Conceding is meaningful from a flavor perspective. What do you do when faced with a 87/87 with lifelink, vigilance, hexproof, double-strike, and much, much more? You run.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
The mid-combat concession gets a bad rap. I do it often as a political move to discourage people from hitting me in the future.
I don't see why people consider it so rude. From my point of view, the person who chose to attack me for lethal is being rude. And I still lose the game, you just get denied a few triggers. If you are suddenly in a horrible position because of missing those triggers, you probably should not have attacked me in the first place.
I don't concede if I want the player killing me to win. Like if they're playing something cool or unique, or they have a chance to kill an annoying player.
Pull this type of crap on me and I will target you this game, next game, every. single. time.
That's because you care more about being vindictive than playing optimally. Most players are the opposite, so I won't be changing my habits anytime soon.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing...
Modern: Kiki ChordWBRG
TokensWB
EDH: Kuon, Ogre AscendantBBB
Having experienced a playgroup where conceeding was generally not accepted at all, and the horror that creates, I am *absolutely* in favour of the 'you can scoop whenever you want for whatever reason you want' rule.
The degree of obnoxious play that comes up when you are restricted from conceeding in any way, shape or form is just hideous. That school playgroup had many a deck that would toy with you, blowing up all your lands then not killing you until one of its two kill conditions was drawn.
A 'Players can't concede during combat' rule just encourages anyone with a trolling mindset to build decks that do absurdly complex and annoying stuff at instant speed.
Having experienced a playgroup where conceeding was generally not accepted at all, and the horror that creates, I am *absolutely* in favour of the 'you can scoop whenever you want for whatever reason you want' rule.
The degree of obnoxious play that comes up when you are restricted from conceeding in any way, shape or form is just hideous. That school playgroup had many a deck that would toy with you, blowing up all your lands then not killing you until one of its two kill conditions was drawn.
A 'Players can't concede during combat' rule just encourages anyone with a trolling mindset to build decks that do absurdly complex and annoying stuff at instant speed.
There's a pretty obvious difference between "not allowed to condede ever" and "hey, don't be a jerk and concede just so the person attacking you doesn't get damage triggers."
Conceding is absolutely not a Time Stop. Players definitely still get priority during all the usual phases and steps for the rest of the turn (even if you drop out of the game during your own turn!), and are still allowed to play all the same spells that they would during any other turn.
Furthermore, if they put a spell on the stack, as long as that spell's target is still legal, that spell will continue to resolve. Just like everything else.
The mid-combat concession gets a bad rap. I do it often as a political move to discourage people from hitting me in the future.
I don't see why people consider it so rude. From my point of view, the person who chose to attack me for lethal is being rude. And I still lose the game, you just get denied a few triggers. If you are suddenly in a horrible position because of missing those triggers, you probably should not have attacked me in the first place.
I don't concede if I want the player killing me to win. Like if they're playing something cool or unique, or they have a chance to kill an annoying player.
Doubling another players life total, making someone else draw four cards, blow up all the enchantments and artifacts on the table, eliminating whatever tribal you don't like or just bounce two of the attackers biggest creatures to ruin his day all have the same arguments going for them as that free time stop. Would you still consider them fair?
Actually, that seems like an interesting idea, as a way to make losing the game more dramatic and fun and to keep the board state changing. I would try that variant.
And I'm not really sure what you mean by 'fair'. Lots of things in magic aren't 'fair'. I find the comparison to the tuck rule particularly apt. While the rules function as they currently do, I'm going to use that to my fullest advantage. I may even change the way I build and play my decks because of it. If the rules change, I'll adapt to the new rule.
I would not defend this as a 'good' rule or dismiss it as a 'bad' rule. Sometimes it makes the game more fun, and sometimes less fun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing...
Modern: Kiki ChordWBRG
TokensWB
EDH: Kuon, Ogre AscendantBBB
The mid-combat concession gets a bad rap. I do it often as a political move to discourage people from hitting me in the future.
I don't see why people consider it so rude. From my point of view, the person who chose to attack me for lethal is being rude. And I still lose the game, you just get denied a few triggers. If you are suddenly in a horrible position because of missing those triggers, you probably should not have attacked me in the first place.
I don't concede if I want the player killing me to win. Like if they're playing something cool or unique, or they have a chance to kill an annoying player.
That's because you care more about being vindictive than playing optimally. Most players are the opposite, so I won't be changing my habits anytime soon.
You talk about "playing optimally" in the second half of your post, but you outline a bunch of subjective reasons why you do or do not concede to people. You can't try to quantify politics in the game, especially with regards to the "next game". Otherwise we lose all sense of optimal, because everything can be phrased as a political positive.
"You took unnecessary pain from your lands"
"Yeah, but now I'm less of a threat so people won't attack me".
The mid-combat concession gets a bad rap. I do it often as a political move to discourage people from hitting me in the future.
I don't see why people consider it so rude. From my point of view, the person who chose to attack me for lethal is being rude. And I still lose the game, you just get denied a few triggers. If you are suddenly in a horrible position because of missing those triggers, you probably should not have attacked me in the first place.
I don't concede if I want the player killing me to win. Like if they're playing something cool or unique, or they have a chance to kill an annoying player.
That's because you care more about being vindictive than playing optimally. Most players are the opposite, so I won't be changing my habits anytime soon.
You talk about "playing optimally" in the second half of your post, but you outline a bunch of subjective reasons why you do or do not concede to people. You can't try to quantify politics in the game, especially with regards to the "next game". Otherwise we lose all sense of optimal, because everything can be phrased as a political positive.
"You took unnecessary pain from your lands"
"Yeah, but now I'm less of a threat so people won't attack me".
any political move that achieves it's objective is an optimal play. If having less life makes it less likely that the player will be attacked, it might be optimal to do that if you know the playgroup well enough to know it will pay off. Vindictively targeting players could be optimal if the playgroup is likely to respond by laying off the vindictive player, but is generally a bad idea as most players will respond in kind. Funk said he would be vindictive to anyone who conceded mid combat against him, not just when it would benefit him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
any political move that achieves it's objective is an optimal play. If having less life makes it less likely that the player will be attacked, it might be optimal to do that if you know the playgroup well enough to know it will pay off. Vindictively targeting players could be optimal if the playgroup is likely to respond by laying off the vindictive player, but is generally a bad idea as most players will respond in kind. Funk said he would be vindictive to anyone who conceded mid combat against him, not just when it would benefit him.
I'm saying that at that point there's no discussing what's a good play or bad play because everything is subjective up to play group. In general, it's just as likely that people target Hungerstriker more for conceding mid combat than consider it a "good move".
Also, you can achieve your goal and still not be playing optimally.
Having experienced a playgroup where conceeding was generally not accepted at all, and the horror that creates, I am *absolutely* in favour of the 'you can scoop whenever you want for whatever reason you want' rule.
The degree of obnoxious play that comes up when you are restricted from conceeding in any way, shape or form is just hideous. That school playgroup had many a deck that would toy with you, blowing up all your lands then not killing you until one of its two kill conditions was drawn.
A 'Players can't concede during combat' rule just encourages anyone with a trolling mindset to build decks that do absurdly complex and annoying stuff at instant speed.
There's a pretty obvious difference between "not allowed to condede ever" and "hey, don't be a jerk and concede just so the person attacking you doesn't get damage triggers."
But you probably know that.
I agree but I don't see a way to codify a middle ground in rules, and having experienced both environments where kingmaker concessions happen (the OP's scenario) and those where concessions are socially ostracised, I prefer putting up with the nuisance of kingmaker concessions.
Usually the problem is self-policing: the person aggrieved by a kingmaker concession usually talks the table into headshotting the person responsible in the next game anyway.
Scooping in response to not give the dominant player more advantage is encouraged in my play group. The most important thing for us is to give the table at large the best fighting chance possible. Another thing is that we don't kill anybody unless you intend on closing out the game in short order (the sitting-out-sucks rule).
Sure, there is a chance of spending $4 on a booster and getting the Mythic Rare $30 super card. There is also a chance of surviving putting your tongue in a light socket.
Scooping in response to not give the dominant player more advantage is encouraged in my play group. The most important thing for us is to give the table at large the best fighting chance possible. Another thing is that we don't kill anybody unless you intend on closing out the game in short order (the sitting-out-sucks rule).
The person beating people in the face isn't usually the dominant player though. That person might be ahead on board presence but scooping to stop effects like that might put a fair game out of their reach, by scooping you just prolonged the game that the player might have ended in short order if they ended up being the dominant player. How do you know the dominant player isn't the guy that just used demonic tutor or just used boundless realms? You can't scoop to make him discard that infinite combo he just searched for, even though him having it at the ready makes him the obviously most dominant threat at the table. Aggressive decks already have a difficult enough time with the increased life points, and it's usually just going to happen for one game, after that most of the table will do more to stifle that players early game because they know what the aggressive players strategy is.
any political move that achieves it's objective is an optimal play. If having less life makes it less likely that the player will be attacked, it might be optimal to do that if you know the playgroup well enough to know it will pay off. Vindictively targeting players could be optimal if the playgroup is likely to respond by laying off the vindictive player, but is generally a bad idea as most players will respond in kind. Funk said he would be vindictive to anyone who conceded mid combat against him, not just when it would benefit him.
I'm saying that at that point there's no discussing what's a good play or bad play because everything is subjective up to play group. In general, it's just as likely that people target Hungerstriker more for conceding mid combat than consider it a "good move".
Also, you can achieve your goal and still not be playing optimally.
I agree that it depends on the playgroup, which is why it is fair to characterize Funk's assertion that he would target whoever did it to him, in any circumstance, as vindictive rather than optimal play, as he is saying he is applying it as a blanket response rather than as a targeted one in his playgroup, which I would assume he would know well enough to tell if it would work.
You have a point that something achieving its goal does not necessarily make it optimal. It would be more accurate to say that any play that would lead to the best outcome given the information available to the player is optimal. Knowing your playgroup and using politics to manipulate it in your favor to get the best result is part of multiplayer, and thus if you assume the goal of a player is to get the most out of every play, the optimal play is whatever achieves that. If the hypothetical player knows that the benefit a lower life total brings in making their playgroup ease off outweighs the risk it brings of putting them closer to losing, it is optimal to have a lower life total.
Its easier to keep track of these things in duels, and we often don't realize that we've accepted plays that seem bad in a vacuum as optimal because in 1v1 its easier to track how they effect the game. Playing a spell when you know your opponent is sitting on a counter with mana open is dumb in a vacuum, but optimal when you are drawing out the counter to be able to play the spell that will help you win the game. Its generally optimal to make a land drop whenever you have a land to play, but a blue player with mana open might want to hold onto that land if its the only card in their hand to bluff the opponent, as the land on the battlefield will do nothing for them, while in hand it might cause the opponent to play around the "counter."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
Scooping in response to not give the dominant player more advantage is encouraged in my play group. The most important thing for us is to give the table at large the best fighting chance possible. Another thing is that we don't kill anybody unless you intend on closing out the game in short order (the sitting-out-sucks rule).
The person beating people in the face isn't usually the dominant player though. That person might be ahead on board presence but scooping to stop effects like that might put a fair game out of their reach, by scooping you just prolonged the game that the player might have ended in short order if they ended up being the dominant player. How do you know the dominant player isn't the guy that just used demonic tutor or just used boundless realms? You can't scoop to make him discard that infinite combo he just searched for, even though him having it at the ready makes him the obviously most dominant threat at the table. Aggressive decks already have a difficult enough time with the increased life points, and it's usually just going to happen for one game, after that most of the table will do more to stifle that players early game because they know what the aggressive players strategy is.
If a person is performing an all out attack against a player who can't survive this attack then the attacker is a) confident that he can take the beating from 3 players b) misery loves company c) sucks at magic.
Asking players to concede before attackers are declared just because you want more advantage is more of a douche move than conceding before combat damage.
Scooping in response to not give the dominant player more advantage is encouraged in my play group. The most important thing for us is to give the table at large the best fighting chance possible. Another thing is that we don't kill anybody unless you intend on closing out the game in short order (the sitting-out-sucks rule).
The person beating people in the face isn't usually the dominant player though. That person might be ahead on board presence but scooping to stop effects like that might put a fair game out of their reach, by scooping you just prolonged the game that the player might have ended in short order if they ended up being the dominant player. How do you know the dominant player isn't the guy that just used demonic tutor or just used boundless realms? You can't scoop to make him discard that infinite combo he just searched for, even though him having it at the ready makes him the obviously most dominant threat at the table. Aggressive decks already have a difficult enough time with the increased life points, and it's usually just going to happen for one game, after that most of the table will do more to stifle that players early game because they know what the aggressive players strategy is.
If a person is performing an all out attack against a player who can't survive this attack then the attacker is a) confident that he can take the beating from 3 players b) misery loves company c) sucks at magic.
Asking players to concede before attackers are declared just because you want more advantage is more of a douche move than conceding before combat damage.
So that person who just tutored up 3 cards isn't a threat? I should just leave him alone and let him go infinite to end the game? I guess that sounds right, I never actually wanted to play magic and interact with people, let's let that guy play solitaire until he wins, it sounds so much more fun than playing stuff and interacting with your opponents.
If you aren't playing a combo-oriented deck (I know multiple players who refuse to use infinites), you can't just sit there durdling around. You have to put pressure on your opponents and force them to use a tutor to live through next turn, not go infinite three turns from now. There are different play styles and you should be prepared for all of them. Yeah, it can suck getting zerged down, but there are so many things you can add to beat that type of play it isn't even funny. To that aggro player, you were the obvious threat for some reason, you should learn why you were the target, and either fix that reason or find ways to live through the hate.
Finally, I never said to ask a player to concede before I declare attackers (that sounds extremely douchebaggy), I am just saying let the game resolve as normal, don't scoop when another player end up swinging at you, who knows who could have a fog waiting for this moment where then that aggressive player get punished for doing that play.
If a player is apparently such a threat that needs to be stopped, have you considered focusing your firepower on him, rather than any of the other players? If you have enough resources to take that player out, it doesn't matter if they scoop or not: you achieved the goal at hand of shutting that player down before he can make good on his supposed threat.
Scooping in response to not give the dominant player more advantage is encouraged in my play group. The most important thing for us is to give the table at large the best fighting chance possible. Another thing is that we don't kill anybody unless you intend on closing out the game in short order (the sitting-out-sucks rule).
The person beating people in the face isn't usually the dominant player though. That person might be ahead on board presence but scooping to stop effects like that might put a fair game out of their reach, by scooping you just prolonged the game that the player might have ended in short order if they ended up being the dominant player. How do you know the dominant player isn't the guy that just used demonic tutor or just used boundless realms? You can't scoop to make him discard that infinite combo he just searched for, even though him having it at the ready makes him the obviously most dominant threat at the table. Aggressive decks already have a difficult enough time with the increased life points, and it's usually just going to happen for one game, after that most of the table will do more to stifle that players early game because they know what the aggressive players strategy is.
If a person is performing an all out attack against a player who can't survive this attack then the attacker is a) confident that he can take the beating from 3 players b) misery loves company c) sucks at magic.
Asking players to concede before attackers are declared just because you want more advantage is more of a douche move than conceding before combat damage.
So that person who just tutored up 3 cards isn't a threat? I should just leave him alone and let him go infinite to end the game? I guess that sounds right, I never actually wanted to play magic and interact with people, let's let that guy play solitaire until he wins, it sounds so much more fun than playing stuff and interacting with your opponents.
If you aren't playing a combo-oriented deck (I know multiple players who refuse to use infinites), you can't just sit there durdling around. You have to put pressure on your opponents and force them to use a tutor to live through next turn, not go infinite three turns from now. There are different play styles and you should be prepared for all of them. Yeah, it can suck getting zerged down, but there are so many things you can add to beat that type of play it isn't even funny. To that aggro player, you were the obvious threat for some reason, you should learn why you were the target, and either fix that reason or find ways to live through the hate.
Finally, I never said to ask a player to concede before I declare attackers (that sounds extremely douchebaggy), I am just saying let the game resolve as normal, don't scoop when another player end up swinging at you, who knows who could have a fog waiting for this moment where then that aggressive player get punished for doing that play.
First of all you are just making ***** up. The only thing we know is that 1) player (op in this case) is committing into an attack where he needs combat damage triggers to survive, 2) the losing player denies his triggers. Everything else is pointless speculation. I don't even get how is that second paragraph related to anything.
Threatening a player is a legit tactic and completely within the rules of the game. If that threat is denying you from some life saving sword triggers then that is completely fair. Letting the game resolve as normal even during scoop you lose choises (attacking is less risky so you don't have to make hard choises) you could make and make the game less interesting.
I'm sorry, but if the EDH powers that be thought this was a real problem, they would have addressed it just like they have the General-ban and Tuck rules.
In a game where politics is as important as the cards themselves, you have to understand that if you are going all in on one person, they are well within their right to concede when you attack them.
Use the politics. Tell your fellow players "Hey, if I kill this guy for you, don't attack me for the next turn". Because either
A) Your opponent you are all out attacking is about to win so the other players are on board with you killing him
B) Your opponent you are all out attacking can't do anything and the other players don't have the power to save them, meaning you are in the king's seat.
What's next? A rule that says if you all out attack a player you are immune to being attacked until your next turn?
In my EDH playgroup, you can only concede as a Sorcery.
Interesting, and how do you enforce keeping someone in the game until their turn, especially if it's not fun?
On our table, you can choose to walk away and pack your stuff and walk out angry. You still "exist" in game until your main phase, so you cannot screw a player out of a combo or lifegain, etc. Now if the whole table concedes, then the game is over.
So then someone plays Fact or Fiction, choosing the departed player to make the decision on how to split it (since they are, in your make-believe world, "still in the game"). If they've left the premises, does the game simply hang while waiting for their input?
So then someone plays Fact or Fiction, choosing the departed player to make the decision on how to split it (since they are, in your make-believe world, "still in the game"). If they've left the premises, does the game simply hang while waiting for their input?
You call a magic player you know on the phone and ask him/her to split it.
So then someone plays Fact or Fiction, choosing the departed player to make the decision on how to split it (since they are, in your make-believe world, "still in the game"). If they've left the premises, does the game simply hang while waiting for their input?
Just pick a new player. The choosing of the player and the pile-splitting is practically simultaneous (the spell has no declared targets), so pick another player for the spell's resolution.
As for the main topic at hand, this comes up several times on the EDH forums. It's valid from a game theory perspective; if you threaten to concede before the damage is dealt, and you follow through with your threat, then that player is incentivized not to kill you if they need the lifegain/triggers to live through a turn cycle.
EDH as a multiplayer format has you pitted against multiple players, and you need to make plays that take that into consideration. This is just a result of that fact; if killing a player means you lose, it's not worth killing that player. Unlike normal 1v1 Magic, you don't win when your individual opponent loses.
Not letting someone concede just because you are not able to pilot your deck optimally is just showing that maybe A: you need to get better at the game / deck you are playing or B: find a different / easier game.
Also being salty on a forum about someone conceding is as pathetic as it gets, what's next? Being salty about enchantments leaving with the player? Either look up the official rules and obey them or find a different game, they are not obliged to sit through anything they don't want to, or give you any type of advantage if they don't want to, seems like you might have some ego problems if you are trying to enforce that on others
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
I don't see why people consider it so rude. From my point of view, the person who chose to attack me for lethal is being rude. And I still lose the game, you just get denied a few triggers. If you are suddenly in a horrible position because of missing those triggers, you probably should not have attacked me in the first place.
I don't concede if I want the player killing me to win. Like if they're playing something cool or unique, or they have a chance to kill an annoying player.
That's because you care more about being vindictive than playing optimally. Most players are the opposite, so I won't be changing my habits anytime soon.
Modern: Kiki ChordWBRG
TokensWB
EDH: Kuon, Ogre AscendantBBB
#FreeContractfromBelow
The degree of obnoxious play that comes up when you are restricted from conceeding in any way, shape or form is just hideous. That school playgroup had many a deck that would toy with you, blowing up all your lands then not killing you until one of its two kill conditions was drawn.
A 'Players can't concede during combat' rule just encourages anyone with a trolling mindset to build decks that do absurdly complex and annoying stuff at instant speed.
There's a pretty obvious difference between "not allowed to condede ever" and "hey, don't be a jerk and concede just so the person attacking you doesn't get damage triggers."
But you probably know that.
465 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
Furthermore, if they put a spell on the stack, as long as that spell's target is still legal, that spell will continue to resolve. Just like everything else.
Actually, that seems like an interesting idea, as a way to make losing the game more dramatic and fun and to keep the board state changing. I would try that variant.
And I'm not really sure what you mean by 'fair'. Lots of things in magic aren't 'fair'. I find the comparison to the tuck rule particularly apt. While the rules function as they currently do, I'm going to use that to my fullest advantage. I may even change the way I build and play my decks because of it. If the rules change, I'll adapt to the new rule.
I would not defend this as a 'good' rule or dismiss it as a 'bad' rule. Sometimes it makes the game more fun, and sometimes less fun.
Modern: Kiki ChordWBRG
TokensWB
EDH: Kuon, Ogre AscendantBBB
#FreeContractfromBelow
You talk about "playing optimally" in the second half of your post, but you outline a bunch of subjective reasons why you do or do not concede to people. You can't try to quantify politics in the game, especially with regards to the "next game". Otherwise we lose all sense of optimal, because everything can be phrased as a political positive.
"You took unnecessary pain from your lands"
"Yeah, but now I'm less of a threat so people won't attack me".
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
I'm saying that at that point there's no discussing what's a good play or bad play because everything is subjective up to play group. In general, it's just as likely that people target Hungerstriker more for conceding mid combat than consider it a "good move".
Also, you can achieve your goal and still not be playing optimally.
I agree but I don't see a way to codify a middle ground in rules, and having experienced both environments where kingmaker concessions happen (the OP's scenario) and those where concessions are socially ostracised, I prefer putting up with the nuisance of kingmaker concessions.
Usually the problem is self-policing: the person aggrieved by a kingmaker concession usually talks the table into headshotting the person responsible in the next game anyway.
The person beating people in the face isn't usually the dominant player though. That person might be ahead on board presence but scooping to stop effects like that might put a fair game out of their reach, by scooping you just prolonged the game that the player might have ended in short order if they ended up being the dominant player. How do you know the dominant player isn't the guy that just used demonic tutor or just used boundless realms? You can't scoop to make him discard that infinite combo he just searched for, even though him having it at the ready makes him the obviously most dominant threat at the table. Aggressive decks already have a difficult enough time with the increased life points, and it's usually just going to happen for one game, after that most of the table will do more to stifle that players early game because they know what the aggressive players strategy is.
I agree that it depends on the playgroup, which is why it is fair to characterize Funk's assertion that he would target whoever did it to him, in any circumstance, as vindictive rather than optimal play, as he is saying he is applying it as a blanket response rather than as a targeted one in his playgroup, which I would assume he would know well enough to tell if it would work.
You have a point that something achieving its goal does not necessarily make it optimal. It would be more accurate to say that any play that would lead to the best outcome given the information available to the player is optimal. Knowing your playgroup and using politics to manipulate it in your favor to get the best result is part of multiplayer, and thus if you assume the goal of a player is to get the most out of every play, the optimal play is whatever achieves that. If the hypothetical player knows that the benefit a lower life total brings in making their playgroup ease off outweighs the risk it brings of putting them closer to losing, it is optimal to have a lower life total.
Its easier to keep track of these things in duels, and we often don't realize that we've accepted plays that seem bad in a vacuum as optimal because in 1v1 its easier to track how they effect the game. Playing a spell when you know your opponent is sitting on a counter with mana open is dumb in a vacuum, but optimal when you are drawing out the counter to be able to play the spell that will help you win the game. Its generally optimal to make a land drop whenever you have a land to play, but a blue player with mana open might want to hold onto that land if its the only card in their hand to bluff the opponent, as the land on the battlefield will do nothing for them, while in hand it might cause the opponent to play around the "counter."
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
If a person is performing an all out attack against a player who can't survive this attack then the attacker is a) confident that he can take the beating from 3 players b) misery loves company c) sucks at magic.
Asking players to concede before attackers are declared just because you want more advantage is more of a douche move than conceding before combat damage.
So that person who just tutored up 3 cards isn't a threat? I should just leave him alone and let him go infinite to end the game? I guess that sounds right, I never actually wanted to play magic and interact with people, let's let that guy play solitaire until he wins, it sounds so much more fun than playing stuff and interacting with your opponents.
If you aren't playing a combo-oriented deck (I know multiple players who refuse to use infinites), you can't just sit there durdling around. You have to put pressure on your opponents and force them to use a tutor to live through next turn, not go infinite three turns from now. There are different play styles and you should be prepared for all of them. Yeah, it can suck getting zerged down, but there are so many things you can add to beat that type of play it isn't even funny. To that aggro player, you were the obvious threat for some reason, you should learn why you were the target, and either fix that reason or find ways to live through the hate.
Finally, I never said to ask a player to concede before I declare attackers (that sounds extremely douchebaggy), I am just saying let the game resolve as normal, don't scoop when another player end up swinging at you, who knows who could have a fog waiting for this moment where then that aggressive player get punished for doing that play.
First of all you are just making ***** up. The only thing we know is that 1) player (op in this case) is committing into an attack where he needs combat damage triggers to survive, 2) the losing player denies his triggers. Everything else is pointless speculation. I don't even get how is that second paragraph related to anything.
Threatening a player is a legit tactic and completely within the rules of the game. If that threat is denying you from some life saving sword triggers then that is completely fair. Letting the game resolve as normal even during scoop you lose choises (attacking is less risky so you don't have to make hard choises) you could make and make the game less interesting.
In a game where politics is as important as the cards themselves, you have to understand that if you are going all in on one person, they are well within their right to concede when you attack them.
Use the politics. Tell your fellow players "Hey, if I kill this guy for you, don't attack me for the next turn". Because either
A) Your opponent you are all out attacking is about to win so the other players are on board with you killing him
B) Your opponent you are all out attacking can't do anything and the other players don't have the power to save them, meaning you are in the king's seat.
What's next? A rule that says if you all out attack a player you are immune to being attacked until your next turn?
Bruna, Light of Alabaster - Voltron Control
The Mimeoplasm - Reanimation Combo
Glissa, The Traitor - The Glory of Phyrexia
Interesting, and how do you enforce keeping someone in the game until their turn, especially if it's not fun?
On our table, you can choose to walk away and pack your stuff and walk out angry. You still "exist" in game until your main phase, so you cannot screw a player out of a combo or lifegain, etc. Now if the whole table concedes, then the game is over.
Bruna, Light of Alabaster - Voltron Control
The Mimeoplasm - Reanimation Combo
Glissa, The Traitor - The Glory of Phyrexia
You call a magic player you know on the phone and ask him/her to split it.
As for the main topic at hand, this comes up several times on the EDH forums. It's valid from a game theory perspective; if you threaten to concede before the damage is dealt, and you follow through with your threat, then that player is incentivized not to kill you if they need the lifegain/triggers to live through a turn cycle.
EDH as a multiplayer format has you pitted against multiple players, and you need to make plays that take that into consideration. This is just a result of that fact; if killing a player means you lose, it's not worth killing that player. Unlike normal 1v1 Magic, you don't win when your individual opponent loses.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
Also being salty on a forum about someone conceding is as pathetic as it gets, what's next? Being salty about enchantments leaving with the player? Either look up the official rules and obey them or find a different game, they are not obliged to sit through anything they don't want to, or give you any type of advantage if they don't want to, seems like you might have some ego problems if you are trying to enforce that on others