My meta ignores the tactical scoop - we only allow actual game actions to affect game states. If someone scoops to void a combat trigger, we just pretend he got attacked then play on without him. We had one guy protest after quitting that it shouldn't be allowed to happen, but we told him right out that since he quit the game, he longer has any input on how the current game plays out, and if we decide to play on, he'll just have to deal with it.
I am in the thought of its sort of a social thing. If socially, your playgroup finds it acceptable and lots of people do it, then fine. Personally though, I have to play against the same people a lot and I would rather not create un-needed drama. In the case of an insurrection scoop, you prolong the game and you loose. Where is the benefit at all in that as now you get to wait for the game to end. I would much much rather someone kill the whole table in one shot than just kill me.
In general, I dont really do it anymore because I feel like its sort of unsportsmanlike conduct (not that this is a sport or anything but similar premise). If your playgroup finds it acceptable and also do it, then its probably fine. I would personally rather go with the flow when this sort of thing is involved though than be the only one doing it.
If someone is dying to an attack and they try a tactical, I think the remaining players would probably allow the triggers to execute and continue as though they didnt do it. Its sort of a lame thing to do in my opinion. If someone is just hating you off the table, I could possibly see it but if its just an everyone will die if I can make this resolve right and I can scoop my way into making it last longer, I would never do that.
I can recall one tactical scoop that I encouraged in the last year and that was in a game of emperor with limited range of effect for players. The opposing Teferi had locked all but one of us out of the game but the one of us that wasn't locked out couldn't reach him. Due to this, the player who could cast spells dropped an Oblivion Stone into play. One of our allies then tactical scooped and the range of effect of the player with the Oblivion Stone extended to reach the Teferi player and remove his lock piece allowing the game to continue.
I've told people to not scoop and kept them sitting at the table, even if I'm not forcing the scoop.
WE JUST PLAYED FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF!!! YOU WILL SIT RIGHT THERE AND PLAY THIS OUT!!
And they get it. If you aren't going to finish out a game where you lose, you don't get to play one where you can rob me of my potential win--I wouldn't have played the WHOLE rest of the game to realize a serial scooper was butthurt that he didn't win. its invalidating.\
edit: I would never play commander online.
Yikes, after an hour and a half I would argue that any win that anyone at the table could achieve will be almost entirely accidental and/or topdecked. Again, there is a lot to be said for the respect you have for your opponents here.
I feel though that its a whole different ballgame if the boardstate is so level after that long. If someone is going to win, I want to see it, but if everyone is still waiting for their magical topdeck victory it might be time to weigh playing it out against playing another game. Losing or winning matters little at that point.
In regards to not playing on MODO, it's kind of difficult to say that the format shouldn't be adaptable to public games. And that's really what it is. Same as if you go to a card shop and play with people you haven't met. A game that can't be played at all without some kind of social arbitration might as well be old 2ed D&D, where the DM just made up their own rules. Everyone being able to come together is a huge asset for the playability of a game.
So rather than take any extreme action, it's better for people to just get used to the rules as stated. And the rules state that players can concede at any time. If that causes people to undervalue cards like Worldslayer, then so be it. Wizards can redesign those cards or change the rules, but as of now, cards like that and Rite of Replication, Reiterate, etc, that win the game while relying on another player to stay in it are going to be less valuable. Just build accordingly.
Honestly, I think that the biggest changes from Paper to MODO in terms of strategy are big-deck mulligans, being able to see who is playing what deck before the game starts, goofball take-backs, unresolvable rules disputes, and just the same old crazy stunts with priority and announcing attacks/spells that always seem to happen in paper. All in all, I would rather play electronically against people I don't know than in paper.
Three man game, me as Teneb, guy in front of me with Riku, and guy to my right with that new Rakdos legend.
The early game was kind of slow for all of us, I made a rather obvious blunder early on that set me back a little, but really we're all kind of trading moves. Towards the end the Riku player casts a Terastadon and rites it. He starts naming targets on both of us, but the Rakdos player just scoops. I actually got kind of pissed because that left me in the lurch when he took out all of my lands. I'd say that was a tactical scoop if I ever saw one.
Around my area this is know as "douche scooping" and most of the playgroups I have been in are not a fan of it. One even had a rule you could only scoop on your turn. If you did early they played it out as if you didn't. So all combat triggers still happen and so on.
Personally I think you need to give someone what they earned. Using scooping to stop someones lifelink or triggers is just petty. Using something outside the game to punish a player is very poor sportsmanship. It is a lot like the america goverment atm. You can't win elections to get what you want so you try and force it with underhanded tactics.
It strikes me as childish and pretty 90+% of the time.
Why do it? Because the person losing wants to feel that tiny feeling of revenge they get from it. It's pathetic. Man up and take your loss.
Moreover you are just dragging the game out...the game that you are now out of. If anything you should be happy to just let the player win so that you can go ahead and get in on a new game.
I have heard someone argue that it is a good move because big picture it will make players think twice about swinging at you when they need their triggers to resolve. Well for the people who believe that, lets look at the even bigger picture:
A) Now we view you as a tool and won't want to play with you as much.
and B) When we do play with you we will just try and wipe you out first.
I have heard someone argue that it is a good move because big picture it will make players think twice about swinging at you when they need their triggers to resolve.
Wow, someone actually planning on it from the beginning, like an ace-in-the-hole? Sad. Not something I would even consider as a blanket practice.
Usually at my table, scooping takes place by general consensus. If we can see someone beginning to combo off or do something like Avenger of Zendikar into Craterhoof behemoth, then we all just gather our cards up and move on with our lives. Of course scooping means the player who combos doesn't get elimination points since we are no longer in the game. So that in my opinion is slightly fair.
This has been argued before Here is the last thread on this topic. I've stated my views before so I won't repeat them here, suffice to say I consider the action unsportsmanlike. A warning, this topic can quickly derail into a flame war.
Yeah definitely, a judge would need to sort that out. I'm more concerned with social acceptance at this point, actually I hadn't considered a tournament environment for the post because I'm not interested in EDH tournaments and my store doesnt hold them.
Actually, a judge has absolutely no say in whether or not you can concede a game at any given point. The rules of a game cannot force a player to continue playing against their will, so the rules specifically say that a player can concede at any time for any reason.
As for my take on it--if it makes the table laugh, and especially for the person getting hosed by the scoop, then I encourage it. It's a game about fun, and the tactical concession can create great gaming situations. Plus it's nice to be able to have one last little bit of impact in a game, especially if you've been in topdeck mode for a half-hour and are bored out of your skull.
I do, however, differentiate between this and the "douche scoop" where you concede solely to hurt the other player. Douche scoops are frowned upon.
Sounds to me like most people don't see a difference between these and treat all scoops as spiteful. There's fun to be found as long as you're willing to have fun, so the attitude of the person whose being scooped to is just as important as the person doing the scooping.
This has been argued before Here is the last thread on this topic. I've stated my views before so I won't repeat them here, suffice to say I consider the action unsportsmanlike. A warning, this topic can quickly derail into a flame war.
Agreed, and that's fine, if it's derailled it can be reported and locked, though i notice the linked thread appears open still.
Correct, its very unsportsmanlike, and anyone who thinks its "the thing to do" when they're losing will not be playing much longer.
Actually, a judge has absolutely no say in whether or not you can concede a game at any given point. The rules of a game cannot force a player to continue playing against their will, so the rules specifically say that a player can concede at any time for any reason.
Of course, i just wonder what happens to all your attacking creatures when the player they attack vanishes.
We don't do that in our playgroup. When we held a few tournaments a couple of years back, we actually had a rule that you could only scoop during at ends of turns. We also had points and prizes that would be awarded for eliminating players with general damage and the like, and we didn't want people screwing other people out of prizes just by scooping.
I understand an EDH tournament can get really messy in the rules department, trying to safety-net all the twisted things players will attempt to do.
I've seen it happen a few times in a few different playgroups, but every time it gets enough groans around the table that majority rules to let the guy have his triggers anyway. By all means fire everything you've got at the guy in suicidal revenge! But this is lame. Don't be lame.
Now there's a standpoint I'd enjoy some expansion on. Care to elaborate as to why?
It's expected of you to do everything you can to prevent the person that's killing you from winning. If that means scooping so they don't get their sword triggers then go ahead and scoop. When I've lost a game I play kingmaker like it's my job and the other people in my group feel the same way. If someone were to come to my playgroup that did not do this it would be considered poor form, similar to me going to a playgroup that frowns on this and tactically scooping.
On MTGO I do this rarely as a lot of people dislike it but in certain situations I feel obligated if it's going to make a big impact. For example if the game has turned into Archenemy and I'm about to lose but scooping would give my allies a better chance to win I'll scoop so they have a shot.
If I went to a playgroup that frowned on this I would not do it.
I have a problem of doing this unintentionally. I'm used to the 1v1 mindset where when I lose I scoop. People get mad at me because they want me to continue playing when I'm crippled until they decide to kill me off.
Here's the thing about the so-called "tactical scoop" - the only time someone uses it is when they've been outplayed by the cards and their opponent's skill, so they have to resort to an unanswerable out of game action to affect the game state.
By all means, if someone's swinging for lethal on you, cast every card in your hand to make his life miserable for doing so. If he doesn't have the means to prevent it, that's his own fault - but the "tactical" scoop is a desperate move by someone that couldn't stop his dying by utilizing the deck he built and feels the need to do something spiteful to seem relevant.
I have a problem of doing this unintentionally. I'm used to the 1v1 mindset where when I lose I scoop. People get mad at me because they want me to continue playing when I'm crippled until they decide to kill me off.
I feel your case is different, you're not pretending to be in the game still and conceding when someone attacks you. You're well within your right to concede if you're dead in the water and not interested in waiting for someone to squash you.
Here's the thing about the so-called "tactical scoop" - the only time someone uses it is when they've been outplayed by the cards and their opponent's skill, so they have to resort to an unanswerable out of game action to affect the game state.
By all means, if someone's swinging for lethal on you, cast every card in your hand to make his life miserable for doing so. If he doesn't have the means to prevent it, that's his own fault - but the "tactical" scoop is a desperate move by someone that couldn't stop his dying by utilizing the deck he built and feels the need to do something spiteful to seem relevant.
The notion that any time you lose it's because you were outplayed or that tactically scooping is inherently spiteful are both pretty silly.
In general, I dont really do it anymore because I feel like its sort of unsportsmanlike conduct (not that this is a sport or anything but similar premise). If your playgroup finds it acceptable and also do it, then its probably fine. I would personally rather go with the flow when this sort of thing is involved though than be the only one doing it.
If someone is dying to an attack and they try a tactical, I think the remaining players would probably allow the triggers to execute and continue as though they didnt do it. Its sort of a lame thing to do in my opinion. If someone is just hating you off the table, I could possibly see it but if its just an everyone will die if I can make this resolve right and I can scoop my way into making it last longer, I would never do that.
I can recall one tactical scoop that I encouraged in the last year and that was in a game of emperor with limited range of effect for players. The opposing Teferi had locked all but one of us out of the game but the one of us that wasn't locked out couldn't reach him. Due to this, the player who could cast spells dropped an Oblivion Stone into play. One of our allies then tactical scooped and the range of effect of the player with the Oblivion Stone extended to reach the Teferi player and remove his lock piece allowing the game to continue.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
We did it to try to cut down on situations where one player scooping screws over another player. We still have some issues but not as many.
EDH Decks:
WUBOloro, Combo ControlWUB
UBOona Reanimator ComboUB
BRGProssh, Eater of the Blue MageBRG
UBRGrixis StormUBR
Rebuilding Jenara (stealyourstuff.dec)
Pauper Deck:
UBInspired SirenUB
Yikes, after an hour and a half I would argue that any win that anyone at the table could achieve will be almost entirely accidental and/or topdecked. Again, there is a lot to be said for the respect you have for your opponents here.
I feel though that its a whole different ballgame if the boardstate is so level after that long. If someone is going to win, I want to see it, but if everyone is still waiting for their magical topdeck victory it might be time to weigh playing it out against playing another game. Losing or winning matters little at that point.
So rather than take any extreme action, it's better for people to just get used to the rules as stated. And the rules state that players can concede at any time. If that causes people to undervalue cards like Worldslayer, then so be it. Wizards can redesign those cards or change the rules, but as of now, cards like that and Rite of Replication, Reiterate, etc, that win the game while relying on another player to stay in it are going to be less valuable. Just build accordingly.
Honestly, I think that the biggest changes from Paper to MODO in terms of strategy are big-deck mulligans, being able to see who is playing what deck before the game starts, goofball take-backs, unresolvable rules disputes, and just the same old crazy stunts with priority and announcing attacks/spells that always seem to happen in paper. All in all, I would rather play electronically against people I don't know than in paper.
The early game was kind of slow for all of us, I made a rather obvious blunder early on that set me back a little, but really we're all kind of trading moves. Towards the end the Riku player casts a Terastadon and rites it. He starts naming targets on both of us, but the Rakdos player just scoops. I actually got kind of pissed because that left me in the lurch when he took out all of my lands. I'd say that was a tactical scoop if I ever saw one.
Personally I think you need to give someone what they earned. Using scooping to stop someones lifelink or triggers is just petty. Using something outside the game to punish a player is very poor sportsmanship. It is a lot like the america goverment atm. You can't win elections to get what you want so you try and force it with underhanded tactics.
Why do it? Because the person losing wants to feel that tiny feeling of revenge they get from it. It's pathetic. Man up and take your loss.
Moreover you are just dragging the game out...the game that you are now out of. If anything you should be happy to just let the player win so that you can go ahead and get in on a new game.
I have heard someone argue that it is a good move because big picture it will make players think twice about swinging at you when they need their triggers to resolve. Well for the people who believe that, lets look at the even bigger picture:
A) Now we view you as a tool and won't want to play with you as much.
and B) When we do play with you we will just try and wipe you out first.
Hope the D-scoop was worth it.
Wow, someone actually planning on it from the beginning, like an ace-in-the-hole? Sad. Not something I would even consider as a blanket practice.
Epic Signature by the one and only Ace in Ace of Spades Studio
Proud member of the Spirit of EDH
BGW Teneb, the Harvester [Primer]
R Márton Stromgald
WUB Dakkon Blackblade
GR Atarka, World Render
{Writing and Rants}
WUBRG The Primeval Dragon's influence on EDH
Actually, a judge has absolutely no say in whether or not you can concede a game at any given point. The rules of a game cannot force a player to continue playing against their will, so the rules specifically say that a player can concede at any time for any reason.
As for my take on it--if it makes the table laugh, and especially for the person getting hosed by the scoop, then I encourage it. It's a game about fun, and the tactical concession can create great gaming situations. Plus it's nice to be able to have one last little bit of impact in a game, especially if you've been in topdeck mode for a half-hour and are bored out of your skull.
I do, however, differentiate between this and the "douche scoop" where you concede solely to hurt the other player. Douche scoops are frowned upon.
Sounds to me like most people don't see a difference between these and treat all scoops as spiteful. There's fun to be found as long as you're willing to have fun, so the attitude of the person whose being scooped to is just as important as the person doing the scooping.
Agreed, and that's fine, if it's derailled it can be reported and locked, though i notice the linked thread appears open still.
Correct, its very unsportsmanlike, and anyone who thinks its "the thing to do" when they're losing will not be playing much longer.
Of course, i just wonder what happens to all your attacking creatures when the player they attack vanishes.
I understand an EDH tournament can get really messy in the rules department, trying to safety-net all the twisted things players will attempt to do.
Now there's a standpoint I'd enjoy some expansion on. Care to elaborate as to why?
It's expected of you to do everything you can to prevent the person that's killing you from winning. If that means scooping so they don't get their sword triggers then go ahead and scoop. When I've lost a game I play kingmaker like it's my job and the other people in my group feel the same way. If someone were to come to my playgroup that did not do this it would be considered poor form, similar to me going to a playgroup that frowns on this and tactically scooping.
On MTGO I do this rarely as a lot of people dislike it but in certain situations I feel obligated if it's going to make a big impact. For example if the game has turned into Archenemy and I'm about to lose but scooping would give my allies a better chance to win I'll scoop so they have a shot.
If I went to a playgroup that frowned on this I would not do it.
There is a purpose involved though, and its on same level of meaning as anythig else you do in a strictly social game anyway.
Also, it was better than calling my thread "The Douche-Scoop." Please don't berate me for a simple choice of words. No one else felt it was necessary.
By all means, if someone's swinging for lethal on you, cast every card in your hand to make his life miserable for doing so. If he doesn't have the means to prevent it, that's his own fault - but the "tactical" scoop is a desperate move by someone that couldn't stop his dying by utilizing the deck he built and feels the need to do something spiteful to seem relevant.
I feel your case is different, you're not pretending to be in the game still and conceding when someone attacks you. You're well within your right to concede if you're dead in the water and not interested in waiting for someone to squash you.
The notion that any time you lose it's because you were outplayed or that tactically scooping is inherently spiteful are both pretty silly.