Some online games don't record the results of a game if it ends due to connectivity issues. Does that make it okay to just unplug your ethernet cable whenever someone is about to beat you? Maybe some would argue yes, but just screwing people out of any kind of earned reward or satisfaction simply because you do not like losing is difficult to justify as anything other than poor sportsmanship.
Conceding for the benefit of the entire table (like you described) is one thing, and I would not classify it as a douchescoop. As a matter of fact, as long as everyone is cool with it, then I can see it being a useful tactic to add to my repertoire for the fun of all parties invovled. However, if at any point you kill yourself with the sole intention to harm another player, or your concession leaves a bad taste in anyone's mouth, it is not cool IMO.
The spiteful scoop is no better than screwing people over with "Armageddon, peace!" Just so I can better understand your position on the subject, would you be okay with such a play?
The situation he is talking about and the one you are talking about aren't even comparable. If someone is about to kill you, then it is perfectly reasonable to let them get as little benefit out of it as possible. So long as you aren't breaking the rules or trying to wreck the game for everyone, it's fine. Unplugging while in the middle of the game, like you described, is the digital equivalent of upending the table. That is obviously unacceptable, but it is also something entirely different from what Boros Archangel and the rest of the people in this thread are talking about.
I see no problem with messing with the person about to kill you or the person who ruined your chances of winning right before you die. It's just simple consequences. Ruining the board position of someone who had left you alone instead of those who killed you would be douchey, however.
The "spiteful" scoop, as you call it, is far better than "Armageddon, peace!". "You don't get to untap your lands an extra time due to SoFaM" is nothing compared to "I'm going to wreck the board before I leave and ruin the game for everyone".
Unplugging or Geddon'ing and scooping are terrible, but scooping to prevent triggers is a perfectly legitimate move.
I'd like to point out that there is no rule preventing scowling and/or petty remarks, therefore it must be sportsmanlike.
Incorrect,
5.4 Unsporting Conduct
Unsporting conduct will not be tolerated at any time. Tournament participants must behave in a polite and respectful manner. Unsporting conduct includes, but is not limited to:
• Using profanity
• Acting in a threatening manner
• Arguing with, acting belligerently toward, or harassing tournament officials, players or spectators
• Failure to follow the instructions of a tournament official.
All incidents of unsporting conduct are subject to further DCI review.
That aside in a casual fun game scooping like that is a douche move and should be treated as though they didn't scoop for purposes of in game results. In a tournament, rules as written apply, douchescoop if it gets the desired effect of preventing the person who knocked you out from actually winning the round. Tournament anything within the bounds of the rules applies. And scooping to prevent triggers is perfectly legal. Scooping to prevent a player's Insurrection from being meaningful is just as valid as scooping to prevent their Vicious Shadows from killing the entire board when they board wipe. Leave it at the tournament though, doing it on a kitchen table in a casual game is just being a douche.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Through me the way to the suffering city; Through me the everlasting pain; Through me the way that runs among the Lost. Justice urged on my exalted Creator: Divine Power made me, The Supreme Wisdom and the Primal Love. Nothing was made before me but eternal things And I endure eternally. Abandon all hope - You Who Enter Here.
That aside in a casual fun game scooping like that is a douche move and should be treated as though they didn't scoop for purposes of in game results. In a tournament, rules as written apply, douchescoop if it gets the desired effect of preventing the person who knocked you out from actually winning the round. Tournament anything within the bounds of the rules applies. And scooping to prevent triggers is perfectly legal. Scooping to prevent a player's Insurrection from being meaningful is just as valid as scooping to prevent their Vicious Shadows from killing the entire board when they board wipe. Leave it at the tournament though, doing it on a kitchen table in a casual game is just being a douche.
Maybe your kitchen table isn't cool with it. Mine likes it just fine.
Maybe your kitchen table isn't cool with it. Mine likes it just fine.
Each group has their own set of do's and don'ts. You're is ok with retributive scooping, then there's nothing really inherently wrong with it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Through me the way to the suffering city; Through me the everlasting pain; Through me the way that runs among the Lost. Justice urged on my exalted Creator: Divine Power made me, The Supreme Wisdom and the Primal Love. Nothing was made before me but eternal things And I endure eternally. Abandon all hope - You Who Enter Here.
The situation he is talking about and the one you are talking about aren't even comparable. If someone is about to kill you, then it is perfectly reasonable to let them get as little benefit out of it as possible. So long as you aren't breaking the rules or trying to wreck the game for everyone, it's fine. Unplugging while in the middle of the game, like you described, is the digital equivalent of upending the table. That is obviously unacceptable, but it is also something entirely different from what Boros Archangel and the rest of the people in this thread are talking about.
I see no problem with messing with the person about to kill you or the person who ruined your chances of winning right before you die. It's just simple consequences. Ruining the board position of someone who had left you alone instead of those who killed you would be douchey, however.
The "spiteful" scoop, as you call it, is far better than "Armageddon, peace!". "You don't get to untap your lands an extra time due to SoFaM" is nothing compared to "I'm going to wreck the board before I leave and ruin the game for everyone".
Unplugging or Geddon'ing and scooping are terrible, but scooping to prevent triggers is a perfectly legitimate move.
You're right. I probably misunderstood what Archangel was getting at, and I am still not sure I fully appreciate it. It is a given that in-game retribution is a fact of life in the acceptable political give-and-take of multiplayer, so I can see the similarity there. "Don't attack me or I'll Swords your guy" is not only common, but fundamental.
On the other hand, I think most of us would agree that retribution outside of the game to teach someone a lesson is probably just childish and unacceptable. To me, leveraging political power by making the transition between in-game and RL seems to fall between these two scenarios, so please understand why I am hesitant to accept it.
Like I said, under some circumstances, it could be fine. It just might be fine, period. However, there is a fine line between "aggressive scooping" and outright ragequitting, and it is vital to make sure you don't cross that line.
I don't do this. It annoys me when people do. Although there's also my dog stubborn "I won't scoop until I'm staring down the lethal attack and blockers are declared" streak. Literally, even if I know that there should be no way for me to win, I don't scoop until there is literally no way to avoid it. Otherwise I'll play it out on the offchance of a mistake being made somewhere.
I've actually managed to win off of 2 or 3 of these type of situations.
The ONLY other time i scoop is when i'm ticked of cause the control deck is hating my group hug deck out of the game. Many insults get tossed around for a while and the game pretty much ends. Games that are only fun for the control player isn't fun for anyone else, and thus need to end.
You're right. I probably misunderstood what Archangel was getting at, and I am still not sure I fully appreciate it. It is a given that in-game retribution is a fact of life in the acceptable political give-and-take of multiplayer, so I can see the similarity there. "Don't attack me or I'll Swords your guy" is not only common, but fundamental.
On the other hand, I think most of us would agree that retribution outside of the game to teach someone a lesson is probably just childish and unacceptable. To me, leveraging political power by making the transition between in-game and RL seems to fall between these two scenarios, so please understand why I am hesitant to accept it.
Like I said, under some circumstances, it could be fine. It just might be fine, period. However, there is a fine line between "aggressive scooping" and outright ragequitting, and it is vital to make sure you don't cross that line.
It is true that retribution outside of the game to teach someone a lesson is childish and unacceptable. Many people believe (and the rules say), however, that scooping is part of the game. I can see how you could consider it something different though. It really comes down to this: is it okay to always have an auto suicide button and to use it like this? It has happened plenty of times before where someone has on-board ways of killing themselves and uses them to prevent triggers in the same way scooping would. Is that okay? If so, then do you think it is necessary for people to run ways to kill themselves at instant speed in order to get the same effect as scooping, and that they shouldn't be allowed to do it for free? Or do you consider both methods more or less the same?
I do agree that there can be a fine line between "aggressive scooping" and rage quitting, though.
Some online games don't record the results of a game if it ends due to connectivity issues. Does that make it okay to just unplug your ethernet cable whenever someone is about to beat you? Maybe some would argue yes, but just screwing people out of any kind of earned reward or satisfaction simply because you do not like losing is difficult to justify as anything other than poor sportsmanship.
This is nothing short of childish. Aggressive scooping is one thing since everyone at the table still knows "Hey you lost" but disconnecting so the loss doesn't register is totally immature. I've been on the other side of that in wifi games over the DS plenty of times and I can safely, thats a douche move.
As for "Armageddon, peace" it really depends on the situation and why they are leaving, but I'd usually be ok with it. If you think about it, it's not that different from playing Armageddon and staying at the table. The player behind on lands now has a chance to catch up and the player way ahead on lands is punished for overextending, both of which I'm fine with. If the game is more or less even in regards to mana than wiping all lands leaves it more or less even. Of course it is always possible that a particular player has something like Azusa out and Loam in their yard, in which case the armageddon provides them with an overwhelming lead or that a player has a crap ton of beaters out and now that no one has mana they are most certainly going to win. Even both of those situations sit fine by me as most likely the game will be ending soon and you can just play another, plus the effect is similar to Player A playing warp world and player b just happens to hit "the nuts" off of it. It's not at all uncommon for cards one person plays to inadvertently benefit another player far more than expected.
All in I think that if you are ok with people playing Armageddon, then you should be ok with "Armageddon, peace". Of course I'm not in a league that plays for points or anything so I can't speak for how it would affect league games.
Back on the topic of aggressive scooping there are situations where it is simply spiteful. I recall a game where one person got out an it that betrays on turn 2. In an attempt to defend myself I cast dance of the dead on another players Birds of Paradise, that way if I was swung at I could sac the aura and the bird so i wouldn't lose lands. Of course the player with the eldrazi swung at me, at which point the player who owned the BoP scooped in response to the attack. His BoP went with him and Dance of the dead was sent to the graveyard, my only 2 permanents were lands. That was spiteful and uncalled for. I hadn't done anything to that player, the game was just beginning and had I not had to sac my only 2 lands I could've hit the eldrazi with a maelstrom pulse next turn so it's not like the game was already over.
There are situations where scooping to mess with someone is ok, and there are situations where it is just douchebaggery. Take it case by case rather than try to make up rules for it.
Unfortunately every try hard from Sacramento to Shanghai preaches from the top of their 27 lands + Mana Reflection that Tooth and Nail and Time Stretch are fine to play in the same turn but Armageddon is unfair.
This is a serious problem. It makes entire decks not work. Buddy of mine has a Konda, Lord of Eiganjo deck whose go-to win con is an equipped Worldslayer. Got another buddy who includes Stonehewer Giant, Darksteel Plate and Worlslayer in nearly every white deck he has. This isn't playable on MTGO because so many people do this.
I can't see how this kind of thing could hold in a live setting.
Not getting a SoFaI trigger is one thing, but turning every card into a Phage the Untouchable trigger is going to have really unfair effects in multiplayer on certain cards.
I mean, what's to stop a player on Modo from closing the client during a Fact or Fiction or similar trigger and bugging the game, or even worse, just waiting the max 10 mins between each action until their clock runs out? Hate-waiting is legal, right? Causes the game to deteriorate, but all's fair in love and war?
If it were competitive play and there were abilities that would have triggered, my local group allows those abilities to trigger even if the player scoops before combat damage (but only if the attacker has all ready expended any resources needed to get the kill in the first place). Scooping before the combat step is fine by our book.
And then we have my younger brother, who not only scoops in response even if he would survive, he goes out of his way to screw with someone prior to doing so. For example, he's cast Austere Command and then conceded on the spot when it resolved, simply because he lost a creature to my Toshiro deck's removal.
That's a terrible rule. Conceding is split second, it says it in the 5th Edition manual. I get you like to change the rules, but no, your are literately changing the rules of magic.
I will refresh you on how combat works and sword triggers work.
If you are attacking someone; damage hasn't resolved yet, so technically, as you block or decided to take damage, you scoop, the damage never resolved in the first place.
No damage was dealt due the player and all permanents they own non-existing. How do you justify that? The recipients of the damage of the damage goes away, so the sword cannot trigger.
Re-read your sword when have time.
I will refresh you on how combat works and sword triggers work.
If you are attacking someone; damage hasn't resolved yet, so technically, as you block or decided to take damage, you scoop, the damage never resolved in the first place.
No damage was dealt due the player and all permanents they own non-existing. How do you justify that? The recipients of the damage of the damage goes away, so the sword cannot trigger.
Re-read your sword when have time.
- Fin
That part's easy: Combat is resolved as though the player hadn't conceded yet. It's a dick-move to deny someone a kill after they've all ready committed the resources to the actual kill.
Besides, it actually has some relevance: Several players have scooped despite me having Abyssal Persecutor out simply because they forgot about it. They get caught up in the moment and start shuffling up for the next game that they can't reset their board positions.
A more complex version of this scenario happened, and I think is a perfectly legitimate reason for allowing someone to scoop, and deny the other player lifelink/SoFaF triggers ect:
Player A: 5 Life with a 5/5 Lifelink
Player B: 5 life with a 5/5
Player C: 5 life with no creature
Player As turn comes around and wants to swing at player C. Player C says he will scoop in response to the attack. If player A goes through with the attack Player B will counter attack A and win.
Why should Player C not be allowed to protect himself with the threat of scooping?
In this scenario player C is not just being a dick. He is trying to stay in the game.
Its not like its unflavorful to scoop to prevent effects. I just see people going around saying that people are douschebags for scooping, probably because they have lost out on a trigger.
There are some unsportsmanlike scoops too, but its a very grey line to say that anyone scooping before they are about to die is being unsportsmanlike.
I think it's fair game to do this; I like the idea of getting back at the guy who eliminated me. Additionally, if my group decides to give the player the bonus (say, from Sword of Feast and Famine and its land untap), then I think that is a fair call to make as well.
Ultimately, if I am put in such a position, I concede before the effect and leave it to the group to decide what to do. I do not see it as poor sportsmanship, and I have not seen terrible frowns from occasions where the effect did not take place. It's the least that I can do for someone who knocks me out of the game, and I like the mental gamesmanship that occasionally develops from it.
You're right. I probably misunderstood what Archangel was getting at, and I am still not sure I fully appreciate it. It is a given that in-game retribution is a fact of life in the acceptable political give-and-take of multiplayer, so I can see the similarity there. "Don't attack me or I'll Swords your guy" is not only common, but fundamental.
LoL. Just had that happen last week in a 3-way. Was playing my Ezuri elves with a Beast Within in hand. Opponent playing Rafiq has some artifact removal, Mystic Melting I think it was. Opponent playing Kresh has him fielded with 30 +1/+1 counters and Boots of Swiftness attached.
So, It's Kresh's turn and he asks Rafiq to 'promise to attack me' when it comes to his turn, which he does. Kresh then beats on me, leaving himself completely defenseless. I ask Rafiq if he can deal with that artifact. He says that he can....but not yet...as he likes it when I get beat. So I chump Kresh, lose some elves and move on.
My turn comes and I throw down my backup elves, none with reach though so Rafiq's two flyers can now attack my Nissa Revane with 6 loyalty if he chose.
Rafiq's turn. He thinks about it. Kresh is totally open with only 14 life. I'm at 35 (thanks to Nissa's lifegain). He himself is at 7. He's got Jenara, Asura of War with 2 +1/+1 counters and Stoic Angel on the board. (From my point of view, if he had attacked the defenseless Kresh, Kresh would no longer be able to swing lest he die from a swarm of elves) But he made a 'promise' and declared that 'keeping your word' is very important for the meta. He then looks to attack my Nissa, which is 2 turns away from Ulting.
So I make my own 'promise': Knowing full well that we can combine our spells to deal with Kresh; if you attack me I'll have to use my spell to deal with you instead of Kresh. Then Kresh will win.
Well, to cut to the chase, he decided to kept his promise, thinking that I would bluff and not keep mine. he was wrong, as I decided to use his interpretation of 'meta'; that keeping your word was very important. He lost his Stoic Angel to my Beast Within and Kresh laughed as he proceeded to wipe him out on the next turn and me the turn after.
It's actaully a little ironic, cause I was out of steam. Had he attacked Kresh instead, I would have been able to finish him off, but would not have had the ability to repell Rafiq's flyers. Rafiq would have won.
The best wars in history were won with treachery....and timing....and bad weather....but mostly treachery.
I really don't understand how anyone could just allow the triggers to occur. The threat of scooping to deny triggers is a fundamentally defensive move. My original argument and that0neguy's post are perfect examples of this.
To everyone who says they would just let the triggers resolve even though the player isn't there anymore let me ask you one thing. If the player killed himself using a card on the field or in hand(like paying all his life into Necropotence) would you still let the triggers resolve as if the player were still there?
I doubt anyone would say yes to this. You would have to be a fool.
To those that say no. How could you then justify allowing the triggers to go through against a player who has scooped? There is no difference between scooping and killing yourself after all.
Unfortunately every try hard from Sacramento to Shanghai preaches from the top of their 27 lands + Mana Reflection that Tooth and Nail and Time Stretch are fine to play in the same turn but Armageddon is unfair.
I really don't understand how anyone could just allow the triggers to occur. The threat of scooping to deny triggers is a fundamentally defensive move. My original argument and that0neguy's post are perfect examples of this.
To everyone who says they would just let the triggers resolve even though the player isn't there anymore let me ask you one thing. If the player killed himself using a card on the field or in hand(like paying all his life into Necropotence) would you still let the triggers resolve as if the player were still there?
I doubt anyone would say yes to this. You would have to be a fool.
To those that say no. How could you then justify allowing the triggers to go through against a player who has scooped? There is no difference between scooping and killing yourself after all.
To answer your first question: no, probably. I don't think I or anyone I know would still try to resolve the triggers in that case, but I guess there are always exceptions.
To answer your second question: like you said, I think it is best to take it on a case by case basis instead of making a sweeping generalization. Example:
The Progenitus player and the Nath player have been getting into it all game. Tempers are starting to flare a little bit, and after a big turn the Niv-Mizzet player is threatening to combo off as soon as he untaps. Progenitus kills Nath's Eternal Witness and then casts Beacon of Unrest targeting the Witness, I guess in the hopes of recurring some answer to deal with Niv-Mizzet. This pushes the Nath player over the edge, who effectively says, "F*** you man," and scoops in response to the Beacon. Niv-Mizzet combos out.
Or he would have, had everyone else (including the Niv player) not allowed the Progenitus guy to at least get the trigger off the witness. The rest of the game turned out fine, the Nath player apologized, and everyone was happy.
To answer your first question: no, probably. I don't think I or anyone I know would still try to resolve the triggers in that case, but I guess there are always exceptions.
To answer your second question: like you said, I think it is best to take it on a case by case basis instead of making a sweeping generalization. Example:
The Progenitus player and the Nath player have been getting into it all game. Tempers are starting to flare a little bit, and after a big turn the Niv-Mizzet player is threatening to combo off as soon as he untaps. Progenitus kills Nath's Eternal Witness and then casts Beacon of Unrest targeting the Witness, I guess in the hopes of recurring some answer to deal with Niv-Mizzet. This pushes the Nath player over the edge, who effectively says, "F*** you man," and scoops in response to the Beacon. Niv-Mizzet combos out.
Or he would have, had everyone else (including the Niv player) not allowed the Progenitus guy to at least get the trigger off the witness. The rest of the game turned out fine, the Nath player apologized, and everyone was happy.
True story.
To me at least, the situation described is significantly different from the original situation under consideration. The progenitus player wasn't trying to eliminate the nath player. In fact, in trying to prevent the niv-mizzet player's combo from going off, it sounds like he was attempting to keep the game going. This makes it different enough from the original situation to cause me to think of the situation as an entirely separate category of actions. I completely agree with taking things on a case by case basis, and that is certainly one of them. But I think there are fundamental aspects of the original situation that can make it a pretty clear cut case every time.
Let's consider the following. We have player A about to lose because of actions from player B. Player A decided to concede in order to prevent player B from acquiring beneficial triggers. The specifics of what actions and beneficial triggers differ from game to game. But I see no reason not to allow player A the ability to deny player B those beneficial triggers. After all, we all agree that if player A had some other suicide option, then there would be no discussion.
800.4d If combat damage would be assigned to a player who has left the game, that damage simply isn't assigned.
[...]
800.4f If an effect requires information about a specific player, the effect uses the current information about that player if he or she is still in the game; otherwise, the effect uses the last known information about that player before he or she left the game.
800.4g If a player leaves the game during his or her turn, that turn continues to its completion without an active player. If the active player would receive priority, instead the next player in turn order receives priority, or the top object on the stack resolves, or the phase or step ends, whichever is appropriate.
To preface my position, my playgroup just doesn't douchescoop. We joke about it at times, so I guess we play as if it could happen. But we just don't. In fact, I think if it were challenged, most people in the game would vote to keep the triggers, as if 800.4f were the only rule in place, and d was not. (though I doubt anyone knows about the rules).
It's a bit hard for me to try and explain my reasoning, but I'll give it my best (aside from poor sportsmanship).
Essentially (to answer the Necro question), if a player has a Necro out, they are using an object in the game to kill themselves. Scooping is having an effect on the game without an object in the game allowing you to do so.
You can't tap your stuff at will for benefit without something in the game allowing you to do so.
You can't sacrifice stuff for no reason without an effect to do so.
You can't choose to not untap something when you start your turn because you feel like it.
You can't choose to not draw a card to not die to Spiteful Visions.
Why should scooping be the only action allowed to affect the gamestate with no object in the game allowing it? Scooping allows a player to affect the game from outside the game, and I think that's just awkward.
The rest of your turn still continues, anything that triggers during changes in that turn still benefit other players. Why should combat be any different?
You say scooping is a political move to act as a deterrence to being eliminated. I say that is bull****. If you're in such a corner, sucks to be you, you need to play better and get real deterrents. You say "I'll scoop!", my threat is "I'm going to strip mine, tec edge, and wasteland your three best lands, plowshares your key creature, and naturalize your caged sun if you attack me." And then they do. And then I do. And then I die. And it's all cool. It's all part of the game. Scooping, imo, shouldn't be.
=== edit ===
Also, if someone ever gave me the ultimatum "You should let me keep playing, otherwise I'll quit in response"... I'd have to kill them just for how stupid that sounds to me.
To preface my position, my playgroup just doesn't douchescoop. We joke about it at times, so I guess we play as if it could happen. But we just don't. In fact, I think if it were challenged, most people in the game would vote to keep the triggers, as if 800.4f were the only rule in place, and d was not. (though I doubt anyone knows about the rules).
It's a bit hard for me to try and explain my reasoning, but I'll give it my best (aside from poor sportsmanship).
Essentially (to answer the Necro question), if a player has a Necro out, they are using an object in the game to kill themselves. Scooping is having an effect on the game without an object in the game allowing you to do so.
You can't tap your stuff at will for benefit without something in the game allowing you to do so.
You can't sacrifice stuff for no reason without an effect to do so.
You can't choose to not untap something when you start your turn because you feel like it.
You can't choose to not draw a card to not die to Spiteful Visions.
Why should scooping be the only action allowed to affect the gamestate with no object in the game allowing it? Scooping allows a player to affect the game from outside the game, and I think that's just awkward.
The rest of your turn still continues, anything that triggers during changes in that turn still benefit other players. Why should combat be any different?
My answer to your question would be that the comprehensive rules are permissive rather than restrictive. It very clearly states what you can do rather than what you can't do. For the game to function, players must be allowed to concede at any time. While it may feel awkward, it's how the game currently is.
Basically, You CAN concede at any time because the comprehensive rules allow you to do so.
You say scooping is a political move to act as a deterrence to being eliminated. I say that is bull****. If you're in such a corner, sucks to be you, you need to play better and get real deterrents. You say "I'll scoop!", my threat is "I'm going to strip mine, tec edge, and wasteland your three best lands, plowshares your key creature, and naturalize your caged sun if you attack me." And then they do. And then I do. And then I die. And it's all cool. It's all part of the game. Scooping, imo, shouldn't be.
=== edit ===
Also, if someone ever gave me the ultimatum "You should let me keep playing, otherwise I'll quit in response"... I'd have to kill them just for how stupid that sounds to me.
I don't think anyone is arguing that conceding is a valid deterrent to being eliminated, and certainly no one will ever say "you should let me keep playing, otherwise I'll quit in response" I'm not quite sure what this has to do with the situations that have been discussed.
My answer to your question would be that the comprehensive rules are permissive rather than restrictive. It very clearly states what you can do rather than what you can't do. For the game to function, players must be allowed to concede at any time. While it may feel awkward, it's how the game currently is.
Basically, You CAN concede at any time because the comprehensive rules allow you to do so.
And it would be silly not to be able to do so. I don't argue for disallowing conceding. I argue against letting it affect the remainder of the game state for those left within the game.
I think that it is equally silly that the action of you conceding should have further effect on the game than, "you're not here anymore."
I think that it is exceptionally silly that you conceding will stop combat damage triggers and targeted spells, but no other advantage gained from anything else in your turn will be stopped, because choices you would make are made by someone else, your turn continues, and if anything needs information about you (Life total, etc) It uses Last Known Information.
I don't think anyone is arguing that conceding is a valid deterrent to being eliminated, and certainly no one will ever say "you should let me keep playing, otherwise I'll quit in response" I'm not quite sure what this has to do with the situations that have been discussed.
I am arguing that conceding is a ****ty deterrent to being eliminated.
Every player who threatens concession is saying exactly: "you should let me keep playing, otherwise I'll quit in response." That is exactly what it means, and when you finally look at it that way, you see how stupid it is. At least, I think it's pretty stupid.
I am arguing that conceding is a ****ty deterrent to being eliminated.
Every player who threatens concession is saying exactly: "you should let me keep playing, otherwise I'll quit in response." That is exactly what it means, and when you finally look at it that way, you see how stupid it is. At least, I think it's pretty stupid.
I going to have to agree with this and take it further. I've seen people scoop simply because someone cast bribery and stole their blightsteel colossus with lighting greeves out. Someone was going to die, but because dude scooped it was basically "tap five, discard a card". Scooping because someone has lethal on he board is not, IMO, a political or tactical move. It's a dick move. It's basically saying "if you do that, I'm scooping so you get no benefit". If that's the case that tactic can be used for anything. "if you play one more land, giving you Titan mana I'm scooping"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The EDH stax primer When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
I going to have to agree with this and take it further. I've seen people scoop simply because someone cast bribery and stole their blightsteel colossus with lighting greeves out. Someone was going to die, but because dude scooped it was basically "tap five, discard a card". Scooping because someone has lethal on he board is not, IMO, a political or tactical move. It's a dick move. It's basically saying "if you do that, I'm scooping so you get no benefit". If that's the case that tactic can be used for anything. "if you play one more land, giving you Titan mana I'm scooping"
Or even better:
Me: Oblivion Ring your general.
Opponent: Hmm.... okay, sure.
Me: Done.
Opponent: Untap, draw, swing with Soltari Visionary?
Me: Scoop! Sucks to be you.
I understand the opposing sentiment, and I think some of it makes a lot of sense. I just don't agree with it in the majority of cases is all.
EDIT: If you Journey to Nowhere/Flickerwisp/whatever someone's general and they let it get exiled, do you now have ultimate scoop advantage?
Me: Oblivion Ring your general.
Opponent: Hmm.... okay, sure.
Me: Done.
Opponent: Untap, draw, swing with Soltari Visionary?
Me: Scoop! Sucks to be you.
I understand the opposing sentiment, and I think some of it makes a lot of sense. I just don't agree with it in the majority of cases is all.
EDIT: If you Journey to Nowhere/Flickerwisp/whatever someone's general and they let it get exiled, do you now have ultimate scoop advantage?
Oddly enough, there is no reason to let your General be exiled. *hold. O-ring is a different matter.
Because Commandzoning the General is a replacement, and those cards all refer to "That Card,"* if you choose to Command zone your general, so long as your general doesn't change zones, it will find your General in the command zone and return it.
Weird stuff.
*EDIT: I am unsure on Journey to nowhere and Oblivion Ring, as they refer to the "exiled card." I must follow these up in rulings, but I am 99% sure these actually would not return the general from Command Zone. Mystifying Maze does though. So does Flickerwisp and flickerform and Mistmeadow Witch. Those all track correctly into the command-zone.
I going to have to agree with this and take it further. I've seen people scoop simply because someone cast bribery and stole their blightsteel colossus with lighting greeves out. Someone was going to die, but because dude scooped it was basically "tap five, discard a card". Scooping because someone has lethal on he board is not, IMO, a political or tactical move. It's a dick move. It's basically saying "if you do that, I'm scooping so you get no benefit". If that's the case that tactic can be used for anything. "if you play one more land, giving you Titan mana I'm scooping"
The biggest laugh about this is that it's their BSC.
I do have to admit, that removing your cards from the game is something that cannot be avoided when you scoop; I guess I should amend it to trying to minimize the effect of you leaving in the least complicated manner. The fact that every other needed effect can use LKI about you, but that Combat Damage is excluded just seems stupidly weird to me.
Mostly, it comes down to gamesmanship though. If you're running a BSC, but scoop because someone steals it somehow, you're a douche. I don't like playing douches, but if I do, I'll start douching right back, and my way of douching is to make you my only target. Enjoy. (Yes, I can be petty).
Am I a hypocrite? Would I consider it differently in a tournament situation? I only ever played one EDH tournament, the 'prizes' were pretty much fluff; but not only did I not douchescoop, I allowed massive takebacks, explained what some of my interactions would do, and didn't even put the infinite attack combos into my deck (Vaevictis).
Oddly enough, there is no reason to let your General be exiled.
Because Commandzoning the General is a replacement, and those cards all refer to "That Card," if you choose to Command zone your general, so long as your general doesn't change zones, it will find your General in the command zone and return it.
Weird stuff.
EDIT: I am unsure on Journey to nowhere and Oblivion Ring, as they refer to the "exiled card." I must follow these up in rulings, but I'm think these actually would not return the general from Command Zone. Mystifying Maze does though. So does Flickerwisp.
Are you sure? Oblivion Ring, Admonition Angel, and kin all say "return the exiled card(s)." I would like to know the answer.
In any case, no, you don't get stuff back when the player leaves the game. Player A Oblivion Rings something, then scoops. I think technically the leaves-play ability triggers, but never goes on the stack because that player is no longer in the game?
To the same end, will a delayed trigger from something like Flickerwisp still happen even if the controller of the trigger is no longer in the game? I don't think it would, but there is plenty of room for me to be wrong.
On topic: This is important because it directly relates to the potential impact of "aggressive scooping."
The situation he is talking about and the one you are talking about aren't even comparable. If someone is about to kill you, then it is perfectly reasonable to let them get as little benefit out of it as possible. So long as you aren't breaking the rules or trying to wreck the game for everyone, it's fine. Unplugging while in the middle of the game, like you described, is the digital equivalent of upending the table. That is obviously unacceptable, but it is also something entirely different from what Boros Archangel and the rest of the people in this thread are talking about.
I see no problem with messing with the person about to kill you or the person who ruined your chances of winning right before you die. It's just simple consequences. Ruining the board position of someone who had left you alone instead of those who killed you would be douchey, however.
The "spiteful" scoop, as you call it, is far better than "Armageddon, peace!". "You don't get to untap your lands an extra time due to SoFaM" is nothing compared to "I'm going to wreck the board before I leave and ruin the game for everyone".
Unplugging or Geddon'ing and scooping are terrible, but scooping to prevent triggers is a perfectly legitimate move.
Incorrect,
That aside in a casual fun game scooping like that is a douche move and should be treated as though they didn't scoop for purposes of in game results. In a tournament, rules as written apply, douchescoop if it gets the desired effect of preventing the person who knocked you out from actually winning the round. Tournament anything within the bounds of the rules applies. And scooping to prevent triggers is perfectly legal. Scooping to prevent a player's Insurrection from being meaningful is just as valid as scooping to prevent their Vicious Shadows from killing the entire board when they board wipe. Leave it at the tournament though, doing it on a kitchen table in a casual game is just being a douche.
Maybe your kitchen table isn't cool with it. Mine likes it just fine.
Each group has their own set of do's and don'ts. You're is ok with retributive scooping, then there's nothing really inherently wrong with it.
You're right. I probably misunderstood what Archangel was getting at, and I am still not sure I fully appreciate it. It is a given that in-game retribution is a fact of life in the acceptable political give-and-take of multiplayer, so I can see the similarity there. "Don't attack me or I'll Swords your guy" is not only common, but fundamental.
On the other hand, I think most of us would agree that retribution outside of the game to teach someone a lesson is probably just childish and unacceptable. To me, leveraging political power by making the transition between in-game and RL seems to fall between these two scenarios, so please understand why I am hesitant to accept it.
Like I said, under some circumstances, it could be fine. It just might be fine, period. However, there is a fine line between "aggressive scooping" and outright ragequitting, and it is vital to make sure you don't cross that line.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
I've actually managed to win off of 2 or 3 of these type of situations.
The ONLY other time i scoop is when i'm ticked of cause the control deck is hating my group hug deck out of the game. Many insults get tossed around for a while and the game pretty much ends. Games that are only fun for the control player isn't fun for anyone else, and thus need to end.
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain
B Toshiro Umezawa
BG Pharika, God of Affliction - Necromancy and Politics
WWW The Church of Heliod
WBR Zurgo, Helmsmasher
RG Wort, the Raidmother
UBR Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge
UG Vorel of the Hull Clade
It is true that retribution outside of the game to teach someone a lesson is childish and unacceptable. Many people believe (and the rules say), however, that scooping is part of the game. I can see how you could consider it something different though. It really comes down to this: is it okay to always have an auto suicide button and to use it like this? It has happened plenty of times before where someone has on-board ways of killing themselves and uses them to prevent triggers in the same way scooping would. Is that okay? If so, then do you think it is necessary for people to run ways to kill themselves at instant speed in order to get the same effect as scooping, and that they shouldn't be allowed to do it for free? Or do you consider both methods more or less the same?
I do agree that there can be a fine line between "aggressive scooping" and rage quitting, though.
This is nothing short of childish. Aggressive scooping is one thing since everyone at the table still knows "Hey you lost" but disconnecting so the loss doesn't register is totally immature. I've been on the other side of that in wifi games over the DS plenty of times and I can safely, thats a douche move.
As for "Armageddon, peace" it really depends on the situation and why they are leaving, but I'd usually be ok with it. If you think about it, it's not that different from playing Armageddon and staying at the table. The player behind on lands now has a chance to catch up and the player way ahead on lands is punished for overextending, both of which I'm fine with. If the game is more or less even in regards to mana than wiping all lands leaves it more or less even. Of course it is always possible that a particular player has something like Azusa out and Loam in their yard, in which case the armageddon provides them with an overwhelming lead or that a player has a crap ton of beaters out and now that no one has mana they are most certainly going to win. Even both of those situations sit fine by me as most likely the game will be ending soon and you can just play another, plus the effect is similar to Player A playing warp world and player b just happens to hit "the nuts" off of it. It's not at all uncommon for cards one person plays to inadvertently benefit another player far more than expected.
All in I think that if you are ok with people playing Armageddon, then you should be ok with "Armageddon, peace". Of course I'm not in a league that plays for points or anything so I can't speak for how it would affect league games.
Back on the topic of aggressive scooping there are situations where it is simply spiteful. I recall a game where one person got out an it that betrays on turn 2. In an attempt to defend myself I cast dance of the dead on another players Birds of Paradise, that way if I was swung at I could sac the aura and the bird so i wouldn't lose lands. Of course the player with the eldrazi swung at me, at which point the player who owned the BoP scooped in response to the attack. His BoP went with him and Dance of the dead was sent to the graveyard, my only 2 permanents were lands. That was spiteful and uncalled for. I hadn't done anything to that player, the game was just beginning and had I not had to sac my only 2 lands I could've hit the eldrazi with a maelstrom pulse next turn so it's not like the game was already over.
There are situations where scooping to mess with someone is ok, and there are situations where it is just douchebaggery. Take it case by case rather than try to make up rules for it.
I can't see how this kind of thing could hold in a live setting.
Not getting a SoFaI trigger is one thing, but turning every card into a Phage the Untouchable trigger is going to have really unfair effects in multiplayer on certain cards.
I mean, what's to stop a player on Modo from closing the client during a Fact or Fiction or similar trigger and bugging the game, or even worse, just waiting the max 10 mins between each action until their clock runs out? Hate-waiting is legal, right? Causes the game to deteriorate, but all's fair in love and war?
Don't tell me this kind of stuff flies in live.
That's a terrible rule. Conceding is split second, it says it in the 5th Edition manual. I get you like to change the rules, but no, your are literately changing the rules of magic.
I will refresh you on how combat works and sword triggers work.
If you are attacking someone; damage hasn't resolved yet, so technically, as you block or decided to take damage, you scoop, the damage never resolved in the first place.
No damage was dealt due the player and all permanents they own non-existing. How do you justify that? The recipients of the damage of the damage goes away, so the sword cannot trigger.
Re-read your sword when have time.
- Fin
EDH
BWG Doran Suicide Tempo BWG
BUW Sharuum Midrange Control BUW
That part's easy: Combat is resolved as though the player hadn't conceded yet. It's a dick-move to deny someone a kill after they've all ready committed the resources to the actual kill.
Besides, it actually has some relevance: Several players have scooped despite me having Abyssal Persecutor out simply because they forgot about it. They get caught up in the moment and start shuffling up for the next game that they can't reset their board positions.
Driving Stick with Isochron Scepter.
Trinkets and Treasure: An Artificer's Toolbox.
Proc Drops: Playing with One Drops.
Deck Primer: Toshiro Umezawa
I know that. Those players often genuinely believed that they lost, and so they picked up their cards before the killing blow was even announced.
Driving Stick with Isochron Scepter.
Trinkets and Treasure: An Artificer's Toolbox.
Proc Drops: Playing with One Drops.
Deck Primer: Toshiro Umezawa
Player A: 5 Life with a 5/5 Lifelink
Player B: 5 life with a 5/5
Player C: 5 life with no creature
Player As turn comes around and wants to swing at player C. Player C says he will scoop in response to the attack. If player A goes through with the attack Player B will counter attack A and win.
Why should Player C not be allowed to protect himself with the threat of scooping?
In this scenario player C is not just being a dick. He is trying to stay in the game.
Its not like its unflavorful to scoop to prevent effects. I just see people going around saying that people are douschebags for scooping, probably because they have lost out on a trigger.
There are some unsportsmanlike scoops too, but its a very grey line to say that anyone scooping before they are about to die is being unsportsmanlike.
Ultimately, if I am put in such a position, I concede before the effect and leave it to the group to decide what to do. I do not see it as poor sportsmanship, and I have not seen terrible frowns from occasions where the effect did not take place. It's the least that I can do for someone who knocks me out of the game, and I like the mental gamesmanship that occasionally develops from it.
LoL. Just had that happen last week in a 3-way. Was playing my Ezuri elves with a Beast Within in hand. Opponent playing Rafiq has some artifact removal, Mystic Melting I think it was. Opponent playing Kresh has him fielded with 30 +1/+1 counters and Boots of Swiftness attached.
So, It's Kresh's turn and he asks Rafiq to 'promise to attack me' when it comes to his turn, which he does. Kresh then beats on me, leaving himself completely defenseless. I ask Rafiq if he can deal with that artifact. He says that he can....but not yet...as he likes it when I get beat. So I chump Kresh, lose some elves and move on.
My turn comes and I throw down my backup elves, none with reach though so Rafiq's two flyers can now attack my Nissa Revane with 6 loyalty if he chose.
Rafiq's turn. He thinks about it. Kresh is totally open with only 14 life. I'm at 35 (thanks to Nissa's lifegain). He himself is at 7. He's got Jenara, Asura of War with 2 +1/+1 counters and Stoic Angel on the board. (From my point of view, if he had attacked the defenseless Kresh, Kresh would no longer be able to swing lest he die from a swarm of elves) But he made a 'promise' and declared that 'keeping your word' is very important for the meta. He then looks to attack my Nissa, which is 2 turns away from Ulting.
So I make my own 'promise': Knowing full well that we can combine our spells to deal with Kresh; if you attack me I'll have to use my spell to deal with you instead of Kresh. Then Kresh will win.
Well, to cut to the chase, he decided to kept his promise, thinking that I would bluff and not keep mine. he was wrong, as I decided to use his interpretation of 'meta'; that keeping your word was very important. He lost his Stoic Angel to my Beast Within and Kresh laughed as he proceeded to wipe him out on the next turn and me the turn after.
It's actaully a little ironic, cause I was out of steam. Had he attacked Kresh instead, I would have been able to finish him off, but would not have had the ability to repell Rafiq's flyers. Rafiq would have won.
The best wars in history were won with treachery....and timing....and bad weather....but mostly treachery.
| B Erebos, God of VampiresB | GYeva SmashG | RBosh ArtifactsR | GURAnimar +1 BeatsGUR | RBVial's Secret Hot SauceRB | UBRNekusar, Draw if you DareUBR | RGBDarigaaz'z DragonsRGB | GBSlimeFEETGB | UBOn-Hit LazavUB | URBrudiclad's Artificer InventionsUR | GUBMuldrotha's ElementalsGUB | WUGKestia's EnchantmentsWUG | GUTatyova - Draw, Land, Go!GU | WGArahbo's EquipmentWG | BUWVarina's ZOMBIE HORDESBUW | WLyra's Angelic SalvationW | WBChurch of TeysaWB | UAzami...WizardsU
To everyone who says they would just let the triggers resolve even though the player isn't there anymore let me ask you one thing. If the player killed himself using a card on the field or in hand(like paying all his life into Necropotence) would you still let the triggers resolve as if the player were still there?
I doubt anyone would say yes to this. You would have to be a fool.
To those that say no. How could you then justify allowing the triggers to go through against a player who has scooped? There is no difference between scooping and killing yourself after all.
To answer your first question: no, probably. I don't think I or anyone I know would still try to resolve the triggers in that case, but I guess there are always exceptions.
To answer your second question: like you said, I think it is best to take it on a case by case basis instead of making a sweeping generalization. Example:
A few years ago, some guys were slinging some cards. Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind vs. Nath of the Gilt Leaf vs. Progenitus vs. Wort the Raidmother, I think?
The Progenitus player and the Nath player have been getting into it all game. Tempers are starting to flare a little bit, and after a big turn the Niv-Mizzet player is threatening to combo off as soon as he untaps. Progenitus kills Nath's Eternal Witness and then casts Beacon of Unrest targeting the Witness, I guess in the hopes of recurring some answer to deal with Niv-Mizzet. This pushes the Nath player over the edge, who effectively says, "F*** you man," and scoops in response to the Beacon. Niv-Mizzet combos out.
Or he would have, had everyone else (including the Niv player) not allowed the Progenitus guy to at least get the trigger off the witness. The rest of the game turned out fine, the Nath player apologized, and everyone was happy.
True story.
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
To me at least, the situation described is significantly different from the original situation under consideration. The progenitus player wasn't trying to eliminate the nath player. In fact, in trying to prevent the niv-mizzet player's combo from going off, it sounds like he was attempting to keep the game going. This makes it different enough from the original situation to cause me to think of the situation as an entirely separate category of actions. I completely agree with taking things on a case by case basis, and that is certainly one of them. But I think there are fundamental aspects of the original situation that can make it a pretty clear cut case every time.
Let's consider the following. We have player A about to lose because of actions from player B. Player A decided to concede in order to prevent player B from acquiring beneficial triggers. The specifics of what actions and beneficial triggers differ from game to game. But I see no reason not to allow player A the ability to deny player B those beneficial triggers. After all, we all agree that if player A had some other suicide option, then there would be no discussion.
To preface my position, my playgroup just doesn't douchescoop. We joke about it at times, so I guess we play as if it could happen. But we just don't. In fact, I think if it were challenged, most people in the game would vote to keep the triggers, as if 800.4f were the only rule in place, and d was not. (though I doubt anyone knows about the rules).
It's a bit hard for me to try and explain my reasoning, but I'll give it my best (aside from poor sportsmanship).
Essentially (to answer the Necro question), if a player has a Necro out, they are using an object in the game to kill themselves. Scooping is having an effect on the game without an object in the game allowing you to do so.
You can't tap your stuff at will for benefit without something in the game allowing you to do so.
You can't sacrifice stuff for no reason without an effect to do so.
You can't choose to not untap something when you start your turn because you feel like it.
You can't choose to not draw a card to not die to Spiteful Visions.
Why should scooping be the only action allowed to affect the gamestate with no object in the game allowing it? Scooping allows a player to affect the game from outside the game, and I think that's just awkward.
The rest of your turn still continues, anything that triggers during changes in that turn still benefit other players. Why should combat be any different?
You say scooping is a political move to act as a deterrence to being eliminated. I say that is bull****. If you're in such a corner, sucks to be you, you need to play better and get real deterrents. You say "I'll scoop!", my threat is "I'm going to strip mine, tec edge, and wasteland your three best lands, plowshares your key creature, and naturalize your caged sun if you attack me." And then they do. And then I do. And then I die. And it's all cool. It's all part of the game. Scooping, imo, shouldn't be.
=== edit ===
Also, if someone ever gave me the ultimatum "You should let me keep playing, otherwise I'll quit in response"... I'd have to kill them just for how stupid that sounds to me.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
My answer to your question would be that the comprehensive rules are permissive rather than restrictive. It very clearly states what you can do rather than what you can't do. For the game to function, players must be allowed to concede at any time. While it may feel awkward, it's how the game currently is.
Basically, You CAN concede at any time because the comprehensive rules allow you to do so.
I don't think anyone is arguing that conceding is a valid deterrent to being eliminated, and certainly no one will ever say "you should let me keep playing, otherwise I'll quit in response" I'm not quite sure what this has to do with the situations that have been discussed.
I think that it is equally silly that the action of you conceding should have further effect on the game than, "you're not here anymore."
I think that it is exceptionally silly that you conceding will stop combat damage triggers and targeted spells, but no other advantage gained from anything else in your turn will be stopped, because choices you would make are made by someone else, your turn continues, and if anything needs information about you (Life total, etc) It uses Last Known Information.
Essentially, I think it's stupid that you can prevent a Sword of light and Shadow but not a Reverse the Sands.
I think it's stupid that you can stop a Burning of Xinye, but not Diaochan, Artful Beauty.
I think it's stupid you can prevent a Nature's will trigger, but not a Pygmy Hippo.
I think it's stupid that you can prevent a Drain life, but not reduce an Exsanguinate (I'm serious).
I am arguing that conceding is a ****ty deterrent to being eliminated.
Every player who threatens concession is saying exactly: "you should let me keep playing, otherwise I'll quit in response." That is exactly what it means, and when you finally look at it that way, you see how stupid it is. At least, I think it's pretty stupid.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
I going to have to agree with this and take it further. I've seen people scoop simply because someone cast bribery and stole their blightsteel colossus with lighting greeves out. Someone was going to die, but because dude scooped it was basically "tap five, discard a card". Scooping because someone has lethal on he board is not, IMO, a political or tactical move. It's a dick move. It's basically saying "if you do that, I'm scooping so you get no benefit". If that's the case that tactic can be used for anything. "if you play one more land, giving you Titan mana I'm scooping"
The EDH stax primer
When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
Or even better:
Me: Oblivion Ring your general.
Opponent: Hmm.... okay, sure.
Me: Done.
Opponent: Untap, draw, swing with Soltari Visionary?
Me: Scoop! Sucks to be you.
I understand the opposing sentiment, and I think some of it makes a lot of sense. I just don't agree with it in the majority of cases is all.
EDIT: If you Journey to Nowhere/Flickerwisp/whatever someone's general and they let it get exiled, do you now have ultimate scoop advantage?
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com
Oddly enough, there is no reason to let your General be exiled. *hold. O-ring is a different matter.
Because Commandzoning the General is a replacement, and those cards all refer to "That Card,"* if you choose to Command zone your general, so long as your general doesn't change zones, it will find your General in the command zone and return it.
Weird stuff.
*EDIT: I am unsure on Journey to nowhere and Oblivion Ring, as they refer to the "exiled card." I must follow these up in rulings, but I am 99% sure these actually would not return the general from Command Zone.
Mystifying Maze does though. So does Flickerwisp and flickerform and Mistmeadow Witch. Those all track correctly into the command-zone.
The biggest laugh about this is that it's their BSC.
I do have to admit, that removing your cards from the game is something that cannot be avoided when you scoop; I guess I should amend it to trying to minimize the effect of you leaving in the least complicated manner. The fact that every other needed effect can use LKI about you, but that Combat Damage is excluded just seems stupidly weird to me.
Mostly, it comes down to gamesmanship though. If you're running a BSC, but scoop because someone steals it somehow, you're a douche. I don't like playing douches, but if I do, I'll start douching right back, and my way of douching is to make you my only target. Enjoy. (Yes, I can be petty).
Am I a hypocrite? Would I consider it differently in a tournament situation? I only ever played one EDH tournament, the 'prizes' were pretty much fluff; but not only did I not douchescoop, I allowed massive takebacks, explained what some of my interactions would do, and didn't even put the infinite attack combos into my deck (Vaevictis).
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
Are you sure? Oblivion Ring, Admonition Angel, and kin all say "return the exiled card(s)." I would like to know the answer.
In any case, no, you don't get stuff back when the player leaves the game. Player A Oblivion Rings something, then scoops. I think technically the leaves-play ability triggers, but never goes on the stack because that player is no longer in the game?
To the same end, will a delayed trigger from something like Flickerwisp still happen even if the controller of the trigger is no longer in the game? I don't think it would, but there is plenty of room for me to be wrong.
On topic: This is important because it directly relates to the potential impact of "aggressive scooping."
Draft my Mono-Blue Cube!
lichess.org | chess.com