Nobody is throwing a game, I'm making a perfectly sensible and legal move. My opponent is doing the same when they scoop. Complain in about it is what seems childish to me.
I don't think it's right to force a player to sit in a game they can't win, and if that player decides that in scooping they can achieve some form of retribution against the player who's putting them in that position, who is anyone to fault them for that? It's not necessarily spite as much as it is roleplaying as a defeated planeswalker making one last strike to hinder his executioner.
It sucks when you've stolen some permanents from a player and that player exits the game prematurely for whatever reason before you're done using his creatures or whatever, but this is the risk you take when playing decks that have those effects in a multiplayer environment. Denying someone or punishing them for scoop might result in eliminating the occasional scoop of "poor form" or whatever you want to call it, but it introduces new problems as well and has the unintended result of forcing players to continue playing a virtually unwinnable game so they can serve as a pawn for someone else. No one faults a player for scooping when they've lost any semblance of winning, often they'll just go start up another game with other losers or practice some standard matches while they wait for the rest of the table to finish, there's other things they could be doing when waiting around to die. Why does this change when the player is still facing the same nigh-unwinnable game, except now scooping inconveniences another player? How do you differentiate between scooping because you're screwed and you'd like to go do something else besides lose for the next 45 minutes vs scooping because you're trying to screw over someone else?
You don't. You let the players distinguish between these actions and react accordingly. Maybe that's by doing nothing. Maybe that's by changing their playstyle to not put themselves in those kinds of situations to begin with. Maybe that's by acts of retribution in future games for the behavior- "Well, I guess I'll swing Gisela at you for scooping just to screw me over last game". Don't start imposing house rules on players because you think that's what they would want. If you receive the occasional complaint, the player should be encouraged to fight the tactic within the rules as mentioned above. But assuming that this is a frequent problem that is significantly impacting the players and reacting to it by creating house rules is overreacting. Magic has all kinds of rules and aspects that generate complaints. Some players feel like 50 minute rounds aren't long enough for them to play a given decktype. Sometimes people open up a terrible sealed pool. Sometimes you just get mana screwed. And sometimes a player scoops and takes with them all the creatures that they stole from them fair and square. Sometimes Homeward Path hits the field too and accomplishes the same thing. That's just Magic. It's not always fun or fair. And you're not always on the receiving end of it.
The only time I can see addressing this problem is that this is a common behavior for a specific player, and even then I can't see the playgroup being unable to solve their own problem in the form of retribution until the guy gets the point. Creating a house rule like this has the potential to backfire to new players visiting the store "what do you mean I can't scoop without being further penalized? What the heck kind of rule is that? That's not a real rule, or even a common house rule. I have to sit here and wait for the game to be over while I play draw-go and that guy over there beats people to death with my stolen Baneslayer?" and is overall, in my opinion, not worth the trouble and controversy instating a rule like this might cause.
At the very least, get the public opinion on it. Have the players take a vote on the proposed rule. Let them decide if they want the rule in place, or tested, or ignored.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy: TES
EDH: Grand Arbiter $tax, Freyalise Stompy, Mimeoplasm Death From the Grave
Commander is designed to promote social games of magic.
Commander is a social game. Being a sore loser isn't a very sociable attitude. Yes, there's no rule against quitting a game to deny another player a victory, but it demonstrates a lack of discipline. Maybe your opponent got lucky, maybe they played with more skill, maybe both. Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you.
It's important to accept loss with grace and dignity. Try to keep in perspective that it's only a game.
I don't think it's right to force a player to sit in a game they can't win, and if that player decides that in scooping they can achieve some form of retribution against the player who's putting them in that position, who is anyone to fault them for that? It's not necessarily spite as much as it is roleplaying as a defeated planeswalker making one last strike to hinder his executioner.
Role-playing appeal surely doesn't favor scooping. We have the in-game fantasy of spells and creatures, etc, and a decidedly un-fantasy like subset of rules for dealing with real-life players that (need/want) to (leave the game/abort the fantasy). A player choosing to scoop specifically to deny triggers (or counter a spell that targets them, or whatever) is explicitly choosing to disrupt the core role-playing elements by exercising beyond-the-4th-wall rules. The retribution you're referring to here is the opposite of role-playing. It's a refusal to role-play your own death, and instead setting your character sheet on fire so that nobody can get the items off of your dead body (reaching a bit for this analogy, but hopefully it's close enough to make the point).
So yes, I would argue that the spite-scoop is a bug, and not a feature. I'm not sure how best to address the problem, but I do think it's important to first recognize that it's a problem. It's difficult for the obvious reasons: sometimes players have to leave, but the game must continue, and we can't assess a player's motivations for leaving. With the difficulty confessed, still I'd maintain that a mechanic that allows "you and another player lose" is not a desirable mechanic for a multiplayer game.
Re: forcing players to sit in unwinnable games. It's difficult to imagine a scenario in which this condition lasts for very long. Certainly "I scoop in response to lethal combat" or "I scoop with your post-Doomsday Gitaxian Probe on the stack" don't fit this category, as in these examples the game would be over in moments anyway (for you, at least). Even the extremely contrived Selvala example from a few posts back doesn't paint an unwinnable scene, as it breaks down due to random topdeck reveals or an opponent drawing into a Force of Will or whatever. Granted, there's surely some other prison-style example that could be imagined, but I struggle to think of one that requires opponents to remain in the game to function. But generally speaking, let's remember we're playing a format where Stasis, Nether Void, etc are legal cards. Moreover, EDH is notorious for taking longer than most other formats. "It's taking too long" seems like a thin complaint--this is EDH, it's part of what you sign up for when you play it.
Timing of concession is the basis of this thread, yes? I've played a stax deck previously. I've played against infinite time walks. The issue Droptimal is trying curtail is about a time frame. Scooping to locked board, ie: Meren + Avenger + Possessed Portal is one thing. Scooping to a player that just chained Deadeye and archaeomancer and time walks infinitely is not uncommon either. It's not about the miserable time of actually playing it out. It's about spite scoops. Scooping to a game winning play, or massive upswing in triggers and such is what he's talking about. A state you CAN'T come back from may as well be a concession scoop vs.a spite scoop. Being locked into a Teferi + Knowledge Pool match is miserable, and saying, yes I concede to that player is different. If I have no answer or avenue to take, there isn't a point to playing it out. To scoop because my opponent with get Derevi triggers is poor sportsmanship.
In reality it is simply a matter of maturity as a player. There are always kids that threaten to take their ball home if you don't treat them special. The best way to deal with this is through showing them that it does not affect them favorably.
It will be difficult to rule around it in an elegant manner. Your best bet is to work with the players that do not do this to put either a social or in-game pressure on those that do. Either talk to them about the issue or focus them out first, before their "tactical scoop" can adversely impact the game. Sometimes people will really need to leave a game for one legitimate reason or another, so anything that you put in place will likely penalize them as well. This is really more of a social issue than a rules issue. People that do this are often motivated by spite, even though they profess that they do it "so others can keep playing" or as a "tactical countermeasure."
Really, just begin to create an atmosphere where this is looked down upon and/or provides no benefit to the offending players.
I don't think it's right to force a player to sit in a game they can't win, and if that player decides that in scooping they can achieve some form of retribution against the player who's putting them in that position, who is anyone to fault them for that? It's not necessarily spite as much as it is roleplaying as a defeated planeswalker making one last strike to hinder his executioner.
Role-playing appeal surely doesn't favor scooping. We have the in-game fantasy of spells and creatures, etc, and a decidedly un-fantasy like subset of rules for dealing with real-life players that (need/want) to (leave the game/abort the fantasy). A player choosing to scoop specifically to deny triggers (or counter a spell that targets them, or whatever) is explicitly choosing to disrupt the core role-playing elements by exercising beyond-the-4th-wall rules. The retribution you're referring to here is the opposite of role-playing. It's a refusal to role-play your own death, and instead setting your character sheet on fire so that nobody can get the items off of your dead body (reaching a bit for this analogy, but hopefully it's close enough to make the point).
So yes, I would argue that the spite-scoop is a bug, and not a feature. I'm not sure how best to address the problem, but I do think it's important to first recognize that it's a problem. It's difficult for the obvious reasons: sometimes players have to leave, but the game must continue, and we can't assess a player's motivations for leaving. With the difficulty confessed, still I'd maintain that a mechanic that allows "you and another player lose" is not a desirable mechanic for a multiplayer game.
Re: forcing players to sit in unwinnable games. It's difficult to imagine a scenario in which this condition lasts for very long. Certainly "I scoop in response to lethal combat" or "I scoop with your post-Doomsday Gitaxian Probe on the stack" don't fit this category, as in these examples the game would be over in moments anyway (for you, at least). Even the extremely contrived Selvala example from a few posts back doesn't paint an unwinnable scene, as it breaks down due to random topdeck reveals or an opponent drawing into a Force of Will or whatever. Granted, there's surely some other prison-style example that could be imagined, but I struggle to think of one that requires opponents to remain in the game to function. But generally speaking, let's remember we're playing a format where Stasis, Nether Void, etc are legal cards. Moreover, EDH is notorious for taking longer than most other formats. "It's taking too long" seems like a thin complaint--this is EDH, it's part of what you sign up for when you play it.
While it's hard to argue many people treat MTG as any sort of real RPG, or that it should be the basis for making any moves in game, EDH is pretty casual and if someone wants to get taken down and want to get in one last jab, I can roll with that. As the player doing the killing, I'd expect the dying player to do anything they can to hurt their executioner and wouldn't take it personally.
Anyway, more to the point:
Sometimes unwinnable games can for one player can drag out for quite a while. One game I had I actually held another player hostage, showing a bolt in my hand and him at 2 life and forced him to attack other players and aid me or I'd bolt him. He could have scooped but found the hostage role entertaining, but suppose he hadn't, and scooping was further penalized? Now players can actually abuse this to take other players hostage.....a neat aspect, but not necessarily a welcome one.
If I'm at two life, the other players are mostly healthy and balanced, and I've got virtually nothing, I can opt to hold out and try to make an unrealistic comeback (and still just die from a casual attack before I can accomplish a comeback after 20 minutes of draw-go), or I can just scoop and go jump in another game or start one up or go do trades or whatever. The occurrences of situations like this would seem to crop up rarely, of course, but probably just as infrequently as the "tactical scoop" that might upset some players. Here's an example. I'm playing Kaalia, and I've cast and recast kaalia several times, gotten some licks in, but am unable to recover after an Armageddon hits. The game has gone on for a while, and I know that out of my remaining cards, I've lost too much land to even cast kaalia again, and MIGHT get to resolve one of my big angry demons or whatever if I can find the last 7 land in my deck, AND the demon. Then my opponent casts Bribery, and steals Demon out of my deck, one of my last ways to feasibly win. The demon will take a while and might not overcome the other players who have rebuilt after the 'geddon with Crucible of Worlds or artifact mana or whatever, but it will at least hold them at bay for a while. I don't really have a win condition now, hardly any land remaining, and am the weakest player on the board by a long shot. All of the cards involved are commonly used, and this scenario is not a corner case. Should I be made to finish the game so the player holding my Demon isn't screwed?
Yeah, I signed up for the possibility of a lengthy game if I sat down to play EDH, but I presumed that "lengthy game" means I'm actually playing it and not sitting around waiting to die at someone's whim.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy: TES
EDH: Grand Arbiter $tax, Freyalise Stompy, Mimeoplasm Death From the Grave
Or consider using any other competitive format for your needs instead of trying to shoehorn social play guidelines into a competitive format.
I think that an expectation of players not playing up to the very edge of the rules in competitive play will continue to breed problems.
The OP refers to event play, not casual play. There are EDH tournaments and leagues with prizes. Maybe this is a bad idea, and the organizers of these events should stop hosting them. Or, alternatively, this just means that we don't need a one-size-fits-all answer to dealing with the issue. Off the cuff... Tournament? Scoop = out of the tourney, no prizes. League? Scoop = point deduction. Casual? Scoop = talking with the group about social contract.
Should I be made to finish the game so the player holding my Demon isn't screwed?
I don't believe anyone has said that you should be forced to sit in the game until eliminated. That would be ridiculous. The issue being discussed is entirely about the exact moment you choose to scoop. The player could have scooped slightly before or slightly after when they did so, but they instead choose the best moment to screw over another player, such as after their opponent has attacked for lethal but before damage is done so they can't put any combat damage triggers on the stack.
Has anyone touched on the fact that this is only a problem because of the multiplayer + competitive aspect of the situation? If you're playing magic for prizes or money expect your opponent to do anything possible to gain an advantage. I honestly dont see anything wrong with taking all advantages if you aren't cheating. In this specific example the advantage is as small as 'spite the guy who killed me' but there isn't any reason to think that people will be honorable because its commander. I've held the opinion that competitive 4 player commander is a bad idea and this is another reason why.
The collusion aspect of cutthroat is always with the context that you intend to defeat them as well by the end of the game. If you collude with a player for no gain of your own in terms of winning, you are missing the point of cutthroat. The idea is that you are outnumbered and politic'ing is an essential survival tactic, thus temporary collusion is a inherit in the game. It's not promoted in the unethical sense being proposed by many players here. There is no such thing as a tactical scoop in cutthroat aside from factors that pertain outside. No one has made a valid argument on this yet and I don't feel one exists :/
Most EDH games, tournament or casual, are first and foremost social. I like to think that every EDH game requires a code of honor. I would like to think that griefers themselves follow that social code. Tactical/Enforced Scooping, whatever you wanna call it, is a very dickish behavior. It says alot about the person. And if you happen to be someone that approves of it, I think you're very obtuse and most pertinently, non-social.
Ever played any E-games? If you played pub games of LoL, DoTA, HotS, you'll know that disconnecting (DC) leaves a very sour taste in people's mouths. Not only you disappoint your team mates, you disappoint the opponents. Worst of all, you're embarrassing yourself. Just that for some people, they're too thick-skinned to acknowledge it. Treat it as playing a campaign game where the only goals are satisfying yourself. Why even bother entering multiplayer games?
Dead by Daylight is another great example. Play as a killer, hook some fella only for him/her to DC purposefully. To deny the killer points, to save your rank. You could have bought some valuable time for your fellow survivors so they could get out. Thankfully, the developers have come in and corrected the DC abuse.
Note that I'm talking multiplayer here. Do not come in with a Duel Commander or 1v1 mindset, when it's all ok to scoop. You responsibility is to win, and only to yourself. Multiplayer may be the same Magic, but it's also a different ballgame.
While scooping is a valid option, don't abuse it and try to paper-wrap it as a strategy. IT IS NOT.
Use it when you're in an emergency. Be human about it.
Ever played any E-games? If you played pub games of LoL, DoTA, HotS, you'll know that disconnecting (DC) leaves a very sour taste in people's mouths. Not only you disappoint your team mates, you disappoint the opponents. Worst of all, you're embarrassing yourself. Just that for some people, they're too thick-skinned to acknowledge it. Treat it as playing a campaign game where the only goals are satisfying yourself. Why even bother entering multiplayer games?
While scooping is a valid option, don't abuse it and try to paper-wrap it as a strategy. IT IS NOT.
This analogy is flawed. If you dc in dota your team only suffers strategically and your opponents have less things to worry about. This is not true for edh.
Tactically scooping can create negative effect for your opponents and zero effect on you which means you can threaten with a tactical scoop which in turn can affect how your opponents play.
Ever played any E-games? If you played pub games of LoL, DoTA, HotS, you'll know that disconnecting (DC) leaves a very sour taste in people's mouths. Not only you disappoint your team mates, you disappoint the opponents. Worst of all, you're embarrassing yourself. Just that for some people, they're too thick-skinned to acknowledge it. Treat it as playing a campaign game where the only goals are satisfying yourself. Why even bother entering multiplayer games?
While scooping is a valid option, don't abuse it and try to paper-wrap it as a strategy. IT IS NOT.
This analogy is flawed. If you dc in dota your team only suffers strategically and your opponents have less things to worry about. This is not true for edh.
Tactically scooping can create negative effect for your opponents and zero effect on you which means you can threaten with a tactical scoop which in turn can affect how your opponents play.
It isn't any different than any other form of deck building constraint. You can fully expect a player to scoop, at literally any time. If your win is based around your opponents resources (Insurrection, Rise of the Dark Realms, Desertion et al) then you've chosen poorly and can fully expect a blowout.
I understand why its a feelbad on occasion, but again, we continue to treat these issues like its a 1v1, me vs you, scooper vs scooped on. It isn't. I can taste all the salt in here, but few are taking note of the sugar that the remaining players in a multiplayer match may be doling out for the scooping player that saved them. Competitively unkind, but politically sound, and frankly even in a "competitive" variant of multiplayer commander I would consider it wiser to keep more people happy; increasing your chances of having easier allies in future matches.
Slightly off topic but our scoop rule for multiplayer EDH is that you can only scoop at sorcery speed.
So if someone activates an infinite turn combo, no one is allowed to resign and everyone has to wait for the person with the combo to actually play out their turns until they find their win condition?
I can taste all the salt in here, but few are taking note of the sugar that the remaining players in a multiplayer match may be doling out for the scooping player that saved them.
I disagree. Most people I've played with would see that as a complete lack of respect for both the game and the other players. It's the kind of thing that would make a lot of people not want to play with the scooper, if that was their attitude towards the game.
The collusion aspect of cutthroat is always with the context that you intend to defeat them as well by the end of the game. If you collude with a player for no gain of your own in terms of winning, you are missing the point of cutthroat. The idea is that you are outnumbered and politic'ing is an essential survival tactic, thus temporary collusion is a inherit in the game. It's not promoted in the unethical sense being proposed by many players here. There is no such thing as a tactical scoop in cutthroat aside from factors that pertain outside. No one has made a valid argument on this yet and I don't feel one exists :/
Collusion is advantageous when prizes are on the line or you often play with the same people. You team up with someone increasing the chances of either of you winning. Even if you don't split the prizes it increases your odds, unless the remaining two notice early and turn the game into 2vs2. In three player groups it is even easier. Here is some old example of effective collusion: http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=744&sid=817f90e8081b3d3d3631ffdcbc265ebf
On spite plays:
Spite plays give you a reputation for vindictiveness, detering attacks and removal pointed your way. I am reluctant attacking players who have made themselves known for overreacting. Scooping can work the same way. Aquiring a reputation can probably work on any level of competition.
Even if spite scooping to deny triggers and such may be effective at reducing attacks in the future (I disagree this is a sure thing, because I think there are many, including myself who either would not want to play with them or work actively to convince others to eliminate that player first (it would be easy to convince others too, because I feel douche scooping is largely despised)), I think the main question this thread is considering is whether rules should be put in place (e.g. scooping only allowed at sorcery speed) to alter how scooping is currently treated by the rules.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
Slightly off topic but our scoop rule for multiplayer EDH is that you can only scoop at sorcery speed.
So if someone activates an infinite turn combo, no one is allowed to resign and everyone has to wait for the person with the combo to actually play out their turns until they find their win condition?
Good point, but I originally understood 'Smells_Better' to mean players can only scoop at sorcery speed for any player (e.g. any player may scoop when any player could play at sorcery speed).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
I can taste all the salt in here, but few are taking note of the sugar that the remaining players in a multiplayer match may be doling out for the scooping player that saved them.
I disagree. Most people I've played with would see that as a complete lack of respect for both the game and the other players. It's the kind of thing that would make a lot of people not want to play with the scooper, if that was their attitude towards the game.
Idle curiosity, is that a regular group you play with, pick up games, or some combination thereof? I play with a couple established groups and their both very utilitarian, i.e., they care more about the greater good of the game and the group than anything else. It just becomes a numbers game of how to keep the most players happy with the game (cementing some future political boons to top it off), so tactical scooping letting the majority keep their shot at the win receives general accolades.
Now this is talking about preventing a combo win or Insurrection style "kill everyone with one card," not the actually douchebaggery of just denyin a combat trigger or anything. But then, those combos and insurrections are the kinds of things no one is really pleased to lose to anyway, so all the more reason for majority accolades.
It sucks when you've stolen some permanents from a player and that player exits the game prematurely for whatever reason before you're done using his creatures or whatever, but this is the risk you take when playing decks that have those effects in a multiplayer environment. Denying someone or punishing them for scoop might result in eliminating the occasional scoop of "poor form" or whatever you want to call it, but it introduces new problems as well and has the unintended result of forcing players to continue playing a virtually unwinnable game so they can serve as a pawn for someone else. No one faults a player for scooping when they've lost any semblance of winning, often they'll just go start up another game with other losers or practice some standard matches while they wait for the rest of the table to finish, there's other things they could be doing when waiting around to die. Why does this change when the player is still facing the same nigh-unwinnable game, except now scooping inconveniences another player? How do you differentiate between scooping because you're screwed and you'd like to go do something else besides lose for the next 45 minutes vs scooping because you're trying to screw over someone else?
You don't. You let the players distinguish between these actions and react accordingly. Maybe that's by doing nothing. Maybe that's by changing their playstyle to not put themselves in those kinds of situations to begin with. Maybe that's by acts of retribution in future games for the behavior- "Well, I guess I'll swing Gisela at you for scooping just to screw me over last game". Don't start imposing house rules on players because you think that's what they would want. If you receive the occasional complaint, the player should be encouraged to fight the tactic within the rules as mentioned above. But assuming that this is a frequent problem that is significantly impacting the players and reacting to it by creating house rules is overreacting. Magic has all kinds of rules and aspects that generate complaints. Some players feel like 50 minute rounds aren't long enough for them to play a given decktype. Sometimes people open up a terrible sealed pool. Sometimes you just get mana screwed. And sometimes a player scoops and takes with them all the creatures that they stole from them fair and square. Sometimes Homeward Path hits the field too and accomplishes the same thing. That's just Magic. It's not always fun or fair. And you're not always on the receiving end of it.
The only time I can see addressing this problem is that this is a common behavior for a specific player, and even then I can't see the playgroup being unable to solve their own problem in the form of retribution until the guy gets the point. Creating a house rule like this has the potential to backfire to new players visiting the store "what do you mean I can't scoop without being further penalized? What the heck kind of rule is that? That's not a real rule, or even a common house rule. I have to sit here and wait for the game to be over while I play draw-go and that guy over there beats people to death with my stolen Baneslayer?" and is overall, in my opinion, not worth the trouble and controversy instating a rule like this might cause.
At the very least, get the public opinion on it. Have the players take a vote on the proposed rule. Let them decide if they want the rule in place, or tested, or ignored.
EDH: Grand Arbiter $tax, Freyalise Stompy, Mimeoplasm Death From the Grave
Commander is a social game. Being a sore loser isn't a very sociable attitude. Yes, there's no rule against quitting a game to deny another player a victory, but it demonstrates a lack of discipline. Maybe your opponent got lucky, maybe they played with more skill, maybe both. Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you.
It's important to accept loss with grace and dignity. Try to keep in perspective that it's only a game.
Role-playing appeal surely doesn't favor scooping. We have the in-game fantasy of spells and creatures, etc, and a decidedly un-fantasy like subset of rules for dealing with real-life players that (need/want) to (leave the game/abort the fantasy). A player choosing to scoop specifically to deny triggers (or counter a spell that targets them, or whatever) is explicitly choosing to disrupt the core role-playing elements by exercising beyond-the-4th-wall rules. The retribution you're referring to here is the opposite of role-playing. It's a refusal to role-play your own death, and instead setting your character sheet on fire so that nobody can get the items off of your dead body (reaching a bit for this analogy, but hopefully it's close enough to make the point).
So yes, I would argue that the spite-scoop is a bug, and not a feature. I'm not sure how best to address the problem, but I do think it's important to first recognize that it's a problem. It's difficult for the obvious reasons: sometimes players have to leave, but the game must continue, and we can't assess a player's motivations for leaving. With the difficulty confessed, still I'd maintain that a mechanic that allows "you and another player lose" is not a desirable mechanic for a multiplayer game.
Re: forcing players to sit in unwinnable games. It's difficult to imagine a scenario in which this condition lasts for very long. Certainly "I scoop in response to lethal combat" or "I scoop with your post-Doomsday Gitaxian Probe on the stack" don't fit this category, as in these examples the game would be over in moments anyway (for you, at least). Even the extremely contrived Selvala example from a few posts back doesn't paint an unwinnable scene, as it breaks down due to random topdeck reveals or an opponent drawing into a Force of Will or whatever. Granted, there's surely some other prison-style example that could be imagined, but I struggle to think of one that requires opponents to remain in the game to function. But generally speaking, let's remember we're playing a format where Stasis, Nether Void, etc are legal cards. Moreover, EDH is notorious for taking longer than most other formats. "It's taking too long" seems like a thin complaint--this is EDH, it's part of what you sign up for when you play it.
It will be difficult to rule around it in an elegant manner. Your best bet is to work with the players that do not do this to put either a social or in-game pressure on those that do. Either talk to them about the issue or focus them out first, before their "tactical scoop" can adversely impact the game. Sometimes people will really need to leave a game for one legitimate reason or another, so anything that you put in place will likely penalize them as well. This is really more of a social issue than a rules issue. People that do this are often motivated by spite, even though they profess that they do it "so others can keep playing" or as a "tactical countermeasure."
Really, just begin to create an atmosphere where this is looked down upon and/or provides no benefit to the offending players.
I think that an expectation of players not playing up to the very edge of the rules in competitive play will continue to breed problems.
While it's hard to argue many people treat MTG as any sort of real RPG, or that it should be the basis for making any moves in game, EDH is pretty casual and if someone wants to get taken down and want to get in one last jab, I can roll with that. As the player doing the killing, I'd expect the dying player to do anything they can to hurt their executioner and wouldn't take it personally.
Anyway, more to the point:
Sometimes unwinnable games can for one player can drag out for quite a while. One game I had I actually held another player hostage, showing a bolt in my hand and him at 2 life and forced him to attack other players and aid me or I'd bolt him. He could have scooped but found the hostage role entertaining, but suppose he hadn't, and scooping was further penalized? Now players can actually abuse this to take other players hostage.....a neat aspect, but not necessarily a welcome one.
If I'm at two life, the other players are mostly healthy and balanced, and I've got virtually nothing, I can opt to hold out and try to make an unrealistic comeback (and still just die from a casual attack before I can accomplish a comeback after 20 minutes of draw-go), or I can just scoop and go jump in another game or start one up or go do trades or whatever. The occurrences of situations like this would seem to crop up rarely, of course, but probably just as infrequently as the "tactical scoop" that might upset some players. Here's an example. I'm playing Kaalia, and I've cast and recast kaalia several times, gotten some licks in, but am unable to recover after an Armageddon hits. The game has gone on for a while, and I know that out of my remaining cards, I've lost too much land to even cast kaalia again, and MIGHT get to resolve one of my big angry demons or whatever if I can find the last 7 land in my deck, AND the demon. Then my opponent casts Bribery, and steals Demon out of my deck, one of my last ways to feasibly win. The demon will take a while and might not overcome the other players who have rebuilt after the 'geddon with Crucible of Worlds or artifact mana or whatever, but it will at least hold them at bay for a while. I don't really have a win condition now, hardly any land remaining, and am the weakest player on the board by a long shot. All of the cards involved are commonly used, and this scenario is not a corner case. Should I be made to finish the game so the player holding my Demon isn't screwed?
Yeah, I signed up for the possibility of a lengthy game if I sat down to play EDH, but I presumed that "lengthy game" means I'm actually playing it and not sitting around waiting to die at someone's whim.
EDH: Grand Arbiter $tax, Freyalise Stompy, Mimeoplasm Death From the Grave
The OP refers to event play, not casual play. There are EDH tournaments and leagues with prizes. Maybe this is a bad idea, and the organizers of these events should stop hosting them. Or, alternatively, this just means that we don't need a one-size-fits-all answer to dealing with the issue. Off the cuff... Tournament? Scoop = out of the tourney, no prizes. League? Scoop = point deduction. Casual? Scoop = talking with the group about social contract.
GWUBAtraxa, Praetor's Voice PrimerGWUB
GWURoon Bant Blink WhateverGWU
BRGLord Windgrace LandsBRG
This comment kind of got ignored, but I like it.
EDH: Grand Arbiter $tax, Freyalise Stompy, Mimeoplasm Death From the Grave
Agreed. It is simple and sweet.
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
Then technically its not douche scooping lol cause you will need priority
Most EDH games, tournament or casual, are first and foremost social. I like to think that every EDH game requires a code of honor. I would like to think that griefers themselves follow that social code. Tactical/Enforced Scooping, whatever you wanna call it, is a very dickish behavior. It says alot about the person. And if you happen to be someone that approves of it, I think you're very obtuse and most pertinently, non-social.
Ever played any E-games? If you played pub games of LoL, DoTA, HotS, you'll know that disconnecting (DC) leaves a very sour taste in people's mouths. Not only you disappoint your team mates, you disappoint the opponents. Worst of all, you're embarrassing yourself. Just that for some people, they're too thick-skinned to acknowledge it. Treat it as playing a campaign game where the only goals are satisfying yourself. Why even bother entering multiplayer games?
Dead by Daylight is another great example. Play as a killer, hook some fella only for him/her to DC purposefully. To deny the killer points, to save your rank. You could have bought some valuable time for your fellow survivors so they could get out. Thankfully, the developers have come in and corrected the DC abuse.
Note that I'm talking multiplayer here. Do not come in with a Duel Commander or 1v1 mindset, when it's all ok to scoop. You responsibility is to win, and only to yourself. Multiplayer may be the same Magic, but it's also a different ballgame.
While scooping is a valid option, don't abuse it and try to paper-wrap it as a strategy. IT IS NOT.
Use it when you're in an emergency. Be human about it.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
This analogy is flawed. If you dc in dota your team only suffers strategically and your opponents have less things to worry about. This is not true for edh.
Tactically scooping can create negative effect for your opponents and zero effect on you which means you can threaten with a tactical scoop which in turn can affect how your opponents play.
It isn't any different than any other form of deck building constraint. You can fully expect a player to scoop, at literally any time. If your win is based around your opponents resources (Insurrection, Rise of the Dark Realms, Desertion et al) then you've chosen poorly and can fully expect a blowout.
I understand why its a feelbad on occasion, but again, we continue to treat these issues like its a 1v1, me vs you, scooper vs scooped on. It isn't. I can taste all the salt in here, but few are taking note of the sugar that the remaining players in a multiplayer match may be doling out for the scooping player that saved them. Competitively unkind, but politically sound, and frankly even in a "competitive" variant of multiplayer commander I would consider it wiser to keep more people happy; increasing your chances of having easier allies in future matches.
So if someone activates an infinite turn combo, no one is allowed to resign and everyone has to wait for the person with the combo to actually play out their turns until they find their win condition?
I disagree. Most people I've played with would see that as a complete lack of respect for both the game and the other players. It's the kind of thing that would make a lot of people not want to play with the scooper, if that was their attitude towards the game.
Even if spite scooping to deny triggers and such may be effective at reducing attacks in the future (I disagree this is a sure thing, because I think there are many, including myself who either would not want to play with them or work actively to convince others to eliminate that player first (it would be easy to convince others too, because I feel douche scooping is largely despised)), I think the main question this thread is considering is whether rules should be put in place (e.g. scooping only allowed at sorcery speed) to alter how scooping is currently treated by the rules.
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
Good point, but I originally understood 'Smells_Better' to mean players can only scoop at sorcery speed for any player (e.g. any player may scoop when any player could play at sorcery speed).
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
Idle curiosity, is that a regular group you play with, pick up games, or some combination thereof? I play with a couple established groups and their both very utilitarian, i.e., they care more about the greater good of the game and the group than anything else. It just becomes a numbers game of how to keep the most players happy with the game (cementing some future political boons to top it off), so tactical scooping letting the majority keep their shot at the win receives general accolades.
Now this is talking about preventing a combo win or Insurrection style "kill everyone with one card," not the actually douchebaggery of just denyin a combat trigger or anything. But then, those combos and insurrections are the kinds of things no one is really pleased to lose to anyway, so all the more reason for majority accolades.