I don't want to make this sound like a rant but there can't be a single day without a player that concedes before I deal damage to him.
My whole strategy is based on creatures. I'm an aggro deck. I have lifelink, I have tons of triggered abilities that happens when I deal damage to a player.
When a player concedes before taking damage this translates into: no life gain, my whole lands are tapped, my fatties are tapped. I'm open wide to attacks so I get focused.
Worse than a time walk to me.
Of course everyone in the table agrees with the player who leaves and says that it's all legal and I get no triggers.
Questions would be: Is this actually legal? What does the MTGsalvation community think about this? Maybe I'm wrong and I can't see it.
What do you guys think about this and do you want it to change or not? How would you feel if this changes?
Yes, it's legal. See the multiplayer rules here, particularly 800.4e. I personally find conceding to prevent damage triggers poor form in EDH, but this isn't the appropriate forum for that discussion.
EDH involves a lot of politics, and being able to concede (or threaten to concede) to deny a player some form of advantage is a legitimate technique. Of course, EDH groups also tend to have plenty of house rules, and at my shop it's certainly frowned upon, but it isn't illegal, and you won't be able to stop it online. Plan accordingly. Sorry.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
Now that my question has been solved I want to know what people think about this and if you would want it to change or not, how would you feel if this changes?
B. This is absolutely fine. I don't believe in forcing someone to sit through actually losing just to benefit people in a game they're no longer part of. That's almost as bad as asking me to sit through people comboing out when I know I've already lost.
But in a multiplayer game it's not that easy.
I think it's more of a "you kill me, so I'll take you down with me" kinda thing. It may be/seem petty, but depending on who else, if anyone, you're rooting for the decision of letting the triggers happen or not can be a somewhat political decision.
When playing online and not with a group of friends, taking "revenge" on the one killing you seems the most logical step, as you probably don't care about any of the other players, so it's more akin to the time saving argument.
In a game with friends one could have more of a reason to give or deny you the triggers, in a sort of "at least X shouldn't win" way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tired of losing to natural Tron or getting turn 2'd by Infect?
Standard infinite combos giving you a headache and the opponent always has Force of Will?
No matter the issue, there is one simple trick to solve all of your Magic problems!!
~~~To get in on the secret to eternal luck, skill and victory, just follow this link!!~~~
Yes it's legal and yes it's shady. IRL I would just give the other person their damage triggers. I stopped playing EDH online because of this type of nonsense.
The OP lays out a tactic which other players can use to disincentivize beating them and asks why those players do it.
The way this is described, it's optimal gameplay. As a player who wants to win the next game (even if I can't win this one) I would concede every. single. time.
B. This is absolutely fine. I don't believe in forcing someone to sit through actually losing just to benefit people in a game they're no longer part of. That's almost as bad as asking me to sit through people comboing out when I know I've already lost.
I'm not forcing you to anything. You can concede at any moment and leave, just do it before attackers are declared.
I don't have an infinite army of tokens. If I decided to attack you with all my creatures or most of them it's because I can barely kill you. It's because I decided to attack you during the whole game. It's not like suddenly "oops you lost". You can see it coming and takes effort and time.
Benefit someone in a game you are no longer part of? You are not killing creatures of a player you don't like before conceding or something... you are doing what you're supposed to: being dealt damage.
Almost as bad as asking me to sit through people comboing out? I'm not doing anything special, just attacking. Plus, I'm not killing everyone in the table with say, Tendrils of Agony. I'm presumably killing just one player, presumably because he has a chance to defend or respond because they are creatures (unlike someone who cast a massive amount of spells in a turn) it's the most common card type in EDH.
Hypothetical scenario: You have an army. I'm more or less defenseless. There are several other players in the game. If you want, you can kill me on your next attack. I say "Eosed, you can kill me, but you should know that if you attack, I'll concede to deny you your triggers". I'm trying to stay in this game, and attempting to give you a reason not to kill me yet. Now, if you do decide to kill me, I can't benefit from conceding. However, there is value beyond the current game in establishing that I'm a player who follows through on their threats, so I still do it. Maybe next time, you'll think twice before trying to kill me.
Magic tends not to be a game where suboptimal plays are made for the sake of good manners. We can all still be friendly, but ultimately, we all want to win. We make full use of every resource we can find to generate any advantage we can grasp, up to and including the strategic concession. It happens all the time in 1v1 magic; I've conceded at strategically significant points plenty of times for a variety of reasons: If I've missed my land drop on turns 3 and 4 and my opponent is hitting me with Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver, maybe I want to deny them further information about my deck. If my opponent has a dominant board position and hits me with Mind Slaver and promptly reaches for my sideboard, you bet I'll concede to keep it hidden. If I won game 1 and am losing game 2 with only ten minutes left in the round, I'll concede quickly in game 2 to give myself a fighting chance to win game 3 and take the match.
EDH has more of a social aspect than 1v1, sure, but I believe the idea that all resources should be used still holds true. Conceding is a strategic resource. I think you just have to accept that it can happen.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
People never told me "don't attack me or I will concede". No social aspect involved whatsoever. They were just offended people who couldn't do anything during the game or other players denied them the chance to.
This is not a "play", you are not casting anything, it's not a card. This is a rule bug that you want to take advantage of. Call things as they are.
Since the beginning of the topic we are talking about multiplayer games and damage being dealt (not controlling a player who has left the game, nor targeting a permanent of a player who has left the game. Just damage).
All what you wrote about 1v1 I agree but this is a multiplayer game at one game only so you are not hiding info about your deck by conceding. And I don't see why you shouldn't concede, just do it before attackers are declared.
People never told me "don't attack me or I will concede". No social aspect involved whatsoever. They were just offended people who couldn't do anything during the game or other players denied them the chance to.
This is not a "play", you are not casting anything, it's not a card. This is a rule bug that you want to take advantage of. Call things as they are.
Since the beginning of the topic we are talking about multiplayer games and damage being dealt (not controlling a player who has left the game, nor targeting a permanent of a player who has left the game. Just damage).
All what you wrote about 1v1 I agree but this is a multiplayer game at one game only so you are not hiding info about your deck by conceding. And I don't see why you shouldn't concede, just do it before attackers are declared.
If no words were exchanged, then you're dealing with players who were either vindictive or simply didn't understand the implications of their concession.
I can't speak to your specific experiences, but in a broader sense, conceding (or threatening to concede)is a strategically viable option, for the reasons I outlined above.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
Not a fan and would love to see rules added that prevent the instant speed concession. I view it as you do, essentially someone talking advantage of a rules gap that exists when you create a multiplayer format out of a game designed for 1v1 play. I'd love to see a rule that basically limits concessions to sorcery speed, with an exception allowing them during opponents' main phases IF you gain priority with nothing else on the stack. This would mean no main phase concessions in response to anything and no combat concessions. But it allows you to freely concede on your turn or at the end of an opponent's mains, so it isn't forcing someone to stick around when they don't want to be there.
My play group doesn't do it, and if an outsider does try it we will give them a hard time and give the person the triggers anyway. Obviously its a different story when you are playing online with strangers, not much you can do there.
Honestly I thought interplayer politics like this (though not necessarily this) was kind of the point of multiplayer. Always having to worry about more than 1 opponent and how they might help each other to take you down
I get where you are coming from as I am a MTGO player myself. This is what needs to be understood about the virtual version of this wonderful game, there are no consequences for your actions. Nobody cares about "table manners". Why you ask? Because there is zero risk of the offender getting cold-cocked from across the table. However, I've learned to deal with it. The best part about MTGO is that there is always a game to be played. Maybe we'll cross paths some day.
Honestly I thought interplayer politics like this (though not necessarily this) was kind of the point of multiplayer. Always having to worry about more than 1 opponent and how they might help each other to take you down
I'm not talking about players plotting against you, making up alliances to defeat you. I totally agree with you in the sense that I'm responsible with the role I play in the game and the decisions I make. For instance, If I'm being the number 1 target it's for a reason, maybe I'm the strongest player at the moment, and if I'm getting destroyed by the enemy maybe I couldn't meet the expectations of the game. I'm OK with that, it's not my point.
My point is, why my strategy has to be inferior to other strategies because of an old rule considered for 1v1 games?
Why combo, stasis, control, land destruction, anything has to be better than a playstyle involving creatures in multiplayer? Whats your position to decide whether that a playstyle is better than another?
The OP lays out a tactic which other players can use to disincentivize beating them and asks why those players do it.
The way this is described, it's optimal gameplay. As a player who wants to win the next game (even if I can't win this one) I would concede every. single. time.
Hypothetical scenario: You have an army. I'm more or less defenseless. There are several other players in the game. If you want, you can kill me on your next attack. I say "Eosed, you can kill me, but you should know that if you attack, I'll concede to deny you your triggers". I'm trying to stay in this game, and attempting to give you a reason not to kill me yet. Now, if you do decide to kill me, I can't benefit from conceding. However, there is value beyond the current game in establishing that I'm a player who follows through on their threats, so I still do it. Maybe next time, you'll think twice before trying to kill me.
Pull this type of crap on me and I will target you this game, next game, every. single. time.
yes, i am reading the posts and insulting me doesnt change that
if you could only concede at sorcery speed it means that every deck that has a T1 "look at your opponents hand" gets a huge boost since you cant concede in response to it to prevent your opponent from knowing what you play
When did I insult you?
Where did you even get the idea of conceding at sorcery speed?
We never said anything about how this should be solved in the topic. I want to know what people think about it first.
The problem involves the rule 800.4e which states that no damage can be deal to a player who has left the game. That rule has nothing to do with conceding at sorcery speed.
I even said that agree with what you are stating in previous posts.
Where did you even get the idea of conceding at sorcery speed?
From Golden's post. I can see how this might be problematic to create a rule that applies across the board, so maybe a specific multiplayer rule is needed. Something like, "If a player concedes mid-combat, they are considered to have no effects or blockers, and combat damage resolves as if they were still in the game."
From Golden's post. I can see how this might be problematic to create a rule that applies across the board, so maybe a specific multiplayer rule is needed. Something like, "If a player concedes mid-combat, they are considered to have no effects or blockers, and combat damage resolves as if they were still in the game."
I see. Since he didn't quote him I never thought he was referring to Golden's post but to the topic itself. My bad.
That won't be effective outside a group of friends (Godlen's idea).
I agree about the special rule for multiplayer. I can't guess what the rule would be thought. It's hard but not impossible to not mess up the current game and prevent players to take other/new kind of advantages on the new rules.
Somehow I managed to play magic those days.
I play EDH. A multiplayer format. A casual format.
My deck archetype is Voltron. Not competitive, nor utter casual. If you happened to know the format I'm not playing Uril, the Miststalker or stasis kind of decks. Being an online program with freely access to any kind of cards I don't run Imperial Seal or Wasteland or The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale or Mana Drain. Not even Mana Crypt.
I don't want to make this sound like a rant but there can't be a single day without a player that concedes before I deal damage to him.
My whole strategy is based on creatures. I'm an aggro deck. I have lifelink, I have tons of triggered abilities that happens when I deal damage to a player.
When a player concedes before taking damage this translates into: no life gain, my whole lands are tapped, my fatties are tapped. I'm open wide to attacks so I get focused.
Worse than a time walk to me.
Of course everyone in the table agrees with the player who leaves and says that it's all legal and I get no triggers.
Questions would be: Is this actually legal? What does the MTGsalvation community think about this? Maybe I'm wrong and I can't see it.What do you guys think about this and do you want it to change or not? How would you feel if this changes?
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Now that my question has been solved I want to know what people think about this and if you would want it to change or not, how would you feel if this changes?
B. This is absolutely fine. I don't believe in forcing someone to sit through actually losing just to benefit people in a game they're no longer part of. That's almost as bad as asking me to sit through people comboing out when I know I've already lost.
But in a multiplayer game it's not that easy.
I think it's more of a "you kill me, so I'll take you down with me" kinda thing. It may be/seem petty, but depending on who else, if anyone, you're rooting for the decision of letting the triggers happen or not can be a somewhat political decision.
When playing online and not with a group of friends, taking "revenge" on the one killing you seems the most logical step, as you probably don't care about any of the other players, so it's more akin to the time saving argument.
In a game with friends one could have more of a reason to give or deny you the triggers, in a sort of "at least X shouldn't win" way.
Standard infinite combos giving you a headache and the opponent always has Force of Will?
No matter the issue, there is one simple trick to solve all of your Magic problems!!
~~~To get in on the secret to eternal luck, skill and victory, just follow this link!!~~~
The way this is described, it's optimal gameplay. As a player who wants to win the next game (even if I can't win this one) I would concede every. single. time.
I'm not forcing you to anything. You can concede at any moment and leave, just do it before attackers are declared.
I don't have an infinite army of tokens. If I decided to attack you with all my creatures or most of them it's because I can barely kill you. It's because I decided to attack you during the whole game. It's not like suddenly "oops you lost". You can see it coming and takes effort and time.
Benefit someone in a game you are no longer part of? You are not killing creatures of a player you don't like before conceding or something... you are doing what you're supposed to: being dealt damage.
Almost as bad as asking me to sit through people comboing out? I'm not doing anything special, just attacking. Plus, I'm not killing everyone in the table with say, Tendrils of Agony. I'm presumably killing just one player, presumably because he has a chance to defend or respond because they are creatures (unlike someone who cast a massive amount of spells in a turn) it's the most common card type in EDH.
At least that's my logic.
Magic tends not to be a game where suboptimal plays are made for the sake of good manners. We can all still be friendly, but ultimately, we all want to win. We make full use of every resource we can find to generate any advantage we can grasp, up to and including the strategic concession. It happens all the time in 1v1 magic; I've conceded at strategically significant points plenty of times for a variety of reasons: If I've missed my land drop on turns 3 and 4 and my opponent is hitting me with Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver, maybe I want to deny them further information about my deck. If my opponent has a dominant board position and hits me with Mind Slaver and promptly reaches for my sideboard, you bet I'll concede to keep it hidden. If I won game 1 and am losing game 2 with only ten minutes left in the round, I'll concede quickly in game 2 to give myself a fighting chance to win game 3 and take the match.
EDH has more of a social aspect than 1v1, sure, but I believe the idea that all resources should be used still holds true. Conceding is a strategic resource. I think you just have to accept that it can happen.
465 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
This is not a "play", you are not casting anything, it's not a card. This is a rule bug that you want to take advantage of. Call things as they are.
Since the beginning of the topic we are talking about multiplayer games and damage being dealt (not controlling a player who has left the game, nor targeting a permanent of a player who has left the game. Just damage).
All what you wrote about 1v1 I agree but this is a multiplayer game at one game only so you are not hiding info about your deck by conceding. And I don't see why you shouldn't concede, just do it before attackers are declared.
If no words were exchanged, then you're dealing with players who were either vindictive or simply didn't understand the implications of their concession.
I can't speak to your specific experiences, but in a broader sense, conceding (or threatening to concede)is a strategically viable option, for the reasons I outlined above.
My play group doesn't do it, and if an outsider does try it we will give them a hard time and give the person the triggers anyway. Obviously its a different story when you are playing online with strangers, not much you can do there.
What exactly would be that huge impact in 1v1? Are you even reading the posts?
I'm not talking about players plotting against you, making up alliances to defeat you. I totally agree with you in the sense that I'm responsible with the role I play in the game and the decisions I make. For instance, If I'm being the number 1 target it's for a reason, maybe I'm the strongest player at the moment, and if I'm getting destroyed by the enemy maybe I couldn't meet the expectations of the game. I'm OK with that, it's not my point.
My point is, why my strategy has to be inferior to other strategies because of an old rule considered for 1v1 games?
Why combo, stasis, control, land destruction, anything has to be better than a playstyle involving creatures in multiplayer? Whats your position to decide whether that a playstyle is better than another?
When did I insult you?
Where did you even get the idea of conceding at sorcery speed?
We never said anything about how this should be solved in the topic. I want to know what people think about it first.
The problem involves the rule 800.4e which states that no damage can be deal to a player who has left the game. That rule has nothing to do with conceding at sorcery speed.
I even said that agree with what you are stating in previous posts.
WBG Karador GBW
R Daretti R
RG Omnath GR
WRG Modern Burn GRW
WB Modern Tokens BW
DCI Rules Advisor as of 5/18/2015
I see. Since he didn't quote him I never thought he was referring to Golden's post but to the topic itself. My bad.
That won't be effective outside a group of friends (Godlen's idea).
I agree about the special rule for multiplayer. I can't guess what the rule would be thought. It's hard but not impossible to not mess up the current game and prevent players to take other/new kind of advantages on the new rules.
That is visionary. The whole combat or the damage phase?