I find that the best thing to do is to resolve as much as possible as if that player was still there when someone concedes on another players turn. Playing a 4 player game and a player concedes with Kokusho,the Evening Star on the stack? Gain 15 still. Someone concedes with no blocks during combat when you have Sword of Fire and Ice? Draw a card and ping that Grand Abolisher the other player still in the game has. If they conceded just to try to mess up your strategy over some salt, don't let them have it.
If You leaving would have a big impact on the game and you still have a chance to win, if you want to quit at least give a heads up.
(So no stuff like stay in wait for the attack against you and then leave without saying that you will to that) This can be considered a "tactical concession" (If you attack me i will concede)
I think thats fine even though I would not consider that a "tactical" move because I fail to see how that Improves your chance of winning.
there are 2 variations of the tac scoop I'm aware of - either to deny triggers, or to put them in a bad position because they needed you as a buffer against a more powerful player who could kill them more easily alone.
In both cases the strategic value of the threat is that they might decide not to do the thing you don't want them to do. If they need the lifelink or they'll die on the crack back, for example, they could very well attack elsewhere, or at least non-lethally, to ensure the life gain.
There's no strategic value in actually scooping, except to ensure people take you seriously in the future. And if they don't change course, then ideally you've lost nothing since you were dead anyway (or basically so, although people frequently suck at knowing when that is).
Scooping without threatening to is pointless since there's no opportunity for them to change course.
Threatening to scoop to trivial stuff is dumb since you have so much to lose if they don't change course.
I think a third important component is: give them an out. If they're dead in the air next turn and need to lifelink on the ground now, threatening to scoop if you're attacked gives them no way to win. So that's a dick move imo, and they should smash you anyway.
Typical concessions are perfectly fine. Tactical concessions of the trigger denying variety don't belong in any group that buys in to how Commander is currently marketed -- cutthroat groups only. If your deck hides behind the "Spirit of Commander" to stand a chance, you don't get to exploit rules loopholes to spite your table.
In both cases the strategic value of the threat is that they might decide not to do the thing you don't want them to do. If they need the lifelink or they'll die on the crack back, for example, they could very well attack elsewhere, or at least non-lethally, to ensure the life gain.
There's no strategic value in actually scooping, except to ensure people take you seriously in the future. And if they don't change course, then ideally you've lost nothing since you were dead anyway (or basically so, although people frequently suck at knowing when that is).
Scooping without threatening to is pointless since there's no opportunity for them to change course.
Threatening to scoop to trivial stuff is dumb since you have so much to lose if they don't change course.
.
I have to disagree, there is not a strategic value of that threat, because if you are at 6 life and I am atacking with a 6/6 lifelinker and you threat to concede to deny me the life gain, then one or more of this things will happend.
1. I will attack you no matter what, you will die and if you concede I will add up those 6 life anyway
2. I will never ever play again with you because you are just saying 'if things are nor my way, I am out' so for me, be out forever.
you say that 'crying' and threatening to concede is a strategy? really??? for me is the same strategic value my kids have when they cry and threat for a toy, I will denied them always and will be punished for that behavior.
After reading your primer I thought better of you, how disappointing
I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.
The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.
I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.
Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
I have to disagree, there is not a strategic value of that threat, because if you are at 6 life and I am atacking with a 6/6 lifelinker and you threat to concede to deny me the life gain, then one or more of this things will happend.
1. I will attack you no matter what, you will die and if you concede I will add up those 6 life anyway
2. I will never ever play again with you because you are just saying 'if things are nor my way, I am out' so for me, be out forever.
you say that 'crying' and threatening to concede is a strategy? really??? for me is the same strategic value my kids have when they cry and threat for a toy, I will denied them always and will be punished for that behavior.
After reading your primer I thought better of you, how disappointing
He was asking what the strategic value of tac scooping was. I was just answering his question. I stated earlier in the thread that I personally don't do it (mostly because it isn't worth the hassle imo...because people often get emotional about it...no offense...and I'd rather have an enjoyable time than get a +0.1% winrate).
It is technically legal and it has a strategic benefit (or at least, the threat does). Gaining the life anyway is technically cheating. Those are objective facts. If you think it's lame and want to house ban it, then you should definitely do that. The one subjective thing I'll say is that I think it's most important that everyone is on the same page - whatever page that may be.
For me conceding is fine as long as it is done under the right circumstances. Conceding because some cast a Bribery or Mind Slaver is just being spiteful (imho). Scooping because someone will hit you for lethal with lifelink creature(s) is again the same.
I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.
The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.
I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.
Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
And this kind of behavior is why conceding at instant speed should not be allowed, you are scooping to deny their legitimate wincon, is insurrection any worst than Triumph of the horde or similars.
Again, if you do that, if you concede to an insurrection you lack sportsmanship to say the least, and why those people will want to play with you again?
This sort of thing has happened to me recently at least a couple times: while playing Geth, Lord of the Vault. I have to be careful not to eliminate the people who have the best stuff I've stolen. But sometimes they scoop anyway, denying me my wincons. Maybe not as an intentional tactical ploy or even just to screw me over, but their act of scooping has, in fact, screwed me over. And they did it at sorcery speed.
Similarly, games where I need the other player's help to take down the more powerful opponent, but my would-be-ally feels they're too far behind and scoops, putting me in a fairly unwinnable war against a more powerful enemy alone. Wasn't spiteful or tactical, was at sorcery speed - but their act of scooping did screw me over.
Anyway I'm just saying, there's not necessarily a simple delineation between spite/tac scooping and "I'm bored of this game and don't think I have a chance, so I'ma leave" scooping.
I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.
The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.
I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.
Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
And this kind of behavior is why conceding at instant speed should not be allowed, you are scooping to deny their legitimate wincon, is insurrection any worst than Triumph of the horde or similars.
Again, if you do that, if you concede to an insurrection you lack sportsmanship to say the least, and why those people will want to play with you again?
I mean, you can read, the answer to your question is in what you quoted: politics. My playgroups love me because I focus entirely on what provides the most enjoyable experience for the greatest number of players- full stop. If that means conceding so my overextending into an Insurrection doesn't end the game for half the table, it's entirely welcomed.
The problem with your arguments, concepts of sportsmanship itself aside, is that you're coming at it exclusively from the angle of the salty player. You aren't the only player in the game, and you definitely aren't the only voice or opinion that matters at any table. The delineation between "spite-scoop" and "tactical scoop" is telling- you're spitting one player, but being tactical to the benefit of the rest; it's all in the perspective. If the table at large disagrees with the scoop, I.E. the majority isn't happy, then I wouldn't do it. But, in every game where I've offered up my head on the block so the game can continue (which, mind you, isn't a huge sample size, but still relevant), the majority loved it and my reputation for kingly politicking persists.
Triumph of the Hordes is a poor example, if only because you'll find that poison is a contested win condition for roughly half the people I play with. To the point, however, any win condition that relies on your opponents is one that has to be weighed- while the haymakers of Insurrection, Bribery, and friends are the most relevant, there are countless other ways that you can get screwed over by relying on theft effects- whether a player is knocked out or concedes. I'm in the camp that a win-condition that relies on your opponents is not, in fact, "legitimate," but more because of the feels-bad nature of it, rather than any kind of fear of spite plays (oh curse my bleeding "fun first" philosophy).
I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.
The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.
I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.
Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
And this kind of behavior is why conceding at instant speed should not be allowed, you are scooping to deny their legitimate wincon, is insurrection any worst than Triumph of the horde or similars.
Again, if you do that, if you concede to an insurrection you lack sportsmanship to say the least, and why those people will want to play with you again?
I mean, you can read, the answer to your question is in what you quoted: politics. My playgroups love me because I focus entirely on what provides the most enjoyable experience for the greatest number of players- full stop. If that means conceding so my overextending into an Insurrection doesn't end the game for half the table, it's entirely welcomed.
The problem with your arguments, concepts of sportsmanship itself aside, is that you're coming at it exclusively from the angle of the salty player. You aren't the only player in the game, and you definitely aren't the only voice or opinion that matters at any table. The delineation between "spite-scoop" and "tactical scoop" is telling- you're spitting one player, but being tactical to the benefit of the rest; it's all in the perspective. If the table at large disagrees with the scoop, I.E. the majority isn't happy, then I wouldn't do it. But, in every game where I've offered up my head on the block so the game can continue (which, mind you, isn't a huge sample size, but still relevant), the majority loved it and my reputation for kingly politicking persists.
Triumph of the Hordes is a poor example, if only because you'll find that poison is a contested win condition for roughly half the people I play with. To the point, however, any win condition that relies on your opponents is one that has to be weighed- while the haymakers of Insurrection, Bribery, and friends are the most relevant, there are countless other ways that you can get screwed over by relying on theft effects- whether a player is knocked out or concedes. I'm in the camp that a win-condition that relies on your opponents is not, in fact, "legitimate," but more because of the feels-bad nature of it, rather than any kind of fear of spite plays (oh curse my bleeding "fun first" philosophy).
What I mean is, if you want to counterspell insurrection then play some Counterspell or Homeward path, or even a fog can screw that move by actually playing magic but you are using a concesion just to screw a player by NOT PLAYING, because if you counter the spell then you are playing magic, ok, if you are at 1 life and tap a painland to deny the insureccion is also OK you are actually playing magic and denying the efcect, but "quit playing" to deny an effect is not playing, so I think is cheap, wrong and unaceptable
But if your playgroup thinks you are a hero for that and they cheer you that kind of playstyle is OK, every playgroup has their own rules spoken or not
I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.
The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.
I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.
Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
That is most definitely poor form.. If that's what floats your boat then go ahead, but I wouldn't sit at the table with you again, even if it did benefit me in that particular instance.
I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.
The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.
I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.
Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
That is most definitely poor form.. If that's what floats your boat then go ahead, but I wouldn't sit at the table with you again, even if it did benefit me in that particular instance.
Which would absolutely be your prerogative- though, if you were at the table strongly decrying the move, and not just silently accepting it since it gives you a benefit, it wouldn't be a move I'd make. A concession can be very powerful politically but, if it didn't actually result in a net-positive for the table then there isn't any point. Now, in my case, the "poor sportmanlike" behavior falls squarely on the group instead of just my move, but that's all part of the fun for me; I enjoy seeing how far the social contract can be stretched if people think they're getting a good deal.
Now, again, we also house ruled it as essentially "zero mana: eliminate a player, start your turn over," (letting the insurrection player take back said play to keep the game going as a group) which is a key detail for making it actually fun. I love house rules.
personally i feel its a dick move unless you have to bounce for the night (or i guess poop)
over the past like 10 years of playing commander the only time i've seen people concede is when they have to leave (or i guess poop) or when they're just salty. this actually happened about two weeks ago with a missed rhystic study trigger no one would rewind, guy got so salty he waited to tactically scoop. we ignored that (as in the person dealing lethal got to attack someone else instead). it made him saltier.
i mean i get it, when you're in a losing spot or didn't get your way you get bored on top of salty. generally when i've been in the same situation i'll just ignore everything unless its my turn and dick around on my phone or play a sub game at the table behind me. no big deal, but i do get it. i just don't agree with it.
then again, i played monogreen during the black summer and kept sticking with it rather than changing playstyle/deck sooooo i'm just a stubborn ****
Rest assured, this is the 734th time we have created this thread, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.
ATTACHMENTS
1_OlY_7egaXZYKJu3QZYmANA
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Threatening to scoop is a viable tactical option and removing it makes the game worse.
What exactly makes it tactical? And in what way is it viable? Because by conceding, you've lost the game (which is not a good tactic) so the only way it could be tactical is to influence people in future games. Suddenly we're not talking about politics of the game but rather politics of the group beyond just the game. So then, how is this different than threatening to flip the table if someone attacks you?
In both cases, it demonstrates childish behavior and poor sportsmanship over a game that has ramifications beyond just that game. As almost everyone else in this thread has said, anyone doing this would not be invited to my table again.
I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.
The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.
I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.
Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
That is most definitely poor form.. If that's what floats your boat then go ahead, but I wouldn't sit at the table with you again, even if it did benefit me in that particular instance.
Which would absolutely be your prerogative- though, if you were at the table strongly decrying the move, and not just silently accepting it since it gives you a benefit, it wouldn't be a move I'd make. A concession can be very powerful politically but, if it didn't actually result in a net-positive for the table then there isn't any point. Now, in my case, the "poor sportmanlike" behavior falls squarely on the group instead of just my move, but that's all part of the fun for me; I enjoy seeing how far the social contract can be stretched if people think they're getting a good deal.
Now, again, we also house ruled it as essentially "zero mana: eliminate a player, start your turn over," (letting the insurrection player take back said play to keep the game going as a group) which is a key detail for making it actually fun. I love house rules.
I imagine your group feels pretty unfun to new players.
I believe whatever makes the game enjoyable for the greatest number of people is the correct play.
The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.
I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.
Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
That is most definitely poor form.. If that's what floats your boat then go ahead, but I wouldn't sit at the table with you again, even if it did benefit me in that particular instance.
Which would absolutely be your prerogative- though, if you were at the table strongly decrying the move, and not just silently accepting it since it gives you a benefit, it wouldn't be a move I'd make. A concession can be very powerful politically but, if it didn't actually result in a net-positive for the table then there isn't any point. Now, in my case, the "poor sportmanlike" behavior falls squarely on the group instead of just my move, but that's all part of the fun for me; I enjoy seeing how far the social contract can be stretched if people think they're getting a good deal.
Now, again, we also house ruled it as essentially "zero mana: eliminate a player, start your turn over," (letting the insurrection player take back said play to keep the game going as a group) which is a key detail for making it actually fun. I love house rules.
I imagine your group feels pretty unfun to new players.
An amusing conclusion to come to from all of one (rare) example, but no, we haven't gotten any negative feedback from new players and tend to rotate new people in regularly. In fact, as a general rule, opening up politics and house rules to be as kind as possible to the greatest number of players has resulted in a lot of people leaving the table happily who might otherwise be quite the opposite. Admittedly, being purportedly nice people and having good food and drink does tend to help. Put salt on your food, not into the game! But I am a bit lucky and my good fortune isn't the topic of the thread.
On topic, the feelings taken from one game to the next, even if people try not get "meta" in that regard, are clearly the driving force in the issue. A concession in response feels bad for the player on the receiving end, and results in them carrying over that grudge (whether that's in not playing with the player again, or as likely focusing down that player) while my rare concessions have been driven politically to "save" other players at the table. What I struggle to understand are more generic spite plays. What kind of benefit is there in just denying triggers or other plays that only harm the "offending" player, without offering any kind of benefit to the rest of the table?
Threatening to scoop is a viable tactical option and removing it makes the game worse.
What exactly makes it tactical? And in what way is it viable? Because by conceding, you've lost the game (which is not a good tactic) so the only way it could be tactical is to influence people in future games. Suddenly we're not talking about politics of the game but rather politics of the group beyond just the game. So then, how is this different than threatening to flip the table if someone attacks you?
In both cases, it demonstrates childish behavior and poor sportsmanship over a game that has ramifications beyond just that game. As almost everyone else in this thread has said, anyone doing this would not be invited to my table again.
-In what sense are you "taking your ball and going home?" The game presumably continues without you, as it would have were you eliminated normally.
-The actual concession isn't tactical (except in the sense that following through on a deal you made is tactical, since it means people will believe you in the future). The tactical part is in threatening to scoop to hurt your killer, thus potentially causing them to not kill you and giving you a chance to win.
-Tactical scooping really only works if you're going to be dead (i.e. scooping to lethal lifelink attacker) or functionally dead (i.e. someone's about to steal your lands with gilt-leaf archdruid could functionally eliminate you, depending on game state). So you're ostensibly not giving anything up if you do end up scooping.
-It's different because it's a legal game action, not real-world assault?
-People can be childish when they scoop, but it's just a move. People can be childish or poor sports while doing all sorts of in-game things. Hell, I've been childish plenty of times and I basically never tac scoop. I don't think there's anything particularly childish about someone saying "Just to let you know, if you attack me for lethal, I'll scoop in response so you won't gain any life", and then that person calmly conceding when attacked. From a strategic point of view, it's the right move - even if (as I've stated) it's not generally worth the trouble, since people tend to be such babies about it in my experience.
-If you don't like tactical/spite scooping as a practice, that's totally reasonable and fair. If people are actually doing it (most aren't, in my experience) you can suggest a house ban on the practice. Hell, you can try to get the RC to change the rules to "fix" it, doesn't bother me. But for the time being, it's a totally legal move. Complaining about it is roughly the same thing as complaining about someone playing cEDH decks - it's fair to dislike it, but there's no real legal grounds for saying they're "wrong".
In most situations I am pro scooping at instant speed, except for during combat steps (so someone doesn't screw someone else over during combat by insta-scooping) and to deny triggers. I would be willing to change my opinion based on the group. The important thing for me is consistency. I don't have a problem with someone killing themselves to deny triggers using 'in-game' moves like tapping a land to lose the last life one has, because those are moves that one could reasonably expect in the game and somewhat predict (at least partially). Since most groups (that I have played in and I feel is the case more widely based on threads I have followed on this over the years and through asking people around me who play Magic) seem to play as if the triggers occurred anyway when someone insta-scoops it seems odd to deny triggers this way as it is unexpected and cannot reasonably be expected or predicted. I am also against insta-scooping to deny triggers and so forth, because allowing insta-scooping to deny triggers incentivizes insular infinite combo strategies that do not care about what opponents are doing or whether someone insta-scoops to deny triggers. This being said I am a spike and lots of my decks already use insular infinite combo strategies (e.g. infinite combo and 'infinite' turns), so for me what matters most is if it is clear that insta-scooping to deny triggers using non-'in-game' actions is allowed or not before a game begins so one can act in a manner that is consistent with expectations.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern:UB Taking Turns Modern:URW Madcap Experiment Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
Taking your ball and going home is somehow still up for debate.
-In what sense are you "taking your ball and going home?" The game presumably continues without you, as it would have were you eliminated normally.
Taking your triggers and going home, then. That's assuming you would have gained life or gotten a Sword trigger had they not conceded in response to an attack. But I've had someone concede in response to having their Avacyn stolen with Bolas. It did not cause them or any other player to lose, nor was anyone in immediate danger of losing. So it's not the same as eliminating someone normally, because you can usually predict when you're going to kill someone, but you can't always predict when someone is going to become tilted and lose to spite you.
-It's different because it's a legal game action, not real-world assault?
How about a different example: Threaten to only target that one player with any and all counterspells, removal, combat damage, etc. in all future games for time immemorial. This is likewise a legal game action. Do you consider this any different?
-People can be childish when they scoop, but it's just a move. People can be childish or poor sports while doing all sorts of in-game things. Hell, I've been childish plenty of times and I basically never tac scoop. I don't think there's anything particularly childish about someone saying "Just to let you know, if you attack me for lethal, I'll scoop in response so you won't gain any life", and then that person calmly conceding when attacked. From a strategic point of view, it's the right move - even if (as I've stated) it's not generally worth the trouble, since people tend to be such babies about it in my experience..
I agree with what you're saying here. Intent is important. In my experience as well, "tactical scooping" has only ever happened because someone was upset. My opinion is mainly influenced by that fact.
I agree with what you're saying here. Intent is important. In my experience as well, "tactical scooping" has only ever happened because someone was upset. My opinion is mainly influenced by that fact.
I think that's probably the main reason people are so anti-tac-scooping (also - I'd call it "spite scooping" if they aren't trying to make any attempt to change the person's actions in advance, but scooping without warning just to deny triggers - which is usually what happens when someone's upset). Few people do it well/correctly, because to do so you kind of need to be somewhat calm despite your imminent demise. I think most people who hate speed scooping (catch-all for spite and tac scooping) and think it's childish aren't talking about someone using it correctly as their last line of defense, but someone who's just angry and wants to wreak as much havoc as possible before leaving.
Taking your triggers and going home, then. That's assuming you would have gained life or gotten a Sword trigger had they not conceded in response to an attack. But I've had someone concede in response to having their Avacyn stolen with Bolas. It did not cause them or any other player to lose, nor was anyone in immediate danger of losing. So it's not the same as eliminating someone normally, because you can usually predict when you're going to kill someone, but you can't always predict when someone is going to become tilted and lose to spite you.
How about a different example: Threaten to only target that one player with any and all counterspells, removal, combat damage, etc. in all future games for time immemorial. This is likewise a legal game action. Do you consider this any different?
I could say something about how games should be self-contained, but I don't actually believe that - if someone lies to me in a game, I'm less likely to believe them in the future; if they play really well, I'm more likely to watch them carefully in the future.
No, I think the real issue is simply: it's a bad move. I wouldn't like it for the same reason I wouldn't like someone who just never played any cards and sat there calmly discarding to max hand size. Or that guy who plays armageddon when another player is way ahead on board "just for lulz". Threatening to play worse for all future games is a ludicrous threat to make - I wouldn't believe them, and I'd take their future threats less seriously. And if they did actually follow through, they'd be making bad moves every time they targeted that player when it wasn't reasonable. Not that I'd stop playing against someone just for being a bit crap at magic (I'd never get to play anyone if I did that ) but deliberately playing badly isn't fun imo - for any reason. Same reason I dislike people sandbagging combos "because the game should run a bit longer".
For that same reason, the guy who scoops to some random slight partway through the game is also playing badly - their chances to win were presumably much higher if they accepted the loss of avacyn, than if they (threatened to?) concede. That, I think, is the real crux of the issue - playing badly, not anything intrinsic to speed scooping per se. It just happens to be particularly hot-button because so few people do it well, and it comes up so rarely that it seems blind-siding to most people.
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
In both cases the strategic value of the threat is that they might decide not to do the thing you don't want them to do. If they need the lifelink or they'll die on the crack back, for example, they could very well attack elsewhere, or at least non-lethally, to ensure the life gain.
There's no strategic value in actually scooping, except to ensure people take you seriously in the future. And if they don't change course, then ideally you've lost nothing since you were dead anyway (or basically so, although people frequently suck at knowing when that is).
Scooping without threatening to is pointless since there's no opportunity for them to change course.
Threatening to scoop to trivial stuff is dumb since you have so much to lose if they don't change course.
I think a third important component is: give them an out. If they're dead in the air next turn and need to lifelink on the ground now, threatening to scoop if you're attacked gives them no way to win. So that's a dick move imo, and they should smash you anyway.
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
Groups can do what they want. If tac scoops and craw worms is their jam, who are we to deny them their fun?
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
I have to disagree, there is not a strategic value of that threat, because if you are at 6 life and I am atacking with a 6/6 lifelinker and you threat to concede to deny me the life gain, then one or more of this things will happend.
1. I will attack you no matter what, you will die and if you concede I will add up those 6 life anyway
2. I will never ever play again with you because you are just saying 'if things are nor my way, I am out' so for me, be out forever.
you say that 'crying' and threatening to concede is a strategy? really??? for me is the same strategic value my kids have when they cry and threat for a toy, I will denied them always and will be punished for that behavior.
After reading your primer I thought better of you, how disappointing
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
The biggest example to this kind of issue has come up with Insurrection. My big, dumb battlecruiser deck has the best, spookiest board, and can kill the table if blockers are cleared with the mass mind control.
I respond by conceding. One player is salty, I’ve definitely lost (though helped play kingmaker), while two more players are still in the game- net political positive for the next game, and the current game continues with 2/3rd content.
Usually, the insurrection player is then allowed the classic take backsies and can use their turn and mana differently, essentially killing target player for nothing! Lots of ways around it without taking away the agency of concession at whatever speed you want.
It is technically legal and it has a strategic benefit (or at least, the threat does). Gaining the life anyway is technically cheating. Those are objective facts. If you think it's lame and want to house ban it, then you should definitely do that. The one subjective thing I'll say is that I think it's most important that everyone is on the same page - whatever page that may be.
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
And this kind of behavior is why conceding at instant speed should not be allowed, you are scooping to deny their legitimate wincon, is insurrection any worst than Triumph of the horde or similars.
Again, if you do that, if you concede to an insurrection you lack sportsmanship to say the least, and why those people will want to play with you again?
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
Similarly, games where I need the other player's help to take down the more powerful opponent, but my would-be-ally feels they're too far behind and scoops, putting me in a fairly unwinnable war against a more powerful enemy alone. Wasn't spiteful or tactical, was at sorcery speed - but their act of scooping did screw me over.
Anyway I'm just saying, there's not necessarily a simple delineation between spite/tac scooping and "I'm bored of this game and don't think I have a chance, so I'ma leave" scooping.
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
I mean, you can read, the answer to your question is in what you quoted: politics. My playgroups love me because I focus entirely on what provides the most enjoyable experience for the greatest number of players- full stop. If that means conceding so my overextending into an Insurrection doesn't end the game for half the table, it's entirely welcomed.
The problem with your arguments, concepts of sportsmanship itself aside, is that you're coming at it exclusively from the angle of the salty player. You aren't the only player in the game, and you definitely aren't the only voice or opinion that matters at any table. The delineation between "spite-scoop" and "tactical scoop" is telling- you're spitting one player, but being tactical to the benefit of the rest; it's all in the perspective. If the table at large disagrees with the scoop, I.E. the majority isn't happy, then I wouldn't do it. But, in every game where I've offered up my head on the block so the game can continue (which, mind you, isn't a huge sample size, but still relevant), the majority loved it and my reputation for kingly politicking persists.
Triumph of the Hordes is a poor example, if only because you'll find that poison is a contested win condition for roughly half the people I play with. To the point, however, any win condition that relies on your opponents is one that has to be weighed- while the haymakers of Insurrection, Bribery, and friends are the most relevant, there are countless other ways that you can get screwed over by relying on theft effects- whether a player is knocked out or concedes. I'm in the camp that a win-condition that relies on your opponents is not, in fact, "legitimate," but more because of the feels-bad nature of it, rather than any kind of fear of spite plays (oh curse my bleeding "fun first" philosophy).
Modern
URGTemur ScapeshiftGRU
EDH
WGKarametra EnchantressGW
UBGSidisi, Brood Tyrant ReanimatorGBU
UBRKess DoomsdayRBU
WBGGhave TokensGBW
WUBZur RebelsBUW
WUBErtai CursesBUW
WRFiresong and Sunspeaker Spell SlingerRW
What I mean is, if you want to counterspell insurrection then play some Counterspell or Homeward path, or even a fog can screw that move by actually playing magic but you are using a concesion just to screw a player by NOT PLAYING, because if you counter the spell then you are playing magic, ok, if you are at 1 life and tap a painland to deny the insureccion is also OK you are actually playing magic and denying the efcect, but "quit playing" to deny an effect is not playing, so I think is cheap, wrong and unaceptable
But if your playgroup thinks you are a hero for that and they cheer you that kind of playstyle is OK, every playgroup has their own rules spoken or not
EDH: RWB Edgar Markov The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Oloro, Ageless ascetic The current updated decklist is here
EDH: UWG Phelddagrif, The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Yennett, Cryptic Sovereign The current updated decklist is here
EDH: WUB Alela, Artful provocateur The current updated decklist is here
EDH: GB Hapatra, vizier of poisons The current updated decklist is here
That is most definitely poor form.. If that's what floats your boat then go ahead, but I wouldn't sit at the table with you again, even if it did benefit me in that particular instance.
Which would absolutely be your prerogative- though, if you were at the table strongly decrying the move, and not just silently accepting it since it gives you a benefit, it wouldn't be a move I'd make. A concession can be very powerful politically but, if it didn't actually result in a net-positive for the table then there isn't any point. Now, in my case, the "poor sportmanlike" behavior falls squarely on the group instead of just my move, but that's all part of the fun for me; I enjoy seeing how far the social contract can be stretched if people think they're getting a good deal.
Now, again, we also house ruled it as essentially "zero mana: eliminate a player, start your turn over," (letting the insurrection player take back said play to keep the game going as a group) which is a key detail for making it actually fun. I love house rules.
over the past like 10 years of playing commander the only time i've seen people concede is when they have to leave (or i guess poop) or when they're just salty. this actually happened about two weeks ago with a missed rhystic study trigger no one would rewind, guy got so salty he waited to tactically scoop. we ignored that (as in the person dealing lethal got to attack someone else instead). it made him saltier.
i mean i get it, when you're in a losing spot or didn't get your way you get bored on top of salty. generally when i've been in the same situation i'll just ignore everything unless its my turn and dick around on my phone or play a sub game at the table behind me. no big deal, but i do get it. i just don't agree with it.
then again, i played monogreen during the black summer and kept sticking with it rather than changing playstyle/deck sooooo i'm just a stubborn ****
Rest assured, this is the 734th time we have created this thread, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
What exactly makes it tactical? And in what way is it viable? Because by conceding, you've lost the game (which is not a good tactic) so the only way it could be tactical is to influence people in future games. Suddenly we're not talking about politics of the game but rather politics of the group beyond just the game. So then, how is this different than threatening to flip the table if someone attacks you?
In both cases, it demonstrates childish behavior and poor sportsmanship over a game that has ramifications beyond just that game. As almost everyone else in this thread has said, anyone doing this would not be invited to my table again.
cEDH: [G(U/R) Animar] - [(U/B)(G/W) Redless Wheels] - [(G/U)(W/B) Redless Pod] - [(B/G)W Ghave Metapod]
I imagine your group feels pretty unfun to new players.
RBGLiving EndRBG
EDH
UFblthpU
BRXantchaRB
BGVarolzGB
URWZedruuWRU
An amusing conclusion to come to from all of one (rare) example, but no, we haven't gotten any negative feedback from new players and tend to rotate new people in regularly. In fact, as a general rule, opening up politics and house rules to be as kind as possible to the greatest number of players has resulted in a lot of people leaving the table happily who might otherwise be quite the opposite. Admittedly, being purportedly nice people and having good food and drink does tend to help. Put salt on your food, not into the game! But I am a bit lucky and my good fortune isn't the topic of the thread.
On topic, the feelings taken from one game to the next, even if people try not get "meta" in that regard, are clearly the driving force in the issue. A concession in response feels bad for the player on the receiving end, and results in them carrying over that grudge (whether that's in not playing with the player again, or as likely focusing down that player) while my rare concessions have been driven politically to "save" other players at the table. What I struggle to understand are more generic spite plays. What kind of benefit is there in just denying triggers or other plays that only harm the "offending" player, without offering any kind of benefit to the rest of the table?
-The actual concession isn't tactical (except in the sense that following through on a deal you made is tactical, since it means people will believe you in the future). The tactical part is in threatening to scoop to hurt your killer, thus potentially causing them to not kill you and giving you a chance to win.
-Tactical scooping really only works if you're going to be dead (i.e. scooping to lethal lifelink attacker) or functionally dead (i.e. someone's about to steal your lands with gilt-leaf archdruid could functionally eliminate you, depending on game state). So you're ostensibly not giving anything up if you do end up scooping.
-It's different because it's a legal game action, not real-world assault?
-People can be childish when they scoop, but it's just a move. People can be childish or poor sports while doing all sorts of in-game things. Hell, I've been childish plenty of times and I basically never tac scoop. I don't think there's anything particularly childish about someone saying "Just to let you know, if you attack me for lethal, I'll scoop in response so you won't gain any life", and then that person calmly conceding when attacked. From a strategic point of view, it's the right move - even if (as I've stated) it's not generally worth the trouble, since people tend to be such babies about it in my experience.
-If you don't like tactical/spite scooping as a practice, that's totally reasonable and fair. If people are actually doing it (most aren't, in my experience) you can suggest a house ban on the practice. Hell, you can try to get the RC to change the rules to "fix" it, doesn't bother me. But for the time being, it's a totally legal move. Complaining about it is roughly the same thing as complaining about someone playing cEDH decks - it's fair to dislike it, but there's no real legal grounds for saying they're "wrong".
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
Modern: URW Madcap Experiment
Pauper: MonoU Tempo Delver
My EDH Commanders:
Aminatou, The Fateshifter UBW
Azami, Lady of Scrolls U
Mikaeus, the Unhallowed B
Edric, Spymaster of Trest UG
Glissa, the Traitor BG
Arcum Dagsson U
How about a different example: Threaten to only target that one player with any and all counterspells, removal, combat damage, etc. in all future games for time immemorial. This is likewise a legal game action. Do you consider this any different?
I agree with what you're saying here. Intent is important. In my experience as well, "tactical scooping" has only ever happened because someone was upset. My opinion is mainly influenced by that fact.
cEDH: [G(U/R) Animar] - [(U/B)(G/W) Redless Wheels] - [(G/U)(W/B) Redless Pod] - [(B/G)W Ghave Metapod]
I could say something about how games should be self-contained, but I don't actually believe that - if someone lies to me in a game, I'm less likely to believe them in the future; if they play really well, I'm more likely to watch them carefully in the future.
No, I think the real issue is simply: it's a bad move. I wouldn't like it for the same reason I wouldn't like someone who just never played any cards and sat there calmly discarding to max hand size. Or that guy who plays armageddon when another player is way ahead on board "just for lulz". Threatening to play worse for all future games is a ludicrous threat to make - I wouldn't believe them, and I'd take their future threats less seriously. And if they did actually follow through, they'd be making bad moves every time they targeted that player when it wasn't reasonable. Not that I'd stop playing against someone just for being a bit crap at magic (I'd never get to play anyone if I did that ) but deliberately playing badly isn't fun imo - for any reason. Same reason I dislike people sandbagging combos "because the game should run a bit longer".
For that same reason, the guy who scoops to some random slight partway through the game is also playing badly - their chances to win were presumably much higher if they accepted the loss of avacyn, than if they (threatened to?) concede. That, I think, is the real crux of the issue - playing badly, not anything intrinsic to speed scooping per se. It just happens to be particularly hot-button because so few people do it well, and it comes up so rarely that it seems blind-siding to most people.
Nice use of the word "immemorial" btw.
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