Of course what's worthy of note here is that this scenario likely involved YOU being the one with the Edric deck, knowing what you've posted about in the past.
And as always, the same advice applies: Talk to your playgroup about all this. It's not gentlemanly, but neither is taking multiple turns and STILL NOT WINNING.
This guy just keeps spinning the story into his favor instead of doing what we keep telling him to do. "Talk to your Group". It's clear the decks are way to strong for the play group(from also reading his other posts). That's why they target you, that's why they are salty, that's why they make plays like this in most cases just to give the other players a chance. If I sat down not knowing you and presented the commanders you have you would automatically be on my radar for biggest threat, playing a 2nd game would most likely make me target you first. Unless this is a Tournament where prizes are on the line or its cEDH the only problem I see is that your play group hates to play with you.
Exsanguinate is better at lower values for X than Torment is. Torment can kill people with less mana, but it's almost never worth casting Torment unless it's being cast for a ton. On the other hand, a relatively small Exsanguinate can be the difference between getting killed or surviving a swarm coming your way, or cam be used to Necropotence into answers to threats.
Scooping to prevent triggers is in fact a little lame but either people do it or they don't do it in a meta. I have been in metas on both ends of the token but in general the less competitive the meta is the more lame it is to do that.
Someone is playing Edric, so yes.... I think it is fair to scoop to deny triggers.
I think in general either a meta does or does not do that. If you don't like it when people do it then you should talk to your meta and ask if its ok for people to not use it. Ultimately each player has the option to do this on their way out so realistically its nothing to be done about it. If people are playing more competitive magic I think its a higher chance that people use it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
Since when is a jerk move like that acceptable just because the guy plays Edric? I mean I hate the general more than most, mainly because its overly pushed "politics" mechanic that can be abused extremely easily and totally warps the game around it, but that doesn't justify douchescooping. Leaving the game to prevent somebody's triggers shows a poor character and lack of emphaty towards other players and you can't just say "it's ok to scoop to this, but not to that".
I am not saying that exclusively because its Edric. If someone was playing any higher end competitive deck I would say the same. In more competitive metas you are in it to win the game and spite scooping is more accepted.
Most gentleman agreements are more aimed towards more casual metas. Regardless the rules of the format, I do not play infinite combo or MLD. There is technically nothing in the rules saying that I cannot. I also do not scoop to deny triggers (which again I am allowed to do) but I don't abide that because of a rule of the format but because it creates an atmosphere I do not like. When people play higher end decks using more competitive tactics, you are already kind of not abiding gentleman's agreements is my argument. If you want to min max what you can do under the current rules set then yes, the format is terribly broken and I don't understand why you would expect people to abide gentleman's agreements at that point.
The main problem with this thread is, that it is not entirely about the scoop situation.
If it were only about that, yes i'd say scooping early to deprive another player of triggers is in fact not "gentlemanly" - at all.
If you are in a casual Meta, where winning shouldn't be the major and only objective, that is terrible style and poor behavior. No matter if it is a trigger of Edric, Spymaster Of Trest or Garza Zol, Plague Queen - as long as the commander and deck strength fit in.
And that is the first big "but". But we are talking about a somewhat serious Edric, Spymaster of Trest on a table without any other on par commanders, as far as we can tell from the roughly 371 threads about said playgroup.
This doesn't have to be a real problem, if a player is somewhat new in the playgroup and doesn't know about the strength, rules and spirit of the Meta and hasn't adapted to them yet.
And that's the second big "but". But we are talking about blkh. Someone who has opened dozens of threads about what he perceives as problems of/with his playgroup. More importantly, in most of these threads he has been ignoring advice of all kind, and didn't show a single sign of understanding.
All of this makes me believe he's not looking for advice, he's looking for approval.
I hate name calling, but sometimes i just can't keep my mouth shut.
Of course what's worthy of note here is that this scenario likely involved YOU being the one with the Edric deck, knowing what you've posted about in the past.
And as always, the same advice applies: Talk to your playgroup about all this. It's not gentlemanly, but neither is taking multiple turns and STILL NOT WINNING.
This guy just keeps spinning the story into his favor instead of doing what we keep telling him to do. "Talk to your Group". It's clear the decks are way to strong for the play group(from also reading his other posts). That's why they target you, that's why they are salty, that's why they make plays like this in most cases just to give the other players a chance. If I sat down not knowing you and presented the commanders you have you would automatically be on my radar for biggest threat, playing a 2nd game would most likely make me target you first. Unless this is a Tournament where prizes are on the line or its cEDH the only problem I see is that your play group hates to play with you.
Emphasis mine. Hit the nail on the head, methinks.
The main problem with this thread is, that it is not entirely about the scoop situation.
If it were only about that, yes i'd say scooping early to deprive another player of triggers is in fact not "gentlemanly" - at all.
If you are in a casual Meta, where winning shouldn't be the major and only objective, that is terrible style and poor behavior. No matter if it is a trigger of Edric, Spymaster Of Trest or Garza Zol, Plague Queen - as long as the commander and deck strength fit in.
And that is the first big "but". But we are talking about a somewhat serious Edric, Spymaster of Trest on a table without any other on par commanders, as far as we can tell from the roughly 371 threads about said playgroup.
This doesn't have to be a real problem, if a player is somewhat new in the playgroup and doesn't know about the strength, rules and spirit of the Meta and hasn't adapted to them yet.
And that's the second big "but". But we are talking about blkh. Someone who has opened dozens of threads about what he perceives as problems of/with his playgroup. More importantly, in most of these threads he has been ignoring advice of all kind, and didn't show a single sign of understanding.
All of this makes me believe he's not looking for advice, he's looking for approval.
I hate name calling, but sometimes i just can't keep my mouth shut.
I can't give any of you as many upvotes as I'd like to.
Look, noneedtobragoabout it. You attacked me LONG ENOUGH. I am not looking for approval. I am looking for opinions. If you do not like what you read, STOP visiting this thread. that simple. Contrary to popular opinion, you CAN keep your mouth SHUT.
Look, noneedtobragoabout it. You attacked me LONG ENOUGH. I am not looking for approval. I am looking for opinions. If you do not like what you read, STOP visiting this thread. that simple. Contrary to popular opinion, you CAN keep your mouth SHUT.
The fact you took this as an attack instead of criticism once again proves, that you should evaluate peoples opinions more closely.
All i am saying is, that your shifted view on all these aspects of MTG and your Meta renders most of your threads useless. In fact, this thread would've been a very interesting topic!
Yet, people who read your other topics can't help but think that it's once again about you(r playgroup interaction). All these bloated topics about gentleman-like behavior, archenemies, playing down things, politics and other conduct should be a huge hint for you, that you are forcing your opponents to react in a toxic way towards you. That is not what Magic is about, that is not what social interaction is about and that certainly is not what life should be about. At the end of the day we all just want to enjoy the time we invest into Magic.
My "attacks" were nothing else but constructive critism and neither did you reply (til now) nor did i get the impression any of the points made by me or others made a difference. But that's what boards and threads are about. Interaction. People are calling you out for a reason. The passive aggressive tone of your reply (and signature) isn't anywhere close to what i'd consider of decent respect for others. If that's how you go about your business in your playgroup, i wouldn't even want to sit in the same pod as you.
But hey, that's just my opinion. And i will voice it. Who are you to try to silence anyone? Get a grip.
Look, noneedtobragoabout it. You attacked me LONG ENOUGH. I am not looking for approval. I am looking for opinions. If you do not like what you read, STOP visiting this thread. that simple. Contrary to popular opinion, you CAN keep your mouth SHUT.
He didn't even really attack you in that post. It's his opinion and assessment of the patterns he's observed in your threads. And you did want opinions.
And he's right, because you have ignored the most common single piece of advice that has been given many times from many users.
Look, noneedtobragoabout it. You attacked me LONG ENOUGH. I am not looking for approval. I am looking for opinions. If you do not like what you read, STOP visiting this thread. that simple. Contrary to popular opinion, you CAN keep your mouth SHUT.
Coincidentally, if you don't like what you're reading, you too could reevealuate your priorities. It's clear people aren't agreeing with you because you ignore the common advice that keeps being given over and over. The only post you respond to is the one that reaffirms your own personal beliefs, which makes people think you're only looking for validation.
It's clear by now that your views are NOT the views of the majority of EDH players. Which is fine, everyone has a different view. The problems arise when you show to never listen to advice, delete threads that don't go the way you like it and then lash out to those who summarize how you've been acting.
So, let me lay this out what you really should be doing:
- Talk to your playgroup.
- No really, talk to your playgroup and find out if/how they have a problem with you.
- Adapt to your playgroup. Probably means building a few less competitive decks.
- Take advice to heart. We're not here to screw you over. We're here to help EVERYONE's enjoyment of the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
As someone who only plays casual EDH, I think scooping is always unsportsmanlike unless either the whole group agrees to it to real life gets in the way (someone has to get the last bus home for example).
I would never allow someone to spite scoop to deny triggers, the impact of someone leaving the game othe than genuinely losing should always be as minimized as possible. I would even allow someone to get a token of a creature he/she stole from someone who has to scoop because the creature he/she loses is not genuinely removed etc.
How would you respond to a player paying all their life to Necropotence to have the same effect or Boros Charming themselves to death?
Or what about someone Swordsing their own creature to prevent it from being stolen and then conceding.
Or what about conceding in response to Murder on their False Prophet/Child of Alara? Does it matter whether or not player C has a combo that player B is trying to disrupt? What if the concession is in response to Mystical Tutor for Murder with the previous play obviously telegraphed during end-step?
If player A is about to die to a lethal fireball, would you be upset if they popped a nev's disk? If so, would your reaction be different if they had a Solemn Simulacrum?
What is your reaction to removal then scooping, be it spot removal or some kind of board wipe / Armageddon? Armageddon, but then concession after not drawing lands? Conceding after Warp World goes poorly? Removal on opponent's turn, but then conceding on draw step when they don't find what they're looking for or when they draw the seventh land in a row?
Does it matter if the game has prizes or not? In any sort of tournament-style setting, concessions are perfectly legal actions, though I suppose at the same time, collusion would become a concern in such settings.
What if a player is playing through a game and just isn't having any fun and wants to go home but their Banishing Light is holding back the last combo piece or some similar game-breaking permanent? Or what if it's the reverse? An Oblivion Ring holding something back and the player concedes before its owner can destroy the enchantment? Does it matter if they put it on the stack yet? Does it matter if they hadn't drawn removal yet? Does it matter if the removal is telegraphed to exist in cases similar to Mystical Tutor or cast Demonic Tutor? Does it matter if the permanent being held back will likely end the game or if it's something else, like a draw engine or removal?
There's just a lot of gray area. Do you have clear heuristics on how you pick and choose which cases you ignore the rules?
My group plays with "You can only scoop at sorcery speed" Meaning that if you scoop in order to prevent someone from drawing off of edric, edric still connects.
Generally speaking, I decide on a case by case basis as to why someone does what they do. If they take a calculated risk like for example if someone plays an earthquake for X = 10 and someone goes below 10 with his Erebos because he is digging for an answer to save his boardstate, that is a legit risk and if he does not find an answer and dies, we deal with the consequences. If someone kills himself in order to influence the outcome of the game through his loss, then that's the same as spite scooping as far as i'm concerned.
As to popping a Nevinryalls disk just prior to scooping, then you're just being a jerk and/or kingmaking, both of which I don't like. Everyone should just win or die trying, and free for all is free for all, not "if i can't win then you can't either".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The secret to enjoyable Commander games is not winning first, but losing last.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
I think there's one important element that I don't think anyone has mentioned here: Deterrence. If player A knows that player B will response-scoop to a lethal attack to deny triggers, that may cause them to reevaluate and not attack for lethal. It's not much of a bargaining chip, but it's the last one you've got. Even if it has a small chance of saving you, it's still the "optimal" play. And if you don't follow through on it, then no one has reason to think you will in the future, and will always just attack knowing you won't actually concede. So conceding may well be the "optimal" competitive play.
I concur with lyonhaert: it's a legal part of the game, and as long as you aren't following the gentleman's agreements of "don't play super annoying edric decks" already, there's no reason for anyone else to follow the gentleman's agreement of "don't response-scoop to deny triggers". If your group is cEDH and decides that response-scooping is disallowed, then great, but unless it's made off-limits it's technically fair game in a competitive setting.
Also, previous arguments that playing high-powered decks vs low powered decks without approval is bad sportmanship and cowardly still apply.
I think there's one important element that I don't think anyone has mentioned here: Deterrence. If player A knows that player B will response-scoop to a lethal attack to deny triggers, that may cause them to reevaluate and not attack for lethal. It's not much of a bargaining chip, but it's the last one you've got. Even if it has a small chance of saving you, it's still the "optimal" play. And if you don't follow through on it, then no one has reason to think you will in the future, and will always just attack knowing you won't actually concede. So conceding may well be the "optimal" competitive play.
I concur with lyonhaert: it's a legal part of the game, and as long as you aren't following the gentleman's agreements of "don't play super annoying edric decks" already, there's no reason for anyone else to follow the gentleman's agreement of "don't response-scoop to deny triggers". If your group is cEDH and decides that response-scooping is disallowed, then great, but unless it's made off-limits it's technically fair game in a competitive setting.
Also, previous arguments that playing high-powered decks vs low powered decks without approval is bad sportmanship and cowardly still apply.
yeah... That's like letting the kid who owns the ball win because he'll take it and leave if he loses.
I think there's one important element that I don't think anyone has mentioned here: Deterrence. If player A knows that player B will response-scoop to a lethal attack to deny triggers, that may cause them to reevaluate and not attack for lethal. It's not much of a bargaining chip, but it's the last one you've got. Even if it has a small chance of saving you, it's still the "optimal" play. And if you don't follow through on it, then no one has reason to think you will in the future, and will always just attack knowing you won't actually concede. So conceding may well be the "optimal" competitive play.
I concur with lyonhaert: it's a legal part of the game, and as long as you aren't following the gentleman's agreements of "don't play super annoying edric decks" already, there's no reason for anyone else to follow the gentleman's agreement of "don't response-scoop to deny triggers". If your group is cEDH and decides that response-scooping is disallowed, then great, but unless it's made off-limits it's technically fair game in a competitive setting.
Also, previous arguments that playing high-powered decks vs low powered decks without approval is bad sportmanship and cowardly still apply.
yeah... That's like letting the kid who owns the ball win because he'll take it and leave if he loses.
Sorry, I'm lost, what is that analogy in reference to?
Personally, my spite play is to watch the world burn and use that board wipe that I was holding up and then taking a swig of whatever horrible commercial concoction of soft drink I'm drinking at the time. Usually it's diet Pepsi, but if it's the holidays sometimes I try something crazy like mix those Sugar free torani syrups with Coke Zero.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
This is my secret tech. I haven't outright said it to my playgroup, but my opponents understand there's an opportunity cost to taking me out of the game. Of course it doesn't happen often; usually I've spent my spot removal on problematic creatures so that I don't have them in hand. Still, much like playing around counterspells, aggressors are forced to calculate their attacks instead of mindlessly swinging into me.
I think there's one important element that I don't think anyone has mentioned here: Deterrence. If player A knows that player B will response-scoop to a lethal attack to deny triggers, that may cause them to reevaluate and not attack for lethal. It's not much of a bargaining chip, but it's the last one you've got. Even if it has a small chance of saving you, it's still the "optimal" play. And if you don't follow through on it, then no one has reason to think you will in the future, and will always just attack knowing you won't actually concede. So conceding may well be the "optimal" competitive play.
I concur with lyonhaert: it's a legal part of the game, and as long as you aren't following the gentleman's agreements of "don't play super annoying edric decks" already, there's no reason for anyone else to follow the gentleman's agreement of "don't response-scoop to deny triggers". If your group is cEDH and decides that response-scooping is disallowed, then great, but unless it's made off-limits it's technically fair game in a competitive setting.
Also, previous arguments that playing high-powered decks vs low powered decks without approval is bad sportmanship and cowardly still apply.
yeah... That's like letting the kid who owns the ball win because he'll take it and leave if he loses.
Sorry, I'm lost, what is that analogy in reference to?
It's in reference to not attacking someone for lethal because they will scoop out of spite to deny you triggers. You know, that thing that you said in the comment I quoted.
It's in reference to not attacking someone for lethal because they will scoop out of spite to deny you triggers. You know, that thing that you said in the comment I quoted.
I mean, I said a lot of things, might have been clearer if you'd removed my second and third paragraph.
Also I found it hard to follow because I don't think it's a great metaphor. Taking away the ball implies that the game is over if you attack him, which obviously isn't true in the edric case. Maybe a closer metaphor would be "don't beat him in the game because if you do, he'll punch you." Although that's also not a great metaphor because speed-scooping, while a bit dickish, is technically acceptable in the rules. So then I'm not sure what a good metaphor would be that doesn't sound stupid. Also I'm not much for sports (surprise!) so my imagination here is limited.
If someone sat down to play EDH, with complete understanding of the rules but not the "gentleman's agreement", there's a decent chance they'd speed-scoop because it is, in some regards, the correct play. So if you want to say that it shouldn't be done, you'd better be able to explain why it should be part of a gentleman's agreement AND you'd better also be following that agreement. From what we know of blkh, it seems like all he does is play high-powered decks his opponents hate and refuses to change, so I'd say he doesn't have much room to demand that his opponents follow any kind of gentleman's agreement. So I'm inclined to side with his opponent on this one.
As long as the game is reasonably balanced I think it's a dick thing to do, but I think the only way you'd have room to complain is if you actually talked about it beforehand. Otherwise it's just a simple misunderstanding with no one at fault.
EDIT: also, confirmed it's his edric if anyone wasn't convinced:
I have good times with Itlimoc. I put it inside my Edric deck full of evasive creatures. I can flip it easily and it generated about 7 green mana. Epic.
It's in reference to not attacking someone for lethal because they will scoop out of spite to deny you triggers. You know, that thing that you said in the comment I quoted.
I mean, I said a lot of things, might have been clearer if you'd removed my second and third paragraph.
Also I found it hard to follow because I don't think it's a great metaphor. Taking away the ball implies that the game is over if you attack him, which obviously isn't true in the edric case. Maybe a closer metaphor would be "don't beat him in the game because if you do, he'll punch you." Although that's also not a great metaphor because speed-scooping, while a bit dickish, is technically acceptable in the rules. So then I'm not sure what a good metaphor would be that doesn't sound stupid. Also I'm not much for sports (surprise!) so my imagination here is limited.
If someone sat down to play EDH, with complete understanding of the rules but not the "gentleman's agreement", there's a decent chance they'd speed-scoop because it is, in some regards, the correct play. So if you want to say that it shouldn't be done, you'd better be able to explain why it should be part of a gentleman's agreement AND you'd better also be following that agreement. From what we know of blkh, it seems like all he does is play high-powered decks his opponents hate and refuses to change, so I'd say he doesn't have much room to demand that his opponents follow any kind of gentleman's agreement. So I'm inclined to side with his opponent on this one.
It may not have been the best metaphor but it essentially plays on the idea of not letting the immature dictate the scope of the game. You have to ask yourself where you draw the line. If you really want to win then cheating may be the correct play, just like spite scooping could be the correct play.
Or maybe playing a deck beyond the power level of your playgroup is the correct play? This is not a good road to travel.
What is clear is that the issue between blkh and his playgroup goes both ways. But as far as the question of the thread goes, mature people allow the game to play out without trying to exploit odd loopholes such as those that come about in multiplayer.
It may not have been the best metaphor but it essentially plays on the idea of not letting the immature dictate the scope of the game. You have to ask yourself where you draw the line. If you really want to win then cheating may be the correct play, just like spite scooping could be the correct play.
Or maybe playing a deck beyond the power level of your playgroup is the correct play? This is not a good road to travel.
What is clear is that the issue between blkh and his playgroup goes both ways. But as far as the question of the thread goes, mature people allow the game to play out without trying to exploit odd loopholes such as those that come about in multiplayer.
How is it immature? If he was threatening to flip the table, sure, that's immature. But he was making a legal play. Cheating is not the same thing, or even in the same category. Playing a high-powered deck is, of course, similar. Which is essentially what's going on here. If blkh wants some sort of gentleman's agreement to temper his opponents plays, he has to be willing to follow that agreement himself.
I also don't see what's "odd" or "a loophole" about it. There are loads of rules interactions that are way stranger than insta-scooping, does that make them immoral? And it's not a loophole in the sense of being ill-defined or ambiguous - the rules are very clear how concessions work in multiplayer. So I'm not even sure on which basis you'd define the play as being either of those things outside of your personal opinion.
The bottom line is, if you haven't laid down in advance what you expect from your game beyond simply following the rules, everything legal is on the table. If someone does something legal you think is unsportsmanlike, then you should TALK about it and come to an agreement. Anything outside of that is just baseless whining.
Well, case in point I think that scooping out simply to deny an ingame benefit to another player because you're losing is the wrong thing to do. It's one thing to say "Okay I'm about to lose, so I might as well take something down with my dying breath" and then there is "I hate this persons deck so I'm going to scoop to make him pay for his choices." As others pointed out it's not something people can interact with and it's disruptive to the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Well, case in point I think that scooping out simply to deny an ingame benefit to another player because you're losing is the wrong thing to do. It's one thing to say "Okay I'm about to lose, so I might as well take something down with my dying breath" and then there is "I hate this persons deck so I'm going to scoop to make him pay for his choices." As others pointed out it's not something people can interact with and it's disruptive to the game.
Conceding is a legal move. It is a game action that you can take to 'take something down with my dying breath'. Perhaps the perceived difference is because it's a game action that is not a card. If I had a card in my hand that was, like, 'G, Instant, You lose the game', would that make it any better? Or, to use an existing card, would it be okay at any time to Aether Vial Phage into play as a lose trigger? There's no difference here.
What the OP should do is the following:
1) Establish a social contract with his group. (Note that this is two-way. If he doesn't want them scooping, they should be able to put restrictions of their own.)
2) If a social contract is formed, abide by it. Upholding the contract is the only to legitimately apply it.
3) If a social contract is not formed, find a different playgroup. At the end of the day, Magic is a social game inasmuch as you cannot force people to play with you.
Most people in this thread countering with, 'Well, you're playing Edric,' are using an implicit argument that a social contract (likely the one they have with their gaming group) has already been broken, and unilaterally upholding a multilateral agreement is nonsensical.
As an example, I adore playing control decks of the 'tax / rulesetting' variety. However, I can only play with a very few other people, and one in particular hates the feeling of not being able to play his spells. The agreed-upon social contract with him in part entails that I will not play that kind of deck against him. And, I might point out, that he plays a fairly good Nekusar deck.
Anyway, I'm not saying anything other people on this thread are not saying. To the OP: conceding as you describe is a legal game action. If you want to argue from a social context, the entire social context should be addressed... and it appears to need addressing.
It's a matter of context. It never feels good to lose and often repeated losses are the reason people start getting spiteful. It's always been the way of things...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This guy just keeps spinning the story into his favor instead of doing what we keep telling him to do. "Talk to your Group". It's clear the decks are way to strong for the play group(from also reading his other posts). That's why they target you, that's why they are salty, that's why they make plays like this in most cases just to give the other players a chance. If I sat down not knowing you and presented the commanders you have you would automatically be on my radar for biggest threat, playing a 2nd game would most likely make me target you first. Unless this is a Tournament where prizes are on the line or its cEDH the only problem I see is that your play group hates to play with you.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
I am not saying that exclusively because its Edric. If someone was playing any higher end competitive deck I would say the same. In more competitive metas you are in it to win the game and spite scooping is more accepted.
Most gentleman agreements are more aimed towards more casual metas. Regardless the rules of the format, I do not play infinite combo or MLD. There is technically nothing in the rules saying that I cannot. I also do not scoop to deny triggers (which again I am allowed to do) but I don't abide that because of a rule of the format but because it creates an atmosphere I do not like. When people play higher end decks using more competitive tactics, you are already kind of not abiding gentleman's agreements is my argument. If you want to min max what you can do under the current rules set then yes, the format is terribly broken and I don't understand why you would expect people to abide gentleman's agreements at that point.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
If it were only about that, yes i'd say scooping early to deprive another player of triggers is in fact not "gentlemanly" - at all.
If you are in a casual Meta, where winning shouldn't be the major and only objective, that is terrible style and poor behavior. No matter if it is a trigger of Edric, Spymaster Of Trest or Garza Zol, Plague Queen - as long as the commander and deck strength fit in.
And that is the first big "but". But we are talking about a somewhat serious Edric, Spymaster of Trest on a table without any other on par commanders, as far as we can tell from the roughly 371 threads about said playgroup.
This doesn't have to be a real problem, if a player is somewhat new in the playgroup and doesn't know about the strength, rules and spirit of the Meta and hasn't adapted to them yet.
And that's the second big "but". But we are talking about blkh. Someone who has opened dozens of threads about what he perceives as problems of/with his playgroup. More importantly, in most of these threads he has been ignoring advice of all kind, and didn't show a single sign of understanding.
All of this makes me believe he's not looking for advice, he's looking for approval.
I hate name calling, but sometimes i just can't keep my mouth shut.
old thread
old thread
old thread
R Zada Arcane Storm
RBU Marchesa
GWU Estrid
GWR Samut?
URB Kess
(R/W)(U/B) Akiri & Silas
BWR Alesha
R Neheb Dragons
G Nylea Wurms
W Darien
U Tetsuko
Salt is part of the game. Deal with it.
All i am saying is, that your shifted view on all these aspects of MTG and your Meta renders most of your threads useless. In fact, this thread would've been a very interesting topic!
Yet, people who read your other topics can't help but think that it's once again about you(r playgroup interaction). All these bloated topics about gentleman-like behavior, archenemies, playing down things, politics and other conduct should be a huge hint for you, that you are forcing your opponents to react in a toxic way towards you. That is not what Magic is about, that is not what social interaction is about and that certainly is not what life should be about. At the end of the day we all just want to enjoy the time we invest into Magic.
My "attacks" were nothing else but constructive critism and neither did you reply (til now) nor did i get the impression any of the points made by me or others made a difference. But that's what boards and threads are about. Interaction. People are calling you out for a reason. The passive aggressive tone of your reply (and signature) isn't anywhere close to what i'd consider of decent respect for others. If that's how you go about your business in your playgroup, i wouldn't even want to sit in the same pod as you.
But hey, that's just my opinion. And i will voice it. Who are you to try to silence anyone? Get a grip.
And he's right, because you have ignored the most common single piece of advice that has been given many times from many users.
old thread
old thread
old thread
R Zada Arcane Storm
RBU Marchesa
GWU Estrid
GWR Samut?
URB Kess
(R/W)(U/B) Akiri & Silas
BWR Alesha
R Neheb Dragons
G Nylea Wurms
W Darien
U Tetsuko
Coincidentally, if you don't like what you're reading, you too could reevealuate your priorities. It's clear people aren't agreeing with you because you ignore the common advice that keeps being given over and over. The only post you respond to is the one that reaffirms your own personal beliefs, which makes people think you're only looking for validation.
It's clear by now that your views are NOT the views of the majority of EDH players. Which is fine, everyone has a different view. The problems arise when you show to never listen to advice, delete threads that don't go the way you like it and then lash out to those who summarize how you've been acting.
So, let me lay this out what you really should be doing:
- Talk to your playgroup.
- No really, talk to your playgroup and find out if/how they have a problem with you.
- Adapt to your playgroup. Probably means building a few less competitive decks.
- Take advice to heart. We're not here to screw you over. We're here to help EVERYONE's enjoyment of the game.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
Or what about someone Swordsing their own creature to prevent it from being stolen and then conceding.
Or what about conceding in response to Murder on their False Prophet/Child of Alara? Does it matter whether or not player C has a combo that player B is trying to disrupt? What if the concession is in response to Mystical Tutor for Murder with the previous play obviously telegraphed during end-step?
If player A is about to die to a lethal fireball, would you be upset if they popped a nev's disk? If so, would your reaction be different if they had a Solemn Simulacrum?
What is your reaction to removal then scooping, be it spot removal or some kind of board wipe / Armageddon? Armageddon, but then concession after not drawing lands? Conceding after Warp World goes poorly? Removal on opponent's turn, but then conceding on draw step when they don't find what they're looking for or when they draw the seventh land in a row?
Does it matter if the game has prizes or not? In any sort of tournament-style setting, concessions are perfectly legal actions, though I suppose at the same time, collusion would become a concern in such settings.
What if a player is playing through a game and just isn't having any fun and wants to go home but their Banishing Light is holding back the last combo piece or some similar game-breaking permanent? Or what if it's the reverse? An Oblivion Ring holding something back and the player concedes before its owner can destroy the enchantment? Does it matter if they put it on the stack yet? Does it matter if they hadn't drawn removal yet? Does it matter if the removal is telegraphed to exist in cases similar to Mystical Tutor or cast Demonic Tutor? Does it matter if the permanent being held back will likely end the game or if it's something else, like a draw engine or removal?
There's just a lot of gray area. Do you have clear heuristics on how you pick and choose which cases you ignore the rules?
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
As to popping a Nevinryalls disk just prior to scooping, then you're just being a jerk and/or kingmaking, both of which I don't like. Everyone should just win or die trying, and free for all is free for all, not "if i can't win then you can't either".
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
I concur with lyonhaert: it's a legal part of the game, and as long as you aren't following the gentleman's agreements of "don't play super annoying edric decks" already, there's no reason for anyone else to follow the gentleman's agreement of "don't response-scoop to deny triggers". If your group is cEDH and decides that response-scooping is disallowed, then great, but unless it's made off-limits it's technically fair game in a competitive setting.
Also, previous arguments that playing high-powered decks vs low powered decks without approval is bad sportmanship and cowardly still apply.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
yeah... That's like letting the kid who owns the ball win because he'll take it and leave if he loses.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
This is my secret tech. I haven't outright said it to my playgroup, but my opponents understand there's an opportunity cost to taking me out of the game. Of course it doesn't happen often; usually I've spent my spot removal on problematic creatures so that I don't have them in hand. Still, much like playing around counterspells, aggressors are forced to calculate their attacks instead of mindlessly swinging into me.
A sort of dying wish, if you will.
[Primer] Erebos, God of the Dead
HONK HONK
It's in reference to not attacking someone for lethal because they will scoop out of spite to deny you triggers. You know, that thing that you said in the comment I quoted.
Also I found it hard to follow because I don't think it's a great metaphor. Taking away the ball implies that the game is over if you attack him, which obviously isn't true in the edric case. Maybe a closer metaphor would be "don't beat him in the game because if you do, he'll punch you." Although that's also not a great metaphor because speed-scooping, while a bit dickish, is technically acceptable in the rules. So then I'm not sure what a good metaphor would be that doesn't sound stupid. Also I'm not much for sports (surprise!) so my imagination here is limited.
If someone sat down to play EDH, with complete understanding of the rules but not the "gentleman's agreement", there's a decent chance they'd speed-scoop because it is, in some regards, the correct play. So if you want to say that it shouldn't be done, you'd better be able to explain why it should be part of a gentleman's agreement AND you'd better also be following that agreement. From what we know of blkh, it seems like all he does is play high-powered decks his opponents hate and refuses to change, so I'd say he doesn't have much room to demand that his opponents follow any kind of gentleman's agreement. So I'm inclined to side with his opponent on this one.
As long as the game is reasonably balanced I think it's a dick thing to do, but I think the only way you'd have room to complain is if you actually talked about it beforehand. Otherwise it's just a simple misunderstanding with no one at fault.
EDIT: also, confirmed it's his edric if anyone wasn't convinced:
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
It may not have been the best metaphor but it essentially plays on the idea of not letting the immature dictate the scope of the game. You have to ask yourself where you draw the line. If you really want to win then cheating may be the correct play, just like spite scooping could be the correct play.
Or maybe playing a deck beyond the power level of your playgroup is the correct play? This is not a good road to travel.
What is clear is that the issue between blkh and his playgroup goes both ways. But as far as the question of the thread goes, mature people allow the game to play out without trying to exploit odd loopholes such as those that come about in multiplayer.
I also don't see what's "odd" or "a loophole" about it. There are loads of rules interactions that are way stranger than insta-scooping, does that make them immoral? And it's not a loophole in the sense of being ill-defined or ambiguous - the rules are very clear how concessions work in multiplayer. So I'm not even sure on which basis you'd define the play as being either of those things outside of your personal opinion.
The bottom line is, if you haven't laid down in advance what you expect from your game beyond simply following the rules, everything legal is on the table. If someone does something legal you think is unsportsmanlike, then you should TALK about it and come to an agreement. Anything outside of that is just baseless whining.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Conceding is a legal move. It is a game action that you can take to 'take something down with my dying breath'. Perhaps the perceived difference is because it's a game action that is not a card. If I had a card in my hand that was, like, 'G, Instant, You lose the game', would that make it any better? Or, to use an existing card, would it be okay at any time to Aether Vial Phage into play as a lose trigger? There's no difference here.
What the OP should do is the following:
1) Establish a social contract with his group. (Note that this is two-way. If he doesn't want them scooping, they should be able to put restrictions of their own.)
2) If a social contract is formed, abide by it. Upholding the contract is the only to legitimately apply it.
3) If a social contract is not formed, find a different playgroup. At the end of the day, Magic is a social game inasmuch as you cannot force people to play with you.
Most people in this thread countering with, 'Well, you're playing Edric,' are using an implicit argument that a social contract (likely the one they have with their gaming group) has already been broken, and unilaterally upholding a multilateral agreement is nonsensical.
As an example, I adore playing control decks of the 'tax / rulesetting' variety. However, I can only play with a very few other people, and one in particular hates the feeling of not being able to play his spells. The agreed-upon social contract with him in part entails that I will not play that kind of deck against him. And, I might point out, that he plays a fairly good Nekusar deck.
Anyway, I'm not saying anything other people on this thread are not saying. To the OP: conceding as you describe is a legal game action. If you want to argue from a social context, the entire social context should be addressed... and it appears to need addressing.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!