I don't think you are building a good case. All you are saying is that decks with few paths to victory have nothing to do once those paths to victory gets stopped. That isn't on the people stopping those plans that is generally on the people who build decks that are so laser focused and who don't take that very much into account.
There are decks that are very fragile. Said decks are usually built around combos and if molested they will start toppling over. As the opponent in the OP could have been really hinging on that Thran Dynamo to actually come online and the OP stealing that rock really put a wrench in their plans.
But if you remove my few win conditions, all I merely can do is turn the game into a slog as I now seek to throw a wrench into every players plans. Yeah because that is what people want me doing now, instead of trying to win I'm kingmaking another player now and we all know how kingmaking has a bit of a negative reputation in the commander community.
Was the person's behavior a little uncalled for in the OP, yes. But the vibe i get from this thread of "Oh how these fast quitters man, we try to talk them to continue, but they just up and quit man."
Welcome to the other side of that coin.
1. You're doing something. You're interacting in the game. You are doing everything you can EXCEPT 'mad-scooping'. That's already leaps and bounds above other people. And as was said; who knows? The multiplayer aspect may put YOU in the winner's seat at the end, if you play your 'kingmaker' strategy right. Lord knows I've done it more than once.
2. You're looking at this as 'well, you stole/destroyed my win-cons, so I'll just make life miserable'. I would assert that the better way to look at it is, 'maybe I should have MORE win-cons, or have a plan B win-con'. Yeah, the lesson wasn't presented that well, but you have an opportunity...do use it.
3. I do get where you're coming from with presenting an alternate viewpoint. But it really doesn't help garner sympathy. I don't know if it's the point you're trying to make, or the way it seems to come across...sorry on that. But I am curious as to why 'talking to someone to continue playing' is a bad thing. Is sitting around fiddling with your deck somehow better than at least interacting as a kingmaker? I don't see that it is.
3. I do get where you're coming from with presenting an alternate viewpoint. But it really doesn't help garner sympathy. I don't know if it's the point you're trying to make, or the way it seems to come across...sorry on that. But I am curious as to why 'talking to someone to continue playing' is a bad thing. Is sitting around fiddling with your deck somehow better than at least interacting as a kingmaker? I don't see that it is.
As someone with a combo deck with only a few wincons, it's not that I don't want to play the game out to the end. If my few wincons in that deck are taken out, I know for a fact there is nothing I can do to affect the game because of how little interaction there is. So if I'm playing that deck and that happens, it's better for me to just scoop because I'm not going to sit and be miserable just to keep other people happy. Of course, if that deck had more interaction it wouldn't be that big of a deal, so I know it's partially my fault for how I built the deck.
I dislike when people do this and consider it pretty childish.
I only scoop if I have to leave or if someone is in the middle of a non-infinite, but clearly game-winning combo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can't say I'm pleased to see you and must warn you I may have to do something about it.
EDH: UGEdric
Pauper: URDelver
Modern: UGRDelver
Draft my cube: Eric's 390 Unpowered
Lands get treated as a sacred cow of sorts that should be unharmed and those that mess with them did something very evil and may require an intervention. Yet your mana rocks though? Its fine for anyone else to mess with them. When the stark reality is that decks that use mana rocks are very dependent on such things. Stealing a Thran Dynamo may not seem like the biggest play ever, but you have unknowingly crippled the owner of that mana rock and cause them to fall behind. As the amount it produces would be like me blowing up three of your lands in terms of the mana lost.
If I choose to keep a two-land hand that has a signet and a commander's sphere and both of those rocks get blown up and I have unluckily not drawn into a single land, that is about the equivalent of "GG" and I might as well surrender due to my theoretical hamstrung state as it now has created a "feel bad" moment at the table.
I got over the addiction thanks to a computer program I use
I only concede when I know I lost not for childish reasons (but most of the time I stay till the end, because there might be a miracle card I could draw for the win.)
Example at first it looked like I had to concede or lost because of Tajic, Blade of the Legion deck that played world at war with high power and toughness creatures and true conviction and the commander could get me with points and he's was +100 life
But a miracle happened he attacked a different player first and I was able to play all is dust just in time and I played my Eldrazi nastiness to victory (got him with Commander damage since it just takes two hits with Kozilek as the commander plus with menece.)
I don't think you are building a good case. All you are saying is that decks with few paths to victory have nothing to do once those paths to victory gets stopped. That isn't on the people stopping those plans that is generally on the people who build decks that are so laser focused and who don't take that very much into account.
idk man. if the first and only thing you do in a game is try to tutor out crucible/strip mine and oracle of mul daya - then scoop if any of those pieces are dealt with... thats pretty toxic. thats not really laser focused either.
i think what were' really discussing here aren't having laser focused strategies neutered, its having your plans stopped or answered and instead of just playing it out the answer is to pack up.
like those people who craterhoof alpha strike and have it fog'd, then scoop despite being the only person with a board state
there's a big difference between moves like that, and disrupting laser precision in a build and it has to do with ability to recover
Personally I find these types of people toxic to the game and refuse to play with them entirely. Why?
"It's all about them." Meaning, they're all nice and cheery when they are winning (or in the running), but couldn't care less once they are in the red zone. Whether it's validation, feeling of winning, etc. that drives them doesn't matter - the point is that people like this prioritize their own feelings over the friendship/community of everyone else at the table, and this is not the type of person I want to be around. If you can't lose graciously, then I don't want to play with you.
Magic is a game about learning to play and deckbuild. The types of people I want to play with are those that love it when they get blown out - not because they like losing... entirely the opposite in fact. It's because the gears start turning in their head about all the ways they can solve that problem going forward - whether with a different line of play, different answers, different deck construction, etc. When everyone in the playgroup approaches the game this way, you are all getting better together - and enjoying the game even more. It is legitimately an exciting experience to get totally blown out by something new, see how well you can solve it in the moment, and then try to problem-solve going forward.
Experiences with people like this inevitably affect your own deckbuilding process as well, because if you choose to play with them then you are forced to adopt a bunch of nebulous, unwritten rules on what and when you can play. Why should I have to place limits on my own creativity and card selections for such an artificial reason?
Now, at casual tables there are obviously some lines to be aware of - if you serve up mass land destruction in a casual group, then yes, I can see why people might be frustrated and want to stop playing with you. But that's not what I'm talking about here.
In short, there is not enough time in this life to waste it on people who can't handle losing. It's just much better overall to surround yourself exclusively with people who are hungry to have fun, learn/grow, and enjoy the company of the other players - not those who are only there for their own validation.
I could kiss you right now. Why are players like this? Isn't it intensely frustrating to be a salty scrub about every little thing? EDH isn't a fun format if you're like that, why do they even keep playing? In a healthy meta you're only winning 25% of the time, so you're unhappy 75% of the time? I relish the struggle, the back and forth, the blowouts, the interaction. I'll make you kill me if you Armageddoned against my empty board, because I have several turns to draw a land and a Swords/Path/etc. for your (usually) single threat.
Anecdotally though, I had a guy scoop T1 to Force pitching foil Snapcaster to counter his T1 Sol Ring. He was less mad about the aggressive resource denial and way more upset that I had thrown $200 at his $2 Sol Ring. People get mad about weird *****.
I don't think you are building a good case. All you are saying is that decks with few paths to victory have nothing to do once those paths to victory gets stopped. That isn't on the people stopping those plans that is generally on the people who build decks that are so laser focused and who don't take that very much into account.
idk man. if the first and only thing you do in a game is try to tutor out crucible/strip mine and oracle of mul daya - then scoop if any of those pieces are dealt with... thats pretty toxic. thats not really laser focused either.
i think what were' really discussing here aren't having laser focused strategies neutered, its having your plans stopped or answered and instead of just playing it out the answer is to pack up.
like those people who craterhoof alpha strike and have it fog'd, then scoop despite being the only person with a board state
there's a big difference between moves like that, and disrupting laser precision in a build and it has to do with ability to recover
I wasn't replying to the OP I was specifically replying to the post above mine I just didn't feel the need to quote it.
I'll only scoop if the deck I'm facing against is way above in power level. Why waste the time playing on.
I scooped twice before, both occasions a random asked to play in our games. I told both randoms the same thing we do when a new guy enters our playgroup. No Time Magic, no combos, no non-permanent tutors, no mass LD/mass discard effects. Both said ok. And then a few turns later the randoms cast a Time Warp.
Two different randoms, two different games, two different dates. Two similar idiots.
I'll quit a game so long as I don't think it will be any fun to play. If I find myself in a position where there's no way to come back, and I'm just going to be passing while everyone does stuff, I'll concede and find a new game. There's nothing wrong with admitting defeat, especially when playing on would be a huge time commitment. It's not like this guy table-flipped on you, he sounds perfectly respectful. You couldn't see his hand, it could have been mono seven-drops.
As for the mulls, that sounds a bit wierd, but I've left tables upon seeing more than one Nekusar before, so I can understand. He just wants to make sure he enjoys what time he's able to set aside to his hobby.
I'll only scoop if the deck I'm facing against is way above in power level. Why waste the time playing on.
I scooped twice before, both occasions a random asked to play in our games. I told both randoms the same thing we do when a new guy enters our playgroup.No Time Magic, no combos, no non-permanent tutors, no mass LD/mass discard effects. Both said ok. And then a few turns later the randoms cast a Time Warp.
I am all for having some ground rules for a play group, but I think this behavior is what some people are saying is the problem. Why is a Time Warp blatantly more powerful than your whole deck? There may indeed be more to the story, but the context given here shows little grounds for a scoop after seeing one card. Plus your play group seems quite restrictive in terms of house rules. I don't like playing against decks that are solely built to utilize any of those things mentioned, but having one or two combos/MLD/time magic/tutors just helps close out games, play to your deck's strategy, and lead to more diversity. I'm not trying to say your play group is wrong, but it is not very accepting of anyone else's style of play, even if they are playing "fair" with a few cards that your group deems "unfair".
Look, if there're "more accepting" style of playgroups around, by all means go for it.
But it's a fact that my playgroup has outlasted every other playgroup in my region since EDH began. This "less accepting" style still has all the fun, laughter and memories. We must be doing something right for a playgroup that appears extremely rigid. I've seen so many flexible playgroups die off that I lost count.
The important thing is to prioritize your playgroup over winning. It's not as if we've never played combos/MLD/time magic/tutors/mass discard/fast mana. Everyone starts off like that. We know what works and what doesn't. It's as simple as that.
While I agree everything should be in moderation, this is also why I fundamentally disagree with the banlist and philosophy. But that's for another thread. I do wish for playgroups to be more inclusive to others, but the philosophy is preventing playgroups from doing that.
In a casual 1v1 game, I would be inclined to concede to an obvious wincon that I had no answer to in my hand, or in the top ~5 cards of library. Not in any competitive format though, you play through.
I've never solo-scooped from a multiplayer game, if I'm clearly losing I just play more politically; however, there have been several times where I've been in a multiplayer game that was scooped by agreement of all players, after one player resolved a clearly wining boardstate (e.g. infinite combo). In some of these situations, playing out the win takes more time and effort than its worth, but it is only done with agreement from all present including the person that won. There is the risk of post-scoop regret though, several times I have figured out the solution with my hand and boardstate to a wincon only after starting the next game, later that evening, or even the following day. Live and learn.
Look, if there're "more accepting" style of playgroups around, by all means go for it.
But it's a fact that my playgroup has outlasted every other playgroup in my region since EDH began. This "less accepting" style still has all the fun, laughter and memories. We must be doing something right for a playgroup that appears extremely rigid. I've seen so many flexible playgroups die off that I lost count.
The important thing is to prioritize your playgroup over winning. It's not as if we've never played combos/MLD/time magic/tutors/mass discard/fast mana. Everyone starts off like that. We know what works and what doesn't. It's as simple as that.
While I agree everything should be in moderation, this is also why I fundamentally disagree with the banlist and philosophy. But that's for another thread. I do wish for playgroups to be more inclusive to others, but the philosophy is preventing playgroups from doing that.
Not everyone has the luxury of having a playgroup. In the last 3 months, I have not sat with the same 3 people. Beyond the few hours at the store, I do not know any of them personally, nor hang out with them. With that being said, the store emphasizes the The Spirit of EDH. Basically play to win (no king maker) and don't be a d**che (as in scoop mid combat to prevent triggers).
I understand where you are coming from but I feel that many will find it hard to relate
Oh yes, it's difficult to find/form playgroups. But many playgroups are formed because they eat together, hang out together, even play sports together. Not all playgroups band together out of nothing. Sometimes it's starts off with one other person.
I do mitigate the rules accessibility issue by bringing a few decks of my own. I will lend them to show how our playgroup plays EDH. It's not always a close-door policy. There're always options like lending decks. Once we get familiar with the settings, one can always make his/her own deck attributed with our playstyle.
Sorry for the necroposting, I was just wondering about the part "no permament tutoring" in your playgroup: I play some tutor in my 2 decks, and my question would be if I would play idyllic tutor and search for forced fruition, would you quit or let me having it? Would you still willing playing against me?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I can not win the game and my opponents can not lose the game.
Sorry for the necroposting, I was just wondering about the part "no permament tutoring" in your playgroup: I play some tutor in my 2 decks, and my question would be if I would play idyllic tutor and search for forced fruition, would you quit or let me having it? Would you still willing playing against me?
Not sure why someone would give up. Unless they are about to get decked. It could draw me into a creature or spell for removal, bounce, or counter. Refill my hand please? Let me discard into graveyard to reanimate or mass pull out with replenish.
No Time Magic, no combos, no non-permanent tutors, no mass LD/mass discard effects.
Well that explains in part your disagreements with the way the RC handles the format.
As for the topic, Either we scoop because it's clear that we will lose or we're asked by the player who has the clear advantage if we want to scoop. The one time I wish I had scooped faster was because the board state was in a stalemate and the other player didn't want to call it draw or scoop despite not having anyway to move the game one way or the other.
Sorry for the necroposting, I was just wondering about the part "no permament tutoring" in your playgroup: I play some tutor in my 2 decks, and my question would be if I would play idyllic tutor and search for forced fruition, would you quit or let me having it? Would you still willing playing against me?
Thanks for the question but I would like to answer in a roundabout way. To make sure our games go as smooth as possible we try to establish all premises beforehand, so we avoid any tensions and confusion. For my part, I'd break it down further to a potential entrant to the group. Any non-permanent card that says "search your library" is to be avoided.
Of course if someone like you were to join for the very first time, we would simply ask you to exile any of the said cards and replace them with a draw accordingly. So if you drew an Idyllic Tutor (or any search card), you just simply reveal it and put it aside and draw another.
While I get that you and others might need the card for your deck to function, my response would be "why build it in the first place". This is my opinion of course and you may have yours, but wouldn't it be better suited if you played 60-card constructed where you can play up to 4 copies.
The philosophy of a singleton format is the RNG aspect. You can have a theme, or build around a commander. But if you require a specific card in the 99 for the deck to "work", then the premise crumbles immediately. The beauty of this format is not to have consistency; that's why the strong disagreement with tutors.
So in short to your question I would scoop, BUT I'll offer to play another game with you, probably with my decks. Or you provide me with one of yours. It's all about being on the same frequency. I'm not so inflexible about playing games so long as they're are on a level playing field.
And to Hermes yes I've been very consistent with my thoughts on EDH in general.
Use to have a guy that would come around and be like this.
Any player that pulled ahead of him got responses like "so do you just win?" And "i scoop right?" And "so do you go off?", this would be over things like a bribery, or a sneak attack, or even a t1 sol ring
Basically it amounted to that he had one singular stategy in mind playing his deck, and anything that was a surprise or threw a wrench itno the gears would tilt him because he didnt know how to handle it or anything beyond that strategy.
The worst was being partnered with him for 2headed giant. Barf.
Ultimately he quit the format because we were "too competitive"
Sorry for the necroposting, I was just wondering about the part "no permament tutoring" in your playgroup: I play some tutor in my 2 decks, and my question would be if I would play idyllic tutor and search for forced fruition, would you quit or let me having it? Would you still willing playing against me?
Thanks for the question but I would like to answer in a roundabout way. To make sure our games go as smooth as possible we try to establish all premises beforehand, so we avoid any tensions and confusion. For my part, I'd break it down further to a potential entrant to the group. Any non-permanent card that says "search your library" is to be avoided.
Of course if someone like you were to join for the very first time, we would simply ask you to exile any of the said cards and replace them with a draw accordingly. So if you drew an Idyllic Tutor (or any search card), you just simply reveal it and put it aside and draw another.
While I get that you and others might need the card for your deck to function, my response would be "why build it in the first place". This is my opinion of course and you may have yours, but wouldn't it be better suited if you played 60-card constructed where you can play up to 4 copies.
The philosophy of a singleton format is the RNG aspect. You can have a theme, or build around a commander. But if you require a specific card in the 99 for the deck to "work", then the premise crumbles immediately. The beauty of this format is not to have consistency; that's why the strong disagreement with tutors.
So in short to your question I would scoop, BUT I'll offer to play another game with you, probably with my decks. Or you provide me with one of yours. It's all about being on the same frequency. I'm not so inflexible about playing games so long as they're are on a level playing field.
And to Hermes yes I've been very consistent with my thoughts on EDH in general.
One of the members in my play group offered this rule to us once. We discussed it and determined the following: Tutor is a part of the game and removing it would handicap a lot of colors and play styles, and make draw much, much more powerful than it already is.
You argue that it Commander is RNG focused, however a lot of decks build redundancy and adding draw just offers you a chance to spin the wheel more times. Now, I don't just jam as much tutor as possible into my decks but it is nice to have the ability to not roll over and die to a Commander that just spins the RNG wheel, or takes control of the game in a niche way. You can't just pack every answer and have multiple copies of those answers, which is why Demonic Tutor ends up being a 7-10 mana wrath or 4-6 mana spot removal (Add two to the cost of the tutor). Less often is Demonic Tutor a 6-10 mana threat. When you look at tutors as an expensive copy of a card in your deck, it becomes less destructive (especially since it removes the cheaper copy).
Tutor gives more ways to interact with the game, and enables strategies that may be lacking (Mono red Gamble, Imperial Recruiter, or Myriad Landscape. Green loses a lot of its strength: Ramp. Black loses a big part of its strength. White loses Land Tax, Enlightened Tutor, and a lot of other utility). Arguing that you should never have tutor just means you should always play blue.... Always and if you aren't mono blue, you are blue plus another color.
Now, I do want to mention that this is what our play group decided and that your play group might have different playstyles/experiences and wanted to offer a counter scenario that I have experienced.
Which is why I don't agree with scooping for the reasons you gave. I get scooping because the other person lied when you were promised, but I disagree that the person needs to make the promise in the first place (Promising no Land D, Stasis, Infinites should be good enough. Then you just need to worry about busted 'fair' commanders like Edric, Spymaster of Trest).
I sometimes do a "fast quit". but I have my reasons.
Reasoning: I am always thinking about how the match plays out. Like I run scenarios in my head as I'm weighing my odds against the threat(s) I am facing or are going to face.
If I get an okay or junk hand and the subsequent draws for my first five turns are junk, I know I am beat. So rather than play it out, I back out.
I could also be running low on resources in the hand and did a big gamble, if that blows up in my face and the next draw is junk, I back out.
Its just like playing poker, I fold if I know am beat. That is why I don't consider it rude.
While I've read your wall of text it's clear to me you haven't read properly. Our playgroup never banned tutors outright; we only disallowed non-permanent tutors. So the examples you mentioned like Land Tax is fine. There's nothing wrong with Rune-scarred Demon, though you can't have Demonic Tutor.
I should also clear up that we're totally fine with cards that search for lands. After all the crux of Magic is mana; and we don't wanna cripple anyone with mana. Everyone should have access to mana to play their cards.
1. You're doing something. You're interacting in the game. You are doing everything you can EXCEPT 'mad-scooping'. That's already leaps and bounds above other people. And as was said; who knows? The multiplayer aspect may put YOU in the winner's seat at the end, if you play your 'kingmaker' strategy right. Lord knows I've done it more than once.
2. You're looking at this as 'well, you stole/destroyed my win-cons, so I'll just make life miserable'. I would assert that the better way to look at it is, 'maybe I should have MORE win-cons, or have a plan B win-con'. Yeah, the lesson wasn't presented that well, but you have an opportunity...do use it.
3. I do get where you're coming from with presenting an alternate viewpoint. But it really doesn't help garner sympathy. I don't know if it's the point you're trying to make, or the way it seems to come across...sorry on that. But I am curious as to why 'talking to someone to continue playing' is a bad thing. Is sitting around fiddling with your deck somehow better than at least interacting as a kingmaker? I don't see that it is.
EDH decks: 1. RGWMayael's Big BeatsRETIRED!
2. BUWMerieke Ri Berit and the 40 Thieves
3. URNiv's Wheeling and Dealing!
4. BURThe Walking Dead
5. GWSisay's Legends of Tomorrow
6. RWBRise of Markov
7. GElvez and stuffz(W)
8. RCrush your enemies(W)
9. BSign right here...(W)
As someone with a combo deck with only a few wincons, it's not that I don't want to play the game out to the end. If my few wincons in that deck are taken out, I know for a fact there is nothing I can do to affect the game because of how little interaction there is. So if I'm playing that deck and that happens, it's better for me to just scoop because I'm not going to sit and be miserable just to keep other people happy. Of course, if that deck had more interaction it wouldn't be that big of a deal, so I know it's partially my fault for how I built the deck.
I only scoop if I have to leave or if someone is in the middle of a non-infinite, but clearly game-winning combo.
EDH: UGEdric
Pauper: UR Delver
Modern: UGR Delver
Draft my cube: Eric's 390 Unpowered
Lands get treated as a sacred cow of sorts that should be unharmed and those that mess with them did something very evil and may require an intervention. Yet your mana rocks though? Its fine for anyone else to mess with them. When the stark reality is that decks that use mana rocks are very dependent on such things. Stealing a Thran Dynamo may not seem like the biggest play ever, but you have unknowingly crippled the owner of that mana rock and cause them to fall behind. As the amount it produces would be like me blowing up three of your lands in terms of the mana lost.
If I choose to keep a two-land hand that has a signet and a commander's sphere and both of those rocks get blown up and I have unluckily not drawn into a single land, that is about the equivalent of "GG" and I might as well surrender due to my theoretical hamstrung state as it now has created a "feel bad" moment at the table.
I got over the addiction thanks to a computer program I use
I only concede when I know I lost not for childish reasons (but most of the time I stay till the end, because there might be a miracle card I could draw for the win.)
Example at first it looked like I had to concede or lost because of Tajic, Blade of the Legion deck that played world at war with high power and toughness creatures and true conviction and the commander could get me with points and he's was +100 life
But a miracle happened he attacked a different player first and I was able to play all is dust just in time and I played my Eldrazi nastiness to victory (got him with Commander damage since it just takes two hits with Kozilek as the commander plus with menece.)
idk man. if the first and only thing you do in a game is try to tutor out crucible/strip mine and oracle of mul daya - then scoop if any of those pieces are dealt with... thats pretty toxic. thats not really laser focused either.
i think what were' really discussing here aren't having laser focused strategies neutered, its having your plans stopped or answered and instead of just playing it out the answer is to pack up.
like those people who craterhoof alpha strike and have it fog'd, then scoop despite being the only person with a board state
there's a big difference between moves like that, and disrupting laser precision in a build and it has to do with ability to recover
I could kiss you right now. Why are players like this? Isn't it intensely frustrating to be a salty scrub about every little thing? EDH isn't a fun format if you're like that, why do they even keep playing? In a healthy meta you're only winning 25% of the time, so you're unhappy 75% of the time? I relish the struggle, the back and forth, the blowouts, the interaction. I'll make you kill me if you Armageddoned against my empty board, because I have several turns to draw a land and a Swords/Path/etc. for your (usually) single threat.
Anecdotally though, I had a guy scoop T1 to Force pitching foil Snapcaster to counter his T1 Sol Ring. He was less mad about the aggressive resource denial and way more upset that I had thrown $200 at his $2 Sol Ring. People get mad about weird *****.
I wasn't replying to the OP I was specifically replying to the post above mine I just didn't feel the need to quote it.
I scooped twice before, both occasions a random asked to play in our games. I told both randoms the same thing we do when a new guy enters our playgroup. No Time Magic, no combos, no non-permanent tutors, no mass LD/mass discard effects. Both said ok. And then a few turns later the randoms cast a Time Warp.
Two different randoms, two different games, two different dates. Two similar idiots.
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
As for the mulls, that sounds a bit wierd, but I've left tables upon seeing more than one Nekusar before, so I can understand. He just wants to make sure he enjoys what time he's able to set aside to his hobby.
I am all for having some ground rules for a play group, but I think this behavior is what some people are saying is the problem. Why is a Time Warp blatantly more powerful than your whole deck? There may indeed be more to the story, but the context given here shows little grounds for a scoop after seeing one card. Plus your play group seems quite restrictive in terms of house rules. I don't like playing against decks that are solely built to utilize any of those things mentioned, but having one or two combos/MLD/time magic/tutors just helps close out games, play to your deck's strategy, and lead to more diversity. I'm not trying to say your play group is wrong, but it is not very accepting of anyone else's style of play, even if they are playing "fair" with a few cards that your group deems "unfair".
Everything in moderation.
But it's a fact that my playgroup has outlasted every other playgroup in my region since EDH began. This "less accepting" style still has all the fun, laughter and memories. We must be doing something right for a playgroup that appears extremely rigid. I've seen so many flexible playgroups die off that I lost count.
The important thing is to prioritize your playgroup over winning. It's not as if we've never played combos/MLD/time magic/tutors/mass discard/fast mana. Everyone starts off like that. We know what works and what doesn't. It's as simple as that.
While I agree everything should be in moderation, this is also why I fundamentally disagree with the banlist and philosophy. But that's for another thread. I do wish for playgroups to be more inclusive to others, but the philosophy is preventing playgroups from doing that.
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
I've never solo-scooped from a multiplayer game, if I'm clearly losing I just play more politically; however, there have been several times where I've been in a multiplayer game that was scooped by agreement of all players, after one player resolved a clearly wining boardstate (e.g. infinite combo). In some of these situations, playing out the win takes more time and effort than its worth, but it is only done with agreement from all present including the person that won. There is the risk of post-scoop regret though, several times I have figured out the solution with my hand and boardstate to a wincon only after starting the next game, later that evening, or even the following day. Live and learn.
Not everyone has the luxury of having a playgroup. In the last 3 months, I have not sat with the same 3 people. Beyond the few hours at the store, I do not know any of them personally, nor hang out with them. With that being said, the store emphasizes the The Spirit of EDH. Basically play to win (no king maker) and don't be a d**che (as in scoop mid combat to prevent triggers).
I understand where you are coming from but I feel that many will find it hard to relate
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
I do mitigate the rules accessibility issue by bringing a few decks of my own. I will lend them to show how our playgroup plays EDH. It's not always a close-door policy. There're always options like lending decks. Once we get familiar with the settings, one can always make his/her own deck attributed with our playstyle.
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
Not sure why someone would give up. Unless they are about to get decked. It could draw me into a creature or spell for removal, bounce, or counter. Refill my hand please? Let me discard into graveyard to reanimate or mass pull out with replenish.
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
Well that explains in part your disagreements with the way the RC handles the format.
As for the topic, Either we scoop because it's clear that we will lose or we're asked by the player who has the clear advantage if we want to scoop. The one time I wish I had scooped faster was because the board state was in a stalemate and the other player didn't want to call it draw or scoop despite not having anyway to move the game one way or the other.
Thanks for the question but I would like to answer in a roundabout way. To make sure our games go as smooth as possible we try to establish all premises beforehand, so we avoid any tensions and confusion. For my part, I'd break it down further to a potential entrant to the group. Any non-permanent card that says "search your library" is to be avoided.
Of course if someone like you were to join for the very first time, we would simply ask you to exile any of the said cards and replace them with a draw accordingly. So if you drew an Idyllic Tutor (or any search card), you just simply reveal it and put it aside and draw another.
While I get that you and others might need the card for your deck to function, my response would be "why build it in the first place". This is my opinion of course and you may have yours, but wouldn't it be better suited if you played 60-card constructed where you can play up to 4 copies.
The philosophy of a singleton format is the RNG aspect. You can have a theme, or build around a commander. But if you require a specific card in the 99 for the deck to "work", then the premise crumbles immediately. The beauty of this format is not to have consistency; that's why the strong disagreement with tutors.
So in short to your question I would scoop, BUT I'll offer to play another game with you, probably with my decks. Or you provide me with one of yours. It's all about being on the same frequency. I'm not so inflexible about playing games so long as they're are on a level playing field.
And to Hermes yes I've been very consistent with my thoughts on EDH in general.
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
Salt is part of the game. Deal with it.
Any player that pulled ahead of him got responses like "so do you just win?" And "i scoop right?" And "so do you go off?", this would be over things like a bribery, or a sneak attack, or even a t1 sol ring
Basically it amounted to that he had one singular stategy in mind playing his deck, and anything that was a surprise or threw a wrench itno the gears would tilt him because he didnt know how to handle it or anything beyond that strategy.
The worst was being partnered with him for 2headed giant. Barf.
Ultimately he quit the format because we were "too competitive"
One of the members in my play group offered this rule to us once. We discussed it and determined the following: Tutor is a part of the game and removing it would handicap a lot of colors and play styles, and make draw much, much more powerful than it already is.
You argue that it Commander is RNG focused, however a lot of decks build redundancy and adding draw just offers you a chance to spin the wheel more times. Now, I don't just jam as much tutor as possible into my decks but it is nice to have the ability to not roll over and die to a Commander that just spins the RNG wheel, or takes control of the game in a niche way. You can't just pack every answer and have multiple copies of those answers, which is why Demonic Tutor ends up being a 7-10 mana wrath or 4-6 mana spot removal (Add two to the cost of the tutor). Less often is Demonic Tutor a 6-10 mana threat. When you look at tutors as an expensive copy of a card in your deck, it becomes less destructive (especially since it removes the cheaper copy).
Tutor gives more ways to interact with the game, and enables strategies that may be lacking (Mono red Gamble, Imperial Recruiter, or Myriad Landscape. Green loses a lot of its strength: Ramp. Black loses a big part of its strength. White loses Land Tax, Enlightened Tutor, and a lot of other utility). Arguing that you should never have tutor just means you should always play blue.... Always and if you aren't mono blue, you are blue plus another color.
Now, I do want to mention that this is what our play group decided and that your play group might have different playstyles/experiences and wanted to offer a counter scenario that I have experienced.
Which is why I don't agree with scooping for the reasons you gave. I get scooping because the other person lied when you were promised, but I disagree that the person needs to make the promise in the first place (Promising no Land D, Stasis, Infinites should be good enough. Then you just need to worry about busted 'fair' commanders like Edric, Spymaster of Trest).
Current EDH
Akroma W | Tymna and Bruse RBW
If I get an okay or junk hand and the subsequent draws for my first five turns are junk, I know I am beat. So rather than play it out, I back out.
I could also be running low on resources in the hand and did a big gamble, if that blows up in my face and the next draw is junk, I back out.
Its just like playing poker, I fold if I know am beat. That is why I don't consider it rude.
I should also clear up that we're totally fine with cards that search for lands. After all the crux of Magic is mana; and we don't wanna cripple anyone with mana. Everyone should have access to mana to play their cards.
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