. The strategic concession can do plenty of interesting things to the person who is hurt by it, but the person who employed it has lost the game and made themselves a target in the future.
The closest to a hard example is the example with 3 players and a big creature with lifelink, the one player saying they'll concede and deny the life gain. If I've got the creature with lifelink in that situation, do you know what I do? I attack anyway. If they don't concede, they just lose the game. If they do concede, we both lose, but they now have at least one enemy, and probably another since the third player isn't going to feel any satisfaction in being handed a free win. If they actually concede, it's just bad politics, it goes entirely against rational self-interest. I'm going to make my attacks assuming my opponents act with rational self-interest, and when they realize that they have no actual leverage in the situation, they'll stop conceding that way, and we'll mutually benefit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zedruu: "This deck is not only able to go crazy - it also needs to do so."
You don't need to nitpick his wording thoughtcast you know what he means XD. Sure I would like having a higher win % but not at the cost of enforcing a rule that is unenforceable by game rules. Let's say on MTGO your change is you can no longer scoop with spells or triggers on the stack which wouldn't fix the attack trigger issue at all but let's say that's how they "fix this problem" . The player just goes AFK until the game boots him same result. Assuming you see this as a problem how In paper do you stop a player from getting up and walking away? what rule could you implement that doesn't create more issues than it solves there is no clean way of fixing it period. But no as I've said in my play group we enjoy being able to do this. I would not rather have my probe be unscoopable even by agreement we don't care about spite plays or rule abuse we like this rule. We don't mind players getting mad and targeting someone out. I'll go back to what JWK said much earlier in one of these threads he doesn't think a scooping player should have that much power. We think you should be able to make any legal play at any given time for whatever reason you damn please that's what anything goes means to us as long as your not cheating play however you want. Trying to win in multiplayer in a volatile place like this where any player can do anything at any time is challenging and fun it feels very rewarding to win through teaming abuse and rage and we love it. You have to not only be aware of a players best lines but EVERY line someone can legally make against you and I love it.
Well if the people you play with IRL did not like it if a player scooped you could discuss what rules modification best suits you. Just like you can opt to mulligan differently or house ban a card. If you and the people you play with are fine with players scooping to affect the game, then great.
I agree with you, but if this thread is a reality on the ultimate evolution of the Spike, it might be prudent to have a deck that expects it. I put strategic concessions in the same category of MtG issues I disagree with as intentional draws in competitive events. I disagree, but recognize that any attempt to solve the problem at a rules level will only make the game worse. Neither are on a level where I'd invoke the refusal to play with you option.
The great thing about EDH is that the people who quite literally run this format are active participants on this forum. When we as players present an argument in a well-thoughtout manner they listen to what we have to say. We also have the advantage of having RC members who are employed at Wizards and/or actively involved with them. So hypothetically speaking, if we gave them a compelling enough reason why the scoop rule should be changed for multiplayer they might discuss it amongst themselves and with Matt Tabak.
I'm just a shop owner that passed the rules advisor exam, working towards level one status, and it's my impression that Commander is run by what amounts to some of the best minds MtG has produced- level 5s and other all star judges. You also seem to be next in line for a spot in that crew. From where I stand, I don't know a feasible way to stop a player from losing-- that's usually the punishment, and also to preserve/continue a false board state if a scoop happened. Not in a casual game. I'll happily praise my superiors if I'm wrong. I can't think of a solution to make tactical concessions stop. I suppose the ball's in their court now.
The people I play with don't do concessions like this, and that's just fine. You do, and that's also fine. I'm don't actually really care much about the sportsmanship aspect, since sportsmanship really is whatever the social norm happens to be where you play. My first response in the rules change thread sounds like I think all concessions like this are game ruining, but that was specifically in response to the OP trying to make a rule to stop concessions from ruining the game. What I'm really interested in is the strategy of scooping because I think using scooping as a strategy is a mistake. For example, that person being targeted with Gitaxian Probe, if they don't have Swords, they lost right there, concession or not. If they choose not to concede, the game ends, they die with dignity, and you start a new game. If they concede, the game doesn't end, but it does for them, and the next time they get in the game, you'll be perfectly justified in removing them since you know from experience that they will literally kill themselves to make you lose.
It's just bad politics. But frankly any politics that requires you to explain your motives is bad politics. If you play politics using your actions, it's a powerful force for your benefit. Doom Blading a problem creature for the whole table, fogging for another player whose help you need, these are ways to use the other player's presence to your advantage through cooperation. Good politics. Making a threat like "I'll scoop if you do that to make sure you don't win" is not cooperation, it's antagonizing and manipulative. Bad politics. You can enjoy that type of game all you want, but you can't tell me that someone antagonizing or manipulating you makes them into less of a target. If someone does a tactical scoop to rob me of a win, in the next game, when I'm assessing threats, I'm going to be aware that happened. That person gets a jump start as being the biggest threat because the point of conceding to hurt me was literally a threat to take my win away. The strategic concession can do plenty of interesting things to the person who is hurt by it, but the person who employed it has lost the game and made themselves a target in the future.
The closest to a hard example is the example with 3 players and a big creature with lifelink, the one player saying they'll concede and deny the life gain. If I've got the creature with lifelink in that situation, do you know what I do? I attack anyway. If they don't concede, they just lose the game. If they do concede, we both lose, but they now have at least one enemy, and probably another since the third player isn't going to feel any satisfaction in being handed a free win. If they actually concede, it's just bad politics, it goes entirely against rational self-interest. I'm going to make my attacks assuming my opponents act with rational self-interest, and when they realize that they have no actual leverage in the situation, they'll stop conceding that way, and we'll mutually benefit.
This is the way I see it. If you force them to concede every time they make that threat, they will eventually realize it does nothing. It's pretty much the opposite of what other people are saying about "training" your opponents. In these scenarios, the person that is making the attack, etc has all the power since the other guy has the option of lose or lose.
You don't need to nitpick his wording thoughtcast you know what he means XD. Sure I would like having a higher win % but not at the cost of enforcing a rule that is unenforceable by game rules. Let's say on MTGO your change is you can no longer scoop with spells or triggers on the stack which wouldn't fix the attack trigger issue at all but let's say that's how they "fix this problem" . The player just goes AFK until the game boots him same result. Assuming you see this as a problem how In paper do you stop a player from getting up and walking away? what rule could you implement that doesn't create more issues than it solves there is no clean way of fixing it period. But no as I've said in my play group we enjoy being able to do this. I would not rather have my probe be unscoopable even by agreement we don't care about spite plays or rule abuse we like this rule. We don't mind players getting mad and targeting someone out. I'll go back to what JWK said much earlier in one of these threads he doesn't think a scooping player should have that much power. We think you should be able to make any legal play at any given time for whatever reason you damn please that's what anything goes means to us as long as your not cheating play however you want. Trying to win in multiplayer in a volatile place like this where any player can do anything at any time is challenging and fun it feels very rewarding to win through teaming abuse and rage and we love it. You have to not only be aware of a players best lines but EVERY line someone can legally make against you and I love it.
Well if the people you play with IRL did not like it if a player scooped you could discuss what rules modification best suits you. Just like you can opt to mulligan differently or house ban a card. If you and the people you play with are fine with players scooping to affect the game, then great.
I agree with you, but if this thread is a reality on the ultimate evolution of the Spike, it might be prudent to have a deck that expects it. I put strategic concessions in the same category of MtG issues I disagree with as intentional draws in competitive events. I disagree, but recognize that any attempt to solve the problem at a rules level will only make the game worse. Neither are on a level where I'd invoke the refusal to play with you option.
The great thing about EDH is that the people who quite literally run this format are active participants on this forum. When we as players present an argument in a well-thoughtout manner they listen to what we have to say. We also have the advantage of having RC members who are employed at Wizards and/or actively involved with them. So hypothetically speaking, if we gave them a compelling enough reason why the scoop rule should be changed for multiplayer they might discuss it amongst themselves and with Matt Tabak.
I'm just a shop owner that passed the rules advisor exam, working towards level one status, and it's my impression that Commander is run by what amounts to some of the best minds MtG has produced- level 5s and other all star judges. You also seem to be next in line for a spot in that crew. From where I stand, I don't know a feasible way to stop a player from losing-- that's usually the punishment, and also to preserve/continue a false board state if a scoop happened. Not in a casual game. I'll happily praise my superiors if I'm wrong. I can't think of a solution to make tactical concessions stop. I suppose the ball's in their court now.
Well if you can't rule against it. Then it seems to me the natural tendency of the competitive meta-game will move towards internal combos to win. Internal combos don't care about an opponent's ability to scoop on the path to winning.
You can argue that a lot of actions taken by players are influenced by spite if you really analyze the reasons behind them.
Sure. Lot of grey area here. But I personally draw a distinction between a vengeful play in game that might not be optimal (i.e. I attack you because you attacked me, even if there is an obviously better target), and one that literally involves you removing yourself from the game.
I'm just a shop owner that passed the rules advisor exam, working towards level one status, and it's my impression that Commander is run by what amounts to some of the best minds MtG has produced- level 5s and other all star judges. You also seem to be next in line for a spot in that crew. From where I stand, I don't know a feasible way to stop a player from losing-- that's usually the punishment, and also to preserve/continue a false board state if a scoop happened. Not in a casual game. I'll happily praise my superiors if I'm wrong. I can't think of a solution to make tactical concessions stop. I suppose the ball's in their court now.
Well I appreciate the kind words, but I know my own limitations and despite my joking, being on the RC is not something I foresee ever. I'm rather curious about this from a WotC perspective, so I'm going to pester MaRo until he answers.
This is the way I see it. If you force them to concede every time they make that threat, they will eventually realize it does nothing. It's pretty much the opposite of what other people are saying about "training" your opponents. In these scenarios, the person that is making the attack, etc has all the power since the other guy has the option of lose or lose.
Yes, sort of like when an opponent is deciding whom to attack and you flash a Doom Blade to encourage them to swing elsewhere. Some times that works, and sometimes based on the board state a smart opponent will know that you'd going to kill their creature no matter what and swing at you anyway to force you to kill it on their terms, and not yours.
On the other hand, If someone is going to knock you out with a 10/10 unblockable lifelink, we do consider it a "dick move" to scoop to deny the life gain and will probably just give him the life anyway. It's a nuance sort of thing.
How did the rest of the players group react to it? That's really all that matters. Everyone on this board's opinion is worth infinitely less than your actual friends/store-mates.
The few times I've encountered said people doing it, I tend to just focus them out of the game as a tactical choice (since odds I've seen is they usually play combo too)
While I can see on some groups scooping to deny life gain a "dick move" in others it's not only acceptable but expected but honestly " just giving him the life anyway" to me is cheating and no different than "playing for second" after you lose to combo and much more of a "dick move". Either way you should have established what is acceptable and fair before hand making decisions on what illegal moves are ok mid game is something that I would not enjoy. even if I was not the player scooping I would probably just quit too because I don't see a point in playing if your just making up rules as you go.
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
Lets use the example of 3 players.
Player A (You) has nothing in hand/play, is at 10 life. Your deck is full of removal spells.
Player B has a 10/10 lifelink and is at 2 life.
Player C has a mage-ring bully and has 30 life.
Turn order is player A, then player B, then player C. After passing the turn, I will warn player B that if he attacks me (killing me), I will concede to the attack, then he will lose to mage-ring bully, which must attack (lets assume B drew land). If on the other hand he attacks player C, there is still a very real chance that I as player A will come back and win.
So, clearly strategic concession raises my win % here. It also raises your win % in the case of the insurrection example - if the insurrection player knows you will concede if it resolves, then they will be less likely to case it there. Basically, I will always try and damage the player who finises me off in multiplayer as much as possible. I will cultivate a reputation of using everything I have against the player that brings me down (but only if Im actually about to lose).
Now, is this mindset practical in casual? Probably not - hence why I dont play casual magic much. However, if a bunch of people with competitive mindsets all decide to play a multiplayer game with cash on the line - then it seems this type of behavior makes sense.
TL;DR depends on play group IMHO.
We are playing a multiplayer format designed around encouraging social interaction. Why would I build a deck with the mindset of not caring about or interacting with my opponents?
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
I agree with you, but if this thread is a reality on the ultimate evolution of the Spike, it might be prudent to have a deck that expects it. I put strategic concessions in the same category of MtG issues I disagree with as intentional draws in competitive events. I disagree, but recognize that any attempt to solve the problem at a rules level will only make the game worse. Neither are on a level where I'd invoke the refusal to play with you option.
Well if the people you play with IRL did not like it if a player scooped you could discuss what rules modification best suits you. Just like you can opt to mulligan differently or house ban a card. If you and the people you play with are fine with players scooping to affect the game, then great.
The great thing about EDH is that the people who quite literally run this format are active participants on this forum. When we as players present an argument in a well-thoughtout manner they listen to what we have to say. We also have the advantage of having RC members who are employed at Wizards and/or actively involved with them. So hypothetically speaking, if we gave them a compelling enough reason why the scoop rule should be changed for multiplayer they might discuss it amongst themselves and with Matt Tabak.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Just look at the OP for example, why do what he did? He doesn't claim any long term strategic reputation building goals. He just wanted to give the other players a chance. Why? Why help them instead of the player who is about to win? Maybe because he enjoyed that tiny little bit of remaining control he had over the game, the power to "give" someone something?
I probably wouldn't concede to Insurrection; but I don't have a problem with a strategic concession especially if it's too a lock type situation.
Scooping to deny someone lifelink or something similar is pretty spiteful, in my opionion; but if I had a Knowledge Pool in play and another player got Teferi out; then I'd realize that the game was being locked for the other players by my card and concede the game to free the other two.
I did have one game in my EDH league that was ruined by a player refusal to concede once. We had a month where ultimate a planeswalker was worth a point, think it would be pretty hard to do in a game. What ended up happening is that one player made 5-color paneswalkers which was fine; but he managed to get Doubling Season into Tamiyo Emblem and proceeded to lock the other players with Sorin ult, one of them realized it was over and conceded right way but another one was like "I don't scoop ever." and sat there lettin the player mindslaver him over and over and just built up more and more planeswalkers and ult them. That single game ended with the planeswalker player getting over 40 points, when normally a winner will get 4-6 if they are lucky. They ended up winning the entire months league without even needing to participate in any of the other EDH nights.
I've only done this once (against mindslaver lock, which I just downright refuse to play against in Commander nowadays), and even then, against my most hated strategy in the whole format, I still felt like a jerk afterwards, and feel like a jerk for doing it to this day.
If you did this to me, I would have a talk with you after the game was over and ask you not to do it in the future, or at least have a discussion about what we consider acceptable conduct, or what sort of things would cause you to do it so I could play around it in the future. I would also explain that I don't really enjoy non-interactive combo decks much, and that I'd prefer you didn't use scooping to screw over my preferred deck style, since we're both here to have fun.
If we can't come to an agreement on what we both find to be acceptable conduct, I just won't play with you. It's not a judgment on you, it's just a matter of us both finding different things fun, and our viewpoints being incompatible (I wouldn't play with people who go "Okay, you're out, now we're playing for second." either.)
Everyone in the no scooping camp seems to think it is done purely out of spite and that there is no logical reason why it should ever be done but that's just plain wrong. There are tons of reasons to scoop.
1. The threat of the scoop actually increases your chances of winning. Another user posted an example where threatening to scoop in order to deny life link was the only possible line of play that could win them the game. The example is below.
2. You want someone else to win. Imagine if you're playing in some sort of event with 4 player pods and a friend of yours happens to be in the same pod as you. If you are in a situation where you can't win but you can increase your friends chance by scooping than it only makes sense to do so.
3. You don't want a particular player to win. While this can be out of pure spite it doesn't have to be so. You could be playing in a league where some sort of point system matters. In which case you may find yourself in a situation where you are in a game that you don't necessarily need to win as long as some other specific player doesn't win. In this situation winning the game and winning the league aren't the same thing and your true goal is winning the league by having a specific player lose the game. In this example it is in your best interest to make sure that player loses no matter what. As a note I have been in this exact situation before.
4. It's expected in the group. One other user said something along this line and it holds true amongst my friends as well. Basically never go lethal on someone if you also need a combat trigger because they will scoop every time. For every group that just never scoops there is another group that always scoops. I personally think it adds an extra level of depth to the game. You will occasionally find yourself in situations where you have to pick between eliminating a player and getting your triggers which makes the optimal line of play not always obvious.
5. The threat of the scoop prevents what I call the "Blood in the water" effect(kudos if you can figure out why). This is the effect that is caused when one player is so far behind for whatever reason they can't defend themselves. The other players are all too intimidated by each others board states to attack each other so the weakened player is being constantly attacked and kept out of the game so that the other players can gain combat triggers to advance their board states. In this situation the player who is behind is basically a punching bag. They have no hope of winning if they keep getting attacked so the only line of play that can keep them in the game is to threaten to scoop in order to deny triggers.
You conceded. Literally the opposite of playing to win.
I mean, I do, I'm just not one to build a deck with one win condition, spite attack a player if someone removes my one win condition, and stack a pile up that depends on my opponents playing along to win. My respect for Moxnix's opinions keeps plummeting in these threads.
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
Fot me, it's ultimately just a game. If I'm bored OR I see no way to win, I concede. I had a game the other day where a player had destroyed all my lands and was about to take five extra turns get in a huff about my conceding... It's not my job to be the audience to someone's playing their deck.
UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU's prison: blue is the new orange is the new black.
Mizzix Of The Izmagnus : wheels on fire... rolling down the road...
BSidisi, Undead VizierB: Bis zum Erbrechen
GTitiania, Protector Of ArgothG: Protecting Argoth, by blowing it up!
GYisan, The Wanderer BardG: Gradus Ad Elfball.
Duel EDH: Yisan & Titania.
In Progress: Grand Arbiter Augustin IV duel; Grenzo, Dungeon Warden Doomsday.
It's just bad politics. But frankly any politics that requires you to explain your motives is bad politics. If you play politics using your actions, it's a powerful force for your benefit. Doom Blading a problem creature for the whole table, fogging for another player whose help you need, these are ways to use the other player's presence to your advantage through cooperation. Good politics. Making a threat like "I'll scoop if you do that to make sure you don't win" is not cooperation, it's antagonizing and manipulative. Bad politics. You can enjoy that type of game all you want, but you can't tell me that someone antagonizing or manipulating you makes them into less of a target. If someone does a tactical scoop to rob me of a win, in the next game, when I'm assessing threats, I'm going to be aware that happened. That person gets a jump start as being the biggest threat because the point of conceding to hurt me was literally a threat to take my win away. The strategic concession can do plenty of interesting things to the person who is hurt by it, but the person who employed it has lost the game and made themselves a target in the future.
The closest to a hard example is the example with 3 players and a big creature with lifelink, the one player saying they'll concede and deny the life gain. If I've got the creature with lifelink in that situation, do you know what I do? I attack anyway. If they don't concede, they just lose the game. If they do concede, we both lose, but they now have at least one enemy, and probably another since the third player isn't going to feel any satisfaction in being handed a free win. If they actually concede, it's just bad politics, it goes entirely against rational self-interest. I'm going to make my attacks assuming my opponents act with rational self-interest, and when they realize that they have no actual leverage in the situation, they'll stop conceding that way, and we'll mutually benefit.
I'm just a shop owner that passed the rules advisor exam, working towards level one status, and it's my impression that Commander is run by what amounts to some of the best minds MtG has produced- level 5s and other all star judges. You also seem to be next in line for a spot in that crew. From where I stand, I don't know a feasible way to stop a player from losing-- that's usually the punishment, and also to preserve/continue a false board state if a scoop happened. Not in a casual game. I'll happily praise my superiors if I'm wrong. I can't think of a solution to make tactical concessions stop. I suppose the ball's in their court now.
This is the way I see it. If you force them to concede every time they make that threat, they will eventually realize it does nothing. It's pretty much the opposite of what other people are saying about "training" your opponents. In these scenarios, the person that is making the attack, etc has all the power since the other guy has the option of lose or lose.
Well if you can't rule against it. Then it seems to me the natural tendency of the competitive meta-game will move towards internal combos to win. Internal combos don't care about an opponent's ability to scoop on the path to winning.
For example,
Azami, Lady of Scrolls, Mind Over Matter and Laboratory Maniac
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed and Triskelion
Palinchron, Phantasmal Image, Deadeye Navigator and Venser, Shaper Savant
Not necessarily a good or bad thing, but an interesting side effect.
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
Sure. Lot of grey area here. But I personally draw a distinction between a vengeful play in game that might not be optimal (i.e. I attack you because you attacked me, even if there is an obviously better target), and one that literally involves you removing yourself from the game.
Well I appreciate the kind words, but I know my own limitations and despite my joking, being on the RC is not something I foresee ever. I'm rather curious about this from a WotC perspective, so I'm going to pester MaRo until he answers.
Yes, sort of like when an opponent is deciding whom to attack and you flash a Doom Blade to encourage them to swing elsewhere. Some times that works, and sometimes based on the board state a smart opponent will know that you'd going to kill their creature no matter what and swing at you anyway to force you to kill it on their terms, and not yours.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg