So in most casual games scooping in a way that is detrimental (EX: before combat damage triggers, when a permanent is owned by an opponent, etc...) is generally a disliked thing and the common solution is "don't play with people like that". But in event play, unfortunately malicious use of scooping to king make or genuinely be a bad sport to harm another players ability to win to no benefit of your own is technically allowed by Magic rulings (EX "If you swing at me, I'll just scoop so you lose [X card X] and die to them"). I TO events and I want to put something into place that is a bit better than using our bias against a player to punish them for malicious play that didn't have a rule to say not to do so (as some players do it thinking they're helping the others and dont see it as a problem when it is). So I'm looking for ideas and counter points. Something easy to grasp and implement. We understand there's perfectly good reasons to scoop as well (EX: emergencies and wanting out of a game that's too long and no longer fun, but trapped out of decency).
So here's an idea I have: proxy player
all stolen and targeted permanents are replaced with a token or copy.
any spells/effects that would fizzle are rolled back as well as any spells/effects targeting the rewound spell.
A proxy of the player persists till end of turn. This player has 1 life, no cards in any zone beyond token replacements. End of turn player loses, Player cannot win game.
Obviously it needs a more formal write up and there's the issue of...what if player scoops up cards before proxies can be translated? It's a tough and delicate situation, but I've had players asking for a rule and I've had players say it's a players right to scoop. So I'm trying to find the best way to just not harm the game.
How about: Players are only allowed to scoop at EoT or if the entire table agrees to scoop to a single winner. Otherwise scooping mid-turn is considered dropping from the tournament (this would cover legitimate emergencies).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH playing competitive Magic cast away
Current Decks GTitania midrange RGThromok tokens/goodstuff | UB Grimgrin zombie tribal GW Sigarda enchantress | R Godo voltron U Braids aggro | WR Kalemne punisher RU Mizzix storm | BUG Mimeoplasm competitive reanimator | UG Ezuri infect
I don't see the difference between a player scooping when their stolen dudes are alpha striking the table, or the same player casting fog then dieing to the next players turn.
Scooping is just part of the game, and decision need to be played with that in mind.
My league has a penalty point if you scoop when it's not your turn or when the stack isn't empty. Fairly simple, and works for both scooping before combat damage, and scooping in response to a trigger that would set off an infinite combo. (eg, Player A has Sanguine Bond + Exquisite Blood, Player B has Phyrexian Arena)
I don't see the difference between a player scooping when their stolen dudes are alpha striking the table, or the same player casting fog then dieing to the next players turn.
Scooping is just part of the game, and decision need to be played with that in mind.
Malicious scooping is an easy access form of abuse. It requires no play lines to be malicious and simply requires a dependency on a player to need you in the game. A common issue I've seen this on is Bribery or a commander like Derevi that needs combat triggers to untap. Scooping is a beneficial and needed mechanic in 1v1 to hide deck info or if a player needs to drop...where the only detriment to opponents is tie breakers. Multiplayer leads to unintended consequences that the rules of Magic simply don't address since multi is fringe or casual. While malicious moves are always present (EX: cyclonic rifting before lethal), malicious scooping is something too easily done and an easy thing to target as bad ethical play.
Isn't this an acceptable thing to be expected? It is simply as valid a strategy as any other, the only time it is foul play is when there it nothing on the line. However at a tournament if it is within the rules it is fair game.
I remember talking about an issue like this on these forums not long ago (player A casts game winning Insurrection, player B scoops and player C and D are still able to keep playing because of this). Many considered it poor sportsmanship, I felt that it was more important in a multiplayer environment that the game be able to continue for as many players as possible. Our group calls this tactical scooping, as opposed to malicious/spite scooping that more competitively minded people tend to call it.
Docking points in a league for it seems fine, I wouldn't try and force in extra rules. Scooping is another interactive part of the game, as much an asset as any other. Next you'll tell me that an O-Ringed permanent stays o-ringed for a round when that player drops, there are all kinds of reasons that the scoop rules need to stay as they are.
Isn't this an acceptable thing to be expected? It is simply as valid a strategy as any other, the only time it is foul play is when there it nothing on the line. However at a tournament if it is within the rules it is fair game.
Scooping in 1v1 has a strategic value of concealing deck build options while simultaneously not altering the outcome of the match. In multiplayer, scooping can lead to a wildly different outcome and concealing build has FAR less relevance due to pods often being a one round issue and card diversity and consistency is on a different ratio to pull insight from. Strategic advantages dip into nefarious tactics such as king making for the benefit of a friend or putting another player behind. Scooping in multi is not part of the game in what is regarded as a valid and expected tactic of good play and is often seen as a sign of poor sportsmanship, often corrected by politely waiting till the game is in a position it will not sway the outcome of current forces.
Please see the "Leaving the game" section. It seems to me that the current way conceding works is completely intended. Disliking something does not mean it is poor sportsmanship or nefarious.
I remember talking about an issue like this on these forums not long ago (player A casts game winning Insurrection, player B scoops and player C and D are still able to keep playing because of this). Many considered it poor sportsmanship, I felt that it was more important in a multiplayer environment that the game be able to continue for as many players as possible. Our group calls this tactical scooping, as opposed to malicious/spite scooping that more competitively minded people tend to call it.
Docking points in a league for it seems fine, I wouldn't try and force in extra rules. Scooping is another interactive part of the game, as much an asset as any other. Next you'll tell me that an O-Ringed permanent stays o-ringed for a round when that player drops, there are all kinds of reasons that the scoop rules need to stay as they are.
So the line of logic is that it's ok for the game continue if a player is thwarted by their attempt to play within the game as intended? I'm more concerned that good strategy is rewarded withing the mechanics of the game. Scooping is not a mechanic, but condition that allows a player to drop. Magic rules are designed with 1v1 in mind and do not account for multi event play since they are fringe and casual, leaving house rules and format specific ones to find the correct fix. I can find no benefit to scooping that presents a tactical advantage that isn't counter to the basic concepts of competitive play. Cutthroat games operate on one principle, any and all moves are an attempt to win that instance of the game. If done for the purpose of stacking matches later in many sports/games it is referred to as match fixing and is typically regarded as poor sportsmanship an often penalized.
We do not use a point/league system. We do 4 round swiss tournaments.
Scooping is not a mechanic, it is an aspect of the rules. In multiplayer you need to play with that particular aspect in mind. It is a feature, not a bug.
I'm with Jivan here. Altering the rules of the game so some special snowflake won't get their feelings hurt doesn't seem like a good idea for a tournament setting.
Please see the "Leaving the game" section. It seems to me that the current way conceding works is completely intended. Disliking something does not mean it is poor sportsmanship or nefarious.
I think the logic is that it's more tailored to casual and it is a bit social contract reliant. If Wizards were to say humor prized events with any concept of seriousness, I wonder if this wold be addressed differently...but then we get into the million reasons of multi =/= competitive for those very reasons. Just as a TO I'm very tired of players being punished by bad sportsmanship. We have a Derevi that notoriously gets "douchescooped" to deny combat triggers, as well the deck likes to run theft. It's been a minefield of malicious plays to deny the deck wins when the player is simply playing the game well with what the game state is. The concept of someone scooping goes far beyond the layers of expected reads in a players playlines.
I'm just trying to see if there's a rule I can apply rather than tell players we'll punish them for repeat offenses (because where is the line drawn? What's to stop them from saying a legit excuse as a lie?). I'd rather just add to the dropped player fixes to not harm the game so wildly.
I wonder if this wold be addressed differently...but then we get into the million reasons of multi =/= competitive for those very reasons.
Seems to be a case of this in my opinion.
But if we're going to entertain the idea of multiplayer competitive then I'm sorry but you don't change rules because people like to use them well. It is not a "minefield of malicious plays" to know how to play the field well. It's an issue of players needing to accept and adapt more and complain less. That's how you start with competitive play.
I'm with Jivan here. Altering the rules of the game so some special snowflake won't get their feelings hurt doesn't seem like a good idea for a tournament setting.
I'm just not even going to validate this response for several reason... smh
I wonder if this wold be addressed differently...but then we get into the million reasons of multi =/= competitive for those very reasons.
Seems to be a case of this in my opinion.
But if we're going to entertain the idea of multiplayer competitive then I'm sorry but you don't change rules because people like to use them well. It is not a "minefield of malicious plays" to know how to play the field well. It's an issue of players needing to accept and adapt more and complain less. That's how you start with competitive play.
Rules tend to have the spirit of the game in mind and based on the type of level the game is played at largely dictates the type of rules. Casual games tend to simply have ways to repair the game to continue as not much is on the line and the expectation that you're playing among friends largely is the way to fix this. 1v1 comp rules however have much more consideration for how they play out in tournaments as prizes and other things are on the line. When players exploit a gap in the rules that breaks the spirit of the game and leads to the game not playing properly, things are done to fix this. The same attention is needed for multi as it is casual. Scooping does not have the same impact in 1v1 at all and is not analogous in a comp environment. I find this to be overwhelmingly easy to grasp and an expected norm of basic game philosophy.
As a TO, I'm pushing a comp style of EDH which does not have an established rule set for multi and creating one is a perfectly valid idea. I cannot expect players to adapt to concepts within the game beyond their control. There is no counter play to a random scoop and it's impossible to expect a player to have every beneficial moment of needing a player in play, to be a risk. you are basically saying not playing the game is part of the game, rather than an unfortunate and hard to address situation. I can't hold players to finish a game, but there's no justification that scooping at the determent of a player is beneficial as that player is now intentionally losing. At that point we can gauge the motives and if none are self serving to a tactical degree.
If anything the weeping special butterfly is the person scooping not the person complaining. Clearly if you're scooping to spite someone, you are playing the game poorly and conceding to an emotional backlash with no in game benefit. Why should the crybaby be rewarded, much less defended. I can understand arguing this situation is hard to apply a rule to..I do not understand the threads justification and misplaced view of who the player of issue here is. Do not reward players of emotional chaos, reward players who play the game properly as intended.
I'm not seeing the tactic beyond 2 scenarios: Match fixing for future pairings and the case of "if you target me I'll scoop" defense. I find both of these as either nefarious or against the spirit of a functioning game. Is there another area of consideration that is regarded as tactical for that instance of the game? I am VERY for tactical scooping in 1v1 as I use it often. If a legit tactic is presented I'm more than willing to concede it's necessary support of use; just currently the idea is that it is an unfortunate issue of bad sportsmanship and the fixes are too cumbersome and tricky to fix, thus the rules of Magic present the simplest way to continue the game, rather that properly refund the efforts of players.
I know in my playgroup it’s not just commonplace it’s actually expected for you to scoop. It would be more likely to be considered poor sportsmanship if you DON’T scoop. If someone is killing you with a lethal attack and has a sword equipped you’re actually rewarding them for killing you if you don’t scoop. That doesn’t make any sense. If someone eliminates me I don’t want them to win, I want them to lose. It’s a good play for me to do this as well. That person may be less likely to try to eliminate me in future games, at least before the others are dead, and if someone has the option of attacking me or another person with a lethal attack and know for certain I will scoop in response they’ll attack the other player. In my group, it’s expected, people build and play with this fact in mind and we don’t have any issues without changing any rules.
What is the benefit of not scooping? It seems like it’s actively detrimental to your chances to win future games. The only benefit I see is that it prevents the person killing you from getting their feelings hurt because you made a perfectly legal and sensible play.
Encouraging 'tactical' scoops in a competitive environment has a very parasitic impact on what can work in that meta - if you are expected to get deliberately wrenched anytime you need to interact with another player to accomplish, the obvious line of play and brew is to use exclusively uninteractive, linear, 'solitaire'-style plays. The prevalence of 'tactical' scooping severely cripples a number of deck archetypes that are already fighting against the odds in our format and strongly incentivizes archetypes that are already notoriously strong and unwelcome in a lot of groups/shops if they aren't curbed to a moderated frequency.
Many people here seem to make the argument that insta-scooping is simply "part of the rules" and must be played around. Let's go with that for a moment. If you know insta-scooping is a possibility and you don't want to lose due to someone insta-scooping, then how should you play? I would argue you should go for combo-wins that don't care if any opponent insta-scoops. If you don't mind that insta-scooping pushes strategies in this direction, then insta-scooping might not be an issue for you. If you dislike how insta-scooping pushes strategies towards combo wins, then perhaps insta-scooping is a problem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
In competitive environments players are already utilizing combo wins so I feel that the further limiting of aggro is realistically a non-issue. After all, we're only talking competitive here so there is no need to discuss anything else.
The reason it is relevant is that I run Modern Commander, which has a dramatic buff on interactive decks compared to current EDH tier 1's (pick U or B as a base color, play 10-20 ramp, draw/tutor, combo turn 0-4, inform the 3 other players you won). In Modern commander, noninteractive decks make up a small part of the meta.
The entire argument frankly feels pointless if we are trying to moralize it. You worry over kingmaker strategies, collusion, and spite plays.
You know what multiplayer magic just flat out -is-? Occasionally rife with kingmakers, excessively prone to collusion, and with entire decks made to spite the table.
Perhaps you are already somehow policing deck building (in which case, ew), but telling a player when and how they can leave the game and essentially removing their agency from that decision, is silly at best.
I think the disagreement is that I think tactically scooping is playing the game as intended.
Whereas I would argue that, in many respects, the rules about conceding the game are designed around the fact that you simply can't stop a player from picking up his cards and leaving the store at any time for any reason. (Nor should you, there are absolutely valid reasons to need to leave in a hurry!)
The rules about scooping aren't designed to give players another tactical option. They're designed to clean up the mess left behind when a player stands up and walks away.
So here's an idea I have: proxy player
Obviously it needs a more formal write up and there's the issue of...what if player scoops up cards before proxies can be translated? It's a tough and delicate situation, but I've had players asking for a rule and I've had players say it's a players right to scoop. So I'm trying to find the best way to just not harm the game.
Current Decks
GTitania midrange
RGThromok tokens/goodstuff | UB Grimgrin zombie tribal
GW Sigarda enchantress | R Godo voltron
U Braids aggro | WR Kalemne punisher
RU Mizzix storm | BUG Mimeoplasm competitive reanimator | UG Ezuri infect
Scooping is just part of the game, and decision need to be played with that in mind.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Docking points in a league for it seems fine, I wouldn't try and force in extra rules. Scooping is another interactive part of the game, as much an asset as any other. Next you'll tell me that an O-Ringed permanent stays o-ringed for a round when that player drops, there are all kinds of reasons that the scoop rules need to stay as they are.
Please see the "Leaving the game" section. It seems to me that the current way conceding works is completely intended. Disliking something does not mean it is poor sportsmanship or nefarious.
We do not use a point/league system. We do 4 round swiss tournaments.
I'm just trying to see if there's a rule I can apply rather than tell players we'll punish them for repeat offenses (because where is the line drawn? What's to stop them from saying a legit excuse as a lie?). I'd rather just add to the dropped player fixes to not harm the game so wildly.
Seems to be a case of this in my opinion.
But if we're going to entertain the idea of multiplayer competitive then I'm sorry but you don't change rules because people like to use them well. It is not a "minefield of malicious plays" to know how to play the field well. It's an issue of players needing to accept and adapt more and complain less. That's how you start with competitive play.
As a TO, I'm pushing a comp style of EDH which does not have an established rule set for multi and creating one is a perfectly valid idea. I cannot expect players to adapt to concepts within the game beyond their control. There is no counter play to a random scoop and it's impossible to expect a player to have every beneficial moment of needing a player in play, to be a risk. you are basically saying not playing the game is part of the game, rather than an unfortunate and hard to address situation. I can't hold players to finish a game, but there's no justification that scooping at the determent of a player is beneficial as that player is now intentionally losing. At that point we can gauge the motives and if none are self serving to a tactical degree.
If anything the weeping special butterfly is the person scooping not the person complaining. Clearly if you're scooping to spite someone, you are playing the game poorly and conceding to an emotional backlash with no in game benefit. Why should the crybaby be rewarded, much less defended. I can understand arguing this situation is hard to apply a rule to..I do not understand the threads justification and misplaced view of who the player of issue here is. Do not reward players of emotional chaos, reward players who play the game properly as intended.
I'd also refrain from both sides putting your opinions as the intent of others. No one is a "snowflake or butterfly" in these scenarios.
What is the benefit of not scooping? It seems like it’s actively detrimental to your chances to win future games. The only benefit I see is that it prevents the person killing you from getting their feelings hurt because you made a perfectly legal and sensible play.
Most Used (of many dozens) EDH Decks:
Brago, King Eternal - Stax
Grenzo, Dungeon Warden - Aggro Combo
Wort, the Raidmother - Spellslinger Swarm Control
Animar, Soul of Elements - Tempo Combo
Yidris, Maelstrom Wielder - Spellslinger
Exodia the Forbidden One:
Oona, Queen of the Fae - Combowins.dec
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
The reason it is relevant is that I run Modern Commander, which has a dramatic buff on interactive decks compared to current EDH tier 1's (pick U or B as a base color, play 10-20 ramp, draw/tutor, combo turn 0-4, inform the 3 other players you won). In Modern commander, noninteractive decks make up a small part of the meta.
You know what multiplayer magic just flat out -is-? Occasionally rife with kingmakers, excessively prone to collusion, and with entire decks made to spite the table.
Perhaps you are already somehow policing deck building (in which case, ew), but telling a player when and how they can leave the game and essentially removing their agency from that decision, is silly at best.
The rules about scooping aren't designed to give players another tactical option. They're designed to clean up the mess left behind when a player stands up and walks away.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)