It just sucks that it's handled that way online, but nothing can be done about that (Wizard's isn't going to implement a new rule and program it online for a fringe scenario in a relatively fringe format like EDH).
In paper, multiplayer is supposed to be the most casual way to play magic, and EDH was supposed to be an extension of that. Then, as always happens, people got spikier and spikier, decks got more and more tuned, and people got more and more intense. If this happened to you in person, and the group wouldn't let you get your triggers, stop playing with that group. They are dicks.
Hell, when we play MP kitchen table (we almost never play EDH - games take way too long and I'm not terribly interested in "knitting circle" magic, which is what someone in our playgroup so aptly calls it), we always let triggers happen even if someone scoops and we let people keep permanents owned by that player under another player's control, even though technically that's not supposed to happen either, because we're all just there to have fun and being that strict with a rule that is so odd and probably only exists to make sure people don't walk off with each other's cards is antithetical to all that casual MP magic is supposed to be.
I have to say, this isn't even remotely a new trend. My friends and I have been doing this in our multiplayer games for over a decade.
No, it's not really a problem, just account for it in your strategy.
Why does my strategy has to account something that other strategies don't? Why playing voltron has to be worse than playing control or combo or anything just because anyone can screw you with something external to the cards they use or the experience as players they have? Playstyles as a whole should have equal chances.
Why does my strategy has to account something that other strategies don't? Why playing voltron has to be worse than playing control or combo or anything just because anyone can screw you with something external to the cards they use or the experience as players they have? Playstyles as a whole should have equal chances.
How would this be different than one of the surviving opponents casting a burn spell and killing your other opponent during combat, effectively doing the exact same thing?
Planning on the opponent you're about to do fatal damage to having the possibility of suddenly disappearing is just a hazard of multiplayer games. The problems involved aren't exclusive to your Voltron deck.
Typically this means you are playing competitive multiplayer. This leads to all sorts of wacky problems. Multiplayer gets broken when players play at a truly competitive level. I suggest finding a casual playgroup, or playing 1v1.
How would this be different than one of the surviving opponents casting a burn spell and killing your other opponent during combat, effectively doing the exact same thing?
Very different. He has to have a card in hand that deals damage at instant speed in order to do that. I'm totally fine with that but anyone can concede at the moment involving no card, no move, showing no experience in the game.
Planning on the opponent you're about to do fatal damage to having the possibility of suddenly disappearing is just a hazard of multiplayer games. The problems involved aren't exclusive to your Voltron deck.
I rely on my creatures and benefit from their triggers. I'm not dealing plain damage.
If you cast a burn spell to defeat an opponent and he concedes before the damage is deal the result may be the same: your opponent is no longer on the battlefield. All this ignoring burn as a playstyle in multiplayer formats, where you also want to control the board with mass removals and rely on cards that deal damage to several players at once.
If you concede before combat damage is dealt I will get no triggers form life-link, swords, and so on.
Considering a voltron playstyle you usually want to boost your commander before damage is dealt to secure the kill. Cast creature spells that can attack that same turn and trigger abilities that happen when several creatures attack altogether. Or just attack with everything you got. Because this is your chance: someone may drop a mass removal the next turn.
As an aggro deck you rarely play mass removals, you focus on protect your creatures and run spot removals.
So basically, you end up with most of your mana tapped, creatures tapped, no positive effects from abilities. Worse than a time-walk. Open wide to attacks. I could be listing the cons of this endlessly.
I know why it's bad for you, that wasn't my point.
Does it suck? Yes. But there isn't anything inherently unfair about it. If my deck was all about gaining control of everyone's stuff, and they scoop at a critical moment causing me to lose their permanents, I'm just as screwed. Pretty much any strategy can be screwed by 'parting gift' scooping. But people should be free to leave the game whenever they choose, and there is no way to avoid bad sportsmanship in an impersonal setting
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.
You certainly have the right to do so. I, of course, will have the right to make you pay dearly for such a decision, both by reacting with equal force and by noting to our fellow players that your bloodlust has left you open to their own attacks.
Look, I get why it's a frustrating thing to do. But if it works within the rules of the game, barring house rules, I believe it's fair game. Threat of concession is simply a more extreme form of any sort of political play.
What if you have enough of an army to kill me and then some, but I'm holding three instant removal spells in my hand. They aren't enough to save myself, and we all know it. I politely inform you that, should you choose to attack me, I will happily blow up your three best creatures before you take me down. Is THAT bad sportsmanship? After all, the play I'm threatening to make won't stop me from losing. But the threat I'm making may help me survive another turn.
Multiplayer necessarily has politics. The presence of politics means that, barring specific violations of tournament or house rules, any player can make lies, promises, suggestions, and threats in order to better their position. I approach any game with the intent to do my best to win it, and if those tools are at my disposal, I'll make use of them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
Well, a lot of edh-groups have their own gentlemen-rules. Maybe you violated one?
In your case, i would have conceded before damage too. Why? Because you said you were attacking that guy the whole time. In my group, thats frowned upon, because if you want to kill one guy, play 1v1.
Instead you basicly try to push the leading player from his throne, then work against the new king. The point is to have all players involved in the game (with a chance of wining, not that "keep a guy at 1 life" crap or something) until the game ends for everyone within a few turns. Having people sit by for an hour or so is just not nice.
But i actually never played in a round with more than 8 players, and the usual number is around 5-6.
OF course, i might just have misunderstood your comment.
I meant to say that I couldn't just one-shot someone. I must have dealt some damage before in the game and that it takes time and effort to cumulatively drop someone's life while protecting your creatures (the weakest and most common card type).
I see your point. I'm arguing why is this even possible and why should be prevented, in a context of an online game this can happen just because.
Exactly what do you mean with having people sit by for an hour or so?
Does it suck? Yes. But there isn't anything inherently unfair about it. If my deck was all about gaining control of everyone's stuff, and they scoop at a critical moment causing me to lose their permanents, I'm just as screwed. Pretty much any strategy can be screwed by 'parting gift' scooping. But people should be free to leave the game whenever they choose, and there is no way to avoid bad sportsmanship in an impersonal setting
I get what you say but I don't agree. I do think this should change and can change.
Why not put a token for each card you gained control of, for instance?
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.
Well, a lot of edh-groups have their own gentlemen-rules. Maybe you violated one?
OP is playing online. Online Magic generally doesn't have "gentlemen-rules" or a social aspect, making it a poor platform for EDH. EDH is intended to be the social format (which is not the same thing as "the casual format"), and playing EDH online loses a lot of the intended appeal.
In the EDH league I organize at my LGS, we run on a points system, which includes penalties for behavior we don't want to see (or don't want to see as often). One of our penalties is conceding during another player's turn, or with an object on the stack*. This dramatically reduces incidences of "douche scoop" in our group, while not outright forbidding it. (The penalty is -1 point, on a scale where a "perfect" night is 10 points over two games.)
Of course, people still occasionally do things like killing themselves with Necropotence or Spellskite at instant speed, but that requires not only the circumstances for a scoop to be warranted, but also an appropriate card. I find that sort of thing acceptable.
* We added the "object on the stack" clause because we've seen incidents such as Player A with Sanguine Bond+Exquisite Blood, Player B with Phyrexian Arena, Player C with enchantment removal but tapped out. If the only condition was scooping on your own turn, Player B can give Player C the opportunity to stop the combo by scooping before losing like to his Arena without penalty. Which, while a strategically valid choice, is something in the same vein as scooping before damage to prevent lifelink.
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?
But is that not part of it? Not overextending yourself with 1 opponent and leaving yourself open to the others in case something doesn't go your way?
As far as "inferior" strategies... well I'm not really deciding anything nor would I necessarily say it's inferior. It's really a pros and cons. Going after one person at a time opens you up for more counter attacks and such but you also don't have everyone trying to stop you. Also wouldn't the best playstyle to take advantage of you extending like that be other creature based ones in the first place...?
You have to account for people conceding more than some other strategies but other strategies might have to account for facing down more people at once. Is having to leave enough blockers back or a trick to discourage someone from safely finishing you off (which isn't necessarily a lot since other opponents have to also have worry about overextending.) anymore of a burden than having to account for disruption to key parts of your combo from multiple players?
Regardless sounds like you are really against this no matter what since it negatively effects your playstyle. There are many facets of the game in general and unique to multiplayer that effect different playstyles in different ways. Part of the fun of magic especially in formats like this that tend to be less tournament driven is to make modify the rules to suit how your group wants to play in a myriad of different ways. Seems like the best solution is to find a similar minded group and set up a set of house rules
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.
You certainly have the right to do so. I, of course, will have the right to make you pay dearly for such a decision, both by reacting with equal force and by noting to our fellow players that your bloodlust has left you open to their own attacks.
Look, I get why it's a frustrating thing to do. But if it works within the rules of the game, barring house rules, I believe it's fair game. Threat of concession is simply a more extreme form of any sort of political play.
What if you have enough of an army to kill me and then some, but I'm holding three instant removal spells in my hand. They aren't enough to save myself, and we all know it. I politely inform you that, should you choose to attack me, I will happily blow up your three best creatures before you take me down. Is THAT bad sportsmanship? After all, the play I'm threatening to make won't stop me from losing. But the threat I'm making may help me survive another turn.
Multiplayer necessarily has politics. The presence of politics means that, barring specific violations of tournament or house rules, any player can make lies, promises, suggestions, and threats in order to better their position. I approach any game with the intent to do my best to win it, and if those tools are at my disposal, I'll make use of them.
Pull this type of crap on me and I will target you this game, next game, every. single. time.
Then you'll get beaten that turn. If you make choices not to win, I'm not going to feel bad about not letting you.
My top priority isn't always win win WIN!!! Sometimes I'm more concerned with punishing a player who's acting like a dick than with winning a game where absolutely nothing is on the line. And the fact that not everybody is a Winbot 4000 means that the douchescoop is not an all upside play. In fact, playing in that way may make you the whipping boy depending on who you are playing with. Now, in Jay13x's case, it sounds like his playgroup has accepted this as a reasonable line. If I was in such a group I would probably try to adapt rather than swim against the current (though I probably still wouldn't scoop myself; that's the coward's way). But against unknown opponents, I would prefer to avoid becoming known as "that guy" over making a play that can literally never win me the game.
such a change would have a huge impact at 1v1 as well, and that for no reason at all
lol, pretty easy to make it a multiplayer-only rule. Problem solved.
And for no reason at all? I disagree and clearly based on the comments on this thread plenty of others do too. Obviously wielding concession as a tactic rubs a lot of players the wrong way, to the point where they house rule against it and penalize it in leagues.
As you can't prevent someone from physically leaving the place or turning down the internet connection, any talk about limiting player's capabilities to concede is pointless.
Regardless sounds like you are really against this no matter what since it negatively effects your playstyle. There are many facets of the game in general and unique to multiplayer that effect different playstyles in different ways. Part of the fun of magic especially in formats like this that tend to be less tournament driven is to make modify the rules to suit how your group wants to play in a myriad of different ways. Seems like the best solution is to find a similar minded group and set up a set of house rules
It seems like this is basically the take-away here.
As you can't prevent someone from physically leaving the place or turning down the internet connection, any talk about limiting player's capabilities to concede is pointless.
Hardly.
While you can't prevent them from walking away, you can change how that impacts what is going on in the game. You can make it so that triggers still resolve as though the player were there.
The solution to this seems to be to rely less on damage triggers, and in particular don't kill someone with an attack if you need the triggers from it. Also, if crackbacks are your main concern, consider investing in Auras that grant vigilance as part of your Voltron.
While you can't prevent them from walking away, you can change how that impacts what is going on in the game. You can make it so that triggers still resolve as though the player were there.
How exactly? If the player takes away his cards with him, it would be quite difficult to resolve a lot of triggers because the lack of targets. I can see something like that implemented on Magic Online, but it's impossible to do on paper Magic.
How exactly? If the player takes away his cards with him, it would be quite difficult to resolve a lot of triggers because the lack of targets. I can see something like that implemented on Magic Online, but it's impossible to do on paper Magic.
The rule 800.4e prevent dealing damage to a player who has left the game. If we could damage a player who has left the game while attackers were declared that would help. I don't mind if they block a creature to prevent "on damage to a player" triggers before dying, just don't die in a unsporting way.
Why would they concede before they know that you are attacking them? They don't know they are going to lose until the attack is declared.
That's the whole point, they are conceding just because they know they are losing. If they were not losing they wouldn't concede. They are not conceding because they want to save time, they do it to bother the other player.
No one can kill that guy because he will concede? So, what? We just let him kill us?
That's the whole point, they are conceding just because they know they are losing. If they were not losing they wouldn't concede. They are not conceding because they want to save time, they do it to bother the other player.
No one can kill that guy because he will concede? So, what? We just let him kill us?
How is this still your position? I've clearly identified situations where a threat of concession has real strategic weight, whether or not you think such situations are sporting or not. There's more to consider than just poor losers.
I think you're overestimating the weight that such an act has, on average. I mean, I get that you wanted triggers and such from your attacking creatures. But is getting them the only way you stay in the game? Are you dead to a simple Fog? Perhaps that specific case was true for you in the offending game(s) that caused you to make this thread, but it can't possibly be commonplace. How often are you performing all-out attacks on one player when others are waiting by to punish you for it? How often is the full force of your attack necessary to finish a player off who is already in a losing position?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
No one can kill that guy because he will concede? So, what? We just let him kill us?
That's why you get rid of that player from the game but simultaneously leave enough resources out so that you yourself won't lose against the other players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In paper, multiplayer is supposed to be the most casual way to play magic, and EDH was supposed to be an extension of that. Then, as always happens, people got spikier and spikier, decks got more and more tuned, and people got more and more intense. If this happened to you in person, and the group wouldn't let you get your triggers, stop playing with that group. They are dicks.
Hell, when we play MP kitchen table (we almost never play EDH - games take way too long and I'm not terribly interested in "knitting circle" magic, which is what someone in our playgroup so aptly calls it), we always let triggers happen even if someone scoops and we let people keep permanents owned by that player under another player's control, even though technically that's not supposed to happen either, because we're all just there to have fun and being that strict with a rule that is so odd and probably only exists to make sure people don't walk off with each other's cards is antithetical to all that casual MP magic is supposed to be.
465 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
No, it's not really a problem, just account for it in your strategy.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
When playing with other people I will aggressively target anyone who concedes a previous game to prevent someone else gaining a benefit.
Why does my strategy has to account something that other strategies don't? Why playing voltron has to be worse than playing control or combo or anything just because anyone can screw you with something external to the cards they use or the experience as players they have? Playstyles as a whole should have equal chances.
Planning on the opponent you're about to do fatal damage to having the possibility of suddenly disappearing is just a hazard of multiplayer games. The problems involved aren't exclusive to your Voltron deck.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Playing against bad sportsmanship is no fun.
Check out Odds//Ends - My articles on Quirky Cards and Oddball Builds
Long-time PucaTrade member and sometime author. Send me cards!
Currently playing Knight of the Reliquary - Retreat to Coralhelm Combo
Very different. He has to have a card in hand that deals damage at instant speed in order to do that. I'm totally fine with that but anyone can concede at the moment involving no card, no move, showing no experience in the game.
I rely on my creatures and benefit from their triggers. I'm not dealing plain damage.
If you cast a burn spell to defeat an opponent and he concedes before the damage is deal the result may be the same: your opponent is no longer on the battlefield. All this ignoring burn as a playstyle in multiplayer formats, where you also want to control the board with mass removals and rely on cards that deal damage to several players at once.
If you concede before combat damage is dealt I will get no triggers form life-link, swords, and so on.
Considering a voltron playstyle you usually want to boost your commander before damage is dealt to secure the kill. Cast creature spells that can attack that same turn and trigger abilities that happen when several creatures attack altogether. Or just attack with everything you got. Because this is your chance: someone may drop a mass removal the next turn.
As an aggro deck you rarely play mass removals, you focus on protect your creatures and run spot removals.
So basically, you end up with most of your mana tapped, creatures tapped, no positive effects from abilities. Worse than a time-walk. Open wide to attacks. I could be listing the cons of this endlessly.
Does it suck? Yes. But there isn't anything inherently unfair about it. If my deck was all about gaining control of everyone's stuff, and they scoop at a critical moment causing me to lose their permanents, I'm just as screwed. Pretty much any strategy can be screwed by 'parting gift' scooping. But people should be free to leave the game whenever they choose, and there is no way to avoid bad sportsmanship in an impersonal setting
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
You certainly have the right to do so. I, of course, will have the right to make you pay dearly for such a decision, both by reacting with equal force and by noting to our fellow players that your bloodlust has left you open to their own attacks.
Look, I get why it's a frustrating thing to do. But if it works within the rules of the game, barring house rules, I believe it's fair game. Threat of concession is simply a more extreme form of any sort of political play.
What if you have enough of an army to kill me and then some, but I'm holding three instant removal spells in my hand. They aren't enough to save myself, and we all know it. I politely inform you that, should you choose to attack me, I will happily blow up your three best creatures before you take me down. Is THAT bad sportsmanship? After all, the play I'm threatening to make won't stop me from losing. But the threat I'm making may help me survive another turn.
Multiplayer necessarily has politics. The presence of politics means that, barring specific violations of tournament or house rules, any player can make lies, promises, suggestions, and threats in order to better their position. I approach any game with the intent to do my best to win it, and if those tools are at my disposal, I'll make use of them.
I meant to say that I couldn't just one-shot someone. I must have dealt some damage before in the game and that it takes time and effort to cumulatively drop someone's life while protecting your creatures (the weakest and most common card type).
I see your point. I'm arguing why is this even possible and why should be prevented, in a context of an online game this can happen just because.
Exactly what do you mean with having people sit by for an hour or so?
I get what you say but I don't agree. I do think this should change and can change.
Why not put a token for each card you gained control of, for instance?
You simply have to be aware of that rule so it doesnt take you by surprise ; which is true for any rule.
And in the end theres absolute no problem with that, simply be aware of it and you can plan accordingly. If you cant, well, bad for you.
Theres absolute nothing you can do to stop a player from conceding, and it makes no sence to change anything regarding to it.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
In the EDH league I organize at my LGS, we run on a points system, which includes penalties for behavior we don't want to see (or don't want to see as often). One of our penalties is conceding during another player's turn, or with an object on the stack*. This dramatically reduces incidences of "douche scoop" in our group, while not outright forbidding it. (The penalty is -1 point, on a scale where a "perfect" night is 10 points over two games.)
Of course, people still occasionally do things like killing themselves with Necropotence or Spellskite at instant speed, but that requires not only the circumstances for a scoop to be warranted, but also an appropriate card. I find that sort of thing acceptable.
* We added the "object on the stack" clause because we've seen incidents such as Player A with Sanguine Bond+Exquisite Blood, Player B with Phyrexian Arena, Player C with enchantment removal but tapped out. If the only condition was scooping on your own turn, Player B can give Player C the opportunity to stop the combo by scooping before losing like to his Arena without penalty. Which, while a strategically valid choice, is something in the same vein as scooping before damage to prevent lifelink.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
As far as "inferior" strategies... well I'm not really deciding anything nor would I necessarily say it's inferior. It's really a pros and cons. Going after one person at a time opens you up for more counter attacks and such but you also don't have everyone trying to stop you. Also wouldn't the best playstyle to take advantage of you extending like that be other creature based ones in the first place...?
You have to account for people conceding more than some other strategies but other strategies might have to account for facing down more people at once. Is having to leave enough blockers back or a trick to discourage someone from safely finishing you off (which isn't necessarily a lot since other opponents have to also have worry about overextending.) anymore of a burden than having to account for disruption to key parts of your combo from multiple players?
Regardless sounds like you are really against this no matter what since it negatively effects your playstyle. There are many facets of the game in general and unique to multiplayer that effect different playstyles in different ways. Part of the fun of magic especially in formats like this that tend to be less tournament driven is to make modify the rules to suit how your group wants to play in a myriad of different ways. Seems like the best solution is to find a similar minded group and set up a set of house rules
lol, pretty easy to make it a multiplayer-only rule. Problem solved.
And for no reason at all? I disagree and clearly based on the comments on this thread plenty of others do too. Obviously wielding concession as a tactic rubs a lot of players the wrong way, to the point where they house rule against it and penalize it in leagues.
It seems like this is basically the take-away here.
Hardly.
While you can't prevent them from walking away, you can change how that impacts what is going on in the game. You can make it so that triggers still resolve as though the player were there.
The rule 800.4e prevent dealing damage to a player who has left the game. If we could damage a player who has left the game while attackers were declared that would help. I don't mind if they block a creature to prevent "on damage to a player" triggers before dying, just don't die in a unsporting way.
That's the whole point, they are conceding just because they know they are losing. If they were not losing they wouldn't concede. They are not conceding because they want to save time, they do it to bother the other player.
No one can kill that guy because he will concede? So, what? We just let him kill us?
How is this still your position? I've clearly identified situations where a threat of concession has real strategic weight, whether or not you think such situations are sporting or not. There's more to consider than just poor losers.
I think you're overestimating the weight that such an act has, on average. I mean, I get that you wanted triggers and such from your attacking creatures. But is getting them the only way you stay in the game? Are you dead to a simple Fog? Perhaps that specific case was true for you in the offending game(s) that caused you to make this thread, but it can't possibly be commonplace. How often are you performing all-out attacks on one player when others are waiting by to punish you for it? How often is the full force of your attack necessary to finish a player off who is already in a losing position?
That's why you get rid of that player from the game but simultaneously leave enough resources out so that you yourself won't lose against the other players.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall